36 Comments

1. I completely agree on the concept of vaccination. Many vaccines have come in at the 11th hour to falsely claim the win at “eradicating” a disease, when the victory was actually due to better hygiene, sanitation, a clean water supply, and refrigeration, or not being poisoned as was the case with DDT/polio.

   Vaccines have been fought in the past because they caused injuries, such as in England with the first vaccine- smallpox.

   The 1976 swine flu vaccine was rushed, it started to injure and kill people, and was thus pulled from the market after about 50 deaths.

   Due to subsequent laws that were passed in the US, there is no more decency left in the government-pharma partnership in vaccines. The next time Fauci’s on the stand, someone needs to ask him, “At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”, as Joseph Welch asked of Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1954.

   You raised a good point about Malone with the refiner’s fire. He should get out of the kitchen since he clearly can’t stand the heat.

   I read the lawsuit complaint document. It’s not even alleging defamation, but implication of defamation. That was a new one on me. I did a little research and it appears it’s only a legal term in Virginia, where Malone lives. I find that interesting.
   https://www.virginiadefamationlawyer.com/defamation-by-implication-is-an-intentional-tort/

   Before I learned the above, I figured the judge would have to throw it out as a frivolous lawsuit, but now I think not. This is lawfare. Malone is trying to finally get a payday, since he claims he didn’t get one originally from “inventing” the mRNA technology.

   I think it will all come out at the trial. Dr. Breggin has shown his character to be impeccable, while Dr. Malone, at the end of the day, is still a vaccine maker.

   One last thought- Malone can’t have it both ways. If he invented the mRNA technology, on some level he does bear some of the responsibility for the plandemic. Inventions in the past that were for good have been used for evil. He can’t have the credit without accepting some of the blame.

   1. Deleted comment

2. I am disillusioned by the infighting that has arisen in the freedom movement; and, unlike you I don’t believe it strengthens our movement or helps us achieve our goals. I was an attorney for 30 years. Strident, belligerent adversaries kicked up a lot of dust but in the end their efforts were counter productive. They wasted time and money and made the process painful for everyone. They were nasty because the system allowed it. The attacks on Kennedy, over the years, have been nothing short of despicable and in a civil society would be intolerable. That we feel free to behave that way is not a credit to any process we are using to achieve an end. By the same token, an attack on an individual who is stepping forward, at grave risk to himself, in the midst of a human rights crisis, is poorly timed and takes on the characteristics of a vendetta. Does it occur to Dr. Breggin that we know how precarious our position is and that we don’t have the energy or the time to refocus on taking down a person who has done a lot to promote our cause? We are all trying to stay alive, including the vaccine injured. We are preparing for the next onslaught against our health and our rights that Bill Gates has advertised on a new table top scenario. I, too, find Matias Desmet’s theory inapplicable and I especially don’t like the title, Mass Formation. I don’t think, however, it is an attack on mentally ill people. I find his observations accurate in a number of ways. Regardless whether a person agrees with Desmet they should not be characterized as controlled opposition. Malone’s lawsuit states that on one podcast, Dr. Malone was accused of “killing unborn babies.” In another, “This man is in the middle of every horrific thing that has happened to humanity.” Now, either those things were said and can be proved or they were not. Regardless whether this constitutes a “refiners fire,” I don’t believe these comments have any constructive place in the freedom dialogue. It does not matter about the Breggin’s past record or how old they are, they should be held accountable for defamation if their statements are false. I would certainly imagine that the whole matter could be settled amicably and by apology. We are otherwise left to believe the Breggins intended to make the statements and want to drive him out of the movement. If it’s the “refiners fire” then that needs to change. The individuals involved in the freedom movement can collectively decide attacks such as these are not the way forward.

3. Excellent analysis. Also a relatively concise explanation of the lawsuit in question given the complexity of the subject matter. Thank you.

4. Dear @Catherine

   I don’t buy into Mattias Desmet’s mass formation theory nor his book that plays down globalist narratives. And I also agree with your statements about Robert Malone’s vaccine background. Unlike Peter Breggin, he is not a psychiatrist either.

