- There is a desire by those dedicated to the discipline of engineering sciences to identify real problems in election systems integrity.
- However, egregious errors and false claims distract from real and substantive issues of election systems integrity and damage credibility of those working sincerely, beyond left and right, to expose real malfeasance.
- False claims and erroneous statements shift desperately needed resources away from legitimate investigations and fact-finding efforts to false allegations and enabling selfpromoters.
- Those people who fund and provide resources to advance the election integrity movement must stop supporting unsubstantiated claims.
- There are REAL & SUBSTANTATIVE ISSUES in Election Systems Integrity, that go beyond Left & Right, and must be resolved.
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.
Rough Transcript (Auto-Generated)
people, ballot, called, election, real, maricopa, adjudicated, vote, voter, report, frankly, systems, precinct, issues, understand, fraud, david, trump, adjudication, provisional ballots
We have started the election systems integrity Institute, because we believe Harvard, Stanford MIT have these very profound scientific institutes. And the actual understanding of election systems integrity is a very, very partisan area, we want to create a nonpartisan Institute. And we’ve launched that I’ve launched it myself funded it myself so far. So what we want to talk about is, the larger context that we want to talk about is we’re going to have a series of lectures on this. And the goal is to advance election systems integrity. So consider, what we’re going to do today here is to really start this process to do the great reset for all of this. And so we want to talk about the problems. Okay, so, so this is part one, really, okay, we’ll have a part two, etc.
I want to acknowledge the team members of the election systems integrity Institute, people can go to election systems integrity.org, very new website, if you want to understand those of you’re interested in participating, we were fully open to it, our mission is to really advance election systems science and engineering, by applying the scientific method, and an engineering systems approach. We’re not going to really get to the bottom of this, if it’s based on putting out stuff out there to hype up stuff, so you can chain raise money on it, it’s not how things are going to really move forward. The agenda I want to do today is I want to give a little bit of background, what’s the motivation that brings us here, I think we’ve talked about it, I want to give a little bit of a preview, there are the real problems, the big elephant in the room that have not been discussed, because we’ve gotten lost in some, frankly, nonsense.
And there that I want to talk about some of the egregious errors and incompetence. that’s taken place, I want to talk about this thing called Sharpie gate, and the false claims. And they’re separate from those two, there are some good people who know mathematics, but curve fitting does not equal fraud. And I want to for those people have been funding this, and I’m talking about individuals who’ve given $5 $10, or people have given millions of dollars, that the question we want to ask is, do you want to be victims of this? Or do you want to be enablers of this? Okay, so let’s begin.
First of all this presentation, we’re going to talk about the problems in the election integrity movement, there’ll be future lectures will, which will also happen, we can host it with you guys if you want or we’ll do it on our own. But we want to talk about the elephant in the room, the real problems in election systems integrity, and what’s the path forward that we want to do. So the purpose of this everyone listening is to really be constructive.
But like one of my mentors, Frank Zane, who was a great body builder, he said, first you must sometimes destroy, to create, okay, so we get ready to clean the deck sometimes, okay, you got to detox. So, what is the motivation? The motivation is not to, you know, this is not about personalities. This is really about there’s a desire, by those dedicated to the discipline of engineering sciences to identify real problems in election systems integrity, however, egregious errors and false claims are, frankly, distracting from the real and substantive issues of election systems integrity. And the the problem is many of the people who approached me, this is damaging their credibility.
And people are really upset at this and those who sincerely work beyond left and right to expose a real malfeasance. So I’m not going to go through this today. But there are big elephants in the room, which have we have not even begun to address because of the grifting. that’s taken place. We have ballot change, a chain of custody issues, major issue, accessibility, standard operating procedures, training of election personnel, enforcement of these SOPs and existing laws, there is really no real penalty penalties right now for violation of 52 USC 20701.
There is no meaningful signature verification and failure rate detection, some of the work our Institute’s going to be doing we’re going to be publishing a paper which will come out in the next week or so please keep an eye out for that data Federation, which means system a doesn’t communicate with system B the system see none of the data matches Okay, mismatch of common data elements. There’s inconsistency of voter identification methods based on how you come into this process. And most importantly, in any type of audit, there’s a lack of end to end what we call in the quote unquote Harvard Business School model key performance indicators.
Okay, auditors know this. We will discuss this but I want you to Just look at this. And I’m sure you haven’t seen this really being highlighted. There are real elephants in the room. And we need to go after those, because this is where prosecution should occur. This is where we’ll get down to recognizing that both wings of the establishment have been taking advantage of the American public. There are real issues. But let’s talk now, to clear the deck. Okay. There are egregious errors and incompetence that have taken place. So one of the things is the failure to understand adjudication. Okay, so we’re going to educate people, what is adjudication, and there’s been a real failure to understand it.
So for example, here’s a ballot. Now you notice, you’re supposed to vote for three, you’re supposed to make three choices. Everyone see that? But the guy only made one choice. So this is a race on a ballot. Now this would because the person only voted for one and not three people. This would go to adjudication, and an adjudication people review this. And in this race, you’re supposed to vote for three people, but someone voted for one. So this race on this ballot, so race and ballot cannot be conflated will be adjudicated to determine the voter intent. Okay. Now, just to give a little bit of background, a ballot can have many races, right. You can vote for the dog catcher, you can vote for the, you know, Judge, etc. So one ballot could have 60 races.
Now, one or more races on a ballot may be flagged for adjudication. So even if all 60 races on one ballot were flagged for adjudication. Only one ballot is counted as adjudicated, does that make sense? So even if someone reviewed also, it’s not 60 adjudications or 60 modifications. It’s one ballot. That was adjudicated, okay, those
modifications are totally different than adjudication. adjudication goes on the actual ballot itself, modifications are made on the ballot in a specific race
in a specific race, so you can have many, and by the way, you can have a bunch of adjudications, but maybe no modifications were made. Okay. But the key point is, we cannot confuse a race with a ballot. Okay. So this was put out by an individual. Jeffrey, I think Philea AKA, I think giovane pulutan. JP, we’ll call him. And this was, and by the way, what I’m sharing right now is, Joe, it’s what you sent me, you sent me about six images to review. Okay. Yes. And so this was one of those images, which is called a batch modification report. It looks very, very complicated. And what you see here is a image where it says that 12% 12.06% of a particular batch of ballots, and it’s referring to let me walk you through this. So this diagram, what it says, according to its author is clear, quote unquote, evidence of election fraud Maricopa County.
Okay. David, going back to what you call to presentation of evidence, but let’s really unpack this. What’s really going on here? Well, first of all up here is the number that says that there were 24 ballots that were modified, you see that 24 out of right here 199 ballots to 24 divided by 99 comes to this 12.06. Okay, so 24 ballots were modified out of 199 to get 12.061 out of 88 ballots. And by the way, I think they’re 10,000 of these crates, we’re only looking at one of them that was sent to us, meaning many batches were analyzed with these kinds of images. But one would leave after looking at this thing. It’s really a misrepresentation of adjudication, because it says 12%, one out of eight of ballots, were in this case modified.
