Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently put to the discussion thread for one of my columns at the Value Walk site:
Roughly right? Um, no. None of it makes any sense at all unless Wade was threatened. Wade says he was not threatened. You disregard that, without offering any remotely plausible evidence. There is no reason in the world for anyone to take your word over his.
The obvious conclusion: 1700 words wasted.
If he wasn’t threatened, he wouldn’t have changed his views 180 degrees on about 20 important issues overnight, Dan.
The man was threatened. Lots of people have been threatened. And lots more who haven’t been threatened in a direct way have engaged in self-censorship because they have picked up a vibe in the air telling them that it is not a career-enhancing move to post honestly re the far-reaching implications of the last 36 years of peer-reviewed research in this field.
It will all come out in a front-page story in the New York Times that will be published shortly after the onset of the next price crash. I have a funny feeling that Wade Pfau will be quoted as saying some very positive and encouraging and intelligent and helpful and life-affirming things in that article.
I hope that all works for you, my good friend.
I naturally wish you all the best that this life has to offer a person in any event.