skip to Main Content
Share This Post

The original research in this video is made possible by generous contributions from supporters of the Dr.SHIVA Truth Freedom Health® movement. Please contribute so we may continue to bring you such original research, valuable education, and innovative solutions.

Key Points

  • Dr.SHIVA Ayyadurai, MIT PhD – Inventor of Email, Systems Scientist, engineer, educator – has a serious discussion with ProPublica about Election Deniers & Election Grifters.
  • Dr.SHIVA Ayyadurai has focused on taking a non-partisan, Systems Approach to investigating and evaluating Election Systems. The Systems Approach undertaken by Dr.SHIVA Ayyadurai focuses on the engineering aspects of Election Systems.
  • Identifying and investigating anomalies, irrespective of the cause of such anomalies, gives us greater knowledge of the inner-workings of the system and allows us to make changes which strengthen the system.
  • Dr.SHIVA and his team have pioneered a first-of-its-kind research study in the field of signature verification.
  • Dr.SHIVA has fiercely criticized those who have sought to make a partisan issue out of election integrity: where one side denies any problem exists, and the other side grifts off hype and sensational garbage while ignoring real substantive issues within the system.

Dr.SHIVA Ayyadurai: So just give me a little bit of a background, Doug, what this is for, because we get a number of different calls. So, just give me a little bit of background before we start.

Doug: So, we’re working on a very long article about the Election Integrity movement for ProPublica, do you know who ProPublica is?

Dr.SHIVA: I do, yeah, I used to have a friend of mine many, many years ago that worked with them. This is back almost like Jesus 10 years ago.

Doug: Well, yeah, so we’re, we’re a nonprofit news organization, mostly doing investigative work, we would be considered the mainstream press. And, you know, we’ve been trying to sort of trace how the ideas about the stolen election have, you know, where they came from, and then how they wrote, and it’s much it’s like, sort of like an intellectual history, sort of trying to follow it from the, you know, November 3, until basically now, and just sort of kinda understand.

So they take it seriously, as a movement, the way that we would take, you know, any other political movement that’s transforming the country. Seriously. You know, I’ve got to be upfront, you know, we do not think the election was stolen. We’ve done a lot of work on that.

But we want to hear, you know, hear the voices of the people who have like, really passionately dedicated themselves to this cause and understand why you all have been working so hard on this. Because, my guess is, it’s probably not been the easiest road to go. So, if you’re willing to just hear about your experience.

And then, you know, we’ve talked to a number of people you’ve crossed paths with and just sort of cross check our understanding of that, from their point of view with your point of view.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, that’s fine Doug. Do you mind if I record this? Because I get so many different calls. You know, I take a very different position on this whole thing. Is that right with you?

Doug: Yeah, I’m happy. Well, we will record as well. You’re welcome to record. If that works.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah. Because yeah, – because I always like to do that. Because there are, it looks like the world has become so shattered into people taking these very Pro/Anti positions on everything. And I think the world is actually more nuanced.

And so I’d like to record this, because where I’m coming from on this is very, very different from what you probably experienced out there because I went on ProPublica site, and there’s something written on Bannon calling it like ”climate deniers, election deniers.” And so it looks like ProPublica already, like you said, and I appreciate you being honest, has already taken some position. And when people have taken a position, it’s hard for them to see any nuances. So, that’s sort of me being upfront with you.

Doug: Yeah, well, no, I, I appreciate that. And I very much, you know, I want to sort of Express, you know – you know, where we’re coming from, you know, we’ve done an extraordinary especially for this article, you know, we’ve done just a ton of work, you know, from what we’ve seen, we have not seen proof of a stolen election.

So I, you know, is – that opinion is based on quite a bit of research and reporting. But again, you know, we want to get to the truth. So, you know, we want to hear what everyone has to say. And I’d love to – tell me about your nuance. Tell me tell me how you got into all this.

Dr.SHIVA: Well yeah. So first of all, let me give you my background, because I never voted in my life. I’ve been a citizen of the United States since 1983. So, I think the – it’s hard for people who are looking at it from the outside unless they walk in someone shoes. So I’m not sure if you understand India has a caste system.

Are you familiar with that? I know you hung around with the Indonesian tribes people – or in Indonesia, but…

Doug: I spent a little time in India and very, very lay knowledge of such

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, to me Yeah, I don’t. Yeah, to me, it’s where I come from. My people are those tribes people, okay? So I grew up in a small village in India, separate from Bombay, but India has an awful caste system, which still exists.

And we were considered untouchable. So, the fact that my parents made it here was quite extraordinary. So, you know, I grew up in New Jersey, and I came to MIT in 1981. And I quickly realized as a young kid, that there was a hypocrisy, particularly among the left and the right.

And in 1984 is when I saw Jesse Jackson run. I don’t know how old you are – for Office on a left anti-establishment movement called the Rainbow Coalition.

And the establishment politicians were Reagan and Mondale. And all of us who were young ideals were very, very excited by Jesse Jackson. At the last minute, he gives all of his votes to Mondale, you know, talking about the lesser of two evils, etc.

That’s when I realized that both of the establishment parties essentially work together. And I was an activist at MIT. And it’s hard for white liberals in the media to understand this, because they can’t fathom it – a dark skinned Indian guy, it can’t even walk in those shoes.

So, there’s a picture of me burning the South African flag on the steps of MIT. I organized the biggest student movement against MIT’s investments in South Africa, we organized food service workers too – anyone at that point, they would think I was a far lefty. But I never voted, because I had come to the conclusion most of these elections, in my view, never really allowed outsiders to get in, or you have to be co opted. And there, I’m not the only one who’s talked about this.