Okay. So is this accurate? Okay. And by the way, if this is accurate, this would affect all batches about 10,000 that were apparently reviewed, and analyzed by the author and represented as evidence. So let’s go a little bit deeper into this. So first of all, there’s a number of errors here, first of all, you know, it’s when we’re doing audits, you have to be right with your numbers. So 200 ballots are in this batch, not 199. Okay. It’s one to 200 Okay.
All right. 00 to 199.
Yes, I mean, there’s different but you don’t think the ordinal account, but it’s 200 pounds. The second error is there’s only 16 ballots that were adjudicated, not 24. And I’ll show you all the data on this. Next fact is given that they’re 60 races per ballot, if you want to think about that from potential adjudications out have been 12,000 potential adjudications. The fact is a 24 adjudications over 12,000 would be point oh 2%. Now the reality is if you want to give the benefit of the doubt 16 ballots out of 200 ballots 16 ballots were adjudicated, right, modified, that would be 8%, not 12.06%. Okay, so on a good day, this should be brought down 8%. But it gets a little more interesting.
Okay. So when we want to talk about evidence, if you look at 16 out of 200 ballots at 8%, not 12.6%. However, not even one race on the 16 ballots was adjudicated for the presidential race. So those of our people who saw this would think, Oh, my God, 12%. In this ballot, we’re, you know, adjudicated for the presidential race. So let’s look at the ballot images. Remember, we recently got the ballot images, we actually looked them up, Joe and David, okay, we went into our database. And we looked them up.
And I’m going to share with you some examples. When you look at this, and some very this number over here, h1 denotes the actual tabulator, right? Which is the actual machine that the ballots were put through, and the tabulator, here’s three zeros or one, their first h1, this number is there were 200. That’s the batch. Okay. batch ID. And what you find is when you look this up, when we have this, by the way, have it loaded up in our data center, we looked it up there 16 ballots that were actually modified. So let’s go a little more detail. So when you analysis of the adjudicated ballots in the quote unquote evidentiary batch, okay. So this is one of those ballots, Joe and David, we’ve pulled one of those 16 out, and what do you see here? So this is when something gets adjudicated.
So this is a ballot, and we’re looking at one race. And what you see here, this is one adjudicated ballot, and one race was changed. Jody, your point? Okay. And this was a race where there it’s called an over vote because a person is voting for a superior court, and they circled this and this everyone see, that’s called an over vote, you voted yes and no. And then the person cancelled this. So in the database, it’s it was frankly, correctly done. It was adjudicated, and it was resolved. And again, this this is not a presidential vote was affected. Okay.
This is a down ballot race. Is that clear? Yes. Any questions? So that’s one of those ballots. Let me go to another one. Here’s another one. That’s interesting. This is again, one adjudicated ballot again, one race was changed. This was for an over vote again, for a Supreme Court, it was correctly resolved to one vote yes. And you can see that right here. And again, this was not a presidential race. Okay. No presidential vote for Biden, or Trump was affected. Here’s another one. That’s even more interesting. One ballot, but you’ll notice there’s 1234 Or five races. Okay, that were flagged, but notice, it’s still one adjudicated ballot, but nothing was changed here, David or Joe? Okay.
There was in fact, a overvolt, here for the HS governing board. And that was properly there was no, there was no really race change. And they were for examples of under votes. But again, no presidential vote was affected. So I just want the viewers to understand that this is the adjudication process. But everyone should understand when we ran as a write in in the general election, every write in vote is always automatically adjudicated, it does not mean that there was some malfeasance. Okay, so here’s a right in, and there was, so the right and campaign is captured, right, because you have to capture it. And adjudication is a process, and the undervote is for State Rep.
And they were supposed to vote for two again, no presidential race. The net of it is when you look at this graphic, it frankly shows a serious lack of understanding there’s errors in reading the CVR. 200, not 199 may seem minor, but it’s important. It’s conflation of races and ballots. The adjudication occurs on over votes and under votes, which we saw. But remember, any right in must be adjudicated, it’s not a bad vote. You can’t conflate this to say something’s going on. As I mentioned, there are many, many real problems is not a real problem. Not one was a presidential race across all those 16 ballots in that batch. But if you were to just look at this as a naive viewer, or you were hyped up on he would say, oh my god, 12% of the presidential races, perhaps were adjudicated. Now, in this same if the same erroneous method was used across all those batch modification reports, and I haven’t seen them all job but I understand there many of these reports using the same format potentially 10,000. They’re all incorrect. Okay, so there’s a lot of stuff that would lead one to believe there’s some something major going on here. But there’s a lack of understanding fundamentally David between races and ballots.
And there’s a there’s a, frankly, a conflation between those two. Okay. Okay, but continue key thing these balances, there’s none of them are presidential races that were affected has nothing to do with the Trump and Biden race. Is that clear? These are down ballot races. Okay. And all of them were handled properly. Nothing burger. Let’s go to the next one failure to understand modified cards. So again, let me go back to this example. One, three people should have been voted right, as we said. But we need to understand something, what a modified card.
And this is. Election terminology is a post adjudication record. So you have a race and you say, Okay, how should which way should have this gone? And then a modified card is created. Okay. Now Maricopa also use electronic adjudication of this specific race in question. And the modified card and the original card are often the same, since a races are unchanged, as you remember, in this case, right? So here are five races on the same ballot. And none of them, there were no racist change. So the modified card and the V original card are the same. Okay.
But if you don’t understand this, which I think what the problem here is, it’s a serious lack of a fundamental understanding to count every adjudicated race as a modified ballot. Okay. And I think that’s what happened here. Let me go into something that gets to the big picture here. Because we don’t want to create again, nothing burgers, that allows people who do who are election fraud deniers to say, Aha, right? We’re chasing something, we got them. And, you know, on on garbage. And frankly, when you look at the entire thing, the reality of adjudication for presidential race 11,930 presidential races were impacted by adjudication. So all those ballots, okay. If you look at 2,075,000 ballots, there were only 11,930 presidential races that were impacted by adjudication.
That makes sense. Which means out of all those ballots, 11,930 were the ones that people had to look at adjudication of the presidential races, to make it even more precise. Of those 7942. Were right in and they had nothing to do with Trump or Biden, okay. They’re writing for other presidential races for people writing and maybe Mickey Mouse or Kanye West. Okay, things like that. All the right, and votes had to be adjudicated, so there’s no really, you know, issues there. Because if it’s a right in, it’s got to be adjudicated. Um, now, there were a small number of them, we had people put X’s and check marks, and that didn’t be adjudicated, but if you take all those away, at the end of the day, when it came to Trump and Biden, only 3732 had to do with this, you know, was it for Trump or Biden, okay. And so, at the end of the day, less than 4000 out of 2 million, but more importantly, you know, there were assertions made that 300,000 out of 2 million were adjudicated for the presidential race. And this will get us into the Sharpie gate area. Okay. But these are the absolute facts.
