PERSPECTIVES ON THE PANDEMIC XXII

"INJECTIONS & INJUNCTIONS" PART 2/2—Scientific, Technological Elite


A Conversation with DR. ROBERT MALONE


Madison, Virgina, August 18, 2021


Interviewed by JOHN KIRBY


Researched and Edited by EVAN DOMINGUEZ & FRANCIS KARAGODINS


In the same Farewell Address in which he famously foresaw the rise of the military-industrial complex, former President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned equally prophetically that a "scientific, technological elite" could one day grow so powerful as to dictate federal policy. In Episode 22 of Perspectives on the Pandemic, Dr. Robert Malone, original inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, illuminates just how greatly the shared financial interests of a handful of Big Pharma players, high-level government bureaucrats and academic institutions have affected life-or-death policy during the COVID-19 pandemic.




TRANSCRIPT


President Eisenhower:

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard, there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.


Dr. Robert Malone:

Years ago, there was a problem that if biomedical research was funded by the government, the government owned everything. They owned all the intellectual property. The consequence of which is nobody filed patents because if I file a patent, the government's just going to take it away from you. Intellectual property was being created in the laboratories. Some of it was being classified, but for the most part it wasn't going anywhere. It was getting published in nature science or the journal of irreproducible results, but it wasn't being turned into products. So Birch Bayh and Bob Dole got together and they wrote a statute that got passed called the Bayh-Dole act. And the Bayh-Dole act changed everything. It's what has really driven American biotech, but it's also what's driven academia to become much of what it is right now, which is a great big money-making enterprise.

And the way that Bayh-Dole works is that if you filed patent, or patent disclosure as an academic, your university takes that and they make go/ no-go decision about whether or not to file a patent because a patent isn't cheap and to prosecute it. And if they were to file it and get it awarded, then the university would be able to sell it or commercialize it. The terms are that the investigator, the people that participated in its discovery, would get a fraction of that, often 20 or 30% of the value. The rest would go to the university. The government always has walk-in rights on any patents. And this is what's fueled a lot of the financial engine of the major centers like Boston and San Francisco and San Diego.


John Kirby:

Biotech centers.


Dr. Robert Malone:

Yeah, biotech centers. Now it was also applied to government employees. And that's where you end up with this odd situation where the taxpayer is paying for the staff at the NIH and the vaccine research center to make discoveries on behalf of the government, that then they get paid royalties on, and those royalties come back into their departments like NAIAD from the companies that commercialize the technology that they develop. And so you end up with this odd situation where the government is both acting to regulate things, and the same players that are involved in the regulation may be generating profit themselves in terms of compensation from the patent or their institutes are getting funded.


John Kirby:

That's not even a revolving door. That's just direct conflict of interest.


Dr. Robert Malone:

And it is totally legal. And at the level of the universities, then you have universities interested in promoting their patents and their legal position at the expense of others. And around and around it goes.


John Kirby:

And are there patents that show foreknowledge of this pandemic that you're aware of?


Dr. Robert Malone:

There are patents. So where I'm going at is that as a consequence, everybody is super aggressive in patenting and disclosing anything that could be, okay? I know there's this whole conspiracy land about, "Well, this was filed at thus and such a date and that date." No, the documents that relate to, that I haven't actually seen, but I understand there are documents that exist about establishing contracts between VRC and NIH and Moderna to make a coronavirus vaccine and whether or not that material that was, and they predate the supposed outbreak, and whether or not those contract agreements or grants or change of money related to the specific coronavirus or to a general coronavirus, because it's been well-known in the literature, as shown by that Johns Hopkins war game that happened in the fall of 2019 involving coronavirus as a threat.


Speaker 4:

It began in healthy looking pigs months, perhaps years ago, a new coronavirus spread silently within herds. Gradually farmers started getting sick. Infected people got a respiratory illness with symptoms ranging from mild flu-like signs to severe pneumonia. The sickest required intensive care, many died.


Tom Inglesby:

We're at the start of what's looking like it will be a severe pandemic and there are problems emerging that can only be solved by global business and governments working together.


Dr. Robert Malone:

It's been well-known, and you can go into the scientific literature and there are multiple people saying, "Guys, wake up. We've got a significant threat from SARS-related coronaviruses." And so anybody that was in that world and in the coronavirus space would be writing every single patent they could.


John Kirby:

Especially if they could design the virus that would create the necessity for the ... I mean I'm speculating.


