I have no idea what Breggin wrote/said about Malone. But Breggin is right about 'mass formation psychosis' (MFP). There is no scientific basis for the theory of MFP. Rather this is a typical product of continental philosophy. There is an obvious cause for the mass acceptance of fake information during the pandemic, namely the extensive use of propaganda and censorship, sponsored by powerful actors. In my view the day Malone took up with Desmet was a bad day for science. It was very disappointing. The Breggins are right, too, about the remedy to the problem widespread, socially-engineered (not spontaneously arising) misinformation and fear during the pandemic. The remedy is educational, political and legal, not psychological.
Breggin would seem to be using the fruits of his professional training to exploit and manipulate others. His apparent lack of professional ethics his disturbing. I have read some of his more recent articles and found them sorely wanting.
Having witnessed countless abuses of psychopharmacology, I have a great deal of appreciation for Dr. Breggin's earlier work.
That said, I find the Breggin's deployment of ad hominem saddening and potentially destructive in multiple dimensions.
Their criticism of the manner with which the term "psychosis" can be misused is worthy of consideration, but the argument is only weakened when character attacks are employed.
Had those accusations been limited to mild pejoratives such as "controlled opposition," I doubt that Dr. Malone would have felt compelled to file suit.
Reactions to the terrible ombination of incompetence and malevolence displayed in response to Covid-19, exist on a spectrum. Within that spectrum, moderates fulfill an important role.
As with every important issue facing the public these days, accelerated viewpoint polarization obtains. The details surrounding the litigation under discussion seem to exemplify that polarization.
Tried to post an answer on that article: wouldn't let me. Try it here:
I listened to Peter Breggin on one of his interviews (was he interviewing Lee Merritt? I can't remember.) Breggin lost his composure, his balance and began whining and insulting and making stuff up about Malone (I've listened to everything Malone has posted; and read most of it. I have a decent sense of who he is.) Breggin accused Malone of all sorts of malign things -- except much of what I remember seemed to be Breggin's distress that Malone's book was being better received (even before publication), than Breggin and Ginger's book. Then he wandered off into suggesting Malone was a bad or evil man for having worked for decades -- and made lots of money! -- working in biochemistry, vaccines, medicine, -- and yes, around defense against bioweapons!
I am thankful that, when the Covid BIOWEAPON got turned loose on us, we HAD such a man to look into it and speak the truth about what he COULD speak the truth about. I'm an ex-Navy officer; I've worked for the govt and for Boeing... I know EXACTLY what that background entails. There are and were things Malone CANNOT speak about publicly; just as there are things *I* cannot; and, with Lee Merritt's military and BIOWEAPON DEFENSE background, things SHE cannot speak about publicly. (I do admit to being a bit surprised that Merritt didn't speak up against Breggin when he lost his grip; but that's not her job!! Might be Ginger's?)
My surprised reaction to Breggin's whining and crying insults and driving himself into a fury was to lose any respect I might have had for the man.
I'd like to see a discussion between Dr. Malone and Dr. McCullough, preferably hosted by someone like Del Bigtree or Steve Kirsch, on the validity of the assertions made in the Breggins' book The Global Predators (and also the assertions of David Martin). I think it would be an interesting conversation.
Breggin has made great contributions, but he is not a deep thinker politically or ethically. He lives in a cartoon and cannot handle discussions that address history in a broad sense. His attack on Desmet and Malone is ignorant and sloppy. Given his cognitive decline, his wife bears much responsibility for pushing this.
I recall that around 1970 Breggin similarly became involved in public attacks on members of his own profession. It’s true that it was over the issue of lobotomies and he may have been correct, but the public viciousness was unjustified.
I have no idea what Breggin wrote/said about Malone. But Breggin is right about 'mass formation psychosis' (MFP). There is no scientific basis for the theory of MFP. Rather this is a typical product of continental philosophy. There is an obvious cause for the mass acceptance of fake information during the pandemic, namely the extensive use of propaganda and censorship, sponsored by powerful actors. In my view the day Malone took up with Desmet was a bad day for science. It was very disappointing. The Breggins are right, too, about the remedy to the problem widespread, socially-engineered (not spontaneously arising) misinformation and fear during the pandemic. The remedy is educational, political and legal, not psychological.
Breggin would seem to be using the fruits of his professional training to exploit and manipulate others. His apparent lack of professional ethics his disturbing. I have read some of his more recent articles and found them sorely wanting.
Having witnessed countless abuses of psychopharmacology, I have a great deal of appreciation for Dr. Breggin's earlier work.
That said, I find the Breggin's deployment of ad hominem saddening and potentially destructive in multiple dimensions.
Their criticism of the manner with which the term "psychosis" can be misused is worthy of consideration, but the argument is only weakened when character attacks are employed.
Had those accusations been limited to mild pejoratives such as "controlled opposition," I doubt that Dr. Malone would have felt compelled to file suit.
Reactions to the terrible ombination of incompetence and malevolence displayed in response to Covid-19, exist on a spectrum. Within that spectrum, moderates fulfill an important role.
As with every important issue facing the public these days, accelerated viewpoint polarization obtains. The details surrounding the litigation under discussion seem to exemplify that polarization.
It's all so very regrettable.....
Tried to post an answer on that article: wouldn't let me. Try it here:
I listened to Peter Breggin on one of his interviews (was he interviewing Lee Merritt? I can't remember.) Breggin lost his composure, his balance and began whining and insulting and making stuff up about Malone (I've listened to everything Malone has posted; and read most of it. I have a decent sense of who he is.) Breggin accused Malone of all sorts of malign things -- except much of what I remember seemed to be Breggin's distress that Malone's book was being better received (even before publication), than Breggin and Ginger's book. Then he wandered off into suggesting Malone was a bad or evil man for having worked for decades -- and made lots of money! -- working in biochemistry, vaccines, medicine, -- and yes, around defense against bioweapons!
I am thankful that, when the Covid BIOWEAPON got turned loose on us, we HAD such a man to look into it and speak the truth about what he COULD speak the truth about. I'm an ex-Navy officer; I've worked for the govt and for Boeing... I know EXACTLY what that background entails. There are and were things Malone CANNOT speak about publicly; just as there are things *I* cannot; and, with Lee Merritt's military and BIOWEAPON DEFENSE background, things SHE cannot speak about publicly. (I do admit to being a bit surprised that Merritt didn't speak up against Breggin when he lost his grip; but that's not her job!! Might be Ginger's?)
My surprised reaction to Breggin's whining and crying insults and driving himself into a fury was to lose any respect I might have had for the man.
I'd like to see a discussion between Dr. Malone and Dr. McCullough, preferably hosted by someone like Del Bigtree or Steve Kirsch, on the validity of the assertions made in the Breggins' book The Global Predators (and also the assertions of David Martin). I think it would be an interesting conversation.
https://unlimitedhangout.com/2022/11/investigative-reports/covid-19-mass-formation-or-mass-atrocity/
Breggin has made great contributions, but he is not a deep thinker politically or ethically. He lives in a cartoon and cannot handle discussions that address history in a broad sense. His attack on Desmet and Malone is ignorant and sloppy. Given his cognitive decline, his wife bears much responsibility for pushing this.
I recall that around 1970 Breggin similarly became involved in public attacks on members of his own profession. It’s true that it was over the issue of lobotomies and he may have been correct, but the public viciousness was unjustified.
I would love to see Breggin have a conversation with Canada's Jordan Peterson.... that would be well worth watching!