Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 10, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:43:29

Interview with Dr. Shiva Ayyaduria - Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	...brutal war disrupted our supply chains, and Putin's unfair and brutal war in Ukraine disrupted energy supplies as well as food supplies, blocking all that grain in Ukraine.
	But we're in a better position than any country on Earth right now.
	But we have more to do.
	But here at home, inflation is coming down.
	Here at home, gas prices are down $1.50 from their peak.
	Food inflation is coming down.
	Not fast enough, but coming down.
	Inflation has fallen every month for the last six months.
	Our take-home pay has gone up.
	Additionally, over the last two years, a record 10 million Americans applied to start new businesses.
	10 million.
	Oh, my God.
	And by the way, every time...
	Isn't it amazing how many people start up new businesses when you just shut down millions and millions of businesses?
	This is like George Orwell wrote this speech for Joe Biden.
	A record 10 million businesses after millions were shut down and bankrupted as a result of the government response to COVID.
	But I've got to parse through this.
	First of all...
	And I'll say what I just said on the Rubin report.
	We just had a great panel, and we actually talked about this clip, so it's fresh in my mind, and I could not start with another Justin Trudeau or Christopher Freeland.
	My grandmother, she died at 102 or 103, and she was diagnosed with early-onset dementia, which was like 80. I don't know.
	Diagnosed with early-onset dementia at 80, but she lived another 30 years.
	This is not to be mean, and this is not to be glib, and not to...
	Make jokes.
	When you've seen that look in someone's eyes, you know what it looks like.
	That's what it looks like.
	I don't care that he's stringing together sentences.
	He's clearly...
	I mean, it goes without saying.
	He's not well.
	But listen to the lie upon lie upon lie like in 1984.
	In George Orwell's 1984 chocolate production has gone up 100%.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	It's gone up 100%.
	Because it was...
	Something's in my eye.
	Hold on.
	Okay, let's just hear this one by one.
	One lie after another.
	And Putin's unfair and brutal war in Ukraine disrupted energy supplies as well as food supplies.
	Putin's war disrupted energy supplies as well as food supplies?
	Putin's brutal war in Ukraine?
	That...
	It's now been revealed.
	Basically, the West said, we don't want diplomacy and we don't want to negotiate anything.
	We enjoy escalating the proxy war.
	But Putin's interference with energy supplies, coming from Joe Biden, who on the first day of his presidency cut the keystone pipeline between Canada and the US, coming from the same government, who it has now been revealed, although they admitted it out loud multiple times.
	Sabotaged, allegedly, according to Seymour Hersh, allegedly sabotaged the Nord Stream pipeline.
	Putin is interfering with energy supplies.
	They accuse their enemies of doing what they are doing so as to create confusion.
	Blocking all that grain in Ukraine.
	But we're a better position than any country on Earth right now.
	But we have more to do.
	Look at this.
	Secretary Yellen.
	It's transitory inflation.
	Oh, it's inflation that identified as transitory.
	And now it's permanent.
	But we said it was transitory at the time because we treat you like idiots.
	Look at that face.
	She's like, oh shit.
	They're on to me.
	That is Secretary Yellen.
	Oh shit.
	Why are they looking at me as they talk about inflation?
	We are governed by our inferiors due to our unwillingness to get involved in politics.
	But here at home, inflation is coming down.
	Look at that guilty look.
	That's like Homer Simpson-level guilt right there.
	Here at home, gas prices are down $1.50 from their peak.
	Food inflation is coming down.
	Not fast enough, but coming down.
	Inflation has fallen every month for the last six months.
	Can't go on more with that.
	It's like another Simpsons clip.
	Stop, stop.
	He's already dead.
	It's gaslighting of epic proportions.
	Now, a mess, Natalie McClendon says.
	It's beyond mess.
	It's a catastrophe.
	It's a man-made catastrophe.
	Let me rephrase that.
	I'd say it's a Joe Biden-made catastrophe, but I don't think Joe Biden is the one manufacturing this catastrophe.
	I don't think Joe Biden could...
	Joe Biden can't find the hull for the State of the Union address.
	He can barely find his way around the White House.
	And I'm not saying that to be glib.
	I'm not saying that to be mean.
	I don't think one man is not able to create such catastrophe because typically there would be smarter people resisting the catastrophe.
	In this case, we got one puppet carrying out the wishes of the people who are actually creating this catastrophe.
	And who do you think it is?
	Go listen to...
	Jimmy Dore, go listen to my interview with Jimmy Dore, or go listen to his clip that went viral on Carl Tucker.
	Tucker Carlson?
	Tucker Carlson.
	Go check that out.
	All right.
	Speaking of catastrophes and, you know, the role that some entities play in it, a deep state, an administrative state, Operation Mockingbird, people, never ended.
	It just got digitized.
	Today we have Dr. Shivon.
	And many of you may know Dr. Shiva because he's got kind of an amazing story.
	I mean, an amazing life story, but then also an amazing political story that began...
	I'm going to screw up on the year.
	It began 2020?
	At least the scandal.
	Anyhow, Dr. Shiva is going to explain it.
	He's in the backdrop.
	So, oh, hold on one second.
	I knew I forgot something.
	I have yet...
	No, I created a vivabarneslaw.locals.com live chat.
	Which is currently running?
	We are live on Rumble, and we look like we're good on Rumble.
	Do we have any Rumble rants?
	We do not have Rumble rants yet.
	Standard disclaimers, no medical advice, no legal advice.
	There will be no election fornification advice, but Dr. Shiva is going to explain his experience and his discoveries.
	Good.
	We're live on Rumble, and I'm going to go to the chat, which I know that I set up.
	It's right here.
	And I'm going to join the chat on Rumble, where people can go, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, and join the chat.
	We got people, and we've got a $1 chat there.
	It says, anyone, the eco-alliance whistleblower.com.
	I just lost it.
	I just lost it.
	Hold on.
	Has been sent a request to testify before the GOP-led House Committee.
	Well, as a segue into what we're going to discuss today, we're having the...
	GOP Church Committee 2.0 investigating the gang of four from Twitter.
	And we're learning.
	Some of us are learning what others have known for a while, what others have known for even longer while.
	One of those people is Dr. Shiva.
	Dr. Shiva, I see in the backdrop.
	I'm going to bring you in in three, two, one.
	Sir, you know what?
	I'll go back the other way.
	No, this is good.
	This is good.
	How goes the battle, Dr. Shiva?
	I'm doing good, David.
	How are you?
	Very good.
	Now, it's Shiva and not Shiva, right?
	Well, Depends on how you want to say it, you know?
	But I typically say Shiva, you know, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai.
	You can just call me Dr. Shiva.
	Okay, perfect.
	Okay, that's good.
	There's many ways to say it, but I'm interested in the correct way.
	So, Dr. Shiva, 30,000-foot overview.
	I think everybody knows who you are, but give the 30,000-foot overview.
	Before, I always like, in a first-time interview, to get to know the person and delve into their childhood, which yours is extremely interesting and extremely relevant.
	To everything that you've done in life.
	But the 30,000-foot overview, for those who might not know who you are.
	The 30,000, I guess, high-level overview is the following, David.
	I have a deep interest in science, in medicine, and politics, which are three very, very different things.
	And the reason I developed that interest is I grew up in an India which had a caste system, which still does.
	And I was born into that.
	And so you won't find a lot of Indians like me in the United States.
	And I was deeply influenced in wanting to understand why these systems of power existed as a young kid, four or five years old.
	But I also grew up in an India where my grandmother was a traditional healer practicing one of the ancient systems of Indian medicine.
	And I saw her, you know, at least empirically heal people.
	So that got me interested in medical systems.
	And that led, you know, my parents were very, very fortunate to make it to the United States, which is unheard of for people of their background.
	And I pursued both of those interests in a very interesting way.
	You know, my interest in medicine, the interest in politics, and all of that congealed itself in a field called system science, which is what I do and, you know, led me to MIT, did a bunch of degrees there.
	But always interested in a whole systems approach to understanding, be it the body, the politics, etc.
	And across, you know, sort of a journey across East and West, science and tradition, ancient and modern.
	You know, I ended up getting four degrees at MIT.
	My PhD is in a field called Systems Biology, but I also ran for office multiple times.
	But I've always been an activist, David.
	You can see a picture of me at MIT burning the South African flag as a 17-year-old against MIT's investment in apartheid, holding up the sign US out of Iraq.
	When I was getting my PhD graduation, half of the crowd booed me and the other half thought it was great.
	So I've always believed in movements are what actually changed the world, not politicians, not media.
	But it's been independent movements.
	And that's something that came out of my understanding, but also have a belief and an understanding that when you understand the interconnectedness of the parts of anything, you actually find truth actually emerges out of that.
	And that truth is what we can really use to guide ourselves in our own personal journeys, but also collectively with others.
	But that's sort of the 30,000-foot overview.
	Fantastic.
	And I won't spend too much time because I think it could be a three-hour podcast on its own.
	Early life, you're born in Bombay, India?
	Yeah, so I was born in Bombay, India in 1963.
	So I would say three-quarters of my...
	If you've been to Bombay, which is now called Mumbai, if you consider America a melting pot, Bombay is like an industrial furnace.
	You have every religion, every language, different colors, castes, anything you can imagine.
	But I also grew up in a small village.
	In the summer times with my grandparents in deep South India, which had no running water, no electricity.
	And so those two very, very different worlds.
	And then so that was up until the age of seven.
	I moved to the United States.
	Literally, we left India on my seventh birthday, December 2nd, 1960, 1970.
	And that was at a time, if you think about in the United States, when there was essentially the United States, the Vietnam War was still going on, you know, sex, drugs and rock and roll in this very traditional Indian family.
	Lower caste untouchables.
	My mother and my father were quite extraordinary people.
	The fact that they made it out of that caste system.
	Come to the United States actually based on this thing called the American Dream.
	And the day I came to the United States, I actually was wearing shorts and it was snowing.
	And I'd never seen snow in my life.
	And I asked my dad, why did we come here?
	He said one word, freedom.
	And so I grew up in, if you've been to New Jersey, one of the poorest cities, Patterson, New Jersey.
	And then to Clifton, which was Patterson, which is essentially all African-Americans.
	And then Clifton, New Jersey, which is more working class.
	And then in the last three years of my high school, I went to one of the much different neighborhood, a public school in Livingston, New Jersey, which is very wealthy, you know?
	So I went from all those different ranges in a period of seven years.
	So my parents just kept moving to the better public school systems.
	One of the important things to understand is when I was 14, I'd actually finished up all my math courses because I was so ambitious because I saw how much we didn't have in India and I wanted to succeed that I had gotten the opportunity to go study at New York University as a 14-year-old kid, computer science, finished this very special program and started working as a full-time research fellow at what is now known as Rutgers Medical School.
	Doing research on why babies were dying in their sleep.
	So that got me interested in computing and medicine.
	But it was there I did invent what we now know as email, the first email system.
	So email was not created by the ARPANET, which is a big lie.
	It was created by a 14-year-old immigrant kid in Newark, New Jersey, where nothing's supposed to come out of.
	And we can talk more about that.
	Yeah, well, two things.
	I have to make the Doogie Howser joke because what you're describing sounds like a different iteration of Doogie Howser.
	Just very briefly, because we all know we refer to the caste system.
	I think we have a, I won't say stereotypical, but a very superficial understanding of what it means.
	Explain the caste system.
	When you say people are born into the caste system, how do they identify that they're born into one versus the other?
	How are they identified in everyday life?
	What are the consequences of that?
	Is there a way of getting out of it?
	And what's the purpose of the caste system?
	Well, so if you go back many years, just to preface this, when I came to MIT, I studied with a very interesting philosopher-linguist by the name of Noam Chomsky because I was very curious about the caste system.
	And there's a wonderful book, if people want to get it, called The Rise and Fall of the East India Company, written by Ramakrishna Mukherjee.
	It's a great book.
	But when you study that, what you really understand is that the original system of, you know, organizing people into different guilds, okay, you're a blacksmith, okay, or you're a carpenter.
	This was sort of a division of labor, which had certain benefits, right, for society.
	This thing called a caste system where if you're picking garbage all day, then your son should pick all garbage all day.
	Or if you're a coconut picker, you should also pick, your son should pick coconuts.
	And these are very designated jobs, David.
	Very specific jobs.
	My family's caste was to actually do pick coconuts, right?
	And so somewhere along the way that this guild system became an actual instantiated draconian caste system.
	And you weren't supposed to move out of that.
	So broadly, at the top of this heap were people called the priesthood, quote-unquote, the Brahmins, right?
	The next level was the kings, you know, the people who ran operations, governance.
	The next level were the warriors or people called the military, right?
	And the next level were pretty much business people, the business caste.
	And then below that, you had what are called shudras, S-U-D-R-A-S.
	It's almost like the N-word, okay?
	And those are further divided into scheduled castes.
	So we came from that caste system.
	So the designation was you were in this caste, you were supposed to do this for the rest of your life.
	So it's no different than color, right?
	Shades of color, no different than different languages.
	My mom used to say in India you can get discriminated about seven different ways.
	By your sex, by your religion, where you grew up, right?
	Language and castics and so on.
	In America she said maybe three ways.
	But the point is that the caste system is a very structured system.
	Now around the 8th century...
	In India, like the Protestant Reformation, there was a movement called the Bhakti Movement.
	It was religious in nature, spiritual, and it said, hey, if there's equality in heaven, why isn't there equality on earth?
	So between the 8th century to the 15th century, that movement actually broadly took off, and it started having these embryonic changes in destroying this caste system, or embryonic changes.
	It wasn't done by any means.
	And what's fascinating to understand, by the 16th, 17th century, What the merchants, the traders, became a more respectable caste, you would call entrepreneurs.
	And that is when, if you think about it, when the Dutch East India Company, the British East India Company, all the Europeans start coming to India.
	They were initially trading with this emergent caste.
	But the net of this story is that what the British did profoundly decimating to this progress.
	Which would have been sort of, you know, market capitalism in India, etc.
	Was they realized that instead of trading with these traders, it would be more profitable to support the decaying feudalism.
	And they actually propped up the feudal lords.
	And in the Battle of Plassey, they actually occupied India.
	And then at that time, they went and got these old Brahmanical priests and they rewrote the, you know, progressive Indian laws to take it back to draconian.
	So a lot of Indians don't even know it, that the caste system was actually decaying.
	And to answer your question, it's basically a vehicle for control, right?
	So the British could control caste in a much more profound way.
	And when you really look at the Indian Revolution, it wasn't really much of an Indian independence movement in 1947.
	Gandhi, in many ways, was brought in to transfer power from the British who wanted leave to the Indian elite.
	So white men with crowns left and brown men with white hats took over.
	So India never really addressed these foundational issues.
	India never had the chance to have a good bottoms up revolution, which would have occurred in the 20s had not Gandhi come in and essentially been used as a front man for the elites to subvert this much more populist movement that was also taking place.
	That's actually fascinating.
	And we shouldn't spend too much time on this because there's other stuff that's...
	I see.
	Equally fascinating and probably more relevant to what we're living through now.
	One last question, though.
	If you married up or married down, was it a one-way ticket down, or could you marry up in the caste system?
	You could, and it was very downly looked upon, particularly by the family that you were marrying up into, right?
	Some people also opted to change their religion.
	There was a lot of pressure in that time to become Christians, for example, because Christians were put into a different realm.
	Some people became Muslims, you see?
	But this was a Hindu caste system.
	So if you, let's say, a man married a Brahmin woman, there would be certain benefits, but the couple would suffer a lot by the community because of their, quote-unquote, intercaste marriage.
	In fact, there were incidents of violence and so on that would take place also, which still do, by the way.
	And what you just said about Gandhi is something that I've never even thought about.
	And it's going to spark something in my mind to look into further.
	I've been trying to tell people Gandhi was a fraud.
	I think what people mean is they lulled people into passivity using a very, very eloquent individual.
	And as a result, probably from what you're saying, did not achieve the revolution that they would have otherwise achieved.
	And it was sort of a stifled revolution because of...
	Gandhi was literally, if you go look at his history, he was not, you know, he was a racist.
	He didn't really support the poor blacks and poor Hindus, which was a majority in South Africa.
	He was trying to fight for the wealthy Hindus to get trading rights in the Transvaal region.
	And, you know, what he did, any protests that he did actually miserably failed.
	And in fact, the movie Gandhi comes out at a time when Indians are actually starting to break from Gandhi.
	Every time Indians are starting to break from Gandhi, it looks like the British and the Indians get together and they do a movie to promote Gandhi.
	But Gandhi, in that movie, you'll see one of the sort of The leaders of who was pro-British Gokhale actually brings Gandhi into his home.
	And so Gandhi is literally promoted.
	And all these other emergent leaders were either disappeared or shot or whatever happened to them.
	And Gandhi gets pushed into the forefront in many ways overnight.
	But he was an Anglophile.
	He loved the British.
	And Nehru, who we sort of handpicked to be the next prime minister of India, was banging Mountbatten's wife.
	So the whole thing was an incestuous fraud in many ways.
	Because had India had this opportunity to have this really bottoms-up movement, you wouldn't have had this corruption that's essentially been embedded into India for 70, 80 years, right?
	And, you know, we'll talk about many years ago, I went back to India on a full bread, and I was appointed by the Prime Minister of India to run one of the largest science institutions, and you could still see that feudalism had never got out.
	What America had was we overthrew feudalism.
	India never overthrew feudalism.
	So, and many countries in Africa never did.
	So they literally have these underdeveloped capitalist enterprises, right?