There’s many, many other scholars who’ve talked about this. So, when Trump ran in 2016, – is the first time ever voted. And I was registered as an independent, subsequent and then decided to run against Elizabeth Warren, primarily for one singular reason because of the hypocrisy of the white liberal elite.

Who are the same people who talk a good game, they want to help the poor, dark people or women and minorities. But ultimately, what they really want to do is to cage people in a segregated space of how they want to think – what is racism. And the issue of race hasn’t fully been discussed in this country, because white liberal elites have owned that discourse.

Elizabeth Warren, in my view, was a racist, she used race, to me that it’s the exploitation of race. So we ran against Warren, and the Republican establishment in Massachusetts did not like me. So we had to run as independents.

And so we ran, we had a great campaign. And then the next year, I decided to run as a Republican. Again, the Republican establishment did not want an outsider because I wasn’t part of their club.

So in 2020, when we ran, we had 3000 volunteers on the ground, truly a Bottoms-up movement, I would say 60-70% of our people came to us for independents, who never voted – a lot of women, our movement was Truth Freedom Health. Integrating the movements for you know, free speech, integrating the movements for innovation. And what I felt with the passage of the Mansfield Amendment was the attack on science, and then integrating health.

You know, real health where you integrate a Systems Approach to looking at the body. So at the end we had, you know, we put up 20,000, lawn signs, 10,000 bumper stickers, we were everywhere. If you came to Massachusetts, the brand, Dr.Shiva was quite well known. And that word on the street was – landslide.

Now on September 1 2020. By the way, this is before Trump even got involved in this, we notice that in the hand counted County, Franklin County, I went by 10 points in every other county was 60/40 60/40, to a guy who was running who no one even knew his name. So, that started my journey to understand how all of these elections work, it didn’t feel right, it didn’t seem right.

So, I put on my hat as an engineering systems guy who has built many, many systems all over throughout my entire life. And I don’t think you will typically have professional engineers and scientists – aren’t supposed to run for office. I don’t know how many scientists I think there’s one micro microbiologist in the legislature right now, the national level.

I discovered something, and started understanding how these election systems work. And one of the things I found out was that 52 USC 20701, which was passed by a democrat majority, was to encourage election audits. It was not “unAmerican”, which is what the mainstream press and a lot of very, either ignorant people in Congress have promoted, it was created that we would support a very vibrant democracy.

And one of the parts of 52 USC 20701 Was that all records generated in connection with the federal election are supposed to be preserved for 22 months. So, I went to the Secretary of State’s office with one of our volunteers and I said I would like the Ballot Images. Are you familiar with those – with what that is, Doug?

Doug: I am aware, yeah.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah. So the Ballot Images are what is generated when a paper ballot is scanned. And by the way, Trump doesn’t even know what Ballot Images are okay? In my meeting with him.

So I’m glad you know what they are. But I would say 90% of politicians probably don’t even know what those are.

Ballot Images are generated and I asked for them. And the election officer said, “Oh, we don’t have those we deleted that, we turn that feature off,” which is a feature that is the default feature on voting machines. That then led to me having a series of interactions with the Secretary of State of Massachusetts, in email, they are acknowledging they deleted them, and they don’t have to preserve them by Massachusetts law.

That may be true for a state election, but not for a federal election. When I shared those four emails on the internet, on my Twitter account, I had close to 2 million people. But on Twitter I think about 400,000 – I was suspended and an organization which claims to do fact checking, misreported that I said ballots were deleted, I said Ballot Images. Big difference.

But in that article, this quote unquote “fact checking” organization, had said that it was the Secretary of State in their interview, who had contacted – who had contacted Twitter, okay. And by the way, at that point, I was still running for Senate in a write-in campaign, we’ve moved our campaign into that.

So clearly, this is a violation of the First Amendment violation political speech. So I could not find a lawyer here. I filed a lawsuit pro se. I successfully, it was me against three lawyers. Got my temporary restraining order, all the terms of it passed by the federal judge. And in that hearing that occurred, which by the way, none of you guys had covered but should have.

If you want to do investigative journalism. I think you guys should go check this out. Because what occurred in that hearing was we found out in cross examination, the social media director, she was, I think, concerned about perjury, she shared with the judge and I that the government has a special portal, a VIP portal to Twitter, called a Partner Support Portal, where they can escalate things much better than you or I can.

And they had used that portal to alert them that I was spreading disinformation, which is saying that Ballot Images were deleted, which they were. The judge was appalled. He said, You know, I may be 70 years old, but I still believe in the First Amendment.

He told – he ordered them not to contact Twitter. And that was in the middle of my federal election campaign. And I got back on Twitter on November 4, interestingly enough, right after the election, and I continued tweeting, and on February 1, when I shared again, those four emails, I was thrown off again, that led me to going back into court, again, pro se.

And this time, the judge ordered Twitter to show up. This was now it was me and seven attorneys. And the night before that may 20 hearing, I had found what was called the Playbooks that were created at the Harvard Belfer Center. Which was Playbooks – which are essentially a domestic censorship infrastructure, which creates an unholy alliance between government and Big Tech, Big Tech gets blamed a lot. But government and Big Tech have created an alliance where they can report on private citizens.

In fact, in that Playbook, it clearly says that if anyone says that an election official is corrupt, you will go on a watch list. All right. So all of this occurred before, you know – this is in May of last year, but our campaign had moved to, you know, across Massachusetts, we, you know, continue to write in campaign.