And these are the evidence when you look at it, okay? Again, there are many, many real problems. This is not a real problem. It was unfortunately hyped up. Now, let’s go to the fiction of Sharpie, gay. I think it was called the hemo. Report, I guess, bleed through, okay. Pretty interesting marketing. And again, this is a false claim. The Gaza Gateway Pundit, I guess picked this up, and I don’t blame them for it. But it was a story that was sold to them the hemo report. Let’s look at what we mean by bleed through.
Now I want people to look at this ballot, because it’s a wonderful example. Because the story out there was that this sharp sharpies were used. And because of the use of Sharpies, as you can see they bled through from one side to the other side. And they would have caused adjudication. So by the way, here’s a ballot, you can see how misaligned it is, you say, see the marks along here. This is one that’s seriously misaligned. And so you would think, yes, I’m sorry.
Yeah. So I want I want people to understand that that’s called a MVP, right? So the reason why it’s misaligned is that this particular ballot is put through what’s called a mail ballot printer. So it’s printed because all ballots that go out that are not produced on mailbox printers are proved before they’re actually sent out. Right and the company America that did those things is called runback. I just want, I want everybody to understand that the ballots didn’t just come out of a machine from runback sent out to people as a mail and ballot and they came back this way. These are ballots that were printed using the mailboat printer. So, I read that in the report on the third volume, so yeah, I
mean, I mean, I think the key thing is example see how misaligned it is? Yeah, so if this was, so it’s unreadable. Yep. This, if you notice these dots here, they’re people marking stuff for races on the other side. And even in such a such a, pretty abominably misaligned, you notice that that right here, these dots are nowhere near these dots over here. That’s the point. Okay. If they were here, Joe, they would go into adjudication. Does that make sense? Because these dots would be over these documents say, Hey, I’d have an over vote, and I got to figure out which way they go. Everyone clear? Yes. Okay.
The point was even in such a case, this is actually nothing really happened here. So nothing burger. But assertions were made 300,000. You know, ballots potential went through this process. And then and that they were held in abeyance, right. And that this was a basis of, quote, unquote, fraud. So the claim was 10s of 1000s. of Election Day ballots were affected by Sharpie gate. The reality is only 852. Election Day ballots were adjudicated for President. Okay, that’s a reality. All 850 were right in votes. And the reality we’re only 13 involved Trump or Biden, I’m sorry to say Sharpie gate is not an issue. It’s an unfortunate hyperbole to say, to give it the best case analysis, okay.
The next thing is I want to go to a really a failure to understand provisional ballots to people understanding what is the provisional ballot, you go, you know, to vote now, provisional ballots are not only on election day, they can also be early voting, you decide to go to vote, and early voting, and you forget to bring your ID or you don’t have it, they’ll say, Well, okay, we’re gonna let you vote. But later on, we’ll figure out if you’re a real voter, okay. It’s called that’s called a provisional your, your voting, but it’s unsure whether your votes can be counted until it’s properly reviewed. Okay. So there were, I think 1000s of pages of a book created. Where this is a one page out of the Maricopa canvass report, okay, just one page for a particular precinct.
And what, and I’m just taking an example here, and in this page, you see what, how many, you know, were accepted, and how many were rejected in for provisional ballots. Okay, so six were accepted. And it tells why the reason codes, the new resident ballot verified and address was updated, early ballot requested and not returned, right. And these are the reasons why someone’s provisional ballot was rejected, right, you’re not registered to vote. That’s this code. You were not eligible to vote in this election. Your early ballot was sent returned and counted, right? It was already counted, right? Conditional, provisional, sufficient. So anyway, so this is literally a page out of the Maricopa Canvas report for a precinct clear.
This was presented as a visualization spelling mistake here, not ours. But in this multi page book, and the individual here, Mr. folia, I mean, a Pulitzer presented this as some phenomenal type of dashboard analysis, when what you can see here, any, in fact, term, this kinematic artifact detection. Okay. Just want to be clear what this is, this is just a regurgitation of this. This is not some advanced analysis. This is not kinematic artifact detection, simply taking this data and putting it frankly, into some relatively simple graphs, confusing graphs. Unfortunately, this is actually much easier to read. Okay. But bottom line is, this is a regurgitation of the Maricopa chemists report for a precinct. And what do you see here? This is just the accepted piece.
You know, it has the six ballots and it just lists a reason codes. In fact, it’s a little bit harder to read. These are the rejected codes. This is a graph simply pie charting, how many were rejected of the provisional how many were accepted? Okay. The point is that this report is taken and converted to this part here, and this part here and this part here. Okay, this number up here is all the registered voters in that precinct, how many voted and how many were rejected. And what you see here is these are numbers and I’ll get to them this is supposed to be for minority voters is called a casual factor of Python factor. And I hope these people do not, you know, understand how some of the data is being misused here and I’ll come back to it.
This fingerprint is apparently a an imprimatur for when fraud is taking place, okay. But the bottom line is, this was all branded as a very, very highfalutin term called kinematic artifact detection. And I think people funded this kinematic artifact detection. Bottom line is it’s simply a reconstitution of the data in the Canvas report. That’s my point, Joe. And David, there are people who do serious work. When I see the word kinematic. It’s coming out of, you know, kinematics, okay? There’s, there’s no kinematic here. It’s purely a regurgitation of the Maricopa report. That is the way remember when you were a kid, you get those little spy glasses in the serial thing. And you put it over to figure out what was really big sad. So I’m telling you, when you put the spyglass over here, the decoding is it’s a pure regurgitation of the Maricopa report. It is not kinematic artifact detection, okay. Period. Okay. So, roger that over here. You have the accepted code, you have the rejected codes, and you simply have a graph St. percent rejected and accepted. Okay.
This interesting imprimatur is created to denote fraud. Okay. And the viewer, when they look through this stuff, when they see this, they may say, Oh, my God, there’s fraud taking place here. Okay. So this is almost like a childish imprimatur that’s put to denote fraud. Okay, there’s no fraud here. It’s simply a restatement of the Maricopa Canvas report. This report looks at 2020. This is simply the 2020 data and the 2016. And the author of this goes on to claim you know, we have evidence of fraud because you have this thing, because in these provisional ballots in 2020, there were six which are accepted 16, which were sorry, 13, which were rejected.