	Uneven development of capitalism.
	Okay, fascinating.
	And you know, I want to use that as the segue to tell everyone we're going to go over to Rumble.
	So here's the link to Rumble because the discussion is going to start.
	The contemporary discussion is going to start now.
	Link to the Rumble.
	Dr. Shiva, this changes nothing from our end.
	I'm just going to end on YouTube.
	We're going to go to Rumble and the discussion is going to start.
	Three, two, one.
	All right.
	Not because we're going to get into this, because also this would be a story unto itself, but just it will set the context for a little later on.
	Your claim to have invented email is from the interwebs, hotly disputed.
	It led to contemporary lawsuits.
	Explain it a bit.
	How do you invent the email, given how people...
	And I'm going to ask you, I'm not...
	I'm not taking sides.
	It strikes me as an extravagant claim, given the 101s that I've been taught about the internet.
	What's the basis behind your claim?
	And then what happened with the lawsuits which were ultimately settled, and how are they settled, if you can talk about it?
	Yeah, it's a great story.
	So first of all, we'll address the issue of invention, right?
	So let's just go back.
	David, how old are you?
	How old do you think I am?
	Not for vanity.
	I'm just curious to know if anyone has any idea.
	I don't know.
	Gray hair.
	I'm 43. That's what I was going to say.
	It's going to be 44 in May.
	So anyone over the age of 40, now it's over the age of 50, I have to...
	Well, remember...
	So if you could go back in time, it's hard, but if you could just imagine, go back to 1978, okay?
	Who used computers in 1978, David?
	It was...
	Well, it was old white guys.
	I'll give you the old white guys in lab coats with little pocket protectors.
	Scientists.
	And in order to use a computer in 1978, you had to know cryptic programming language, etc.
	And what were those computers?
	They weren't this, right?
	In fact, mainframes used to have less power than this.
	They were big machines which would fill up your room, my room, huge mainframe machines.
	That's the computing environment of the 1960s, 1970s.
	And people use computers for scientific computing.
	People are getting data.
	They were starting on punch cards, this kind of stuff.
	At that time, in those mainframes, you could do simple messaging of text, little da-da-da, almost like Morse code.
	That's it.
	All right.
	So in 1978, I was given a job in a medical school in the heart of Newark, New Jersey.
	In fact, my school changed the rules.
	So I, as a 14-year-old kid, could go 30 miles into Newark because I'd gotten a full-time job because I passed with honors out of that NYU course.
	And I was initially given a job, David, to use these big mainframe computers.
	They're becoming mini computers to look at why babies were dying in their sleep.
	And I was using computing to understand sleep patterns.
	At that same time, Dr. Les Michelson, who's still alive, who's the head of high-performance computing now at Rutgers, gave me a challenge.
	Now, in those days, in these medical schools, there was offices.
	And every office had these pneumatic tubes.
	Some of you may remember how they used to transport these letter envelopes.
	And every office invariably had a woman who was a secretary of a researcher or a doctor.
	Always a woman.
	And she had a desk.
	And on that desk, she had something called a typewriter.
	And on that typewriter, she would write something called a proverbial memo.
	And these memos in most of these institutions had a very particular structure.
	You put the word memorandum to, from, subject.
	Sometimes, let's say I was going to hire you, I would say to my boss, you know, subject, David, phrase, hiring, and I would attach your resume, and I would CC HR.
	CC literally meant I would take a piece of paper, put a carbon paper, and another piece of paper and type.
	If I had to do 10 CCs, I'd have to do nine different carbon paper typing, okay?
	So on.
	And on her desktop, not only she did...
	Do all these complex memos with BCC, CC.
	She also had a thing called an inbox, an outbox, something called big metal file folders, a drafts folder, trash can, whiteout.
	This was a very complex system.
	And people would come, the doctor would dictate a mail.
	She'd write it up, type it up, put it in the drafts folder.
	He'd redline it.
	A memo would be produced, manufactured.
	It'd be put into these envelopes.
	Sometimes you did register mail.
	You see, it was a very complex system.
	It wasn't just did it that sending a message from point A to point B. All right?
	I was asked to convert, David, that entire system into the electronic version.
	That entire desktop.
	All those.
	It's about 100 features.
	If people go to inventorofemail.com, you'll see what got submitted to the Smithsonian about 10 years ago.
	All right.
	So a 14-year-old kid in a scientific programming language has to be...
	My customers were these secretaries who are in many ways treated in a very sexist way.
	I didn't treat them that way.
	I had great respect for them.
	I made the list of these features.
	And in 50,000 lines of Fortran code, in 8K of memory, I programmed every one of those features and named that.
	So I wrote all the code and named that system email.
	Why did I call it email?
	It was a term never used before in the English language.
	Because the operating system only allowed five characters.
	All right?
	One of the baby nobles, as it was called, the Westinghouse Science Awards at the time, was featured in the local newspaper.
	Good, humble Indian kid came to MIT in 1981.
	On the front page of MIT, they highlighted my invention, along with two other kids out of the 1,000 kids.
	All right.
	I was elected student body president that year.
	In 81, I went to the president of MIT's house.
	And this is when I started learning about patents and inventions, what this means.
	You see, up until...
	1994, and I'll get to that.
	But at that point in history, the lawmakers in Washington didn't know what software was.
	They thought it was just you're just writing a book, right?
	Because it was written stuff.
	You didn't see anything.
	But in 1980, when I went to the president's house, Paul Gray, who was on Reagan's White House Science Council, he said, Shiva, you should copyright your software because that is a way you can protect a software invention.
	Because in 1980, what had occurred was...
	The Computer Software Act of 1980 was passed, which said you could use the 1976 copyright law for artists to protect software inventions.
	And just think about this.
	I was 16, 17 years old, and no one wants to ask this question.
	How did I decide to do that?
	My parents weren't Bill Gates' parents.
	I wrote away to the copyright office.
	There was no internet to get download PDFs.
	I got this document.
	I had to submit all my code.
	It wasn't simply just getting a little C and a registered trademark, registered C. You submitted, you went back and forth on August 30th, 1982.
	An American kid has issued the first United States copyright for email, computer program for electronic system, officially recognizing me as the inventor of email.
	So I have the actual copyright.
	In fact, I have it right here.
	Here it is.
	All right.
	Now, there's no question.
	It's like a patent at that time.
	All right.
	And I wrote the code and I called it email.
	There's no controversy here.
	No one else had done this.
	What's interesting is I went off to MIT and I did many other degrees, won every award at MIT.
	You'll see on the front page of MIT me winning the Fulbright Award, me when I started Echo Mail, a company in 1993 to automatically analyze email for the White House, and I grew a quarter of a billion dollar company with that.
	It was called Dr. Email.
	But anyway, the quote-unquote fabricated controversy occurs around February 16th, 2020.
	In fact, it's coming up February 16, 2012.
	What happened?
	Three months before my dear mom, who was the one who was to drive me at 5 a.m. in the morning to take the train from Newark to New Jersey, to New York to study, in a suitcase, she had saved all the computer code, all the computer tapes, everything, and she presented it to me, knowing she was going to pass away.
	The editor of Time Magazine, Doug Ameth, who's the only journalist to this day, David, Who reviewed every one of the articles, and he wrote all the artifacts, and he wrote an article called A Man Who Invented Email in Time Magazine, senior editor.
	No one said anything then.
	In fact, the Smithsonian contacted me, and the computer history museum, they said, we didn't know you had done this.
	We'd like to, you know, honor you and accept this into the Smithsonian.
	Same with the computer history museum.
	I gave it to the Smithsonian, and on February 16th, they held a big I wrote the code.
	I have all of this.
	I have the copyright.
	That this would be an occasion for celebrating the American dream.
	What instead happens is a quote-unquote historian who had already written the history of email.
	That it had come from the military-industrial complex, written by a guy who admits that he didn't write email, that he just wrote 15 minutes of code to add text to the bottom of a file with the at symbol like Twitter, had been elevated as the inventor of email.
	Why?
	Because Raytheon at that time, the big military-industrial complex company, had bought a company called BB&N, had projected him as the inventor of email, which I didn't know any of this, into the cybersecurity market.
	So my stuff went in, David, who created a shit show.
	Who the hell is this guy?
	He's a fraud.
	He's an asshole.
	He's a dick.
	Gawker Media put this out, saying this Kurdistan Indian should be beaten and hanged.
	All sorts of vile stuff.
	All my degrees didn't mean anything.
	I was teaching a very popular course at MIT.
	Thousands of calls come in and said, this guy should be fired.
	How dare he say invented email?
	Now remember, I was not even looking for fame or fortune.
	I didn't even make a penny off inventing email, because you can't make money off, at that point, copyright.
	It was only 1994.
	Did the Federal Court of Appeals wake up and they say, holy shit, software is actually a digital machine.
	It is an invention, right?
	So it took a while.
	So what ended up happening was for four years, I'd go through this thing.
	Oh, you invented email.
	Ah, ha, ha.
	You must be Al Gore.
	Finally, in 2016, I found a lawyer, Charles Harder, who looked at all this stuff.
	He goes, oh, my God, you did invent email.
	It's not even a controversy.
	If you talk to Dr. Michelson, it's not even gray.
	It's black and white.
	But I had to overcome a new skull being found in Africa.
	And the visceral reaction to that 14-year-old kid saying that he invented the email is in some ways, quote-unquote, white supremacy.
	If you want to talk about it.
	Even though I've been called a white supremacist.
	The visceral reaction.
	How dare you say that?
	And when you unravel this in the middle of this controversy, David and I ask everyone to go.
	I don't have the book by Walter Isaacson.
	As I'm being pummeled, Walter Isaacson writes a book called The Inventors of the Digital Revolution.
	Innovators of the Digital Revolution.
	I really want everyone to go read that book.
	Every page is all white people.
	And I've never played the race card in my life.
	Everyone in there who invented the digital is white.
	He leaves out the story about email.
	And he is your white liberal who started the Aspen Institute, etc.
	So what the invention of email really reveals is not just about me.
	The facts about inventing email is black and white.
	The fact that I've had to fight so hard.
	The fact that Wikipedia destroyed my entire page.
	They blocked it.
	In fact, a senior Wikipedia editor wrote to me.
	He goes, Shiva, I want to write to you with...
	And I have the email.
	And he said, you know...
	I'm a senior editor.
	I wanted to give you appropriate credit.
	He goes, I was called all sorts of vile names.
	He goes, your article on email is as controversial as the abortion article and as the Second Amendment.
	And why is this so controversial?
	I'll tell you why.
	Because when I was at MIT, David, I was on the front page for inventing many things.
	I was a model minority.
	But see, I was in the umbrella, the bastion of MIT.
	It's great.
	You can invent anything.
	In fact, you can drop out of Harvard and you'll be called an inventor of DOS or Facebook.
	But if you invent something outside of the bounds of the military-industrial-academic complex in Newark, New Jersey, think about the things I have going against me.
	14-year-old, darksian Indian guy in Newark, New Jersey, doing it before I came to MIT.
	By the way, my story is very similar to Philo Farnsworth.
	He didn't have to deal with the color issue, who actually invented TV.
	And a small farm in Franklin, Idaho.
	It took him 60 years to get credit for that.
	The bigger story is a caste system that we've created in the United States, that you have to go to MIT or Silicon Valley, and then you get branded as an inventor.
	Right?
	The invention of email took place in a triangle, but not of the military-industrial-academic complex, in a triangle of a loving family, public school system where the teachers fought for me, and a mentor.
	And what we've created is this illusion that all great innovations must come from Silicon Valley or must come from someone who goes to Harvard and can be dweeby-like looking and drop out.
	That's cool.
	But it surely should not occur in an environment where people were doing it for the love of it.
	When I did the invention of email, IBM came in, HP came in.
	When I put all my documents in the Library of Congress, everyone had access to it.
	Am I saying someone would not have created email?
	Absolutely not.
	Because computing and office automation were coming together.
	But I was the first to do it.
	And the conflation that took place of taking simple text messaging and elevating that to email is absolutely a fraud.
	I've never claimed to be the inventor of electronic messaging, which is a simple exchange of text messages between electronic devices, but I did invent email, the system.
	And there is no controversy.
	Kevin Ryan, who was a former Owner and head of Business Insider, pretty smart guy.
	He looked at us, he goes, Shiva, this is, what's fascinating is how they created a controversy.
	Now, maybe if I were a blonde-haired, white kid, with blue eyes, I'd be on every stamp.
	No one questions whether Mozart wrote those symphonies.
	And that's what a deeper issue is, is why did Walter Isaacson leave out the entire section in 2014 about email?
	and why is it all white people?
	It is It's fascinating.
	I was reading a bunch of stuff and saw your Wikipedia page and this is just one of many controversies that they put in.
	There's a lot to break down there, but I think it's going to help people understand your steadfast pursuit of what you believe to be the principled position in stuff because most people wouldn't do what you've done.
	But before we even get into the current...
	The current, let's call it controversies, the revelations.
	Your academic, your PhD, it's not in something irrelevant to the subject of the time, that being COVID.
	What's your PhD in and how does it work its way into your understanding of certain claims that you've made in the context of COVID?
	Yeah, so when I remember...
	I always wanted to do medicine, David, because I saw my grandmother in this village.
	There's an ancient system of Indian medicine called Siddha, S-I-D-D-H-A, which has existed, some people talk about, for 5,000 years.
	It involves the right medicine for the right person at the right time, which we today call precision and personalized medicine.
	But my grandmother would look at your face.
	In the Indian systems, everything's interconnected.
	So based on observing your face, you would figure out the constitution of your body.
	Two people may have the exact same disease.
	But based on your constitution, she would give you different mixtures of herbs versus another.
	Okay?
	All right.
	So when I was working in that medical school, the invention of emo is actually in some ways an accident.
	My pursuit was I was wanting to apply math and computing to understand why babies were dying in their sleep, what we call sudden infant death today.
	Okay?
	SIDS.
	In fact, that small medical school had some access to some of the best 24-hour sleep data.
	So I was looking at sleep patterns, and I knew when the baby's heart stopped breathing, and I was doing...
	These very interesting statistical modeling correlations.
	In fact, I published a paper before I came to MIT in one of the big biomedical conferences.
	Let me stop you there, actually.
	When you're studying SIDS at the time, the data that you're getting is coming from children or newborns that were hospitalized?
	Yes, hospitalized.
	So that they're under constant monitoring.
	Yeah, because what happens is, as you know, with SIDS, some people may know that when a...
	When a baby goes into sleep, if you shake it, you can wake it up, right?
	So if they knew a baby was in that mode, they were monitoring it.
	So they had all the sleep patterns.
	By the way, babies have six states of sleep.
	Adults have five.
	So we knew the actual sleep histogram, right?
	And then we actually knew when it had an apnea.
	So the idea was particular sleep patterns causing the apnea.
	Anyways, it's a piece of research I did.
	And today, you know, sudden death has become a big thing in the media.
	Anyway, but when I came to MIT, I wanted to do medicine, but I was really, really upset that medicine was just looking at if this, give this, right?
	Very reactionary.
	So I ended up doing my engineering degree was in electrical engineering and computer science.
	In fact, I worked at Hewlett Packard and I built one of the first cardiology systems.
	Again, always mixing computing with medicine.
	Then did my master's work in mechanical engineering.
	And in understanding wave propagation, and I also got a degree in design from the Media Lab.
	After I did that, I went and I was in the middle of my PhD program in 1993.
	I was analyzing all different patterns, what you would today call AI, okay?
	And I was developing a system that could look at speech patterns, face patterns, and I was creating the system documents, and the White House ran a competition to automatically analyze email.
	If you remember, Email prior to 1993 was an office application.
	That's why a lot of people under the age of 40 don't understand this.
	After the age of 40, after 1993, with the advent of the web, email became a consumer application.
	If you in 1993 asked how many people had an email account, maybe two people.
	After 1993, 1,000 people had a room of, let's say, 2,000.
	So there was a competition in the White House around to see if they could automatically analyze President Clinton's email.
	And categorize it.
	I ended up winning that, left MIT, started a company, which we grew.
	Anyway, 2003, something important occurs in biology.
	The fascinating development was taking place in biology.
	The Human Genome Project had just concluded.
	It had started in 1993.
	It concluded in 2003.
	Now, what was profound about it was in 1993, the thesis was that For this disease, there's this gene, right?
	If you have this disease, if you have blue eyes, you must have this gene.
	So every feature that we have in our body must be denoted to a particular gene.
	So the goal was, could we map out all these genes?
	Could we enumerate all the genes?
	And the issue was, how long would it take?
	We knew in 1993, a worm had 20,000 genes, right?
	A little lowly worm.
	What do you think biologists thought how many genes we had in 1993 if a worm had 20,000 genes?
	Take a guess.
	Well, I would say they're going to say, I don't know, 2 billion genes, but I would ask why they would think that the genes would scale up based on the size of the animal, where it should not necessarily do that.
	But I don't know anything from anything.
	Yeah, so you were actually smarter than most of them.
	Most of those guys.
	I would say that humans might have fewer.
	I don't know.
	I would say fewer just to be ironic, but I'd say about the same amount.
	Yeah, so what they thought was, they didn't do a direct scaling.
	They said, well, you must have about a million genes.
	So they start doing the gene hunting.
	1994, they're not finding a million.
	They revise their estimates to 500,000.
	Then they revise it to 100,000, 30,000.
	By the time the genome project ends, we only have 20,000 genes.
	Okay?
	The same number as a worm.
	So what does this tell you about people's thinking?
	You see, biologists are in their little cubbyholes.
