The Psychiatrist, Analyzed

Is Dr. Peter Breggin an Agent Provocateur?

News of Dr. Robert Malone’s defamation lawsuit against the Breggins should not surprise anyone. The widely disseminated barrage of unfounded personal attacks against him and Mattias Desmet have been relentless and without restraint. The criticism and abuse purports to be factual and based on expertise, yet there is no foundation: it is pure unsubstantiated malevolence. You need not accept these critical words without question; rather, simply read the lawsuit and consider carefully the direct citations from Breggin, et al.

For those who think Dr. Malone has somehow crossed a sacred line, perhaps ponder that you have might have been subtly manipulated into condemning one of the clearer voices of reason during the Pandemic. Malone has the responsibility — and an ethical and legal right — to leverage silence and sanity through the courts. 

And the defendants have a right to attempt to clear their names. We saw a first response in a published piece this week by Breggin where a large, incongruous photo of the couple and their dogs precedes his unconvincing written dismay at being sued. Perhaps he has posted this graphic elsewhere, but its placement — at the head of a defense of their indisputable assault — gives tremendous insight into his thinking and demeanor. Who does Breggin imagine he is fooling, with this overt attempt at manipulating emotions of the reader?

The happy doggie pic is simply an artifice to distract from the divisiveness he has initiated. We are meant to think that surely a jolly old couple, holding cute collies, while smiling sweetly, couldn’t possibly act with such hostility. If you fell for this manipulative device, please reconsider how this drama unfolded and the soul behind the innocent countenance. 

I’ll not hide that Breggin has been on the honorable side of arguments against the abuses of psychiatry — and the dogs seem very friendly. But his egoistic and self-promoting nature are only exceeded by his inability to be challenged. The facade of gentle humility disappears when his perspective is questioned. Any doubts about his being an “expert witness” or facts contradicting his credibility will be met with defensive degradation.

Most recently, the virulent attacks on Malone and Desmet reveal the essence of Breggin’s character. He is now palpably on the offensive — in every sense of the word — and he’s gone far out on a very weak limb.

Why would he do this? We might show some sympathy. Breggin’s super-aggressive internet postings do indicate the first signs of dementia and an inability to recognize the consequences of his venomous emotions and words. 

This would be the most innocuous explanation of his bad behavior, and although this defense might get him off of criminal charges, it won’t save his fortune from a decision against him in a civil case. 

More importantly, we should consider who his attacks serve. Isn’t he actually fomenting the very climate that he claims Malone engenders? Breggin has initiated subversive divisiveness at a time when saner minds are insisting reasonable dialogue and ethical behavior are the foundations of a better world. According to the defendant, the emphasis on finding common ground is the greatest sin of Malone and Desmet. It all started when Breggin decided that anyone with the slightest notion that mass formation has something to do with how the public has been entranced by the COVID narrative, should be punished by humiliation and excommunication.

Breggin’s philosophy is founded in a version of old rhetoric, summed up as, “if you’re not part of my revolution, you’re part of the problem.” 

Perhaps you agree with his approach. But just which revolution does Breggin support?

He presents both Fauci and Malone as mortal enemies, and his contempt for them (and for all those who defy his unassailable wisdom) has no bounds. Breggin’s response to the Pandemic has engendered tirades against perceived adversaries — but his lack of genuine solutions reveal much about the man. 

In a scripted drama, Breggin’s role in the “health freedom movement” would embody the destructive scoundrel, rather than a noble leader taking on the bad guys. Freud would say (our antagonist’s mortal enemy) that Breggin’s character exemplifies projection; classically, the divisive miscreant throwing the mud, claims Malone is controlled opposition. 

Indeed, the forces of darkness couldn’t choose a better actor than Breggin for the role of agent provocateur. He’s undoubtedly the one who has made an unnecessary mess; Malone’s legal action is an attempt to clean it up.

I’ll end here, although this fascinating and dramatic tale isn’t yet over. Do take note for future episodes, that as he is sued for $25 million, Breggin is losing his vitriol. Our antihero claims he is simply the sad victim of those who would soil his pristine name. Why shouldn’t you believe a man with a sweet and lovable puppy on his lap?