Does your faith need strengthening? Are you confused and wondering if Jesus Christ is really "The Way, the Truth, and the Life?" "Fight for Your Faith" is a blog filled with interesting and thought provoking articles to help you find the answers you are seeking. Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find." In Jeremiah we read, "Ye shall seek Me, and find Me, when ye shall seek for Me with all your heart." These articles and videos will help you in your search for the Truth.

Monday, August 2, 2021

Dr. Robert Malone & Dr. Joseph Mercola Talk Vaccine Ethics


Bioethics in the Age of COVID-19: A Special Interview With Dr. Robert Malone 

By Dr. Joseph Mercola 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Welcome everyone. This is Dr. Mercola helping you take control of your health. And today we have a real treat for you, we have one of the emerging new heroes in the effort to reveal the damage and the dangers of the COVID vaccinations. And this is Dr. Robert Malone, who is, truly, one of the most respected experts in this and that he is really the inventor of the messenger RNA vaccine. He is really a true insider. We have somewhat differing views with respect to vaccines. He is a pro-vaccine person and actually has received the COVID vaccine himself. But he actually developed the platform, the technology that allows the mRNA vaccine to exist. 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Let me give you a short history. Interestingly, he's new to the field with respect to engaging in the dialogue. Earlier this year, he wrote a short essay shortly after he had a conversation with a physician in Canada, who was explaining some of his challenges and didn't realize there was something he could do, then he reflected out and then discussed with his wife, Jill, and they wrote this paper on bioethics, which catalyzed an interview with Bret Weinstein in June on his DarkHorse Podcast, which is the first time I saw him, and was so impressed with his ability to articulate very succinctly and accurately and expertly as to what was going on. 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: But for doing that, he was nearly instantaneously removed from the history books. He was taken out of Wikipedia and pretty much all the references of him inventing the messenger RNA technology was removed and the attribute was given to others. So he's really got no horse in this battle other than to tell the truth. He's a deep industry insider, he's got connections with the FDA (Food and Drug Authority), Department of Defense, and he really knows deeply what's going on. 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: I kind of look at him as a converted scientist, converted to an investigative journalists now that he's reporting on the truth with respect to this topic. And there's not many people who could have been better prepared, he's got 30 years in this field. Really, he's truly an expert. So I am so delighted and excited to connect with you today. So welcome and thank you for joining us, Dr. Malone. 

Dr. Robert Malone: Thank you very much. The first time anybody ever called me an investigative journalist. I don't know if that's a badge of honor or something else. These days it's a dirty word, but I'll run with it. Dr. Mercola, I have, as you say, been in business a long time, and I have previously been a whistleblower over the Jesse Gelsinger death. And you can- 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Oh, that's right. Why don't you talk about that because a lot people aren't aware of that. 

Dr. Robert Malone: But I generally try to stay below the radar and I interact with the press mostly on background, have for many years, with a focus on trying to help them to get the stories right and understand the science. Jesse Gelsinger. So the background for that was that Jill's thesis advisor, my wife, her Ph.D. advisor, [inaudible 00:03:46], who's a card-carrying bioethicist at the University of Maryland, where we both were working at the time, was also training me in bioethics – part of my required training as a young faculty member and an extended training I took in the coursework with him. 

Dr. Robert Malone: When the Jesse Gelsinger events happened, and I also had long been a deep insider in the gene therapy space, so I had specific knowledge of what had happened at Penn and the ethical transgressions, shall we say, that occurred and awareness again, just like now, of the technology. And so I was able to make sense of things that otherwise were obscure for journalists and even other scientists. 

Dr. Robert Malone: I went to [inaudible 00:04:45] about what I knew, and he said, "Robert, you have the ethical responsibility to disclose what you know to the public." I did so knowing the risk to my career and that materialized and I was a persona non grata in the gene therapy community after that. But I still feel okay, I survived that. I survived the blacklisting. That's part of where I went in a different direction with my career and focused on government work and biodefense and supporting the Department of Defense. But

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Sorry for interrupting. What was the personal cost for you for that whistleblowing venture? 

Dr. Robert Malone: So I never got another grant from NIH (National Institutes of Health), for sure. They still seek me out to serve on study sections, often to chair large contracts study sections, but my ability to participate in the gene therapy community, I became a persona non grata. And that was really the end of that part of my career, and shortly thereafter, my academic career. 

Dr. Robert Malone: The lesson learned for me is that I'm able to be resilient together with my wife's support. And another key lesson was that your friends will support you through times of crisis if you behave with integrity and maintain your friendships and treat people with respect. And I also had a lot of support for having spoken out and taken an ethical high road on that and not compromise myself. 

Dr. Robert Malone: [inaudible 00:06:41] ended up making hay while the sun shines. He ended up a key member in the institute that Mr. Gelsinger set up. And I think he did very well at that. So I'm sure in retrospect all the dynamics there, but I went about my life and friends and colleagues brought other opportunities to me and I was able to pivot without really too much disruption. But I did leave academia at that point. 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Yeah. So you're no stranger to exposing the truth or speaking truth to power, which had been doing so well in the last month or two. 

Dr. Robert Malone: Yeah, thank you for saying that. And it's part of why I'm comfortable. People tell me that I come across as balanced and calm. But for me, yes, this is frightening a little bit and once again, putting my career on the line. But once again many of my colleagues in the government are grateful that I'm speaking this way, they are not able to have a voice because of their jobs and the government policies about speaking out. But I got to say, at some point I got to start making some money here because I've had to park my consulting business, all this has been pro bono and as you know it, it chews up an enormous amount of bandwidth and time. 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Absolutely, yeah. 

Dr. Robert Malone: But I think it's an important thing to do. 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Well, that's why I called you an investigative journalist, because not only are you participating in these types of interviews and podcasts, which are quite a few, but you also have a very active and prolific feed on Twitter that, and you can see how much I use Twitter, but the – and that takes some time to do. 

Dr. Robert Malone: It does. Dr. Joseph Mercola: I mean, you have some really great post. 

Dr. Robert Malone: It's a monster. My wife had encouraged me that she thought it was time that I rekindle my Twitter account. I've been active and not active at different times. I'm not naive on social media, I've been doing this for decades starting with the stock chat boards on Yahoo. And she had said that she thought it was time for me to reactivate my base account. And at the time, there was like 100 followers. And then this podcast of three old men sitting around the table talking for three hours went viral, which blows my mind still, and globally viral, and the Twitter count is now over 130,000. That's a month later. 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Yeah, 133,000. Yeah, as we're talking, so I just

Dr. Robert Malone: You're checking it more than I am. 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Yeah, yeah. 

Dr. Robert Malone: You have to feed the beast, you have to provide information and manage it. You have to weed out the trolls from time to time, it's like weeding the garden, and you have to deal – with that comes obligations in terms of being more careful about my messaging and what I post. But it also provides strength and legitimacy that has, for instance, played a key role in, together with Steve Kirsch, speaking to a LinkedIn vice-president and in overcoming the LinkedIn censorship. 

Dr. Robert Malone: When people all over the world started canceling their LinkedIn accounts because I'd been censored and writing directly to LinkedIn, consequent to their being aware of that event on the Twitter account, that resulted in some unprecedented action by LinkedIn. And I don't think I've ever heard of a company writing a letter of apology after delisting and deleting somebody. As you say, the journalists all fought with Twitter. They're all looking for clicks, they're all looking for topic areas that they think will sell their newspapers. And I think they use Twitter as a way to discover trends and a way to troll, in the sense of sport fishing, for topics that they could write on that would capture public interest. 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: So LinkedIn reinstated you then? 

Dr. Robert Malone: They did, and it took a lot of effort. And my sins were profound. They were that I outed the chairman of the board of directors of Reuters who are also sitting on the board of Pfizer for cross-posting the Wall Street Journal article on vaccine toxicity risks, the editorial, and well, basically for complaining about censorship. So they sent me my list of sins with six different posts that were to pretty much anybody's eye innocuous, which I then took and cross-posted onto Twitter. So, that revealed the absurdity of that. 

Dr. Robert Malone: And Steve Kirsch called this vice president of LinkedIn that will remain anonymous and said to him, "Hey, this guy Malone, he knows his stuff and he generally gets it pretty carefully right. And furthermore, he fact-checks me all the time. And so you probably want to go back and carefully look at whether or not he actually made a misrepresentation, or is it just your algorithms or your junior staff misunderstanding what he wrote?" 