But in 2016 43, were accepted and 18 were rejected. But because a percentage is higher here, versus here, right, that were rejected. Therefore, there’s some serious fraud taking place, when the reality is the total number of provisional ballots has gone down than the previous year. And more importantly, the actual numbers have dropped. And the reason is, and I’ll go through this, and this shows an individual who participated in this cup, as I understand paid good money for doing this doesn’t understand the fundamentals of a provisional ballot provisionals. The assumption of this author is they only impact Election Day voters, it’s absolutely false.
So the assumption is that provisionals only occur on election day, but it’s not true. The reality is in Maricopa, if one had actually studied this, early in person voting resulted in provisional ballots. So to everyone listening, you could definitely on election day, you could do a provisional, but even several days, weeks before that you could go early voting in person, and that too, could result in a provisional. But one of the most important things was that provisional rejection rates increase from 2016 to 2020, is the claim that’s false, in Maricopa implemented something called Real Time provisionals, which by the way I don’t care for, and a bunch of us in our institute we’ve talked about, we don’t think it’s a good thing. And in 2020, which significantly decrease the number of provisional ballots, and that’s what you see here. You say, in this precinct, we went from 51, or 61 provisionals to 19. Everyone see that? Because what they did was they had this thing called Real Time provisionals. But to call this report, kinematic artifact detection is just utter rubbish. And this is again a regurgitation of the data post in the Maricopa County Recorders website. Let me go to something else.
And we’re going to get into something again, to the audience listening. The goal here is to recognize that all of this stuff, there’s nothing here everyone. There are real substantive issues. And if you’re funding this, I feel that you’re being victimized. And that’s why we want to alert people to this. Now, let’s talk about turnout counts. So David, you asked one of the numbers here is turnout. Okay, turnout percentage, and it’s listed right here. And the individual listed this made Mr. JP stated, and you can go look at five minutes, 40 seconds in this rumble video, the direct quote, and I’m quoting the says international standards government standards.
And exactly what the mitre report released and MITRE is right here in Massachusetts. In the current Biden administration, it says anything over 72% in turnout is considered suspicious. Okay, so let me read that again. It says, according to this individual, that international standards government standards and exactly what the mitre report released in the current Biden report, it’s, it says anything over 72% in a turnout, it’s considered suspicious. And you can go look at it. So the individual who has put together this stuff is asserting that if they’re 72%, or over and turnout, that’s considered suspicious, and he’s quoting, a citation look in science, you better make an engineering you better quote properly. Okay. You get paid papers rejected.
You get papers retracted for doing this kind of stuff. The mitre report, we went looked at it released on February 2020 21. And it’s called data analytics to enhance election transparency. It does not say that turnout over 72% is suspicious. And Joe and David, I encourage you, if you have conversations, you should ask. This gentleman should be asked to provide the source of the assertion regarding quote, unquote, international government standards. I’d really like to find this because I can find it here. Okay. But more importantly, if you actually go look at the data, and I highlighted all the presidential years, what do you see Joe? And David? It’s 70. What 570 9% 74% 74%? These are the Presidential you’re 7777 71. Right. So the bottom line is that it’s not suspicious. In fact, the data shows that it is important to note that the turnout, by the way, is measured in two ways, right? Sometimes measured as a percentage of citizen voting age population. See that, but more commonly as a percentage of the registered voters.
But the bottom line is on presidential years, it is typically over 70%. Everyone see that? All right, so there’s nothing burger here. So the turnout, again, is spotlighted. So when you see 77, this fingerprint is put on these reports, alerting the reader. And I hope this wasn’t submitted to the Attorney General, frankly, because the Attorney General’s Office wants real issues. And if they get crap like this, I’m sorry, to say that’s what it is. They’re gonna think this entire audit was this garbage. Okay. But putting stuff like this, this is not an issue.
Now, this gets something really interesting. We’ve heard of ghost voters, right, David, and, and this is a serious issue. There are potentially real ghost voters, right. But if we make assertions of quote unquote, ghost vote voters, and we brand it, I think this is called the Python score. Okay. When it’s nothing there, it’s going to actually reduce the credibility of when people actually want to go do ghost voter analysis. So let me give you the example here. There’s a score up on the upper right. And by the way, when you look at this, and by the way, it was actually called registration anomaly spelled like this. Okay. Um, and it says the Python rating, and I hope whoever this individual is, does some cease and desist because this person’s name is actually being misused, but it says that the ghost voter rating here is 87.3%. So what do I mean? So if you look at this, this is a precinct Oh 639, the Sun Devil precinct and in this precinct, apparently, there are, can you see that 87.3% of people in this precinct or ghost voters? Pretty high, isn’t it? Yes. So and so the registered voters in this precinct are 1820. And those who voted are 1417. So if you divide 1237 divided by 1417, you get this number. Okay.
And therefore, this is branded as some serious fraud. Well, let’s, we went in and we did some analysis on this. According to the individual in question here, a definition of a ghost voter per their definition is a voter appearing on voter registration. So that means Bill Smith at one main street appears in voter registration. Okay. So if you wonder the voter registration, there’s Bill Smith, on one main street, but not appearing in any other party. Quick Reports. So Bill Smith had one Mainstreet does not appear on electric bill or no vehicle registration or other public reports. According to this definition, that would be a ghost voter. Does that make sense? Yes. Okay. So by applying that definition, what this analysis here did, using this Python scoring, was using this precinct 639. We went looked it up in America county recorders website. And this is that precinct. Do you see this? David? It’s almost a block. Right? So this is the actual evidence.
One of the members on our Institute’s team did we went actually looked it up. And we saw this here. Well, guess what this is, this is actually Arizona State University. It’s the actual university. And if you look here, it’s frankly totally reckless to call these ghost voters. Why? Because it’s completely misrepresenting university students as ghost voters. Because defining a ghost voter, as any voter on the rolls, who does not have a match in a public records request is flawed. So for example, if you have Jane Doe, who is a freshman or junior something, he lives at one University Avenue at the dormitory and Arizona State University with no electric bill or no vehicle registration, that’s the analysis that they did here.
They would be branded as a ghost voter, which means any young person freshmen or sophomore, who doesn’t, you know, most freshmen or sophomore probably don’t have an electric bill, right? They would be all branded as ghost voters. And that’s how you get this flawed analysis. Okay. So if we’re, if the election integrity movement, is branding this at such a high number, this is like open territory for anyone to just destroy this. Okay. So this is, in my view, egregious ignorance, and impacts for those of us, frankly, the credibility of actual ghost voter analysis, because if you put out 1000s of pages of this, as I understand was put out,
This really hurts the sincerity of real election integrity analysts. And then this is put out there. I thought it was a Pac Man thing. Actually, I didn’t know what this was. Sorry about that. But you can see all these numbers here. And it’s frankly, just rubbish. Okay, I hate to say it, okay, I can’t decipher this. It just is made so complicated, that no one even knows what is going on here. Okay, but I’ve hopefully decipher some of it. Probably, I want to end with I mean, there’s many, many cases like this, to the goal of this is to open up the viewers out there to recognize that we have problems when people are just putting, frankly, this nonsense out there. self promoting, and I hope I’ll get to these people are funding this. So there was a claim made by the same individual radioactive isotopes were used on ballot paper is absolutely false. Radioactive isotopes were used on ballot paper, okay.
