Episode 221: THE mRNA INSIDER

[00:00:08] Highwire ad 

Hey, everybody, I’m Del Bigtree from the HighWire, and I have a word of warning. Twitter is announcing that it is going to ban anybody that contradicts information coming from the CDC or the WHO, even if it’s true. What does that mean? If you like the information that we put out and you want that peer reviewed science in your hand, and the truth is what matters to you, you need to go to the HighWire.com right now, sign up to our newsletter. We’re the most transparent news agency in the world. Every Thursday, we’re doing a live show, and every Monday we provide you with all the evidence, the actual proof, so that you can hold it in your hands despite what Facebook or Twitter or Instagram or the WHO or the CDC wants you to believe, you can believe the truth. So do me a favor right now. Take this moment. Take the energy to go to your computer, use your phone right now, the HighWire.com, sign up to our newsletter. So you’ll always get our information because we’re not going anywhere. Nobody’s going to intimidate us. It’s all about the truth. And you’ll find it at The HighWire.com. 

[00:01:26] Del 

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are out there in the world, we’re stepping out onto the HighWire. And folks, we have a huge show today. I got to say, when we started investigating the Covid pandemic and then the warp speed vaccine, you know, I knew we would get to talk to some really big scientists from around the world. And we have. But I’m telling you, if someone had said to me, Del, eventually you’re going to get to have an interview with the inventor of the mRNA vaccine. I said, get out of here. That’s exactly what’s happening. Coming up later in the show, I’m going to talk to Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine. And though he’s making the rounds, he’s starting to speak out. No one is going to get into the details that we are going to get into on the HighWire. I am so excited, maybe more excited than I’ve been for any show. 

[00:02:19] Del 

But first, I want to talk about history. History was made yesterday and not the good kind of history, the really bad kind of history, the one that stinks up the page of the history book throughout time. What I’m talking about is, of course, the ACIP meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met yesterday to finally discuss the myocarditis, the heart inflammation that’s happening in children all across this country due to the Covid-19 vaccines. They know it’s happening. The WHO has been waffling and backing away and saying, well, maybe we don’t recommend it for children. I mean, it is a very low risk for the virus. But that didn’t matter. It didn’t matter that we were watching basketball players never playing again in high school. College students, children having their heart swell up. They even pushed the meeting back a week. But they finally sat down yesterday to look at the details and say, did we make a mistake by recommending this vaccine that was never tested on children in the Phase three trials ever? Maybe we rushed this and perhaps all of the heart attacks and blood clots and the heart swelling should make us pause for a moment and say maybe the kids don’t need to do this. Well, I want to give you one excerpt. There was many, but let’s just keep it tight. This gives you the basic idea of what they stared into the eyes of, the demon of myocarditis. Here it is.

[00:03:42] Dr. Matthew Oster 

So these are reports to VAERS, myocarditis, pericarditis reports to VAERS following dose 2 with an observed or suspected analysis using a seven day risk window. The age groups are there on the left side, and then you have doses administered and the observed cases are the actual reports to VAERS after dose 2 or symptom onset was in the seven day risk window. The expected, our expected count is based on estimates that we generated from incidence rates and published literature. That was FDA, CDC literature review with an adjustment for male and female percentages. And I think the take home here, take home message here is that we’re observing this in younger age groups, mainly in these people in the teens and early 20s and observing it more in males compared to females. And the difference in the observed versus the expected appears to be greater, generally speaking, in males versus females. 

[00:05:04] Del 

All right, obviously, that’s really boring, but we didn’t videotape that. That’s how the feed comes out of the ACIP meeting. And it’s amazing when you go to those meetings and you hear them have to deliver sort of bad news, it’s almost like they choke on it by trying to get it out. The guy can barely get it out. But let’s look at these numbers, shall we? Bring up the chart that he’s speaking to once again. I really want to take a look at this. Just look at the side, the males there on the right. What they’re saying is there’s like, for instance, in the 12 to 17 years old, there’s an expected potential of zero to four, at the tops maybe four out of the two million would normally have myocarditis or pericarditis. Instead, it’s one hundred and twenty eight. Look at this, 18 to 24 where there might be one to eight and one, you know, it’s one. The eight is somewhere they had to get the highest number they possibly could, but potentially then when observed potentially is one to eight, two hundred and nineteen cases of myocarditis. The list goes on. The men or the boys there are who we’re really worried about. The women obviously having issues. I mean, that’s gigantic. To go from zero to two up to nineteen, one to six to twenty three, zero to five to seven. But the boys look at that, that is just a horror right there, which would make you think that you would just pause to say, are we really going to destroy these kids’ lives? Some of them will probably die, if not immediately, eventually from heart disease caused by this. 

[00:06:30] Del 

I think that it was best put by the ex New York Times reporter who tweeted this. This is Berenson’s tweet. Alex Berenson: @CDC just posted its myocarditis pericarditis update. They’re now admitting that post second dose risk in people under twenty five could be over 200 times the background rate. And that’s not accounting for underreporting, which we know is happening. How many people just thought they were really sick? Because we’ve all been told that second shot’s a doozy. So how many parents just said to their kidjust weather it out, that’s the second shot, you feel like crap, that’s expected. They didn’t know that their heart was actually swollen inside of their chest, so they never went and complained about it. How many thousands of kids are in that category? And when asked in this meeting, did we look at studying kids that maybe didn’t have symptoms or didn’t come into the hospital and said, yeah, we thought about it, but we decided, no, there was no point in doing that. But here’s, to be honest, this is what they admitted to themselves. This was the discussion, VaST discussion and interpretation. Here’s what they are admitting. The data available suggests its likely association of myocarditis with mRNA vaccine in adolescents and young adults. So they know it. There it is. The CDC knows for a fact that their vaccines are causing heart problems, causing heart swelling in children at rates two hundred times more than they normally would be at. And then when they said, well, who should we give this to? Is there anybody we should leave out? Like maybe someone who just had their heart swollen in the first shot? I mean, if their heart swells on the first shot what do we do on the second shot? They actually address that question. Listen to this. 

[00:08:13] Dr. Sara Oliver 

First, for those with a history of pericarditis prior to Covid vaccination, these individuals can receive any FDA authorized Covid vaccine. Next, for those with a history of pericarditis after the first dose of an mRNA vaccine, but prior to the second dose. Because the risk of clinically significant sequelae related to pericarditis is considered low, people who develop pericarditis after the first dose of an mRNA vaccine may proceed with administration of the second dose after resolution of pericarditis related symptoms. And people who have a history of myocarditis unrelated to Covid vaccination and who have recovered may receive any FDA authorized Covid 19 vaccine. 

[00:09:00] Del 

So obviously, they didn’t look at the swelling of hearts and say, let’s save the children, this is ridiculous, there’s no point in doing this. But I want to do the math here. We’re talking about what is the risk to children? I mean, obviously, swelling kids hearts, bad idea. Some will probably die. Some are still in the hospital. We don’t know how this is all going to turn out, but what’s the actual risk of the virus? Because we always hear about that risk reward benefit ratio that’s always being considered by the CDC. So I want to do some simple math. I know we’ve all talked about it, but I’m going to show you how you do it. OK, here’s how we do math on the risk of Covid-19 to children. Recently, AAP said that two hundred and ninety seven total children have died in the United States of America from Covid-19 so far. All right. That’s bad. Two hundred ninety seven is bad, probably the sickest among us, but that’s OK. Now, let’s take that death rate. What is that death rate? Well, we looked at from one year old to 18 years old, which makes up those children. What’s that number? That’s seventy four point one million. OK, so I’m going to go ahead and put that in because see right here, seventy four point one million. Here is your death rate: point zero zero zero zero zero four zero. Well, let’s put that on the camera right there. Point zero zero zero zero zero four zero one. That is the risk of Covid virus to the children in the United States of America. I want that to sink in for a second because we have never seen something so egregious as what’s taking place since the CDC yesterday. So what does that mean? Two hundred times the rate of myocarditis in children to a point zero zero, what was that five zeros before we get to a number of risk of dying from the illness?

[00:10:52] Del 

That means for the first time in history, as far as I know it, the CDC is knowingly recommending a product that is more dangerous by far than the virus threat to our children. That’s it. The risk reward benefit doesn’t matter to them. It never has mattered. Now I knew, I would have bet you money this was how this was all going to turn out. I think I even said it to Jefferey when we were talking about it last week. Why? Because here’s the problem. This is not about health. This is about an agenda. This is about an agenda to make the vaccine look like it works, to get everybody vaccinated. I was warning people about this years ago as I was speaking about what we discovered about vaccines and safety and the lack of safety trials that were being done for all the vaccines. And though I wasn’t around to sit in ACIP meetings when our childhood vaccine program was put together, we’re all sitting at the table watching this one. And I assure you, it’s probably the same. But this time we’re going to hold them accountable because now we know the facts. Now we know there’s no risk to our children, but there is a risk from this vaccine. And so that means the CDC and these ACIP members are marching children to their doom on purpose for no reason. So I want to talk about, and people say, well, look, it’s probably not their fault, it’s probably people above them. That was the same argument that was made when we talk about the captain of the Titanic, because this is a Titanic, this thing is going down. They are destroying the credibility of the vaccine program and the CDC as we speak. It will never recover. And know Captain Edward Smith was probably listening to orders, saying we got to break records, we want to do something spectacular. He was the one behind the wheel that made the choice. And those choices get worse. Not only did he hit the iceberg, which he could have avoided had he been safely moving forward, but what about the mistakes after hitting the iceberg? What about the fact that we didn’t fill up all of those lifeboats, that the lifeboats didn’t get filled up? The right people weren’t there. As the ship was sinking, we could have saved more lives. But instead, fifteen hundred people died needlessly. His name will live in infamy for the mistake that was made with the Titanic. And in a very similar way, I think the names of these ACIP members should be remembered in infamy. So let’s bring up the panel that made this decision to not vote, to not bring back the recommendation, but to let it ride on our children’s lives, starting with Dr. José R. Romero, Beth P. Bell, Matthew F. Daley, Grace M. Lee, Katherine A. Poehling, Kevin A. Ault, Henry H. Bernstein, Sharon E. Frey, Sarah S. Long, Pablo J. Sanchez, Lynn Bahta, Wilbur H. Chen, Camille N. Kotton, Veronica V. McNally, Helen Keipp Talbot. And that’s the last one, and there they are. 

[00:14:13] Del 

Just leave them up for a moment, because I want to talk about this Titanic reference, this sinking ship of the CDC and this disaster in the making. These folks right here are the worst kinds of people, because just like the Titanic, well, actually nothing like the Titanic, where at least they tried to save the women and children. The only reason these people decided to keep the vaccine going to kids is not because the kids need it. They aren’t dying from this illness. It’s to protect the elderly, to protect themselves. So in this case, these people decided to yank the children out of the lifeboats, throw them and kill them and put them in harm’s way to protect themselves. They are the worst kinds of people. And I want to make sure that we never forget who they are. And in case there are ever Nuremberg trials, let’s remember what happened the last time doctors said we were just doing what we were told. That group of doctors looked like this. That was the Nuremberg trial. Those were the Nuremberg doctors. Many of them, I think all of them were convicted. Many of them ended up being hung. And I don’t know what the fate of the ACIP members will be, but I think they should have to stand for every single child that dies of a heart attack from this vaccine, for every single child whose heart swells in their chest and their parents just didn’t get it. And sure, the FDA says, well, we’re going to put a little warning that will be read to them. It won’t be read to them, just like none of the side effects are ever read to anybody that’s listed on the insert of the vaccines. They’ll be handed a sheet, they say, a sheet that usually is handed to you right after you receive the vaccine. So a warning that this could cause your child’s heart to swell, getting that warning after you’ve been given the vaccine, it’s a little bit too late. So there it is, the ACIP members have made a decision. We will never, ever forget it. There’s a reason why we called ourselves the Informed Consent Action Network, because informed consent is the first rule of the Nuremberg Code, and we take it very, very seriously. 

[00:16:26] Del 

All right, I want to talk about when they said that heart issue, right, that we’re going to go ahead and give the kids, even after they’ve had a heart condition after the first shot, go ahead and give them the second shot. It’ll be fine. Or if they’ve had heart conditions before or pericarditis or myocarditis before, just give them the second shot. It’ll be fine. I want to remind you what Dr. Hodkinson said last week on our show. Take a look at this 

[00:16:49] Dr. Roger Hodkinson 

Myocarditis, as the CDC describes it, “mild”, “unbalanced”. Myocarditis is never mild, particularly in young, healthy males. It’s an inflammation of the heart muscle, the pump of the body. And we don’t know what percentage of the heart muscles will have died in any one attack of myocarditis. The big thing about heart muscles, heart musclefibers, is that they do not regenerate like they do with the kidney and the liver, for example. So you’re stuck with an unknown percentage of your heart muscle cells having died. We can’t estimate the number and therefore the long term results are utterly unpredictable.

[00:17:35] Del 

Everyone that says I trust my doctor, well, your doctor trusts the CDC. And when the CDC recommends something that means they have to recommend it. And don’t think like it’s just a recommendation. All of those university students that are being told they have to get the vaccine to go to university this year. Well, that could have changed. The ACIP members could have saved their lives. Instead, there will be college students that are killed this year by the vaccine program, and that could have been stopped. So that recommendation will lead to a mandate in many of these universities that kids either won’t know they can get out of or in some states maybe they won’t be able to get out of it. There are children being put in harm’s way. And there you have a pathologist, a man who actually has looked at dead bodies, has to know exactly what’s happened to those bodies. He understands the heart better than any of the ACIP members who, by the way, not one of those voting members is a cardiologist. Does that bother you a little bit? They’re going to say, oh, we think it’s OK what’s happening in the heart? Oh, it’s fine that the heart swells. No, I didn’t know that it can’t recover and that it doesn’t regrow its cells. But it doesn’t matter. Even after the first shot, if it looks like they’re doing better, give them the second one too. These people are out of their minds, but we will hold them accountable. All right. Let’s get on to the Jaxen report. 

[00:18:57] Del 

Wow, Jefferey, that was crazy, man. I mean, we’ve All just been sitting here, I guess you expect it because you know that, what are they going to do? If they don’t approve it for kids, then they won’t be able to say that the vaccine can achieve herd immunity because you’ve just wiped out about a third of the population. So in order to move that agenda forward so they can keep this line going, even though they won’t talk about breakout cases, which means the vaccine, you’re still getting infected. They’ll try to convince us all that, you know, we can somehow get herd immunity from the vaccine. That would have died yesterday had they taken the kids out of the mix and they cannot have their agenda killed and so therefore, they’re going to kill children. It’s absolutely outrageous, 

[00:19:40] Jefferey Jaxen 

Having watched that full meeting with ACIP, which was, by the way, delayed for, I believe, five days because of a holiday, the Juneteenth holiday. So instead of last Friday when we were reporting it was going to happen, it was pushed to Wednesday. So there wasn’t an urgent rush to get in there. They kind of just tacked it on as an already happening ACIP Meeting, which, you know, it runs out of time, that runs out of time to really talk about this stuff because there’s other stuff on the agenda. But one of the things I thought was interesting is they were talking about hospitalizations. There was one slide. It was twenty nine kids they looked at through the Vaccine Safety Datalink. There’s twenty nine kids. And at the bottom of that slide, you know, when we talk about like anaphylaxis or Bell’s palsy, this stuff typically just goes away on its own or anaphylaxis is very serious, may have a short hospitalization, immediate injection. But with myocarditis and kids, you’re taking healthy kids. And if this stuff happens, they’re putting them on heart medication typically. At the very least, they have restrictions on strenuous exercise for three to six months. And this is what they found. This is a slide from ACIP: Ongoing treatment plan – Most follow up visits, and this is the follow up after they’ve been hospitalized, indicate tapering of some medications (NSAIDS, prednisone). And there is that activity limitations for three to six months. So it’s no joke. I mean, I guess if… 

[00:21:03] Del 

They’re turning our children into like seventy five year olds, like babies and now we’re going to treat like a seventy five year old, heart medication. You can’t, don’t run, don’t play. It’s outrageous. 

[00:21:16] Jefferey Jaxen 

And no long term safety data. That’s really the big caveat there. So, you know, amazing opening and we’ll see how this plays out, where this plays out. But let’s jump into the news here, because it does weave into a lot of these narratives. The SARS-CoV-2, when we first heard about this, the variance of those, they were being designated by the place of origin or place they were found or were discovered. So typically countries or we have a California variant, but now we’re talking about Greek letters. WHO in late May, decided to start naming them with Greek letters as to not stigmatize any countries. And now we’re hearing about the Delta variant. This is the one that’s popped up, we’re hearing about in Israel, the U.K. and even in the United States. Take a look at this. 

[00:22:00] President Biden 

The new variant will leave unvaccinated people even more vulnerable than they are a month ago. This is a serious concern, especially because of what experts are calling the Delta variant. It’s a variant that is more easily transmissible, potentially deadlier and particularly dangerous for young people. But the good news is we have the solution. The science and the data are clear. The best way to protect yourself against these variants are to get fully vaccinated. So please, please, if you have one shot, get the second shot as soon as you can, so you’re fully vaccinated. If you haven’t gotten vaccinated yet, get vaccinated now. Now. 

[00:22:54] Jefferey Jaxen 

A lot of urgency going on there. 

[00:22:56] Del 

Let’s look at the Delta variant becausethe Delta, maybe not the original coronavirus for those of you that the first 50 percent that bought this hook, line and sinker, but the rest of you unvaccinated, the other 50 percent of America, be afraid. Be very afraid of the Delta virus. Sounds like a Jean-Claude Van Damme movie, Delta virus. 

[00:23:18] Jefferey Jaxen 

Well said. Well, let’s take a look at Israel, because Israel was one of the earliest to vaccinate its population. It had some of the highest coverage in the world. So here’s some of the headlines coming out of Israel regarding this Delta variant. This is Business Insider. [REF] Israel says the Delta variant is infecting vaccinated people as many as 50 percent of cases, but they are less severe. Further, this is another headline: Vaccinated Israelis may need to quarantine because of the Delta variant. [REF] And now let’s go over to the U.K…

[00:23:45] Del 

Biden’s there saying that the unvaccinated really need to be more worried about the Delta. Now it looks like the vaccinated need to be worried, too, right? 

[00:23:54] Jefferey Jaxen 

Right. Yeah, that’s what’s really, I mean, this isn’t even digging too deep into the science. These are the mainstream headlines, Reuters, Business Insider. So now going over to the U.K., this is a technical briefing. So we’re going to get a little more technical here, but not too much because it’s pretty, pretty easy to read. So this is a public health England technical brief briefing of SARS 

CoV-2, variants of concern and variants under investigation in England. This is their June 11th technical briefing 16. [REF] Now, the title says it all. Pop up a slide here and we can look at this. And it’s attendance to emergency care and deaths by vaccination status among Delta variant confirmed cases. Now, this is in England from February 1st, 2021 to the 14th of June 2021. All the patients listed here had the Delta variant. So let’s look at some of the stuff here on the top right, you see a red box. Those are the vaccinated people that tested positive for the Delta variant. That’s seventeen thousand six hundred forty two of them still acquired the Delta variant. If you add up all three of those boxes there, they’re breaking them up by dose and days after the doses. Now at the bottom, now you see an unvaccinated column that’s in green. At the bottom right, that’s mortality. That is deaths from the Delta variant. And if you look at that, we have 37 deaths in the vaccinated group and only 34 in the unvaccinated group. And a quick calculation, what’s called relative risk reduction, shows a negative 119 percent, meaning that if you’re vaccinated, your risk of death was one hundred and nineteen percent higher compared to the unvaccinated group… 

[00:25:30] Del 

I mean, it’s obvious if you look at it becauseyou’re saying that the total of the vaccinated that got it was about seventeen thousand and they had thirty seven deaths. Twice that amount, the unvaccinated got it and had just roughly, just under at thirty four. So half the amount of people had just as many deaths actually a little bit more. But look at this column over here, this one that’s after, what is that? Is that greater than 14 days after the second dose, there’s four thousand people in that category. Out of four thousand, twenty six of them died. That number is astronomical. We hear like death or injuries, one in a million, that’s twenty six out of four thousand. 

[00:26:13] Jefferey Jaxen 

And there’s that second dose again, there’s that second dose again. It seems to be a lot of issues around that second dose, whether we’re talking blood clots, myocarditis, deaths in this chart. On this chart as well, looking at the vaccinated or even the unvaccinated, but the unvaccinated group only had a point zero nine percent mortality rate from the Delta variant. Now, again, this is this chart. This is just a snapshot of what’s happening in this technical briefing. But that’s an interesting data point to really pay attention to because… 

[00:26:43] Del 

And look at the headlines. I mean, it’s amazing that the headlines are saying, you know, well, vaccinated got the Delta variant in Israel, but they had more mild cases unless you died, right? I mean, like they should have a … unlessit kills you. Then, well, yeah, more people died, so I don’t even know how they come up with you do better with the vaccine, except that there is an increased risk of death. 

[00:27:08] Jefferey Jaxen 

Well, if you look into that article too, that Israeli article, it is actually talking about the Delta variant itself is less severe according to the data they have right now. So they kind of tacked that on there. Yeah, they kind of tacked that on there. But overall, from the headlines I’m looking at and the reading I’m doing, people don’t really know. That’s the big question. How severe is this thing? But it’s an interesting snapshot from Public Health England, and that’s where that slide was from. Now, let’s stay on the vaccination topic just for one more second. And there’s a video of our favorite person, Dr. Tony Fauci. And he was in congressional testimony. He was in the House Committee of Appropriations. He was there to talk about the 2022 budget for NIH, he and Francis Collins, who is the head of NIH. And he was asked an interesting question. Check this out. 

[00:27:56] John Moolenaar 

Because of the nature of, you know, how quickly the vaccines were developed, I know there is some percentage of the population that has hesitancy, kind of viewing it as somewhat experimental, kind of seeing how it all works out. And especially women of childbearing age who would like to have children in the future, I know there have been some concerns about whether or not the vaccine would in any way affect them in a negative way. I wonder if you could talk to that and just mention if there is any evidence of any risk or concern to women who might be considering that in the future? 

[00:28:37] Francis Collins 

I think the evidence is actually quite reassuring. But let me ask Dr. Fauci to give a specific answer to your question. 

[00:28:44] Tony Fauci 

Yes, thank you very much, Congressman, for that very important question. So if you look at, the vaccine trials did not include pregnant women in the trials. There are now trials that are looking at vaccines specifically for effects in pregnant women and in lactating women. Those are ongoing right now. However, if one looks at post EUA the number of pregnant women who elected to get vaccinated because of the clear indication that the effect of Covid-19 disease on the pregnant woman and the fetus is really something to be concerned about. So many, many women elected after the EUA to get vaccinated. There have been about a hundred and fifteen to one hundred and twenty thousand of these pregnancies and there have been about five to six thousand of the births that have now been followed by the CDC and by the FDA. And as alluded to by Dr. Collins, there is no red flag signal at all that there’s any concern about deleterious effects of the vaccine on pregnant women.

[00:29:57] Del 

Basically, he might as well just say, you know what, it’s just sheer dumb luck. We didn’t put any pregnant women in the vaccine trial, but as it turns out, when we recommended it to them, even though we had never tried it on them or their fetus, as it turns out, it’s great. Our studies are showing it’s great. It’s sort of hard to believe, but maybe are they just lucky Jefferey? Did they just get away with it? 

[00:30:17] Jefferey Jaxen 

Yeah. And as he says, he said there was none in the EUA data. That didn’t stop the CDC from actually soliciting these shots to them saying experts believe that it’s safe. We covered that right when they’re rolling it out for pregnant people. So let’s look. I mean, the one thing that this past year has taught us, if Tony Fauci says something is definitely, definitely happening, you have to check the sources. You have to check the background. So let’s look at the New England Journal of Medicine. This is a report, this is a study that came out, the preliminary findings of mRNA Covid-19 vaccine safety in pregnant persons. [REF] Now, this was a… 

[00:30:51] Del 

Respectable journal, New England Journal of Medicine. OK, great. 

[00:30:54] Jefferey Jaxen 

Absolutely. From December 14th, 2020 to the end of February 28th, 2021. So a pretty big gap there. And this was data from the FDA and the CDC’s V-safe surveillance system, the V-safe Pregnancy Registry, the VAERS system. And what did they conclude? 

[00:31:10] Del 

And by the way, look at how manyfreaking authors there are on that. I mean, that’s a lot. I’ve never seen a movie with that many authors that was any good, but maybe they could put out a decent study. 

[00:31:24] Jefferey Jaxen 

Bring back the Jean-Claude Van Damme quote here. So we have a conclusion in this study. Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccine. So there it is. Pack up our bags… 

[00:31:38] Del 

That wording is so suspicious, though, right there. I mean, as a journalist, and we’ve been doing this for a while. There’s certain things that just fire off red flags. I’ve never seen obvious being used, right? There’s either, there are signals or is a flag or there is not. But preliminary findings do not show obvious safety signals, meaning there were some safety signals, but they weren’t like glaring safety signals, right? That feels like what he’s saying there, it’s like whydo you need to describe obvious… 

[00:32:08] Jefferey Jaxen 

For anybody interviewing these people, if we ever get a chance to interview them, what’s obvious, define obvious for me, could you describe something that wasn’t obvious? So let’s go to the table here. This is the only other table I’m going to show the viewers, but this is an important one. So we have highlighted spontaneous abortions in 20 weeks or less. That’s on the left side there, it’s highlighted. Now we have the published incidence… 

[00:32:32] Del 

So meaning that a spontaneous abortion is an abortion that happens or where they lose the baby within the first 20 weeks. After that, that’s called something different, like a miscarriage or something like that, right? There are two different terms. 

[00:32:47] Jefferey Jaxen 

Yeah, I believe so. And this is after vaccination. So we’re talking about people who are vaccinated. So in the published incidence, this is background rate. So this is… 

[00:32:56] Del 

Oh, there it is, it’s called a stillbirth. It’s right below. So it’s a stillbirth after20 weeks, before it’s spontaneous abortion. OK, got it. 

[00:33:04] Jefferey Jaxen 

So in the published incidence which that column, that second column, there’s a percentage, ten to twenty six percent. That’s basically your background rate. That’s how it’s happening before Covid mRNA vaccines ever enter the picture. So what did they find? Looking at the V-safe Pregnancy Registry right on the right, they found one hundred and four spontaneous abortions in 20 weeks or less after the vaccine compared in a group of eight hundred and twenty seven people. So that’s twelve point six percent. So according to that study, it falls right into that published incidence. And we’re all good, jobs good. Go home. 

[00:33:36] Del 

And Fauci can say to everybody, hey, the studies show there’s no issue, no signal, no obvious signals. So we’re looking good. 

[00:33:44] Jefferey Jaxen 

All right. But before we move on, let’s look at the fine print, because we got to always do that. And in the fine print, this is what popped out. A total of 700 participants of that eight hundred and twenty seven receive their first eligible dose in the third trimester. The third trimester starts at week twenty eight and goes to the end of pregnancy. So… 

[00:34:05] Del 

So there’s no way to lose your baby in the first 20 weeks if you didn’t get the vaccine until after twenty eight weeks.

[00:34:12] Jefferey Jaxen 

That’s exactly right. How are you going to investigate it when 700 people didn’t get the shot until the third trimester if you’re looking 20 weeks or below? And it’s not just us that are seeing this. So there is a letter to the editor that called them out on this and good for these people. And what they said is, they said in table four, that’s the table we just looked at, the authors report a rate of spontaneous abortions of less than 20 weeks of twelve point five percent, one hundred and four abortions, eight hundred twenty seven completed pregnancies. However, this rate should be based on the numbers of women who were at risk of a spontaneous abortion due to vaccine receipt and should exclude the 700 women who were vaccinated in a third trimester, 104 to one twenty seven. That gives an eighty two percent rate. Given the importance of these findings, we feel it is important to report these rates accurately. So now let’s look at the table with these adjusted numbers you see here on the right, 104 to one twenty seven. So now we’re looking at about 82 percent spontaneous abortions after the vaccination. Now, as noted by these authors in the letter to the editor, this rate as this study goes on is expected to fall. But this is how it was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. This is how it should have been reported. And it was not. 

[00:35:28] Del 

Wow, that’s gigantic. I mean, obviously, that’s a huge discovery. And you can’t imagine when you see those 55 authors of this that someone isn’t aware that they’re cooking the books, right? You’re cooking the books. That could not have been missed by everybody. In fact, I would guess they all sat around a table and said, how do we make this number look better? I know maybe no one will notice if we just put all the women in the category, even though only about one hundred and twenty seven of them actually fit the criteria where they could have lost their baby from the vaccine in the first 20 weeks. Jefferey, that is a huge, huge discovery and super terrifying for anyone that’s being told to get the vaccine, especially in that first trimester. Obviously a terrible idea. 

[00:36:13] Jefferey Jaxen 

And at the very least, shame on those editors for publishing that. And, you know, it’s got to be embarrassing if you’re one of those whatever thousand authors that a letter to the editor is calling out your basic math. I mean, this is terrible, but it’s a very serious topic. And the fact that that was chosen to happen, you got to have a question mark on that and it’ll be interesting because The New England Journal of Medicine did retract some of their data. Remember the Surgisphere, this is with hydroxychloroquine along with The Lancet. So there is a record of retractions around this Covid-19… 

[00:36:46] Del 

I’m sure we’re going to be writing the FDA about this. We’re going to do what we do. Our legal team is going to be all over this. That is gigantic. We’re not going to let that just sit and rest. Either, it’ll have to be pulled from the journal and retracted or they’ll have to fix it. 