Dr. Robert Malone:

So that's the loop with the gain of function. The same people that are busy doing gain of function research ... so the gain of function research space is really pretty complicated and also rife with conflict of interest, as you point out. The purpose of gain of function research ostensibly is to foreshadow threats that might emerge or weaponization that might occur.


Senator Rand Paul:

Do you support that the money from NIH that was going to the Wuhan Institute?


Dr. Tony Fauci:

Let me explain to you why that was done. The SARS-CoV-1 originated in bats in China. It would have been irresponsible of us if we did not investigate the bat viruses and the serology to see who might have been infected-


Dr. Robert Malone:

But it's considered dual function because it's not only for a defensive posture, but it could potentially be used as an aggressive posture.


John Kirby:

Right, because you have to develop the weapons in order to develop the defense.


Dr. Robert Malone:

That's the logic.


John Kirby:

That's the logic.


Dr. Robert Malone:

And the fly in that particular ointment is that the people that I deal with are very aware that there's a huge gap in the bio warfare treaty. The bio warfare treaty prevents the development of lethal agents and their deployment and research into lethal agents, but it doesn't prohibit the development of non-lethal agents. So we call these incapacitating agents, things that make you so sick, give you such a bad headache that if you happen to sniff that thing in and get that infection, there's no way you're going to be picking up your AK-47. Okay? In theory. So that cuts both ways. It means that technically it's legal to develop incapacitating agents and deploy them.


John Kirby:

Well, let me ask you something, just a kind of a cut to the bone question, if I might. Doesn't this all argue for the absolute eradication of all bio safety level three/four labs, all bio defense programs you [inaudible 00:09:26], get rid of all of that?


Dr. Robert Malone:

And this is a Pandora's box problem.


John Kirby:

Yeah.


Dr. Robert Malone:

Okay? And I'm sorry, the box is already opened.


John Kirby:

Right.


Dr. Robert Malone:

Okay. And it just is.


John Kirby:

No way to shut it now. I mean, we've shut the nuclear box.


Dr. Robert Malone:

Sort of, but in terms of these bio threat agents, we've got new processes like CRISPR, CAS9, et cetera, that allow ready mutation and really increasingly have enabled the threat of bio hacking and garage biology.


John Kirby:

Garage biology. Right. So that's the problem.


Dr. Robert Malone:

That's not just a problem.


John Kirby:

But that's not the only problem.


Dr. Robert Malone:

Yeah. It's also the bad guys and it's environmental disruption and global warming.


John Kirby:

And it could be our own big pharma companies who ... but that's the problem. That's everyone.


Dr. Robert Malone:

It just goes on and on. The box is open and now what are you going to do about it? So that's what I spend a lot of time thinking about when we're not in the middle of giving podcasts is how can you build systems that will allow rapid response to newly emergent pathogens or engineered pathogens? That's what defense threat reduction agency's focus is in large part. But I believe my understanding is they've also funded some of the gain of function studies.


John Kirby:

Let's talk about that. It's now in the news. We talked about it with a journalist named Sam Husseini a year ago, but the whole Wuhan lab emergence possibility and its connection to NIAID and Fauci funding. Do you have any thoughts on that? Was this more likely [crosstalk 00:11:10] emergence?


Dr. Robert Malone:

I haven't focused on that set of theories in that world, because it's kind of irrelevant. I'm focused on trying to prevent death and disease and save kids and older people. [crosstalk 00:11:29]. I only know the things that I can touch.


John Kirby:

Sure. Okay.


Dr. Robert Malone:

I raised concerns about the potential engineered nature of the pathogen to my colleague in the intelligence community that I've mentioned before in February, January/February. And he said, "Absolutely not. My people have been all over it and looked at the sequences and there's no evidence of it having been engineered." I was reassured firmly that there was no chance that this was an engineered pathogen. And yet since then we've had sophisticated analysis that reveals things like the Furin cleavage site that is hard to explain as a naturally occurring event in a inner species crossover. So to my understanding-


John Kirby:

Does that involve CRISPR or just gain of function?


Dr. Robert Malone:

Either one. Hard to say. I think the Furin cleavage site looks like something that was transferred in, not something that might've just been naturally evolved.


John Kirby:

Go ahead. Sorry.


