Not at all. That article was presented as evidence in favor of a particular assertion. Upon examination, it proved not to be evidence at all. The claim may (theoretically) be valid, but there hasn't been any evidence presented in support of it.
Until there is evidence, it will remain a simple (and weak) assertion, and logically equivalent to any other unsupported assertion.
No he is not. He has obviously got you thoroughly deceived.
@roscoe I seriously think you need to objectively and dispassionately review these videos:
I've been following Dr. Chris Martenson since January of 2020 and have found him to be a man of integrity - a diligent, forthright, dispassionate and balanced investigator into the facts and circumstances surrounding progression of, and responses to, the pandemic. Nothing he has reported on over that course of time have I found to be untruthful, misleading or self-serving. On the few occasions on which he subsequently discovered he was in error on something he was always forthright and conscientious in admitting his error and in correcting same.
OK, I watched the last video. I was unimpressed. He is building a case in a lawyerly fashion, using loaded language and making a lot of logical leaps to generate suspicion. In particular, he assumes a cover up, then looks for circumstantial evidence to support it. That is exactly how conspiracy theories are built.
If you want to actually examine the emails, and not have them pre-processed by a Youtuber with a clear agenda to gin up hysteria and clicks, they are available here: