Ed Dowd discusses fraud, Pfizer and Wall Street with RFK Jr in this episode.
Mr. Dowd has worked on Wall Street most of his career spanning both credit markets and equity markets. Some of the firms he worked for include HSBC, Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette, Independence Investments and most notably at Blackrock as a portfolio manager where he managed a $14 billion growth equity portfolio for 10 years. He is now presenting his investment thesis on Big Pharma fraud.
My guest today is Ed Dowd, who has worked on Wall Street most of his career, spanning both credit markets and equity markets.
Some of the firms he's worked for, including HSBC, Donaldson, and Lufkin at DLJ. Independence investments, and most notably at BlackRock as a portfolio manager, where he managed $14 billion, both equity portfolio for 10 years.
Currently, he's a consultant at Symphonic Capital and is in the process of trying to raise capital to start a hedge fund with Symphonic.
Ed, for those of you who don't know Ed, he's a famous Wall Street maverick and contrarian.
He was one of the few Wall Street Analyst who foresaw the dot-com fraud in 1999 and 2000 and predicted the financial crisis in 2008.
And then he moved to BlackRock because of his...
Presence and was given control at $14 billion growth equity fund.
Ed has been kind of making the rounds in the last couple of weeks talking about the potentially momentous fraud at Pfizer and Moderna and what that means to the financial markets and also what it means to public health.
And he's made some extraordinary observations and done Really gone into the weeds and analyzing the clinical data.
Ed, welcome to the show.
Thank you.
Good to be here.
I appreciate your time.
So tell us how you got kind of into this niche area.
Quite frankly, I saw what was going on and I was very concerned and I was a skeptic early.
And I Right around September of last year when the mandates are in full force and I thought this can't go on.
I actually prayed to God to be of service and Dr.
Malone came to the island and through a series of coincidences I was able to meet with him and he has enabled me to get a larger voice.
I was saying what I was saying on Twitter as a private citizen and by hooking up with him I've been able to, through him, show a different angle as to what's going on.
He's doing all the medical side of this.
I'm showing the Wall Street side.
And my goal is to show that fraud has occurred, or I believe fraud has occurred at Pfizer.
What tipped me off to the fraud was primarily the FDA's decision to hide the data for 75 years.
And in my world, when I see that, I don't need the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times to tell me fraud has occurred.
I make bets with capital, and my bet was that's fraud.
The FDA's in on the cover-up.
Something went down.
The other tip for me was in November of last year, A friend of mine from the biotech industry discovered that Pfizer had failed their all-cause mortality endpoint.
And that was not available to us when this fanfare occurred in November of 2020.
They all got excited about 95% efficacy.
And when we learned that data point, it came out in a FOIA request.
And the mainstream media ignored it.
And I said to him, look, I'm not a healthcare expert, but I remember from managing the portfolio and having a healthcare analyst, if you miss the all-cause mortality endpoint, the drug doesn't get approved.
He said to me, correct, it doesn't get approved.
It's the gold standard of the FDA. Well, they missed that endpoint.
And that's a big deal.
So I started really...
Thinking fraud had occurred.
And then I started to think, if the FDA is in on it, this reminds me of the great financial crisis where the rating agencies became corrupted and allowed that fraud to happen.
So what we had in the rating agencies in 2008, 8-9 was what I call the institutional imperative.
You've heard Warren Buffett talk about this.
It's where the, over time, an institution acts in the interests of itself rather than its shareholders, or in the case of the FDA, the stakeholders.
So I believe over time it's been corrupted.
And then with this Operation Warp Speed, when I heard that was announced, I thought disaster from the get-go.
Corners cut, things rushed, safety protocols ignored.
I came to the conclusion that the FDA Didn't really look at this clinical trial data.
They rushed it through due to political pressure, what have you.
Maybe straight up bribes.
We don't know, but what we do know is that this should never have been approved.
And because of the rise in my media profile, I was able to, I was reached out to by Brooke Jackson, the Ventavia whistleblower, who went public in November and Everybody ignored her.
The mainstream media ignored her.
She called me.
We talked for three hours.
Then I started to go on podcasts with her.
And, you know, the bottom line here is what she saw was so much fraud, it was mind-boggling.
But the fraud that I focused on related to the numbers, there was a thousand patients that she oversaw in the 44,000 clinical trial study, original study that was done by Pfizer.
All of them were unblinded, all 1,000.
And when that happens, that data is supposed to be thrown out per Pfizer protocols.
It was not.
It was rolled up.
When she became aware of that, she alerted her senior people in her company.
That's when the tone changed with her, obviously.
And then when they wanted her to get involved in a cover-up, that's when she went to the FDA, did an anonymous whistleblower complaint at 9 in the morning.
By 3 in the afternoon, she was fired.
And then five days later, a Pfizer lawyer reached out to her, and she ignored him.
It happened to be this guy, Mark Barnes, who apparently has a notorious history in the swamp.
So when I heard all this, and then I, so I became literally absolutely convinced that the study of the patient she saw was 100% unblinded.
So people say, the naysayers will say, well, it was only 1,000 patients.
Well, first of all, they shouldn't have been rolled up into the total 44,000.
But let's do the math on this.
The math is pretty simple.
In the whole trial of the 28-day study, which is also ridiculous, as you know, on its face, a study for 28 days...
There were eight patients in the vaccinated group and 164 in the unvaccinated group, in the placebo group.
So that's how they calculated 95% efficacy.
In just her 1,000 patients...
Wait a minute.
I mean, there were eight patients who got COVID. In the vaccinated group.
Yeah.
And in the placebo group, there were 164 patients who got COVID. Yeah.
Okay, so...
Yeah, go ahead.
So that's how they calculated the 95% efficacy.
That's the number that generated that headline, okay?
Let's think about this for a second.
When you unblind a study, what she told me was the doctors had on every patient's chart, whether they had the vaccine or they had the placebo, which was not supposed to happen.
So when a patient would come in and say, I'm not feeling well, the doctor could look at the chart and say, well, this person's vaccinated.
I'm sure it's not COVID and not test them or know not to test them if they wanted to, right?
So all you need from her 1000 patients There are 74 of those patients to move over to the vaccinated column because they didn't test them, and you have 50% efficacy.
You move all 164 over, you have 0% efficacy.
You don't need the other sites.
You just need that site to call into question the whole study.
It's fraud in my mind.
That's in my humble opinion.
And you know as well as I do that when you have a smoking gun in one area, her site's You know, this was probably done in other sites as well.
So this was a disaster in my mind.
And, you know, look, the fruits of their fraud are showing up in real-world results now.
You and I have been aware of it for a while, but now, unfortunately and tragically, it's showing up in real-world data, insurance companies and funeral homes.
And this is a disaster.
Yeah.
In the all-cause mortality data, there were 22,000 people who got the vaccine and roughly 22,000 who got the placebo.
Of the 22,000 who got the vaccine over the six-month run of that trial, one of them died from COVID. In the placebo group, two died from COVID. And that allowed Pfizer to claim And the vaccine was 100% effective against death because two is 100% of one.
And that's really all they got.
What it really means is you have to give 22,000 vaccines to prevent one COVID death.
And if you're going to give 22,000 vaccines, you better make sure that the vaccines don't kill anybody because if they kill one person, you've canceled out any benefit.
And as you point out, in the vaccine group, on the all-cause mortality chart, which they submitted to FDA to get their licensure, there were 17 people in the placebo group who died, 21 people in the vaccine group.
That's a 23% rise in all-cause mortality, and that would kill any other drug.
Here's what I was going to...
The point, to be a contrarian to you that this is going to affect them in the financial markets, very, very early on, some financial people came to me who were thinking of making big investments in the vaccine companies.
This was in around March, April, May of 2020.
The original monkey studies came out for the AstraZeneca vaccine.
And the monkey studies showed that the monkeys who were vaccinated got COVID and had an equal amount of viral load in their nose as vaccinated monkeys.
Vaccinated and unvaccinated have the same viral lows.
Clearly it couldn't prevent transmission.
And I advise these people, and it's a good idea not to take financial advice from me, I said this thing is DOA. And at that time, both Gates and Fauci were saying, well...
Maybe you won't prevent transmission.
If it's not going to prevent transmission, you can't mandate it.
And you probably can't sell it because it's not going to stop the pandemic.
But they did it anyway.
You know, the pessimistic part of my personality is saying that no matter what happens, they somehow have it wired so thoroughly that there is no consequences for these companies.
And I hope you're right, but why do you think there will be consequences?
Well, because I think there's enough proof for people to investigate fraud in the clinical data and the FDA's complicity in this, unfortunately, this is the tragic part of this.
We had to wait for real-world evidence.
And the real-world evidence is so awful that there's going to be a public outcry.
And even though the mainstream media is not participating with this yet, they will.
I mean, you can't hide this anymore.
This is devastating.
And What I came out with last week with my insurance industry analyst partner, who will be coming public shortly, we dove into the CDC data.
Their own data shows what's going on.
This is a disaster of epic proportions.
Last week, I made the claim, and I stand by it, that the millennial age group saw 61,000 deaths, excess deaths in a one-year timeframe with an acceleration into the mandates and the boosters in the fall.
I mean, they just experienced a Vietnam War in a year.
I don't know how this is going to be hidden for much longer.
I think the more we convince people what happened and we turn politicians against what just happened and they will or vote them out whatever.
Eventually, the reckoning will come.
It has to.
I don't care if they're going to distract us with the Ukraine war or whatever, but this is too big to hide.
I have faith that this is going to come to light, and there will be consequences.
I think what CDC will try to persuade the world is that those 61,000 excess deaths are from COVID and from Omicron.
How do they not pull that off?
Well, they'll try.
But let's think about this logically for a second.
If you look at the chart four that you guys have, basically, if you look at that chart, you see that there was a baseline of normal death rates pre-pandemic.
Then there was a spike into the fall pre-vaccine.
But it's gotten worse with vaccines and milder variants.
And by the way, Delta hit in the summer of 2021.
80% of all cases were Delta in June.
So they can't say it was Delta because, and what, Delta only affects 25 to 44 more than older folks.
The logic here makes no sense.
Delta was there in the summer.
That acceleration you see into the fall, it's the rate of change that's the smoking gun because it coincides with the mandates hitting.
And the boosters.
And they can't say it's Delta, because Delta was there in the summer.
They can't say it's Omicron, because Omicron came later, which was milder.
And they can't say it's fentanyl deaths, because what, everybody decided to overdose at the same time.
They can't say it's suicide, because everybody decided to kill themselves in the same two, three-month period.
You see, the rate of change is the smoking gun.
That's the smoke, the rate of change and the acceleration into mandates and boosters.
Basically, In my mind, it's case closed.
Someone asked me, if you wanted to be invited up to the Hill to testify, would you go?
My partner and I would go.
We haven't been invited yet.
We're willing to go anywhere and defend this.
And are there other people in the financial markets who are already taking an interest in this?
Yes.
People, the stocks of Moderna and Pfizer have been in downtrending modes.
Moderna is down 70 plus percent from its high.
That's Moderna.
Pfizer is down 20 plus percent from its high.
So the way Wall Street works is, you know, some crazy guy like me comes out with a conferring thesis, right?
They take note.
They start to listen.
They don't sell at all.
They do their own work.
So it's going to take some time, but it's in process.
The other thing that you need to know that's exciting is the work we did with the CDC data and the chart you just showed.
Independent actuaries that are still anonymous recreated our work from the database.
And Stay tuned.
The insurance industry is heating up here.
The other reason I think that we're going to see consequences is an industry that's been defrauded.
It's the insurance industry.
They are currently paying for excess deaths due to a product that kills.
And they're going to be paying for years disability from vaccine injuries.
I don't think they're going to put up with that once they realize what's happened and they're starting to wake up.
And I'm getting reached out to by actuaries who shall remain anonymous for now until they come forward at insurance companies that make a difference.
So the worm is turning.
This is the beginning of the worm turning, I think.
Let me play devil's advocate.
Sure.
I've watched public health decline precipitously over the time that I've been involved in this.
We've gone from 6% of our children having chronic disease to 54%.
Autism rates have dropped from 1 or 2 in 10,000 to 1 every 44 people.
Over the last 10 years, they've increased again by 144%.
Food allergies have appeared, autoimmune diseases have become epidemic, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile diabetes, all these neurodevelopmental disorders.
And the insurance company, which ends up paying for a lot of those costs, or all of those costs, has sat on the sidelines and said nothing yet.
And people have wondered about that.
People in the community who are advocates for chronic disease, advocates to end toxic exposures to kids, have sat there for years, for decades, and say, why doesn't the insurance industry speak up?
An insurance, a high-level insurance analyst, explained to a group of us, and he said, Really, the more injury that you have in that society, the more the insurance company gets wealthy.
If there was only one shipwreck a year, is that a good thing for Lloyd's of London?
Or is it better if there's 500 shipwrecks a year?
Because now everybody needs shipwreck insurance.