And I started doing different analyses on what I found as a scientist, as an engineer on different anomalies I saw and those got picked up by different institutions. And I got calls from the Republican Party, Mark Meadows, and I and it was interesting because my stuff was going viral on its own without any of the Trump people by the way, Trump never supported our campaign ever helped us in any way. For the record.

Ours was truly a grassroots movement, which if anything was not in alignment with the Massachusetts GOP. So when those guys called us, we said, look, we can do more analysis, give us data, they never gave us data. This is on I think – November 5th Meadows called me and then Rona McDaniels called me and then in fact, Eric Trump reached out to me, but we never got data from any one of them.

And we continued our analysis. And then I had organized what I felt was that this was really a systems problem, that when you look at this as a complex engineering system, the election system is no different than the transportation system, the healthcare system, there’s many parts to this. There’s many points of failure, and no one had ever taken a Systems Approach to this.

It’s always been, you know, sort of a reductionist approach. So, when the Arizona audit took place, I was asked to do what’s called the Ballot Image analysis, because one of the companies I started back in 1993 was, you know, my field has been in the area of pattern recognition and artificial intelligence. Back in, when I was a kid, I created the first email system.

We’re not talking about the exchange of text messages. We’re talking about the system as we know, to the inbox, outbox, etc, before it came to MIT. But in 1993, while I was in the middle of my PhD, I was asked to participate in a competition that when Bill Clinton was in office to automatically analyze President Clinton’s email, I ended up winning that left MIT in the middle of my PhD started a very successful company called Echomail®, which did all types of analysis, email analysis, image analysis.

And so we had quite an amount of pattern recognition technology. So, we were asked to do the image analysis of the ballots. And an organization which had been recruited to do that was an organization called Cyber Ninjas, was the audit organization, which you may be familiar with in Arizona.

Doug: I’m aware, yeah.

Dr.SHIVA: So, the cyber ninjas organization subcontracted us to do the Ballot Image analysis. And at that point, we were supposed to get the Ballot Images. And we get the Ballot Images, and 70% of them are actually corrupt. And Cyber Ninjas said, “Oh, they’re encrypted.” And I said, “they’re corrupt.”

And we have all the data to show that they were corrupted. And then we said, When are you going to get us the actual images? Well, we never got anything from them. In fact, they went into radio silence.

But they put out a message saying that the county had given them corrupted Ballot Images, which I found, frankly, hard to believe at that point. So we disengaged with them, because we felt something was a little bit off. And subsequently to that we were asked to do the analysis of the envelopes.

So, the envelopes in Maricopa were interesting. It was close to 93% of the ballots were by mail – mail in ballots, and the ballots travel in something alongside of the envelopes, an affidavit where the voter signs it. This is a little bit different than the military envelopes, which may come through email. They’re called you UOCAVA – a little bit different.

We got every one of the envelopes, Ballot Images. And we – what happens in practices, the envelopes, first of all, are imaged by a company called Runbeck. And then before they’re opened, and tabulated, which I’m not sure if you’re aware of but the process they go through, Doug, do you know the process that they go through? So I don’t..

Doug: I am generally aware of that.

Run, run me through it again, what happens is, the envelopes are scanned.And the images of the envelopes are first of all put onto a server. And the first thing that happens is trained novices who get, I think, a couple hours of training on how to do signature verification, look at these.

on one screen, they have side by side juxtapose the image of the envelope’s signature. So for example, Doug Clark, right. And on the other side, they have your signature from your voter registration files.

And they have four to 30 seconds to make a decision if those match. If they match, then the envelope is opened and is processed and submitted; if they do not match, then it goes through a process called curing. Curing was established as a compromise in 22 states where if the images don’t match, you give the voters another chance to rectify that.

So you either call them bipartisan committees, review them, etc. So, the scope of our work was not to do that machine learning of that signature verification, but rather to see if there was even a signature in the envelope or if it was a scribble, etc. So that’s what we presented to the Senate and we noticed different anomalies.

We never said that there was fraud, because we looked at it from a Systems Approach. And our position was that the politics of simply denying, which is what’s happened right now you have one group which denies election fraud or Election Integrity issues, another group which is essentially my view grifting on it, and making a lot of money off of it, which I have a problem with also, but no one’s taking a Systems Approach. So we said look, here’s some anomalies.

For example, the number of Ballot Images was never reported in the Canvas report. And we found about 17,133 duplicate images and we said, hey, what is this? And the county said, “Oh, Dr.Shiva doesn’t know what we’re doing, we have a process called curing and curing is this process that they disclose,” but it’s the images, numbers still didn’t add up.

Then the third project, we were asked to do more recently, was to do the signature verification analysis. Now, in the middle of this in December, after the audits were over because I was persistent, I was pretty much ticked off that the Cyber Ninjas guys never gave us a Ballot Images. We finally got the Ballot Images directly from the Senate. This was after the audits were over.

And we came to learn that Cyber Ninjas have always had, they had two sets of images, one the disk image. But they also always had the Ballot Images. And in my view, they had given testimony, which wasn’t frankly accurate, saying that the county had given them corrupted images. They had the images and within about three weeks, we went through the images.

And, you know, we did a multi part analysis. First we looked at the Ballot Images when they’re analyzed. First, what happens is the artificial intelligence on the machines is the one that is determining, you know, if a circle is filled in if it’s an undervote, an overvote , a write-in or ambiguous.