	Doing little experiments in a very siloed way.
	They didn't want to take a system science approach.
	Now, what system science says, David, is that the complexity of a system is not a function of the number of parts, but the number of interconnections.
	This is quite profound.
	I could give you 10 marbles and some string and you could put one marble next to it, right?
	Do it in a chain.
	That's not that complex.
	Someone else, I could give the 10 marbles, and they may connect every marble to every other nine marbles.
	You get a very weird-looking, very complex structure.
	So it's the interconnection.
	So what we discovered was this revolution is that it's not the number of genes who make a human being complex in a worm.
	It's the fact that the genes give rise to basic biology proteins.
	So the genes and the protein products interconnect in much more And these interconnections were known as molecular pathways.
	So what the realization occurs in 2003 is, wow, it's not mapping the genes.
	We've got to map these molecular pathways, these mechanisms.
	And in fact, genes create proteins.
	Proteins can feed back on themselves and turn off genes.
	And this became a world called epigenetics, which said, oh, what you eat, where you're born, what you think can turn off.
	Can turn on and turn off genes.
	In fact, in some very interesting experiments, they showed that this two twins with the same gene for a particular feature, under certain conditions, you can turn them off and turn them on.
	So this completely put biology on its head.
	So at that time in 2003, I was randomly walking back to MIT.
	My old advisor said, Shiva, you got to come finish back your PhD.
	There's a new field called systems biology.
	You love computing.
	You created this.
	You created all sorts of technology systems.
	You could imagine.
	If we could take the entire cell and if we could mathematically model all the molecular reactions in the cell, if we could do that, then instead of killing animals all day in preclinical work, we could use a computer to mechanistically model all these chemical reactions and test compounds.
	How would that be?
	To me, that was, and this was seen as a grand challenge the NSF had put forward, David, in 2003.
	So I found someone else to run Echo Mail, which was the email analysis company, came back to MIT at the age of 40, and I had to take all my grad courses again.
	It was quite interesting, right?
	I had to take my biology courses, pass what are called qualifying exams.
	And by the way, those people don't know, in order to get a PhD at MIT, you have to get in front of professors.
	They give you four oral exams, you know, on different topics, and then four written exams, and you get grilled.
	50% of the people don't make it through those PhD exams.
	And then you have to write it.
	It's really sort of a Navy SEAL type program.
	So I came back, had to do all those things, and you have to write a thesis in an area that's new.
	So I ended up, my thesis was to create a technology called CYTO, which meant Cell Solve.
	And CYTO Solve was a complete technology platform I built.
	If email was the electronic digital version of the interoffice mail system, Cytosol was a way that you could capture the molecular system in silico on the computer.
	And so it wasn't an AI approach.
	It was in many ways much more better than AI because AI guys just take an input and output and they want to fit a line to a curve, to put it simply.
	AI is good for certain problems, but it sucks at mechanistic understanding.
	So I ended up building Cytosol in 2007.
	And again, I created a technology that could...
	So if you take cancer, I could...
	Take every paper in Cancer, extract out the reactions that each one of those papers are talking about, interconnect them, mathematically convert them, and compute it.
	Okay?
	So after I finished that, I applied for a Fulbright because I said, okay, now I got my MIT degrees.
	Now if I studied alternative medicine, people can just trash me.
	Probably trash me anyway, but it'd be harder, right?
	So I applied for a Fulbright to say, could I...
	Figure out the scientific basis of how my grandmother did these traditional systems of medicine.
	I was fortunate to get it.
	In fact, the front page of MIT featured me.
	It was a front page article that said, Dr. Shivaitre, armed with four degrees, wants to go back to India to study traditional medicine.
	They didn't understand why I wanted to do that.
	Why wouldn't I just want to start my next company?
	So I went back to India and I traveled all over India.
	And I had been studying these systems anyway.
	And what ended up happening, David, I found out that the ancient systems of Indian medicine, Use the terminology, a lingua franca, to describe the body, which we in the West would say, that sounds like bullshit, right?
	Sounds like some, you know, snake oil.
	What I found was those terminology matched one-to-one.
	It was sort of a Rubik's Cube I saw, like the Rosetta Stone, matched one-to-one with the nine principles that you learn in engineering systems theory.
	It was called control systems.
	So these ancient rishis of India were really not medical guys.
	They had realized that the body was a complex system and you needed a different language.
	So when my grandmother used the words vatha, pitta, kapha, these three terms to describe your body's constitution, it matched, interestingly, in general systems theory to call transport conversion storage.
	Anyway, I discovered that, wrote an important paper on that.
	And in fact, when I was leaving India on my Fulbright side note, and it's a whole story we could do on this, I was appointed by the, I won an award in India and got appointed by the Prime Minister of India to run the largest scientific institution.
	They said, why are you going back to India?
	Why don't you help your homeland?
	And that's when I discovered that the entire science institution of India, which is filled with amazing people, was suffocated by the 1940, pre-1947 system of feudalism.
	This is why no Indian scientist Post-independence has won a Nobel Prize in India.
	They all have to come to America.
	And so I was given a huge home in India, running 4,000 people.
	And I couldn't stand what I saw.
	I wrote a white paper exposing this.
	I was fired, terminated under death threats.
	I had to leave India, come back to the United States.
	It's a fascinating story because you thought this would be embraced.
	Anyway, when I came back in 2009, I started a course at MIT called Traditional Medicines and Systems Biology.
	We'd have, you know, 200 people show up to that course.
	MDs on one side of the room, hardcore engineering guys, and the other side of the room where you would call these woo-woo people, yoga people, etc.
	But in about an hour to two hours, I was able to intersect these two worlds with this deep understanding of engineering systems principles.
	That became a thing called systems health.
	So anyway, Cytosol, after I came back...
	My advisor and I, we said, hey, let's start a company.
	We thought pharma guys were basically killing people and side effects.
	You know, the way pharmaceuticals work, it takes 13 years to build a pharmaceutical drug.
	Why is that?
	They follow a medieval approach, David.
	They find a synthetic compound that they create.
	And maybe, this is how it works.
	In a cell, in a test tube, you put cancer cells.
	For example, and you drop a bunch of synthetic compounds.
	You go, wow, that looks like it's killing it.
	Then you apply for a patent.
	And then you go and get $40- $50 million in funding and you open up a lab and you start testing this compound in a test tube.
	That's called in vitro testing.
	That may take two to three years.
	If you make it after that, you raise more money and you go kill a bunch of animals.
	Another three years.
	If you find out that you don't kill enough, that you're not killing too many animals, Six, seven years.
	You file to the FDA to say, I want to test my compound on humans.
	They give you what's called an investigational new drug filing.
	It's called an IND.
	And that may take two years to get that allowance.
	And then you go test on small groups of humans, phase one.
	If it makes it out of that, phase two, phase three.
	This process takes $5 billion, 13 years.
	And what's been happening, David, and most of the people at MIT and real scientists know this, over the last...
	30 years, pharmaceutical companies have been tanking because this is a medieval process.
	And the way they're actually doing it, they're basically throwing shit against the wall.
	And then if something works, then they say, oh, I know why it works.
	It's called rationalized drug development.
	So my theory was, and by the way, the drugs that come out, they only work for 10% of the people.
	And this is documented.
	Most of the other people have the side effects.
	That's why when you watch those commercials, they have to say, well, this could happen, that could happen.
	And then you get 30 seconds of disclaimers as to potential side effects.
	Exactly.
	Exactly, right?
	So I thought cytosol would be revolutionary because we could figure out all the shit that's not going to work ahead of time, right?
	And in fact, what happened was after I published my thesis, there was a very important...
	By the way, in the world of science, the number one journal...
	In science, you know, it's like the Academy Awards.
	If you get published in Nature, you're like a star, okay?
	And very few professors ever get published in Nature.
	Anyway, there's an article that came out in Nature saying if you're going to solve cancer, we shouldn't just be using one compound.
	We should be using cocktails.
	There's only one four-drug cocktail that the FDA has allowed that was for, quote-unquote, AIDS, okay?
	And this...
	So when that paper came out, we raised about a million bucks in two weeks, and we said, why don't we use our technology to look at every generic cancer drug, mathematically model pancreatic cancer, which is a very horrible cancer, and could we discover something on the computer, a two-drug combination?
	We just did this as a proof of concept to show the power of the...
	Platform I created.
	And in 11 months, lo and behold, we not only discovered, after looking at trillions of combinations, a two-drug combination better than the gold standard called gemcitabine, we applied for an investigational new drug filing, and we got it allowed by the FDA.
	In fact, one of the senior people, the FDA, called me and they said, you know, we don't normally do outbound calls, but we were so impressed by what you've done.
	It's a future 23rd century medicine.
	They gave us our allowance.
	And we didn't even know we'd get that far.
	And then we went to a cancer center called MD Anderson and we created a relationship with them to continue to advance this.
	But the bottom line is Cytosol was this very powerful way we could obviate the need for drug testing.
	I mean, animal testing.
	So, but pharma moves way too slow and they really don't want to solve the problem.
	They're like a dinosaur, which is making trillions doing the old way.
	And if you look at Pfizer's revenue in 2012, they did 65 billion in revenue.
	Their revenue in 2000, And 20 was, guess what?
	45 billion.
	They've been losing money because of this old system.
	The reason they've been surviving is on old patents, like Lipitor patents.
	And as those drugs come off patent, in fact, year over year now, pharma spends more and more money on R&D, and less and less drugs were even being allowed by the FDA because of the toxicity.
	So pharma, by 2020, realized, shit, we have a major problem.
	That's why the vaccines were so important, because you had Operation Warp Speed.
	Well, that's what I was going to say, because you're saying it took too long to do the R&D.
	You have to go through in vitro, then animal testing, then human testing.
	And it seems that in recent times, we've gone from taking too long to taking warp speed and moving at the speed of science, which might mean too fast before any of these tests have ever been done properly.
	Right.
	And so if you look at Pfizer's revenue, you know, so in 2020, I did this.
	You know, so everything I was doing is based on my scientific understanding.
	So in 2020, you will see 2021 Pfizer's revenue does this V. Now it went to $80 billion.
	2020 to $100 billion.
	If it wasn't for vaccines, Pfizer would be screwed because the entire pharma industry is just relying on old patents and they're not getting new, what's called new molecular entities through NMEs.
	All right.
	So in 2020, when I looked at this, 2019, by the way, I was asked by the National Science Foundation.
	Every once a year, they do what's called a prestige lecture, which is they select a top scientist to give.
	It's a pretty big honor, and I was asked to give the prestige lecture at Purdue, because they have one of the NSF centers.
	And my talk was a modern science of the immune system.
	And what I talked about was, my thesis, by the way, was not only on creating cytosol, but I did a very important part in the immune system called the interferon system.
	And so I was considered, you know, an expert on the immune system.
	So NSF wanted me to give this lecture.
	And what I talked about in that lecture, this is before COVID now, 2019, is I said, look, the modern basis of creating vaccines is based on a 1915 model of the immune system, which includes essentially two boxes, which is what they had 1915.
	Okay, you have the innate immune system, that part of your body when, let's say, someone sneezes on you.
	It is a part of the body which is in the sort of the external part of your body, in your eyes, your nose, right?
	Your skin, your mucous membranes, that when the virus or the antigen hits you, your body like has a bunch of marines in there which try to just randomly kill everything, right?
	These are called neutrophils, macrophages.
	They're not specific to that bacteria.
	They always fire.
	That's called the innate immune system.
	After that, within two to three days, Your adaptive immune system kicks in, which is for that particular virus, using your T cells and B cells create a particular antibody.
	So one is a fast immune system, DNA, and one's a slower one, which creates memory.
	Now, that's a 1915 view of the immune system.
	In 1962, when Kennedy signed the Vaccination Act, it was based on that old view of the immune system, which is everyone should be vaccinated, right?
	One size fits all.
	A lot of the organs with the CDC get created.
	What my work showed is that the immune system is not just these two boxes.
	It involves a third box called the interferon system.
	When someone sneezed, you get exposed to an antigen or you're playing out in dirt, the interferon system turns on these amazing genes, which further protect you.
	And then the adaptive system kicks in.
	But more importantly, we have the microbiome in your mouth, the bacteria, 60 trillion bacteria, 30...
	380 trillion viruses in your gut, your nose, and all these things, we're a walking jungle, turn on.
	So when you get exposed to an antigen, the innate system kicks in, the interferon system kicks in, and antibodies, one small piece, and the microbiome remodels, and the gut-brain axis.
	So I shared this wonderful diagram, and I said, look, the concept of telling everyone to get the same medicine or the same vaccine is ludicrous.
	And in fact, the NIH had agreed, starting in 2005, that you needed to have precision and personalized medicine, the right medicine for the right person at the right time, which is what my grandmother did in that small village, okay?
	So science knows this.
	No one in that room of 200 people ever had any problems with that.
	Now, you can think about it.
	We are bringing up kids in these very artificial environments, right?
	Because they're not, I mean, when I grew up in India, you're exposed to dirt, everything.
	I never heard of allergies.
	Now you have people getting allergies.
	Because when you're exposed to these antigens, all of these systems kick on.
	We're not just talking about just getting antibodies, right?
	That's only one piece.
	So the view of the immune system that these guys had, or the view of the strategy of just generating antibodies, in my view, is no different than you and I going to see a band.
	We think there's going to be the horn section, the drum section, the strings, and all we hear is just a guy playing the snare drum.
	That's what the antibody model is.
	So this was essentially saying, now, the problem we've done is over the last 30, 40 years, particularly young kids, we're bringing up kids in these very artificial environments, so they're on the track to get artificial immunity, which would be a vaccine.
	But if you grew up in a much more natural environment, you don't need a lot of this stuff, and it's personalized precision medicine.
	No one had an issue.
	So in January of 2020, when I saw...
	Well, I noticed because you said the so-called AIDS, and you put it in quotes, and I've read the real Anthony Fauci and know the debate that surrounds defining what AIDS is, identifying it, what the interplay between HIV and AIDS is.
	So if anybody, that's a rabbit hole for everyone to go down.
	Yeah, I mean, Robert Duisburg, who was nominated for the Nobel Prize, and he's a great scientist.
	Who was vilified because he was the first, and he was a guy who discovered retroviruses.
	He was the first one to expose Fauci back in 1994.
	And what happened to him, Dr. Shiva?
	He was blacklisted.
	He never got any more grants.
	And he was a very big researcher, you know?
	But when I went through that body of work in 1994, I said everything Duisburg was saying makes sense.
	Profoundly so ridiculous to think that we've evolved and that our immune system can be destroyed so quickly.
	It doesn't make any sense, okay?
	At just a deep level.
	But anyway, so when I saw Fauci and I had been involved back in 2018-2019 against these vaccine mandates.
	In fact, I led the biggest protest on January 6th, 2020, in my hometown in New Jersey, where we organized 5,000 people and we stopped the vaccine mandate bill.
	We scared the shit out of these congresses going back to, you know, being a ground activist.
	Hold on.
	Is that is it January 2020 or January 2021?
	January 6th, 2020.
	So this is before COVID even makes...
	January 6th, 2020 is when we were fighting this.
	And the next day, suddenly, if you look at it, if you look at the timeline, you know, we find China.
	There's just COVID.
	It's the curious timing because my starting point is March...
	But if you go look at it, there's these things.
	Oh my God, there's this thing called COVID coming.
	It was around that time.
	We won this very important...
	We stopped the Congress people because they saw the anger were forced to table this bill for vaccine mandates and it was a big victory.
	Okay?
	So when I saw suddenly COVID coming, I said, wow, to me it seemed really like what the hell is going on?
	And then I saw these lockdowns coming.
	I did a tweet.
	The first one to do this tweet where I said...
	This will go down in history as a way to push mandated medicine, destroy people's health, and destroy the economy.
	It was a very prescient tweet.
	It went viral.
	I think it got 30,000, 40,000 retweets.
	On that day, I got a call from the White House.
	In fact, a senior economic official whose name I can't reveal, and he said, Dr. Shiva, you know, I'm a professor at one of the large institutions.
	I saw what you just put out there.
	He goes, Trump is not listening to us.
	We think locking down the country is going to destroy our economy.
	Can you please do videos explaining the immune system?
	And I had just done one of them.
	And that's when I had to wake up, because I didn't really know this medium that well.
	And if you look at that time, David, between that time, I was doing two to three videos just purely educating people on the immune system.
	And the immune system, I do chalkboard talks.
	Because I realized that what Fauci and the medical establishment were doing, they were taking advantage of people's lack of understanding the immune system.
	And I have this understanding.
	I have the prestige to talk about it, so I use that to do that.
	And if you look, I did an early video talking about vitamin D3, that it is actually, it's not a vitamin, it's a hormone, more importantly, but it is, it produces these things called cathelicidine antimicrobial proteins, which are like daggers that blow, that lice, that break, you know, blow up the walls of viruses.
	That had, I think, 50, 100 million views, and it was taken down.
	Let me ask you this.
	When was it taken down, if you recall, time-wise?
	Contemporaneously with it?
	It was like May or something.
	It started getting this explosive growth, right?
	And in March of 2020, I wrote a letter to Trump, because I was running for office, by the way, at that time.
	And I said, Dear President Trump, and you can go find it March 23rd, 2020.
	I said, Please do not lock down.
	Let me give you the analysis.
	I said, Anthony Fauci has no understanding of the immune system.
	Okay?
	Or just to be more sinister, he does.
	And nonetheless.
	Right.
	But this was in March of 2020 when no one was attacking Fauci.
	Well, no one knew who he was.