And if you have a high level of injury, Over the long term, since the insurance industry really just makes money on friction, and the more injury you have, the more people demand the product, which is insurance.
And that's where their profits come from.
So they're less concerned with paying off individual liabilities.
What do you think of that?
So I agree with that.
We call that business as usual, right?
That makes sense to me.
But think about the insurance industry.
They make their money off of pretty steady death rates and injury rates.
And the key to their profit is predicting it and then charging a premium that covers the losses.
And so they make the spread.
They price it so that they don't lose money.
What just occurred...
Out of the words of one CEO's mouth was a 40% increase in non-COVID related deaths in the second half of 2021.
That was one American CEO, Scott Davison.
And he didn't blame the vaccine.
He didn't know what it was.
But he said that's a one in a 200 year flood.
A 10% increase would be a three standard deviation increase.
Unheard of event in the insurance industry.
So the insurance industry didn't price this.
So they're going to be...
This is the problem.
So it's such a catastrophic number.
And the injuries that are going to be created for years, they're not...
This is going to hurt their capitalization over time.
Let me put it this way.
The greed got...
You've been seeing a problem that's been going on for years.
But it was in all different smaller areas.
But now they bit off more than they can chew.
They just poisoned 220 million Americans.
This is literally like a bridge too far, and it's too fast, too far, too much death and injury.
And then the insurance industry did not price this.
They did not price this.
So I think that's why we're going to have more of an impact this time than business as usual with slower, predictable, chronic death.
Does that make sense?
Yeah.
Did you see the TV show, Dope Sick?
Yes.
And so, did you have any revelations from that about agency capture?
Yes, I have my own personal experiences with the healthcare system that made me aware of agency capture.
And, you know, it's not about getting you well, it's about keeping you constantly in the system on prescriptions.
And I had my own battle with mental health in 2011, and I got off the daisy train and I healed myself without the aid of the pharmaceutical industry.
And that That was a big eye-opening event for me, my own personal experience.
And that's when I, you know, really started to understand how the healthcare system worked.
Yeah, because you mentioned the Vietnam War, and for the people who haven't seen Topsy, I urge you to do it.
And it's also a vehicle, a really important vehicle.
Those of you who are having trouble persuading your relatives that maybe the FDA and the CDC are lying about vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry are lying about vaccines, show them dope-sick.
You can expect them to watch it because then you see how the sausage gets made across the system.
And what the story is, is how the pharmaceutical industry and FDA corrupt officials and FDA Put a phony label on OxyContin that said it was not addictive.
And that label was used by 20,000 pharmaceutical reps from Purdue Pharma and Johnson& Johnson to go out and persuade doctors all across America.
That OxyContin was not addictive.
And you could prescribe it for hangovers.
You could prescribe it for minor aches and pains that it was appropriate.
To me, the most important revelation that people have when they're looking at that is because the big pushback You get, at least that I get, when I try to explain to loved ones, family, friends, you know, that it's corrupt.
They say, we don't believe it.
You know, there's a million doctors out there and you're saying that they're all involved in a conspiracy, that they all know that they're giving this poison to people and that they're killing them.
There's no way that's happening.
Yeah.
And what I say is the doctors don't know it.
They believe what CDC and FDA tell them.
And they're the only source of information.
Very few of them are actually reading the peer-reviewed publications.
And we're thinking independently and questioning the authorities.
Nobody does that.
And that's exactly what happened.
You have, you know, the great thing about the service at film shows is It's these very well-meaning doctors who love their patients, they're born healers, they have a gift for healing, and they just accept what FDA said on that label is true.
It turns out the official who wrote that label was immediately left FDA, went to work for Purdue Pharma, Purdue A $367,000 annual salary, so it's a payoff.
And that's how this system works with these revolving doors and all these other instruments of agency capture.
Yeah, you know, you just hit on a point that I've harped on in many of my discussions with podcasters and media people.
The FDA is critical to this fraud for the doctors who trust the FDA. That's why It's just like the financial crisis with the rating agencies.
The rating agencies vetted the bonds, gave them AAA ratings, and people trusted the rating agencies so they didn't look too hard.
The doctors who don't read clinical data trial studies, who don't have backgrounds in statistical analysis, trust the FDA. So the key to this fraud is the FDA regulatory capture.
And the pharmaceutical industries have done, as you know, a fabulous job of doing that.
And that's what occurred with this vaccine.