So the first thing we did was we looked at the post adjudicated results compared to the canvas, and obviously those should match perfectly. And they did, then we looked at the pre-adjudicated results, which is essentially the AI says, Hey, these are good votes, you know, solid votes. And the others are, what, you know, it kicks off in, in AI, we call the supervision, supervise where it needs a human being to look at.

And those are I think about 165,000 or something like that, that need to go to a human. So the pre-adjudicated in the post adjudicated, we found some very interesting anomalies, which we reported to the attorney general. But one of the key things we found there is, I would say most legislatures – legislators don’t even know how the AI is determining what’s a vote or not a vote.

In the old days when human beings counted it, you knew how much was filled in, etc. So one of the things that we propose out of that analysis was that legislators there should be legislation, which clearly makes it clear that it’s not private corporations, which are deciding what’s the vote or what’s not – that it should be mandated from the legislators. So that’s one of the pieces.

But the important thing that came out of that was, you know, when our AI ran against this was what’s called different voting vendors of different things that Dominion AI, we discovered that they were we agreed, typically on all of the 1.91 except 15,000. And our position was if they had done the Ballot Images, first of all, it would have saved a tremendous amount of money, and they could have probably saved themselves $8.

9 million. You know, it’s more like when you do a biopsy, you don’t go opening up the person. So that was one of the results of that.

And so that was a Ballot Image analysis, which we filed. And then more recently, we actually did the envelopes. I think one of the documents I sent you has set the extended study where we did an initial pilot study.

And what’s fascinating is in the literature, over the last 100 years, you’ll find out that there’s lots of stuff looking at what are called questionable documents in this space, what’s called forensic document examination, but no one has put side by side images, and done an analysis on these with humans.

It’s been done with one image in many images, you know, that kind of thing. So we initially did three novices and three forensic document examiners, we did a very small pilot study with about 95% confidence, and we found out that there was such a higher mismatch rate than what had been reported in our estimate that around 200,000 should have been cured.

Okay. Two very interesting data points for you, the Atlantic. David Graham over there, very thoughtful writer. A couple years ago, he wrote an interesting article on what he called signature verification was phonology. And it was witchcraft, the LA Times couple, the investigative journalists have done some good work, they’re showing that it’s actually wrought with errors. But no one has figured out how much there hasn’t been any real studies on a signature mismatch rate.

So that was it, to our understanding the first study of its kind. And then we did a larger study more recently with 2700 samples. And we in fact, we weren’t given the actual signatures, the voter registration, so we had to get them from deed signatures. And in fact, anything that was completely non matches we threw those away to be – you know, those ones which didn’t match perfectly. And which means that we were taking a conservative approach on when things didn’t, you know, perfectly match.

So at the end of that day, we found out about 215,000 signatures. But 215,000 signatures should have been cured, okay. So are at our endpoint and that was at the signature verification process, which both the left and the right.

It’s interesting, have agreed on is something was wrong. But we have calculated an official mismatch rate. So that’s the recent work we’ve done. And those two studies have been accepted to two symposiums, and also to two, you know, peer reviewed journals.

Our approach is, about a year ago, I started Election Systems Integrity Institute, with the feeling that the typical academic model is to deny anything’s a problem. And, but there are system issues. And what’s interesting is, we have found people on the left and the right, in fact, people who voted for Hillary, people voted for Biden, both agreeing with us on this, we need to take a Systems Approach, not this yes/no pro/anti approach.

That’s where I’m coming from. And I’ve been pretty vociferous against a lot of the Grifters out there, who, in many ways are actually, you know, making it sort of a layup for guys like you to just basically do articles which say, everything’s okay, these people are just crazy people, let’s move along. There are system issues.

Doug: I mean, it’s a complex thing, like there are, you know, they’re like, it’s very, very difficult to check out every single possible thread of what’s sort of going on, right. So we try to do as wide a wide a range as we can. And a lot of this stuff,

Dr.SHIVA: Doug, who do you have on your team? Who do you have on your team? I’m sorry, go ahead.

Doug: I did some of this stuff, when we dig into it comes out to be pretty unsubstantiated. But I understand, you know, you’re sort of presenting yourself as doing this as a Systems Approach.

Dr.SHIVA: And we’re not presenting myself, I’m not presenting myself as, not presenting. Yeah, look, the problem is, what’s happened is that you literally have three areas in this, you have the people who just want to deny this, there’s no problem – move along. And that’s not right, then you have people who are grifting on this, either to sell pillows, either raise money.

And these people are bringing up issues and made claims, which are just garbage, you know, when, and I think this needs to be addressed, because in some ways, those individuals and people are hurting what 52 USC 20701 was really for, it was really the spirit of it was that we really do real audits and understand, you know, issues.

You know, a friend of mine, many years ago, Ron McNair, who was one of the astronauts, died in the space shuttle Challenger. And he was an alumni at MIT. And when Alan McDonald brought up the issue with the O rings, you know, everyone attacked him.

And he said, one of the most important things is to say the right thing at the right time, it’s a small issue. But it could blow up engineering systems, most of the people involved in this, and I don’t know, the people at ProPublica, who are doing this analysis, if they even have an engineering systems background, don’t understand it, they’re probably, you know, whoever is doing this, this is how Michael Lindell’s crazy and blah, blah, blah, let’s just do a hit job on them. And we’re done.

And that’s also the, you know, sort of the dialectic of that. But there is a third piece which is looking at this from a Systems Approach. To identify the issues that can probably unify this country on real issues, and one of them is chain of custody.