	I don't think, I don't remember when people finally discovered who Fauci was, but I guess it was around that time.
	Yeah, it was around that time.
	But it was, I mean, I, as an established scientist, put my butt out there.
	Okay?
	None of the so-called, and we can talk about the Zagrifters who waited a year and a half to attack him and now do that, were silent.
	Even many of them knew about Fauci.
	So I put my butt out there, and in March of 2020, I wrote that letter to Trump, and I said, don't lock down the economy.
	Take a personalized and precision approach.
	And I gave him a protocol.
	I said, okay, those people are truly immunocompromised.
	Lock them down.
	COVID, yes, lock them down.
	The other people, and I gave four different tiers, right?
	If you want to put them back to work, give them vitamin D. In fact, I gave the dosages, everything, vitamin D, quercetin, zinc, etc.
	Which Zelenko later stolen, bottled it.
	Okay?
	We just gave it away.
	Seriously.
	And Marla Maples contacted me and she said, you know, me and Tiffany love you.
	We did a video together and she had that letter taken to Trump's office, hand delivered it to him.
	And one of the deputy secretaries called me and I said, look, you need to get rid of this fucking guy Fauci.
	He's dangerous.
	He doesn't understand anything about the immune system.
	We don't need to lock down the country.
	Well, no one listened.
	But that was in March, David.
	Okay?
	And just to add, because I'm reading some of the chat in Rumble, people didn't know who Fauci was in 2020.
	They learned in March 2020.
	Even then, once people learned who he was, very few people knew the role he played in the AIDS epidemic.
	Dallas Buyers Club, like, you know, outlawing or blacklisting medications that were off-label but cheap, non-patented treatments for HIV-AIDS back in the day.
	We did a whole video on that back in March.
	On what he did with the AIDS stuff.
	I wish I were as awake then as I am now, and I wish then I was...
	So what happened also, David, was we branded the hashtag, hashtag FireFauci, as a part of our campaign.
	We raised 120,000 signatures, and I have a rickety old bus, man.
	I drove it for 32 hours to D.C., and we hand-delivered it.
	To Trump via the RNC.
	Okay?
	And you go look at it.
	It's out there.
	A year and a half later, Rand Paul, who I wrote to, did nothing.
	Tom Massey did nothing.
	But a year later, then they start using hashtag fire Fauci in their email campaigns to raise money.
	Look, I'll say this.
	It is tough for people to either open their eyes, admit they were wrong.
	Or stick their necks out, and it becomes easier.
	Like I say, courage is contagious, so give it time for more people to do it.
	Let me just ask you one question before I forget.
	You studied SIDS back in the day.
	Now, I grew up with the knowledge of SIDS, you know, put the baby on their back, don't let them sleep on their face.
	I think that was it.
	I had never heard of SADS.
	And now that I've been exposed to the notion of SADS under the current context, people were saying, hey, Viva, what about, you don't think the same thing of SIDS, and I never even asked the question.
	In your studies, and at the risk of asking the anti-vax question, in your studies of SIDS, was there any correlation that you noticed between the phenomenon of SIDS and any increase in the, what's it called, the repertoire of vaccination that was being given to...
	To newborns.
	So we didn't have that data then, David.
	But let me tell you what I think is more...
	So in 2017-18, I wrote a paper.
	I got my first Nature publication in Nature Neuroscience.
	And it was a paper called on the pericytes.
	It's not parasites.
	Pericytes.
	What are pericytes?
	Pericytes are a structure that occurs all over your body.
	In fact, every endothelial...
	No idea what that is.
	Okay.
	It's very important to learn this.
	The endothelial cell is a surface of every vascular tree in your body, your veins, your arteries, your capillaries.
	Your entire body has the tubes that carry blood.
	It's called the capillary at the final level.
	The surface of those is called an endothelial cell.
	We have three different...
	External or internal?
	Internal.
	Yeah.
	So we have...
	About 300 different cells.
	The lung tissues are covered by epithelial cells, right?
	The heart tissues, you know, the circulation system is composed by endothelial cells, okay?
	Endothelial dysfunction is when you have heart issues, okay?
	Well, every endothelial cell has embedded in it this thing called a pericyte, okay?
	And the pericyte is very, very important for controlling wounds of the endothelial cell, all different functions.
	I'm going to be doing a video shortly.
	I've uncovered something quite interesting because what I wrote in our paper in 2016, which has gotten numerous citations, was pericytes also show up in your brain.
	You have your brain and you have the blood-brain barrier, which protects your brain.
	That has so much capillaries in it that if you could stretch it from San Francisco all the way to Los Angeles.
	That's how much...
	Vascularization you have in your brain.
	Now, there's a growing evidence that all of these neurovascular diseases, Alzheimer's, ALS, have to do with dysfunctions in the blood-brain barrier, and more specifically, destruction of the pericytes.
	What I recently found is a very interesting connection between the antigens on a lot of viruses, pollutants, etc., and the pericytes.
	Okay?
	They cause dysfunction, which can lead to blood clots, which can lead to sudden vasculature, CVD.
	And I'll be doing that shortly.
	In fact, I'm going to be submitting a paper.
	But the bottom line is that the human body is a very complex saying.
	I don't like this vax, anti-vax stuff because it basically lets a lot of people get away.
	Because what it's saying is vax and anti-vax.
	The real issue is the right medicine for the right person at the right time.
	The real issue that's going on with the immune system right now is we are literally creating, or we've already created generations of people whose immune systems are compromised because they don't get turned on at a young age.
	Right?
	They've done some very incredible studies.
	Kids who grow up with a dog that goes in and out versus kids who just have the dog inside and kids who have no dogs.
	All the dirt and particles coming when the kid is between the age of, even when the kid's in birth, right?
	Up until five, it really juices up the immune system.
	And by bringing kids up in these artificial environments, we are creating a need for vaccines.
	You see what I'm saying?
	Well, 100%.
	I mean, the one study that I know offhand is in Israel, the prevalence of peanut allergies is, from what I understand, exponentially smaller, if not virtually non-existent, compared to the West.
	And they have the treat called the Bombas, which are peanut-based treats, which they give out, and they don't protect all kids hermetically from exposure to peanuts, nuts, and whatever.
	Unless I misunderstood, the science has changed on that.
	That's my framework to understand.
	Basically, it's like, if you didn't ever work out, in system science, which we teach in our movement, Truth, Freedom, and Health, in system science, one of the key principles of all systems in the universe is a principle called resilience.
	Resilience is the ability to take a hit and you come back stronger.
	It's called stress inoculation.
	The military does it during boot camp.
	You don't want a guy suddenly going out and being shot at.
	He'll freak out, right?
	So you stress inoculate people.
	Nature wants us to be stress inoculated.
	We're supposed to get exposed to antigens.
	We're supposed to go work out.
	We're supposed to feel a certain amount of pain and then come back, right?
	Things remodel and you get stronger.
	Kids are supposed to be exposed to people's faces and human interactions.
	That's how they learn to socially connect with other human beings.
	We're supposed to be utilizing these systems.
	So when we...
	Artificially do this and, you know, like isolate people.
	We are literally, so that's the real issue.
	So the public health issue is not vax, anti-vax.
	A lot of people are making money off that.
	The real dialogue is natural immunity.
	How are we going to do that?
	Now that leads to some very important public health issues, right?
	Far different than, in the midst of this pandemic, by the way, in 2020, we ran the first mask conference where I had written a paper showing what happens Using cytosol at the molecular systems, when you cover up the face, we had mapped out with the Harvard Dentistry School,
	we had mapped out all the molecular pathways in the mouth and the microbiome, and we had conclusively shown that when you cover with the mask, you affect the pH of the mouth, particularly with kids, and you are changing the microbiome in the mouth.
	And when you change the microbiome in the mouth...
	It goes around to the body and to the heart?
	Everything.
	Everything.
	In fact, for kids, the microbiome is plastic, meaning it's remodeling.
	So you're going to affect that kid's life for 20 years down.
	And not only did we do that, David, I would say the reason that the mask mandates stopped was because of the paper that we got out all over the country, for that matter, the world.
	And what we did with that paper was we had that paper, then we taught parents how to go to school board meetings with our paper, pass out the paper, and then...
	Send legal notices, putting them on notice, saying, now you know that harm could be caused and I could sue you in your personal capacity.
	So we integrated, you know, the activism, the science, and the health together.
	But, yeah, so I, you know, so what I do with Cytosol full-time is now we are, we've helped many, many companies who want to formulate, natural products companies, figure out what the right combinations are.
	Two years ago, we had built so many amazing mathematical models.
	I said, what about if we take...
	Every bioflavonoid in nature, and we look at pain and inflammation, and we discover two very interesting bioflavonoids which have an amazing effect on pain and inflammation.
	In fact, we got the first US patent on this a couple of weeks ago, and we wrote a very important paper on this.
	I just have to stop you.
	You just said bioflavonoids.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	I'm just thinking of Professor Frick from The Simpsons who says flavin all the time, and now I think we may have discovered the origins of that.
	Sorry, it's okay.
	Something else, yeah, but bioflavonoids.
	Okay, and you got it, you got it.
	Okay, and actually, okay, sorry, go ahead.
	I have one more question.
	I mean, going back to the invention of email, email is an invention, you know?
	So these dirtbags on the internet who don't want to accept this, they get into this, oh, is it an invention or not?
	Yeah, it's an invention.
	You could start patenting software in 1994.
	Copyright was away.
	You can patent stuff, right?
	It's really interesting that people don't want to accept that I have the actual documentation.
	Look, I know what issue people are taking with this and I'll get to it afterwards because I think people might say that you seem angry as though that's a flaw.
	I think you've seen how people get screwed under the system and whether or not it's made you hypersensitive.
	Or more observant to the corruption of the system.
	That's a separate takeaway.
	But just get back to the one thing, the face mask, increased pH level of the mouth.
	Have we noticed yet increased cavities, for example, in kids that are wearing face masks?
	There's been doctors who've noticed during this period of masks, the number of cavities, the number of mouth issues went up by 50%.
	And it's quite well documented, okay?
	This makes me very angry because we had to...
	And we had to move because these mandates were not coming down anytime soon in Canada.
	Your alternatives were finding schools that didn't impose them.
	And I was never really taken...
	I was never...
	Call me ignorant, and maybe I'm wrong.
	I was never convinced by the carbon dioxide argument, but I was not dumb to the idea of constant humidity over your face.
	Even the kids were talking about, they call it mask mouth?
	Sorry, maskne.
	Acne under the mask.
	That's a different issue.
	But the other interesting thing is this part of...
	Most mammals' face has the highest density of thermoreceptors, meaning it's a very sensitive part of your whole face, right?
	Because, you know, as animals, you use this.
	You watch dogs, right?
	They're using that to sniff out.
	And we use that for...
	So this whole area is a very important part of the face.
	But we showed, you know, and we ran a conference on this in 2020.
	We had like 500 people show up.
	We educated people.
	We shared them the science.
	We gave it...
	So we were doing this in 2020, but integrating the science...
	The activism and the health issues.
	Not only on this issue, but on, you know, the fire Fauci issue.
	But I always like taking the science, David.
	What I enjoy doing is I hated the ivory tower approach where people sit around their coats and talk about science.
	Because I think the science that comes out of there is not that great science.
	But I believe the greatest shit occurs when you take stuff.
	In science, and you translate it to human beings as fast as possible, and you get on the ground and you get your fellow human beings involved, because then you iterate and you learn more things.
	But most people don't want to get their hands dirty.
	Oh, I'm a scientist.
	I'm over here.
	I'm a tenured professor.
	Ooh, should I go out on a demonstration?
	Ooh, I shouldn't do that.
	It's going to hurt my rep, you say?
	So we have this unfortunate golden handcuff system, and we all look up to these false gods to come save us.
	Be it a celebrity, be it this, be it that.
	So, yeah, I have a serious disdain of those people because to me, it reminds me of the caste system, right?
	It's exactly what some people in the chat are saying.
	And I've seen criticism elsewhere that you're...
	Fixated on race and you view things through a race perspective.
	Not a race perspective, a caste perspective.
	And that's why my response early on when you were talking about your experience with being accused of having not invented email, it's not a race.
	You're coming from a background, a trauma, I'll call it a history of trauma of the caste system, and you view that mutatus mutandus.
	Well, you can go into the archaeology, but then you can look at the actual facts.
	We have a caste system in the United States.
	Do you know how many inventions are created by everyone?
	Forget my story.
	Everyone should go study the story of Philo Farnsworth.
	It's very similar.
	A young boy in Franklin, Idaho, who created TV in his small lab.
	He saw how the cows did this action, and he said, oh, that's a Z pattern, right?
	He created the cathode ray tube.
	RCA came to his home, stole everything, and they started manufacturing it.
	He had a patent on it.
	Violated his patent.
	19 years of patent dispute.
	He wins on the 19th year.
	Remember, patents only for 20 years.
	You know, by the time he gets it, he's lost.
	He dies in alcohol.
	It took 60 years for him to get credit.
	Now, why?
	He did it not at MIT, not at Stanford.
	He did it in a small place in Franklin, Idaho.
	Had a loving family, a teacher, and some infrastructure.
	And the hard thing is people don't need to go do psychological analysis.
	The fact is...
	The United States was built on the patent system.
	30,000 companies over the last 20 years in the United States produced $2 trillion to the annual GDP, all small inventors.
	What's occurred over the last 20 years, particularly with the big tech companies, they want to eliminate the patent system and make everything trade secrets.
	There's a fundamental issue and they're using the patent trolls to say we should shut down the patent system.
	There's a deeper issue here.
	So people should not try to do a psychological analysis.
	They need to get their head out of their ass and really look at the fact that great inventions, the founders of this country were very much into innovation.
	This is what made America such a high GDP country.
	It was the U.S. patent system, and it's being completely destroyed right now.
	And the recognition of that, the invention of email, the truth about it, everyone should embrace and take my anger and also get angry because this country was built.
	On this very powerful ability for young inventors to create, get their protection, get notoriety and popularity.
	And credit matters.
	Let me tell you why credit matters.
	Because credit puts where the origin of that invention comes from.
	The origin of email did not occur by the military-industrial complex.
	You don't have to have big companies, big military.
	It occurred in a small milieu in Newark, New Jersey.
	And that is where all great innovations come from.
	There's a professor at MIT, Dennis Noble.
	I think his book is right here, Forces of Production.
	He was a history of science professor two weeks before his tenure decision is due.
	He wrote an essay showing that two MIT professors had gone to a Michigan mechanics home, you know, the automatic windshield wiper?
	They'd stole it and they created the control systems division.
	Okay?
	There is a recurring, ever-recurring process.
	That we are destroying innovation in this country.
	Look, and by the way, wherever they create these centers of innovation, the new model is like genetically engineered foods.
	You're going to genetically engineer innovation.
	We're going to put $5 billion in Kendall Square and all these nerds will hang out together and boom, you're going to get the next Google.
	When I would argue, take $5,000 and put it into a place like Newark, New Jersey, give it to a kid and you're going to have better inventions.
	So we've consolidated innovation into small centers.
	And thinking you centralize innovation and then boom, you get one Google or one Facebook and you should be so happy.
	And this is a fucked up VC model.
	The VCs basically take pension fund money and they're a bunch of dweebs who just put randomly into 100 companies coming out of Silicon Valley.
	They all help each other, get them customers, and they create these bogus companies.
	So we've really lost this grounds up innovation, David.
	That's why the invention of email is an important story.
	And the reason that you see all this vitriol.
	It's because they follow the money.
	Because it goes at the fact that if I can support, imagine 20,000 kids with 5,000 bucks to innovate all sorts of wild shit, that destroys the entire VC and private equity models.
	So people should follow the money and recognize that...
	Innovation can occur anytime, anyplace by anybody.
	You don't need to go to MIT.
	Now, the problem they have with a guy like me is I've gone to MIT and I've had my successes, but I never forgot that innovation occurs before MIT.
	I didn't need to go here.
	You see?
	So I have that loyalty to that realm of where real innovation comes from.
	And the other piece of this, David, is that what is innovation and invention?
	Ultimately, it's an expression of the human spirit.
	If you believe in any sense of divinity of the human being.
	That's where this comes from.
	And when you say, oh, after you go to MIT, then you get to be a nerd and you look like a nerd and be like a nerd, then you get to invent.
	You're basically diminishing the...
	You're essentially narrowing what it means to be a human being to this very limited bandwidth.
	And that's what this is really about.
	Well, now that you mentioned follow the money, that's the segue into the bulk of the story, or at least what I thought was going to be the bulk of the story.
	Your lawsuit.
	The discovery earlier on of what we now are seeing in plain sight with these congressional hearings, your lawsuit, not against Twitter, although it eventually entailed Twitter, but against the government, and it starts with you deciding to run for office.
	So you've been, now everybody watching knows you've been something of an activist, certainly an intellectual, PhD, inventor, American success story.
	And you decide you're a glutton for punishment, you're going to run for office.
	Yeah, so first, to roll back the story, on 2017, there's a woman in Massachusetts.
	Her name is Elizabeth Warren.
	Some people know her.
	Oh, yes.
	So I decided to run against her.
	And I said, wow, you always have all these lawyers coming out of Harvard who get to be senators.
	Why not a scientist or inventor?
	So our campaign slogan was a very powerful one.
	It was a very funny one.
	And it was called Only the Real Indian Can Defeat the Fake Indian.
	Okay?
	And I should go get you one of the, you want to see one of the magnets we made?
	I think we have to see that now, yes.
	Hold on one second.
	Go for it.