That's why so many of these doctors, when you try to talk to them, and I've tried to talk to some, they think I'm crazy, but I know how fraud works and I know how psychopaths work.
The key to this is you corrupt a third-party trusted institution.
And it's the same thing as the Great Financial Crisis.
That's the tragedy is a lot of doctors who are well-meaning, like you said, who love their patients.
When this comes out and gets resolved and the awakening begins, it's going to really hurt the reputations of the medical profession for years to come, unfortunately.
One thing that people need to understand that I think is really kind of an important subtlety and nuance is that Medical school is different and science, you know, it doesn't make you a scientist.
Doctors are taught and doctors are high IQ people with amazing memories and they're forced to absorb huge amounts of information, but it's almost like an authoritarian system.
We're being told, this is what you do when you see this.
This is how to diagnose an illness.
This is how you treat it.
And it's kind of a pharmaceutical paradigm.
The pharma is paying for these medical schools.
They support them.
And they're not being taught critical thinking.
They're not being taught to question authority.
Scientists, it's the opposite.
You know, they're being taught, how do you read a scientific study critically?
How do you look for the errors, the deceptions, the little mistakes, the biases that are incorporated into the calculations?
And it's a completely different set of skills.
If you could become a scientist by absorbing information, all you'd have to do is watch the Discovery Channel, and you would be a scientist, right?
That's not how it works.
It's actually a set of skills that is unique to science, and it's not always taught in medical school.
Those skills are not always taught in medical schools.
Well, you know, it's funny.
On Wall Street, no one teaches you how to be a critical thinker.
I went to business school and I learned a bunch of things, but it didn't teach me to be a stock picker.
What taught me to be a stock picker was my innate critical thinking and ability to connect dots without someone telling me that I'm correct before the news hits.
You don't make money in the stock market by waiting for the Wall Street Journal to report something.
And you know, I will say something about some of the doctors that were early to call this, what they were seeing.
Dr.
Ryan Cole saw in his practice biopsies, cancer shooting up last year.
He's what I call a stock picker of doctors.
He saw a trend.
He didn't need someone from the CDC or FDA to tell him something was wrong.
He figured it out early and said, this is a signal.
And he didn't need any authority figure to tell him.
And that's why he's been such a critical voice in all this.
And Dr. Malone, these are people that can think by themselves.
And I would say all the people that have been vilified are critical thinkers.
It's pretty amazing.
If you don't take the marching orders and you question, you're vilified and pushed aside.
And this is literally a crisis of critical thinking across all industries.
There's something switched off in the country over the last two years.
I don't know what it is, but it's tragic.
If you want to disable critical thinking, the only ingredient you need is fear.
Correct.
To orchestrate fear, it completely paralyzed the capacity for critical thinking.
Just a word on Ryan Cole.
One of the advantages that Ryan Cole had is he runs one of the testing, laboratory testing company, because he was receiving data from hundreds of doctors.
Right.
And, you know, it's hard because there's a signal also at the end of lockdowns.
So many people deferred medical treatment.
And you don't know whether this explosion, this apparent explosion in cancer is an artifact of deferred medical treatment or whether it's actually an increased incident in cancer.
And the jury's still out on that question, but there's a lot of doctors reporting it.
And there's a lot of doctors reporting specific kinds of cancers that, you know, We should be looking at that.
We should be, you know, as a society and as our institution, ready to be saying, okay, is this an artifact of reporting or is the incident actually creating?
Unfortunately, we have regulatory agencies that have a knee-jerk reaction to cover up those kind of signals rather than to explore them and to actually do the kind of science that, you know, we need to make good healthcare decisions.
Yeah, it's tragic.
And I applaud all the frontline doctors who came forward early when they started seeing strange things, especially in the first year with early treatment, and now with vaccines.
It was a one-two punch.
They suppress early treatment.
Listen to add...
Before I let you go, I need some private financial advice.
How is the war?
Are we going to have a recession?
How is the war going to affect?
Is it going to accelerate and amplify that?
And, you know, it seems to me, I think we printed a couple trillion dollars in money.
It seems you would think we would have really dramatic inflation from that.
But what are your thoughts?
Well, my two cents is this.
You know, since the Great Financial Crisis, that bad debt that was created didn't go away.
It was put on the central bank's balance sheets through the bailouts and the government balance sheets through the bailouts.
So the last 10 years, the debt problem we had in the Great Financial Crisis didn't go away.
It just resides in a different entity.