   This said, I am of the opinion that Robert Malone is a brilliant speaker and highly effective in calmly talking to the public about the risks associated with C19 vaccines. Peter McCullough, Robert Malone, Pierre Kory and so many other passionate physicians probably helped millions of people making the right decisions for themselves and families. Are they controlled opposition? What or who is behind them? Most, I am sure, are driven by high ethical and professional standards. But what do we really know about any of those public figures. So we’re all left by judging people by their actions and impacts they made and there, Robert Malone certainly shows up in my good book.

   When it comes to Peter Breggin, I sometimes felt that there was a lot of “personality” coming through in his interviews. Not necessarily bad; maybe just a lot of passion as well. However, I hope you Catherine had the opportunity to read Robert Malone’s law suit against the Breggins and others. If not, it carries a lot of heavy information. The accusations made by Peter Breggin against Robert Malone are way beyond “leading a fiery discussion towards some outcome”. If the accusations in the law suit are really true (and there is a lot of video material referenced), then Peter Breggin gives the impression of an emotional man that is accusing people in highly inappropriate ways. In ways very much used by the main stream media. Ways the Solari community rejects.

   Personally, I find Peter Breggin’s statements very difficult to defend.
   Should we defend free speech? Absolutely.
   Should Robert Malone defend himself against such accusations? Absolutely.
   Should Peter Breggin publicly and highly convincingly retract his (rather shameful) defamations? 110%.
   Should Robert Malone be a great human being and accept? Yes, I think so.
   Should then both sit together privately, discuss their beliefs and (maybe) even come up with a shared belief? Wow, that would be a powerful example to the world on how conflict is solved among smart yet passionate human beings.

   This is my humble opinion as a committed Solari fan.

   1. And for the more interested readers, a link to the copy of the law suit:
      https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/just-the-facts

      In there statements such as:
      “Dr. Malone is responsible for the “COVID Plandemic” and has intentionally committed crimes against humanity. Dr. Malone is “weaponizing psychiatry” against the American public. https://rumble.com/v1l4q4f-psychiatric-doctor-blasts-mrna-inventor-mass-formation-psychosis-blaming-yo.html”

      I just hope that the links I shared are genuine. If not, Mea Maxima Culpa.

      1. I recall as a grade school student, the newspapers always included the word “alleged” in their reporting of lawsuits. That really is our system of law – both sides make allegations but until they are proven, they remain just allegations. I need more information, and proof, to know if Peter Breggin made the statements Malone alleges and if so, are they actually defamatory. The bar to prove defamation of a public person is very high. The benefit to the pubic of robust and vigorous debate outweighs the harm. Also, truth is a defense. Unless or until this goes to trial and both sides have the opportunity to present evidence, none of us have enough information to determine the facts or know if the facts fit the legal definition of defamation and especially defamation of a public person.

         That said, my opinion of Dr. Malone is formed by observation and instinct; I’m uneasy about him. I will contribute to Dr. Breggin’s defense but will keep an open mind until both sides are able to present their evidence in court. The Breggins are unable now to present that evidence in the public arena because they have a $25 million lawsuit hanging over their head.

         1. Hmmm!

   2. Yes, I have read the document that Malone’s attorney filed.

      1. So you agree with Peter Breggin’s statements and think they are measured or do you think Robert Malone examples are made up?

         In any case, from where I stand, Breggin and Malone share similar views about the world we’re living in. And we both come to the conclusion that they should find a solution outside of the court.

5. You have a gift for statesmanship, Catherine – well done!

   Does anyone know how to make donations directly to the Breggins for their legal defense without having to go through Give Send Go?

   1. If you send a check made out to the Breggins to the Solari address in Hickory Valley, we will forward for you.

      1. Thank you

6. Thank you. Thank you, Catherine. Dr. Peter Breggin has done more for humanity that Dr. Malone can ever hope to do. The lawsuit is totally uncalled for.

7. When one asks for Catherine to comment, one might naught expect that her comment will not be helpful. In other words, if you don’t want to hear someone’s opinion, do not ask for it. Reminds me of a good lawyer who doesn’t ask the question of a witness unless the lawyer knows what the answer will be.

Comments are closed.