	And while everyone says that, I forget, Ninja, you told me the rants function, that plugin would allow me to see the rants.
	I'm going to rumble and I click on it and the rant stats are empty and I didn't screen grab them.
	This is why neuroses is a good thing.
	The one time I don't do it, it screws up.
	Let me see what's going on in the chat here anyhow.
	Yeah, this is...
	Okay, I'm reading some of the chats in response to the real Indian.
	It takes a real Indian to beat a fake Indian.
	Yeah, so we had these magnets made, okay?
	I don't know if you can see this.
	Oh, yeah.
	Only the real Indian can defeat the fake Indian.
	Okay.
	Now, it was a great slogan.
	I think it was probably a great ad campaign, okay?
	We had it.
	A bunch of students got us a school bus, and we had this huge sign on there.
	I mean, massive, David.
	Okay?
	And I own my own building in Cambridge, which is on one of the biggest streets in Cambridge.
	50,000 cars go by.
	And everyone, all the Cambridge liberals, had to see that sign every day.
	Okay?
	Now, what they do, it gets interesting.
	Someone complains to the city of Cambridge, and they say that I have to remove that sign off my building.
	All right.
	The sign is not on my building.
	It's on my bus, which is parked in my parking lot.
	You're referring to a bus.
	Is it an actual, like, a Westphalia-type bus?
	No, it's a huge school bus.
	Okay.
	So we bought it.
	We painted it red, white, and blue.
	And we put these huge signs on both sides.
	Only the real Indian can defeat the fake Indian.
	And the bus is, what, like 100 feet by 20. So it's massive, right?
	So obviously, I'm sure Elizabeth Warren complained, right?
	So we get a letter in the mail saying, you're going to be fined $300 a day if you don't remove that sign.
	So I sue them pro se in federal court.
	I say this is a violation of the First Amendment, right?
	And let's take it on, right?
	City of Cambridge drops a lawsuit.
	We win.
	Okay, it was great.
	All right.
	We sent Elizabeth Warren a DNA test kit.
	Okay, we said take the DNA test.
	The idiot returns the test kit.
	So I said, I'm so saddened to see that Elizabeth Warren, you can find it on Twitter.
	It's funny.
	Right.
	But we had a lot of fun.
	Right.
	You know, Senator Warren returned my nice gift.
	It went viral all over the Internet.
	All these guys had me on because at that time I was like they thought me as a Republican.
	Right.
	Attacking a left winger.
	Right.
	Little did they know that I'm not left or right.
	OK, so.
	What ended up happening was in Massachusetts, a Republican Party is one with the Democrat Party.
	They don't even offer an opposite.
	No one thinks they can beat Elizabeth Warren, but I actually want to beat her.
	So they didn't even want me running.
	So they kept me, essentially they forced me off the Republican, because they have a state convention where insiders decide who's going to be on the ballot.
	So I decided to run as an independent.
	We got all the signatures to get on the ballot.
	You have to get 20,000 signatures.
	And Elizabeth Warren and the Republicans colluded to keep me off the debate stage.
	I had to file another lawsuit.
	Okay?
	It was called viewpoint discrimination.
	So the whole thing was one struggle, right?
	In 2020, again, you know, we decide to run.
	You know, we got about 150,000 votes with zero budget.
	But you couldn't leave Massachusetts, David, without seeing eight foot by 10 foot signs of this everywhere.
	Because people are buying that off a website.
	So it's not like you're not purchasing them and handing them out.
	People are purchasing them.
	People buy this off a website.
	But then we had these big signs printed.
	People also put them everywhere.
	Go on the internet and you'll find them.
	It was a movement.
	And it wasn't really against Warren's issue of race.
	It was really against her lack of integrity.
	That's what this was about.
	And I think people are realizing, like, the woman gets into Harvard.
	And you can see later on it was shown that she used the Native American thing to get in there.
	Yeah, when did she actually do the test and determine that she was, in fact, native in the order of 1,000?
	What ended up happening is I kept escalating it.
	I said, Elizabeth Warren, I'll give you my $10 million building in Cambridge if you take the test, okay?
	We ran a DNA test.
	Basically, we had a lot of fun doing this, okay?
	But we were doing this to expose the hypocrisy of these liberal elites, right?
	They say one thing, one rule for them, another rule for another.
	Finally, the day she took the test was we did this massive guerrilla campaign where we put out 8 foot by 10 foot signs on every freaking highway in Massachusetts.
	And then after I did that, then Don Jr. says, oh, I'll give you $10,000.
	And they try to take credit for our work, okay?
	She takes a test and they had to sprinkle in Peruvian genes to eat, because the way DNA testing goes, it's a probabilistic measure.
	It's not a perfect...
	You know, gene to gene.
	And then she found out that she was one out of, I think, 1-0-2-4 Indian.
	But the interesting thing was, in that election, both the Republicans and Democrats colluded to keep me off the debate stage.
	Both of them.
	Because I think the bottom, and what that reveals, David, is this bigger issue.
	They do not want independent movements.
	These people are affinity frauds, right?
	One group uses, oh, we're Republicans.
	They use that affinity.
	Another group uses a Republican affinity, or Democrat affinity.
	And they just play the stupid game, but they do not want an independent movement.
	In 2020, we decided to run, okay, we're going to run as Republicans, because that year they don't have the state convention where they can do the backroom dealings.
	We collected our signatures.
	Not only do we get on the ballot, but this time we have 3,000 people.
	I mean, our volunteers have grown.
	In every city in Massachusetts, we had grounds up volunteers.
	We raised $2 million with $5, $10 donations, not only from Massachusetts, Over 60% of our donations came from people from the outside because I was doing all these videos, you know.
	So it's great.
	3,000 volunteers, 25,000 lawn signs, 10,000 bumper stickers.
	We had huge billboard signs raised from all these bottoms.
	You can leave Massachusetts without seeing a Dr. Shiva sign.
	The Republicans, this is a primary now, the Republican primary, I'm running, decide to run an idiot against me who was a chosen appointed one.
	It's like they went and found a guy, his last name is O 'Connor, okay?
	In Massachusetts, okay?
	He didn't even have one lawn sign up.
	Maybe two somewhere, right?
	Like, I couldn't see any of them.
	No movement, no grassroots movement.
	And September 1st, 2020 is our primary election.
	Even Republicans who are against our movement said, Dr. Shiva's going to win on a landslide.
	I mean, that was all over.
	And in Massachusetts, there's nine major counties, right?
	One of those counties in Franklin County, and what's really great is, again, to the people who think this is a race issue, whether you're white or black, everyone supported our campaign.
	People saw me as one of them coming bottoms up.
	So on September 1st, 2020, the results are coming in.
	And in Franklin County, which is all hand-counted paper ballots, predominantly, I win by 10 points.
	In every other county, which is all machine-counted votes, 60-40, 60-40, 60-40, 60-40, 60-40.
	And you've got to understand, David, days before this number of people in our campaign were saying, oh, Shiva, the only way you can lose is if they commit election fraud.
	I go, that doesn't take place in the United States.
	Like, you know what I mean?
	It was, even though, you know, I think about things, I'm critical, I never thought that would occur.
	Like, that was seen as some wacky idea.
	So, when the results come in and I see this difference, I said, holy shit, this doesn't make any sense.
	Because this guy was nowhere.
	That next day, I had to put on my hat now as an engineer, as a scientist, and I learned everything I could do, David.
	I read everything for the next few days on election systems.
	And I found out that on the machines, when the ballot paper goes through, when you fill out your ballot and you put it through, what happens is the paper is read by scanners on the machine, first it's scanned, and a digital image is created.
	So the digital image is a picture of that ballot.
	And then artificial intelligence software on that machine searches for the dots, and it's determining the votes.
	All right?
	Let me stop you there.
	With this system, you put the paper ballot down, it scans, it creates an image of the ballot.
	What do you do with the original ballot afterwards?
	They save it.
	Okay.
	They save it.
	You put it through a little...
	Yes.
	Okay.
	By the way, on those machines, there is an exception.
	If it's a write-in candidate, then those are done by hand, okay?
	Because they can't read it by the machine, all right?
	But anything else, the machine analyzes the ballot image, all right?
	And then determines the votes.
	And so the ballot, so what is actually being counted is not the original paper ballot, but it's the ballot image.
	You follow?
	Yep, absolutely.
	All right.
	And according, as I studied this, I found out there was a law passed by a Democrat majority 50 years ago.
	Which was 52 U.S.C.
	20701, which encouraged audits because, you know, a lot of Black people were being screwed, right?
	So people said, hey, we got to be able to audit elections.
	It was seen as a positive thing to audit elections.
	It's a good thing, right?
	You're keeping democracy alive and robust.
	So 52 U.S.C.
	20701 says all data in connection with a federal election, states for state elections can do what they want, must be preserved for 22 months.
	So as I discovered this, I went with two of my volunteers with a camera to the Secretary of State's office with my FOIA requests.
	And I submitted my FOIA requests.
	I said, that was on September 9th.
	I said, I would like the ballot images.
	I want to review them.
	So the guy behind the counter said, oh, we don't save those images.
	I think we deleted those.
	Anyway, I send my email.
	Also, I sent my email request as a FOIA, what's called a public records request, and they have 10 days to respond, okay, to that public records request.
	Well, they didn't respond.
	By the 22nd, they should have responded, so I sent another email.
	The Secretary of State's Chief Legal Counsel, a woman called Michelle Tassanari, very important name to remember, she writes back and says, basically, we don't have to save those images according to law.
	I go, can you show me the law?
	My email.
	Doesn't even answer the question.
	Says, oh, I'm going to send you some PDFs, manuals of the machines.
	They're completely irrelevant.
	I write back.
	I said, you violated federal law.
	I said, this election is null and void.
	You're supposed to save the ballot images.
	So I have now these four emails, two from me, two from her.
	I take those four emails, David, and I go on Twitter and I tweet them out because it's a threaded tweet.
	Because each image, I said, Secretary of State's office.
	Deleted 1 million ballots hyphen ballot images violating federal law.
	Okay?
	And then the next, and I put the first email, and then the next email, and this is what they responded.
	It was a tweet, sorry, it was a tweet with the emails embedded.
	Boom!
	On September 25th.
	I've never been thrown off Twitter since 2000.
	The primaries are done already.
	This guy beat you in the primaries?
	September 6th.
	But we had moved our campaign to a write-in campaign.
	People are so pissed.
	So I'm still a U.S. Senate bona fide candidate, but now running as a bona fide write-in candidate.
	Okay?
	So we got screwed.
	We're running as a write-in candidate.
	So I'm still a bona fide candidate.
	And I'm still on Twitter, tweeting away.
	But when that...
	Went out.
	Within 24 hours, I'm thrown off Twitter.
	Okay?
	One of these fake fact-checking organizations.
	Do you remember which one?
	If you name them, I remember.
	Well, you got USA Today.
	You got Snopes.
	You got PolitiFact.
	You got USA Today.
	Let me see if the chat's going to get any more.
	Yeah, it's up.
	I forget which one it is.
	It's a guy.
	I remember this guy's face because I called him up and we did a Zoom with him.
	Oh, then you got Reuters.
	I mean, there's so many.
	This was one of these Facebook fact-checking organizations.
	Puts out a thing saying, Dr. Shiva is lying.
	Look how clever they are.
	Millions of ballots were not deleted.
	Yep.
	Wordsmiths of the devil, Dr. Shiva, is what I called them.
	They brought up the word images, right?
	I said ballot images.
	But they did something very in my favor.
	They said, you know, we called up the Secretary of State's office and they told us they had contacted Twitter.
	I said, wait a minute.
	The government contacts Twitter, okay, to throw me off.
	I didn't know enough about election law, but I knew something about the First Amendment.
	I searched day and night to try to find a lawyer who would sue them on violation of the First Amendment.
	This is like political speech is the most protected speech of the First Amendment, right?
	I should be able to say whatever I want, as vile as the comments can be against the king, right, or against the senator.
	So I wasn't even saying anything vile.
	I was just exposing.
	They're malfeasance.
	They didn't give you an explanation, like you disclosed someone's email address, private information?
	No, no.
	By the way, this is a public official.
	The email address is right on the website.
	No, no, but that's what I mean.
	I'm just asking if they gave you an explanation.
	Yeah, it said, I think, election misinformation or something.
	Okay, fine.
	I forget what it was, okay?
	And they forced me to delete those tweets and threw me off, okay?
	I go into...
	So I couldn't find a lawyer, so I said, I'm going to do it myself.
	Let me stop you there.
	Why couldn't you find a lawyer?
	That's one question I have to ask.
	I don't know.
	Because you are going against...
	Great question.
	In Massachusetts, the Secretary of State, you know what his nickname is?
	I don't want to make a joke.
	Prince of Darkness.
	His name is Billy Galvin.
	And the story goes, everyone's afraid of this guy.
	Okay?
	And you have to understand, the legal community doesn't want to take on government in many ways.
	In their own state.
	You know, Massachusetts may file something in...
	Because they have to do deal-making, right?
	And that's what you really start waking up to, all right?
	So I couldn't find any lawyers.
	So I had to study case law, and I wrote my first brief, and I wrote my lawsuit, and I also asked for a preliminary injunction hearing.
	Those people who don't know what a PI hearing is, it's a higher threshold to get a PI hearing than even to get the lawsuit hearing.
	Because a PI hearing, you're telling that you have to convince a judge, this is an emergency, I need you to...
	Color of right, balance of probabilities, irreparable harm.
	And I'm a Canadian lawyer, but I mean, it's a preliminary injunction.
	You have different types, but it's like, it's an urgent stopping of the harm.
	Exactly.
	And the threshold is high.
	Yeah.
	So you have, you ask for a temporary restraining order, et cetera.
	So anyway, I filed that and, you know, we got very lucky.
	The judge decided to take this case on.
	Okay.
	So I go into court on October 30th, 2020.
	Two weeks before that, I written to Tucker Carlson.
	I said, Tucker, I'm suing the government.
	This is a very important case.
	I was thrown off Twitter.
	You know, I didn't know about the backdoor portal, none of that, okay?
	But substantively, the case was still significant.
	And I've communicated with him before, okay?
	So we go into court on October 30th, 2020.
	It's me against three Harvard-trained lawyers, the Secretary of State's attorney, and their social media director.
	And it's done on Zoom, right?
	COVID was occurring.
	And by the way, everyone can verify every statement I'm saying is in transcripts.
	We cross-examine at one point the social media director.
	And the judge says, you know, I don't know a lot about Twitter, so tell me, walk me through the process, what you did when you saw this tweet.
	She goes, well, we were very alarmed that he was saying this misinformation.
	She goes, what did you do?
	Oh, she goes, we reported it to Twitter.
	And he goes, how did you do that?
	He goes, oh, we have this thing called a Twitter partner support portal.
	And he goes, what's that?
	He goes, oh, it gives us VIP access to Twitter.
	And he goes, let me get this straight.
	You have this partner support portal.
	And he goes, what did you expect would happen?
	Well, we expected our complaints would get moved to the top of the queue and Twitter would take care of it.
	Top of the queue.
	There's no one else in line.
	It's exclusive access for the government.
	Right, right, right.
	So the judge is listening to all this.
	He goes, you know, I'm sitting under the statue of Lewis, the painting of Lewis Brandeis, who's one of the preeminent scholars for constitutional law.
	And he said, I don't know if you know this, but we live in essentially America.
	I'm paraphrasing his stuff, right?
	And I still believe the First Amendment is important.
	And then he says, what happened when his tweet was taken down?
	He goes, well, we were relieved.
	Okay?
	We were relieved.
	And they said that multiple times.
	And the judge turns to me and he goes, are you still off Twitter?
	I go, yeah.
	He goes, are you running for office?
	I go, yeah.
	So he basically gives us all the terms of the TRO.
	And he orders the Secretary of State, you will no longer contact Twitter.
	If you have any problems with Dr. Shiva between now and the end of the election, you will tweet against his tweet.
	A TRO for those who may have temporary restraining order?
	He issued this verbally.
	It's written.
	You can see it on the website.
	The orders are there.
	And so that's October 30th.
	So we've discovered that the government has a backdoor portal into Twitter.
	How long is that TRO to remain in effect for?
	Up until election day ends, November 4th.
	Okay?
	Okay.
	All right.
	And then the entire event here was that...
	The judge basically said, if you have a problem with this speech between now and then, you counter bad speech with your own speech, right?
	He goes, did you ever think about doing that?
	Oh, no, we've never come to our mind to do that.
	Because government also has First Amendment rights, right?
	But they cannot contact someone to subjugate their speech, which is what...
	That'll be on the merits as to whether or not...
	I mean, on the temporary restraining order, you know, prima facie, and then let it be determined on the merits.
	Right.
	But you're suing the government and not Twitter.
	So it's not as though you're saying, you stop contacting Twitter, not tell Twitter to put me back on.
	Yeah, no, no.
	We weren't...
	Yeah, so we weren't...
	So we weren't asking for that.
	We were suing government in their personal capacity for interfering, right, in essentially violating the First Amendment.
	It was state action.
	That's what we were arguing.
	Did the order get you back on Twitter?
	No, because the judge said you will not communicate with them, right?
	Because we thought Twitter was going to put me on imminently, right?
	What ends up happening is I don't get put back on Twitter until November 4th after the election's over.
	So I lose 26, 36 days.
	You have to understand, Twitter was my platform.
	David, if anyone goes and looks at my tweets, I would do a tweet, even though I only had about $250,000, which is pretty good.
	I would get 30,000 retweets.
	I had massive engagement.
	Others have 3 million followers, and they do a tweet, they get 5 retweets.
	Dr. Shiva, I'm going to tell you this, that smashing victory is pyrrhic.
	So he says, okay, government, don't talk to Twitter while he's still off the platform.
	It makes you feel good, and it doesn't do anything to resolve the problem.
	Exactly, right.
	But the issue was...
	The notice that I had gotten from Twitter was that you were suspended, right?
	You're going to be back on at some point in seven days.
	But it didn't happen, you see?
	So the bottom line is I don't get put on.
	Literally, I get put back on Twitter on November 4th after the election's over.
	All right, so I'm back on Twitter now.
	Between November 4th to February 1st, I'm tweeting about every subject you can think about.
	You know, my position on vaccines, my position on Fauci, dot, dot, dot, dot, dot.
	On February 1st, everyone's saying, Dr. Shiva, remember, that was a PI hearing.
	What's going on with your lawsuit?
	So I give a synopsis of my lawsuit.
	I give an analysis of the backdoor portal we discovered.
	And I once again share those four emails mentioning Tassanari.
	The keyword Tassanari, who's a woman who threw me off.
	Contacted Twitter.
	Who was presenting herself as just some lowly lawyer at Twitter.
	All right?
	I mean, at the Secretary of State.
	Boom.
	I'm thrown off within 17 minutes of putting out that tweet.
	It's a very important number to remember.
	17 minutes.
	All right?
	I did the tweet.
	I think it was 9, I think 43 p.m.
	At 10 p.m., I'm off.
	And this time permanently.
	Okay?
	Monday morning, I go back into federal court.
	I said, Your Honor, they violated, you know, the spirit of your order.
	Right?
	And I argued that when they had Notified me on that first suspension to Twitter.
	The wheels were in motion.
	I was on their radar.
	You know, and especially if I use the word Tastanari in those emails.
	Because, you know, all the AI bots can...
	You post an image that's on the blacklist and then by the time they scan it, they'll mark you.
	So anyway, so I go back into court and the judge is upset.
	And he goes, this time for me to give you full restitution...
	I need you to bring Twitter into the courtroom.
	Absolutely, because he's going to issue an order that directs conclusions against a party that's not there to have made representations, so you have to go and plead them.
	Yes, otherwise they could get away, and there's some interesting areas of law there.
	I had to prove certain things called the Blum test, and I had to learn a lot of case law.
	By the way, in the first lawsuit, in the first part of the TRO, I successfully analyzed the Blum test, which has to do with state action, and the district attorney is a Harvard-trained guy.
	He was fumbling around, and it's very funny to watch, and it was a good pat on my back.
	The judge says, he goes, this guy isn't a lawyer, and he has argued the Blum test perfectly, and you haven't done anything.
	He goes, did you even prepare for any of this?
	So anyway, the judge says, you need to bring Twitter into court.
	That means I have to amend my second complaint, which I sent you, that second amended complaint.
	He gave me the opportunity to amend the complaint, add everything in, why I should bring Twitter into the case.
	Because now we're adding not only the Secretary of State, not only...
	By the way, we discovered there was an organization called the National Association of State Election Directors.
	N-A-S-E-D, which came out in that TRO hearing, who had also contacted Twitter to throw me off.
	N-A-S-E-D is a non-profit who represents all state election directors.
	A non-profit.
	Oh, yes.
	Okay.
	Run by a woman called Amy Cohen, who had received funding for her organization from the Zuckerbergs.
	Okay?
	The Center for Election Innovation Research.
	All right?
	All of this is public.
	Okay?
	You can see it all.
	So Amy Cohen's organization.
	With the force of 50 state election directors, it called Twitter.
	The Secretary of State's office of Massachusetts, it called Twitter.
	So we filed the second amended complaint, and I'm supposed to, I believe, I may have the dates on, I think I'm supposed to present that on May 22nd.
	The night before the hearing, again, I'm doing all my briefs, David.
	No lawyers helping out.
	And I am trying to put together my opening statements, and I keep trying to figure out what is this Twitter partner support portal, PSP.
	I can't find anything about it.
	And I'm searching and searching and searching.
	And finally, on a server in England, I find a document, a letter written by Katie Minsall.
	I believe she was the general counsel for Twitter in the United Kingdom to the parliamentarians in the UK.
	Basically, they were deploying this portal in the UK first.
	And so UK parliamentarians could silence a speech.
	UK citizens.
	Remember, the Brits don't care about the freaking First Amendment, right?
	They hate it.
	I'm from Canada.
	It's much less robust and we're very similar.
	Prince Harry calls it bonkers, right?
	And then I was able to find that this document later led to a set of playbooks.
	And by the way, people go to winbackfreedom.com.
	They can see all the...
	And we were building the site since 2020, putting everything up.
	We find four playbooks.
	So this is where I just need to stop you.
	Where do you find them?
	I've been watching a lot of interviews with you.
	So the first document that was on a server was a letter.
	That led me to find out Katie Minsall worked at the Belfer School.
	What do you mean when it's on a server?
	You're on Google, I presume.
	Yeah, it was like a PDF on some UK server.
	You don't see it.
	It was like on the 10th page.
	It's not obvious you find it.
	Yeah, on a web server.
	Then I find out that in 2018, the government of Massachusetts, senior officials in the Republican Party, Democrat Party, SISA, had all met together at the Belfer Institute, which is an institute at Harvard, called Defending Democracy.
	They always call it something anodyne, you know?
	They call it something absolutely contrary to the actual purpose.
	And the guy that is ahead of this is Robbie Mook, who was Clinton's...
	Campaign manager.
	Okay?
	And they put out, and the head of that belt for Senators, a guy who came out of the Pentagon, I forget his name, he's on that diagram.
	If you see our diagram, you'll see it up there on winbackfreedom.com.
	So these guys had felt it was Jared Daub to defend democracy, and they had put together a playbook, part one, part two, which was called the Election Influence Operators Playbook for state and local officials.
	And in this playbook, they actually have sentences which say, if someone questions elections being corrupt, they should be blacklisted.
	Okay?
	They should be watched.
	So I was saying these elections may be corrupt.
	Playbook 2 gives a step-by-step SOP, those people don't know in engineering terms, standard operating procedures.
	Step 1, watch them.
	Step 2, identify who they are.
	And it gives severity levels.
	And they give a sort of an algorithm.
	Are they of credibility?
	Okay, an MITPHE may be credible.
	Do they have lots of followers?
	Yes.
	Do they have high engagement?
	If they're their high severity influence operator.
	Okay?
	It's all, it's in black and white.
	And I'm reading this shit and it sounds like it's, I can't believe this.
	Okay?
	And then it shows after you find them, first mark them and then continue monitoring them.
	And I said, this is exactly what happened to me.
	I was marked on September 25th.
	And I was continually monitored.
	That's why I was being platformed.
	And they call it influence.
	They don't call it interference.
	Exactly.
	It's a beautiful euphemism.
	Yes, it's all euphemism.
	Euphemism after euphemism.
	And in that document, they have the Twitter partner support portal, a similar way that you communicate with Facebook and YouTube.
	And nobody ever denied the authenticity of this document.
	Even the government recognizes.
	But I was the first one to find it and expose it in broad daylight.
	By the way, the academics are very interesting.
	They will write shit over here.
	And I didn't get that much sleep.
	The next morning is our And, you know, there's close to a thousand people on the Zoom hearing, David.
	It was like everyone was coming there to watch this.
	It wasn't like no one knew about this.
	And remember, I'd already sent Tucker Carlson the October 15th email, the October 30th email saying, we won, Tucker, you should cover this.
	Nothing.
	Silence.
	Everyone remember, October 30th, 2020.
	Okay?
	So now, on May 22nd, if my date's right, I go into, and I'm sitting in the same room I am, like this, and there's...
	Thousand people there.
	They have all their seven lawyers.
	The three top lawyers from Wilmer and Hale representing Twitter.
	Okay?
	The three lawyers from the Secretary of State and the one lawyer representing Nasset.
	So seven lawyers against me.
	Okay?
	So I give my opening statement and I say, Your Honor, all of these defendants have been lying to you saying they don't know each other.
	I said, let me open this document.
	He goes, what is that document?
	I said, Your Honor, these are documents called playbooks that all of these people authored and their names are right here.
	And they authored these documents to silence the speech of U.S. citizens silently using these backdoor portals.
	And that's what they've done.
	And he goes, what are you talking about?
	So I start reading from him.
	He goes, I need you to submit that as evidence right away.
	The chief legal counsel at Twitter had submitted.
	Also, she said, oh, your honor, Dr. Shiva's lying.
	He wasn't thrown off.
	You know, we went through a serious process over.
	36 hours.
	You know, when we saw that tweet, we had people review it overseas and we did this, this.
	And I said, your honor, she's lying.
	He goes, what do you mean?
	He goes, I was thrown off in 17 minutes.
	That didn't occur by any review.
	And so we had to file another affidavit exposing her and he basically reprimanded.
	This is a lawyer, Stacia Cardilla, okay?
	Who's no longer a Twitter.
	So all of this we're doing on our own.
	Let me just stop you, though.
	The judge says, admit this.
	This document has to be filed as evidence.
	Yeah.
	And it is, in fact, admitted as evidence.
	Yeah, so you can see it on winbackfreedom.com.
	So not only do I submit all those playbooks as evidence, but I also submit my exposing Stacia Cardilla, who was a legal counsel, associate legal counsel, who had lied, saying that they went through this very interesting process and, you know, a committee met.
	Bullshit.
	I was thrown off in 17 minutes.
	No committee meets in 17 minutes at night, okay?
	And that same day when I was thrown off, I found a conference proceeding where Stacia Cordilla was at the same cocktail dinner with the Secretary of State of Massachusetts Legal Counsel.
	So...
	It's a big club, Dr. Shiva, and we...
	Right.
	So anyway, what happens is the judge is like, there's supposed to be a two-hour hearing.
	It goes on and he's questioning Twitter.
	He lets me give my opening statements, etc.
	He says, I want to have another hearing tomorrow.
	So second day we go in and the judge starts a hearing.
	He says, you know, before I start this hearing, I want to say I got up at six in the morning and I read everything Dr. Shiva presented.
	And he goes, this case will be taught in every constitutional law class in the United States.
	And then he looks at me and he goes, look, you've done all this on your own and it's quite impressive.
	And by the way, Wilmer and Hale, Twitter's chief legal counsel, started accusing me that I had shadow counsel.
	Who cares?
	Shadow counsel means they couldn't believe the quality of my briefs.
	No, I know, but what difference would that make?
	Okay, so you have shadow counsel.
	But I didn't.
	But the thing was, that's how good my briefs were, man.
	I mean, just to put it in context, I'm saying I work my butt off.
	I learned a lot of stuff, and I love the law in many ways.
	It's actually fascinating.
	It's like piecing together a very interesting puzzle.
	In that morning, the judge says, I went through his thing, and he goes, you know, he says, this will be taught in every constitutional law class.
	And then he says, he goes, would you like me to appoint you a lawyer?
	I've told you that.
	I think you should get your own lawyer.
	And I was refused.
	He goes, I have the authority to take funds, and it's been rarely done.
	It's typically done in criminal cases for public defense, right?
	I can give you a constitutional lawyer.
	And, you know, when a federal judge says that, you sort of have to sort of...
	You know what?
	I'm so cynical right now when the federal judge, if anyone says that, I'll give you a lawyer.
	No, no, but the thing was, you see, I was working my butt off day and night, David, you got to understand, and running a campaign and running my companies.
	You know, I do this full time, right?
	I mean, I'm doing all this stuff.
	I probably got two hours sleep, right?
	So I said, okay, I said, I'll consider it.
	And he said, this guy's name is Howard Cooper, and I want you to meet with him.
	Howard Cooper is a senior partner at a firm called Todd& Weld.
	And I didn't know this.
	Howard Cooper was representing Dershowitz at the time, who was fighting the Jeffrey Epstein, that whole area, okay?
	So anyway, I take Todd and Weld, and the goal was that Cooper was going to take my briefs and brief them even better so it could survive appellate review, right?
	And the signals were the judge wanted to give me a victory, okay?
	That's what the signals were, right?
	Because he wanted to be...
	You know, he said, you know, this case, you know, I wish, because he had been in the Whitey Bulger case, and you could see the judge wanting to be the judge who ruled on a major precedent.
	All right.
	So that hearing was set for July, seven weeks later.
	So during that time, I keep calling Cooper.
	I said, Cooper, have you done the memorandum of law?
	In my lawsuit, everyone should understand, all the viewers, I wasn't just looking to go back on Twitter like Berenson was, okay?
	I wanted to hold these individuals.
	Accountable.
	In their personal capacity, David.
	And you know you have to overcome qualified immunity.
	You might be going after a prize that you're not going to ever get.
	Right.
	But I had the predicates and the statutes for it, okay?
	And Cooper, I presume the punchline of this is going to be, Cooper is going to say, I'm not doing that.
	Or you're not going to succeed.
	But the judge, the goal was he should brief it up.
	In fact, the judge said, Howard will help you.
	It was never drop any.
	Claims, right?
	That was never in the discussion.
	So as weeks go by, three days before everything's due, Cooper had frankly done nothing.
	Okay?
	Nothing.
	Who's paying him?
	I'm paying him.
	You're paying Cooper?
	Yes.
	And not discount, just to try to understand- A discounted rate.
	Yeah, a discounted rate.
	May I ask what that discounted rate is in the States?
	Are we talking like 500 bucks an hour?
	I think it was like 300 bucks.
	You know, these guys charge $800 an hour, right?
	So anyway, three days before, he says, you know what?
	It's basically my way or the highway.
	You have to drop.
	You should be lucky to get back on Twitter.
	You'll make history.
	You know, this lawsuit will go down in history.
	But you should drop all the claims against them.
	I said, Howard, you don't even want to try, you know?
	You don't even want.
	I mean, qualify to me because I had the predicates and people have won.
	So anyway.
	He didn't think I was going to fire him.
	I said, you know, Howard, you're fired.
	So in three days, David, I had to do all those briefs.
	So you fire him and you don't ask for an extension for the hearing because you...
	No, I did ask for an extension.
	So we typically, you go to the...
	So I fired him and I found a lawyer that I knew to help me because remember the judge's order was to have a lawyer and bring this guy in, but he was on vacation and typically lawyers are congenial to other lawyers, right?
	Typically.
	So he calls up the other counsel and goes, look, I need an extension.
	Okay?
	And the other lawyers are saying, oh, Howard was such a great lawyer.
	Why did you get rid of him?
	He was so great.
	I'm like, the defendant's lawyers are praising my lawyer.
	And so they wouldn't give us an extension.
	So in three days, I had to do the work of seven weeks.
	Okay?
	Got it done.
	Okay?
	Memorandum of law, this, that.
	I mean, it was like, no sleep.
	Go into court.
	And the judge knew we'd fired Cooper.
	It was like day and night.
	Everything had flipped.
	The judge who was so supportive of me, like, why did you fire Cooper?
	The defendants attend.
	Why did they fire?
	Why did he fire Cooper?
	It was going into a pit of vipers, David.
	If you see, they don't allow you to tape those things, but the Zoom hearing.
	And overnight, I was basically being lynched, like as though I had done something wrong.
	We have every right to get rid of a lawyer.
	They should have given an extension.
	And they start gloating against me.
	And I said, Your Honor, this has nothing to do with my lawyer.
	The issue is that these defendants' attorneys are happy because they want to distract from the facts that they were involved in creating the government censorship infrastructure against every U.S. citizen.
	I bring it back on point.
	And then the judge then says, I'm going to seal your lawsuit.
	Because what had occurred, David, was what I forgot to mention in June of that month, three weeks before, and everyone should look this up, it's on our website, Stanford University, I actually have it here.
	Oh, here it is, yeah.
	Stanford University had, oh, it's not here.
	Stanford University had published the Long Fuse Report, which was a 300-page report, which was analyzing, like, academics, post-mortem, what had occurred.
	And that report listed me as one of the six super spreaders on the internet.
	A super spreader of disinformation.
	Super spreader of quote-unquote disinformation.
	And they said that I was using a technique, which I wasn't even using, where I would do a tweet and I would send it to a YouTube long-form video.
	And they said this was a very powerful technique.
	And they had ranked me as the same influence as Trump in their analysis.
	You should go see it.
	I want to see if I'm on it.
	I was sending tweets to Long...
	I'm joking.
	So anyway, the LongFuse report confirmed everything in the playbooks.
	But more importantly, the LongFuse report gave us the details of all the parties.
	And that led, David, to me creating this.
	Let me show it to you.
	This is up on our website.
	We created this massive diagram of all the players.
	Every player who's involved, From Tassanari up here to the entire CISA board and how they created these playbooks and the backdoor portals.
	Okay?
	This was included in my lawsuit.
	Got it?
	Yep.
	The judge did not want this getting out.
	Okay?
	So he seals my lawsuit.
	And he orders me, you will only, and he's screaming at me, you will only file a lawsuit, pointing his fingers, with only one amended complaint.
	For injunctive relief to just get back on Twitter.
	He didn't want me to do anything else.
	It was like, it felt like, it was like a pit of vipers, man, that I'd stepped into.
	And I think what these guys wanted was, you know, to be on Martha's Vineyard, toaster martinis.
	Oh, didn't we protect the First Amendment?
	We let that guy back on Twitter and everything's fine.
	So what I did was, and I was then also going to be, what is it, Rule 11, okay?
	Sued also.
	They wanted to take this whole thing to another.
	The whole case flipped.
	So what I did was I wanted this information to get out, more importantly.