[00:37:00] Jefferey Jaxen 

Absolutely. Well, let’s finish off here with really, I guess, depending on where you sit, some interesting news, some good news. And having reported in these medical topics and health topics for a while, I started to see a trend. So we started to see the anti-vaccine kind of label be put on people. Although, as we know, there’s ex-vaxxers. There’s people that are just risk aware. There’s people, actually scientists, that read the studies that want to wait a little longer. We saw that with opioids, people are being called anti-opioid, with statins, anti-statins. This anti-vaccine, I mean, that’s really just a derogatory statement. It’s hit runaway speeds. And here’s what the headlines are looking at now. Millions of Americans view being anti-vaccination as part of their social identity. [REF] And this says in there, researchers found that 22 percent of Americans actively identify themselves as anti-vaccination. Moving on, we have a poll from Associated Press. 

[00:37:56] Del 

Wait, wait, go back to that. That is a gigantic. Jefferey, when I started this with VAXXED back in early 2016, they were saying three to maybe five percent would identify as anti-vaccine. We’re up to twenty two percent. Did we win? Did we already win this? Have we won this already and we just didn’t recognize it? I mean, that’s incredible, self identifying now as anti-vaxx. I guess that’s what happens when you keep calling every doctor that doesn’t want to get a vaccine because they saw that it wasn’t properly safety tested, you call them anti-vaxx. Every superstar, every movie star, every athlete that says, hey, I just don’t see the safety trials there, I’m not getting it, you’re anti-vaccine. Well, I guess a lot of people said, you know what, I guess you’re right. I guess I am. 

[00:38:40] Jefferey Jaxen 

And again, when you really start digging down and talking to people that had these experiences, talking to researchers, scientists, doctors, as we do on the show, you realize it’s a derogatory term. And the fact that these researchers are continuing to use this to push research, to talk about these type of people, this group, this cohort, it’s really just, they’re shooting themselves in the foot. But, you know, why interrupt someone when they’re making a mistake, I guess. And here’s Associated Press. [REF] It’s gets even more interesting. Forty six percent of unvaccinated say they will definitely not get the vaccine. So it says here, the Associated Press NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll reported that 46 percent of the unvaccinated said they would definitely not get the vaccine and twenty nine percent say they will probably not get the vaccine. Only seven percent of those who are not vaccinated said they definitely will get the shot. That’s 75 percent essentially… 

[00:39:33] Del 

75 percent of half the country. I mean basically we’re right around 50 percent didn’t get this vaccine, half the country. Seventy five percent, the remaining are just saying, yeah, no way, which is, you know, and it’s just those damn privileged, highly educated people in this country are just not getting it. So offer them some free donuts and fried chicken and a lap dance and that’ll fix the deal, right?

[00:39:58] Jefferey Jaxen 

It’s not working, though, and these things are not happening. And that’s the other headline that goes along with this is Million dollar lotteries fail to cut through vaccine apathy. [REF] And we’ve always seen this. In here, it says, “it’s just not working”, said Irwin Redlener, who directs the Pandemic Resource and Response Initiative at Columbia University. “People aren’t buying it. The incentives don’t seem to be working, whether it’s a donut, a car or a million dollars.” Or you could add beer to that or a joint in New York. I mean, it’s just not working. 

[00:40:33] Del 

It’s not apathy. People just aren’t in a rush to die the way they’re supposed to be, I guess. They don’t want heart attacks. It’s so hard, you know, to get people to race into a heart attack, myocarditis, blood clotting, even though they make it look so appealing. 

[00:40:49] Jefferey Jaxen 

And I’m not sure, I mean, it’s still an emergency use authorization product. That seems to always be left out. This is a radical experiment still. We’ll have a different conversation when this thing gets approved, if that ever happens. But it’s not. So the fact that people are scratching their heads and going, why, why isn’t this happening? There’s a couple good reasons… 

[00:41:12] Del 

Not everybody in this country actually signs up to be a lab rat. I mean, it’s OK, you got 50 percent of the country. They’re dedicated. They’re going out there. They’re risking their lives. They’re on the spaceship to Mars. But the rest of us, you know, pick up the walkie talkie, let us know how the weather is on Mars before we decide to go anywhere near it. 

[00:41:29] Jefferey Jaxen 

Let’s talk about Florida. We’re going to go, we’ve talked about this for quite some time. A lot of things happening in Florida, starting in Florida, and something else just happened there. So the CDC had a no sail order that was effective till November 1st 2021. They issued that. It basically said no cruise lines could run without 95 percent of their crew and passengers vaccinated. And if they wanted to, they had to do a simulated voyage, which was just a very limited once or twice every couple of months, just to try to practice this and feel it out and see. Well, in April, Governor Ron DeSantis in Florida, basically took the CDC to court over that sailing order because it was destroying the industry because Florida is the biggest port in the United States. And now there has been a ruling and this is what it looks like in the headlines. Judge rules for Florida on CDC order blocking cruise ships. [REF] It says here Florida, this is the judge’s ruling, Florida persuasively claims that the conditional sailing order will shut down most cruises through the summer and perhaps much longer, the judge wrote, adding that Florida faces an increasingly threatening and imminent prospect that the cruise industry will depart the state. Now, this judge’s decision means the CDC can’t enforce the rules for Florida based ships and that eventually starting in July will be a merely a non-binding agreement or recommendations and guidelines. So this is a big win for Florida. And they’ve been chalking up executive orders and bills to stop the vaccine passports as well. 

[00:43:03] Del 

Ron DeSantis has been amazing. I also want to say that I hope that this is the beginning of this wall crashing down where the CDC thinks that it has some sort of legislative ability to write laws for people. They are not, we don’t elect them, they have no power or jurisdiction over us. This has to go through Congress. This has to go through bodies that actually write laws. The CDC doesn’t write laws. So I think what’s really being outed here is that the CDC is taking a rule and making it sound like a law and people are abiding by it. It’s only a rule. And frankly, it’s not a law. And I think hopefully we start to see that they don’t have that power and should not have that power. And a lot of these decrees by them will be seen as what they are, a lot of hot air. 

[00:43:50] Jefferey Jaxen 

Right. And there’s more people jumping on that side to look at that and look at it as foreign happening in America. So we really do have a new player here in the, I guess, push to preserve medical privacy, to preserve individual medical choice. And that’s Governor Doug Ducey from Arizona. He’s in the headlines. And basically the lead up to this story is Arizona State University expected all returning students to get vaccinated. They expect them to upload the proof of vaccination to their ASU health portal. And the people that either don’t want to get vaccinated or don’t want to share that vaccination status with Arizona State University would basically have to be subjected to what’s called a health management protocol. So daily health checks twice a week, Covid test, full masking, indoor, outdoor, anywhere on the campus. Vaccinated people didn’t have to do that. So when Governor Ducey found out about this, this is what his Twitter feed looked like. He really blew up his Twitter feed. He said the vaccine works, but the vaccine is a choice. This policy is social engineering at its worst. Health policy should be based on science, not virtue signaling. In America, freedom wins. He went on to say public education is a public right and taxpayers are paying for it. We need to make our public universities available for students to return to learning. In Arizona, we are going to have students in classrooms learning. And what did he do? He signed an executive order which overturned this. And this is the headline that signaled this. Governor Ducey’s executive order bans Covid-19 vaccine requirement, mask mandates at public universities and colleges. [REF] And it goes on to say, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey issued a new executive order on Tuesday that prevents public universities and community colleges in Arizona from requiring students to get a Covid-19 vaccine, show proof of a Covid-19 vaccination, take mandatory Covid-19 tests or wear masks. In short, no medical segregation, no medical discrimination, and the preservation of the student’s right really not to get bullied or coerced into what we just talked about. It’s still an ongoing medical experiment. 

[00:45:58] Del 

Well, for everybody out there that says, you know, where do I go? It just seems like the problem is everywhere. We now have another state on the list, Arizona, Texas, Florida, all standing behind liberty and freedom and the Constitution of the United States. That is great news. Hashtag winning. Nice job, Jefferey. Great stuff. That was amazing about the spontaneous abortion. Huge discovery there. Great work on your investigation. Keep it up and we’ll see you next week.

[00:46:29] Jefferey Jaxen 

All right. Thank you so much Del. 

[00:46:30] Del 

All right. And if you want to get into more detail, definitely check out the Jaxen report. Jefferey Jaxen writes articles in more detail that can be found on thehighwire.com. You know, nobody’s covering the topics the way we are. You’re not going to get it all collated together like this anywhere else. So go to thehighwire.com. And if you like what we’re doing, definitely become a recurring donator. Help us continue to do this work. And as you’re doing that, you wonder, you’re seeing the show get better and better. You’re seeing us win more and more lawsuits. You’re seeing us in headlines. That’s all because people have gone and they’ve hit that donate button and they’ve become recurring donors. One of the big things we’ve invested in is trying to make this experience with you even more enjoyable, more friendly, ways that you can communicate together. What am I talking about? It’s brand new and it’s coming really, really, really soon. I’m talking about the brand new thehighwire.com. Check this out. 

[00:47:29] Ad for the new highwire.com 

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are out there in this world, it’s time to step out onto the HighWire. Freedom of the press, the right to report the news without government interference was referred to as one of the great bulwarks of liberty by America’s founding fathers. It is among the most important rights of a truly free society. But today, this freedom is under attack by government, industry and corporate owned media. Never has it been more vital to preserve our freedom of speech. Never has it been more important to maintain a free press, free from government control, free from corporate influence. It’s from this tenet of freedom, the HighWire was born. The HighWire is forging a new path in the news by providing you the studies, documents and sources we utilize in our reporting. You, the viewer, are able to hold us accountable. This new approach, which we referred to as the HighWire protocol, is the future of transparent journalism, and it’s with this revolutionary approach, we launched the show over two hundred episodes ago. Hundreds of viewers quickly became thousands, and today, despite facing historic censorship, thousands have become millions of people who are tuning in weekly to watch the HighWire in over one hundred and thirty countries around the globe. At the height of this unprecedented censorship, we put out the call to our viewers to help us build a new platform for the HighWire, a platform free of the censorship of big tech and corporate media. Well, the response from you was nothing short of incredible. And so we set out to work on a blueprint for a new home for the HighWire. The result is that we have created something that no news network has ever attempted before. We’re launching the next evolution of the HighWire. Introducing an all new theHighWire.com with a brand new watch page. You’ll get the same award winning show with a new and unparalleled watch experience like you’ve never seen before. For the first time ever, the HighWire news and opinion pages will bring you daily headlines from around the world as they break. It’s news curated for you in real time. And finally, we are so proud to present the HighWire community. It’s a censorship free social media platform made possible by you and built specifically for you, our community. With an intuitive and familiar design, you finally have a censorship free digital space you can call home. It’s the next evolution of the HighWire made possible by you. It all starts July at theHighWire.com. 

[00:50:18] Del 

Well, obviously you’ve been coming to the HighWire because we have been the ones that have been sharing information when no one else would go near it. We’ve been censored on YouTube, on Facebook, on Instagram, lost all of those channels. But instead of crying about it, which we never have, we just considered it to be just good advertising, because during this process, we’ve gone from tens of thousands of viewers to millions of viewers around the world. But we want to make that experience more exciting, more interesting, a lot like what we used to love about Facebook and YouTube. So we are very excited about our website that’s coming to a theater near you very soon. You want to have any information about that? Definitely become a member. Just join our website, go to thehighwire.com, and sign up for our email list. And we’ll keep you abreast of when we’re launching and how we’re going to go about doing that. 

[00:51:09] Del 

Now, when we talk about all the science, all the investigations we’ve done, the interviews that we’ve done that have gotten us kicked off of these social media platforms. That have us being attacked by The New York Times, The Washington Post, Guardian, the list goes on and on. We have never shied away from what we think are obvious, glaring questions that should be allowed to be asked, whether it’s about this pandemic, whether it’s about the vaccination. Was it too fast? Do we know enough about it? Are there proper safety trials? Or if it was about treatments and the use of treatments, you know, and the studies, what makes a safe treatment, whether it’s ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine? Or how about how are hospitals handling the situation? We’ve complained about the fact that you’re not being given oxygen. People are being sent home waiting until they basically get so sick that now they have to be put into a coma and put onto a ventilator and then have about a nine out of 10 chance of dying. All of these things we’ve covered may be embodied in my next guest, who has been looking at so many different aspects of this from a super interesting perspective. But probably the most interesting is the fact that my next guest, Dr. Robert Malone, claims that he is the inventor of mRNA technology. That’s right. The technology that’s being used in the Pfizer vaccine, in the Moderna vaccine. And so if we’re going to have questions, perhaps some answers can come from the person that was at the heart of this. I am so excited to be joined right now by Dr. Robert Malone. Dr. Malone, first of all, thank you for taking the time to join us here on the HighWire. 

[00:52:59] Dr. Robert Malone 

My pleasure, Del. And thank you for the opportunity to speak to your broad global audience.

[00:53:05] Del 

Absolutely. So let’s just start with the first question. There’s a lot, you’re doing a lot of interviews right now. There’s one video that is about three and a half hours long that’s getting a lot of traction. But I have a lot of questions, so I want to get to it. First of all, you are the inventor of mRNA technology. I suppose, because everybody else who has ever come on this show, someone out there is refuting what they say, even though they have all these letters behind their name. Tell me, how is it that you make that claim of being an inventor of mRNA? 

[00:53:43] Dr. Robert Malone 

Thanks. Yeah, so what’s going on is that a number of people think that there’s a Nobel Prize in play. And that may be the case. And in my experience, when that kind of thing happens, it brings out certain characteristics and people get very competitive. It’s something worth having. It’s a form of immortality, if you get that. For me, fortunately, I kind of cut my teeth at a place called the Salk Institute, created on the cliffs of La Jolla, looking out over the Pacific, by Jonas Salk. It’s kind of a temple to vaccines. And at the time when I was there, there was about a half a dozen Nobel laureates, including Francis Crick. So for me, I’ve kind of seen what at a very young age at twenty eight, I’ve seen what this can bring to people, how it can disrupt their lives and their family lives and everything else. And I don’t know that it’s, it certainly would be a lovely thing, but it’s not my life goal. I’m as I said, I was a farmer and a ranch hand before I was a physician and a scientist. And family and my farm and my horses matter a lot to me. That’s kind of where I’m centered. So be that as it may, it is bringing out some people that are trying really hard and lobbying very aggressively. And behind them in particular is an institution, University of Pennsylvania, that holds a patent that’s being used by Moderna and also by BioNtech. And she’s an employee of BioNtech right now, a vice president, as I understand it. And so both herself through Weissman and Penn, stand a lot to gain should she win this prize. And so what’s happened, from my point of view is I’ve kind of been written out of history. There’s a lot of failure to cite in academic publications and on Wikipedia. You can look it up. It’s all about Katie. And I’ve been reassured by colleagues at the Karolinska that have been on the committee in the past and are very aware of the process that I really don’t need to worry too much about that, that they have a very professional due diligence team. But there are, every time there’s people that think that if they can push the press and get a journalist to champion their case, then that’ll improve their ability to do it now. So that’s just the way people are. There it is. In terms of what happened… 

[00:56:26] Del 

Yeah, what happened? 

[00:56:27] Dr. Robert Malone 

Yeah, it’s a super story. I love to tell it to graduate students and others. It’s a lot of interesting little parables buried within it. I was originally a big fan of retroviruses, and that was my core background. I was at a lab at UC Davis that really had the very first indications that a retrovirus was associated with an AIDS like syndrome in monkeys. And at the time, I was working on mouse mammary tumor virus, another retrovirus that causes breast cancer in mice. And so, as I moved into my PhD program, I thought that the thing that I could do that would just make a lot of sense and would make for a great career was to focus on gene therapy using retroviruses. And at the time, the two top labs in the world were both in San Diego. One was Ted Friedman’s lab. He was on the main campus and he was the guy that originally came up with the idea in the 70s. And the other was a brilliant scientist named Inder Verma, who had been trained by David Baltimore, who also got a Nobel Prize. And Inder was championing and really driving forward both the use of retroviral vectors and adenoviral vectors for gene therapy purposes. 

[00:57:53] Dr. Robert Malone 

So as a young graduate student, even though I was warned not to, very ambitious, I went to this postdoctoral research lab at the Salk Institute under Inder, in the molecular biology and virology labs and I wanted to work on some nuances. As a graduate student, you have to figure out what you’re going to get your thesis in. And I wanted to work on how RNA gets assembled into retroviral particles, basic science question. And so in order to do that, I thought, well, what I really needed to do was figure out some technology that would allow me to synthesize large quantities of very pure RNA, put it into cells and get those cells to put it back out, package it as a retrovirus particle. So that was the whole idea. And I was banging away at this, trying to come up with technology. And there was a series of kind of stepwise improvements. And a lot of this had to do with being in the right place at the right time, surrounded by geniuses and access to amazing information and technology. But it comes down to about four major events. One of them was I was being kind of mentored by a postdoc named Dan St. Louis in the lab who was working on a system involving putting genes into cells of a mouse in cell culture and then taking those cells, implanting them into the mouse and watching for how much protein and how long this gene therapy protein would be expressed. To his great frustration, after about three weeks, the protein stopped being produced in the mouse. It was a great curfuffle. Everybody thought there was a sophisticated mechanisms involving gene silencing and as the half trained MD that I was, I said this looks like an immune response because it’s the perfect timing. At the time, that was kind of heresy because no one had really grappled with what would happen with gene therapy in terms of the immune system. Now we all recognize it as one of the major problems in gene therapy is if you put a foreign protein, if you express a foreign protein in your body and if you have cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy or whatever the thing is, your body, your immune system doesn’t know that it’s the right protein. It doesn’t know that it’s a good protein. It only knows that it’s a different protein than it has and it’ll start attacking it and it will attack the cells that are making it. So, you know, it’s this simple. I run into this problem. I am passionate about gene therapy. I think it’s my whole rest of my career. And then, bam, I hit the wall. What am I going to do? So this is one of those make lemonade out of lemons moments. Because I come out of this lab in Davis that was focused on developing vaccines for AIDS. It’s no surprise, no huge leap for me to say, oh, I know, we’re going to make vaccines using gene therapy. We’re not going to use it for gene therapy because that’s going to be kind of pretty hard. But we can use it for vaccines.

[01:01:04] Dr. Robert Malone 

Now interesting aside, there’s the senior postdoc in the lab. There’s a man named Dinko Valerio. Dinko left the lab and founded a company called Crucell, and it was focused on adenoviral vector gene therapy. And he came to me at a scientific meeting a few years later and he said, Robert, you’re right, I have to change my company’s focus and pivot to focusing on making vaccines instead of gene therapy using adenovirus. Crucell then exploded in growth. It was sold to Johnson and Johnson, and that gives rise to the J&J vaccine. OK, so with the RNA story, so this is the first of the big AHAs is, uh oh, we got a problem with gene therapy, immune response, but we can turn it around, make lemonade out of lemons and use gene therapy technologies of a variety of sources to make vaccines. 

[01:02:02] Del 

Explain to me for a layperson why vaccines? Like what is it about a vaccine that that technology just immediately thought, oh it would work great for that? I mean, I get why it’s bad for gene therapy, because it gets attacked. It can’t keep reproducing. Whatever it is you’re trying to achieve gets killed off. But why did you say, well, this would work for vaccines? What is it about it that makes it good? 

[01:02:26] Dr. Robert Malone 

Two reasons. First reason is that with almost all these gene therapy technologies, including the earlier RNA versions and to some extent the current one, the levels of protein produced, in other words, the efficiency of the gene therapy is actually quite low. So the idea that we could give somebody an injection and it would go to all the cells in their body is pure science fiction. You get very small numbers of cells that get the gene and they don’t tend to produce a whole lot of protein in there, once they kind of get subverted to be little protein manufacturing factories in your body. And so the whole big idea that Ted Friedman had that we were going to cure all these pediatric diseases obviously hasn’t come to pass. And so I knew that vaccines, the thing about vaccines is you don’t need very much protein. A little bit will do the job. So that’s point number one… 

[01:03:26] Del 

So a little bit is all you need to make the antibodies and all that production to fight it and yourbody develops an immunity, and that’s all you need. 

[01:03:33] Dr. Robert Malone 

A little bit is all you need, and that’s all you’re going to get for the most part, so make the best of it. And then the other thing is that traditional vaccines, often you put the protein in your arm, you get the jab, and it’s mixed with something that makes the immune system react to it. We call it an adjuvant and it kind of stays put. And it doesn’t go into cells and all the complex, we can go into the immunology, it’s very complicated and wonderful. But the bottom line is that those kinds of traditional vaccines tend to be biased towards producing antibodies. But if you want to control a virus or you want to kill a cancer cell, antibodies can do that using antibody dependent cellular site, site of toxicity, big fancy science word, but the immune system also has another branch, which is cells that learn to directly attack other cells, we call those cytotoxic T lymphocytes. Another big fancy science word. But in order to get both antibody and CTL, that’s the acronym for cytotoxic T lymphocytes, it’s really good if you can actually make the protein in a cell of your body. And then your immune system reacts to it as if it’s infected by that virus, but there’s no virus, for example. Or if you’re a cancer cell and you’re expressing a new protein that’s mutated somehow, you’d like to be able to have a cell that would be able to go and find that cancer cell that is expressing that mutated protein and kill that one, but not kill all the other cells. Kind of important. So CTLs are really good and they’re probably why cancer is so rare in the first place. There’s a good chance that the odds are that we all get cancer in terms of one or two cells at various times in our lives. But our body’s immune system is clearing it for the most part. It’s only rarely that it gets out of control. So CTL. So the idea about gene therapy based vaccines is that it can elicit, that strategy can turn on both antibody production and cytotoxic T lymphocyte production. And it kind of makes lemonade out of lemons because unfortunately we’re not that good with most of our gene therapy technologies and and we have failed to cure cystic fibrosis. But it looks like we can do a pretty good job making immune responses, whether it’s an adenoviral vector or a mRNA or other platforms for expressing these things… 

[01:06:20] Del 

Can we say that both adenovirus vector and mRNA are gene therapy technologies? I mean, we hear that thrown together, are they the same? 

[01:06:30] Dr. Robert Malone 

Yeah, it’s a messaging thing that the public health service doesn’t like because they think that’ll turn people off. But I’m a scientist. I live in the world of evidence based medicine and data and science. And I kind of, my brand is I call things as I see them. And as I’ve explained, this all comes from a single gene therapy lab, at the temple for vaccine development, created by Jonas Salk, on the banks of the cliffs in La Jolla. I don’t know how to say it any more clear. You have genetic material. You’re putting it in the cell. You’re expressing a protein for a vaccine purpose. It’s gene therapy applied to vaccines. That’s what it is. 

[01:07:15] Del 

Ok. Just so I have a sense of a time line,what year are you making these connections and said, hey, let’s make it a vaccine since it doesn’t work as a gene therapy? How long ago was that?

[01:07:26] Dr. Robert Malone 

1987, 1988, 1989, is when all these patents were filed and there’s numerous patents. This is the base PNAS article that describes the large scale manufacturing of mRNA, its purification, its delivery by coating it with another fancy science term, lipids, you would call it fats perhaps. And then there’s this one from Science. And this was an interesting story. So there’s like four major discoveries that happen that get us to the base patents. And this is the last of those four. And that also is a fascinating story. I had a previously shown that, as you showed in the first paper, that we could put that surround RNA, and if it had the right structure, and I showed what 

those structural elements. They still all use that same stuff, the same manufacturing process basically, but bigger, the same structure, the RNA, et cetera. In that paper, I showed that that technology worked for a huge range of cell lines, and then because I was teaching Embryology and I had a group, I had extra tadpoles that I’d prepared. These are African clawed frog tadpoles to teach undergrads. I had extras and I just said, well, let’s see what happens if I put this mixture that I’m using on the cells on these tadpoles. And lo and behold, the tadpoles express the foreign protein also. So then I did a similar thing with DNA and chick embryos because I was working with both DNA and RNA and those also expressed the foreign protein. Now we’ve got something interesting. 

[01:09:26] Del 

So now what your dream is is to have the cell itself expressing? 

[01:09:30] Dr. Robert Malone 

Totally unexpected. No retrovirus. It’s just totally amazing that suddenly I find myself at the birth of non viral gene therapy. Totally unintentional, but it just, chance favors the prepared mind. So it happened, and you’re surrounded by intellectual giants and all this technology and ideas. And you’re a young, overly aggressive, not very humble scientist trying to make your way and things happen. And things did happen. A bunch of fights started taking place and I got caught in the crossfire. I wasn’t prepared for it. Patent fights, over who’s going to be the inventor and does UC San Diego own the patent? Does the Salk ownthe patent? UC San Diego tells me I can’t talk to the Salk. Salk tells me I can’t talk…it’s just crazy. And everybody smells money. And I am just a tiny little speck, right. I’m just a graduate student working for the guy that characterized reverse transcriptase for David Baltimore. He’s a really big shot. And we don’t need to go into Inder, but you can look up other stuff about Inder. So I just, I kind of have a meltdown. I end up with post traumatic stress disorder. I have to leave the lab. I just psychologically can’t stay there. And my wife has to finish her bachelor’s degree, so I need someplace to park myself before I go and finish my MD. The guy that I’ve been collaborating with at a company in the Bay Area called Syntec has just quit Syntec and joined a tiny little startup in La Jolla called Vical. And there he’s supposed to be working with Doug Richman and Karl Hostetler on development of new drugs for AIDS and liposome encapsulation, and he says, hey, Robert, you want to leave the Salk? Why don’t you come over and work for me and we will set you up a little skunkworks. And in parallel, he sets up a collaboration with a guy named John Wolf that’s just left Ted Friedman’s lab at San Diego and gone to the University of Wisconsin. And Vical doesn’t have any animal facilities. John Wolf is given access to animal facilities at Wisconsin. And so we set up a deal where I come over, I bring all my reagents, my plasmids, technology protocols, blah, blah, blah, and come over to Vical, start work as a technician and manufacture these things and ship them off to John Wolf and his team for injection into first rats and then mice. And this comes on the heels of the findings that it works in frog embryos and chick embryos, the frog embryos disclosed in the PNAS paper. So we send John Wolf the samples and lo and behold, it works. We’re all ecstatic. Hallelujah. But there’s a naysayer. There’s a chemist in the group who’s making some of these cationic lipids who just insists that we’re not doing good science. His name is Raj Kumar. He ends up running a transmission shop eventually in San Diego. That’s a weird part of the story, but Raj is the chemist and Raj insisted that we’re not doing good science and the truth is, he’s right. He says you’re not doing all the negative controls, and so to placate Raj, who I’m sure is absolutely positive is going to be wrong. I include samples that just have the lipids and just have the RNA alone and ship them off to John Wolf for injection. The data comes back… 

[01:13:25] Del 

One just has lipids, the other one has just the RNA, not combined? 

[01:13:28] Dr. Robert Malone 

And then other samples that have both, so the negative controls and the positive controls. We already know that they’re working because Raj Kumar was a jerk and insisted that we weren’t doing the right science. And I’m being facetious a little bit, but I’m setting up the story because you can figure out what the punchline is already. So John’s graduate postdoc does this experiment, injects it into mice, runs the assays, sends us a fax with the data. John’s ecstatic. It worked again. And I say, yeah, John, but the negative control is positive. Matter of fact, it’s even more positive than the positives. What’s going on? He says, precisely that is the study, thank you. So the postdoc repeats it. And this is actually the repetition. And lo and behold, the RNA alone is working. And then that starts a whole other cascade. And with that, this is just the lab notes from synthesizing the RNA. Everybody says RNA is not stable. That’s yeah in some cases, but if you’re good at how you prepare it and obviously we can make stable RNA now in large quantities. At the time, it was another one of those heresy things. Everybody knew. It’s not a group think, just like we’re facing with this outbreak on a smaller scale. Everybody knew that RNA was unstable except for those of us that were working with it and synthesizing it. So there it goes. So Raj Kumar was right. And then suddenly we had naked RNA delivery. It didn’t have to have the lipids necessarily. And we tried it with DNA and it worked with DNA. And then another whole slew of patents start getting written. And I’m off with the lawyers disclosing this, that, and the other thing and cooking up all these crazy, wild ideas about how we could use this for vaccines and other applications. And that results in, I don’t know, 30 worldwide patents that are issued that all have the same filing date. And by the way, a patent gets filed from the Salk, from my prior stuff. It all gets filed on the same date because Inder is consulting for Vical. And that’s a whole other part of the story we don’t need to go into. But that’s that’s how it all started was this series of events. Like I said, chance favors the prepared mind and being on the shoulders of giants at the right place at the right time in the temple of vaccinology, that’s where it all started and that’s how it happened.