And the central banks and the governments have over-indebted themselves.
So those of us in the financial world have been trying to figure out when that would pop, that sovereign debt bubble would pop.
And it looks like it's popping, unfortunately.
The Fed got a reprieve during COVID because they were able to print 65% money supply year over year, which is the highest increase in the history of the Federal Reserve.
But the second derivative of that money printing is rolling over.
And I think what we're going to see, and by the way, the last 10 years, most of the inflation we saw went into financial assets.
There was some inflation, but I think we're going to see financial assets deflate and things that we need inflate, like food and rent.
So in the real world, prices are going to go up and Financial world prices are going to go down.
It's a one-two punch.
And I do think we're going to hit recession in the third quarter of this year.
And also, the Fed is going to talk about their interest rate hike.
And I've seen data analysis that shows the Fed rate hike cycle is already over before it began because the market usually leads the Fed.
So they're probably going to be one and done, one rate hike and done, and then they're going to have to print money as the stock markets and bond markets become unhinged.
This is a term we've been talking about for years.
The Fed looks like it's finally trapped, and they don't have any way out.
So it's not going to be pretty, is my advice.
So, I mean, do you advise people to get into crypto?
Is that a place where people can hide?
Well, so in the financial market dislocation, which I think is coming, there's a lot of leverage in the system.
So I think everything goes down.
I think if I had to give you just one piece of investment advice, having some cash on the sidelines at the bottom of this You know, when JP Morgan famously said, buy when there's blood in the streets.
I mean, even though there's inflation, it's good to be able to have dry powder to buy when this dislocation happens, because I think everything's going to go down initially.
Then once we have like a rally, some things will go to new highs, maybe crypto, maybe gold, but some of these stocks are never going to see their highs again.
You know, like Facebook or Google.
I think these things have peaked and they're done for at least a decade or so.
Let me ask you this, Ed.
What do you think?
About the role of these big internet titans who have raked in billions and billions of visas and Sergey Brin and Harry Ellison and Zuckerberg and Gates and even Bloomberg, who have censored, systematically censored criticisms of the lockdowns that were yielding them,
you know, ultimately, collectively, probably $3.8 trillion shift in wealth from the poor to this New oligarchy of billionaires, many of them involved in media or social media that were censoring us.
Well, so I've labeled this total fraud we've seen with Pfizer.
It's a multi-siloed fraud.
So the fraud started with Pfizer and Moderna with the help of the government and the regulators.
And then the tech titans and the media titans are complicit in, I'm not a lawyer, but that's how I'm terming it, through their censorship.
And additionally, I also think they don't mind the COVID economy because they're going to have businesses that create new industries that create around COVID compliance, where they're able to create additional revenue streams from surveillance and monitoring of the world they want, which is quarterly where they're able to create additional revenue streams from surveillance and monitoring of the world And so they were in on it in my mind.
And let's also, I don't have proof of this, but let's also not underestimate the influence of intelligence agencies here, because we do know that a lot of these tech titans, especially the new companies, have contracts with intelligence agencies that they can't disclose.
And they've had these for years, and there may be some intelligence agency influence as well.
They'll never talk about these contracts, but we know they're there.
It's illegal for them to talk about it.
They can go to jail for 20 years with a secret court, no lawyers, and they lose all their assets.
Once you sign one of those state secrecy agreements, you essentially become a vassal of the military intelligence agencies or the CIA. I think there's over 3 million Americans who have signed those, but we know that In QTEL and the CIA have focused their investments in Silicon Valley.
And if you wanted to take that money from the devil, you had to sign that contract.
Or get the contract.
Because they show up at your door with government contracts and investment money.
And nobody can say no to that.
If you're a Silicon Valley CEO or a startup, you cannot say no to the CIA. So...
And we have no idea what percentage of their overall revenues come from the government.
That's never been disclosed.
I suspect undue influence and strong-arming from the intelligence agencies for these guys to censor because what they said initially about what they wanted to do with their companies is not what they're doing now.
And they pulled a 180.
They promised us it was going to democratize the internet.
And now they've become the primary instrumentality of control, of authoritarian and totalitarian control.
Correct.
So, no, I'm in full agreement with you.
I think we see eye to eye on many things.
Ed, thank you very much for speaking out for your courage and for your independence and for your continual exercise of critical thought.
Thank you so much for having me.
I appreciate being here.
And thank you so much for all your efforts that you have done over the years.