The reality is, this is absolutely false, because the manufacturer of the ballot paper does not use radioactive isotopes. In fact, a FOIA was done by one of our people. And that revealed receipts for purchases that show that Maricopa County did not purchase the vote secure paper with the GR Tagen. That’s what it really is. In fact, it’s not radioactive, but it’s infrared. Okay. And so zero Maricopa ballots had that what’s called the tag end that is used in some of the Roland paper. So it’s irrelevant that the detection was not used on the machines. And by the way, this was hyped up and hyped up for, you know, on social media as though there’s some big issue here. And I think people donated money for this.
So the hyperboles on social media, but frankly, it’s just nonsense. Now, I want to talk about a couple of other things. You know, I know David, you went to the cyber symposium, I went there. And this is, and one of the things we noticed there was we were waiting for the big thing I actually spoke about the censorship issue. But at the end of that event, if you remember, David, a few words row, this data came out saying how much Trump votes were different than what was reported. And as the data came out, so in one column was the votes that were reported by state. And another column was apparently what happened from China or someone attacking our elections.
And when you listed them and you simply did a simple division, it was exactly 4.2% for nearly every state. So if someone did cheating, it looks like they just knew the number 4.2 And I was on Steve Bannon show. I said, Steve, this seems highly improbable. It looks like someone gave MICHAEL SANDEL a lot of, frankly, ridiculous data. Or the guy read The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy and thought the answer is 42 and five by 10, but again, it’s this kind of stuff, where people need to do what you just said, Joe, peer review, the, the model of sciences, you know, I’ve published papers in some of the leading journals, those papers that sometimes taken me three years to get published, you publish something, you know, I recently published a paper where half of the reviewer said, this is brilliant work and the other half trash me, you know, which is fine. And then I had to openly accept that, and I had to write back a response, a 20, page response, educating them.
And then it got finally accepted. It’s been one of the most cited papers now in the field. But this process of where you put something out, in fact, when I put up the 99 page report, one of the journalists, quote unquote, journalists, the county didn’t directly attack it, they use a journalism to attack me and I, and then I wrote back a 67 page response. Okay, it took me all night, right? This is what you do. And I went through every sentence and every line and say, wrong wrong. And this is where you’re mistaken. This process, ultimately let you get to the truth. And this is a rigor, the true election systems integrity movement needs, and it cannot be a big grift to just hype people up. The reality is to, to everyone listening, we’re talking about a vocal minority actually ruins it for the rest of the people. Okay.
There are real substantive issues. And I want to emphasize this, I want to say this, again, there are real substantive issues on election systems integrity, and when someone sucks the oxygen out of the room, and actually believes hype is more important than truth, and makes commentary like that, and believes that and believes that’s a modus operandi and has probably gotten away with it. This is not a good way to be a human being, if you okay, but separate from that, what I’ve come to the conclusion, there’s three sides to everything nowadays. There’s the people who deny stuff, the establishment, there’s a Grifters who make up fake problems, to or fake solutions to real problems or deny them.
And then there’s the people actually are doing the hard work in a very non sexy, non hyperbolic, you know, way. And there are real issues as we laid out. And I can’t overemphasize that. The reason this is, again, a multi part series that I hope to do, I’ve been very busy on a number of other areas, finishing up actually two papers. So I haven’t had a chance to be on social media. And I want to let people know when people found out that I was going to be on Joe and your show, I got a call saying I understand you’re, I haven’t even put anything on social media. The first time I’m doing this. I take this very seriously. Every you know, when I was at MIT, Joe and David, I had a professor who was a a PhD in kinematics, real kinematics. And I’m a PhD in literature. And he said, Shiva, when you write a paper, a scientific paper, you better write it that an eighth grader can understand it. If you make a figure, make the figure easy to understand what is in the figure put a proper caption, proper labels, proper titles, that’s when I want to go back to this doc.
And when I look at this freaking laughable. I mean, this is like, seriously embarrassing. I’ve been very kind here, but the best word I could see here was rubbish. I’m not sure what this is. This is it’s not even written for an eighth grader. It’s written for a negative eighth grader. Okay. It is absolute garbage. So my point is, there are people who do serious work, Joe. And, David, when you write a document, I mean, I will spend hours and you can talk to colleagues of mine, we will spend hours looking at a finger oh my god, is that finger? Right? That I do it right? Is that period? Right? Right? Is it fig? I mean, just very subtle things. Because you want someone to look at that figure and immediately appreciate it. This should not require. I don’t even know what this is. And even if you did know it, there’s probably a simpler way to represent it.
And when you unravel it, it has been presented as kinematic artifact detection. Frankly, it’s just bullshit. Okay, sorry, I have to use that term. Let me finish up with this. Now, what I’ve just shared with us is egregious examples. There are people who are taking data, you talked about neural nets, machine learning, input output, and you fit a line to a curve. And they said, Oh my god, I’m finding this amazing pattern. And I’ve had discourse with some of these people well meaning people, but fitting a line to a curve no matter how or how high order those polynomials are does not mean that’s indicative of fraud, you have fit a curve to a set of points.
And you can always find a reasonable fit unless a data is highly random. Okay, so we can have a discussion, I invite those people to have a discourse on this. Let me also mentioned this one of the people who worked on the ground a serious investigator, they found random dots that do appear on ballots. The individual in question, as we said, put out big news, saying that their MC codes on the ballot, peer misinformation. So the serious investigator on this issue has been conditionally notice.
Yeah, so most people don’t understand what a MC code is.
It’s it’s literally a code, you know, that’s put on there, okay. To identify a particular ballot, okay. It’s a unique identifier of sorts. Okay. But what the auditors, the investigators on the ground, who did the real work, they were noticing that there were these yellow dots that do appear and random. The individual in question said, no, no, these are MC codes, meaning there’s some, you know, codes, you know, on the ballot. So these serious auditors they’ve been, they asked repeatedly, over and over over again, they’re, by the way known as a machine identifier, codes. Em, I see machine identifier codes, that’s what MC stands for, okay.
And they have been asking for the microscope images on the ballots. So they could actually review these yellow dots to find out where they’re fraudulent ballots or non fraudulent pallets. And to this date, they have not been given those microscope images, stating some issue with disk drives. And the reason I bring this up is this is essentially what I went through. I was hired in June, starting in June, sign the contract. When I was first brought in, I mean, we have the technology here to do this, like this, to get the ballot images.