That’s a big elephant in the room, signature verification, the fact that we are outsourcing our counting of votes or that process to black boxes, which legislators should understand, you know, understand, it’s a big area of law right now, AI and law and AI and policy, what that’s gonna mean. And that’s the position I’m coming from, you know, I recently did a thing there’s a guy out there, his name is Phyla. I tell ya, that’s his official name Jovan Pulitzer who’s just been putting garbage out.

And when I was invited to the Cyber Symposium, I wasn’t going to go and if what I talked about was our lawsuit, but when Mike Lindell reported that you know, the Trump thing were affected by Chinese? What is it? I think people out there, and the numbers he had came out the number that he reported was, if you look at the numbers was 4.2%.

I don’t know if you saw those numbers. And I, you know, isn’t Steve Bannon? I said, you know, you know, either someone’s playing with Mike or someone knows who read The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. And what’s really fucked up is that organization said, that I’m saying The Hitchhiker’s galaxy was used – when I was actually making fun of it.

So again, this is a problem we have in very poor reporting, where people are taking this left and right side. And this is a… you know, the divisiveness continues, when there are real systems issues.

And I think what people didn’t expect is someone like me, who actually has engineering degrees, systems, degrees participating, this taking a much more pedantic approach. So, you know, I hope ProPublica if you’re doing investigative journalism brings this aspect of it out. Or if it’s just gonna be, you know, there’s two sides, and we’re done.

Let’s move along, which would be unfortunate.

Doug: Well, I appreciate you pointing out the 4.2%. Because I had not been aware of your interview, personally, but I had noticed that it was 42. Yeah, and so and so when I, yeah, I was literally up there. Literary allusions?

Dr.SHIVA: Well, no, I was appalled at that. I was appalled at the Cyber Symposium, because it was just garbage. Grifting. And when I was there, I talked about my lawsuit, that’s what I focused on, it was much more substantive.

And then Mike said, you know, we’re going to now release the results. And if you look at the results, it was, you know, I had my little spreadsheet open, I put up the results, and you divided what he said, and what they actually did was exactly 4.2% Doug.

And I said, this is like crazy. You know, this is like, I mean, if you’re going to cheat, I don’t think that’s how you achieve just dividing everything by 4.2%.

So I think there’s an opportunity here to find out, you know, 52, USC 20701 is not being followed in my own election here. You know, you deleted Ballot Images. And people got away with that.

You should be concerned about that. Signature verification, left and right. You know, we’ve done the first signature mismatching study, why hasn’t academics done any research on this? And I can tell you the reason why, because people are taking this left & right approach.

And it’s really unfortunate. So you don’t really do any, you know, people stay away from certain areas of science. I mean, we fortunately have been accepted to two forensic document examination symposiums, they’re coming in August, and in October.

And, you know, we’re gonna have them in two journals, peer reviewed journals. So there’s a different approach where we put this to a third party peer review test. That’s what needs to happen. All of this stuff.

Doug: What do you think? Yeah, so I know, I know that the cyber symposium? Yeah. I don’t think you’re alone in not finding it super credible.

How do you feel about the audit? Like, you know, the

Dr.SHIVA: Which audit? The Maricopa Audit?

Doug: The audit or the results of the audit? Their running of it?

Dr.SHIVA: Well, yeah. So what’s the interest? Yeah, so so so the Maricopa audit that way it was run? I don’t think it was really run as an audit. I mean, I don’t think the guys who did it even knew how to run an audit.

I mean, the first step is, look I’ve been involved in many audits. In fact, one of the things I do in another part of my life is we’ve created a seal very much in the area of organic food for HACCP audits, where we go audits farm to table, you know, and there’s a thing called HACCP. You know, I’ve done many engineering audits, when my companies just to get an audit, there’s a gap audit, the first thing you do in an audit, Doug, is people give you their compliance documents.

Okay? So when you know Deloitte or Price Waterhouse comes to audit one of my companies, we would say here are documents, right? So for example, there’s GAAP accounting rules, right? So my CFO would give the auditors and everyone works together in collaboration, right?

We say here how we’re following FASB, right? How you do revenue recognition, the auditor simply takes our general ledger and they’ll take our SOPs, and they’ll say, hey, you know, we’re finding some errors here, you need to redo some of your numbers. That’s the first step. Now, in Maricopa what happened was that they didn’t ask fully for all the compliance documents.

It’s called a systems audit. And on top of it, because of all the left, right, divide, the county didn’t give any of those compliance documents, okay. So I would have said, Stop, you know, stop.

We’re not doing this audit right now. He said I’m saying, because if you don’t have the rules that everyone’s playing by, how can you even do an audit? Okay. The first step that should have happened is you go check the Ballot Images you go downstream, right, you check.

Okay, what was the last thing that was used to create the canvas report. It is post adjudicated CVR results in the Ballot Images. And if that had been done first you would have found Okay, those match right? Then you would have gone one step before then you would have found some inconsistencies.

And you would have in our view, we found 15,000 ballots, which are the ones that you only needed to go look on paper, Doug. So you wouldn’t have had to look at all 2 million. Okay, we could have. And by the way, we never got paid for that. Okay.

Doug: They never ended up getting paid, for yourself?

Dr.SHIVA: We only got paid. We terminated our agreements, Cyber Ninjas, because I lost faith in them. You know, I didn’t feel they were straight. So we did get paid for our envelopes image analysis, which was $50,000.

But the subsequent work we did there, you know, we did it, because we did it on our own. Okay. So, that was that, the city 50k for Patrick Byrne.