Dr. Robert Malone:

But to get to your core question, my sense is the preponderance of evidence increasingly favors that it was a non-natural origin. Having worked at primate centers, it's a constant risk. My wife has worked with monkeys much of her young life at primate centers and at zoos. There's a lot of pathogens that we can pick up from non-human primates. It's a constant threat if you're a keeper or managing or doing research with those animals, herpes viruses and others. It happens.


John Kirby:

In terms of just a leak.


Dr. Robert Malone:

In terms of transmission to human that are in contact with them and the general practice in primate centers can get a little sloppy from time to time. In Wuhan, it appears that the data demonstrates that federal law was circumvented by transferring funding offshore, to perform studies that were otherwise prohibited from being performed onshore. Okay? That deserves a good, hard look. But what happened? I can't disambiguate between somebody slipped some post-study animals out the back door and sold them on the wet market versus somebody sold carcasses into that wet market versus somebody became, one or more persons became, accidentally invented infected with a pathogen versus an intentional release by a foreign party, which could be the United States into the beating industrial heart of China.


John Kirby:

We do political economic research and research into high crimes and misdemeanors. That's what we spent our life doing. And when you see something as bizarre, as I'm sure you're aware and you've mentioned some of the entities involved already, as Event 201, you as a scientist, what are the odds of them sitting around a table at the Pierre Hotel, Bill and Melinda Gates, Johns Hopkins, World Economic Forum were sponsoring an event where Chinese CDC, CIA, the Marriott hotel people, et cetera, are modeling the emergence of a novel coronavirus. What are your thoughts, in October, right before it happened?


Dr. Robert Malone:

So I know everybody latches onto this.


John Kirby:

Well ...


Dr. Robert Malone:

Yeah, it's it sure looks like a duck, but I know from personal experience-


John Kirby:

There are always [crosstalk 00:15:29].


Dr. Robert Malone:

These war games have been going on for well over a decade.


John Kirby:

Sure.


Dr. Robert Malone:

And the election to focus on a coronavirus is a logical thing to have done. Does that mean that because, like I said, it's in the literature that is a clear major threat. We already had to pop out previously, SARS and MERS. Okay? This gets to I can't speak to things that I don't really know about directly. It is an amazing coincidence. It's not, in my experience, outside the realm of possibility that this could have just been a war game.


Christopher:

The companies that will be our best partner with this are the companies who have been thinking about this ahead of time, who were prepared, who had redundancies and plans for their supply chains, they're going to be our strongest partner. So we are going to have to help work through public-private partnerships to support companies, but not all companies. The ones that are critical to sustaining that global supply chain, keeping commodities, people, food, other essential things to sustain the stability that we need to prevent governments from faltering, et cetera. So we're going to need much more specific information and we're going to need a lot of that information to come from the industry itself.


Timothy Evans:

The world's population is finite. We know it's doubling at this rate, exponential. We'll get to a global coverage of this soon enough with some sense of cost scenario. And if we could project what a sufficient investment in best buys would get us in terms of minimizing not only the costs going into this, but also the accelerated uptake of the recovery, then I think that would be helpful in getting investor confidence.


Tom Inglesby:

Is that something that world bank could do, this kind of projection or is that going to require ...


Timothy Evans:

We did this with incredible scientific accuracy to 0.001%.


Dr. Robert Malone:

Or it could've been something more nefarious. I have no way of knowing that and I wasn't-


John Kirby:

The dark winter exercise happened right before the anthrax outbreak. There seems to be a correlation [crosstalk 00:17:45].


Dr. Robert Malone:

And the Kennedy's were shot by the CIA, right? I mean we go down these rabbit holes and you can never get to the bottom of the hole.


John Kirby:

That's for sure. Or it's just obvious. Yes, the military industrial complex definitely shot the Kennedy's, whether what angle it came from with a grassy knoll or not, who cares, it's a false mystery. This seems to me to be another false mystery. The major powers all over the world, pharmacological and otherwise, big tech, et cetera, the major government's intelligence agencies, military, they have decided for some reason to move us into this fourth industrial revolution or whatever you want to call it, The Great Reset. And the virus is the mechanism to do it in the vaccine is somehow the bridge. I mean, why do you think they want every single human in America and elsewhere to be shot [crosstalk 00:18:37] injections?