As I as it is public. Now we were given corrupt images, the county was blamed for this, I’ve come to find out much less than four weeks ago, that they’ve, when they mean they the people doing the audits actually had the ballot images in their possession since April. So I really have to ask why I didn’t receive them and why I had to jump through hoops to get the ballot images because the ballot images should have been done first. Again, paper ballots become valid images, you, uh, you you compare the ballot images to the CVR codes, we’ve done them it took us about 10 days to do it. Okay. And we’ll be releasing that report. And funding was allocated for that we never saw the money. Okay.
So we have to ask why. But let me finish by this to the funders of this, whether you were a donor, whether you gave $10,000 Whether I gave millions of dollars worth of my time, or whether you gave 10s of millions, I don’t know what the numbers were. But this is a fundamental issue. The funders need to ask your question, are you just a victim? Are you an enabler because of false claims and an erroneous statements? You know, you know, they really shift desperately needed resources. Again, I can’t overemphasize, there are big, big elephants in the room here that are serious issues of fraud that should be prosecuted.
And they are desperately taking those resources away from legitimate investigations, and fact finding efforts to false allegations and enabling the self promoters, these people, those people who fund and provide resources to advance the election integrity movement must stop supporting these unsubstantiated claims. There are again, for the nth time I want to emphasize there are real and substantiate substantive issues in election systems integrity, that go beyond left and right, and have to be resolved. So that’s really the core what I wanted to share, at least in this first series. My view on this is the following, okay. And I said this, and I maintain this, and this is why I believe that we need to reset on where the real issues are. When I started at the outset of this, I want to redirect people to and we’ll come back to this, you know, probably next time we do this. You’re asking a very, very important questions, Joe.
So when you look at the machines, right? They’re part of a large systems process. That’s where I started in engineering systems process. So you have stuff coming in and your input and output and you have this big black box, right? Called the voting system. What what comes in, voters come in and you get votes being cast. Okay. These go through a set of processes. One of them being machines. Okay? Even if you were to eliminate all the machines, you still have substantial issues of ballot chain cut chain of custody. Okay? Right. You have substantial issues on how all these processes are being done. I have still yet to receive a detailed sop on how signature verification is done. One of our people got a FOIA through FOIA, but it’s not anything detailed.
We don’t know how curing is done. We don’t know if the 27 point algorithm is being executed. You say that the lack the opacity in this is, is quite remarkable. On such a process, how our election personnel trained the National Association of State election directors an organization called Nasod nscd. People can look them up. They’re based out of DC. Every state election director belongs to Nasod. Okay. What came out in our findings in Massachusetts is Nasod. The president of it is now this state election director, Massachusetts. Okay. Nas, the state election directors are the ones getting back to your question on machines are the ones who certify these machines.
One of the things we need to understand is the software on these machines, you know, things like anything near the concept of having a weighted race feature? Why are those being certified? Okay, these are questions that need these are like big questions. We also need to ask, when you look at an organization like Nasod Why are the, you know, organizations like Pierre Omidyar? Why are the you know, the Fox News? I forget their names, the last names the Murdoch’s funding these organizations, okay. So NASA is a very powerful organization, the state election directors, which are the ones who certify voting machines. Another important thing to understand is that in Maricopa, you know, third parties have access to these voter registration systems.
And some states. In some states, this creates a huge vulnerability in Maricopa, the auditors were not given access to investigate the potential breaches of these, okay, this is a very, very substantial issue. And these are big issues, these are big elephants in the room, you know, talking about ghost voters in a university and putting 89.7% up there, and scaring people and asking for money. This is a complete deviation, a distraction from the big issues on the table here. And those issues here. So when you talk about you’re talking about, it’s really the value chain of custody.
And these are prosecutorial issues. You know, there are issues that were supposed to be in that report that people have been trying to get to the attorney general, for example, having to do with the box of fact, when people go to the mailbox, as you know, to get the ballots to people are supposed to go, things are supposed to be recorded properly, that valid chain of custody is a very, very significant issue. So in my view, I look at it when you say the voting machines, Joe, I see the whole thing as one system. And in my view, there are so much squishiness along those points. There are multiple opportunities for vulnerabilities, we have to take a systems approach, there are multiple holes in the dike.
So if you plug up this hole, someone can come in this way, right? And someone can, so we really need to take a systems approach. I mean, look at when the space shuttle blew up, you had the O rings, one little hole ring, which interconnected the solid rocket boosters. And there was one whistleblower there, Alan McDonald, he wouldn’t sign off on it. And when he died recently, six months ago, he said the most important thing in life is to do the right thing, say the right thing at the right time, to the right people. And there are substantial issues here. So we need to say the right thing at the right time to the right people. So chain of custody is what you’re referring to, where are the SOPs, and I encourage all the people who are funding this individuals as pest plus people put a lot of money out there, you have to start looking at these issues.
And we will be focusing our Institute’s going to focus on them. But there are many, many substantial issues that we need to focus on. But we can’t do that. If there’s like you said, there’s all this noise, this noise out there, and you have to hunt for the signal. I hope everyone out there who’s listening recognizes that we don’t want to support the grifting anymore. It is very, very destructive to people who are actually wanting to do the real work. And we’re at a very important point in American history. Because with the consolidation, with or with the advent of technology, with the amount of effort that’s gone in with mail in ballots and all this stuff, there’s many moving parts here. The good news is that there is an emergent group, Joe and David have serious people who’ve come up.
And we need to make sure this vocal minority who is taking advantage of the election integrity movement is frankly, pushed aside. And they need to go actually find some real work to do in their lives. Because this is too important of an issue for this to become some entertainment and some theater. So what I hope to do in the next part, is to really go through these issues. So we want to now bring to the forefront for policymakers, legislators, Attorney Generals, Hey, these are the real issues, these are the big elephants. And these are the things that you need to go focus on right now. And these are prosecutorial issues, and we have them even in Maricopa, to your point, David, it’s not like we have to save something, it’s already there, we just need to bring it up and let the crap go away. So if we can do that, I think we can, we can use Maricopa, and I want to thank all those people who did put a lot of effort, there are some very courageous people. You know, I did the initial analysis, when I was at that hearing that brought some of this out there. But more importantly, there are substantive issues. And I believe people on the left and the right, will both benefit from this. So I think we’re in a very good space as we move into the next phase of this.
So I hope we’ve cleared the decks here, and those of you who funded this, the grifting class or your money back. In my own election, the first thing I asked for was for the ballot images. I mean, you look at it from a surplus problem, you go, you go to the source of the crime, right, which is I have the tabulated votes, what’s the thing that was used to tabulate those votes? It’s a ballot images. I have not gotten an answer. Why you didn’t give me the ballot images. Doug should be here. You know, we should get Doug on here. Because I’ve had to ask Doug, why. And he hasn’t given me an answer. Yeah, I think I think Doug needs to come here. And really, because we should have done the ballot images like that in April 21. Okay. And then you compare the ballot images with the ballot scans. Okay.