[01:16:11] Del 

So let’s do this. I’m sure this story goes on in your career and how we get here. But let’s jump a giant part here, because there’s a bunch of things I want to ask you about. Let’s cut to say somewhere around 2019, end of 2019, this pandemic breaks out. I’m not going to get too big in the details of the pandemic. We’ve had a lot of specialists get into whether or not, you know, how deadly this virus is, all of those questions. I want to stick with at the moment we start hearing about early 2020 that we are going to be able to rush what appears to be a brand new technology. It’s discussed as being a brand new technology by Moderna. We know that NIH, Tony Fauci seems to have some affiliation with the Moderna patents. Some of his scientists are directly involved with patents involved in the Moderna technology, Pfizer. And we see what this warp speed, at that time President Donald Trump, we’re going to warp speed this vaccine process. Now, you don’t know who I am. I doubt you’ve done a whole lot of research. So just very quickly, from the very beginning, we were very alarmed at that issue. I’ve been looking at vaccines and vaccine development for years. It’s part of where I’ve been focused as a medical journalist. And one of the things that I said on this show, as soon as we heard about this, is there’s no way to warp speed a vaccine technology. You may be able to warp speed the technology, but you can’t warp speed a safety trial. A safety trial has got to last years. We don’t have any magic way of in three weeks or six months determining what happens to you three or four years down the road. We need a three or four year trial to see that that’s taking place. So that’s where I was coming from. I’ve been attacked by New York Times. I’ve been attacked by newspapers everywhere saying, you’re spreading misinformation, you’re causing vaccine hesitancy. I said I’m not causing anything. We are trying to demand that proper safety trials be done. I also want to point out that our nonprofit, Informed Consent Action Network, wehave won lawsuits against the FDA, against the National Institute of Health, against the CDC and Health and Human Services, all based on information that they weren’t sharing properly with the population about vaccines, around liability, all these other issues. But because of that relationship our nonprofit has, we reached out and had a petition to the FDA in the beginning of the Phase three vaccine trials, and we demanded that they add a saline placebo group to the Phase three trials or we would come out against those trials saying they weren’t proper safety trials. A safety trial against the meningitis vaccine only tells you it is or is not as safe as a meningitis vaccine. We wanted a baseline safety based on the saline injection and they changed the Phase three trials about a week after we petitioned. We feel like we had a large part to do with that. So that’s just giving you some background of our interactions with the FDA, things that we care about. I’m just trying to make sure that products that are used by people are safe. I’m just a consumer advocacy group, really. And then I also believe we should always have choice. That’s our number one issue. I believe in informed consent. I think you have the right to opt in or opt out. So that’s very quickly sort of my last five years of investigation. The show we’ve been using to detail the lawsuit wins and things we’ve been discovering in our investigation for about the last three and a half years this show has been here. 

[01:19:47] Del 

So all that being said, from your perspective, this is a technology that you understand. I don’t know how attached to it you still are, but we suddenly, mRNA is now all over the headlines. They are going to warp speed this vaccine into production through safety trials. They are literally saying to us on television, we are going to start manufacturing hundreds of millions of these vaccines as they’re starting really Phase two, I think, trials, not even Phase three, just if it works, we want to have it ready to go. What were you thinking at about that moment or if there’s a more particular moment before that, let me know. But since this is a technology that you were there at the beginning, you gave birth to this thing and now the baby is about to be released on the planet Earth. What were you thinking? 

[01:20:45] Dr. Robert Malone 

So I want to start off by applauding the story you just shared. It sounds like you and I are remarkably aligned. I’m a physician and a scientist, and I’m rigorously trained in bioethics. And I’ve written about the bioethics of experimental Covid 19 vaccines and what I see as major issues that I’m concerned about. So you ask about my…so I’m going to go back to the beginning of 2020. As I mentioned in the preamble before we started recording, I’ve been at the tip of the spear for too many outbreaks now, flu and Zika and Ebola and AIDS, etc. So… 

[01:21:40] Del 

Let’s just cover why becauseyou and I had this conversation. I had asked you, in one of your interviews you talked about working for DOD, Department of Defense, so I’ll let you sort of… 

[01:21:50] Dr. Robert Malone 

So I get a call from an intelligence person who happens to be in Wuhan in December of 2019. Let’s not go there. He calls me in the first week of 2020, January and he says, Robert, you’ve got to get going. We’ve got a problem with this virus. Shortly thereafter, the first viral sequences disclosed and I get my team spun up and we start using advanced computational technology to try to screen drugs for potential activity. That’s the thread we’ll talk about later. At the time I’m active on Linkedin, I avoid Facebook and I rarely interact on Twitter, although lately I have been particularly after the podcast. And I make a threat assessment, as I have done in previous outbreaks. And my assessment is that to do, as you say, to develop vaccines for this pathogen in this timeframe, particularly given the long and rich history of failed vaccine attempts due to antibody dependent enhancement for coronavirus vaccines, veterinary and human. Although there are a couple of licensed veterinary coronavirus vaccines that have overcome the problem. My assessment is to do this responsibly. For a vaccine it’s going to be too time consuming and the threat is too present. And people can go back, I guess some people do as they Google my name and various topic areas and my old LinkedIn posts pop up. I’ve been blogging all the way through this. On the vaccine front, I’ve been very clear about my concerns about ADE and other complications and what I perceived, just as you did, to be risks in the strategy that the government was taking…

[01:23:47] Del 

Let just insert very quickly for some of my audience that may not know what ADE is. My layman’s perspective is we saw in animal trials of the coronavirus vaccines for over a decade now that when they would give a vaccine for coronavirus, many different attempts said that they would put it in animal ferrets, sometimes cats. They would give the animal the vaccine. It looked like they were creating robust antibodies. It seems safe because the animals weren’t dying, but it was in the challenge study, something we don’t usually do in human trials, where we challenge the animal with the coronavirus by injecting the coronavirus. We saw something happened which was somewhat shocking. Instead of the antibodies actually protecting the animal, it seemed to help the virus proliferate through the cells, turn into what was called a cytokine storm, which is sort of an immune system meltdown. Lots of problems, TH2 immunopathology in the lungs, things like that. So upper respiratory issues. We’ve seen this in the RSV vaccine program back in the 1960s. A vaccine did this to children. We discontinued that. There’s some belief that the dengue vaccine, Dengvaxia that was given just over a year ago in the Philippines had the same issue. Over a thousand people are said to have died from that vaccine and they kicked that drug company and that health minister out of the country. That’s just a quick for anyone that’s brand new to The HighWire. This is something we’ve reported a lot on and it was one of our major concerns with rushing this vaccine. If you have a vaccine that helps the virus kill the host or helps the virus proliferate and cause serious disease, then the vaccine is going to do the opposite of what you want and could be detrimental to your species if you plan on giving this to every single person alive. That’s my sum up if you want to correct any of that. 

[01:25:30] Dr. Robert Malone 

Del, well done. You’re really up on this. And what a pleasure to have an interview with somebody that’s so familiar with the topic area and has taken a brave stance through time. So one of the things that I pointed out that we probably also share or maybe not, I don’t know, is a belief that rushing this in the way that it’s been rushed and I know they put out graphics that say things like we didn’t cut corners, we just straightened out the road, I think is one graphic that the US Public Health Service Services put out. But anybody that can do simple math can see that normally we have to have at least two years of safety data after your three thousand subjects in your Phase three total have voluntarily received the product and we followed them for at least two years and look at all those safety data to look for long term things like auto immunity. And we can do the math. And the vaccine has not been jabbed in people’s arms for two years, let alone. So that’s just the most obvious example of them cutting corners. My point was back in the day when you were thinking about this and I was thinking about it and blogging on LinkedIn about it, is that we face the risk that we basically validate the criticisms that have been mounted over the years by people that are labeled as anti-vaxxers. This willingness to suspend the rules and the normal processes and compromise key safety guardrails that have been developed for decades, over decades, as the way that one needs to safely develop vaccines that cause us to require a decade before we typically will license a vaccine. If we circumvent those, we validate the whole meme, that pharmaceutical companies and the government are willing to play fast and loose with people’s safety. And I was worried back then that this blind rush was going to put us in a position where the legitimacy of the public health officials’ structure would be legitimately called into question. And lo and behold, here we are. 

[01:28:10] Del 

And just to sort of say we are that aligned. I’ve reported, I think three times I’ve been a speaker and public comments during the ACIP meetings on this vaccine, I said exactly that. If you push this through, you’re going to destroy the credibility of the CDC. You will destroy the credibility potentially of our trust of health departments and our doctors. You are putting at risk our belief in our national health care system, the health care system of the world. 

[01:28:36] Dr. Robert Malone 

The whole vaccine enterprise. You’re validating the concerns that people have been voicing about the fundamental pediatric vaccines. We are completely aligned. This is bad public policy. I’m not afraid to say that. So, yes, we have been aligned and so please understand, I’m not somebody who seeks media attention. I’ve dealt with the media for decades. I’m almost always on background trying to help journalists to understand the science and the issues so they get it right. Because we all, I think, as scientists and physicians have an interest in having the media and mainstream media accurately communicate scientific issues. So I kind of think it’s an obligation to do what you can to help the media understand topic areas and issues in science and medicine. And I have done my best, but I’m not somebody who seeks to be on CNN or whatever… 

[01:29:43] Del 

With that being said, what were the alarms? Let’s get to the…what are the red flags? This thing is being rushed. So someone that designed this, what were you concerned about? 

[01:29:54] Dr. Robert Malone 

So as as we discussed earlier, I have as part of my work, my business, I have a network of colleagues and friends that I trust and they trust me throughout the government because a lot of what I do is government work. And that includes people in senior positions at the Food and Drug Administration. And for quite a while, a small group of us were meeting every other week on Fridays and having a Zoom call and going over issues. And as this came to fore with the spike and I was very aware of the biology of spike because it relates to one of the repurposed drugs that we’re working with. And I told them this isn’t just an antigen. This is a biologically active protein. And it has effects like modulating immune response and other things, and it’s being treated as if it’s just an antigen and it’s not. These viruses pack all kinds of functional properties into their proteins in their genes because they have to have a very small, compact genome. It’s just the nature of RNA virus biology. So spike isn’t just an antigen, it’s a biologically active protein that does more than just find ACE2, the receptor that is used by the virus to infect cells. And so I alerted them and I said, hey, guys, are you aware of the implications of what’s being done here? And I sent them the manuscripts and my colleagues were sufficiently aware and cognizant of the argument. And so they forwarded it to others within the agency, within the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research…

[01:31:53] Del 

What would be the time line? Whenwas this? 

[01:31:56] Dr. Robert Malone 

September last year. 

[01:31:59] Del 

So September of last year. And just to be clear again, just for my audience, what we’re talking about is the spike protein, which is just one of the proteins on the surface of this virus, that happens to be what grabs onto the ACE2. So the idea being if we target a vaccine to just go after that instead of the whole virus, [inaudible] let’s go after the weakest part of the virus, maybe. And then if we kill that or stop that ability to connect, then we can sort of harness and stop this virus. But the problem you’re talking about that you are expressing, if I’m correct, is that the spike protein, which we now are seeing, has its own properties of being toxic and dangerous. So therefore, it’s not just like a key that they thought sort of unlocks a door. It actually is a weapon and has its own effect on the body. And if we’re making a vaccine just around this spike protein, we’re going to send a toxic element, not just an antigen, not just something that’s somewhat harmless and all it does is open up the ACE2, we’re talking about something that could very well be what’s leading to the blood clots, all the strokes and the issues that we’re seeing. 

[01:33:03] Dr. Robert Malone 

And the data are increasingly supporting that. 

[01:33:08] Del 

But you said this all the way back in September. I want to make that clear to everyone. The FDA then is aware of this. 

[01:33:15] Dr. Robert Malone 

And they blew me off. They said we don’t see that as a problem and we’re going to proceed and we’re not going to worry about it, basically. So they didn’t think that the documentation around that was sufficient. Now, since I sent in that with some of the papers that we were focused on, additional work came out. So there was a study with cultured human brain like structures that we call organoids. This is the kind of the brave new world from stem cells and everything else that we’re using so that we don’t have to burn so many mice and so that we can model things that are more like humans without having to test them in humans. So brain organoid study, peer reviewed showed that ACE, I’m sorry, spike opens blood brain barrier in that model. Then there was a mouse model that shows that it opens blood brain barrier. Then there were other studies that confirm that. Then there was the press release from our friends at the Salk Institute with data that showed that spike is directly cytotoxic. Now, I’ve been fact checked by PolitiFact and our friends at Reuters, and they said that this is false, this is false information I’m giving out. And they gaslighted me good and hard. But fortunately, I’m a scientist that doesn’t say things just out of the blue because I feel like it or I think that it’s the right thing to say. I say things because there’s data behind it. And so I was immediately able to flick the multiple peer reviewed publications and call them out. Of course, in the modern world, being mainstream media means you never have to say I’m sorry or retract anything. 

[01:35:01] Del 

So just very quickly, why would it matter for people watching? Why does it matter that the spike gets through the blood brain barrier? Isn’t that what we want it to do?

[01:35:11] Dr. Robert Malone 

It’s not just that it gets through it, it’s that it opens it. So what he’s talking about or we’re talking about the blood brain barrier, you can think of as kind of a bunch of little inner digititating fingers between cells, tight junctions and structures behind them that function as kind of a filter. And the brain is a special place. I think most humans can agree with that. And we really don’t want to have bad stuff getting in there because it’s kind of what makes us human. And so opening up the blood brain barrier means that things that are in your blood like say, other viruses, the toxins, all kinds of stuff that normally is sequestered so it can never get into the brain compartment, it suddenly is able to do that. That’s bad. And it can cause inflammation and all kinds of things and the fluid shifts that occur can cause changes in mental status, potentially can cause things like brain fog. As a personal long hauler who survived Covid, I know brain fog well. And in fact, some people that receive vaccine complain of brain fog after vaccination, but can’t say how often because the databases are not good, but it happens. So there’s a lot…and some people get after vaccination, neuropathy, that’s numbness or other things. And so spike, the things that we know that native spike does seem to overlap with some of the symptoms, both of Covid and of this post-Covid genetic vaccine syndrome that some people report. So this is one of those if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. But, you know, I can’t say it’s a duck. And I’m criticized for saying that this could be happening with the vaccines because many people assert that the NIH and others that engineered these spikes for use in these vaccines engineered them so that they would be safe and they wouldn’t be toxic. That’s a little bit circular because at the time they were denying that they were toxic. So why would they engineer them to be safe? What they did was they engineered spikes so that it’s locked into an open confirmation, which is what it uses to bind ACE2. They also put a tag on it so it stays put in the cell that is expressing it, trans membrane domain. So these are the genetic modifications that were made, but they weren’t made, I don’t think, for safety purposes, at least the locked in open confirmation, that’s to make sure that the receptor binding domain stays open so that you can better generate antibody responses and educate B cells to make antibodies that’ll stick into that group. You don’t want it to vary between the open confirmation and the closed confirmation that’s used for cell fusion, because that can interfere with the ability of, antibody education, B cell education to generate antibodies that recognize that receptor binding domain. So I believe that’s why they did it, not for safety purposes. But the argument is made that one cannot assert that just because spike is toxic, that the expressed spike is also toxic. My counter to that is the way the rules work with drug development is kind of like the French judicial system. You’re presumed guilty until proven innocent. And it makes a lot of sense that we start with the assumption that anything new, particularly anything genetically engineered, is not safe and it’s the obligation of the drug development company interacting with the FDA to prove that it is safe, not the contrary. And so I hear, I am active on social media and so I get all of the criticisms, as you probably do in your blogs. And everybody’s a genius now and an expert and they don’t hesitate to tell me that I should pound sand. And this is often the criticism is I can’t assert that the vectored spike is similarly toxic to the proven toxicity, site of toxicity, and the activities of native spike. And as I mentioned, my retort to that is, well, that’s fine. Show me the papers where the pharmaceutical company proved it and I’ll shut up. But I have not seen those data and I’m not sure they exist and I certainly haven’t seen them in peer reviewed publications. So there it is. I kind of fall into the camp guilty until proven innocent. And it could well be that the modifications I speculate that lock the receptor binding domain open in spike could actually make it what we would call a super agonist, something that would bind even more efficiently than the unlocked spike. I don’t know. It could well be that it’s more toxic than regular spike. Prove it to me. It could go either way. It’s science. Let’s do it. Show me the data. 

[01:40:40] Del 

And you’re right. I was in an interview by four channel, channel four out of England. And the reporter who, they used to say I was just a liar and a hack. Now they say I’m just cherry picking my information. When she said to me, what I dislike about what you do Del more than anything is you are going by the assumption that the vaccine is dangerous just because it hasn’t finished its safety trials. You make the assumption it’s dangerous instead of what scares people, instead of making the assumption that it’s safe. And I said, you know what, there’s something there’s actually a term for that. It’s called the scientific method. It is that we are supposed to challenge the theory and challenge the product and believe, first and foremost, that it is dangerous and show all the reasons it could be dangerous. And science should jump up and be excited to prove me wrong. 

[01:41:33] Dr. Robert Malone 

Didn’t you get the memo that you’re supposed to drink the Kool-Aid? Because that’s what it comes down to.And me either because, you know, I make my living as a scientist, having an open mind and applying the method of multiple working hypotheses where I encounter the world and I say, I don’t really know much of anything and anything that I think I know can be changed at a moment’s notice based on new data. And that’s the stance that I take. I think that’s the responsible stance to take as a scientist. And I wouldn’t have been successful in the way that I have if I had been one of these true believers that just went with the party line and swallowed that hook, line and sinker. It’s just not how I’m wired. 

[01:42:19] Del 

Thank God you’re notwired that way. And it’s fascinating to hear someone that is directly involved with the technology that we are talking about. If anyone is going to question it, someone that was there when we started, like sort of tinkering with it and playing with it in the way that put it into a vaccine. So obviously you like the idea of it being a vaccine. But there were certain things that would have to be worked out in order to make sure that it was safe. And let me just clarify, just from my own understanding, is it that mRNA technology is dangerous or is it that the spike that they’re using, having the mRNA of spike to sort of have the cell express, is that where you think they’ve really gone wrong? That mRNA could work, but we should be using a less dangerous part of the virus to express in order to create antibodies to stop the virus, not use its major howitzer that it’s attacking the body with, is that where you’re at? That mRNA might be a good idea, but the spike is what’s messing up your originally good idea.

[01:43:24] Dr. Robert Malone 

It sounds to me like you play slow pitch softball. Thank you for that question. So there’s a caveat, though, to be honest and with integrity on the new synthetic lipid and formulation that Pieter Cullis and his team at the University of British Columbia have designed, which is what’s really enabling for these current generation vaccines, so yay for Pieter. He’s been working on this for 40 years. I just want to do a shout out. Many people, this is another one, many people claim to have done the breakthrough. In my mind, it’s Pieter Cullis and his team at UBC. But they’re using a synthetic lipid, a fat that’s chemically synthesized and engineered to do certain things. And it’s never been in humans in large scale. And the data packet from Pfizer that I think you’re well aware of that was released under FOIA from the Japanese regulatory agency, shows that this particular lipid accumulates at high…about 20 percent of injected into rodent model ends up in the ovary. That’s very odd. So do I know that the delivery package, if you think of this as a Fedex package, and the RNA is the paper, the memo that’s inside the package and the cardboard part outside of it would be the lipid envelope that delivers it into the cell. We don’t know for sure what the effects are going to be of the lipid delivery package. So when you say to me, are you sure that this is going to be safe? The general concept, yes. This specific compound, to be determined. Now, we are completely aligned. And I blogged that in many, I’ve had a lot of positive feedback. Frankly, since that podcast came out, I’m having physicians and scientists from all over the world contact me and basically say, yes, go Robert, because I’m able to have this platform. And there’s a lot of enthusiasm that what I’m expressing is accurate, correct. And a lot of people are frustrated they haven’t been able to get the message out. I think a lot of us agree that these first generation mRNA vaccines based on spike…understandable that they went for the easy thing off the shelf right off the bat. But now we know more and it’s really time to start rolling out second generation products that, for instance, might just express and display the receptor binding domain without the active parts of the molecule of spike, might express matrix protein, might express some of the other structural and nonstructural proteins because those will also all get processed and displayed on the surface of the cell and elicit cytotoxic T lymphocytes. So there’s ways that we can go forward that are next generation. We do have to address, I think, to be responsible, we need to disclose to the public completely what these potential risks are. I think that’s fundamental bedrock bioethics and the public needs to understand these pharmaco distribution studies that were done and needs to be aware that the full reproductive toxicology package was not performed before they started being administered. And that means that we don’t really know what the reproductive effects might be. And even if they cleared the repro tox, GLP studies that weren’t done and they were all OK, those are in rodents. And those of us that have done animal model work, including myself, are well aware, what we all tell each other is mice lie, monkeys mislead and the only thing that predicts an activity in humans is humans. And now we’re at a stage where we’re accumulating human data, but human reproductive toxicology data is a lagging indicator. That’s going to take a long time to get out. And we do…the government isn’t being transparent about this, but you can talk to 20 different women that have had vaccines. And I guarantee that a lot of them are going to tell you that they’ve had disruptions of their menses, really heavy flow, other things like that. So that talks about an interaction with a vital reproductive… 

[01:48:09] Del 

Well, we just at beginning of this show, we talked about it, very interesting study that looked at these spontaneous abortions. And the study sets out to show that the vaccine didn’t cause spontaneous abortion, it was right about at the background level, but then a nonprofit, not ours, or another group investigated and said, look what they did. Spontaneous abortion happens, I think, within the first 20 weeks or something like that. But they took women that were taking the vaccine in the third trimester and added them to the group of pregnant women. When you take them away because they’re not corrected, they will never have a spontaneous abortion because they’re too far in their pregnancy. We saw an incredibly high amount of spontaneous abortion. I believe it’s somewhere in the 70 to 80 percent range, which is shocking. So and a lot of these things are coming out. Let me ask you very specifically, because I could talk to you all day. This is so fascinating. But you reached out to the FDA, you said, look, there are issues. This thing appears that it could cross the blood brain barrier. It could. And you’re a scientist, right? You’re saying these are theories, but the potential is there. And before we go ahead and launch this thing on every human being on the planet, we really need to rule out these fairly obvious theoretical potential problems. Now, you said there should be an informed consent, which is the name of my nonprofit Informed Consent Action Network. Informed consent to consumers to know there are risks that we have that may or may not exist. But let me ask you, as you started seeing blood clots being announced first with Johnson & Johnson here, with AstraZeneca in Europe, so it mirrored that same technology, it was having the same problem. When we looked at the VAERS reports and the different capture systems, we see that Pfizer and Moderna were having issues with blood clots and thrombocytopenia at the same time… 

[01:49:59] Dr. Robert Malone 

Which the FDA denied. They denied in their press release just recently that they gave to PolitiFact. And so I received this paper that I mentioned to you from some scientists in Singapore that’s just published in a very high impact journal, American Journal of Hematology, in which they report a series of cerebrovascular coagulopathy. So blood clots in the brain, that’s kind of not a good thing. And no, I don’t want one, neither do you. That kind of takes away what makes you human sometimes. So this paper is now published and it clearly documents those relationships with RNA vaccination and clearly and unequivocally ascribes it to spike that’s expressed from the vaccine. And then we have this Harvard and Brigham Women’s nurse study in which…it’s Brigham Women’s and Children’s is the institution. So it’s nurses study that you’re, I’m sure familiar with, that shows that we’re having pre spike in non-trivial levels circulating in the blood after vaccination for up to almost a month in some nurses. And so it’s kind of another one of these where there’s smoke and, you know, it’s kind of looking like we got a fire maybe. And we sure ought to take it seriously. I think that’s where you and I are very much aligned is in the position that we’re not saying that the vaccines don’t save lives. My position is I can’t say whether the risk benefit ratio makes sense or not because I don’t think they’re following protocol and actually calculating the risk benefit ratio, number one. And number two, that idea of risk benefit ratio is typically applied as a function of special populations. So risk benefit for vaccination for pregnant women, risk benefit for adolescents, elderly, all those things have to be calculated… 

[01:52:09] Del 

Most of which weren’t in the Phase three trialsto begin with, right? Most likely skipped all of these susceptible populations, right?

[01:52:14] Dr. Robert Malone 

Precisely. So this kind of handwaving, move on, there’s nothing here to see. And I call it fake it till you make it, is kind of the way that things are going here and that’s not OK. We got human lives at stake and their livelihoods and their health and well-being. And there seems to be an overlap between many of these symptoms and some of the spectrum of symptoms associated with Covid and long Covid. And that’s a little alarming. And it suggests that spike may be the bad actor here. I’d like to say something else about the ad vectors versus the mRNA. One of the things about ad vector gene therapy technology is it was designed to provide long term expression of the trans gene. That’s a fancy word, saying it makes a lot of protein for a long period of time. How much protein, right? For the Novavax, just to take a stocking horse, for the Novavax vaccine, which is more traditional vaccine, the FDA requires that they very precisely calculate the dose, the amount of spike antigen in the formulation that is in the jab that you get in your arm. So you know precisely how much protein is there. In the case of the gene transfer based products, there is no assessment of what the levels or duration of expression are in tissue. Now, technically, the active drug product, I’m using regulatory speak now, the active drug product is the protein. That is the thing that causes the effect. And in their wisdom, the FDA has decided not to require that the pharmaceutical companies characterize exactly how much spike protein is being made. We don’t know. And it is reasonable to assume, based on everything I know in gene therapy for decades, that the adenoviral vectors may be expressing significantly more protein for a longer duration than the mRNA. So no surprise that the safety signal for coagulopathy pops up first with the ad vector vaccines. That doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen with the RNA vaccines. And we have this huge difference in dose between Moderna and Pfizer, for example. And then recently we had the press release from CureVac about their much lower dose, which only provided about 40 percent protection, which frankly is not trivial. Often we have flu vaccines that only provide 40 percent protection. So CureVac seems to have got it a little low. Pfizer might be in the right range. Moderna is way high. And because I work in the government, I have good contacts with the people that were on the team for OWS that designed and expedited the Moderna product. So I know from first person accounts how that dose was selected. And this is another example of fake it till you make it. It was decision making by committee and there was part of the committee that thought they ought to go with two hundred micrograms. And there was part of the committee that thought they should go with 50 micrograms. They were probably the ones that got it right. And they split the decision because they didn’t have solid clinical data to inform that. So that’s how that dose came about. Now that we see, and that’s how things rolled… 

[01:56:06] Del 

Literally rolling the dice… 

[01:56:06] Dr. Robert Malone 

With people’s lives. Yeah. Now it’s decision making by committee. It’s worse than that. It’s group think. It is group think. If you look up the definition of group think, that’s what we’ve been dealing with all the way through this, is a bunch of people who are very convinced about how smart they are and they want to come to consensus with each other and they kind of follow the leader and they all want to get on the same page and they don’t challenge each other, like you are challenging them. I mean, no wonder you’re an enemy right now and you’re treated as one and I am to some extent also, is because we’re committing the sin of saying, yeah, but, did you think about this problem? OK. And that’s our sin. 

[01:56:53] Del 

Let me just ask you then, because I want to jump on to one topic. We’ve already gone longer than I had promised you, and I hope I can hold you for a few more minutes. But very quickly, if we were going to inform citizens that are stepping forward to get this vaccine, what potential risks should they be aware of if you were going to come up with the list? I’ve had my own, but what would you say are the potentials that you’re looking at that you would like to see a long term safety trial rule out? What should we know are potential risks right now at the top of the list of these vaccines, Covid vaccines? 

[01:57:26] Dr. Robert Malone 

So in terms of the current AE spectrum, I understand that in addition to the cardio toxicity or cardiomyopathy and by the way, I think that that is likely to be a broader problem than just adolescence. I think it’s just harder to detect because of this problem with statistics that we call masking and confounding variables because people that aren’t adolescents have a baseline level of cardiovascular events that makes it harder to pick out the signal. And you’re sophisticated enough, I suspect you understand exactly what I’m saying. 

[01:58:04] Del 

Kids don’t have heart attacks and when they start having heart attacks, you notice it. Adults do and sowhen they have heart attacks they say it’s because they were old, not because the vaccine they got four days ago. 

[01:58:12] Dr. Robert Malone 

Yeah. And so to that point, it’s a great case study because at that point, if you’re a person sitting at CDC evaluating the safety database, whether it’s V-safe or VAERS and everybody around you is telling these are safe vaccines. And you see, an MI event, two days after vaccination, just to take an example. You’re going to be biased to saying unrelated because old people have heart attacks. And that’s not how it’s supposed to work. Just like the other example, it’s kind of, you’re supposed to presume guilty until proven innocent. And so I think that that’s part of this underreporting low detection of the signal is the bias on the people that are evaluating the data because of all the messaging they’re getting from their supervisors and all the way up the chain in the HHS system. So you asked me…

[01:59:07] Del 

The President of the United States is telling the world this is a safe product. Everybody’s got to get it. Kids get out and get it. The Delta variant is bad. Kids, you need it, you’re in danger. When the President of the UnitedStates is pumping it, Tony Fauci is pumping it, every hospital is being told, get your numbers up, in fact, force your nurses and your doctors to get it. It’s really hard under that environment to say yoo hoo I have a problem. There may be a problem. 

[01:59:29] Dr. Robert Malone 

So I got to say, if you’re going to go there, I’ve got to say something else. With the censorship, like the Facebook group for people that claim to have vaccine adverse events. These people that have had these symptoms, these events, and it’s really disrupted their lives, they call me, they’re full of tears and in agony and consternation. Putting out the message to everybody around them, their family, friends, kids, whatever, that they couldn’t possibly have had a vaccine related adverse event because these vaccines are safe, is one of the most profound gaslighting things I’ve ever heard of. And then to delete the Facebook group that these people, two hundred fifty thousand, I think, of them have joined and then you just delete it and flush them. What you’re telling these people is that they’re crazy. It is the ultimate gaslight, OK? And some of these people are committing suicide. They’re desperate. It is, I don’t want to say a crime, but this is profoundly wrong. Ok, so there’s that. Going on to the adverse events. So there’s another safety signal that has been detected but hasn’t been disclosed, as I understand it, which is reactivation of latent viruses. So this is the shingles. The thrombocytopenia seems to be happening. Obviously, the coagulopathy seems to be happening whether or not that’s related to the cardio toxicity signal. By the way, I was the guy on point for DOD to look into the cardio toxicity signal on the myocarditis that we found with the smallpox vaccines when we started to deploy them. And there’s the same problem there. So, you know, you asked about long term. I’m still not sure that there isn’t some ADE going on and it’s hard to pick out ADE unless it’s florid. If you have people dropping like flies after vaccination when they get infected, that’s obvious. The dengue situation was pretty overt. But that’s not happening. But there are some odd signals in national health data about mortality, all cause mortality event rates after a vaccination campaign, after surge in vaccination, going up… 

[02:02:11] Del 

See it all around the world. As that vaccine really kicks in, we see a rise in death, then it goes down. But you really probably killed off everybody that would have been weak to the virus or the vaccine. 

