214 Comments
Oct 14, 2022·edited Oct 14, 2022

Textbook Saul Alinsky Rule for Radicals #13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”

Expand full comment

Right! Commie 101. Deny and project and always use corrupted science to drive a narrative. Accuse you of wat they are actually doing. Once you are aware of the commie way you can't not see it when it's in plain sight...

Expand full comment

Gottlieb: "I'm unconcerned about debate." "Unconcerned"? I thought real scientists ENCOURAGED debate and testing?

Expand full comment

That is exactly what he is concerned about! The threat of the truth is the only threat that matters to these people.

Expand full comment

Not TODAYS “scientists”. I have more respect for Dr. Frankenstein.

Expand full comment

Or for that matter, Dr. Demento!

Expand full comment

Would all the real scientists in the room please stand up? Anyone? Anyone?

Expand full comment

BUELLER? BUELLER?

Expand full comment

RM— Bueller is most likely a better scientist than the Covid cool aid drinker crowd of scientists. He could skip school in style. That is very sciency

Expand full comment

Dark horse podcast

Expand full comment

Hé does not want debate of course because he is a murderous sociopath.

Expand full comment

He said he was unconcerned about debate in that he has no issue with debate being carried out on social media platforms. He said he has concerns about physical threats on those platforms, not about debate that takes place. He was not saying that he does not believe in debate.

Expand full comment

He was saying he doesn’t believe in debate without saying he doesn’t believe in debate. Why would a liar want to debate anything? That would force him to make a fool of himself. C’mon!

Expand full comment
Oct 14, 2022·edited Oct 14, 2022

Libtard control grp,

Double speak. Get back to us after you have read 1984 , Animal Farm and the third one!

I have had a third class of vino.

If you knew anything about Medicine ie MD, you would know he is a lying sac of shi...t on the take.

Prove me wrong somebody.

Expand full comment

Cool your jets, sparky. I am neither liberal nor retarded. I have recently re-read Animal Farm and 1984 (along with a great many other books). In fact, I am often seen wearing my "1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual" shirt. But, of course, you would not know that because you don't know me at all. You do, however, resemble the hordes of liberals who, not knowing someone at all, jump immediately to ad hominem attacks when they either do not understand a point or are unable to peer through their own filters to understand a point. Gottlieb may be a lying sack of shit (certainly seems like he is), but what he said in the interview, for anyone who actually watches it, is that he is "unconcerned with debate" in the sense that he is fine with debate being carried out on social media. He may be lying through his teeth, but that is what he said. He did not say in that interview that he objects to all debate. Again, he may, in fact, object to debate, but that is not what he said in this interview. Me making that observation and pointing it out does not make me liberal or retarded.

Expand full comment

Gottlieb is a lying sack of shit. It's clear that he doesn't want to debate and that's why he's throwing this smoke screen about Berenson making threats against others. It's complete shit and as long as he can convince people like you that he's a reasonable guy, we now have to go down that rabbit hole and determine if Berenson actually threatened someone when we know damn well he didn't. The whole point is that this guy contacted Twitter to censor Berenson for questioning vaccine safety and efficacy. What's worse is that CNBC is enabling Gottlieb to shape the fake-news narrative and make out Berenson to be a crazy conspiracy theorist who makes physical threats against others.

Expand full comment
Oct 16, 2022·edited Oct 16, 2022

I have been convinced of nothing by this interview. I think this guy is one of the host of villains in this entire mess and worse than most. It is, however, possible to say that Gottlieb is a lying sack of shit who should be raked over the coals AND that this interview (the subject of this substack) is not actually evidence of him being a lying sack of shit who should be raked over the coals. Both things can be true. The interview is, at best, a very small piece of ancillary evidence to show a pattern of behavior. I just think this little mini outrage machine is wound up over an interview that proves nothing at all. If I were AB, I would absolutely not run off to sue the guy over this interview. Hopefully in the troves of disclosure that Alex has (very little of which we have seen), there is plenty of demonstrable evidence to do just that. In the meantime, I will discontinue commenting on this stack as it seems no different than anywhere else these days... stick to the accepted meme or be branded and flogged. I will go back to my remedial reading (currently a book by Linus Pauling on the wonders of vitamin C).