And maybe people are now running around, because I’ve been saying this to go do this, and maybe they’re gonna produce some data, God knows what. But we have the infrastructure here to do that. And we could have done that in, you know, pennies on the dollar. But at this point, this is not a tough problem. It’s a it’s a basic engineering systems exercise. And I really have to wonder, and a really, really pains me because we had everything set up. We signed contracts, we never got paid for it, we did the work. Okay, we sucked up all the CVR records, it’s only recently we’ve got the images. And it’s very fast to do this. And there is no reason that that did not get done.
There’s no reason the other people who wanted the microscope images still have not gotten done. I mean, when I asked Doug for it, Doug said, you know, more, more recently, all I couldn’t get the disk drives, well, someone else paid for the disk drives, I would have paid for the disk drives, not a lot of money. So there are some serious issues here. Meanwhile, you have individuals like I just went through here making a lot of noise about nothing burgers. And it’s and that’s why we need to focus this because I think there are some, there are some good people in the Attorney General’s Office, who are very serious people who are committed to this country.
But if they have to go through 3000 pages of crap, they’re going to get tired of it. And what I just showed you in those diagrams is rubbish. And so if you’re going through rubbish, and to find a few pearls, and you have a limited amount of staff a limited amount of time, you’re going to run out the clock, remember, it’s 22 months, where are we right now? election was November 4 2020. We’re now into what 1213, we’re about nine months left. So nine months, you know, you can’t really the 22 months are over. So we don’t have a lot of time. If you look at Maricopa, or the general election for 2020. It comes down to the entire issue with the issue of the entire system’s processes here. You know, these are substantive issues that you’re bringing up, Joe, that’s what people should be talking about front page news on all these social media things.
Where are the logs? Where are the logs? Why were they deleted? Right?
And I do on the tech side. When I fix something on the tech side. You go to the logs we always look at the logs we always look at logs. And so I knew as the further we get into this is that there there are architectural problems. And these are smart people that built these machines. These are smart people, these these are not stupid people, they understand system risk, they understand how to mitigate those risks. And so I find it very difficult like I do in the audits, I find it difficult to explain away incompetence, and or oops, I made a mistake. And I think that that’s, you know, that’s the issue as I start going through this. And after talking to you, I want to schedule a secondary follow up to what the substantive issues are. And let’s get everybody laser focus. Running.
Yeah, so yeah. You see some of those substantive issues here. I’m sure they’re more. But I think there’s a way to take the substantive issues. And I think the opportunity is we need to focus he’s into some big, what I call the big elephants, right. And we need to re present this. Because the data is there, the the opportunity is still there. So people should not feel hopeless. In fact, we should have a lot of hope. And the hope is that first we begin with eliminating the noise. Now we can go to the signal. So I’m glad we did this. And I want to invite everyone, you know, our election systems integrity Institute, is is really going to be dedicated to competing in many ways with the Harvard Belfer school, which denies there’s any election fraud issues, competing with the Stanford internet observatory, who denies there’s any election fraud, wants to compete with my colleagues over at MIT who deny there’s any election fraud, but we need a substantive set of real rigor in this. And it’s a huge opportunity for Virgin research. It’s a huge opportunity for people who are dedicated to this. And that’s we’re going to be doing, we’re going to be using this institute to really publish real peer reviewed research. And we have probably three papers that are going to be coming out in the next 90 days that the goal is to get them into some substantial journals. One is going to be in the signature verification area. Another is going to be in the area of some of the value chain custody issues. And the other is going to be really in the area of image processing. But you have to go through the peer review, you have to go through the rigor and get these published. And to all of you guys listening out there stuff, funding Grifters, tell them to go get a real job, okay. These people are frankly, not good. And don’t fund them anymore. And don’t try to convince me some of you while you have to fund them. Okay. Don’t try to rationalize bad behavior period. This the district the defending Democracy Project, right out of the if you can see right out right out of the bell first. Yes, it’s called the defending democracy project started in 2018. Get the main director one of the main directors of that is Robbie MOOC, Clinton’s former campaign manager. And this institute was created to not only deny election fraud, but also to create an unholy alliance with big tech that if anyone brought up election fraud, they will be branded as an I O. And with the long fuse report out of Stanford said was that myself, and for five other people were branded as a leading repeat spreaders of information myself, Donald Trump, James O’Keefe, and we were being surveillance since July of 2020. It’s documented in those 300 pages. So the censorship issue, the censorship infrastructure was designed to attack anyone who raised substantial real questions. So that’s why these Grifters we as a movement need to also isolate them because they’re playing into the hands of these guys. Because this election fraud handbook guess what it’s called? The election influence operations playbook for understanding election misinformation and disinformation. So when you have the nothing burgers I just showed you. This is actually late feeding them misinformation and misinformation. Why would you say that ghosts voters are in Arizona, you’re feeding right into these guys. So they can brand all of us as doing shit work. Excuse my language. Okay, but this was created at the Belfer Institute. So if you are spreading that kind of stuff, you’re basically feeding the machine here. So it can say, Aha, we see this and it is disinformation. That is misinformation. It is misrepresentation. It is frankly, egregious misrepresentation. And we as a movement, if we’re serious about this, have to call out the garbage. You can’t talk about fake unity. I agree with you, David. People have been Oh, we all need to be unified. No, we don’t need to be unified. No unity,
but the people that are serious about it should be unified.
Yeah, but not we’re not here to cover up, you know, bad people and to say, oh, yeah, they’re one of our brothers. We’re going to let them also you know, get away with No way. This is also happening, by the way in the medical freedom movement right now. You know, I we just did two major protests. You have a guy called Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He stole a lot of stuff from us. We’re the ones who call that Fauci, Robert F. Kennedy. He said, I’m pro vaccine. I vaccinated all my kids, okay. And he endorsed Hillary Clinton three times I have to bring this out. He’s a big grifter.
He endorsed vaccine Queen Hillary Clinton three times. And yet a lot of work very wealthy moms keep giving him money, because he’s Bobby Kennedy. Okay. And he was on Lolita Express, okay. And he in his own home, he did a lockdown. He said, Anyone who comes to my party must be vaccinated. So people think these people say one thing and do another. So we got to get clear, there are three sides to the problem in the modern day world. The people deny just
punch me in the face, Dr. Shiva, I just want you to know, you just punched me in the face. You like drop the bomb, and you literally just punched me right in the face with a bomb, like right in my face.