[02:02:20] Dr. Robert Malone 

I don’t want to, I don’t want to go there and say we’ve killed off everybody. That’s kind of alarmist. But there is some, I think that epidemiologists may well pull out data suggesting that there may be some ADE effect. We don’t know yet, but I’m still not convinced there’s none. It’s not florid, which is what I was originally worried about. Then there’s the, in terms that you mentioned, the long terms, obviously, the reproductive toxicology, we just don’t know. The CDC looked at pregnancy in a MMWR publication that you probably looked at a couple of weeks ago. And they asserted that based on the V-safe database, they didn’t see evidence of toxicity from the RNA vaccines in pregnancy. But if you look at the final paragraph, it’s kind of got the punch. And they say explicitly the V-safe database is flawed, inadequate, grossly underreporting. We need to do a better job in the next outbreak. Therefore, we’re not really sure about whether or not they’re safe in pregnancy. That’s the bottom line in the CDC’s assessment… 

[02:03:39] Del 

V-safe being the middle man that’s now been put in on the way to VAERS, on the way to report in to VAERS, V-safesort of has gotten involved, is helping people through it or whatever. VAERS being underreported, famous Harvard study that showed that it captures less than one percent of the total amount of injuries. We now are seeing, I think, in the neighborhood of six thousand deaths being reported in VAERS by this Covid vaccine. If that’s an underreporting, even at those numbers, I guess that’s where we’re at, five thousand eight hundred eighty eight right now. There’s obviously a backlog, but that would be the highest death rate, not only of any vaccine that’s ever been made, but literally of all the vaccines that have ever been made over the last several years put together, have never killed that many people. 

[02:04:21] Dr. Robert Malone 

Yes, so that analysis, which is Steve’s analysis also, has brought out the haters and those nattering nabobs that pick out various reasons why you can over analyze that, you can overstate the importance of that data. I’m with you and Steve that we can all agree those are imperfect data, the death. And by the way, there’s like thirty thousand in Europe and that those aren’t verified deaths, their vaccine associated deaths. But the point that you make and Steve makes is that we have this prior baseline of death events for all vaccines combined up until we kick in with this vaccine campaign, which means the denominator now is bigger because we’ve got all vaccines plus this vaccine over that time period. So you expect you might have to do some correction, but the difference is so large and so striking. I don’t think how you can look at that data and not say hmmm, we better look closer at this. This is a little worrying. So that’s why I, when I look at those data, I kind of come away, I’m a little different from how Steve looks at it. He’s like the house is on fire and they’re killing people. I prefer to take the stance this is concerning and it absolutely merits a rigorous follow up so that we can really figure out what’s going on here.

[02:05:56] Del 

Let me be perfectly clear about where I’m at with it, because it will sort of lead to where I want to sort of sum up this conversation right here, which is this. We are having faced, as you said, censorship, that you have people naturally on their own putting up Facebook pages saying, I’ve been injured by this thing, have you had anything like this? And it ends up having hundreds of thousands of people saying, yes, here’s my injury. In fact, Medscape just had doctors weighing in, only doctors who report, do you have concerns about the vaccine? And most of them talk about their own injuries, saying, yeah, I’m having these issues and a bunch of negative comments, I mean, as far as you could see, based on these vaccines. Here’s my issue. We’re being told that this thing has not any cut corners, that we went through a Phase three trial. It appears to me, and I think you mentioned this before, that we’re treating this, though, as we’re a Phase four, which is we’re in the population, when the truth is, if that is the case, if you are in a population study, you better have the mechanisms to study that population for every injury that’s happening. And when you cannot answer to the five thousand, if you can’t tell us is it five thousand, is it one thousand, is it none, is it five hundred thousand based on Harvard’s and you cannot give us a solid number, then you are a very very…it’s a dangerous trial being done recklessly on innocent people. And so my issue is this. Why can’t the FDA tell us how many people have died? Why can’t they project how many will die? I mean, these are the things, these are why we do trials and…you have a better relationship with the FDA than I do.Have you reached out them? Have you reached out to the FDA? 

[02:07:32] Dr. Robert Malone 

The reason they can’t do it is because they had the option to require the pharmaceutical companies to acquire that data more rigorously under EUA. They had the legislative latitude to do so and they elected to do nothing. So you’re dead on. If we’re going to point a finger at somebody and we’ll see how long Janet stays. I think it might not be too long. But it’s not just Janet. There’s a culture there and we could talk about other stories. Absolutely, the FDA has been subject to administrative pressure from above within HHS, and they are not acting independent of other agencies within the government. They are, I think that a very strong case can be made and I could relate personal experience that the FDA is no longer independent of political pressure. And that is a big problem. So I think you’re kind of network angst coming out here, I’m referring to movie, is warranted. The question is where do we go from here? I’m not sure… 

[02:09:06] Del 

You worked with them. Youworked with Department of Defense. I don’t know if we’re going to have time to get into the other part of the topic I wanted to, which is you were really been trying to pioneer working with drugs, repurposingdrugs and maybe we’ll touch on it very quickly. But in that conversation, have you reached out to the FDA and asked them how well is the data collection going? 

Is the FDA, are they stressed rightnow or are they like, you know, we’re cool man, we’re meditating here, Kumbaya, everything’s looking really good. 

[02:09:37] Dr. Robert Malone 

I have asked the question directly and what I’m told is that CDC is overwhelmed. FDA is overwhelmed. The CDC is not allowing transparency to V-safe even within the government. And that the FDA, what’s happened, I infer from what I hear from my colleagues, is that you have a very kludgy historic system and people that are deeply dug in, in very much old school approaches to data analytics on the epidemiology in these databases and are unwilling to consider new technologies and approaches statistically and otherwise. And we have these very kludgy antique database structures, and they are not able to efficiently process and sort out signal from noise and they are lagging. And that is a significant problem. And FDA leadership, I know there’s significant frustration that current FDA leadership has been very resistant to implementing more modern approaches to data analysis. I mean, we sit in Silicon Valley, I mean, Oracle. We have some of the top people in the world and it’s like the FDA are sticking their heads in the sand and say, no, we still want to work with Kobol [?] and do things the way that we did it back in the 70s. And they have now been hammered with the biggest crisis they’ve ever faced, any of us have ever faced in public health. And their systems are not able to support the strain. And they’ve been overwhelmed and they’ve gone into their foxholes and so we see public messaging where people like Tony, Tony admits it, Dr. Fauci. He has relied on his opinion and statements that he thinks would be helpful. It’s in The Washington Post FOIA emails. It’s quite obvious. He admits to his biases and he kind of wraps himself… 

[02:12:07] Del 

He did say last week that anyattack on him is an attack on science. He also sees himself… 

[02:12:11] Dr. Robert Malone 

He’s wrapped himself in the cloak I am science. That’s kind of a little over the top. Yeah, it’s like he might have lost perspective a little bit, but, hey, he’s 80 years old. Cut him some slack. 

[02:12:26] Del 

All right. Really quickly, because I can’t let it go because the work that you do, you’re a consultant, you work with Department of Defense, one of the major things that you’ve been trying to do is work on repurposing drugs. And this has been a huge conversation because as this vaccine has been promoted from the beginning, other products, treatments like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin. Is your opinion that there have been treatments available throughout this process that could have curbed the death rate that we’re seeing, hundreds of thousands dying? I guess we’re in the sixes now in America. 

[02:13:03] Dr. Robert Malone 

Absolutely. 

[02:13:03] Del 

Could that have been shifted had we used drugs that were maybe pennies on the dollar, not patented?

[02:13:09] Dr. Robert Malone 

And so, yeah, ivermectin is one example and the data are coming in fairly strong that ivermectin has benefits both as a prophylactic and as a therapeutic for severe disease and hospitalization. The argument that many of those studies, often in emerging markets, because they’re very poor and they are using this off patent, readily available drug that often they have available because there may be endemic worm diseases. Yes, so I was very involved in getting this thing processed and published, this paper. And I had recommended that we use ivermectin in one of the arms of our outpatient study with DOD that we’re currently prosecuting. Oddly, the FDA required that we prove the mechanism of action of ivermectin using cell culture, which is over the top, if they would allow us to proceed with clinical trials. They did not insist on that in the clinical trial that the NIH is launching, active six, testing ivermectin in outpatient. I don’t know what to say about that. It’s… 

[02:14:26] Del 

So very quickly, they want you to go all the way back and prove that ivermectin does what you say it does, even though we have like hundreds, if not thousands of trials around the world showing it’s working on patients. Can we do one in the NIH where we have a control group and just say we’re not even going to do that. You’ve got to go back, 12 months we want you to waste in a cell culture study just to tell us that this should be an important study, that we should try it, at which point it’s obviously too late. Either we’ve all gotten the vaccine and it is or is not dangerous to us… 

[02:14:54] Dr. Robert Malone 

Yeah, I like to say, yeah, but, you know, five hundred, a thousand are dying a day here in the United States and you’re worried about the potential risk of a 40 year old drug that has one of the best safety records in the world, administered at known safe doses. They’re basically the same doses, by the way, that I administer by kilogram to my horses. So it just seems…there are a bunch of things here that don’t make sense. And by the way, we’ve barely scratched some of the issues, we haven’t talked about the lab leak, what went on in Wuhan, what the documentation is about when they actually started building the vaccine. And the repurposed drugs, there’s going to be a good book about that. For our studies, the FDA is still throwing up just objection after objection after objection. Each time we come in with our IND for the two drugs, I’m not pumping our drugs, I’m not going to go there, that we’ve identified. The trial, we have an IND that we’re trying to prosecute with the agency. And colleagues in India are probably going to start a trial fairly soon. But with the FDA, it’s a paradox. Every time we have a meeting with them, they say, well, you’ve got to do these things and then we’ll let you go. And we say, OK, we’ll do those things, like the ivermectin they objected to. So we said, OK, we’re going to drop the ivermectin. DOD just didn’t want to have that fight with the FDA. So this happens again and again and again. And each time they come up with new objections. It’s very odd. The people on my team and myself have never seen anything like this before. And I don’t wish to be a conspiracy theorist, but it just doesn’t make sense. 

[02:16:54] Del 

But it’s not even consistent, right? I mean, there’s no consistency because on the one hand, the very agencies that are rushing out a brand new technology that’s going to have free floating spike all through your body, no long term understanding of the safety of that, are being promoted by the President of United States, are making you jump through hoops for a product that’s been proven to be safe for 40 years. 

[02:17:16] Dr. Robert Malone 

Are blocking the development of known safe agents that are off patent that drug companies can hardly make a nickel on, that are instead of remdesivir costing eight thousand dollars a treatment would cost something like…they’re being used in hospitals, these agents that we’re working with and the treatment costs about 50 bucks for a hospitalization. And we pop them out and they appear to have better efficacy than remdesivir. Now, something’s not right there. And I think most of us can put a name to it and know this is another one of those, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but we can’t call it a duck. 

[02:17:56] Del 

So name that duck. 

[02:17:58] Dr. Robert Malone 

But that duck is regulatory capture by the pharmaceutical industry. Yeah, I don’t think Janet’s going to be around very long, but I like to say if there’s a Wiki page for regulatory capture, coming off the Purdue Pharma OxyContin situation, probably going to have her picture there. 

[02:18:23] Del 

What is your advice in wrapping this up? Children are now, you know, we have college students right now, they’re being told by universities in the next two weeks they need to be vaccinated or show their vaccine in order to go to college this upcoming semester. You work closely with regulatory agencies. What should really be the statement to people who are looking at their children, at least under these circumstances, or students going to college? Should they wait? Should they hold on a second and try…I mean, we haven’t even had the CDC weigh in on really the safety of this issue of blood clots, thrombocytopenia in youth and the myocarditis. If they’re not weighing in, should children, should we have a pause right now before we force young people that really are at almost no risk at all from dying from this virus?

[02:19:16] Dr. Robert Malone 

So that’s number one, this gets to the bioethics of the age of informed consent and so absolutely, unequivocally, people lower than the age of 18 should not be coerced to receive vaccine. And if they do receive vaccine, there has to be parental approval. That’s just the rules. The WHO modified its web page yesterday or the day before, and you’re probably aware of that. And there’s a new clause. I don’t want to get trapped in getting the words wrong and having a fact check from PolitiFact. But there is a clear and unambiguous statement that the WHO believes that most of these vaccines are safe down to the age of 18. And there’s a statement that there should not be mandated childhood vaccination. So the implication is they’re defining childhood as including adolescence. So we now have the WHO staking out a position. I was asked by a podcast in the U.K. point blank, do I think children should be vaccinated? And my personal opinion is no. The justification that Delta variant is going to spread more readily and creates an added threat to children. My problem with that is it sounds an awful lot like scare tactics because I haven’t seen any data on the effects of the Delta variant in children. 

[02:20:51] Dr. Robert Malone 

And so if you’re going to make public health statements, they ought to be data based. That’s the core here, is let’s do science based medicine. Let’s stop the fake it till you make it. And so if Delta variant represents an enhanced risk for children and adolescents, show me the data. Show all of us the data. You owe it to us. My point is that the government doesn’t have the right to coerce you to do things with your body. It’s their obligation to convince us based on real information and give us the information that we can make our own judgments as adults because we’re competent. We understand intuitively risk benefit. We know that some people die in airplanes and yet we take air flights all the time, likewise with our cars. We can process this stuff. We’re not children. We don’t need the government to tell us what to do. What we need the government to do is be frank and open and honest about what the actual data are and stop the scare tactics. So where I come down is children and adolescents, I’m not aware of data about the Delta variant actually being an enhanced risk. It may be. Show me the data. Otherwise, all the information that I’ve seen is the risk of Covid disease, which is not the same as infection, in adolescents, children and infants is remarkably low. And the risk of adverse events in those populations is not nothing, but not nothing divided by almost nothing is a big number. It’s not the right kind of risk benefit ratio that normally would be used to justify a vaccine intervention. So I think that ratio has too much risk, too little benefit, and if the public health service is going to make a case that they should be vaccinated, let’s see the data. Let’s see the actual calculations. 

[02:23:01] Dr. Robert Malone 

In terms of young adults being required to be vaccinated before they return to their universities. I participated in a town hall meeting at the University of Delaware with some very aggravated parents and young adults that go to school there that are being mandated to take these experimental vaccines. That sounds like coercion to me. And that’s not right, because these are experimental products, and I suspect that those university administrators who are probably making some sort of financial risk calculation about the lawsuits they might get from Covid infection on their campuses might want to think twice because they ought to factor in their risk benefit calculation for their financial risk, the potential lawsuits they’re going to get from people that have been denied the opportunity for higher education because they have elected to not take the vaccine. Have I addressed your questions? 

[02:24:04] Del 

Yes. My final question is this. You quietly work with the FDA, you work with the Department of Defense. You are in the mix. Unlike many people that sit there as doctors, they have no actual action or way to have conversations with people that might matter. You’ve been having those conversations. What led you to leave just having those conversations and then two weeks ago be involved in a podcast that has now made you a public figure in this discussion? As you said, your phone is ringing off the hook. That’s a pretty big shift from someone that doesn’t want to be in the media, that is just trying to address the issue to someone that is now saying things like you’re saying. The FDA is overwhelmed, the CDC is overwhelmed. They are not collecting data properly and this thing is being moved forward. What made you do that?

[02:24:48] Dr. Robert Malone 

The seminal event for me was when Trial Site News asked me to evaluate the Pfizer data package and the European Medicines Agency assessment letter that they published normally, so the one was FOIA, the other is normal disclosure. And I encountered and I worked through those and it was clear to me that this wasn’t right. And it was not right and proper. And then there was the Dr. Bridle response and assessment from Canada. I was on a phone call with the Canadian physician that told me about what he was experiencing and how the government was just summarily dismissing his claim, his posting to the government database of adverse events that his patients were encountering. And he told me about how the government and there’s a whole cadre of self-appointed academic police that attack physicians and scientists that say anything about this. I don’t get that except for I was in academia. And I know how that culture works. And it’s a little twisted. But I saw these things coming together. I saw the suppression of information and communication. I saw the safety signals. I saw the, you know, misrepresentation about how the vaccine had been characterized in the Pfizer case. I saw the New England, Harvard and Brigham and Women’s Nurses study, and it just came to me that we’d reached a tipping point. And that somebody…and then the whole RNA inventor thing became a big curfuffle. And I suddenly found myself in a position where people were looking to me to provide leadership. And I was being able to say things on LinkedIn and social media that other people were being censored for. And I think it was because of my CV and these past contributions. And people, perhaps the censors, felt that I had enough legitimacy, that they were going to think twice before they just automatically whack me. So I had a platform, I had the CV legitimacy. The signal was there. There’s a bunch of worrying things. I’m seeing my fellow physicians just being hammered if they even start talking about it. And so I started speaking up and one thing led to another. And there was the invitation to go talk to Brett. And we had an open discussion. Some people find this not boring for three hours, if nothing else, because of Steve talking over me for most of it, I think. But that seemed to go pretty well. And then people started inviting, they wanted to hear what I had to say, like you. And so I’m grateful for that. And now it’s snowballed. And I’ve got almost certainly thirty five thousand Twitter followers and I’ve got docs and scientists from all over the world coming to me and saying, hey, can you make it clear to people that this is happening or this paper or that finding. 

[02:28:24] Dr. Robert Malone 

And so now I’m in a position ethically almost where I have to, I feel the need to use this moment in time in this platform to share key information. I think another one was after that Canadian phone call, I woke up the next morning and had the insight about how wrong this was from a bioethics standpoint. And I wrote a piece in Trial Site News where I laid that out. And for me, that was kind of a, if there’s a red pill, people overuse that metaphor from the Matrix. It was that bioethics argument and the things surrounding it which, as you say, is entirely aligned with your nonprofit. So congratulations on that. We are of one mind. Bioethics should not be violated. Let’s not have another Tuskee, let’s not have more torture, let’s not have the Japanese internment. Crises like this, in my opinion, sometimes lead governments and cultures to cross lines that they said they wouldn’t cross. And they almost always end up regretting it. And I’ve been through too many outbreaks. I know how frightening it could be. I can’t tell you how frightening it was to get a call from the Pentagon as I was on the road to Ames, Iowa that said, Robert, we’ve just come out of a briefing and there’s a scenario of a billion people dead from Ebola and you’ve got to do something. How would you like to be on point for that? Talk about save the world, right? Robert, you’ve got to figure out some way to make a heck of a lot of Ebola vaccine. And you got to do it now because it could be a lot of people dying, could be your mother or your wife or God only knows what else. And so I’ve been there in the jaws of that pressure. And I understand how hard it is to make decisions in that environment. But I think that the dust has settled. We have a little bit of oxygen right now before Delta hits us. I don’t know what that’s going to do to the states. And so let’s take a good breath, look at what we’re doing here. And take stock and let’s try to get back on track ethically and organizationally. Again, I’m going to say it again. Let’s stop the fake it till you make it stuff. Let’s do science based medicine please. 

[02:30:59] Del 

Amen. From your lips to God’s ears. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you for being brave enough to speak out, a man in your position. We live in a time where they so rarely do, which I think could lead to the death of science. So I think that we are fighting for science right now at the HighWire. I believe you’re doing the same. I believe in science. I know how science is supposed to be done. That is not what we’ve seen over the last year and a half. We need to get back to it. Or it could be very, very damaging for the future of our species and certainly of our education of our children. So I want to thank you for the work that you’re doing and bless you on your way as you continue to speak on all the platforms that will have you. So thank you for taking the time and joining us today. 

[02:31:46] Dr. Robert Malone 

Thanks Del. Thanks for the opportunity. 

[02:31:47] Del 

All right, you take care. Well, I mean, absolutely, every week I’m blown away at the amount of scientists and brilliant people that are really coming forward and speaking to this issue, but what we’re talking about is the potential for vaccine injury like we’ve never seen, deaths like we’ve never seen are being calculated. Highest rates we’ve ever seen. We’ve seen myocarditis, blood clots. If you’re any one of those people or you know someone like that and they need help and they don’t trust V-safe, and they don’t trust the same places that these scientists don’t trust any longer, the CDC, the FDA. Then they may need help on how do they report to VAERS? How do we help with data collection? That’s why we started injuredbycovidvaccine.com. Take a look at this. 

[02:32:31] Injuredbycovidvaccine.com 

If you or a loved one has been injured after receiving a Covid-19 vaccine, including if you are a participant in a clinical trial, go to injuredbycovidvaccine.com. Submissions are confidential. We are here to help provide support, including connecting with medical specialists and potentially securing legal representation. To assure the safety of Covid-19 vaccines for everyone, it is imperative that every person injured by this product report their injury. We can provide assistance, completing a report to the CDC’s vaccine adverse events reporting system. So if you or a loved one has suffered an injury from a Covid-19 vaccine, go to injuredbycovidvaccine.com now.

[02:33:19] Del 

All right, it’s time for my favorite part of the show, The Highwire hero. Today’s Highwire hero is none other than Buffalo Bills wide receiver Cole Beasley. Why? Well, if you missed it, because he put out a tweet that made headlines. Here’s what the headlines had to say. [REF] Buffalo Bills Cole Beasley says he’d rather retire than get Covid-19 vaccine. Good on you, Cole. You shouldn’t have to retire. But why is he saying that? Look at the NFL rules on players that don’t get vaccinated. Here it is. If you’re an unvaccinated player, you will be tested daily. I’m not going to read both sides. You get the idea. You’ll have to wear a mask at facilities and while traveling, while the others don’t. You’ll need to self quarantine following exposure. Other ones won’t. If you’re vaccinated, it doesn’t matter if they’re exposed, they don’t care. Will remain under the same travel restrictions as 2020 season that totally screwed you over. Will be required to limit their weight room numbers to 15 individuals, whereas if you’re vaccinated, hey have a party, as many as you want. Must socially distance during meals, not allowed to eat with teammates. Not allowed to have social media marketing or promotion opportunities. So we’re going to cut your checks that come from all those advertisers. You’re not allowed to be a part of advertising anymore if you don’t get vaccinated. Oh, my God. Not permitted to use the steam room or the sauna, period. Don’t even think about it. Required to stay in team hotel for meals. You may not eat in restaurants. You cannot interact with non team members during travel. Are you kidding me? I mean, all of the sudden the NFL is like Nazi Germany, literally. It’s incredible that they even think they would get away with this. But it’s apparently only Cole Beasley that really had the guts, the good football guts to say something about it. Here’s just an excerpt from his brilliant tweet. You should read the whole thing, but here’s a little piece of it. “I’m not going to take meds for a leg that isn’t broken. I’d rather take my chances with Covid and build up my immunity that way. Eat better, drink water, exercise and do what I think is necessary to be a healthy individual. That is my choice, based on my experiences and what I think is best. I’ll play for free this year to live life how I’ve lived it from day one. If I’m forced into retirement, so be it.” Cole, good on you, man. I mean, I get it. He talks about how others can’t do that. He’s made a fortune. He’s had a great career. He’s willing to walk away. He’s not going to change his life or he’s not going to change his moral structure, what he believes about his body and what’s gotten him to this point. I’m right there with you, Cole. Neither would I. And so thank you. You’re our Highwire hero of the week. 

[02:36:07] Del 

And lastly, to finish up the show, I actually had several of you sponsors reach out to me. And I want to thank all of those that support the work that we do here. That last interview, go watch it again. I mean, there was so many bombshells there. I feel like it’s over. It’s game over. All right. It’s over. The inventor of the technology is now saying, stop it, stop it now. CDC, FDA, you’re all doing the wrong thing. You’re faking it till you make it. I mean, these are one off, one in a lifetime opportunities, these interviews. We are building the time capsule that will remember Covid for what really happened. 

[02:36:42] Del 

But a couple of you sponsors that make all this possible reached out to me. And you’re very concerned about the university situation. And I get it. Whether you have kids that are going into university or, you know, your own kids are having kids that are going to university. And the universities are saying across the country, as I understand it, that many of those universities are saying you have two weeks to provide your vaccine status. And they’re asking me, what do we do, Del? I mean, I said, well, obviously ICAN, we are suing many of these universities as we speak, but we can’t sue all the universities, hundreds that are making the statement about needing to be force vaccinated in order to go to school. You heard the opinion of the man that created the vaccine. He doesn’t think that should happen. The CDC obviously isn’t going to step up to protect anyone. But when I reached out to our legal team and said, what is it that people can do? One of the things that we decided to build as a tool was the number one rule of what you have to do is you got to get an exemption. These two weeks really aren’t forcing you to be vaccinated. What it’s doing is forcing you to declare what your status is. And if you’re not going to get vaccinated, you need to see my status as I’m not vaccinated because of religious reasons or whatever is available in your state. We have built a page on our website for anyone asking this question. Here you go. Just go to the Informed Consent Action Network or Icandecide.org. And we have a Covid-19 vaccine exemptions page. If you open this up, we show you 50 universities, we have 50 that we’ve directly worked with and we lay out what their exemption program is. Now, obviously not every university will be on there, but reading some of those should give you a sense of what you’re looking for in your university if it’s not listed there. We’re also suing universities. We’re doing that work on our end. But you need to go out and find out what exemption’s available to you and get it. I also want to say this, in many states you’re like, well, my church, Catholic Church, they’ve come out and said that vaccines are OK. The truth is, is that our Constitution, the laws of this land are you’re not allowed to be asked about your religion or what your religious beliefs are, in fact, your own held belief is your religious belief. And it doesn’t matter if it’s even separate from the sector church that you’re involved with. That doesn’t matter. So don’t let that stuff get in your way. If you believe that it’s unsafe to take this untested product and all the dangers you’re seeing, that belief is your spiritual belief, your religious belief. You are allowed a religious exemption. So go to the page and check that out.

[02:39:12] Del 

We are also putting together a sort of a top 10 list of questions that you should really bring to any university that’s trying to force your kids in. We want to lay this out for you. This will be on our website, 10 questions to ask your college or university if they’re mandating the Covid-19 vaccine. Are you aware that pharmaceutical companies and the medical community have immunity from liability for injuries caused by Covid-19 vaccines, that they have no liability, they don’t stand behind their product. And two, ifa company will not stand behind its product and pay for injuries, do you think consumers and students should have to bear the risk of being injected with that product? Three, has the long term safety of any Covid-19 vaccine been established? Are you aware of that? Are you aware myocarditis, heart swelling has occurred after Covid-19 vaccination, especially in young males? Are you aware that thrombocytopenia, a drop in blood platelets, has occurred after Covid-19 vaccination, especially among females? Number six, are you aware the spike protein created by the vaccine is actually a toxin and travels through the body? Do you know, this is number seven…do you know the rate of severe Covid-19 in university aged students? Eight, are you aware that a large percentage of students have already had Covid-19 and have superior natural immunity and therefore shouldn’t get the vaccine because they’ll only hurt the better, more powerful immunity they already have? And nine, are you aware of the serious conflicts of interest in the development and trials of these novel vaccines? And ten, why require the vaccine when it is available to anyone who thinks they need it? Obviously it’s available, why should you force it? And I would sort of add the age old, and if vaccines work and those that got it have it, then what risk is there for those that don’t want it? It’s only to themselves, right? I mean, this is the conversation. Obviously, with every one of those questions, we’ll have citations and things where you can actually hand the information over so that you can go in and have an intelligent dialog, an informed dialog with those people. And I want to point out that as our legal team has reached out to many of these universities, they wanted me to tell you that in many ways they are not these diabolical people that are trying to, they’re very confused about what’s going on. They’re on unsure ground and they’re trying to find their way through this with a lot of pressure coming in from the government. So go in nicely. Have a nice conversation. I asked the team to not make those ten statements so that you don’t just bulldoze people, but enroll them in a conversation, ask questions. What do they know about? Are you aware of this? Have you seen this study? Are you aware that there are blood clots? Are you aware that the CDC admitted that myocarditis is two hundred times more prevalent in some of these age groups than if they weren’t getting the vaccine at all? We’re here to help you get to these processes especially, and outside of that, we’re suing to stop these universities. We’re going to set precedent. We’re going to the Supreme Court, baby, any way we can. We’re going to undo these types of bad laws that have been put in place. 

[02:42:16] Del 

And I also want to say is a call to action. Look at Ron DeSantis, look at Governor Abbott. And I forget the, what’s the guy in Arizona? Ducey, sorry. These guys are writing laws…by the way, Arizona you’re not going to have problems with the university because the governor took away their power. Florida, we’re not really seeing problems with the universities there, even though they demand it. Ron DeSantis’ laws going to really be in your benefit. So no universities are really going to press it there. AndTexas, they’re going to be very similar. So I would say a call to action is start reaching out to your governor and say, I want laws like they have in Texas, in Florida, in Arizona. Well, you’re not allowed to ask my vaccine status, that my vaccine status does not affect me as a consumer for any product and by the way, any institution that I want to go to. Start putting pressure on your governors, because these states are proving that that can make the difference. And guess what? We’ll be there, too. We’re reaching out to governors all over this country. We are looking to make a difference. We’re bringing you the biggest interviews in the world. As far as I’m concerned, we’ve already won this. This thing is over. It’s dead and buried. I think the CDC is done. ACIP will never be respected again. They will be remembered, but they won’t be respected. All of this because the great work that we’re doing together, the HighWire team, the HighWire family and Informed Consent Action Network. You’re a part of that network. You are making a difference. And to all of those of you that support us to help us put this together, thank you so much. We will keep rocking it out. And I’ll see you next week. 

[02:43:52] Highwire ad 

Thanks for watching and thanks to the Highwire insiders who make this show possible. If you’d like to become a Highwire insider, then go to our website, the Highwire.com, and sign up now. And please share the show. We’re on Twitter, Bitchute, and now on Roku. Because knowledge is power, censorship is real. And we need all the help we can get.