Expand full comment

whoah, whoah, whoah... don't give up on commenting on this stack! A little criticism is good for the soul. I think I agree with you more than I disagree with you. Stick around, we have cookies.

Expand full comment

I am with you on this Control.

Expand full comment

That does not follow as all Alex did was present documented facts that Gottlieb was trying to have him banned for sharing other documented research facts about the ineffectiveness the Jab. Not a threat in sight other than to Gottlieb's veracity and integrity.

Expand full comment

Unconcerned MEANS Uninterested you late to the back of the class Libtard.

Expand full comment

Even Enstein's theory of realtivity was still "theory". It has yet to be proven. It's a brilliant concept and has it's basis in alot of mathmatics and careful study. And chances are Enstein had it right. But anyone in the sciences knows full well what theory is. But masks aren't even theory, they just don't work, fact. Just as vaccines have been proven not to work.

Expand full comment
Oct 14, 2022·edited Oct 14, 2022

Yes Jerry's, but I scott, am not a real Doctor, I just play one on TV for Big Bucks.

On thé TV épisode he dies after doing coke in the hot tub with a prostitute.

Just saying. And then you never know if it was Deep State who realized everyone could see right through his lies and he was determined to be too large a risk and a fake. The hair. The face. That is what happened in the TV show. Sopranos all over again.

Expand full comment

Well, he is not a real scientist so…

Expand full comment

It's equivilent to saying" I'm unconcerned about the theoretical premises or the scientific method" I'm always concerned about unproven science, like climate change.

Expand full comment

Sue for slander immediately. I’m so sick of these lying assholes trying to deflect blame from their own criminality.

Expand full comment

Consider the possibility of crowd funding a lawsuit against Gottlieb.

A lot of us would contribute.

Expand full comment

"Asshole" is Word for the Day. (Thanks, Beth!)

Expand full comment

I realize I am going to get hate posts because I don't 100% agree with everyone on this forum on this particular topic, but I doubt one could successfully sue over the statement "I am very concerned with physical threats being made against people’s safety and the people who gin up those threats against individuals. That concerns me."

I can see why people hear "the people who gin up those threats" as meaning Alex, but one can also see this as a generalized statement about theoretical villains.

I do agree that the things in Alex's post of last night are worthy of suing over, I'm not sure this rises to that level.

Here is an even more inflammatory thought for you all: Is Alex's statement "Scott Gottlieb just slandered me on live television" slanderous to Gottlieb?

Expand full comment
Oct 14, 2022·edited Oct 14, 2022

I am with Alex on this and a number of issues, but I agree with the comment above by marlon that this interview is a non-starter. The interviewer teed Gottlieb up by making claims about what Alex said on Tucker and asked Gottlieb if he wanted to "respond to that and tell us your side". Gottlieb responded by saying "Yea, look, I am not going to comment directly on that, and he's threatening litigation too, so another reason not to respond." He then goes on to say that he has "raised concerns around social media broadly" about physical threats made on social media platforms. I realize it is a thinly veiled way to poke at Alex, but the way he stated what he stated is, in my opinion, protective of himself. He DID NOT say that "Alex Berenson has threatened and/or ginned up threats against Fauci." He just did not say that. Watch it for yourself.

https://twitter.com/SquawkCNBC/status/1580913476847177728?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1580913476847177728%7Ctwgr%5Eb1d4d3dd9b3316e30c7d1cbd47cb01f31b970871%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fpfizer-board-member-scott-gottlieb-secretly-pressed-twitter-censor-alex-berenson

Expand full comment
Oct 14, 2022·edited Oct 14, 2022

Let me take what I think is the easier issue first. Alex didn't slander Gottlieb by accusing Gottlieb of slander, because slander is a legal determination. Alex isn't a judge or jury. He's merely expressing his opinion, one with which a judge or jury may not agree. That leads to the tougher issue: Did Gottlieb slander Alex? Would a judge or jury agree with the headline of this stack? It's true that defamation is difficult to prove, and Alex, as any other plaintiff, would bear the burden of proof. He would have to show that he was damaged by an untrue, unpriviliged statement of fact (not opinion) made and published by Gottlieb about him. It's clear Gottlieb didn't accuse Alex of directly committing violence, nor do I think he accused Alex of making verbal threats of violence. So I think whether or not this case would survive a motion to dismiss would turn on a couple of things, namely the meaning of the idiom "ginning up" and more broadly, whether Gottlieb's comments were clearly about Alex in the first place. On the latter, I think a judge would likely give Alex a chance to prove they were about him. I believe any reasonable member of that CNBC audience would understand that Gottlieb came on solely to respond to Alex and was invited on for that express purpose. I don't think Gottlieb gets the benefit of a self serving disclaimer that of course he can't respond "directly" to Alex -- and then proceed to do so.

Expand full comment

Depends on the judge.

Expand full comment

Very true

Expand full comment
Oct 14, 2022·edited Oct 14, 2022

Unfortunately I think you're right. He never tied any names directly onto his "concern", so Gottlieb might've been talking about threats Chuck Schumer made to a couple of SCOTUS judges he yelled by name into a bullhorn as a crowd looked on. Soon a man with an alleged assassination plot and weapons was arrested in the neighborhood of one of the two Justices that the Senate Majority Leader had yelled. All this to say, that one's clear cut, but it wasn't Trump on the bullhorn. This one is less clear cut, and it's Gottlieb, not some dude wanting Fauci to be tried for war crimes. But side note, a dude can dream!

Expand full comment

I can't see that SG's remarks were slanderous to AB or to any named person ... perhaps irrelevant or incomprehensible (or both) with reference to the question put to him ... but many US news interviews would meet that standard. I would let this one slide.

Expand full comment

Absolutely agree 💯%!!!!

Expand full comment

You’ve got all the right enemies.

Expand full comment

They're so desperate for physical violence you can almost see it on their faces. It's the last remaining hurdle before they can crack down 'for our own good' to 'save democracy'.

Expand full comment

These turds thrive in a clogged toilet bowl with their outright lies swirling around them non-stop. And truth is the only plunger that will eventually unclog it. ProPfit is the only motive that matters—they will try to Phight off anything standing between Pfizer profitability and the truth exposing them. We see that with this nonstop Pflailing and Pflushing.

Expand full comment

I see what ya did with those P’s-lol!👍

Expand full comment
Oct 14, 2022·edited Oct 14, 2022

Scottie needs the safety of a Totalitarian regime, otherwise he's open to all sorts of civil legal challenges, starting with statements of efficacy, because that sure looks like fraud...

(Edited for spelling)

Expand full comment

This is why the longer, more tortuous route of a lawsuit might make better sense.

I suggested elsewhere a crowd fund effort to raise the money.

Thoughts?

Expand full comment

That's certainly going to be a part of it, but we have to attack everywhere at once. I'm still finishing up part 2 of my article, but the basic point is that we've got to transfer our power from online and into meatspace. Lawsuits are an important part of that, yes. (Here's part 1): https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/this-is-not-a-drill

Expand full comment

Gottlieb is a wondrously moronic imbecile who insists on simplifying things into false ethical and moral binaries by judging others in the most uncharitable ways possible and maligning their character. Everything he says is just reflective of a desire for psychological satisfaction.

Expand full comment

BOOM! you’re a very Bright Brad!!!

Expand full comment

Actually SG is extremely bright, sociopathic and smooth as liquid shit. That's the problem.

Expand full comment

He's flailing because he's wrong, and he's taken a series of indefensible positions. It's like watching an angry Sackler. The denouement is not a mystery, but they can't let themselves see it yet.

Expand full comment

Dude…right on and way to bring the Pharma playbook into the convo.

Expand full comment

Gottlieb’s last book “Uncontrolled Spread: Why COVID-19 Crushed Us and How We Can Defeat the Next Pandemic” tells you what a hero he thinks he is on our behalf when in fact, he’s just another Fauci bureaucrat who knows what’s coming down as the FOIAs are ever so slowly revealing what’s coming for Fauci, FDA, CDC and comrade Gottlieb.

Expand full comment

I don’t think he thinks he’s a hero... I think his book should be subtitled “ How I am Covering my Complicit Ass “

Expand full comment

I think all of these people will need a security detail within the next few years. You can run, but you can’t hide. This psyop affects way to many people WORLDWIDE. It’s the absolute worse of human behavior I’ve seen in my lifetime. Will it ever END?

Expand full comment

No apologies allowed.

Gottlieb has - for personal profit - aided and abetted mass murder by Fauci, NIH, et al. He has ignored the clear evidence in the Pfizer docs exposed by Naomi Wolf that the vaccines pose serious reproductive harms to pregnant women. Gottlieb has responded to ten of thousands cases of heart disease with happy talk.

And CNBC’s Joe Kieran has never seen an unsafe drug or criminal Pharma company he would not pimp for. Time to expose how much ($$$) CNBC received from Pfizer, Moderna, J&J - and HSS to be COVID vaccine propagandists.

Expand full comment

Uh, Fauci IS a criminal and has caused great harm to so many people for so many years. Pointing out the truth about a dangerous narcissist like Fauci is not inflammatory and if some believe that it is then too bad. You are darn right that the stakes are high and that is precisely why Fauci and others should be held accountable and punished accordingly. When an individual commits a crime, and in the case of Fauci we are talking multiple crimes over many years harming millions, how is pointing out this fact inflammatory? It is no wonder those like Fauci get away scot free when we are constantly told not to use "inflammatory" language. Very sad.

Expand full comment

No, just sue him. Gottlieb did this because he believes he can get away with it...'cause Pfizer is in the media's pocket. He lies and relies on the ignorance of the viewing audience.

Sue him and make him back up the statement that the Covid jabs have saved millions of lives. Expose them and bring down the entire Pharma house of cards.

Expand full comment

Unfortunately he probably has some wiggle room here, in the interpretation of what he said. At the beginning he says he's not going to talk about you because of your litigation, and then he moves into generalities. But yeah it wouldn't be unreasonable to connect some dots if a person doesn't know much about the issue, or your writing.

Could Kernan boot lick just a little more btw? :/

Expand full comment

So sad to see Kerman behave like,that. Lost all respect. Yuck.

Expand full comment

Me too, and I was quite surprised actually.

Expand full comment

I've watched Kernan for 30 years. He's always played himself as king of the skeptics, and for 2 years he swallowed everything Gottlieb said about COVID - no questions asked. I do believe Kernan respects Berenson, and he was actually quite surprised by the revelations about Gottlieb trying to railroad him. He couldn't have been more obsequious in the interview, however. Disappointing.

Expand full comment

Alex you should have atty send cease and desist order to Gottlieb AND cnbc get ahead of this if you need more $$ I am ready to contribute. Not gonna take it anymore as Howard Beal said

Expand full comment

I just resubscribed. Please go after these charlatans!

Expand full comment
Oct 14, 2022·edited Oct 14, 2022

Gottlieb's role in the covid vax propaganda is to take a slightly precautionary side on crap shows like "Face the Nation" to seem reasonable and trustworthy. He also always has the interviewer announce that he's a former FDA Director and a Pfizer board member. Like that is some great honest reveal. But he's on the exact same team as Fauci and the other big pharma propagandists.

Expand full comment
Oct 14, 2022·edited Oct 14, 2022

If you can. please sue. Actions...meet consequences.

Expand full comment