	And I didn't want to drop my claims against the government.
	The individuals also.
	So I did what the judge ordered.
	I filed the lawsuit with that one claim so I could get all this information in there, David.
	Because I wanted the public to see this.
	And then filed it.
	And then walked away.
	Okay?
	Because I didn't want to give them their freaking little victory of saying they defended the Constitution and I was their little house slave that they used.
	You see what I'm saying?
	I didn't want that.
	And now, the end point of the story is that I'm going after the federal government right now.
	And I'm going to do it pro se.
	Because that's when it worked better.
	So, in that process to sue the federal government, which is DHS and SISA, You have to give them six months notice, which we did.
	And in three weeks, sorry, three, 90 days, we'll be filing that suit.
	But that's the background, man.
	All of this was done in October 30th, 2020.
	And imagine if these quote-unquote conservative media people had covered this back then.
	In October of 2020, we found the portal, the backdoor that was used to silence a Republican U.S. Senate candidate.
	But the problem is...
	Republicans here in Massachusetts colluded with the Democrats, you see?
	And I wasn't part of the club.
	When you say I'm not part of the club, I'm not part of the Republican club either.
	So the most important thing I think comes out of this is that the discoveries that we made are highly relevant.
	In fact, this one of the congresswomen took portions.
	By the way, people steal portions of this diagram, but they leave out very important.
	When you look at that diagram, David, you'll see the government officials who are involved left and right to create this back-end portal.
	But you'll also find out that the back-end portal is buffered by a non-profit called the Center for Internet Security, which runs EIP.
	And it runs this back-end portal infrastructure.
	So government goes through this NGO and then the NGO sends a portal so government can say, oh, we didn't do anything.
	It gives them...
	That deniability, so it's laundering censorship.
	Well, guess who built the Center for Internet Security or funded a large portion of it?
	Okay.
	Zuckerberg or...
	Pierre Omidyar.
	It gets worse.
	Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire who funded The Intercept, founded it.
	So everyone should go do a little bit of research on Omidyar.
	He's the one who started eBay.
	He bought PayPal from Musk et al.
	And he's freaking everywhere.
	It's just open public information.
	And he starts all these institutions with, again, these anandine terms.
	Oh, The Intercept.
	We do investigative journalism.
	Well, he's right here in this diagram, man.
	I mean, in this diagram, you'll find Omidyar.
	He's the one who funded the communications protocol between government through the clearinghouse.
	So no one covered any of this.
	But the good news is, David, if you, I don't know if I can share my screen.
	Go in the back, you share it, and I'll be able to bring it in.
	And I just sent everyone the EIP long fuse report.
	Yeah, so here you go.
	Let me share the screen just to let people know a couple of, yeah, you can share it now.
	Well, make sure you got the right thing before I share it because then I'll see us.
	Oh, okay, hold on.
	So you got to go into present.
	Yep, go ahead.
	So I...
	You know, if you go to winbackfreedom.com, if you just type in winbackfreedom, it'll bring up this page.
	We have a simple URL.
	And everything here is documented.
	This is that entire piece.
	Every line here, David, we have like a PhD footnote on this.
	When you go through this, there's a much more high-resolution version of this, if you want me to bring it up.
	But you will find out, here's Tassanari, who is presenting herself as just a...
	The legal counsel for the Secretary of State, she's actually on the General Committee, Executive Committee of SISA, which was signed into law by Trump and supported by all Republicans.
	SISA and all of these people who are from left and right brought these people together at the Belfer Institute, Robbie Moog, Tommy Hicks, all these people, and they're the ones who wrote these playbooks, which detail the super architecture to create the backdoor portal between DHS, all these guys, into the election.
	Through CIS, which is right here, to silence speech silently.
	Okay?
	So I recommend people go see this.
	But the other thing is you'll find out that we didn't stay quiet.
	What I ended up doing is we ended up building our own movement, Truth Freedom Health.
	We did video after video after video.
	You see all these videos, David?
	Yep.
	We were getting our shit out independent of whether Tucker or Glenn Greenwald or any of those guys covered us.
	We were out there.
	Let me ask you this.
	I'll bring this down.
	Send me all the links and I'll put the links in the pinned comment.
	I just need to make sure I understand how the lawsuit itself ended.
	Did it end just with you dropped all the claims against the individual defendants?
	Let me go back to that.
	So what I did was, no, the judge ordered me to, otherwise I was going to be reprimanded and sued and all this stuff, to just file one claim, which is just to get back on Twitter.
	May of 2020 was no longer about getting back on Twitter.
	It was like, what the hell?
	You have this entire government infrastructure that you've created against a U.S. citizen.
	And as an activist, I'm in the center of it.
	I'm not going to just get back on Twitter.
	That's a very selfish thing.
	See what I'm saying?
	He just wanted me to get back on Twitter.
	And so we filed what would be, I guess, the revised second amended complaint, which basically just had one claim in there.
	To get back on Twitter.
	And then after doing that, I said, you know what?
	This is not what this is about.
	And I just dropped, so I sort of surrendered to get this larger victory, which is to really expose all of this.
	Okay, so did you, I don't know if the word is going to be, desist, did you drop the entire claim so there's no negative ruling dismissing your claims against the individuals and you say, I'm going to file a new suit against all of them in their individual capacity?
	Yeah, so what happened was the judge forced me to dismiss all those, okay?
	With prejudice or without prejudice?
	With prejudice.
	Yeah, I have to go look at it, David.
	Because if you can refile again, then I guess I'm just curious as to how the judge makes you dismiss, like dismisses your claims.
	So what he did was he ordered me to do that.
	In parallel, he said, I'm going to start magistrate hearings against you.
	On what basis?
	Rule 11. Rule 11 is, oh, you're making claims that you shouldn't be making.
	They're frivolous claims.
	Okay?
	And rule 11 is a vehicle that the judge has, but my claims were not frivolous because they've been in there from day one.
	I guess if they had been in there from day one and they didn't get more frivolous based on the evidence, unless he's just going to say frivolous because you can't go after them because of the well-recognized qualified immunity.
	In my opinion, being in the trenches, what happened was...
	Remember you said when a judge says, do you want a lawyer, the light should have gone off?
	And they should have.
	On May 22nd, when he said, or 23rd, when he said, do you want a lawyer?
	I think what happened was he picked up the phone to Cooper, who he's used before.
	And I think what happened was he said, shit, these guys got us by the balls.
	Remember, Bill Galvin is known as a prince of darkness in Massachusetts.
	He's been in there for 40 years.
	He knows everyone.
	And I can't, you know, there could be a movie made on this, but the bottom line is this.
	The way he behaved, the change of, you know, emotions here was quite clear.
	Let's just put this guy back on Twitter, right?
	And, you know, that's it.
	Let's just get him off and let Twitter can deplatform him later again.
	And we can say the state didn't do it.
	That was, I think, what the strategy was.
	But to me, when I found all this stuff, it's no longer about getting back on Twitter.
	It's this entire backdoor portal.
	It's the entire government censorship infrastructure.
	And these people were part of it.
	I have all the evidence.
	You should go read my RICO predicates.
	I've had other people read it.
	They go, wow, you can overcome.
	You can make a good shot.
	And any lawyer worth their salt would have at least fought for it.
	Not just said, oh, I don't want to do it.
	So that's what happened.
	And what you're seeing now is everything I discovered then, two years later, what happens?
	On October 28th, if you...
	If we go back to this site, by the way, I want to just walk people through, if I can, David, this site here.
	David, are you there?
	Yeah, I'm here.
	I think your internet's getting glitchy.
	Yeah.
	Oh, it is?
	Hold on.
	Yeah.
	Can you see me?
	Yeah, I can see you now.
	I don't think it's on my end.
	Yeah.
	So what I've added, so if people go to winbackfreedom.com.
	The first part of it, you can go click on the first link, and it'll take you to all the lawsuit.
	Every brief is here, David.
	I just want to guide people, okay?
	All the lawsuit, the long fuse report, all the playbooks, everything's up here.
	Every brief that I filed in federal court's here, David.
	You see that?
	I'll bring it up.
	Let me get the window.
	Oh, no.
	You've got to go present.
	Oh, I thought I did.
	No, because I think I may have removed it from the stream.
	Okay, sorry.
	So let me present again here.
	All right.
	So let me share here.
	All right.
	Yeah, there you go.
	Okay.
	So when people go to winbackfreedom.com, you'll find out that the first link here, David, says link to Dr. Shiva's lawsuit, and this will take you to all the briefs.
	So everything's up here.
	We've been fully transparent, okay?
	All the final brief, everything's up here.
	The other thing that we also did was...
	More recently, I decided to go after the government itself, given, and I wanted it, the goal is to take it out of Massachusetts, right?
	Because I don't trust any of the judges here.
	And this is a lawsuit we just started.
	There's a video here against SIS and DHS, because these are the guys who created this domestic censorship infrastructure.
	And then more recently, I also added this section, which is about the intercept and DHS leaks.
	Do you remember this, David?
	About October, early November, big breaking news, DHS leaks.
	Do you remember that?
	Trying to think of...
	No, I don't remember that offhand.
	So these two Intercept guys says, oh my God, we discovered this backdoor portal, okay?
	The DHS is involved.
	Well, Intercept claims they're this investigative news organization.
	The problem is, if you look at Pierre Omadir, he's the one who funded the Intercept, but he's also funded this infrastructure.
	It's all in black and white.
	He's funded the Center for Internet Security.
	So here's Pierre Omadir.
	He funded the Center for Internet Security.
	And one of the things we wanted to show people was, why did, so The Intercept drops this article on October 30th.
	On October 29th, Musk announced the sale of Twitter, okay?
	I went, I'm not on Twitter still up until that point, David.
	Remember, I've been deplatformed until very recently, until December.
	And I said, Elon Musk has not put Dr. Shiva on Twitter.
	I said, the infrastructure still exists, right, to silence speech.
	And I tell him about this.
	The day after this, suddenly The Intercept drops the story, but they leave out a critical part of their story that Omidyar, who's a funder and funder of their company, is the one who funded the Center for Internet Security, which is the one who does the laundering of censorship.
	You can look at the infrastructure.
	The JIRA stuff that that woman showed comes out of here.
	So the other thing I pointed out here, and I want people to walk through is, because I want people to have recognized that...
	When they did this, I was wondering, what is it that they were doing?
	Because they didn't release the whole story.
	They wanted to make people feel, oh my God, isn't it amazing?
	The Intercept is breaking the news.
	And I said, this is so fucked up.
	Because we had exposed the entire truth about the entire censorship infrastructure.
	They only released just one little piece of our diagram, David.
	And what I learned was there's a process that the intelligence community uses called the limited hangout.
	So they conceal and delay the story.
	Which is what they did.
	Then they plagiarize it, misattribute it, they hijack it, they put out a little piece of it, and then it gets amplified.
	Half-truths.
	By proxies who conceal the truth.
	And you can see this.
	This is an intelligence agency technique.
	All right?
	So in our case, after we did this, The Intercept puts out their story, and you can read about what a limited hangout is.
	It came out during the Nixon administration.
	The Nixon administration knew that they were going to get nailed on Watergate, so they did a manicured version of the story to manipulate people.
	It's amazing because you have different terms for it than I did, but when I was describing how the Canadian media and the Canadian government was responding to the convoy...
	And at first it was outright denial.
	And then it was admitting that a convoy existed but redirected to the convoy that wasn't the main convoy, something in British Columbia, a local convoy.
	Then demonizing, then admitting after having demonized.
	So you got all the same steps.
	It's this process.
	So I had, from a system standpoint, as an engineer, I was very curious about this because I was like, holy shit, right?
	This is exactly what they did, and they want to attribute as though The Intercept is some great organization doing investigative journalism.
	Now, the other piece of this is what I haven't shared, and I want to talk more, is independent of everything that's happened, we created a global movement called Truth, Freedom, and Health.
	We trained people on systems processes, on science, on engineering, all of this.
	But we kept going.
	David, you see this?
	We did video after video after video after video.
	So we got this out to close to 200 million people when I counted all the views.
	And this is a problem that Tucker Carlson...
	And all these conservative grifters have because we got our story freaking out there.
	And people started having respect for us independent of these, right?
	So the real journalists like myself were deplatformed and called conspiracy theorists, while The Intercept and their colleagues who proliferate half-truths are called investigative journalists.
	So if you look at Pierre Omidyar, the guy's everywhere, okay?
	And this is not me.
	This is done by one of the other organizations.
	It's a beautiful diagram.
	It looks like a living organism, a cell.
	Yes, but the ACLU, who my attorney was on the board of, knew about this.
	They did nothing.
	But when the intercept story starts, boom, they amplify it, okay?
	They put it out everywhere, okay?
	Oh my God, this is horrible, okay?
	Glenn Green, Tucker Carlson, here's my email to him.
	On October 20th, here's my email to him on October 30th.
	Here's my email to him after, on May 14th, okay?
	All of these Tucker got, and he did nothing.
	Same with Green.
	And by the way, when he interviewed two years later, Lee Fang at The Intercept, look what he says.
	He goes, this seems like a really important story, which is for some reason being ignored.
	Are you fucking serious?
	You ignored the story, Tucker.
	Well, I'll give Tucker the benefit of the doubt.
	He may have been in touch with you, but maybe it slipped under the radar.
	And to people out there who I know are saying, Dr. Shiva, all you want is the credit, and that's what you're angry about.
	Now I'm sort of understanding, because that was sort of one of my initial reflexes as well.
	We should talk about credit.
	Because let's talk about credit, okay?
	Because people, it's a very important discussion to talk about credit.
	When I ask for credit, Oh my God, you want credit, but Tucker Carlson show, Glenn Greenwald, every Hollywood person gets credit.
	Why is it people don't ask when other people take and steal people's credit and they're in the limelight?
	Why is it people have a problem giving credit to the person who actually did it?
	Let me tell you why academic credit, why credit matters.
	And I never, look, the invention of email, I could have gotten credit back in 19. It's a very important story because we're brought up to be humble Indians, okay?
	Credit matters.
	And there are a whole class of people who fight tooth and fucking nail for credit.
	The Academy Awards, right?
	The Grammys.
	Are you fucking serious?
	Go talk to a lawyer as an entertainment lawyer.
	No, no, no.
	My client's name's got to come first.
	He's got to come first.
	That's where, you know, all the shit.
	So people need to stop being naive.
	Yes, I am going to fight for rightful credit.
	Why does credit matter?
	Because it shows the origin.
	Of where truth and hard work emerges.
	The invention of email took place bottoms up in a small medical college by a hardworking immigrant kid, not by the military industrial complex, and credit must be given there.
	This event of discovering all this did not occur by Republicans, did not occur by Democrats.
	It occurred by an independent scientist inventor and a movement of 3,000 people in Massachusetts.
	Now, do you not want to give credit to that?
	Well, something's wrong with you.
	Credit must be given to the rightful owners because it inspires people.
	It inspires people, David, to start having value for themselves.
	The elites keep giving credit to themselves, and it's a brainwashing to wait for false gods.
	Ooh, Elon Musk is going to save us.
	Ooh, Donald Trump is going to save us.
	Ooh, Bernie Sanders.
	Ooh, AOC.
	This is a brainwashing that's occurred in America, so people are denying the greatness of this country.
	The First Amendment was an amazing experiment which said you as an individual can have a connection with your creator.
	You can put your ideas forward.
	And what we've happened now is people are becoming fat, dumb, and lazy.
	Ooh, why does he want credit?
	Fuck you, I want credit because I did the goddamn work.
	Ask anyone who was here day and night watching me do the work.
	We exposed it.
	I wrote the code for the invention of email.
	Do I want credit?
	Yeah, guys like me, an Indian, the elites are the ones who bucket people.
	And when I mean the elites, it's a multiracial aristocracy.
	If you're a blonde woman, you must be stupid.
	If you're a redneck in the South, you must hate all white people, right?
	If you're an Indian, you must be, move your head left to right and speak lowly and be a poo running a restaurant.
	They've created all these themes.
	The problem is I'm not a good Indian.
	That's what really bothers you.
	So I ask people who have a problem with me asking for credit, reflect on whether your own sense of racism that you may have.
	And when I mean racism, a segregation of about how people are supposed to behave.
	You will not find many Indians being vocal as I am.
	You'll find Deepak Chopra talking like this.
	Okay, meditate on your kundalini.
	That's all right.
	Or a guy with a turban.
	I'm sorry, I'm not a fucking good Indian.
	And that bothers people.
	And people need to get over their own prejudices.
	I will demand credit because the credit is not only to me, but to those hardworking people in Massachusetts who did win an election.
	It was stolen.
	And the guy worked his ass off to expose this.
	And we didn't get one fucking penny.
	All these grifters right now in Washington are attacking Twitter.
	And they're all doing these little theatrics.
	And they're all going to ask you for your donations.
	Where the fuck were these people, David, in 2020?
	Nowhere to be found.
	And that's what the real issue is.
	The real issue comes down to that the United States, 4% of the global population has something called the First Amendment.
	No one else has it.
	And Americans are forgetting this very noble service that they're supposed to do.
	And maybe because I'm still an immigrant, came here at 7, I value this country more than people who have lost the value of these things.
	Yeah, damn right, fucking right, I want credit.
	Because a credit goes to...
	People like me who come bottoms up.
	Not the Kennedys, not the Fauci's, not the Trump's, not people like Bernie Sanders who's never held a job.
	It should go back to everyday hard fucking working people.
	And if people have a problem giving credit to yourselves, then you need to have some self-respect and dignity for yourselves.