 

Episode Transcript

[00:00:08] Highwire ad 

Hey, everybody, I’m Del Bigtree from the HighWire, and I have a word of warning. Twitter is announcing that it is going to ban anybody that contradicts information coming from the CDC or the WHO, even if it’s true. What does that mean? If you like the information that we put out and you want that peer reviewed science in your hand, and the truth is what matters to you, you need to go to the HighWire.com right now, sign up to our newsletter. We’re the most transparent news agency in the world. Every Thursday, we’re doing a live show, and every Monday we provide you with all the evidence, the actual proof, so that you can hold it in your hands despite what Facebook or Twitter or Instagram or the WHO or the CDC wants you to believe, you can believe the truth. So do me a favor right now. Take this moment. Take the energy to go to your computer, use your phone right now, the HighWire.com, sign up to our newsletter. So you’ll always get our information because we’re not going anywhere. Nobody’s going to intimidate us. It’s all about the truth. And you’ll find it at The HighWire.com. 

[00:01:26] Del 

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are out there in the world, we’re stepping out onto the HighWire. And folks, we have a huge show today. I got to say, when we started investigating the Covid pandemic and then the warp speed vaccine, you know, I knew we would get to talk to some really big scientists from around the world. And we have. But I’m telling you, if someone had said to me, Del, eventually you’re going to get to have an interview with the inventor of the mRNA vaccine. I said, get out of here. That’s exactly what’s happening. Coming up later in the show, I’m going to talk to Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine. And though he’s making the rounds, he’s starting to speak out. No one is going to get into the details that we are going to get into on the HighWire. I am so excited, maybe more excited than I’ve been for any show. 

[00:02:19] Del 

But first, I want to talk about history. History was made yesterday and not the good kind of history, the really bad kind of history, the one that stinks up the page of the history book throughout time. What I’m talking about is, of course, the ACIP meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met yesterday to finally discuss the myocarditis, the heart inflammation that’s happening in children all across this country due to the Covid-19 vaccines. They know it’s happening. The WHO has been waffling and backing away and saying, well, maybe we don’t recommend it for children. I mean, it is a very low risk for the virus. But that didn’t matter. It didn’t matter that we were watching basketball players never playing again in high school. College students, children having their heart swell up. They even pushed the meeting back a week. But they finally sat down yesterday to look at the details and say, did we make a mistake by recommending this vaccine that was never tested on children in the Phase three trials ever? Maybe we rushed this and perhaps all of the heart attacks and blood clots and the heart swelling should make us pause for a moment and say maybe the kids don’t need to do this. Well, I want to give you one excerpt. There was many, but let’s just keep it tight. This gives you the basic idea of what they stared into the eyes of, the demon of myocarditis. Here it is.

[00:03:42] Dr. Matthew Oster 

So these are reports to VAERS, myocarditis, pericarditis reports to VAERS following dose 2 with an observed or suspected analysis using a seven day risk window. The age groups are there on the left side, and then you have doses administered and the observed cases are the actual reports to VAERS after dose 2 or symptom onset was in the seven day risk window. The expected, our expected count is based on estimates that we generated from incidence rates and published literature. That was FDA, CDC literature review with an adjustment for male and female percentages. And I think the take home here, take home message here is that we’re observing this in younger age groups, mainly in these people in the teens and early 20s and observing it more in males compared to females. And the difference in the observed versus the expected appears to be greater, generally speaking, in males versus females. 

[00:05:04] Del 

All right, obviously, that’s really boring, but we didn’t videotape that. That’s how the feed comes out of the ACIP meeting. And it’s amazing when you go to those meetings and you hear them have to deliver sort of bad news, it’s almost like they choke on it by trying to get it out. The guy can barely get it out. But let’s look at these numbers, shall we? Bring up the chart that he’s speaking to once again. I really want to take a look at this. Just look at the side, the males there on the right. What they’re saying is there’s like, for instance, in the 12 to 17 years old, there’s an expected potential of zero to four, at the tops maybe four out of the two million would normally have myocarditis or pericarditis. Instead, it’s one hundred and twenty eight. Look at this, 18 to 24 where there might be one to eight and one, you know, it’s one. The eight is somewhere they had to get the highest number they possibly could, but potentially then when observed potentially is one to eight, two hundred and nineteen cases of myocarditis. The list goes on. The men or the boys there are who we’re really worried about. The women obviously having issues. I mean, that’s gigantic. To go from zero to two up to nineteen, one to six to twenty three, zero to five to seven. But the boys look at that, that is just a horror right there, which would make you think that you would just pause to say, are we really going to destroy these kids’ lives? Some of them will probably die, if not immediately, eventually from heart disease caused by this. 

[00:06:30] Del 

I think that it was best put by the ex New York Times reporter who tweeted this. This is Berenson’s tweet. Alex Berenson: @CDC just posted its myocarditis pericarditis update. They’re now admitting that post second dose risk in people under twenty five could be over 200 times the background rate. And that’s not accounting for underreporting, which we know is happening. How many people just thought they were really sick? Because we’ve all been told that second shot’s a doozy. So how many parents just said to their kidjust weather it out, that’s the second shot, you feel like crap, that’s expected. They didn’t know that their heart was actually swollen inside of their chest, so they never went and complained about it. How many thousands of kids are in that category? And when asked in this meeting, did we look at studying kids that maybe didn’t have symptoms or didn’t come into the hospital and said, yeah, we thought about it, but we decided, no, there was no point in doing that. But here’s, to be honest, this is what they admitted to themselves. This was the discussion, VaST discussion and interpretation. Here’s what they are admitting. The data available suggests its likely association of myocarditis with mRNA vaccine in adolescents and young adults. So they know it. There it is. The CDC knows for a fact that their vaccines are causing heart problems, causing heart swelling in children at rates two hundred times more than they normally would be at. And then when they said, well, who should we give this to? Is there anybody we should leave out? Like maybe someone who just had their heart swollen in the first shot? I mean, if their heart swells on the first shot what do we do on the second shot? They actually address that question. Listen to this. 

[00:08:13] Dr. Sara Oliver 

First, for those with a history of pericarditis prior to Covid vaccination, these individuals can receive any FDA authorized Covid vaccine. Next, for those with a history of pericarditis after the first dose of an mRNA vaccine, but prior to the second dose. Because the risk of clinically significant sequelae related to pericarditis is considered low, people who develop pericarditis after the first dose of an mRNA vaccine may proceed with administration of the second dose after resolution of pericarditis related symptoms. And people who have a history of myocarditis unrelated to Covid vaccination and who have recovered may receive any FDA authorized Covid 19 vaccine. 

[00:09:00] Del 

So obviously, they didn’t look at the swelling of hearts and say, let’s save the children, this is ridiculous, there’s no point in doing this. But I want to do the math here. We’re talking about what is the risk to children? I mean, obviously, swelling kids hearts, bad idea. Some will probably die. Some are still in the hospital. We don’t know how this is all going to turn out, but what’s the actual risk of the virus? Because we always hear about that risk reward benefit ratio that’s always being considered by the CDC. So I want to do some simple math. I know we’ve all talked about it, but I’m going to show you how you do it. OK, here’s how we do math on the risk of Covid-19 to children. Recently, AAP said that two hundred and ninety seven total children have died in the United States of America from Covid-19 so far. All right. That’s bad. Two hundred ninety seven is bad, probably the sickest among us, but that’s OK. Now, let’s take that death rate. What is that death rate? Well, we looked at from one year old to 18 years old, which makes up those children. What’s that number? That’s seventy four point one million. OK, so I’m going to go ahead and put that in because see right here, seventy four point one million. Here is your death rate: point zero zero zero zero zero four zero. Well, let’s put that on the camera right there. Point zero zero zero zero zero four zero one. That is the risk of Covid virus to the children in the United States of America. I want that to sink in for a second because we have never seen something so egregious as what’s taking place since the CDC yesterday. So what does that mean? Two hundred times the rate of myocarditis in children to a point zero zero, what was that five zeros before we get to a number of risk of dying from the illness?

[00:10:52] Del 

That means for the first time in history, as far as I know it, the CDC is knowingly recommending a product that is more dangerous by far than the virus threat to our children. That’s it. The risk reward benefit doesn’t matter to them. It never has mattered. Now I knew, I would have bet you money this was how this was all going to turn out. I think I even said it to Jefferey when we were talking about it last week. Why? Because here’s the problem. This is not about health. This is about an agenda. This is about an agenda to make the vaccine look like it works, to get everybody vaccinated. I was warning people about this years ago as I was speaking about what we discovered about vaccines and safety and the lack of safety trials that were being done for all the vaccines. And though I wasn’t around to sit in ACIP meetings when our childhood vaccine program was put together, we’re all sitting at the table watching this one. And I assure you, it’s probably the same. But this time we’re going to hold them accountable because now we know the facts. Now we know there’s no risk to our children, but there is a risk from this vaccine. And so that means the CDC and these ACIP members are marching children to their doom on purpose for no reason. So I want to talk about, and people say, well, look, it’s probably not their fault, it’s probably people above them. That was the same argument that was made when we talk about the captain of the Titanic, because this is a Titanic, this thing is going down. They are destroying the credibility of the vaccine program and the CDC as we speak. It will never recover. And know Captain Edward Smith was probably listening to orders, saying we got to break records, we want to do something spectacular. He was the one behind the wheel that made the choice. And those choices get worse. Not only did he hit the iceberg, which he could have avoided had he been safely moving forward, but what about the mistakes after hitting the iceberg? What about the fact that we didn’t fill up all of those lifeboats, that the lifeboats didn’t get filled up? The right people weren’t there. As the ship was sinking, we could have saved more lives. But instead, fifteen hundred people died needlessly. His name will live in infamy for the mistake that was made with the Titanic. And in a very similar way, I think the names of these ACIP members should be remembered in infamy. So let’s bring up the panel that made this decision to not vote, to not bring back the recommendation, but to let it ride on our children’s lives, starting with Dr. José R. Romero, Beth P. Bell, Matthew F. Daley, Grace M. Lee, Katherine A. Poehling, Kevin A. Ault, Henry H. Bernstein, Sharon E. Frey, Sarah S. Long, Pablo J. Sanchez, Lynn Bahta, Wilbur H. Chen, Camille N. Kotton, Veronica V. McNally, Helen Keipp Talbot. And that’s the last one, and there they are. 

[00:14:13] Del 

Just leave them up for a moment, because I want to talk about this Titanic reference, this sinking ship of the CDC and this disaster in the making. These folks right here are the worst kinds of people, because just like the Titanic, well, actually nothing like the Titanic, where at least they tried to save the women and children. The only reason these people decided to keep the vaccine going to kids is not because the kids need it. They aren’t dying from this illness. It’s to protect the elderly, to protect themselves. So in this case, these people decided to yank the children out of the lifeboats, throw them and kill them and put them in harm’s way to protect themselves. They are the worst kinds of people. And I want to make sure that we never forget who they are. And in case there are ever Nuremberg trials, let’s remember what happened the last time doctors said we were just doing what we were told. That group of doctors looked like this. That was the Nuremberg trial. Those were the Nuremberg doctors. Many of them, I think all of them were convicted. Many of them ended up being hung. And I don’t know what the fate of the ACIP members will be, but I think they should have to stand for every single child that dies of a heart attack from this vaccine, for every single child whose heart swells in their chest and their parents just didn’t get it. And sure, the FDA says, well, we’re going to put a little warning that will be read to them. It won’t be read to them, just like none of the side effects are ever read to anybody that’s listed on the insert of the vaccines. They’ll be handed a sheet, they say, a sheet that usually is handed to you right after you receive the vaccine. So a warning that this could cause your child’s heart to swell, getting that warning after you’ve been given the vaccine, it’s a little bit too late. So there it is, the ACIP members have made a decision. We will never, ever forget it. There’s a reason why we called ourselves the Informed Consent Action Network, because informed consent is the first rule of the Nuremberg Code, and we take it very, very seriously. 

[00:16:26] Del 

All right, I want to talk about when they said that heart issue, right, that we’re going to go ahead and give the kids, even after they’ve had a heart condition after the first shot, go ahead and give them the second shot. It’ll be fine. Or if they’ve had heart conditions before or pericarditis or myocarditis before, just give them the second shot. It’ll be fine. I want to remind you what Dr. Hodkinson said last week on our show. Take a look at this 

[00:16:49] Dr. Roger Hodkinson 

Myocarditis, as the CDC describes it, “mild”, “unbalanced”. Myocarditis is never mild, particularly in young, healthy males. It’s an inflammation of the heart muscle, the pump of the body. And we don’t know what percentage of the heart muscles will have died in any one attack of myocarditis. The big thing about heart muscles, heart musclefibers, is that they do not regenerate like they do with the kidney and the liver, for example. So you’re stuck with an unknown percentage of your heart muscle cells having died. We can’t estimate the number and therefore the long term results are utterly unpredictable.

[00:17:35] Del 

Everyone that says I trust my doctor, well, your doctor trusts the CDC. And when the CDC recommends something that means they have to recommend it. And don’t think like it’s just a recommendation. All of those university students that are being told they have to get the vaccine to go to university this year. Well, that could have changed. The ACIP members could have saved their lives. Instead, there will be college students that are killed this year by the vaccine program, and that could have been stopped. So that recommendation will lead to a mandate in many of these universities that kids either won’t know they can get out of or in some states maybe they won’t be able to get out of it. There are children being put in harm’s way. And there you have a pathologist, a man who actually has looked at dead bodies, has to know exactly what’s happened to those bodies. He understands the heart better than any of the ACIP members who, by the way, not one of those voting members is a cardiologist. Does that bother you a little bit? They’re going to say, oh, we think it’s OK what’s happening in the heart? Oh, it’s fine that the heart swells. No, I didn’t know that it can’t recover and that it doesn’t regrow its cells. But it doesn’t matter. Even after the first shot, if it looks like they’re doing better, give them the second one too. These people are out of their minds, but we will hold them accountable. All right. Let’s get on to the Jaxen report. 

[00:18:57] Del 

Wow, Jefferey, that was crazy, man. I mean, we’ve All just been sitting here, I guess you expect it because you know that, what are they going to do? If they don’t approve it for kids, then they won’t be able to say that the vaccine can achieve herd immunity because you’ve just wiped out about a third of the population. So in order to move that agenda forward so they can keep this line going, even though they won’t talk about breakout cases, which means the vaccine, you’re still getting infected. They’ll try to convince us all that, you know, we can somehow get herd immunity from the vaccine. That would have died yesterday had they taken the kids out of the mix and they cannot have their agenda killed and so therefore, they’re going to kill children. It’s absolutely outrageous, 

[00:19:40] Jefferey Jaxen 

Having watched that full meeting with ACIP, which was, by the way, delayed for, I believe, five days because of a holiday, the Juneteenth holiday. So instead of last Friday when we were reporting it was going to happen, it was pushed to Wednesday. So there wasn’t an urgent rush to get in there. They kind of just tacked it on as an already happening ACIP Meeting, which, you know, it runs out of time, that runs out of time to really talk about this stuff because there’s other stuff on the agenda. But one of the things I thought was interesting is they were talking about hospitalizations. There was one slide. It was twenty nine kids they looked at through the Vaccine Safety Datalink. There’s twenty nine kids. And at the bottom of that slide, you know, when we talk about like anaphylaxis or Bell’s palsy, this stuff typically just goes away on its own or anaphylaxis is very serious, may have a short hospitalization, immediate injection. But with myocarditis and kids, you’re taking healthy kids. And if this stuff happens, they’re putting them on heart medication typically. At the very least, they have restrictions on strenuous exercise for three to six months. And this is what they found. This is a slide from ACIP: Ongoing treatment plan – Most follow up visits, and this is the follow up after they’ve been hospitalized, indicate tapering of some medications (NSAIDS, prednisone). And there is that activity limitations for three to six months. So it’s no joke. I mean, I guess if… 

[00:21:03] Del 

They’re turning our children into like seventy five year olds, like babies and now we’re going to treat like a seventy five year old, heart medication. You can’t, don’t run, don’t play. It’s outrageous. 

[00:21:16] Jefferey Jaxen 

And no long term safety data. That’s really the big caveat there. So, you know, amazing opening and we’ll see how this plays out, where this plays out. But let’s jump into the news here, because it does weave into a lot of these narratives. The SARS-CoV-2, when we first heard about this, the variance of those, they were being designated by the place of origin or place they were found or were discovered. So typically countries or we have a California variant, but now we’re talking about Greek letters. WHO in late May, decided to start naming them with Greek letters as to not stigmatize any countries. And now we’re hearing about the Delta variant. This is the one that’s popped up, we’re hearing about in Israel, the U.K. and even in the United States. Take a look at this. 

[00:22:00] President Biden 

The new variant will leave unvaccinated people even more vulnerable than they are a month ago. This is a serious concern, especially because of what experts are calling the Delta variant. It’s a variant that is more easily transmissible, potentially deadlier and particularly dangerous for young people. But the good news is we have the solution. The science and the data are clear. The best way to protect yourself against these variants are to get fully vaccinated. So please, please, if you have one shot, get the second shot as soon as you can, so you’re fully vaccinated. If you haven’t gotten vaccinated yet, get vaccinated now. Now. 

[00:22:54] Jefferey Jaxen 

A lot of urgency going on there. 

[00:22:56] Del 

Let’s look at the Delta variant becausethe Delta, maybe not the original coronavirus for those of you that the first 50 percent that bought this hook, line and sinker, but the rest of you unvaccinated, the other 50 percent of America, be afraid. Be very afraid of the Delta virus. Sounds like a Jean-Claude Van Damme movie, Delta virus. 

[00:23:18] Jefferey Jaxen 

Well said. Well, let’s take a look at Israel, because Israel was one of the earliest to vaccinate its population. It had some of the highest coverage in the world. So here’s some of the headlines coming out of Israel regarding this Delta variant. This is Business Insider. [REF] Israel says the Delta variant is infecting vaccinated people as many as 50 percent of cases, but they are less severe. Further, this is another headline: Vaccinated Israelis may need to quarantine because of the Delta variant. [REF] And now let’s go over to the U.K…

[00:23:45] Del 

Biden’s there saying that the unvaccinated really need to be more worried about the Delta. Now it looks like the vaccinated need to be worried, too, right? 

[00:23:54] Jefferey Jaxen 

Right. Yeah, that’s what’s really, I mean, this isn’t even digging too deep into the science. These are the mainstream headlines, Reuters, Business Insider. So now going over to the U.K., this is a technical briefing. So we’re going to get a little more technical here, but not too much because it’s pretty, pretty easy to read. So this is a public health England technical brief briefing of SARS 

CoV-2, variants of concern and variants under investigation in England. This is their June 11th technical briefing 16. [REF] Now, the title says it all. Pop up a slide here and we can look at this. And it’s attendance to emergency care and deaths by vaccination status among Delta variant confirmed cases. Now, this is in England from February 1st, 2021 to the 14th of June 2021. All the patients listed here had the Delta variant. So let’s look at some of the stuff here on the top right, you see a red box. Those are the vaccinated people that tested positive for the Delta variant. That’s seventeen thousand six hundred forty two of them still acquired the Delta variant. If you add up all three of those boxes there, they’re breaking them up by dose and days after the doses. Now at the bottom, now you see an unvaccinated column that’s in green. At the bottom right, that’s mortality. That is deaths from the Delta variant. And if you look at that, we have 37 deaths in the vaccinated group and only 34 in the unvaccinated group. And a quick calculation, what’s called relative risk reduction, shows a negative 119 percent, meaning that if you’re vaccinated, your risk of death was one hundred and nineteen percent higher compared to the unvaccinated group… 

[00:25:30] Del 

I mean, it’s obvious if you look at it becauseyou’re saying that the total of the vaccinated that got it was about seventeen thousand and they had thirty seven deaths. Twice that amount, the unvaccinated got it and had just roughly, just under at thirty four. So half the amount of people had just as many deaths actually a little bit more. But look at this column over here, this one that’s after, what is that? Is that greater than 14 days after the second dose, there’s four thousand people in that category. Out of four thousand, twenty six of them died. That number is astronomical. We hear like death or injuries, one in a million, that’s twenty six out of four thousand. 

[00:26:13] Jefferey Jaxen 

And there’s that second dose again, there’s that second dose again. It seems to be a lot of issues around that second dose, whether we’re talking blood clots, myocarditis, deaths in this chart. On this chart as well, looking at the vaccinated or even the unvaccinated, but the unvaccinated group only had a point zero nine percent mortality rate from the Delta variant. Now, again, this is this chart. This is just a snapshot of what’s happening in this technical briefing. But that’s an interesting data point to really pay attention to because… 

[00:26:43] Del 

And look at the headlines. I mean, it’s amazing that the headlines are saying, you know, well, vaccinated got the Delta variant in Israel, but they had more mild cases unless you died, right? I mean, like they should have a … unlessit kills you. Then, well, yeah, more people died, so I don’t even know how they come up with you do better with the vaccine, except that there is an increased risk of death. 

[00:27:08] Jefferey Jaxen 

Well, if you look into that article too, that Israeli article, it is actually talking about the Delta variant itself is less severe according to the data they have right now. So they kind of tacked that on there. Yeah, they kind of tacked that on there. But overall, from the headlines I’m looking at and the reading I’m doing, people don’t really know. That’s the big question. How severe is this thing? But it’s an interesting snapshot from Public Health England, and that’s where that slide was from. Now, let’s stay on the vaccination topic just for one more second. And there’s a video of our favorite person, Dr. Tony Fauci. And he was in congressional testimony. He was in the House Committee of Appropriations. He was there to talk about the 2022 budget for NIH, he and Francis Collins, who is the head of NIH. And he was asked an interesting question. Check this out. 

[00:27:56] John Moolenaar 

Because of the nature of, you know, how quickly the vaccines were developed, I know there is some percentage of the population that has hesitancy, kind of viewing it as somewhat experimental, kind of seeing how it all works out. And especially women of childbearing age who would like to have children in the future, I know there have been some concerns about whether or not the vaccine would in any way affect them in a negative way. I wonder if you could talk to that and just mention if there is any evidence of any risk or concern to women who might be considering that in the future? 

[00:28:37] Francis Collins 

I think the evidence is actually quite reassuring. But let me ask Dr. Fauci to give a specific answer to your question. 

[00:28:44] Tony Fauci 

Yes, thank you very much, Congressman, for that very important question. So if you look at, the vaccine trials did not include pregnant women in the trials. There are now trials that are looking at vaccines specifically for effects in pregnant women and in lactating women. Those are ongoing right now. However, if one looks at post EUA the number of pregnant women who elected to get vaccinated because of the clear indication that the effect of Covid-19 disease on the pregnant woman and the fetus is really something to be concerned about. So many, many women elected after the EUA to get vaccinated. There have been about a hundred and fifteen to one hundred and twenty thousand of these pregnancies and there have been about five to six thousand of the births that have now been followed by the CDC and by the FDA. And as alluded to by Dr. Collins, there is no red flag signal at all that there’s any concern about deleterious effects of the vaccine on pregnant women.

[00:29:57] Del 

Basically, he might as well just say, you know what, it’s just sheer dumb luck. We didn’t put any pregnant women in the vaccine trial, but as it turns out, when we recommended it to them, even though we had never tried it on them or their fetus, as it turns out, it’s great. Our studies are showing it’s great. It’s sort of hard to believe, but maybe are they just lucky Jefferey? Did they just get away with it? 

[00:30:17] Jefferey Jaxen 

Yeah. And as he says, he said there was none in the EUA data. That didn’t stop the CDC from actually soliciting these shots to them saying experts believe that it’s safe. We covered that right when they’re rolling it out for pregnant people. So let’s look. I mean, the one thing that this past year has taught us, if Tony Fauci says something is definitely, definitely happening, you have to check the sources. You have to check the background. So let’s look at the New England Journal of Medicine. This is a report, this is a study that came out, the preliminary findings of mRNA Covid-19 vaccine safety in pregnant persons. [REF] Now, this was a… 

[00:30:51] Del 

Respectable journal, New England Journal of Medicine. OK, great. 

[00:30:54] Jefferey Jaxen 

Absolutely. From December 14th, 2020 to the end of February 28th, 2021. So a pretty big gap there. And this was data from the FDA and the CDC’s V-safe surveillance system, the V-safe Pregnancy Registry, the VAERS system. And what did they conclude? 

[00:31:10] Del 

And by the way, look at how manyfreaking authors there are on that. I mean, that’s a lot. I’ve never seen a movie with that many authors that was any good, but maybe they could put out a decent study. 

[00:31:24] Jefferey Jaxen 

Bring back the Jean-Claude Van Damme quote here. So we have a conclusion in this study. Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccine. So there it is. Pack up our bags… 

[00:31:38] Del 

That wording is so suspicious, though, right there. I mean, as a journalist, and we’ve been doing this for a while. There’s certain things that just fire off red flags. I’ve never seen obvious being used, right? There’s either, there are signals or is a flag or there is not. But preliminary findings do not show obvious safety signals, meaning there were some safety signals, but they weren’t like glaring safety signals, right? That feels like what he’s saying there, it’s like whydo you need to describe obvious… 

[00:32:08] Jefferey Jaxen 

For anybody interviewing these people, if we ever get a chance to interview them, what’s obvious, define obvious for me, could you describe something that wasn’t obvious? So let’s go to the table here. This is the only other table I’m going to show the viewers, but this is an important one. So we have highlighted spontaneous abortions in 20 weeks or less. That’s on the left side there, it’s highlighted. Now we have the published incidence… 

[00:32:32] Del 

So meaning that a spontaneous abortion is an abortion that happens or where they lose the baby within the first 20 weeks. After that, that’s called something different, like a miscarriage or something like that, right? There are two different terms. 

[00:32:47] Jefferey Jaxen 

Yeah, I believe so. And this is after vaccination. So we’re talking about people who are vaccinated. So in the published incidence, this is background rate. So this is… 

[00:32:56] Del 

Oh, there it is, it’s called a stillbirth. It’s right below. So it’s a stillbirth after20 weeks, before it’s spontaneous abortion. OK, got it. 

[00:33:04] Jefferey Jaxen 

So in the published incidence which that column, that second column, there’s a percentage, ten to twenty six percent. That’s basically your background rate. That’s how it’s happening before Covid mRNA vaccines ever enter the picture. So what did they find? Looking at the V-safe Pregnancy Registry right on the right, they found one hundred and four spontaneous abortions in 20 weeks or less after the vaccine compared in a group of eight hundred and twenty seven people. So that’s twelve point six percent. So according to that study, it falls right into that published incidence. And we’re all good, jobs good. Go home. 

[00:33:36] Del 

And Fauci can say to everybody, hey, the studies show there’s no issue, no signal, no obvious signals. So we’re looking good. 

[00:33:44] Jefferey Jaxen 

All right. But before we move on, let’s look at the fine print, because we got to always do that. And in the fine print, this is what popped out. A total of 700 participants of that eight hundred and twenty seven receive their first eligible dose in the third trimester. The third trimester starts at week twenty eight and goes to the end of pregnancy. So… 

[00:34:05] Del 

So there’s no way to lose your baby in the first 20 weeks if you didn’t get the vaccine until after twenty eight weeks.

[00:34:12] Jefferey Jaxen 

That’s exactly right. How are you going to investigate it when 700 people didn’t get the shot until the third trimester if you’re looking 20 weeks or below? And it’s not just us that are seeing this. So there is a letter to the editor that called them out on this and good for these people. And what they said is, they said in table four, that’s the table we just looked at, the authors report a rate of spontaneous abortions of less than 20 weeks of twelve point five percent, one hundred and four abortions, eight hundred twenty seven completed pregnancies. However, this rate should be based on the numbers of women who were at risk of a spontaneous abortion due to vaccine receipt and should exclude the 700 women who were vaccinated in a third trimester, 104 to one twenty seven. That gives an eighty two percent rate. Given the importance of these findings, we feel it is important to report these rates accurately. So now let’s look at the table with these adjusted numbers you see here on the right, 104 to one twenty seven. So now we’re looking at about 82 percent spontaneous abortions after the vaccination. Now, as noted by these authors in the letter to the editor, this rate as this study goes on is expected to fall. But this is how it was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. This is how it should have been reported. And it was not. 

[00:35:28] Del 

Wow, that’s gigantic. I mean, obviously, that’s a huge discovery. And you can’t imagine when you see those 55 authors of this that someone isn’t aware that they’re cooking the books, right? You’re cooking the books. That could not have been missed by everybody. In fact, I would guess they all sat around a table and said, how do we make this number look better? I know maybe no one will notice if we just put all the women in the category, even though only about one hundred and twenty seven of them actually fit the criteria where they could have lost their baby from the vaccine in the first 20 weeks. Jefferey, that is a huge, huge discovery and super terrifying for anyone that’s being told to get the vaccine, especially in that first trimester. Obviously a terrible idea. 

[00:36:13] Jefferey Jaxen 

And at the very least, shame on those editors for publishing that. And, you know, it’s got to be embarrassing if you’re one of those whatever thousand authors that a letter to the editor is calling out your basic math. I mean, this is terrible, but it’s a very serious topic. And the fact that that was chosen to happen, you got to have a question mark on that and it’ll be interesting because The New England Journal of Medicine did retract some of their data. Remember the Surgisphere, this is with hydroxychloroquine along with The Lancet. So there is a record of retractions around this Covid-19… 

[00:36:46] Del 

I’m sure we’re going to be writing the FDA about this. We’re going to do what we do. Our legal team is going to be all over this. That is gigantic. We’re not going to let that just sit and rest. Either, it’ll have to be pulled from the journal and retracted or they’ll have to fix it. 