Dr. Robert Malone:

This is the great paradox that is what fuels my angst is that it's irrational. It doesn't make good sense in terms of public policy. It doesn't make good sense in terms of medical management. And if you throw on top of that steaming pile this clear and consistent obstructionism of alternative therapies that can be deployed early, and I was about to mention earlier, one of the huge paradoxes is why has all the money and effort only been focused on the hospitalized population? It just doesn't make sense. Okay? And there's this stack of this just doesn't make sense cards that are this high.


John Kirby:

Along with the censorship.


Dr. Robert Malone:

Right? So then that's why I was saying the government ought to come clean or not, I guess, but in the absence of them coming clean about what the heck is going on, folks are going to speculate and I call it conspiracy Legos. There is 30 or 50 different factoids that just don't make sense if you assume good faith and competence. Okay? If you start from an assumption of good faith and competence, they don't make sense. And you can take those and assemble them into whatever castle or structure you want.


John Kirby:

But let's think about it through the lens of incompetence for a second. Is there any Lego structure you could build solely through incompetence? I mean, you work with these people. You don't seem like an incompetent person.


Dr. Robert Malone:

Thank you.


John Kirby:

A lot of the people that I imagine you work with are probably not incompetent. They're not this incompetent. They're not so incompetent that they say, "You know what, shit we don't know what to do. Let's just shut down the schools and churches in Western civilization."


Dr. Robert Malone:

Except for what I see is repeated cascades of dysfunctional decision-making and group think.


John Kirby:

Fair enough. That explains the mid-level people, perhaps, but at the top, I mean, they're not seemingly even worried about the economy. Right? They're certainly not worried about the small business economy. That's being destroyed and has been all over the world. Anyway, it seems to me that The Great Reset people who, the guys who have simply pointed out what Klaus Schwab has been saying since the virus and before, have a point. I mean the small businesses [crosstalk 00:21:07].


Dr. Robert Malone:

I don't think anyone can dispute that the logic of don't let a good crisis go to waste is pervasive. I'm sure there cannot not be major economic entities, including pharmaceutical companies, that aren't saying to themselves in their boardrooms, "How can we make profit? How can we exploit this? How can we advance our core, our interests?"


John Kirby:

Could it be, beyond that, could there be something in this shot, this mRNA, I mean, we've all just admitted no one's really looked at it besides the companies. [crosstalk 00:21:48].


Dr. Robert Malone:

The problem with that logic is could have, should have, would have. I have no way to know.


John Kirby:

But let me ask you this. Have you heard about, for instance, the women who are having excessive periods?


Dr. Robert Malone:

Yes.


John Kirby:

What do you think about that?


Dr. Robert Malone:

I think that it can be explained by the effects of spike.


John Kirby:

Spike creates blood clotting, coagulation.


Dr. Robert Malone:

And micro coagulation and contraction of microvasculature. And it damages vascular endothelium, which is going to compromise oxygenation and blood flow in placental tissues.


John Kirby:

Great. So is that going to be good for pregnancy?


Dr. Robert Malone:

No, it's not going to be good for pregnancy and it could explain the dysmenorrhea in part. Some of the heavy flow dysmenorrhea could be ... that's often a sign of premature abortion. And in theory, there's a large study ongoing, but at this stage even I have lost faith in the government, in its ability to execute a well-controlled clinical trial.


Speaker 11:

They've just said all pregnant women should go ahead and get it.


Dr. Robert Malone:

I know. I don't understand it. I object to it. I object to this crazy push to vaccinate all the kids. For me, I like to try to pick my battles and I'm putting my whole career on the line here. If you read that Atlantic piece, my buddy Stan [inaudible 00:23:20] reprimanding me with an F bomb in print that I'm blowing my chance for the Nobel prize. As far as I'm concerned, this is a hill worth fighting for in the position that what I care about, that I hope I could bend the arc of history just a little bit with, is the children and the reproductive integrity.


John Kirby:

Of the human race.


Dr. Robert Malone:

I think that's something worth fighting for, and it might still be achievable.


John Kirby:

Have you seen the tetanus vaccine thing out of Kenya? Do you know about that?


Dr. Robert Malone:

No.


John Kirby:

Basically the WHO, which was already in 2014, introduced a tetanus vaccine to women of childbearing years in Kenya and the Kenyan doctors obtained samples because they were like, "Wait a second. Why just women of childbearing years? Why tetanus? We don't have a particular problem, and why is it five shots instead of three?" And they looked at it and it turns out that it contained human gonadotropin, which they determined would create spontaneous abortions and infertility after time. So that's one of the greatest hits, WHO previously. Anyway, so is there a possibility that one could, through this spike technology, create mass infertility? Is that a possibility?