	Because you've lost it.
	Elon Musk, I'm sorry, where Elon Musk ends and where government begins, nobody knows.
	I put 20 tweets out there, Elon.
	Are you going to take down the backdoor portal to Twitter?
	Silence, silence, silence.
	SpaceX, $5.7 billion from government.
	Tesla, funded by bullshit CO2 carbon credit tax.
	Tesla would not be profitable without that.
	Twitter, the Congress of the United States and Silicon Valley are hand in glove.
	Section 230 is necessary.
	For Twitter, Facebook, Google to have their 10x valuations.
	Let me explain that.
	Here's the bottom line.
	If you're a platform, a social media platform on Wall Street, you're valued at 10 times revenue.
	If you're just a publisher and you're running your website, David, you're valued at 1 times revenue.
	Or maybe 2 times.
	How does Twitter get their 10 times valuation?
	Twitter does 5 billion in revenue.
	They get a $50 billion valuation.
	The New York Times does $5 billion in revenue.
	They're only going to get a $10 billion valuation because Twitter is deemed a platform which cannot be sued by Section 230 immunity.
	And every once in a while, you see, Congress will pull these CEOs in and scare them, and suddenly it goes away.
	Silicon Valley owns probably 80% of Twitter right now.
	And those same Silicon Valley people...
	Need to ensure Section 230 immunity doesn't go away because that's how they're going to garner their profits.
	So Congress will do their theatrics like they're doing right now and will take money on the back end through donations and keep Twitter Section 230 immunity live because it's a 10x on values.
	Twitter lost their Section 230 immunity today, followed their money.
	They're going to lose $40 billion in value.
	So Musk is a clever monkey.
	Okay?
	I mean, by any regard, you can put him next to AOC and Greta Thornburg.
	So conservatives, listen the fuck up.
	But now you think he's fighting for you?
	Are you fucking serious?
	This guy is playing you.
	He has not talked about the destruction of the backdoor portal.
	When I was on, I was called on the Twitter files with this guy, Mario Nafal.
	They had me on there.
	All the grifters were there.
	Tom Fitt and everyone you can talk about who all knew about our lawsuit.
	Didn't do nothing because it wasn't going to generate them revenue.
	It was going to give attention to our independent movement.
	So I said, you know, our lawsuit was done in 2020.
	I didn't see any of you guys there talking about it.
	I said, Twitter files is a limited hangout.
	You guys are talking, talking, talking.
	Oh my God, oh my God.
	Is Elon Musk going to take down the backdoor portal?
	That still exists.
	Silence.
	These guys aren't activists.
	They're grifters.
	This country, the United States was built on people who had science, knowledge, and they got on the ground and they did stuff.
	That's what...
	People need to wake up to.
	And the good news is, David, that we have a movement that is historically what's happened in the arc of American history, world history, is that people come up bottoms up, everyday people who want their credit for work they do.
	And as they build these movements, the elites snuff them out, snuff them out, snuff them out.
	In the 1900s, they learned a very special way of snuffing out movements.
	In this country, in the 1800s, when the great upheaval took place, And by the 1920s, you had millions of workers protesting on the streets.
	Independent movements.
	It was those workers' movements that won the right to get the eight-hour workday to end child labor.
	All those amazing things took place by these bottoms-up movements.
	By the 1950s, the elites said, shit, we can never let bottoms-up movements come.
	So we're going to brand all those movements as communists, as Marxists.
	That's what we're going to do.
	And then they let the left Democrat leadership take over those unions.
	Between 1900s to 1970, the biggest growth in the U.S. economy took place.
	GDP explosively grew, and all workers' wages grew.
	Why?
	Because 100 million workers took to the streets and exercised their rights to strike and organize independently.
	After 1970, the left wing fucked over the workers, and the right wing said, anytime you organize independently, we're going to brand you a communist, socialist, Marxist.
	Hammer and sickle.
	So between 1970 to today, there's been really no movement.
	We're the independent movement.
	This is why the trucker's convoy got fucked, okay?
	And we were supporting those people.
	David, we can talk about that.
	So there are no bottoms-up workers' movements because the left and the right work together to destroy organic movements.
	We...
	What I've created here, what our movement's created here, after what we saw in all this bullshit, is a global movement.
	About 250 million people know about us.
	We have 350,000 people who are involved with us.
	Daily, we meet.
	Daily, weekly, monthly.
	And we are building a bottoms-up movement.
	And we will expose all these conservative grifters and the left quote-unquote woke people because they're just creating this affinity dialectic of bullshit.
	They do not.
	They delay truth.
	They do limited hangouts.
	Why didn't they do this in 2020?
	Very simply.
	Because if they'd done it in 2020, Tucker Carlson could have had an effect.
	And on that same day, on October 30th, 2020, Tucker also said, we should start going light on Hunter Biden.
	Go read it.
	It's out there.
	So they have a process among the elites.
	Okay, we're going to release some of the news now.
	They'll probably tell the guy, look, I've got to put this shit out there.
	But don't worry.
	At a certain point, I'm going to say we've done enough on you.
	Okay?
	So they take a hit and then you move on.
	It's called a limited hangout.
	It is a technique that they've mastered.
	And that is what we want to teach people, David.
	We want to teach everyday people they've gotten this down to a systemic process of manipulation.
	And the end goal of it is that you as an individual do not have self-respect for yourselves and do not cohesively work with your neighbors and build a bottoms-up movement.
	Because that is the only thing that is ever shown in history to win anything.
	You know, in India where I come from, I mean, I haven't been there in a while, but my dad told me that the low caste people, David, were told that they were dumb and they couldn't study.
	There was one guy who was an activist.
	He ended up becoming the chief minister of India, a guy called Kamraj, only had an eighth grade education.
	He said, the reason our people are fucking, you're saying they're stupid, is they don't have any protein in their diet.
	So he started the school lunch program.
	Within one generation, you see all these great people coming out.
	The bottom line is, When everyday people come bottoms up, we let go of the left and right.
	And that is why, let me just share with you, I want to talk about the solution.
	As a systems guy, I don't want to just preach how horrible the world is.
	Can you see this, David?
	Yep.
	So we have a movement called Truth, Freedom, and Health.
	And it says, get educated or be enslaved.
	And we say, yeah, the guy invented email.
	And a lot of people hate to hear that.
	So we put it in their face.
	Yes, I did invent email.
	Has created a system.
	And what we do, David, is saying we have a global community of 360,000 people now.
	And we have everyday people's stories.
	Electricians, entrepreneurs, who go and they learn MIT-level system science.
	And we have a history of winning.
	But the problem that we're solving, David, is this.
	There's a ton of information out there right now.
	But in the middle of all this information, it's not like people are getting healthier.
	We got more anxiety, more depression.
	We have 2.5 billion people obese.
	40% of people want to overthrow their government.
	So it's not like information gets us more truth or more freedom.
	And the reason is that those in power have figured out a system as best as I can explain.
	I can probably do it better, but information is filtered through a process called ignorance.
	Now, ignorance, in my view, is you take the entire censorship infrastructure.
	You don't talk about all of it.
	By the way, the Epoch Times, Joshua Phillips, shame on him.
	He knew everything with us.
	He said, oh, I'm going to wait until see how the lawsuit goes.
	He literally takes our diagram, plagiarizes it, but leaves out Pierre Omidyar, Zuckerberg, and the Murdochs, okay?
	So that's what I call not telling the whole truth.
	So people get delusion, confusion, and what's happening right now, David, either people become desperate, want to hurt themselves, hurt others, or they become complacent, let me go to the top of a mountain, you know, and just meditate, or they get into this left-right bullshit.
	And this is, in my view, Look, I supported Trump, gave him money, but at the end of the day, he was part of this grift.
	And the only way out of this, in my view, is we have to educate the individual to become their own gurus, their own teachers.
	They need to be able to understand the science of systems, where you see what we talked about, where you just said, and we talked about genes, David, the interconnections.
	That gives you wisdom.
	You get clarity.
	Now you get active.
	You want to go talk to your neighbors.
	You want to innovate.
	You get organized.
	But people, as I say on the site here, you have to ask, do you want to let go of the old system?
	And what we've created, David, is an entire infrastructure.
	And this infrastructure begins with taking all that knowledge, MIT knowledge, Eastern medicine knowledge, political knowledge, and it's a foundations of systems course ice to teach us at MIT.
	We give this as a part of this.
	We have...
	Books.
	Some people learn what is a system?
	What is revolution?
	We give the scientific paper I wrote back in 2007.
	Another tool I did in homage to my grandmother was I was able to decipher this systems approach.
	People can actually understand what kind of system they are, how a food will put you off course, and how you can figure out the right diet for you.
	You understand how food is a system.
	We do regular lectures.
	But most importantly, David, we want people to join.
	A community so they don't feel desperate.
	There's some very smart people.
	Everyday people.
	And then we get people on the ground, David, to hand out flyers, go door to door.
	But we are building an independent movement, David.
	And that is what bothers them because the reason they didn't want to cover us, they go, holy shit, he's not in the left and right.
	Okay?
	We can't control this guy.
	If we give views over to him, we're going to become irrelevant.
	So in 2020, this wasn't covered because One of your points was it was uncomfortable for them to cover them this early.
	Two, they were going to give us all the credit.
	And even now, they actually plagiarize our stuff.
	In basic journalistic ethics, you should reference it, which they don't.
	But the cool thing is, David, that enough people are getting this, that they're recognizing this left-right nonsense.
	Right now, here's my prediction on the censorship network.
	Elizabeth Warren and Lindsey Graham are getting together to draft a bill.
	That bill will be under the aegis of child safety or safety, and they're going to legalize that illegal portal.
	They did this in 2010 when government was using telecommunications companies to do warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.
	It was illegal.
	There was a class action suit being done.
	The Congress retroactively passed a law.
	To protect all those telco companies.
	So that's what I believe is going to happen.
	And it's going to be under the, they're always being of safety, child safety, child safety.
	So that's one development.
	The other development that's going to happen is you're going to see people like Tulsi Gabbard, the next one that they have in line, the next sort of neo-Trump, okay?
	They're going to keep pulling these people out of the woodworks to keep people engaged in outsourcing their stuff to false gods versus the individual becoming their own liberator, the individual connecting with their neighbors.
	And that's what we want to do, because I don't think there's any other way.
	Otherwise, we're just going to be spinning our wheels and complaining.
	Dr. Shiva, I'm not sure that we can end it with anything better than that.
	I know I'm clipping some of that.
	It was glitching for a bit at one point, but I'm going to clip a ton of that.
	We will have other things to talk about.
	We might have to do it in a part two because it's been two hours and 35 minutes already, Dr. Shiva.
	Wow.
	Hey, why do you call yourself...
	Is Viva Frey means long-lived freedom?
	Well, my last name is Freyheit, my full last name.
	And so when I was just creating the YouTube channel back in 2014, I went with Viva Frey, like live free.
	And I had originally live free or die, and my family said, yeah, you could take out the or die part.
	Where are you from originally?
	Montreal.
	Okay.
	Now, you were on YouTube, and then we went to Rumble.
	And why do you do that, David?
	So I have an exclusive agreement with Rumble, which I end the live streams on YouTube, bring everyone over to Rumble, because this is where you can have the discussions.
	I'm going to put this up on YouTube, and if it gets dinged, it'll get dinged.
	We'll see.
	But it's good.
	We want to get...
	Yeah, because I have a bunch of followers.
	We'll put this back out on our channels.
	Go ahead.
	Take the whole thing and share it.
	And I'll put it back on YouTube so that it reaches...
	The bigger playground, but we want to get the traffic to rumble because this is the platform where we can have these discussions without fear of, you know.
	One of the things I want to share, you know, we have every Thursdays, this is at 11 a.m. and 8 p.m.
	We do it for Europe and for here.
	We do these things called orientation.
	I'll send you some links via shiva.com slash orientation.
	And then we do our courses Mondays, but we literally go door to door now.
	And when we go door to door, we're going to invite people to learn about natural immunity, learn about the scientific method, learn about how their body is a system.
	We want to teach people these skills, which you can't get anywhere.
	And I think that's where we're at.
	It's basically this level of ignorance everyday people are being put under.
	And because there's so much information, people are getting so confused or desperate.
	So that's one of the problems we want to solve.
	The other thing I want to mention to you is that it's probably a longer discussion.
	We can follow up on it.
	You see, everything we see, you hear about AI, right?
	Some people think we're living in a simulation, right?
	All of this world of control is coming from the Newtonian model of being able to predict objects' movements, right?
	It's a deeper discussion.
	But in the last 400 years, we've been living in this world of Newtonian mechanics, which basically says that everything is predictable, right?
	So everything becomes predictable.
	You get into a nihilist environment, you say, well, that means my future is predictable.
	People are collecting all this data on people.
	That means I could predict what David's going to buy tomorrow or do tomorrow, what ad to send him, and so on.
	And the predictability means you can take someone's consciousness and transport it into a robot, right?
	Like ChatGPT, which, by the way, is basically as good as how it's trained, right?
	But when you really look at the true nature of science, which only got discovered in the late 1950s, Most of nature is not predictable, mechanistic.
	It's actually unpredictable.
	Most of nature is unpredictable.
	And order actually comes out of disorder.
	And it's a very interesting concept, which is what most of science really is, but no one wants to talk about this, which means an individual's thoughts, how we do on an individual level, can have profound impact on a larger, you know, chaotic systems.
	And there's some very profound understandings.
	That came out.
	And the guy who brought this up won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1957.
	But most of the academics do not want to talk about this because they want a mechanistic description of the world.
	Predictability.
	Because then you're basically telling people that you're predictable.
	You're not a human being.
	So that's why we say truth, freedom, and health is really the opposition to power, profit, and control.
	And anyway, I think I'm done for...
	It was amazing.
	I'm looking at some of the comments.
	There were some rumble rants.
	I'll read those separately later.
	It's phenomenal.
	You've satisfied the one question I have, which was about the credit.
	I was more erring on the side of...
	It's controlled disclosure of information.
	So it's not a question of denying the credit, but when you deny the original source, you can control the framing of the information as it has to come up because it can't be hidden forever.
	But I very much appreciate what you said.
	So what they have is you have the original person who does all the hard work to whatever.
	In science, this occurs.
	Then they typically conceal it.
	It was concealed.
	I don't even want to give these people.
	You concealed it.
	And then you release it by The Intercept, one of the establishment's authorities, okay?
	But you only release a small piece of it.
	And the goal is a limited hangout technique is to make sure people just go away.
	Oh, and they trust Glenn Greenwald.
	They trust Tucker.
	They trust the ACL.
	Oh, they did their job.
	Great.
	And then when that fails, because we attacked The Intercept, as I told you, I wrote to the Pulitzer Prize Committee, then they have to do the full unlimited hangout.
	And that's what Stephen Miller did.
	Okay, they had him say, oh my God, we discovered this portal.
	Give me money.
	And then Trump says, oh my God, I can't believe this portal exists.
	I'll take it down when I become president.
	Again, you know, paying homage to the false gods.
	But in this process, truth is delayed.
	And delayed truth is deadly.
	Delayed truth is how they manipulate it.
	I think I mentioned this to you when we spoke on the phone.
	A very interesting docudrama came out where they're interviewing the vice admiral of MI5's liaison to the media.
	And he says, we don't give a damn how much the public knows.
	Give them all the information.
	We only care when they get it.
	When, when, when.
	So all of you listening out there, go look at when Tucker Carlson starts talking about big tech censorship.
	When all these conservative grifters start talking about it.
	When?
	Because the when will lead you to who?
	The true source.
	Why credit matters.
	and why the mattering of credit is directly related to your own liberation?
	And what is it in you that does not want to give credit to that 14-year-old kid who did invent email in Newark, New Jersey and wants to give it to the military And I would argue that it comes from your own...
	sense of not wanting to take power of your lives and not wanting to have the self-respect.
	And an American in 2023 better have that because the tip of the spear of all the workers movement is in this country.
	And when the First Amendment, which I believe has been decimated by now, when it's gone, India doesn't have the First Amendment.
	UK doesn't have the First Amendment.
	Australia doesn't have the First Amendment.
	We do.
	And so that's why this is so important for me, David.
	This is why I spent so much time, you know, doing the lawsuit and doing this because I know what happens when you can't have speech.
	As a scientist, if you can't have speech, freedom, you can't do science.
	You don't get to truth.
	And if you can't do truth, you don't get health.
	And without health, you can't fight for any of these things.
	So these are all intimately connected.
	So when we say truth, freedom, and health, we don't put an ampersand.
	We say truth, freedom, health.
	They're all equal.
	We can't have yoga Nazis fighting for their health over here or the nerds talking about innovation alone or the First Amendment, Second Amendment people.
	All these people need to recognize a scientist must be a freedom fighter and healthy.
	A redneck who wants to fight for his First and Second Amendment better be healthy and better learn some science.
	And a person who wants to be healthy better learn science and also fight for freedom.
	All these three things have got to come together.
	So that's what...
	You know, I've concluded is very, very important.
	And all of these things at one time were together.
	We separated.
	In many ways, we fractured our own human psyche.
	You know, the thinking human, the working human, the fighting human, all these were fractured.
	We all got to come together on this.
	I love it, Dr. Shiva.
	You'll send me all the links and I'll put it in the pinned comment on both Rumble and YouTube when it goes up.
	Everyone in the chat, we'll stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, I'll see everyone Sunday.
	Maybe it's Super Bowl Sunday, but thank you for being here.
	This was amazing and people now know the story.
	Dr. Shiva, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.

▲