[00:37:00] Jefferey Jaxen 

Absolutely. Well, let’s finish off here with really, I guess, depending on where you sit, some interesting news, some good news. And having reported in these medical topics and health topics for a while, I started to see a trend. So we started to see the anti-vaccine kind of label be put on people. Although, as we know, there’s ex-vaxxers. There’s people that are just risk aware. There’s people, actually scientists, that read the studies that want to wait a little longer. We saw that with opioids, people are being called anti-opioid, with statins, anti-statins. This anti-vaccine, I mean, that’s really just a derogatory statement. It’s hit runaway speeds. And here’s what the headlines are looking at now. Millions of Americans view being anti-vaccination as part of their social identity. [REF] And this says in there, researchers found that 22 percent of Americans actively identify themselves as anti-vaccination. Moving on, we have a poll from Associated Press. 

[00:37:56] Del 

Wait, wait, go back to that. That is a gigantic. Jefferey, when I started this with VAXXED back in early 2016, they were saying three to maybe five percent would identify as anti-vaccine. We’re up to twenty two percent. Did we win? Did we already win this? Have we won this already and we just didn’t recognize it? I mean, that’s incredible, self identifying now as anti-vaxx. I guess that’s what happens when you keep calling every doctor that doesn’t want to get a vaccine because they saw that it wasn’t properly safety tested, you call them anti-vaxx. Every superstar, every movie star, every athlete that says, hey, I just don’t see the safety trials there, I’m not getting it, you’re anti-vaccine. Well, I guess a lot of people said, you know what, I guess you’re right. I guess I am. 

[00:38:40] Jefferey Jaxen 

And again, when you really start digging down and talking to people that had these experiences, talking to researchers, scientists, doctors, as we do on the show, you realize it’s a derogatory term. And the fact that these researchers are continuing to use this to push research, to talk about these type of people, this group, this cohort, it’s really just, they’re shooting themselves in the foot. But, you know, why interrupt someone when they’re making a mistake, I guess. And here’s Associated Press. [REF] It’s gets even more interesting. Forty six percent of unvaccinated say they will definitely not get the vaccine. So it says here, the Associated Press NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll reported that 46 percent of the unvaccinated said they would definitely not get the vaccine and twenty nine percent say they will probably not get the vaccine. Only seven percent of those who are not vaccinated said they definitely will get the shot. That’s 75 percent essentially… 

[00:39:33] Del 

75 percent of half the country. I mean basically we’re right around 50 percent didn’t get this vaccine, half the country. Seventy five percent, the remaining are just saying, yeah, no way, which is, you know, and it’s just those damn privileged, highly educated people in this country are just not getting it. So offer them some free donuts and fried chicken and a lap dance and that’ll fix the deal, right?

[00:39:58] Jefferey Jaxen 

It’s not working, though, and these things are not happening. And that’s the other headline that goes along with this is Million dollar lotteries fail to cut through vaccine apathy. [REF] And we’ve always seen this. In here, it says, “it’s just not working”, said Irwin Redlener, who directs the Pandemic Resource and Response Initiative at Columbia University. “People aren’t buying it. The incentives don’t seem to be working, whether it’s a donut, a car or a million dollars.” Or you could add beer to that or a joint in New York. I mean, it’s just not working. 

[00:40:33] Del 

It’s not apathy. People just aren’t in a rush to die the way they’re supposed to be, I guess. They don’t want heart attacks. It’s so hard, you know, to get people to race into a heart attack, myocarditis, blood clotting, even though they make it look so appealing. 

[00:40:49] Jefferey Jaxen 

And I’m not sure, I mean, it’s still an emergency use authorization product. That seems to always be left out. This is a radical experiment still. We’ll have a different conversation when this thing gets approved, if that ever happens. But it’s not. So the fact that people are scratching their heads and going, why, why isn’t this happening? There’s a couple good reasons… 

[00:41:12] Del 

Not everybody in this country actually signs up to be a lab rat. I mean, it’s OK, you got 50 percent of the country. They’re dedicated. They’re going out there. They’re risking their lives. They’re on the spaceship to Mars. But the rest of us, you know, pick up the walkie talkie, let us know how the weather is on Mars before we decide to go anywhere near it. 

[00:41:29] Jefferey Jaxen 

Let’s talk about Florida. We’re going to go, we’ve talked about this for quite some time. A lot of things happening in Florida, starting in Florida, and something else just happened there. So the CDC had a no sail order that was effective till November 1st 2021. They issued that. It basically said no cruise lines could run without 95 percent of their crew and passengers vaccinated. And if they wanted to, they had to do a simulated voyage, which was just a very limited once or twice every couple of months, just to try to practice this and feel it out and see. Well, in April, Governor Ron DeSantis in Florida, basically took the CDC to court over that sailing order because it was destroying the industry because Florida is the biggest port in the United States. And now there has been a ruling and this is what it looks like in the headlines. Judge rules for Florida on CDC order blocking cruise ships. [REF] It says here Florida, this is the judge’s ruling, Florida persuasively claims that the conditional sailing order will shut down most cruises through the summer and perhaps much longer, the judge wrote, adding that Florida faces an increasingly threatening and imminent prospect that the cruise industry will depart the state. Now, this judge’s decision means the CDC can’t enforce the rules for Florida based ships and that eventually starting in July will be a merely a non-binding agreement or recommendations and guidelines. So this is a big win for Florida. And they’ve been chalking up executive orders and bills to stop the vaccine passports as well. 

[00:43:03] Del 

Ron DeSantis has been amazing. I also want to say that I hope that this is the beginning of this wall crashing down where the CDC thinks that it has some sort of legislative ability to write laws for people. They are not, we don’t elect them, they have no power or jurisdiction over us. This has to go through Congress. This has to go through bodies that actually write laws. The CDC doesn’t write laws. So I think what’s really being outed here is that the CDC is taking a rule and making it sound like a law and people are abiding by it. It’s only a rule. And frankly, it’s not a law. And I think hopefully we start to see that they don’t have that power and should not have that power. And a lot of these decrees by them will be seen as what they are, a lot of hot air. 

[00:43:50] Jefferey Jaxen 

Right. And there’s more people jumping on that side to look at that and look at it as foreign happening in America. So we really do have a new player here in the, I guess, push to preserve medical privacy, to preserve individual medical choice. And that’s Governor Doug Ducey from Arizona. He’s in the headlines. And basically the lead up to this story is Arizona State University expected all returning students to get vaccinated. They expect them to upload the proof of vaccination to their ASU health portal. And the people that either don’t want to get vaccinated or don’t want to share that vaccination status with Arizona State University would basically have to be subjected to what’s called a health management protocol. So daily health checks twice a week, Covid test, full masking, indoor, outdoor, anywhere on the campus. Vaccinated people didn’t have to do that. So when Governor Ducey found out about this, this is what his Twitter feed looked like. He really blew up his Twitter feed. He said the vaccine works, but the vaccine is a choice. This policy is social engineering at its worst. Health policy should be based on science, not virtue signaling. In America, freedom wins. He went on to say public education is a public right and taxpayers are paying for it. We need to make our public universities available for students to return to learning. In Arizona, we are going to have students in classrooms learning. And what did he do? He signed an executive order which overturned this. And this is the headline that signaled this. Governor Ducey’s executive order bans Covid-19 vaccine requirement, mask mandates at public universities and colleges. [REF] And it goes on to say, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey issued a new executive order on Tuesday that prevents public universities and community colleges in Arizona from requiring students to get a Covid-19 vaccine, show proof of a Covid-19 vaccination, take mandatory Covid-19 tests or wear masks. In short, no medical segregation, no medical discrimination, and the preservation of the student’s right really not to get bullied or coerced into what we just talked about. It’s still an ongoing medical experiment. 

[00:45:58] Del 

Well, for everybody out there that says, you know, where do I go? It just seems like the problem is everywhere. We now have another state on the list, Arizona, Texas, Florida, all standing behind liberty and freedom and the Constitution of the United States. That is great news. Hashtag winning. Nice job, Jefferey. Great stuff. That was amazing about the spontaneous abortion. Huge discovery there. Great work on your investigation. Keep it up and we’ll see you next week.

[00:46:29] Jefferey Jaxen 

All right. Thank you so much Del. 

[00:46:30] Del 

All right. And if you want to get into more detail, definitely check out the Jaxen report. Jefferey Jaxen writes articles in more detail that can be found on thehighwire.com. You know, nobody’s covering the topics the way we are. You’re not going to get it all collated together like this anywhere else. So go to thehighwire.com. And if you like what we’re doing, definitely become a recurring donator. Help us continue to do this work. And as you’re doing that, you wonder, you’re seeing the show get better and better. You’re seeing us win more and more lawsuits. You’re seeing us in headlines. That’s all because people have gone and they’ve hit that donate button and they’ve become recurring donors. One of the big things we’ve invested in is trying to make this experience with you even more enjoyable, more friendly, ways that you can communicate together. What am I talking about? It’s brand new and it’s coming really, really, really soon. I’m talking about the brand new thehighwire.com. Check this out. 

[00:47:29] Ad for the new highwire.com 

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are out there in this world, it’s time to step out onto the HighWire. Freedom of the press, the right to report the news without government interference was referred to as one of the great bulwarks of liberty by America’s founding fathers. It is among the most important rights of a truly free society. But today, this freedom is under attack by government, industry and corporate owned media. Never has it been more vital to preserve our freedom of speech. Never has it been more important to maintain a free press, free from government control, free from corporate influence. It’s from this tenet of freedom, the HighWire was born. The HighWire is forging a new path in the news by providing you the studies, documents and sources we utilize in our reporting. You, the viewer, are able to hold us accountable. This new approach, which we referred to as the HighWire protocol, is the future of transparent journalism, and it’s with this revolutionary approach, we launched the show over two hundred episodes ago. Hundreds of viewers quickly became thousands, and today, despite facing historic censorship, thousands have become millions of people who are tuning in weekly to watch the HighWire in over one hundred and thirty countries around the globe. At the height of this unprecedented censorship, we put out the call to our viewers to help us build a new platform for the HighWire, a platform free of the censorship of big tech and corporate media. Well, the response from you was nothing short of incredible. And so we set out to work on a blueprint for a new home for the HighWire. The result is that we have created something that no news network has ever attempted before. We’re launching the next evolution of the HighWire. Introducing an all new theHighWire.com with a brand new watch page. You’ll get the same award winning show with a new and unparalleled watch experience like you’ve never seen before. For the first time ever, the HighWire news and opinion pages will bring you daily headlines from around the world as they break. It’s news curated for you in real time. And finally, we are so proud to present the HighWire community. It’s a censorship free social media platform made possible by you and built specifically for you, our community. With an intuitive and familiar design, you finally have a censorship free digital space you can call home. It’s the next evolution of the HighWire made possible by you. It all starts July at theHighWire.com. 

[00:50:18] Del 

Well, obviously you’ve been coming to the HighWire because we have been the ones that have been sharing information when no one else would go near it. We’ve been censored on YouTube, on Facebook, on Instagram, lost all of those channels. But instead of crying about it, which we never have, we just considered it to be just good advertising, because during this process, we’ve gone from tens of thousands of viewers to millions of viewers around the world. But we want to make that experience more exciting, more interesting, a lot like what we used to love about Facebook and YouTube. So we are very excited about our website that’s coming to a theater near you very soon. You want to have any information about that? Definitely become a member. Just join our website, go to thehighwire.com, and sign up for our email list. And we’ll keep you abreast of when we’re launching and how we’re going to go about doing that. 

[00:51:09] Del 

Now, when we talk about all the science, all the investigations we’ve done, the interviews that we’ve done that have gotten us kicked off of these social media platforms. That have us being attacked by The New York Times, The Washington Post, Guardian, the list goes on and on. We have never shied away from what we think are obvious, glaring questions that should be allowed to be asked, whether it’s about this pandemic, whether it’s about the vaccination. Was it too fast? Do we know enough about it? Are there proper safety trials? Or if it was about treatments and the use of treatments, you know, and the studies, what makes a safe treatment, whether it’s ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine? Or how about how are hospitals handling the situation? We’ve complained about the fact that you’re not being given oxygen. People are being sent home waiting until they basically get so sick that now they have to be put into a coma and put onto a ventilator and then have about a nine out of 10 chance of dying. All of these things we’ve covered may be embodied in my next guest, who has been looking at so many different aspects of this from a super interesting perspective. But probably the most interesting is the fact that my next guest, Dr. Robert Malone, claims that he is the inventor of mRNA technology. That’s right. The technology that’s being used in the Pfizer vaccine, in the Moderna vaccine. And so if we’re going to have questions, perhaps some answers can come from the person that was at the heart of this. I am so excited to be joined right now by Dr. Robert Malone. Dr. Malone, first of all, thank you for taking the time to join us here on the HighWire. 

[00:52:59] Dr. Robert Malone 

My pleasure, Del. And thank you for the opportunity to speak to your broad global audience.

[00:53:05] Del 

Absolutely. So let’s just start with the first question. There’s a lot, you’re doing a lot of interviews right now. There’s one video that is about three and a half hours long that’s getting a lot of traction. But I have a lot of questions, so I want to get to it. First of all, you are the inventor of mRNA technology. I suppose, because everybody else who has ever come on this show, someone out there is refuting what they say, even though they have all these letters behind their name. Tell me, how is it that you make that claim of being an inventor of mRNA? 

[00:53:43] Dr. Robert Malone 

Thanks. Yeah, so what’s going on is that a number of people think that there’s a Nobel Prize in play. And that may be the case. And in my experience, when that kind of thing happens, it brings out certain characteristics and people get very competitive. It’s something worth having. It’s a form of immortality, if you get that. For me, fortunately, I kind of cut my teeth at a place called the Salk Institute, created on the cliffs of La Jolla, looking out over the Pacific, by Jonas Salk. It’s kind of a temple to vaccines. And at the time when I was there, there was about a half a dozen Nobel laureates, including Francis Crick. So for me, I’ve kind of seen what at a very young age at twenty eight, I’ve seen what this can bring to people, how it can disrupt their lives and their family lives and everything else. And I don’t know that it’s, it certainly would be a lovely thing, but it’s not my life goal. I’m as I said, I was a farmer and a ranch hand before I was a physician and a scientist. And family and my farm and my horses matter a lot to me. That’s kind of where I’m centered. So be that as it may, it is bringing out some people that are trying really hard and lobbying very aggressively. And behind them in particular is an institution, University of Pennsylvania, that holds a patent that’s being used by Moderna and also by BioNtech. And she’s an employee of BioNtech right now, a vice president, as I understand it. And so both herself through Weissman and Penn, stand a lot to gain should she win this prize. And so what’s happened, from my point of view is I’ve kind of been written out of history. There’s a lot of failure to cite in academic publications and on Wikipedia. You can look it up. It’s all about Katie. And I’ve been reassured by colleagues at the Karolinska that have been on the committee in the past and are very aware of the process that I really don’t need to worry too much about that, that they have a very professional due diligence team. But there are, every time there’s people that think that if they can push the press and get a journalist to champion their case, then that’ll improve their ability to do it now. So that’s just the way people are. There it is. In terms of what happened… 

[00:56:26] Del 

Yeah, what happened? 

[00:56:27] Dr. Robert Malone 

Yeah, it’s a super story. I love to tell it to graduate students and others. It’s a lot of interesting little parables buried within it. I was originally a big fan of retroviruses, and that was my core background. I was at a lab at UC Davis that really had the very first indications that a retrovirus was associated with an AIDS like syndrome in monkeys. And at the time, I was working on mouse mammary tumor virus, another retrovirus that causes breast cancer in mice. And so, as I moved into my PhD program, I thought that the thing that I could do that would just make a lot of sense and would make for a great career was to focus on gene therapy using retroviruses. And at the time, the two top labs in the world were both in San Diego. One was Ted Friedman’s lab. He was on the main campus and he was the guy that originally came up with the idea in the 70s. And the other was a brilliant scientist named Inder Verma, who had been trained by David Baltimore, who also got a Nobel Prize. And Inder was championing and really driving forward both the use of retroviral vectors and adenoviral vectors for gene therapy purposes. 

[00:57:53] Dr. Robert Malone 

So as a young graduate student, even though I was warned not to, very ambitious, I went to this postdoctoral research lab at the Salk Institute under Inder, in the molecular biology and virology labs and I wanted to work on some nuances. As a graduate student, you have to figure out what you’re going to get your thesis in. And I wanted to work on how RNA gets assembled into retroviral particles, basic science question. And so in order to do that, I thought, well, what I really needed to do was figure out some technology that would allow me to synthesize large quantities of very pure RNA, put it into cells and get those cells to put it back out, package it as a retrovirus particle. So that was the whole idea. And I was banging away at this, trying to come up with technology. And there was a series of kind of stepwise improvements. And a lot of this had to do with being in the right place at the right time, surrounded by geniuses and access to amazing information and technology. But it comes down to about four major events. One of them was I was being kind of mentored by a postdoc named Dan St. Louis in the lab who was working on a system involving putting genes into cells of a mouse in cell culture and then taking those cells, implanting them into the mouse and watching for how much protein and how long this gene therapy protein would be expressed. To his great frustration, after about three weeks, the protein stopped being produced in the mouse. It was a great curfuffle. Everybody thought there was a sophisticated mechanisms involving gene silencing and as the half trained MD that I was, I said this looks like an immune response because it’s the perfect timing. At the time, that was kind of heresy because no one had really grappled with what would happen with gene therapy in terms of the immune system. Now we all recognize it as one of the major problems in gene therapy is if you put a foreign protein, if you express a foreign protein in your body and if you have cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy or whatever the thing is, your body, your immune system doesn’t know that it’s the right protein. It doesn’t know that it’s a good protein. It only knows that it’s a different protein than it has and it’ll start attacking it and it will attack the cells that are making it. So, you know, it’s this simple. I run into this problem. I am passionate about gene therapy. I think it’s my whole rest of my career. And then, bam, I hit the wall. What am I going to do? So this is one of those make lemonade out of lemons moments. Because I come out of this lab in Davis that was focused on developing vaccines for AIDS. It’s no surprise, no huge leap for me to say, oh, I know, we’re going to make vaccines using gene therapy. We’re not going to use it for gene therapy because that’s going to be kind of pretty hard. But we can use it for vaccines.

[01:01:04] Dr. Robert Malone 

Now interesting aside, there’s the senior postdoc in the lab. There’s a man named Dinko Valerio. Dinko left the lab and founded a company called Crucell, and it was focused on adenoviral vector gene therapy. And he came to me at a scientific meeting a few years later and he said, Robert, you’re right, I have to change my company’s focus and pivot to focusing on making vaccines instead of gene therapy using adenovirus. Crucell then exploded in growth. It was sold to Johnson and Johnson, and that gives rise to the J&J vaccine. OK, so with the RNA story, so this is the first of the big AHAs is, uh oh, we got a problem with gene therapy, immune response, but we can turn it around, make lemonade out of lemons and use gene therapy technologies of a variety of sources to make vaccines. 

[01:02:02] Del 

Explain to me for a layperson why vaccines? Like what is it about a vaccine that that technology just immediately thought, oh it would work great for that? I mean, I get why it’s bad for gene therapy, because it gets attacked. It can’t keep reproducing. Whatever it is you’re trying to achieve gets killed off. But why did you say, well, this would work for vaccines? What is it about it that makes it good? 

[01:02:26] Dr. Robert Malone 

Two reasons. First reason is that with almost all these gene therapy technologies, including the earlier RNA versions and to some extent the current one, the levels of protein produced, in other words, the efficiency of the gene therapy is actually quite low. So the idea that we could give somebody an injection and it would go to all the cells in their body is pure science fiction. You get very small numbers of cells that get the gene and they don’t tend to produce a whole lot of protein in there, once they kind of get subverted to be little protein manufacturing factories in your body. And so the whole big idea that Ted Friedman had that we were going to cure all these pediatric diseases obviously hasn’t come to pass. And so I knew that vaccines, the thing about vaccines is you don’t need very much protein. A little bit will do the job. So that’s point number one… 

[01:03:26] Del 

So a little bit is all you need to make the antibodies and all that production to fight it and yourbody develops an immunity, and that’s all you need. 

[01:03:33] Dr. Robert Malone 

A little bit is all you need, and that’s all you’re going to get for the most part, so make the best of it. And then the other thing is that traditional vaccines, often you put the protein in your arm, you get the jab, and it’s mixed with something that makes the immune system react to it. We call it an adjuvant and it kind of stays put. And it doesn’t go into cells and all the complex, we can go into the immunology, it’s very complicated and wonderful. But the bottom line is that those kinds of traditional vaccines tend to be biased towards producing antibodies. But if you want to control a virus or you want to kill a cancer cell, antibodies can do that using antibody dependent cellular site, site of toxicity, big fancy science word, but the immune system also has another branch, which is cells that learn to directly attack other cells, we call those cytotoxic T lymphocytes. Another big fancy science word. But in order to get both antibody and CTL, that’s the acronym for cytotoxic T lymphocytes, it’s really good if you can actually make the protein in a cell of your body. And then your immune system reacts to it as if it’s infected by that virus, but there’s no virus, for example. Or if you’re a cancer cell and you’re expressing a new protein that’s mutated somehow, you’d like to be able to have a cell that would be able to go and find that cancer cell that is expressing that mutated protein and kill that one, but not kill all the other cells. Kind of important. So CTLs are really good and they’re probably why cancer is so rare in the first place. There’s a good chance that the odds are that we all get cancer in terms of one or two cells at various times in our lives. But our body’s immune system is clearing it for the most part. It’s only rarely that it gets out of control. So CTL. So the idea about gene therapy based vaccines is that it can elicit, that strategy can turn on both antibody production and cytotoxic T lymphocyte production. And it kind of makes lemonade out of lemons because unfortunately we’re not that good with most of our gene therapy technologies and and we have failed to cure cystic fibrosis. But it looks like we can do a pretty good job making immune responses, whether it’s an adenoviral vector or a mRNA or other platforms for expressing these things… 

[01:06:20] Del 

Can we say that both adenovirus vector and mRNA are gene therapy technologies? I mean, we hear that thrown together, are they the same? 

[01:06:30] Dr. Robert Malone 

Yeah, it’s a messaging thing that the public health service doesn’t like because they think that’ll turn people off. But I’m a scientist. I live in the world of evidence based medicine and data and science. And I kind of, my brand is I call things as I see them. And as I’ve explained, this all comes from a single gene therapy lab, at the temple for vaccine development, created by Jonas Salk, on the banks of the cliffs in La Jolla. I don’t know how to say it any more clear. You have genetic material. You’re putting it in the cell. You’re expressing a protein for a vaccine purpose. It’s gene therapy applied to vaccines. That’s what it is. 

[01:07:15] Del 

Ok. Just so I have a sense of a time line,what year are you making these connections and said, hey, let’s make it a vaccine since it doesn’t work as a gene therapy? How long ago was that?

[01:07:26] Dr. Robert Malone 

1987, 1988, 1989, is when all these patents were filed and there’s numerous patents. This is the base PNAS article that describes the large scale manufacturing of mRNA, its purification, its delivery by coating it with another fancy science term, lipids, you would call it fats perhaps. And then there’s this one from Science. And this was an interesting story. So there’s like four major discoveries that happen that get us to the base patents. And this is the last of those four. And that also is a fascinating story. I had a previously shown that, as you showed in the first paper, that we could put that surround RNA, and if it had the right structure, and I showed what 

those structural elements. They still all use that same stuff, the same manufacturing process basically, but bigger, the same structure, the RNA, et cetera. In that paper, I showed that that technology worked for a huge range of cell lines, and then because I was teaching Embryology and I had a group, I had extra tadpoles that I’d prepared. These are African clawed frog tadpoles to teach undergrads. I had extras and I just said, well, let’s see what happens if I put this mixture that I’m using on the cells on these tadpoles. And lo and behold, the tadpoles express the foreign protein also. So then I did a similar thing with DNA and chick embryos because I was working with both DNA and RNA and those also expressed the foreign protein. Now we’ve got something interesting. 

[01:09:26] Del 

So now what your dream is is to have the cell itself expressing? 

[01:09:30] Dr. Robert Malone 

Totally unexpected. No retrovirus. It’s just totally amazing that suddenly I find myself at the birth of non viral gene therapy. Totally unintentional, but it just, chance favors the prepared mind. So it happened, and you’re surrounded by intellectual giants and all this technology and ideas. And you’re a young, overly aggressive, not very humble scientist trying to make your way and things happen. And things did happen. A bunch of fights started taking place and I got caught in the crossfire. I wasn’t prepared for it. Patent fights, over who’s going to be the inventor and does UC San Diego own the patent? Does the Salk ownthe patent? UC San Diego tells me I can’t talk to the Salk. Salk tells me I can’t talk…it’s just crazy. And everybody smells money. And I am just a tiny little speck, right. I’m just a graduate student working for the guy that characterized reverse transcriptase for David Baltimore. He’s a really big shot. And we don’t need to go into Inder, but you can look up other stuff about Inder. So I just, I kind of have a meltdown. I end up with post traumatic stress disorder. I have to leave the lab. I just psychologically can’t stay there. And my wife has to finish her bachelor’s degree, so I need someplace to park myself before I go and finish my MD. The guy that I’ve been collaborating with at a company in the Bay Area called Syntec has just quit Syntec and joined a tiny little startup in La Jolla called Vical. And there he’s supposed to be working with Doug Richman and Karl Hostetler on development of new drugs for AIDS and liposome encapsulation, and he says, hey, Robert, you want to leave the Salk? Why don’t you come over and work for me and we will set you up a little skunkworks. And in parallel, he sets up a collaboration with a guy named John Wolf that’s just left Ted Friedman’s lab at San Diego and gone to the University of Wisconsin. And Vical doesn’t have any animal facilities. John Wolf is given access to animal facilities at Wisconsin. And so we set up a deal where I come over, I bring all my reagents, my plasmids, technology protocols, blah, blah, blah, and come over to Vical, start work as a technician and manufacture these things and ship them off to John Wolf and his team for injection into first rats and then mice. And this comes on the heels of the findings that it works in frog embryos and chick embryos, the frog embryos disclosed in the PNAS paper. So we send John Wolf the samples and lo and behold, it works. We’re all ecstatic. Hallelujah. But there’s a naysayer. There’s a chemist in the group who’s making some of these cationic lipids who just insists that we’re not doing good science. His name is Raj Kumar. He ends up running a transmission shop eventually in San Diego. That’s a weird part of the story, but Raj is the chemist and Raj insisted that we’re not doing good science and the truth is, he’s right. He says you’re not doing all the negative controls, and so to placate Raj, who I’m sure is absolutely positive is going to be wrong. I include samples that just have the lipids and just have the RNA alone and ship them off to John Wolf for injection. The data comes back… 

[01:13:25] Del 

One just has lipids, the other one has just the RNA, not combined? 

[01:13:28] Dr. Robert Malone 

And then other samples that have both, so the negative controls and the positive controls. We already know that they’re working because Raj Kumar was a jerk and insisted that we weren’t doing the right science. And I’m being facetious a little bit, but I’m setting up the story because you can figure out what the punchline is already. So John’s graduate postdoc does this experiment, injects it into mice, runs the assays, sends us a fax with the data. John’s ecstatic. It worked again. And I say, yeah, John, but the negative control is positive. Matter of fact, it’s even more positive than the positives. What’s going on? He says, precisely that is the study, thank you. So the postdoc repeats it. And this is actually the repetition. And lo and behold, the RNA alone is working. And then that starts a whole other cascade. And with that, this is just the lab notes from synthesizing the RNA. Everybody says RNA is not stable. That’s yeah in some cases, but if you’re good at how you prepare it and obviously we can make stable RNA now in large quantities. At the time, it was another one of those heresy things. Everybody knew. It’s not a group think, just like we’re facing with this outbreak on a smaller scale. Everybody knew that RNA was unstable except for those of us that were working with it and synthesizing it. So there it goes. So Raj Kumar was right. And then suddenly we had naked RNA delivery. It didn’t have to have the lipids necessarily. And we tried it with DNA and it worked with DNA. And then another whole slew of patents start getting written. And I’m off with the lawyers disclosing this, that, and the other thing and cooking up all these crazy, wild ideas about how we could use this for vaccines and other applications. And that results in, I don’t know, 30 worldwide patents that are issued that all have the same filing date. And by the way, a patent gets filed from the Salk, from my prior stuff. It all gets filed on the same date because Inder is consulting for Vical. And that’s a whole other part of the story we don’t need to go into. But that’s that’s how it all started was this series of events. Like I said, chance favors the prepared mind and being on the shoulders of giants at the right place at the right time in the temple of vaccinology, that’s where it all started and that’s how it happened.