Nope. Patrick Patrick Byrne, let me tell you about Patrick Byrne, Patrick Byrne, when he found out that I was exposing Jovan Pulitzer. He called me the night before and told me please don’t go please go easy on him.

I said, Patrick, I said, This guy’s a scumbag. I set up for a month, two months ago, I said, I hope you’re not giving any money to him. He said, “No, no, no, no,” I go, this guy is absolutely putting garbage out there while he was giving money to him.

And I did a analysis of his garbage that he gave to the Attorney General. The night before that Patrick Byrne says, “go easy on him” any wanted to offer me $250,000. Okay. I said no, thank you.

And then he wired Doug $50,000 into my account. And my assistants, like where did this come from? We found out it came through him – through a third party and we returned it. Okay, So Patrick Byrne,

Doug: It’s not easy to return $50,000…um

Dr.SHIVA: Well, you have to understand the problem.

Doug: Can you ..sort of pay you for…he was just like trying? Why? Why do you think you did that?

Dr.SHIVA: Because there I go back to the central thesis. There are three groups involved here. And I’m not saying you guys are part of that.

But you have one group of people who just say, oh, there’s nothing here. Let’s move along. Right. It’s a counter reaction to Trump and then you have the Grifters who literally have been making up bullshit.

Like, people Patrick Byrne has been supporting – “China attacked our elections.” You have no proof of that. They got nothing.

They don’t. And then I mean, if you look at this guy, by the way, his name isn’t even his name is Jeffry Philyaw I owe ya W He claimed that he had discovered the Ark of the Covenant. Okay.

Doug: Yeah yeah, I’m aware of Pulitzer.

Dr.SHIVA: Okay, he’s he’s, excuse my language, total scumbag. So you have him submitting?

Doug: Im sorry, Well, so you feel sort of like Doug Logan, Patrick Byrne, Jovan Pulitzer they all sort of fit in the grifter category?

Dr.SHIVA: Yes. Well, well, Doug, Doug is a little more special. Doug, it took me a while to have my opinion on him. You know, he acts very, very sincere, right. But I remember telling Doug, I said, Doug, “I hope you’re not working with this guy Fool-ya” (Philyaw). He goes, “yeah, yeah. Yeah” – the next day, he’s on his channel, streaming with him to raise money.

And Doug never – Doug gave Philyaw or whatever his name is – the Ballot Images in June, he never gave it to me. I finally got it in December from Ben Cotton.

And Ben said, he goes, “I’m puzzled.” He goes, “he always had the uncorrupted images.” So my view is that you can take it whatever way you want, but you’re talking to someone who is… who cannot be bought, because I know where I come from, you know, and to me, you know, just on a side note, you know, I’ve published in the leading journals in the world, and this is what’s hard for people to understand because they can’t bucket me you try to call me a white supremacist, you try to call me all these names is really awful.

The nonsense, but you don’t get published in Nature. You don’t get published in Cell, you don’t get published in the leading journals. Unless you know, you have the gravitas.

My goal has been to really understand what this was because I saw my own Ballot Images being deleted. So these guys have been great. I mean, one of the things Philyaw Fool-ya brought up which I exposed was, he said 87% of ghost voters in some County in Arizona, it was just garbage back or that that precinct is all a Arizona State University students of course are not going to have you know, electric and utility bills.

So these guys were just putting out garbage. So, in my view, they did a huge disservice to it. They created this division.

They created this division. So, you know, for example, I spoke to David Graham over the Atlantic, you know, I, he wrote a very thoughtful piece, most people said, Oh, don’t go talk to me. He’s a lefty.

I said, Look, he wrote a very nice thoughtful piece, he talks about an African American guy who just came in from Africa. And he wanted to vote, he tried to vote, his vote wasn’t accepted. And then he gave a great article about curing and he ended it where the guy goes and decides to vote in person.

Okay. Now, there are real issues, Doug. And those issues are all being thrown to the side because of this nonsense. So Patrick Byrne hates me now, because he thought, you know, I’m his little house slave. I’ll jump at 250,000. I’ll jump at 50k.

But, you know, I’ve earned all the money that I’ve ever made in my life. So for people who are about Election Integrity, these guys have no integrity. So and, you know, I mailed this check back to him, I would probably say 99% of these Grifters would have just pocketed it, but I sent it back.

Doug: Yeah, I mean, I feel like.. I feel like maybe some of the conflation here and, you know, maybe some of the, you know, why people may sort of look at you as being, you know, associated with them – as like, you know, as like, in the final, you know, Arizona Senate hearing, you know, you sort of stand up right after Logan, right. But you feel like you sort of a separate.

Dr.SHIVA: Well go look at their blog, you go look at what I submitted to the Attorney General.

I said, Look, why didn’t Doug Logan give us Ballot Images? I ream him. And everyone on the – people said, “Oh, you’re starting inter-side warfare.” I said, “bullshit.”

I see this guy had the Ballot Images and ever gave it to us. This is the truth. How can you guys talk about Election Integrity when you have no integrity? I mean, the heat I took for exposing Pulitzer , the heat I took for exposing these Ballot Images you cannot imagine.

So, you know, that’s why, you know, to be lumped in with those, frankly, these people who have hurt the broader context of Systems Approach, you know, is really unfortunate. I mean, when I was at Lindell, saying you had this crazy stuff like China. I mean, you have no proof of any of this.

Doug: Yeah, no, I, I hear that. And you know, I feel that I think you’re making a strong argument for sort of differentiating yourself from some of them. When did you sort of start getting in contact with Doug? Like when

Dr.SHIVA: They called me? They called me? Yeah.

Yeah. Well, the first actually, let me go back in November of 2020. I got a call from him to analyze some data for Georgia. Okay. And, and they submitted it because they were submitting something in Georgia, a woman called Sidney Powell. And that lawsuit they submitted was nuts.

It was so poorly written, you have to understand, if you go look at the lawsuits I’ve done I’m not saying I’m a lawyer, but when I did my hearing with me, against the Twitter lawyers free from WilmerHale, they couldn’t believe I’d done my own lawsuit. Okay, so I learned how to do some decent work. Okay.

But the stuff they submitted, Doug was just nonsense. Okay. It wasn’t even briefed up correctly. No, being serious. So that was the first time

Doug: No, I have heard of the Kraken lawsuits. Yeah.

Dr.SHIVA: And then the next time I was invited after that by Mike, he said, you know, we need you Dr.Shiva, we’re gonna meet with four senators, and we want you to talk about stuff and I basically, what’s up? Well, it wasn’t Mike Lindell. Okay.

And Mike was the only guy that I knew in that group, and I went down to DC. And at that meeting, were four or five US senators and their aides. And I basically presented as a technologist, the fact that, you know, these voting machines do have a feature where you can do a weighted race feature, and that they should not, you know, why are these features included? And I educated him on that.

At that meeting. You had Sidney Powell I, I met Doug for the first time. Met Mike for the first January meeting.

Yeah, I think it was before that. Yeah, I didn’t, it was January like it was before January 5, I forget the exact time was like a week or two weeks before that. Fourth or third or something where I went it was even before that, and I went and gave my piece and I left but that’s when I met Byrne and all these guys.

But my thing was – my goal was, hey, let me educate lawmakers. And how how these because I had learned in my own lawsuit there’s an organization called the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED), which by the way, also had contacted Twitter done you actually do a separate story on this, if you’re interested, we should have a separate discussion about there is an unholy alliance and how the judge eventually appointed me, a constitutional law attorney. He goes, he goes, your lawsuit will become a law school exam taught every constitutional law class.

Okay, now, it’s a different stream. But my concern was, as a technologist, why are these features being certified in voting machines? So that was where I came from. Met these guys.

wasn’t that impressed? You know, Flynn was there just yapping about China, China, China, which didn’t make any sense to me, you know. So, that was when I first had an interaction with them.

But my goal was, I had my lawsuit going on, which is about First Amendment issues. And then I was doing analysis really trying to understand how these systems worked. And the Maricopa audit, I learned a tremendous amount about, you know, I understand the N10 process. And by the way, I would say there’s very, very few people who know, because it is a very complex system. Doug, you have voter rolls, you have envelopes, you have the mail in process, you have multiple tabulators.

You have it’s a very complex system process. And frankly, audits…

Doug: Well so,One of the things that I had just wanted to check with you, you know, we had been one of the things we were looking at pretty closely.

We started this gathering in Woods Plantation in mid November into early December. And, you know, is our understanding that you were in contact with a number of the people like Doug Logan and Jim Petros and others while they were down there, and

Dr.SHIVA: I didn’t even know that? Yeah, I don’t, I don’t know anything about that, yeah, they just contacted me, because they wanted me to do GA, they gave me data. That’s it. I didn’t even know they were at some..What was it? A plantation meeting?

Doug: Yeah, they were – they were at this historical plantation.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, but I didn’t know they were at some.. Yeah no, they had contacted me, because they wanted me to do an analysis for a lawsuit that they were doing. And that was the first time we got data on essentially the GA like data that we analyzed.

Yeah, but we weren’t privy to any of those meetings that they had there.

Doug: And what exactly was that analysis?

Dr.SHIVA: The analysis was looking at, so for example, you get data, right streams of data on how the votes took place.

And then you’re looking at Republican precincts, non Republican precincts, right. And we do what we call cumulative vote statistics. I could send it to you.

It was, you know, I’ll send you what we submitted. I mean, it’s a longer discussion, but it’s essentially looking for analyses of previous voting patterns, current voting patterns, and seeing any deltas where you call different standard deviations. of difference.

Doug: Yeah. I actually think that we sent it to me, but I think I’ve probably read it several months ago.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, it was, it was probably in an appendix in that crazy lawsuit embedded in there somewhere.

But they, you know, they didn’t, they didn’t really go after anything, you know, serious in that one. In my view. It was very, it was a very poorly organized lawsuit. I don’t even know who wrote it.

Doug: Did they end up giving you a list of equipment to like, use in your lawsuit, to like, try and get a hold of any of these, like voting machines?

Dr.SHIVA: What do you mean Doug? List of what?

Doug: It would have been like a list of like, you know, very specific voting component equipment. Were they talking to you about a list of …now that they open

Dr.SHIVA: Now, the guy that helped me. I mean, I didn’t know anything about these processes, you got to understand – right? When I first met in September 2020, a guy that helped me early on was a guy by the name of John Brakey. And if you know John, John, B R A K E Y John’s been about Ballot Images.

And John got me a spreadsheet. By every precinct in Massachusetts, which machines were used by, you know, like, there’s different voting vendors. Dominion is not the only one there’s an organization called ES&S.

Right. So I had a wonderful spreadsheet on so I could slice and dice by precinct by county, which counties used with a hand counted which machine they use, what kind of tabulator, what kind of scanner optical or non optical, so I was able to get this very detailed analysis, how it was processed.