Dr. Robert Malone:

Okay, so you've used a word that I have to say yes to. I'm a biologist and I live in a world in which most things are possible.


John Kirby:

Electroceuticals, bio electronics. Do you know anything about them?


Dr. Robert Malone:

Are you talking about implantables and wearables and everything else?


John Kirby:

I mean, injectables.


Dr. Robert Malone:

Yeah. They're there swallowables. They're already used.


John Kirby:

Right. And the head of warp speed was who?


Speaker 12:

Almonso [Slout 00:25:29].


Dr. Robert Malone:

Well, yes for the vaccines.


John Kirby:

For the vaccines. Do you know anything about his work at all?


Dr. Robert Malone:

No.


John Kirby:

Okay. Because he was head of electroceuticals over at Glaxo. So the head of warp speeds vaccine program was an injectables guy.


Dr. Robert Malone:

Yeah. So this gets back to whether or not the vaccines have an injectable material that can be used to track individuals or identify [crosstalk 00:25:55]. Right? From what I know about OWS, it was bloody chaos. To imagine that there was ... I don't see evidence of deep thinking. I see evidence of a lot of chaos and group think and shortcuts and decision-making by committee and internal conflict. It's hard for me to imagine that OWS yielded a sophisticated strategy for manipulating human subjects through administration of some absolute cutting edge material or implantable. What I've seen is more like Keystone cops.


John Kirby:

I hear you, and obviously that's one level it probably was. Have you heard of Jose Delgado?


Dr. Robert Malone:

I've heard the name.


John Kirby:

He was a [inaudible 00:27:02] scientist back in the day. He would do implantables in a crude way in the fifties and sixties.


Speaker 13:

Neurophysicist Dr. Jose Delgado was financed by the Office of Naval research. In this experiment, the bull is sedated. Electrodes are implanted in its brain. Delgado transmits an electronic impulse to the center of the bull's brain. Delgado has remote control of the animal. Recently released CIA documents refer to the feasibility of remote control of animals and that special investigations will be conducted toward the application of selected elements of these techniques to man.


John Kirby:

It's not your field, I understand, but it seems to me that that could easily have been miniaturized at this point and various smart particles could act as those transceivers in the same way that his [crosstalk 00:27:59].


Dr. Robert Malone:

You're imagining a level of technical sophistication in deployable environment in a scalable way that I don't think we're anywhere close to.

John Kirby:

I'm glad to hear it.


Dr. Robert Malone:

My colleagues at DOD would love it if we could. They would latch onto that in a New York second.


John Kirby:

So why are they trying to inject everyone?


Dr. Robert Malone:

I don't know. It is a paradox and the easiest explanation, like I said, go back to Occam's razor, is that you've had capture of key decision makers and political players globally by the power of big pharma and their money. Do not underestimate the ability of big pharma basically to corrupt political organizations. It is profound and it is highly refined. You know how we have taken our skill in manipulating populations in political elections and we've turned it on the world, right?


John Kirby:

Yeah.


Dr. Robert Malone:

With social media and everything else?


John Kirby:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).


Dr. Robert Malone:

And we've taken our skill in advertising and we've refined it here on the US population and then we've turned it on the world. Right?


John Kirby:

Sure.


Dr. Robert Malone:

Okay. The same, I believe, that the simplest explanation is the same basic processes happened in the pharmaceutical industry that's led to this horizontal integration and in coincidence of financial interests that has resulted in a propaganda and information management and political management capability, the likes of which the world has never seen.


John Kirby:

Have you seen the Pfizer contract leak?


Dr. Robert Malone:

I have seen items of that.


John Kirby:

Can you describe that?


Dr. Robert Malone:

Multiple contracts have been identified and there are some of them come from Eastern European countries. And it clearly documents that Pfizer has included terms and conditions that third parties looking in would say, "It's not ethical. It is co-opting those governments." And my understanding from colleagues in Israel is that that's essentially akin to what's happened under Mr. Netanyahu and his government that led to this kind of odd quid pro quo, where Israel got early access to the vaccine in exchange for unprecedented access to data and protection from liability, both directly and secondarily through restrictions on disclosure of information.


John Kirby:

Pfizer was protected from liability. What do you make of this no liability thing? I mean, it seems like the kind of-


Dr. Robert Malone:

So this is another thing in my-


John Kirby:

Ultimate moral hazard.


Dr. Robert Malone:

Yeah, moral hazard, nicely put. Good choice of words. History, and US history, is full of these examples of unintended consequences, blow back from our decisions. I believe that this was something, this logic of vaccine indemnification, was advanced at a time that was more naive than the present. And was there a nefarious component or a long range strategy in doing so? I can't tell. I'm not in their brains. It certainly there has been an incrementalist expansion of that.


John Kirby:

Of the vaccine territory?


Dr. Robert Malone:

Of both vaccine territory and of the indemnification clauses. I've seen example after example in the government where they thought that somebody convinced somebody that it would be a good idea to do something, and we would save money if we did this, or we would solve some problem if only we would fill in the blank.


John Kirby:

Right, sure.


Dr. Robert Malone:

And we would have enough vaccines and we would have vaccine innovation if only we would mitigate the risk of lawsuit.


John Kirby:

That must have been nice for you. But I'm more actually, I'm very interested in your interaction with VAERS over the years, especially now.


Dr. Robert Malone:

I don't interact with VAERS.


John Kirby:

At all?


Dr. Robert Malone:

No.


John Kirby:

So you, as a vaccine developer, have never interacted with VAERS?


Dr. Robert Malone:

I know about it. I know about the data that are coming out right now. I've known about its limitations, but I'm at the stage in the process where I'm designing clinical trials, interpreting clinical data.


John Kirby:

And you don't do any post-market evaluation?


Dr. Robert Malone:

No, I'm not a post-market guy. And I'm not a big pharma guy. I'm not a pharmaco vigilance guy. Those are pharmaco vigilance issues.


John Kirby:

But you have developed vaccines?


Dr. Robert Malone:

Yeah.


John Kirby:

And you believe in the concept of vaccines, right? You're not an anti-vaxer?


Dr. Robert Malone:

Absolutely not. I spent 30 years developing vaccines and [crosstalk 00:33:16] technology.


John Kirby:

And have you developed vaccines that you consider successful and safe?


Dr. Robert Malone:

Actually the flu vaccines that I've worked with ended up not being successful. The anthrax and plague vaccines, not successful.


John Kirby:

Ebola.


Dr. Robert Malone:

Yeah. Ebola would be the one example.


John Kirby:

But you had said in an earlier interview that the change in burial practices was more likely the cause in the reduction-


Dr. Robert Malone:

For the reduction of morbidity and mortality in that West African outbreak, the data strongly suggests that it was more of a behavioral modification than a vaccine deployment.


John Kirby:

But the vaccine, you feel in that case, did work or does have some efficacy?


Dr. Robert Malone:

Does have efficacy. It is a hot vaccine. I mean, it hurts. It causes a lot of adverse events associated with it, but in the face of ... One of the things about vaccines is that it's all about the context in which you're going to use it. If you're going to be deploying an Ebola vaccine in a ring containment situation around a village that's got a hot outbreak, you can tolerate a lot of the adverse events because your risk as an individual in that environment is quite high of death and disease, and an ugly death at that. So take another example. Early on I worked with the smallpox vaccine. You remember under Cheney, there was a period of time when we were going to deploy smallpox vaccine to all first responders.


John Kirby:

Because of the threat of weaponization.


Dr. Robert Malone:

The perceived 1% or less threat that it might be released. Okay. And I was given the task among other things of when it became clear that there were rare events popping up in the vaccine recipients of cardiomyopathy and pericarditis-


John Kirby:

Which we're hearing about now.


Dr. Robert Malone:

I was asked to go back, by the DOD, to go back into the literature and discern whether or not those were new signals or whether those were historically positive.


John Kirby:

From old versions of smallpox vaccine?


Dr. Robert Malone:

Well it's was really the same product. Was it seen historically in the prior databases?


John Kirby:

Right.


Dr. Robert Malone:

And the answer was yes. A small but not trivial fraction of soldiers and war fighters had significant adverse events associated with smallpox vaccine administration, which was a live attenuated vaccine, including these cardiomyopathy events. And they were tolerated back then because the disease was so horrendous and it was present in the population, but it could not be tolerated in the early 2000s for administration to general first responders because their true risk was virtually non-existent. So you're going to have way more disease from the vaccine than you would from the potential probable risk of smallpox exposure, and that turned out to be the case.


John Kirby:

So this is very educational. So at that time, the decision was taken not to inject. And here we are tolerating, it seems to me, vast amounts of myochondritis and other adverse events.


Dr. Robert Malone:

I concur, and this is one of my core positions, is that there is every appearance that the adverse events are being under reported. It appears that to my assessment, because of all this messaging, things are getting more muddled now. The good news is the news is coming out. People are more and more wary. They're more and more aware that adverse events were occurring. When I had that Bret Weinstein podcast, the things I said were revolutionary. We were still in the land of the vaccines are perfectly safe.


John Kirby:

When was that?


Dr. Robert Malone:

When was it? A number of months ago. It was like three or four. Right? But we've come a long way since then. I knew that the cardiomyopathy and pericarditis signaling existed months before it was made official from my colleagues at FDA. So there are many adverse events there, and I believe they are under reported, under accounted for. And I believe there is structural bias to under report them in part, because the whole world has been inundated with this messaging that the vaccines are perfectly safe. Let me give you an anecdote. I got a call after the Weinstein podcast from this distraught woman, young woman, trying to get pregnant who had taken vaccine and had a cascade of adverse events. Whether or not they were related to the vaccine, almost doesn't matter. She experienced these adverse events. To my ear it sounded like they were vaccine related, but I can't say for sure.

But she called me distraught because she believed that she was experiencing adverse events from the vaccine, and yet everyone around her told her she must be crazy because the vaccines are perfectly safe. Right? I used to say in earlier podcasts, it's the ultimate gas lighting, right? But this thinking pervades down into the level of the people that are making the adjudication decisions about whether or not something is vaccine related. They're surrounded by messaging saying these are all perfectly safe and furthermore, they want to keep their job. They want to keep working. They don't want to generate a bunch of extra paperwork, et cetera, et cetera.

I think just in terms of normal bureaucracy, there's a ton of pressure for people that are in the sector of making assessments about vaccine relatedness to discount the potential of relatedness. And I think that yielded a structural disincentive to characterize what in many cases were physician reports based on physician frontline experience, in which they believe that there was relatedness between the dose administered and the adverse event. And then those were summarily discounted or disregarded as relatedness. And there were all kinds of weird criteria that if it didn't occur within what was it, two weeks, then it was defined as unrelated. And it's just things in retrospect that were just flat out nonsensical.


John Kirby:

Because adverse events can occur a month or even many months, or possibly for all we know in the case of early polio vaccines, there's some speculation or maybe some evidence-


Dr. Robert Malone:

Viral contamination.


John Kirby:

The viral contamination.


Dr. Robert Malone:

And we do know that one of the things that's happening, it's not-


John Kirby:

Which caused cancer years later.


Dr. Robert Malone:

It's not one of the official recognized things. And yet it is many, many people have experienced it, which is viral reactivation, reactivation of latent viruses. I mean, walk around, for me, I go into these meetings or whatever presentations, almost always somebody in the audiences has had shingles after vaccination.


John Kirby:

After shingles vax?


Dr. Robert Malone:

No, after-


John Kirby:

Chicken pox vax?


Dr. Robert Malone:

After SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.


John Kirby:

Oh, after SARS-CoV-2.


Dr. Robert Malone:

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is associated with viral reactivation.


John Kirby:

Along with I've had two family members who have had appendicitis. And then I've got many friends who've had TIA.


Dr. Robert Malone:

That's the coagulopathy problem.


John Kirby:

Yeah, right. But viral reactivation is the whole thing.


Dr. Robert Malone:

So my belief is that the risks are higher than are being reported and they're going to be coming out more and more, and they are. I mean, we now have the German pathology report. We've got pathologists in the United States that are speaking up. I'm hearing it from cardiologists. I know a pediatric cardiologist who's a specialist in vascular inflammation in Hawaii who is just really alarmed and upset about what he's seeing in his pediatric cardiology practice in terms of these cardiac events in young children. And we get all this messaging like, "Well, this damage to the heart is transient and they recover from it." Any of us that have any training in pathology and medicine know that heart doesn't recover, its scars. Right? Lungs don't heal. They scar. Inflammation in the brain often results in neurofibrillary tangles and other things, scars that affect cognition.

So this messaging, this almost, it is paternalistic as if we're a bunch of children, simplistic messaging justified by the logic that we can't know the truth because we can't handle it if it's given to us is just ethically wrong. And it breeds this kind of concern and lack of confidence in the whole public health enterprise. I put out this, it was on LinkedIn a couple of months ago, I made a statement, "What would happen to trust in the public health system if ivermectin turned out to be safe and had efficacy and the vaccines were not perfectly safe?" At the time, those two statements were highly controversial. Okay? This is only like two months ago. Now we look back, it's pretty well accepted that ivermectin at safe doses is safe. There's millions and millions of doses being given out.


John Kirby:

And it's effective.


Dr. Robert Malone:

And that it has significant efficacy. I mean, I've experienced it myself. A lot of people have, and it's now abundantly clear that the vaccines are not perfectly safe. And the response that I got, and the third leg in that stool that I didn't mention, was the lab leak hypothesis. And now all that stuff is coming true. The responses I got at the time were basically it went viral. There were 300 responses that in sum basically all said, we've already lost faith. I catch a lot of people tweeting and commenting that they don't want to have their children take regular standard pediatric vaccines. This is the consequence of this public policy that we've had, this messaging policy in which I'm sorry, this is a gerontocracy. The people making these decisions are rather old and they are 20th century minds facing a 21st century problem that they've never faced before. And they have reflexively gone to an amazingly authoritarian paternalistic position.


John Kirby:

Well, listen, and that may be due to their age. It may be due to whatever agenda is going on, but certainly it seems that yeah, we've lost face. We've learned a lot, haven't we, about regulatory capture? We learned a lot about how medical journals are completely bought and paid for. Even the-


Dr. Robert Malone:

The lack of courage in my colleagues.


John Kirby:

And we've learned about that, right? Doctors are basically just they'll read the press releases just like anybody else, or maybe at a higher level, because it's out of JAMA or something. And they don't think for themselves and they don't have moral courage and they just go right along with it. So you have had that courage. What has happened to you since you first came out in terms of the attacks and the censorship, et cetera?


Dr. Robert Malone:

So multiple specific examples, as we've discussed, I was summarily deleted abruptly without warning from LinkedIn, flushed, wiped. Of course we had the YouTube video from Brett White and Brett got de-platformed, I think largely because he kept talking about ivermectin, which is like kryptonite to YouTube, apparently. Even the mention of the word is going to get you knocked off of that platform.


John Kirby:

Interesting.


Dr. Robert Malone:

And it wasn't by the way, because I talked about spike toxicity, they thought that was okay. I mean, Brett made a clip of me talking about the spike toxicity. That was left on despite Reuters fact checking me and saying that that was false, YouTube allowed that to stay on. Right? So the cascade I've been through, kind of the awakening of Robert Malone in terms of what the heck is going on with all this censorship stuff.

And no, you're not in Kansas anymore. Right? Has started with the Bret Weinstein experience and having that hit million views and then get killed by YouTube and him de-platformed. And then the Reuters hit piece in which I was fact checked by Reuters, asserting that what they did, and this seems to be a common strategy. They'll take your words, twist them slightly, or misinterpret them, set up a straw man, and then refute the straw man. They won't take the time. And is it intellectual dishonesty or is it intellectual incompetence? We ran to ground who does the fact checking for Reuters. It's a group at McMaster in Canada. And there's another group in the UK and they're basically at best social scientists. Many of them are getting funded directly by Facebook. Many of them now, it's becoming clear, being funded by Zuckerberg-Chan, they're being funded by Wellcome Trust.

There is the whole trusted news initiative matrix. It's the best word I come up with it. And yes, I'm referring to both the movie and everything else, this integrated system.


John Kirby:

And the [crosstalk 00:48:42] chairman is on the Pfizer board. Did you read that?


Dr. Robert Malone:

Right, exactly. I was the one that pointed that out. And in fact, that was what triggered me getting kicked off of LinkedIn was pointing that out and raising the question, "Does this look like a conflict of interest to you?" Okay? And of course, abundantly, everybody said basically, "Hell yes."


John Kirby:

So has this been freeing for you or horrific all at once? I mean, what's it like to have the scales drawn?


Dr. Robert Malone:

Well, there's this constant drum beat of character assassination by incompetent people who don't even understand the points. They don't argue against the logic. They just attack. And the favorite attack is, "Well, you didn't actually invent RNA vaccines," and they'll do back flips to make the statement to try to de-legitimize me, never addressing the logic of what's being discussed, but only the personal invectives.