[01:16:11] Del 

So let’s do this. I’m sure this story goes on in your career and how we get here. But let’s jump a giant part here, because there’s a bunch of things I want to ask you about. Let’s cut to say somewhere around 2019, end of 2019, this pandemic breaks out. I’m not going to get too big in the details of the pandemic. We’ve had a lot of specialists get into whether or not, you know, how deadly this virus is, all of those questions. I want to stick with at the moment we start hearing about early 2020 that we are going to be able to rush what appears to be a brand new technology. It’s discussed as being a brand new technology by Moderna. We know that NIH, Tony Fauci seems to have some affiliation with the Moderna patents. Some of his scientists are directly involved with patents involved in the Moderna technology, Pfizer. And we see what this warp speed, at that time President Donald Trump, we’re going to warp speed this vaccine process. Now, you don’t know who I am. I doubt you’ve done a whole lot of research. So just very quickly, from the very beginning, we were very alarmed at that issue. I’ve been looking at vaccines and vaccine development for years. It’s part of where I’ve been focused as a medical journalist. And one of the things that I said on this show, as soon as we heard about this, is there’s no way to warp speed a vaccine technology. You may be able to warp speed the technology, but you can’t warp speed a safety trial. A safety trial has got to last years. We don’t have any magic way of in three weeks or six months determining what happens to you three or four years down the road. We need a three or four year trial to see that that’s taking place. So that’s where I was coming from. I’ve been attacked by New York Times. I’ve been attacked by newspapers everywhere saying, you’re spreading misinformation, you’re causing vaccine hesitancy. I said I’m not causing anything. We are trying to demand that proper safety trials be done. I also want to point out that our nonprofit, Informed Consent Action Network, wehave won lawsuits against the FDA, against the National Institute of Health, against the CDC and Health and Human Services, all based on information that they weren’t sharing properly with the population about vaccines, around liability, all these other issues. But because of that relationship our nonprofit has, we reached out and had a petition to the FDA in the beginning of the Phase three vaccine trials, and we demanded that they add a saline placebo group to the Phase three trials or we would come out against those trials saying they weren’t proper safety trials. A safety trial against the meningitis vaccine only tells you it is or is not as safe as a meningitis vaccine. We wanted a baseline safety based on the saline injection and they changed the Phase three trials about a week after we petitioned. We feel like we had a large part to do with that. So that’s just giving you some background of our interactions with the FDA, things that we care about. I’m just trying to make sure that products that are used by people are safe. I’m just a consumer advocacy group, really. And then I also believe we should always have choice. That’s our number one issue. I believe in informed consent. I think you have the right to opt in or opt out. So that’s very quickly sort of my last five years of investigation. The show we’ve been using to detail the lawsuit wins and things we’ve been discovering in our investigation for about the last three and a half years this show has been here. 

[01:19:47] Del 

So all that being said, from your perspective, this is a technology that you understand. I don’t know how attached to it you still are, but we suddenly, mRNA is now all over the headlines. They are going to warp speed this vaccine into production through safety trials. They are literally saying to us on television, we are going to start manufacturing hundreds of millions of these vaccines as they’re starting really Phase two, I think, trials, not even Phase three, just if it works, we want to have it ready to go. What were you thinking at about that moment or if there’s a more particular moment before that, let me know. But since this is a technology that you were there at the beginning, you gave birth to this thing and now the baby is about to be released on the planet Earth. What were you thinking? 

[01:20:45] Dr. Robert Malone 

So I want to start off by applauding the story you just shared. It sounds like you and I are remarkably aligned. I’m a physician and a scientist, and I’m rigorously trained in bioethics. And I’ve written about the bioethics of experimental Covid 19 vaccines and what I see as major issues that I’m concerned about. So you ask about my…so I’m going to go back to the beginning of 2020. As I mentioned in the preamble before we started recording, I’ve been at the tip of the spear for too many outbreaks now, flu and Zika and Ebola and AIDS, etc. So… 

[01:21:40] Del 

Let’s just cover why becauseyou and I had this conversation. I had asked you, in one of your interviews you talked about working for DOD, Department of Defense, so I’ll let you sort of… 

[01:21:50] Dr. Robert Malone 

So I get a call from an intelligence person who happens to be in Wuhan in December of 2019. Let’s not go there. He calls me in the first week of 2020, January and he says, Robert, you’ve got to get going. We’ve got a problem with this virus. Shortly thereafter, the first viral sequences disclosed and I get my team spun up and we start using advanced computational technology to try to screen drugs for potential activity. That’s the thread we’ll talk about later. At the time I’m active on Linkedin, I avoid Facebook and I rarely interact on Twitter, although lately I have been particularly after the podcast. And I make a threat assessment, as I have done in previous outbreaks. And my assessment is that to do, as you say, to develop vaccines for this pathogen in this timeframe, particularly given the long and rich history of failed vaccine attempts due to antibody dependent enhancement for coronavirus vaccines, veterinary and human. Although there are a couple of licensed veterinary coronavirus vaccines that have overcome the problem. My assessment is to do this responsibly. For a vaccine it’s going to be too time consuming and the threat is too present. And people can go back, I guess some people do as they Google my name and various topic areas and my old LinkedIn posts pop up. I’ve been blogging all the way through this. On the vaccine front, I’ve been very clear about my concerns about ADE and other complications and what I perceived, just as you did, to be risks in the strategy that the government was taking…

[01:23:47] Del 

Let just insert very quickly for some of my audience that may not know what ADE is. My layman’s perspective is we saw in animal trials of the coronavirus vaccines for over a decade now that when they would give a vaccine for coronavirus, many different attempts said that they would put it in animal ferrets, sometimes cats. They would give the animal the vaccine. It looked like they were creating robust antibodies. It seems safe because the animals weren’t dying, but it was in the challenge study, something we don’t usually do in human trials, where we challenge the animal with the coronavirus by injecting the coronavirus. We saw something happened which was somewhat shocking. Instead of the antibodies actually protecting the animal, it seemed to help the virus proliferate through the cells, turn into what was called a cytokine storm, which is sort of an immune system meltdown. Lots of problems, TH2 immunopathology in the lungs, things like that. So upper respiratory issues. We’ve seen this in the RSV vaccine program back in the 1960s. A vaccine did this to children. We discontinued that. There’s some belief that the dengue vaccine, Dengvaxia that was given just over a year ago in the Philippines had the same issue. Over a thousand people are said to have died from that vaccine and they kicked that drug company and that health minister out of the country. That’s just a quick for anyone that’s brand new to The HighWire. This is something we’ve reported a lot on and it was one of our major concerns with rushing this vaccine. If you have a vaccine that helps the virus kill the host or helps the virus proliferate and cause serious disease, then the vaccine is going to do the opposite of what you want and could be detrimental to your species if you plan on giving this to every single person alive. That’s my sum up if you want to correct any of that. 

[01:25:30] Dr. Robert Malone 

Del, well done. You’re really up on this. And what a pleasure to have an interview with somebody that’s so familiar with the topic area and has taken a brave stance through time. So one of the things that I pointed out that we probably also share or maybe not, I don’t know, is a belief that rushing this in the way that it’s been rushed and I know they put out graphics that say things like we didn’t cut corners, we just straightened out the road, I think is one graphic that the US Public Health Service Services put out. But anybody that can do simple math can see that normally we have to have at least two years of safety data after your three thousand subjects in your Phase three total have voluntarily received the product and we followed them for at least two years and look at all those safety data to look for long term things like auto immunity. And we can do the math. And the vaccine has not been jabbed in people’s arms for two years, let alone. So that’s just the most obvious example of them cutting corners. My point was back in the day when you were thinking about this and I was thinking about it and blogging on LinkedIn about it, is that we face the risk that we basically validate the criticisms that have been mounted over the years by people that are labeled as anti-vaxxers. This willingness to suspend the rules and the normal processes and compromise key safety guardrails that have been developed for decades, over decades, as the way that one needs to safely develop vaccines that cause us to require a decade before we typically will license a vaccine. If we circumvent those, we validate the whole meme, that pharmaceutical companies and the government are willing to play fast and loose with people’s safety. And I was worried back then that this blind rush was going to put us in a position where the legitimacy of the public health officials’ structure would be legitimately called into question. And lo and behold, here we are. 

[01:28:10] Del 

And just to sort of say we are that aligned. I’ve reported, I think three times I’ve been a speaker and public comments during the ACIP meetings on this vaccine, I said exactly that. If you push this through, you’re going to destroy the credibility of the CDC. You will destroy the credibility potentially of our trust of health departments and our doctors. You are putting at risk our belief in our national health care system, the health care system of the world. 

[01:28:36] Dr. Robert Malone 

The whole vaccine enterprise. You’re validating the concerns that people have been voicing about the fundamental pediatric vaccines. We are completely aligned. This is bad public policy. I’m not afraid to say that. So, yes, we have been aligned and so please understand, I’m not somebody who seeks media attention. I’ve dealt with the media for decades. I’m almost always on background trying to help journalists to understand the science and the issues so they get it right. Because we all, I think, as scientists and physicians have an interest in having the media and mainstream media accurately communicate scientific issues. So I kind of think it’s an obligation to do what you can to help the media understand topic areas and issues in science and medicine. And I have done my best, but I’m not somebody who seeks to be on CNN or whatever… 

[01:29:43] Del 

With that being said, what were the alarms? Let’s get to the…what are the red flags? This thing is being rushed. So someone that designed this, what were you concerned about? 

[01:29:54] Dr. Robert Malone 

So as as we discussed earlier, I have as part of my work, my business, I have a network of colleagues and friends that I trust and they trust me throughout the government because a lot of what I do is government work. And that includes people in senior positions at the Food and Drug Administration. And for quite a while, a small group of us were meeting every other week on Fridays and having a Zoom call and going over issues. And as this came to fore with the spike and I was very aware of the biology of spike because it relates to one of the repurposed drugs that we’re working with. And I told them this isn’t just an antigen. This is a biologically active protein. And it has effects like modulating immune response and other things, and it’s being treated as if it’s just an antigen and it’s not. These viruses pack all kinds of functional properties into their proteins in their genes because they have to have a very small, compact genome. It’s just the nature of RNA virus biology. So spike isn’t just an antigen, it’s a biologically active protein that does more than just find ACE2, the receptor that is used by the virus to infect cells. And so I alerted them and I said, hey, guys, are you aware of the implications of what’s being done here? And I sent them the manuscripts and my colleagues were sufficiently aware and cognizant of the argument. And so they forwarded it to others within the agency, within the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research…

[01:31:53] Del 

What would be the time line? Whenwas this? 

[01:31:56] Dr. Robert Malone 

September last year. 

[01:31:59] Del 

So September of last year. And just to be clear again, just for my audience, what we’re talking about is the spike protein, which is just one of the proteins on the surface of this virus, that happens to be what grabs onto the ACE2. So the idea being if we target a vaccine to just go after that instead of the whole virus, [inaudible] let’s go after the weakest part of the virus, maybe. And then if we kill that or stop that ability to connect, then we can sort of harness and stop this virus. But the problem you’re talking about that you are expressing, if I’m correct, is that the spike protein, which we now are seeing, has its own properties of being toxic and dangerous. So therefore, it’s not just like a key that they thought sort of unlocks a door. It actually is a weapon and has its own effect on the body. And if we’re making a vaccine just around this spike protein, we’re going to send a toxic element, not just an antigen, not just something that’s somewhat harmless and all it does is open up the ACE2, we’re talking about something that could very well be what’s leading to the blood clots, all the strokes and the issues that we’re seeing. 

[01:33:03] Dr. Robert Malone 

And the data are increasingly supporting that. 

[01:33:08] Del 

But you said this all the way back in September. I want to make that clear to everyone. The FDA then is aware of this. 

[01:33:15] Dr. Robert Malone 

And they blew me off. They said we don’t see that as a problem and we’re going to proceed and we’re not going to worry about it, basically. So they didn’t think that the documentation around that was sufficient. Now, since I sent in that with some of the papers that we were focused on, additional work came out. So there was a study with cultured human brain like structures that we call organoids. This is the kind of the brave new world from stem cells and everything else that we’re using so that we don’t have to burn so many mice and so that we can model things that are more like humans without having to test them in humans. So brain organoid study, peer reviewed showed that ACE, I’m sorry, spike opens blood brain barrier in that model. Then there was a mouse model that shows that it opens blood brain barrier. Then there were other studies that confirm that. Then there was the press release from our friends at the Salk Institute with data that showed that spike is directly cytotoxic. Now, I’ve been fact checked by PolitiFact and our friends at Reuters, and they said that this is false, this is false information I’m giving out. And they gaslighted me good and hard. But fortunately, I’m a scientist that doesn’t say things just out of the blue because I feel like it or I think that it’s the right thing to say. I say things because there’s data behind it. And so I was immediately able to flick the multiple peer reviewed publications and call them out. Of course, in the modern world, being mainstream media means you never have to say I’m sorry or retract anything. 

[01:35:01] Del 

So just very quickly, why would it matter for people watching? Why does it matter that the spike gets through the blood brain barrier? Isn’t that what we want it to do?

[01:35:11] Dr. Robert Malone 

It’s not just that it gets through it, it’s that it opens it. So what he’s talking about or we’re talking about the blood brain barrier, you can think of as kind of a bunch of little inner digititating fingers between cells, tight junctions and structures behind them that function as kind of a filter. And the brain is a special place. I think most humans can agree with that. And we really don’t want to have bad stuff getting in there because it’s kind of what makes us human. And so opening up the blood brain barrier means that things that are in your blood like say, other viruses, the toxins, all kinds of stuff that normally is sequestered so it can never get into the brain compartment, it suddenly is able to do that. That’s bad. And it can cause inflammation and all kinds of things and the fluid shifts that occur can cause changes in mental status, potentially can cause things like brain fog. As a personal long hauler who survived Covid, I know brain fog well. And in fact, some people that receive vaccine complain of brain fog after vaccination, but can’t say how often because the databases are not good, but it happens. So there’s a lot…and some people get after vaccination, neuropathy, that’s numbness or other things. And so spike, the things that we know that native spike does seem to overlap with some of the symptoms, both of Covid and of this post-Covid genetic vaccine syndrome that some people report. So this is one of those if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. But, you know, I can’t say it’s a duck. And I’m criticized for saying that this could be happening with the vaccines because many people assert that the NIH and others that engineered these spikes for use in these vaccines engineered them so that they would be safe and they wouldn’t be toxic. That’s a little bit circular because at the time they were denying that they were toxic. So why would they engineer them to be safe? What they did was they engineered spikes so that it’s locked into an open confirmation, which is what it uses to bind ACE2. They also put a tag on it so it stays put in the cell that is expressing it, trans membrane domain. So these are the genetic modifications that were made, but they weren’t made, I don’t think, for safety purposes, at least the locked in open confirmation, that’s to make sure that the receptor binding domain stays open so that you can better generate antibody responses and educate B cells to make antibodies that’ll stick into that group. You don’t want it to vary between the open confirmation and the closed confirmation that’s used for cell fusion, because that can interfere with the ability of, antibody education, B cell education to generate antibodies that recognize that receptor binding domain. So I believe that’s why they did it, not for safety purposes. But the argument is made that one cannot assert that just because spike is toxic, that the expressed spike is also toxic. My counter to that is the way the rules work with drug development is kind of like the French judicial system. You’re presumed guilty until proven innocent. And it makes a lot of sense that we start with the assumption that anything new, particularly anything genetically engineered, is not safe and it’s the obligation of the drug development company interacting with the FDA to prove that it is safe, not the contrary. And so I hear, I am active on social media and so I get all of the criticisms, as you probably do in your blogs. And everybody’s a genius now and an expert and they don’t hesitate to tell me that I should pound sand. And this is often the criticism is I can’t assert that the vectored spike is similarly toxic to the proven toxicity, site of toxicity, and the activities of native spike. And as I mentioned, my retort to that is, well, that’s fine. Show me the papers where the pharmaceutical company proved it and I’ll shut up. But I have not seen those data and I’m not sure they exist and I certainly haven’t seen them in peer reviewed publications. So there it is. I kind of fall into the camp guilty until proven innocent. And it could well be that the modifications I speculate that lock the receptor binding domain open in spike could actually make it what we would call a super agonist, something that would bind even more efficiently than the unlocked spike. I don’t know. It could well be that it’s more toxic than regular spike. Prove it to me. It could go either way. It’s science. Let’s do it. Show me the data. 

[01:40:40] Del 

And you’re right. I was in an interview by four channel, channel four out of England. And the reporter who, they used to say I was just a liar and a hack. Now they say I’m just cherry picking my information. When she said to me, what I dislike about what you do Del more than anything is you are going by the assumption that the vaccine is dangerous just because it hasn’t finished its safety trials. You make the assumption it’s dangerous instead of what scares people, instead of making the assumption that it’s safe. And I said, you know what, there’s something there’s actually a term for that. It’s called the scientific method. It is that we are supposed to challenge the theory and challenge the product and believe, first and foremost, that it is dangerous and show all the reasons it could be dangerous. And science should jump up and be excited to prove me wrong. 

[01:41:33] Dr. Robert Malone 

Didn’t you get the memo that you’re supposed to drink the Kool-Aid? Because that’s what it comes down to.And me either because, you know, I make my living as a scientist, having an open mind and applying the method of multiple working hypotheses where I encounter the world and I say, I don’t really know much of anything and anything that I think I know can be changed at a moment’s notice based on new data. And that’s the stance that I take. I think that’s the responsible stance to take as a scientist. And I wouldn’t have been successful in the way that I have if I had been one of these true believers that just went with the party line and swallowed that hook, line and sinker. It’s just not how I’m wired. 

[01:42:19] Del 

Thank God you’re notwired that way. And it’s fascinating to hear someone that is directly involved with the technology that we are talking about. If anyone is going to question it, someone that was there when we started, like sort of tinkering with it and playing with it in the way that put it into a vaccine. So obviously you like the idea of it being a vaccine. But there were certain things that would have to be worked out in order to make sure that it was safe. And let me just clarify, just from my own understanding, is it that mRNA technology is dangerous or is it that the spike that they’re using, having the mRNA of spike to sort of have the cell express, is that where you think they’ve really gone wrong? That mRNA could work, but we should be using a less dangerous part of the virus to express in order to create antibodies to stop the virus, not use its major howitzer that it’s attacking the body with, is that where you’re at? That mRNA might be a good idea, but the spike is what’s messing up your originally good idea.

[01:43:24] Dr. Robert Malone 

It sounds to me like you play slow pitch softball. Thank you for that question. So there’s a caveat, though, to be honest and with integrity on the new synthetic lipid and formulation that Pieter Cullis and his team at the University of British Columbia have designed, which is what’s really enabling for these current generation vaccines, so yay for Pieter. He’s been working on this for 40 years. I just want to do a shout out. Many people, this is another one, many people claim to have done the breakthrough. In my mind, it’s Pieter Cullis and his team at UBC. But they’re using a synthetic lipid, a fat that’s chemically synthesized and engineered to do certain things. And it’s never been in humans in large scale. And the data packet from Pfizer that I think you’re well aware of that was released under FOIA from the Japanese regulatory agency, shows that this particular lipid accumulates at high…about 20 percent of injected into rodent model ends up in the ovary. That’s very odd. So do I know that the delivery package, if you think of this as a Fedex package, and the RNA is the paper, the memo that’s inside the package and the cardboard part outside of it would be the lipid envelope that delivers it into the cell. We don’t know for sure what the effects are going to be of the lipid delivery package. So when you say to me, are you sure that this is going to be safe? The general concept, yes. This specific compound, to be determined. Now, we are completely aligned. And I blogged that in many, I’ve had a lot of positive feedback. Frankly, since that podcast came out, I’m having physicians and scientists from all over the world contact me and basically say, yes, go Robert, because I’m able to have this platform. And there’s a lot of enthusiasm that what I’m expressing is accurate, correct. And a lot of people are frustrated they haven’t been able to get the message out. I think a lot of us agree that these first generation mRNA vaccines based on spike…understandable that they went for the easy thing off the shelf right off the bat. But now we know more and it’s really time to start rolling out second generation products that, for instance, might just express and display the receptor binding domain without the active parts of the molecule of spike, might express matrix protein, might express some of the other structural and nonstructural proteins because those will also all get processed and displayed on the surface of the cell and elicit cytotoxic T lymphocytes. So there’s ways that we can go forward that are next generation. We do have to address, I think, to be responsible, we need to disclose to the public completely what these potential risks are. I think that’s fundamental bedrock bioethics and the public needs to understand these pharmaco distribution studies that were done and needs to be aware that the full reproductive toxicology package was not performed before they started being administered. And that means that we don’t really know what the reproductive effects might be. And even if they cleared the repro tox, GLP studies that weren’t done and they were all OK, those are in rodents. And those of us that have done animal model work, including myself, are well aware, what we all tell each other is mice lie, monkeys mislead and the only thing that predicts an activity in humans is humans. And now we’re at a stage where we’re accumulating human data, but human reproductive toxicology data is a lagging indicator. That’s going to take a long time to get out. And we do…the government isn’t being transparent about this, but you can talk to 20 different women that have had vaccines. And I guarantee that a lot of them are going to tell you that they’ve had disruptions of their menses, really heavy flow, other things like that. So that talks about an interaction with a vital reproductive… 

[01:48:09] Del 

Well, we just at beginning of this show, we talked about it, very interesting study that looked at these spontaneous abortions. And the study sets out to show that the vaccine didn’t cause spontaneous abortion, it was right about at the background level, but then a nonprofit, not ours, or another group investigated and said, look what they did. Spontaneous abortion happens, I think, within the first 20 weeks or something like that. But they took women that were taking the vaccine in the third trimester and added them to the group of pregnant women. When you take them away because they’re not corrected, they will never have a spontaneous abortion because they’re too far in their pregnancy. We saw an incredibly high amount of spontaneous abortion. I believe it’s somewhere in the 70 to 80 percent range, which is shocking. So and a lot of these things are coming out. Let me ask you very specifically, because I could talk to you all day. This is so fascinating. But you reached out to the FDA, you said, look, there are issues. This thing appears that it could cross the blood brain barrier. It could. And you’re a scientist, right? You’re saying these are theories, but the potential is there. And before we go ahead and launch this thing on every human being on the planet, we really need to rule out these fairly obvious theoretical potential problems. Now, you said there should be an informed consent, which is the name of my nonprofit Informed Consent Action Network. Informed consent to consumers to know there are risks that we have that may or may not exist. But let me ask you, as you started seeing blood clots being announced first with Johnson & Johnson here, with AstraZeneca in Europe, so it mirrored that same technology, it was having the same problem. When we looked at the VAERS reports and the different capture systems, we see that Pfizer and Moderna were having issues with blood clots and thrombocytopenia at the same time… 

[01:49:59] Dr. Robert Malone 

Which the FDA denied. They denied in their press release just recently that they gave to PolitiFact. And so I received this paper that I mentioned to you from some scientists in Singapore that’s just published in a very high impact journal, American Journal of Hematology, in which they report a series of cerebrovascular coagulopathy. So blood clots in the brain, that’s kind of not a good thing. And no, I don’t want one, neither do you. That kind of takes away what makes you human sometimes. So this paper is now published and it clearly documents those relationships with RNA vaccination and clearly and unequivocally ascribes it to spike that’s expressed from the vaccine. And then we have this Harvard and Brigham Women’s nurse study in which…it’s Brigham Women’s and Children’s is the institution. So it’s nurses study that you’re, I’m sure familiar with, that shows that we’re having pre spike in non-trivial levels circulating in the blood after vaccination for up to almost a month in some nurses. And so it’s kind of another one of these where there’s smoke and, you know, it’s kind of looking like we got a fire maybe. And we sure ought to take it seriously. I think that’s where you and I are very much aligned is in the position that we’re not saying that the vaccines don’t save lives. My position is I can’t say whether the risk benefit ratio makes sense or not because I don’t think they’re following protocol and actually calculating the risk benefit ratio, number one. And number two, that idea of risk benefit ratio is typically applied as a function of special populations. So risk benefit for vaccination for pregnant women, risk benefit for adolescents, elderly, all those things have to be calculated… 

[01:52:09] Del 

Most of which weren’t in the Phase three trialsto begin with, right? Most likely skipped all of these susceptible populations, right?

[01:52:14] Dr. Robert Malone 

Precisely. So this kind of handwaving, move on, there’s nothing here to see. And I call it fake it till you make it, is kind of the way that things are going here and that’s not OK. We got human lives at stake and their livelihoods and their health and well-being. And there seems to be an overlap between many of these symptoms and some of the spectrum of symptoms associated with Covid and long Covid. And that’s a little alarming. And it suggests that spike may be the bad actor here. I’d like to say something else about the ad vectors versus the mRNA. One of the things about ad vector gene therapy technology is it was designed to provide long term expression of the trans gene. That’s a fancy word, saying it makes a lot of protein for a long period of time. How much protein, right? For the Novavax, just to take a stocking horse, for the Novavax vaccine, which is more traditional vaccine, the FDA requires that they very precisely calculate the dose, the amount of spike antigen in the formulation that is in the jab that you get in your arm. So you know precisely how much protein is there. In the case of the gene transfer based products, there is no assessment of what the levels or duration of expression are in tissue. Now, technically, the active drug product, I’m using regulatory speak now, the active drug product is the protein. That is the thing that causes the effect. And in their wisdom, the FDA has decided not to require that the pharmaceutical companies characterize exactly how much spike protein is being made. We don’t know. And it is reasonable to assume, based on everything I know in gene therapy for decades, that the adenoviral vectors may be expressing significantly more protein for a longer duration than the mRNA. So no surprise that the safety signal for coagulopathy pops up first with the ad vector vaccines. That doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen with the RNA vaccines. And we have this huge difference in dose between Moderna and Pfizer, for example. And then recently we had the press release from CureVac about their much lower dose, which only provided about 40 percent protection, which frankly is not trivial. Often we have flu vaccines that only provide 40 percent protection. So CureVac seems to have got it a little low. Pfizer might be in the right range. Moderna is way high. And because I work in the government, I have good contacts with the people that were on the team for OWS that designed and expedited the Moderna product. So I know from first person accounts how that dose was selected. And this is another example of fake it till you make it. It was decision making by committee and there was part of the committee that thought they ought to go with two hundred micrograms. And there was part of the committee that thought they should go with 50 micrograms. They were probably the ones that got it right. And they split the decision because they didn’t have solid clinical data to inform that. So that’s how that dose came about. Now that we see, and that’s how things rolled… 

[01:56:06] Del 

Literally rolling the dice… 

[01:56:06] Dr. Robert Malone 

With people’s lives. Yeah. Now it’s decision making by committee. It’s worse than that. It’s group think. It is group think. If you look up the definition of group think, that’s what we’ve been dealing with all the way through this, is a bunch of people who are very convinced about how smart they are and they want to come to consensus with each other and they kind of follow the leader and they all want to get on the same page and they don’t challenge each other, like you are challenging them. I mean, no wonder you’re an enemy right now and you’re treated as one and I am to some extent also, is because we’re committing the sin of saying, yeah, but, did you think about this problem? OK. And that’s our sin. 

[01:56:53] Del 

Let me just ask you then, because I want to jump on to one topic. We’ve already gone longer than I had promised you, and I hope I can hold you for a few more minutes. But very quickly, if we were going to inform citizens that are stepping forward to get this vaccine, what potential risks should they be aware of if you were going to come up with the list? I’ve had my own, but what would you say are the potentials that you’re looking at that you would like to see a long term safety trial rule out? What should we know are potential risks right now at the top of the list of these vaccines, Covid vaccines? 

[01:57:26] Dr. Robert Malone 

So in terms of the current AE spectrum, I understand that in addition to the cardio toxicity or cardiomyopathy and by the way, I think that that is likely to be a broader problem than just adolescence. I think it’s just harder to detect because of this problem with statistics that we call masking and confounding variables because people that aren’t adolescents have a baseline level of cardiovascular events that makes it harder to pick out the signal. And you’re sophisticated enough, I suspect you understand exactly what I’m saying. 

[01:58:04] Del 

Kids don’t have heart attacks and when they start having heart attacks, you notice it. Adults do and sowhen they have heart attacks they say it’s because they were old, not because the vaccine they got four days ago. 

[01:58:12] Dr. Robert Malone 

Yeah. And so to that point, it’s a great case study because at that point, if you’re a person sitting at CDC evaluating the safety database, whether it’s V-safe or VAERS and everybody around you is telling these are safe vaccines. And you see, an MI event, two days after vaccination, just to take an example. You’re going to be biased to saying unrelated because old people have heart attacks. And that’s not how it’s supposed to work. Just like the other example, it’s kind of, you’re supposed to presume guilty until proven innocent. And so I think that that’s part of this underreporting low detection of the signal is the bias on the people that are evaluating the data because of all the messaging they’re getting from their supervisors and all the way up the chain in the HHS system. So you asked me…

[01:59:07] Del 

The President of the United States is telling the world this is a safe product. Everybody’s got to get it. Kids get out and get it. The Delta variant is bad. Kids, you need it, you’re in danger. When the President of the UnitedStates is pumping it, Tony Fauci is pumping it, every hospital is being told, get your numbers up, in fact, force your nurses and your doctors to get it. It’s really hard under that environment to say yoo hoo I have a problem. There may be a problem. 

[01:59:29] Dr. Robert Malone 

So I got to say, if you’re going to go there, I’ve got to say something else. With the censorship, like the Facebook group for people that claim to have vaccine adverse events. These people that have had these symptoms, these events, and it’s really disrupted their lives, they call me, they’re full of tears and in agony and consternation. Putting out the message to everybody around them, their family, friends, kids, whatever, that they couldn’t possibly have had a vaccine related adverse event because these vaccines are safe, is one of the most profound gaslighting things I’ve ever heard of. And then to delete the Facebook group that these people, two hundred fifty thousand, I think, of them have joined and then you just delete it and flush them. What you’re telling these people is that they’re crazy. It is the ultimate gaslight, OK? And some of these people are committing suicide. They’re desperate. It is, I don’t want to say a crime, but this is profoundly wrong. Ok, so there’s that. Going on to the adverse events. So there’s another safety signal that has been detected but hasn’t been disclosed, as I understand it, which is reactivation of latent viruses. So this is the shingles. The thrombocytopenia seems to be happening. Obviously, the coagulopathy seems to be happening whether or not that’s related to the cardio toxicity signal. By the way, I was the guy on point for DOD to look into the cardio toxicity signal on the myocarditis that we found with the smallpox vaccines when we started to deploy them. And there’s the same problem there. So, you know, you asked about long term. I’m still not sure that there isn’t some ADE going on and it’s hard to pick out ADE unless it’s florid. If you have people dropping like flies after vaccination when they get infected, that’s obvious. The dengue situation was pretty overt. But that’s not happening. But there are some odd signals in national health data about mortality, all cause mortality event rates after a vaccination campaign, after surge in vaccination, going up… 

[02:02:11] Del 

See it all around the world. As that vaccine really kicks in, we see a rise in death, then it goes down. But you really probably killed off everybody that would have been weak to the virus or the vaccine. 