Doug: Yeah that makes sense

Dr.SHIVA: But yeah, the main data piece I got, because up until I did a tweet At one point, because I started at a certain point, you know, I didn’t think Trump was it, you know, genuine about is you if you saw her on November 4, they went from what was it, their their slogan was stop Voter Fraud, to Election Fraud. And they raised about a half a billion dollars. You’re aware of this, right?

Doug: It’s a lot of money.

Dr.SHIVA: And they raised a shitload of money. And I was, you know, we had you know, I was running for office here, right? A lot of our people are independents, Trumpers, they wanted us to go down to January 6th.

And I saw a bunch of people involved in this something called “Stop the Steal,” you’re familiar with this, some organization? And there was a guy called Allie Alexander. And that guy’s a complete, go look at his background. I said, “Holy shit.” I said, this stuff is just filled with nuts.

And so I said, There’s no way I’m going down there. And a lot of people are upset with me. And you saw what happened on January 6, I went down there the next day, and in front of the White House, I gave a talk denouncing Trump, because I’d come to the conclusion Trump was a master grifter.

And it’s a longer discussion that I think Trump took advantage of the American white working class. You know, he talked about this Q plan and blah, blah, blah, when there were substantive issues taking place. I mean, he printed a ton of money.

And I had the same regard for you know, I have a different view on this. They went from Obama, Obama to Trump. And both, you know, both, and Trump printed in many ways more money, and then you see what it’s done to the American working class in this country.

So I then did a video subsequent to that, which said, Is Trump the Swamp, which I got a lot of heat on? I think I lost 25% of my followers. And I just went through all the stuff that he said he was going to do this, and what did he actually do? And then, when I was I was supposed to do the congressional hearing.

And then at the last minute, they brought in a guy called Ken Bennett, and the morning before that, Trump called – Trump’s office called me – and said, Oh, do you need anything? Well, the week before that they had endorsed a guy in Massachusetts, part of the Massachusetts GOP, in my view, they were part of the hit job that they did on my campaign, Doug, and I just was reaming.

You know, the people over the Trump team, I said, What are you guys doing? I said, you’re saying against election fraud, but you just supported a guy who you know, completely was against me running and discriminatory or racist, all this kind of stuff. So a couple of weeks later, I was invited down to Mar-A-Lago and all of our volunteers met, and I respectfully declined to go down.

I said, you know, I can’t really go down because you know, what you guys did in Massachusetts. And then when I was down in Florida, I did get a chance to go down, I had about a two hour meeting. And then another hour follow up.

And I left that meeting, realizing that whatever people think about Trump, you know, he’s surrounded by a bunch of nuts. And, you know, I’ve been very, very critical of that whole thing. And so it’s, it’s the, it’s these guys don’t know what to do with me, because I sort of focus on the work.

And I’m proud of the work we do. And we’re taking an approach which we think we need to take a System Science Approach to this. And, you know, we’re bringing together people on the left and the right.

And I think there are real issues. And the reason I decided to talk to you guys in and I’m being very forthright with you is because I think, you know, I have a lot of respect for ProPublica in the past, if you guys, I think there’s really three, three paths here.

And two of them, essentially are hurting, you know, our opportunity to advance from an engineering standpoint, some of these systems are why

Doug: Why I appreciate that. I know, you know, I do think you are something of an outlier.

In terms of these ideas, and sort of where, where you’re coming from and I are looking at some other groups, maybe.I would love to, if you’ll send me that during the analysis. I actually have to hop off because I have a call with my editor but I really, I do appreciate you sort of walking me through all this.

And giving me, like a very detailed rundown of your thoughts. And I think that all what you’re saying makes sense. Usually that Georgia’s y’all send you that and sort of follow up. Appreciate this talk. I think I see a few things clearer. So yeah.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, go look. Yeah, do that and go look at the Ballot Image analysis, Doug, where I basically exposed the whole Cyber Ninjas, guys. Okay. And that was submitted to the Arizona Senate and to the Attorney General.

Doug: All right.I appreciate that. All right. Thanks, doc

Dr.SHIVA: Be well, take care

It’s time we move beyond the Left vs. Right, Republican vs. Democrat. It’s time YOU learn how to apply a systems approach to get the Truth Freedom Health you need and deserve. Become a Truth Freedom Health® Warrior.

Join the VASHIVA community – an integrated EDUCATIONAL, COMMUNICATIONS – independent of Big Tech -, and LOCAL ACTIVISM platform to empower YOU to actualize Truth Freedom Health in your local communities by employing a SYSTEMS APPROACH.

The platform we are building for Truth Freedom Health® provides the infrastructure to take on Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Academia. Many of you have asked how you can help. You can contribute whatever you can. Based on your level of commitment to get educated, I have also created some wonderful educational gifts to thank you for your contribution.

To get the education you need and deserve, join Dr.SHIVA on his Foundations of Systems course. This course will provide you three pillars of knowledge with the Foundation of Systems Thinking. The three pillars include: 1) The System Dynamics of Truth Freedom Health, 2) The Power of a Bottom’s Up Movement, and 3) The Not So Obvious Establishment. In this course, you will also learn fundamental principles of all systems including your body.

Course registration includes access to his LIVE Monday training, access to the Your Body, Your System tool, four (4) eBooks including the bestselling System and Revolution, access to the Systems Health portal and communications tools – independent of Big Tech – including a forum and social media for you to build community with other Truth Freedom Health Warriors.

This course is available online for you to study at your own pace.

It’s time to Get Educated, or Be Enslaved.

Share This Post
Back To Top
Powered By MemberPress WooCommerce Plus Integration