Right about that? I’m telling you the reason the reason the world doesn’t change. If you if you believe in the Christian tradition, you know, Christ’s enemies were not the Roman establishment. It was the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Okay. And we have the not so obvious establishment. If you go look at any of the movies, certainly do you have the people who deny the problem, then you have the people? No, the problem is they grift off of it, to change to ching ching. And then there are people who actually understand the real problem and want to really solve it. And so we’re living in an era of this very important point in human development, where we need to call out both of these wings.
And it’s really, really important to do this because we have to do the right thing at the right time. It’s not like winning. Oh, yeah. Now I’m going to call out Fauci. Well, where were you in 2020? All these doctors, too little too late. Where Where are you calling out the real election fraud in 2020. Mark Meadows called me, you know, Rona McDaniels office called me Eric Trump called me. After we called it out. We asked him for data, they never gave us data. I was a total Trump loyalist, okay. 300 $500 million was raised by save America. Where’s that money gone? And if you think asking that you’re being anti Trump, well, something’s wrong with you. I’m not anti Trump or pro Trump. I’m pro this country.
So we got to get out of these cults. We got to the question that we’re at right now today is do you want to fight for you? Stop following Grifters. Start thinking about how we’re going to build a real movement. And the movement can only be built based on actual truth, actual freedom and actual healthy, you know, fundamental systems infrastructure. So it’s time to wake up, man. Otherwise, we’re all going to be misled. We’re all going to enter into a greater Dark Ages. You know, we did we just did this thing on, it’s called the real Robert F. Kennedy. Okay, people should go read it. Okay. He’s not so obvious establishment.
And in every one of these movements, we have this right now. And that we are in the age of discernment. The future of our existence is do you have the discernment to have the wisdom and to have the courage to call out these Grifters? If you don’t have that courage and that discernment, then you’re going to live in a world of bullshit. And that’s this election systems integrity issue. The issue with medical freedom, the issue, these two issues and the issue with censorship are very, very closely connected. That’s why the movement you know, we’ve created is truth, freedom and health. We got to fight against censorship. We’ve already big time lost that with what’s happened at Harvard. We have that we’re fighting truth for it right now. Because we have paid to play science. We’ve paid to pay people in this all movement. You know, and I’ve never
seen that from anybody. And I’m terrible with answers.
Well, I love it’s not if people should be paid for good work, okay. You do good work, great craftsmen. There’s great carpenters. There’s great electricians, but we should not be paying people who do crap work. Okay, we need to have discernment to all the people who whether you gave $1 or whether you gave $5 Or they gave $3 million or $5 million. You have to based on what you’ve heard today. And anyone’s welcome to call me. You have to disengage and disassociate from these people who’ve taken advantage of you.
And you cannot enable this you’re enabling like an alcoholic. So whether you did it out of ignorance, whether you did it out of you have a lot of money. $200,000 doesn’t mean much. It’s a fraction, whatever you did it for, after what you’ve heard today and what we’re going to continue to do, it’s time to get on the right track, you know, it’s time to redeem your, for your own self, whatever, whatever, whatever got you to this point, we have a significant opportunity still. So I want to encourage people to reflect on what we’ve talked about. And, frankly, come clean.
Got it. And that’s my biggest problem here is this the past four or five months when we were waiting? So anxiously for the miracle report. Just from the outset, it just was, it was disappointing, and it didn’t need to be disappointing. And I think we could have averted so much if if we didn’t have people hiding behind NDAs, etc. And so because the truth is going to come out one way or the other, but I think we’ve got an opportunity to course correct. So thanks for letting me sit in on the panel, Joe, Dr. Shiva, I learned a lot.
Let me write something up Dr. Shiva, if we can do it next week, I’ll be in touch with you this week, so we can discuss some other things. David, thank you very much for giving your time as well, and Dodgers tiba. I hope you will run again for Senate after we fix these election machines before Well,
I’m, you know, I’m still registered to run the issue is, you know, given the elections are selections, you know, what we have created? And this is a for all your audience understand people
say that again? Can you hear me? No, say it again, the the part about elections, our
elections, our selections, you know, that’s my current issue until these issues are really fixed. So, you know, I’ve been asked to run for governor here in Massachusetts, it’s something I announced I was going to do, but then I had to step back and reflect how would I run? You know, Trump actually went and endorsed a guy in Massachusetts, who 90 days ago said, there is no election fraud, and Trump should stop crying over spilt milk. And I had two meetings with Trump on this. Okay. Why did you endorse this guy? Well, I had to do it, because I didn’t know you were running another. Right. And so you have a lot of contradictions here.
The Massachusetts GOP is the one who conducted election fraud, the candidate that he endorsed, said, We have it on video, he said he should stop crying over spilt milk. So you still have Trump making horrible endorsements. And this is part of that’s part of grifting. It’s another aspect of grifting. And so critiquing Trump on this issue is something that’s necessary. And it’s part of your patriotic duty, you can’t you cannot be supporting people who deny that there’s no issues, and we’re part of the fraud. And that’s how of a betrayal it was to us, Joe, for all the 3000 4000 working people who did our campaign. So if we’re going to run for office, we’re going to do it as part of to build a movement.
And we have created a movement, we have close to 100,000 people globally that I’m educating on the science of systems. It’s called Truth, freedom, health calm. And our view is that we need to create a movement where everyday people understand how systems work, the elites at Harvard, and throughout the world, they’ve trained about 8000 people who understand how to play the chess game 10 steps ahead. So we’ve created that curriculum, we’ve created an infrastructure where people can build community, and we’re teaching people how to be activists on the ground, it’s neighbor to neighbor. So we have to rethink this whole electoral process, how does change really come? So if I decide to run, it will be to build a movement.
And that’s what I encourage people to do start thinking about local building movements. I mean, the way the election systems are set up, you know, history shows a great change never came from elections, it came from bottoms up movements, we need to create a bulk of people start understanding how systems work. The good news is we’ve created that curriculum made it very, very accessible and affordable, and to anyone, we have a woman who’s a hairdresser in New Jersey, who can teach the system science courses good, as better as I can.
So the goal is we’ve made it accessible to everyone. And when people understand the science of systems, then they have a nuclear weapon. Otherwise, we’re fighting with bows and arrows against the establishment, we’re never going to win. So we have to educate people on a different level now, and the school systems aren’t doing it.
I’m all for it. All right. Dr. Guys, God bless you both. And thanks
for everyone on the show, everyone. And again, you know, everyone should understand that we need to move in the right direction. We have a huge opportunity.
And we’ll have another one of these roundtables. We’ll have a conversation about who’s going to be on them. We’ll try to broker some conversations David with with others, and let’s just get to the bottom of it. If we’re all chasing mission, a mission should be election integrity, then there shouldn’t be any hurt feelings, we should just get to accountability and 2022 is a year of accountability. Thank you both. Gentlemen. Appreciate you very much.
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.