[02:02:20] Dr. Robert Malone 

I don’t want to, I don’t want to go there and say we’ve killed off everybody. That’s kind of alarmist. But there is some, I think that epidemiologists may well pull out data suggesting that there may be some ADE effect. We don’t know yet, but I’m still not convinced there’s none. It’s not florid, which is what I was originally worried about. Then there’s the, in terms that you mentioned, the long terms, obviously, the reproductive toxicology, we just don’t know. The CDC looked at pregnancy in a MMWR publication that you probably looked at a couple of weeks ago. And they asserted that based on the V-safe database, they didn’t see evidence of toxicity from the RNA vaccines in pregnancy. But if you look at the final paragraph, it’s kind of got the punch. And they say explicitly the V-safe database is flawed, inadequate, grossly underreporting. We need to do a better job in the next outbreak. Therefore, we’re not really sure about whether or not they’re safe in pregnancy. That’s the bottom line in the CDC’s assessment… 

[02:03:39] Del 

V-safe being the middle man that’s now been put in on the way to VAERS, on the way to report in to VAERS, V-safesort of has gotten involved, is helping people through it or whatever. VAERS being underreported, famous Harvard study that showed that it captures less than one percent of the total amount of injuries. We now are seeing, I think, in the neighborhood of six thousand deaths being reported in VAERS by this Covid vaccine. If that’s an underreporting, even at those numbers, I guess that’s where we’re at, five thousand eight hundred eighty eight right now. There’s obviously a backlog, but that would be the highest death rate, not only of any vaccine that’s ever been made, but literally of all the vaccines that have ever been made over the last several years put together, have never killed that many people. 

[02:04:21] Dr. Robert Malone 

Yes, so that analysis, which is Steve’s analysis also, has brought out the haters and those nattering nabobs that pick out various reasons why you can over analyze that, you can overstate the importance of that data. I’m with you and Steve that we can all agree those are imperfect data, the death. And by the way, there’s like thirty thousand in Europe and that those aren’t verified deaths, their vaccine associated deaths. But the point that you make and Steve makes is that we have this prior baseline of death events for all vaccines combined up until we kick in with this vaccine campaign, which means the denominator now is bigger because we’ve got all vaccines plus this vaccine over that time period. So you expect you might have to do some correction, but the difference is so large and so striking. I don’t think how you can look at that data and not say hmmm, we better look closer at this. This is a little worrying. So that’s why I, when I look at those data, I kind of come away, I’m a little different from how Steve looks at it. He’s like the house is on fire and they’re killing people. I prefer to take the stance this is concerning and it absolutely merits a rigorous follow up so that we can really figure out what’s going on here.

[02:05:56] Del 

Let me be perfectly clear about where I’m at with it, because it will sort of lead to where I want to sort of sum up this conversation right here, which is this. We are having faced, as you said, censorship, that you have people naturally on their own putting up Facebook pages saying, I’ve been injured by this thing, have you had anything like this? And it ends up having hundreds of thousands of people saying, yes, here’s my injury. In fact, Medscape just had doctors weighing in, only doctors who report, do you have concerns about the vaccine? And most of them talk about their own injuries, saying, yeah, I’m having these issues and a bunch of negative comments, I mean, as far as you could see, based on these vaccines. Here’s my issue. We’re being told that this thing has not any cut corners, that we went through a Phase three trial. It appears to me, and I think you mentioned this before, that we’re treating this, though, as we’re a Phase four, which is we’re in the population, when the truth is, if that is the case, if you are in a population study, you better have the mechanisms to study that population for every injury that’s happening. And when you cannot answer to the five thousand, if you can’t tell us is it five thousand, is it one thousand, is it none, is it five hundred thousand based on Harvard’s and you cannot give us a solid number, then you are a very very…it’s a dangerous trial being done recklessly on innocent people. And so my issue is this. Why can’t the FDA tell us how many people have died? Why can’t they project how many will die? I mean, these are the things, these are why we do trials and…you have a better relationship with the FDA than I do.Have you reached out them? Have you reached out to the FDA? 

[02:07:32] Dr. Robert Malone 

The reason they can’t do it is because they had the option to require the pharmaceutical companies to acquire that data more rigorously under EUA. They had the legislative latitude to do so and they elected to do nothing. So you’re dead on. If we’re going to point a finger at somebody and we’ll see how long Janet stays. I think it might not be too long. But it’s not just Janet. There’s a culture there and we could talk about other stories. Absolutely, the FDA has been subject to administrative pressure from above within HHS, and they are not acting independent of other agencies within the government. They are, I think that a very strong case can be made and I could relate personal experience that the FDA is no longer independent of political pressure. And that is a big problem. So I think you’re kind of network angst coming out here, I’m referring to movie, is warranted. The question is where do we go from here? I’m not sure… 

[02:09:06] Del 

You worked with them. Youworked with Department of Defense. I don’t know if we’re going to have time to get into the other part of the topic I wanted to, which is you were really been trying to pioneer working with drugs, repurposingdrugs and maybe we’ll touch on it very quickly. But in that conversation, have you reached out to the FDA and asked them how well is the data collection going? 

Is the FDA, are they stressed rightnow or are they like, you know, we’re cool man, we’re meditating here, Kumbaya, everything’s looking really good. 

[02:09:37] Dr. Robert Malone 

I have asked the question directly and what I’m told is that CDC is overwhelmed. FDA is overwhelmed. The CDC is not allowing transparency to V-safe even within the government. And that the FDA, what’s happened, I infer from what I hear from my colleagues, is that you have a very kludgy historic system and people that are deeply dug in, in very much old school approaches to data analytics on the epidemiology in these databases and are unwilling to consider new technologies and approaches statistically and otherwise. And we have these very kludgy antique database structures, and they are not able to efficiently process and sort out signal from noise and they are lagging. And that is a significant problem. And FDA leadership, I know there’s significant frustration that current FDA leadership has been very resistant to implementing more modern approaches to data analysis. I mean, we sit in Silicon Valley, I mean, Oracle. We have some of the top people in the world and it’s like the FDA are sticking their heads in the sand and say, no, we still want to work with Kobol [?] and do things the way that we did it back in the 70s. And they have now been hammered with the biggest crisis they’ve ever faced, any of us have ever faced in public health. And their systems are not able to support the strain. And they’ve been overwhelmed and they’ve gone into their foxholes and so we see public messaging where people like Tony, Tony admits it, Dr. Fauci. He has relied on his opinion and statements that he thinks would be helpful. It’s in The Washington Post FOIA emails. It’s quite obvious. He admits to his biases and he kind of wraps himself… 

[02:12:07] Del 

He did say last week that anyattack on him is an attack on science. He also sees himself… 

[02:12:11] Dr. Robert Malone 

He’s wrapped himself in the cloak I am science. That’s kind of a little over the top. Yeah, it’s like he might have lost perspective a little bit, but, hey, he’s 80 years old. Cut him some slack. 

[02:12:26] Del 

All right. Really quickly, because I can’t let it go because the work that you do, you’re a consultant, you work with Department of Defense, one of the major things that you’ve been trying to do is work on repurposing drugs. And this has been a huge conversation because as this vaccine has been promoted from the beginning, other products, treatments like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin. Is your opinion that there have been treatments available throughout this process that could have curbed the death rate that we’re seeing, hundreds of thousands dying? I guess we’re in the sixes now in America. 

[02:13:03] Dr. Robert Malone 

Absolutely. 

[02:13:03] Del 

Could that have been shifted had we used drugs that were maybe pennies on the dollar, not patented?

[02:13:09] Dr. Robert Malone 

And so, yeah, ivermectin is one example and the data are coming in fairly strong that ivermectin has benefits both as a prophylactic and as a therapeutic for severe disease and hospitalization. The argument that many of those studies, often in emerging markets, because they’re very poor and they are using this off patent, readily available drug that often they have available because there may be endemic worm diseases. Yes, so I was very involved in getting this thing processed and published, this paper. And I had recommended that we use ivermectin in one of the arms of our outpatient study with DOD that we’re currently prosecuting. Oddly, the FDA required that we prove the mechanism of action of ivermectin using cell culture, which is over the top, if they would allow us to proceed with clinical trials. They did not insist on that in the clinical trial that the NIH is launching, active six, testing ivermectin in outpatient. I don’t know what to say about that. It’s… 

[02:14:26] Del 

So very quickly, they want you to go all the way back and prove that ivermectin does what you say it does, even though we have like hundreds, if not thousands of trials around the world showing it’s working on patients. Can we do one in the NIH where we have a control group and just say we’re not even going to do that. You’ve got to go back, 12 months we want you to waste in a cell culture study just to tell us that this should be an important study, that we should try it, at which point it’s obviously too late. Either we’ve all gotten the vaccine and it is or is not dangerous to us… 

[02:14:54] Dr. Robert Malone 

Yeah, I like to say, yeah, but, you know, five hundred, a thousand are dying a day here in the United States and you’re worried about the potential risk of a 40 year old drug that has one of the best safety records in the world, administered at known safe doses. They’re basically the same doses, by the way, that I administer by kilogram to my horses. So it just seems…there are a bunch of things here that don’t make sense. And by the way, we’ve barely scratched some of the issues, we haven’t talked about the lab leak, what went on in Wuhan, what the documentation is about when they actually started building the vaccine. And the repurposed drugs, there’s going to be a good book about that. For our studies, the FDA is still throwing up just objection after objection after objection. Each time we come in with our IND for the two drugs, I’m not pumping our drugs, I’m not going to go there, that we’ve identified. The trial, we have an IND that we’re trying to prosecute with the agency. And colleagues in India are probably going to start a trial fairly soon. But with the FDA, it’s a paradox. Every time we have a meeting with them, they say, well, you’ve got to do these things and then we’ll let you go. And we say, OK, we’ll do those things, like the ivermectin they objected to. So we said, OK, we’re going to drop the ivermectin. DOD just didn’t want to have that fight with the FDA. So this happens again and again and again. And each time they come up with new objections. It’s very odd. The people on my team and myself have never seen anything like this before. And I don’t wish to be a conspiracy theorist, but it just doesn’t make sense. 

[02:16:54] Del 

But it’s not even consistent, right? I mean, there’s no consistency because on the one hand, the very agencies that are rushing out a brand new technology that’s going to have free floating spike all through your body, no long term understanding of the safety of that, are being promoted by the President of United States, are making you jump through hoops for a product that’s been proven to be safe for 40 years. 

[02:17:16] Dr. Robert Malone 

Are blocking the development of known safe agents that are off patent that drug companies can hardly make a nickel on, that are instead of remdesivir costing eight thousand dollars a treatment would cost something like…they’re being used in hospitals, these agents that we’re working with and the treatment costs about 50 bucks for a hospitalization. And we pop them out and they appear to have better efficacy than remdesivir. Now, something’s not right there. And I think most of us can put a name to it and know this is another one of those, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but we can’t call it a duck. 

[02:17:56] Del 

So name that duck. 

[02:17:58] Dr. Robert Malone 

But that duck is regulatory capture by the pharmaceutical industry. Yeah, I don’t think Janet’s going to be around very long, but I like to say if there’s a Wiki page for regulatory capture, coming off the Purdue Pharma OxyContin situation, probably going to have her picture there. 

[02:18:23] Del 

What is your advice in wrapping this up? Children are now, you know, we have college students right now, they’re being told by universities in the next two weeks they need to be vaccinated or show their vaccine in order to go to college this upcoming semester. You work closely with regulatory agencies. What should really be the statement to people who are looking at their children, at least under these circumstances, or students going to college? Should they wait? Should they hold on a second and try…I mean, we haven’t even had the CDC weigh in on really the safety of this issue of blood clots, thrombocytopenia in youth and the myocarditis. If they’re not weighing in, should children, should we have a pause right now before we force young people that really are at almost no risk at all from dying from this virus?

[02:19:16] Dr. Robert Malone 

So that’s number one, this gets to the bioethics of the age of informed consent and so absolutely, unequivocally, people lower than the age of 18 should not be coerced to receive vaccine. And if they do receive vaccine, there has to be parental approval. That’s just the rules. The WHO modified its web page yesterday or the day before, and you’re probably aware of that. And there’s a new clause. I don’t want to get trapped in getting the words wrong and having a fact check from PolitiFact. But there is a clear and unambiguous statement that the WHO believes that most of these vaccines are safe down to the age of 18. And there’s a statement that there should not be mandated childhood vaccination. So the implication is they’re defining childhood as including adolescence. So we now have the WHO staking out a position. I was asked by a podcast in the U.K. point blank, do I think children should be vaccinated? And my personal opinion is no. The justification that Delta variant is going to spread more readily and creates an added threat to children. My problem with that is it sounds an awful lot like scare tactics because I haven’t seen any data on the effects of the Delta variant in children. 

[02:20:51] Dr. Robert Malone 

And so if you’re going to make public health statements, they ought to be data based. That’s the core here, is let’s do science based medicine. Let’s stop the fake it till you make it. And so if Delta variant represents an enhanced risk for children and adolescents, show me the data. Show all of us the data. You owe it to us. My point is that the government doesn’t have the right to coerce you to do things with your body. It’s their obligation to convince us based on real information and give us the information that we can make our own judgments as adults because we’re competent. We understand intuitively risk benefit. We know that some people die in airplanes and yet we take air flights all the time, likewise with our cars. We can process this stuff. We’re not children. We don’t need the government to tell us what to do. What we need the government to do is be frank and open and honest about what the actual data are and stop the scare tactics. So where I come down is children and adolescents, I’m not aware of data about the Delta variant actually being an enhanced risk. It may be. Show me the data. Otherwise, all the information that I’ve seen is the risk of Covid disease, which is not the same as infection, in adolescents, children and infants is remarkably low. And the risk of adverse events in those populations is not nothing, but not nothing divided by almost nothing is a big number. It’s not the right kind of risk benefit ratio that normally would be used to justify a vaccine intervention. So I think that ratio has too much risk, too little benefit, and if the public health service is going to make a case that they should be vaccinated, let’s see the data. Let’s see the actual calculations. 

[02:23:01] Dr. Robert Malone 

In terms of young adults being required to be vaccinated before they return to their universities. I participated in a town hall meeting at the University of Delaware with some very aggravated parents and young adults that go to school there that are being mandated to take these experimental vaccines. That sounds like coercion to me. And that’s not right, because these are experimental products, and I suspect that those university administrators who are probably making some sort of financial risk calculation about the lawsuits they might get from Covid infection on their campuses might want to think twice because they ought to factor in their risk benefit calculation for their financial risk, the potential lawsuits they’re going to get from people that have been denied the opportunity for higher education because they have elected to not take the vaccine. Have I addressed your questions? 

[02:24:04] Del 

Yes. My final question is this. You quietly work with the FDA, you work with the Department of Defense. You are in the mix. Unlike many people that sit there as doctors, they have no actual action or way to have conversations with people that might matter. You’ve been having those conversations. What led you to leave just having those conversations and then two weeks ago be involved in a podcast that has now made you a public figure in this discussion? As you said, your phone is ringing off the hook. That’s a pretty big shift from someone that doesn’t want to be in the media, that is just trying to address the issue to someone that is now saying things like you’re saying. The FDA is overwhelmed, the CDC is overwhelmed. They are not collecting data properly and this thing is being moved forward. What made you do that?

[02:24:48] Dr. Robert Malone 

The seminal event for me was when Trial Site News asked me to evaluate the Pfizer data package and the European Medicines Agency assessment letter that they published normally, so the one was FOIA, the other is normal disclosure. And I encountered and I worked through those and it was clear to me that this wasn’t right. And it was not right and proper. And then there was the Dr. Bridle response and assessment from Canada. I was on a phone call with the Canadian physician that told me about what he was experiencing and how the government was just summarily dismissing his claim, his posting to the government database of adverse events that his patients were encountering. And he told me about how the government and there’s a whole cadre of self-appointed academic police that attack physicians and scientists that say anything about this. I don’t get that except for I was in academia. And I know how that culture works. And it’s a little twisted. But I saw these things coming together. I saw the suppression of information and communication. I saw the safety signals. I saw the, you know, misrepresentation about how the vaccine had been characterized in the Pfizer case. I saw the New England, Harvard and Brigham and Women’s Nurses study, and it just came to me that we’d reached a tipping point. And that somebody…and then the whole RNA inventor thing became a big curfuffle. And I suddenly found myself in a position where people were looking to me to provide leadership. And I was being able to say things on LinkedIn and social media that other people were being censored for. And I think it was because of my CV and these past contributions. And people, perhaps the censors, felt that I had enough legitimacy, that they were going to think twice before they just automatically whack me. So I had a platform, I had the CV legitimacy. The signal was there. There’s a bunch of worrying things. I’m seeing my fellow physicians just being hammered if they even start talking about it. And so I started speaking up and one thing led to another. And there was the invitation to go talk to Brett. And we had an open discussion. Some people find this not boring for three hours, if nothing else, because of Steve talking over me for most of it, I think. But that seemed to go pretty well. And then people started inviting, they wanted to hear what I had to say, like you. And so I’m grateful for that. And now it’s snowballed. And I’ve got almost certainly thirty five thousand Twitter followers and I’ve got docs and scientists from all over the world coming to me and saying, hey, can you make it clear to people that this is happening or this paper or that finding. 

[02:28:24] Dr. Robert Malone 

And so now I’m in a position ethically almost where I have to, I feel the need to use this moment in time in this platform to share key information. I think another one was after that Canadian phone call, I woke up the next morning and had the insight about how wrong this was from a bioethics standpoint. And I wrote a piece in Trial Site News where I laid that out. And for me, that was kind of a, if there’s a red pill, people overuse that metaphor from the Matrix. It was that bioethics argument and the things surrounding it which, as you say, is entirely aligned with your nonprofit. So congratulations on that. We are of one mind. Bioethics should not be violated. Let’s not have another Tuskee, let’s not have more torture, let’s not have the Japanese internment. Crises like this, in my opinion, sometimes lead governments and cultures to cross lines that they said they wouldn’t cross. And they almost always end up regretting it. And I’ve been through too many outbreaks. I know how frightening it could be. I can’t tell you how frightening it was to get a call from the Pentagon as I was on the road to Ames, Iowa that said, Robert, we’ve just come out of a briefing and there’s a scenario of a billion people dead from Ebola and you’ve got to do something. How would you like to be on point for that? Talk about save the world, right? Robert, you’ve got to figure out some way to make a heck of a lot of Ebola vaccine. And you got to do it now because it could be a lot of people dying, could be your mother or your wife or God only knows what else. And so I’ve been there in the jaws of that pressure. And I understand how hard it is to make decisions in that environment. But I think that the dust has settled. We have a little bit of oxygen right now before Delta hits us. I don’t know what that’s going to do to the states. And so let’s take a good breath, look at what we’re doing here. And take stock and let’s try to get back on track ethically and organizationally. Again, I’m going to say it again. Let’s stop the fake it till you make it stuff. Let’s do science based medicine please. 

[02:30:59] Del 

Amen. From your lips to God’s ears. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you for being brave enough to speak out, a man in your position. We live in a time where they so rarely do, which I think could lead to the death of science. So I think that we are fighting for science right now at the HighWire. I believe you’re doing the same. I believe in science. I know how science is supposed to be done. That is not what we’ve seen over the last year and a half. We need to get back to it. Or it could be very, very damaging for the future of our species and certainly of our education of our children. So I want to thank you for the work that you’re doing and bless you on your way as you continue to speak on all the platforms that will have you. So thank you for taking the time and joining us today. 

[02:31:46] Dr. Robert Malone 

Thanks Del. Thanks for the opportunity. 

[02:31:47] Del 

All right, you take care. Well, I mean, absolutely, every week I’m blown away at the amount of scientists and brilliant people that are really coming forward and speaking to this issue, but what we’re talking about is the potential for vaccine injury like we’ve never seen, deaths like we’ve never seen are being calculated. Highest rates we’ve ever seen. We’ve seen myocarditis, blood clots. If you’re any one of those people or you know someone like that and they need help and they don’t trust V-safe, and they don’t trust the same places that these scientists don’t trust any longer, the CDC, the FDA. Then they may need help on how do they report to VAERS? How do we help with data collection? That’s why we started injuredbycovidvaccine.com. Take a look at this. 

[02:32:31] Injuredbycovidvaccine.com 

If you or a loved one has been injured after receiving a Covid-19 vaccine, including if you are a participant in a clinical trial, go to injuredbycovidvaccine.com. Submissions are confidential. We are here to help provide support, including connecting with medical specialists and potentially securing legal representation. To assure the safety of Covid-19 vaccines for everyone, it is imperative that every person injured by this product report their injury. We can provide assistance, completing a report to the CDC’s vaccine adverse events reporting system. So if you or a loved one has suffered an injury from a Covid-19 vaccine, go to injuredbycovidvaccine.com now.

[02:33:19] Del 

All right, it’s time for my favorite part of the show, The Highwire hero. Today’s Highwire hero is none other than Buffalo Bills wide receiver Cole Beasley. Why? Well, if you missed it, because he put out a tweet that made headlines. Here’s what the headlines had to say. [REF] Buffalo Bills Cole Beasley says he’d rather retire than get Covid-19 vaccine. Good on you, Cole. You shouldn’t have to retire. But why is he saying that? Look at the NFL rules on players that don’t get vaccinated. Here it is. If you’re an unvaccinated player, you will be tested daily. I’m not going to read both sides. You get the idea. You’ll have to wear a mask at facilities and while traveling, while the others don’t. You’ll need to self quarantine following exposure. Other ones won’t. If you’re vaccinated, it doesn’t matter if they’re exposed, they don’t care. Will remain under the same travel restrictions as 2020 season that totally screwed you over. Will be required to limit their weight room numbers to 15 individuals, whereas if you’re vaccinated, hey have a party, as many as you want. Must socially distance during meals, not allowed to eat with teammates. Not allowed to have social media marketing or promotion opportunities. So we’re going to cut your checks that come from all those advertisers. You’re not allowed to be a part of advertising anymore if you don’t get vaccinated. Oh, my God. Not permitted to use the steam room or the sauna, period. Don’t even think about it. Required to stay in team hotel for meals. You may not eat in restaurants. You cannot interact with non team members during travel. Are you kidding me? I mean, all of the sudden the NFL is like Nazi Germany, literally. It’s incredible that they even think they would get away with this. But it’s apparently only Cole Beasley that really had the guts, the good football guts to say something about it. Here’s just an excerpt from his brilliant tweet. You should read the whole thing, but here’s a little piece of it. “I’m not going to take meds for a leg that isn’t broken. I’d rather take my chances with Covid and build up my immunity that way. Eat better, drink water, exercise and do what I think is necessary to be a healthy individual. That is my choice, based on my experiences and what I think is best. I’ll play for free this year to live life how I’ve lived it from day one. If I’m forced into retirement, so be it.” Cole, good on you, man. I mean, I get it. He talks about how others can’t do that. He’s made a fortune. He’s had a great career. He’s willing to walk away. He’s not going to change his life or he’s not going to change his moral structure, what he believes about his body and what’s gotten him to this point. I’m right there with you, Cole. Neither would I. And so thank you. You’re our Highwire hero of the week. 

[02:36:07] Del 

And lastly, to finish up the show, I actually had several of you sponsors reach out to me. And I want to thank all of those that support the work that we do here. That last interview, go watch it again. I mean, there was so many bombshells there. I feel like it’s over. It’s game over. All right. It’s over. The inventor of the technology is now saying, stop it, stop it now. CDC, FDA, you’re all doing the wrong thing. You’re faking it till you make it. I mean, these are one off, one in a lifetime opportunities, these interviews. We are building the time capsule that will remember Covid for what really happened. 

[02:36:42] Del 

But a couple of you sponsors that make all this possible reached out to me. And you’re very concerned about the university situation. And I get it. Whether you have kids that are going into university or, you know, your own kids are having kids that are going to university. And the universities are saying across the country, as I understand it, that many of those universities are saying you have two weeks to provide your vaccine status. And they’re asking me, what do we do, Del? I mean, I said, well, obviously ICAN, we are suing many of these universities as we speak, but we can’t sue all the universities, hundreds that are making the statement about needing to be force vaccinated in order to go to school. You heard the opinion of the man that created the vaccine. He doesn’t think that should happen. The CDC obviously isn’t going to step up to protect anyone. But when I reached out to our legal team and said, what is it that people can do? One of the things that we decided to build as a tool was the number one rule of what you have to do is you got to get an exemption. These two weeks really aren’t forcing you to be vaccinated. What it’s doing is forcing you to declare what your status is. And if you’re not going to get vaccinated, you need to see my status as I’m not vaccinated because of religious reasons or whatever is available in your state. We have built a page on our website for anyone asking this question. Here you go. Just go to the Informed Consent Action Network or Icandecide.org. And we have a Covid-19 vaccine exemptions page. If you open this up, we show you 50 universities, we have 50 that we’ve directly worked with and we lay out what their exemption program is. Now, obviously not every university will be on there, but reading some of those should give you a sense of what you’re looking for in your university if it’s not listed there. We’re also suing universities. We’re doing that work on our end. But you need to go out and find out what exemption’s available to you and get it. I also want to say this, in many states you’re like, well, my church, Catholic Church, they’ve come out and said that vaccines are OK. The truth is, is that our Constitution, the laws of this land are you’re not allowed to be asked about your religion or what your religious beliefs are, in fact, your own held belief is your religious belief. And it doesn’t matter if it’s even separate from the sector church that you’re involved with. That doesn’t matter. So don’t let that stuff get in your way. If you believe that it’s unsafe to take this untested product and all the dangers you’re seeing, that belief is your spiritual belief, your religious belief. You are allowed a religious exemption. So go to the page and check that out.

[02:39:12] Del 

We are also putting together a sort of a top 10 list of questions that you should really bring to any university that’s trying to force your kids in. We want to lay this out for you. This will be on our website, 10 questions to ask your college or university if they’re mandating the Covid-19 vaccine. Are you aware that pharmaceutical companies and the medical community have immunity from liability for injuries caused by Covid-19 vaccines, that they have no liability, they don’t stand behind their product. And two, ifa company will not stand behind its product and pay for injuries, do you think consumers and students should have to bear the risk of being injected with that product? Three, has the long term safety of any Covid-19 vaccine been established? Are you aware of that? Are you aware myocarditis, heart swelling has occurred after Covid-19 vaccination, especially in young males? Are you aware that thrombocytopenia, a drop in blood platelets, has occurred after Covid-19 vaccination, especially among females? Number six, are you aware the spike protein created by the vaccine is actually a toxin and travels through the body? Do you know, this is number seven…do you know the rate of severe Covid-19 in university aged students? Eight, are you aware that a large percentage of students have already had Covid-19 and have superior natural immunity and therefore shouldn’t get the vaccine because they’ll only hurt the better, more powerful immunity they already have? And nine, are you aware of the serious conflicts of interest in the development and trials of these novel vaccines? And ten, why require the vaccine when it is available to anyone who thinks they need it? Obviously it’s available, why should you force it? And I would sort of add the age old, and if vaccines work and those that got it have it, then what risk is there for those that don’t want it? It’s only to themselves, right? I mean, this is the conversation. Obviously, with every one of those questions, we’ll have citations and things where you can actually hand the information over so that you can go in and have an intelligent dialog, an informed dialog with those people. And I want to point out that as our legal team has reached out to many of these universities, they wanted me to tell you that in many ways they are not these diabolical people that are trying to, they’re very confused about what’s going on. They’re on unsure ground and they’re trying to find their way through this with a lot of pressure coming in from the government. So go in nicely. Have a nice conversation. I asked the team to not make those ten statements so that you don’t just bulldoze people, but enroll them in a conversation, ask questions. What do they know about? Are you aware of this? Have you seen this study? Are you aware that there are blood clots? Are you aware that the CDC admitted that myocarditis is two hundred times more prevalent in some of these age groups than if they weren’t getting the vaccine at all? We’re here to help you get to these processes especially, and outside of that, we’re suing to stop these universities. We’re going to set precedent. We’re going to the Supreme Court, baby, any way we can. We’re going to undo these types of bad laws that have been put in place. 

[02:42:16] Del 

And I also want to say is a call to action. Look at Ron DeSantis, look at Governor Abbott. And I forget the, what’s the guy in Arizona? Ducey, sorry. These guys are writing laws…by the way, Arizona you’re not going to have problems with the university because the governor took away their power. Florida, we’re not really seeing problems with the universities there, even though they demand it. Ron DeSantis’ laws going to really be in your benefit. So no universities are really going to press it there. AndTexas, they’re going to be very similar. So I would say a call to action is start reaching out to your governor and say, I want laws like they have in Texas, in Florida, in Arizona. Well, you’re not allowed to ask my vaccine status, that my vaccine status does not affect me as a consumer for any product and by the way, any institution that I want to go to. Start putting pressure on your governors, because these states are proving that that can make the difference. And guess what? We’ll be there, too. We’re reaching out to governors all over this country. We are looking to make a difference. We’re bringing you the biggest interviews in the world. As far as I’m concerned, we’ve already won this. This thing is over. It’s dead and buried. I think the CDC is done. ACIP will never be respected again. They will be remembered, but they won’t be respected. All of this because the great work that we’re doing together, the HighWire team, the HighWire family and Informed Consent Action Network. You’re a part of that network. You are making a difference. And to all of those of you that support us to help us put this together, thank you so much. We will keep rocking it out. And I’ll see you next week. 

[02:43:52] Highwire ad 

Thanks for watching and thanks to the Highwire insiders who make this show possible. If you’d like to become a Highwire insider, then go to our website, the Highwire.com, and sign up now. And please share the show. We’re on Twitter, Bitchute, and now on Roku. Because knowledge is power, censorship is real. And we need all the help we can get.