Dr. Robert Malone: What was fascinating about the list of sins that they sent me, the list of posts, it had clearly been custom-written on short notice because it had a major typo in the heading of the email that was sent to me. So it wasn't a formal letter. But then this cascade of resignations and protests started from people on Twitter regarding LinkedIn, and this culminated in a major news piece in one of the mainstream Italian newspapers. And that pretty much pushed them over the edge and they decided that the note that I received basically said, "Look, we don't have the expertise to sensor you, but if you cross the line, we have the right to summarily delete you again and so mind your manners," was pretty much the messaging I got. 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Yeah. And so, well, thanks for sharing that bit of censorship that was directed at you. What I want to go back and for those who haven't heard of your work before, just maybe give a brief discussion of your academic credentials and what makes you so imminently well qualified to participate in the dialogue in this area. I mean, briefly you were an M.D. at Northwestern, which is in my hometown of Chicago. And I don't believe you formally got your Ph.D., but essentially you have a PhD equivalent, but for some reason that you can expand on when [crosstalk 00:14:20]. 

Dr. Robert Malone: Yeah, I was in an M.D./Ph.D. program and I bailed out with a master's in lieu because of all of the events that happened at the Salk, that is the foundation for this technology, but it resulted in a great big bureaucratic fight, largely over money and patent rights and it came unglued and had to get out of the lab. 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: And this was in the late '80s? 

Dr. Robert Malone: Yeah, precisely. Yeah. So Northwestern M.D., master's degree from Salk Institute, UC (University of California) San Diego, bachelor's degree in biochemistry from UC Davis, a Giannini fellowship in pathology at UC Davis, a post-graduate fellowship in global clinical research at Harvard, and numerous other training. I was an academic teaching pathology to medical students for about a decade both at University of Maryland and University of California, Davis as an assistant professor, and then as an associate professor of surgery at Uniformed Services, University of the Health Sciences, where I, never talked about this, launched a major research institute focused on breast cancer and high-throughput screening in genomics for breast cancer up in Western Pennsylvania. 

Dr. Robert Malone: And then I transitioned, I started a company called Inovio based on laboratory findings that we had. We've had many, many discoveries relating to gene therapy and vaccines. This RNA story is just part of it. The use of pulse electrical fields for delivery and starting Inovio. And then the founders of Inovio, my clients back in Norway, pulled back when the planes hit the towers and left us high and dry, and a colleague at the Department of Business and Economic Development in Maryland connected me with a startup company that had received the contract for managing all biodefense products for the Department of Defense that was called DynPort Vaccine Company up in Frederick. 

Dr. Robert Malone: And that's when I transitioned from being more of an academic to the advanced development world of clinical research, regulatory affairs, project management, compliance, quality assurance, all of that stuff that goes into actually making a product. And for me, it was a huge epiphany that the world really didn't need more academic thought leaders and I was wasting my time focusing on that. What the world really needed was that people understood the underlying technology and the discovery research world, but also understood advanced development, which is that drug development, highly regulated world. And there aren't very many of those. 

Dr. Robert Malone: So I set out to become really expert in that latter part and worked with the government, particularly in biodefense and vaccine development, for a couple of decades. And that brings me to the present. So I do have deep relations with the government, I've captured I think a couple of billion dollars in grants and contracts for companies that I've worked with and clients from the government, from BARTA (Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority), from the Department of Defense (DoD) and others. 

Dr. Robert Malone: And I've done a startup focused on drug repurposing for Zika in close collaboration with the DoD and we had good progress with identifying repurposed drugs. And now since the beginning of this outbreak, when I got a call from Wuhan from a colleague that's in the intelligence community saying, "Robert, you got to get your team spun up," I've been focusing on drug repurposing because I thought that was the best solution to mitigating death and disease in the short-term while new drugs and vaccines were being developed. 

Dr. Robert Malone: And the group that I've been working with is just about to enter the clinic. We've done a case series in our development work with the drugs we're working with. But we're just about to start. IND (Investigational New Drug) covered really phase three or phase four, because they're all licensed off-patent drugs both in the outpatient as a virtual trial structure and in the inpatient in the States, and then also a large inpatient trial in India. So that's brings me to the present is I'm a vaccinologist who has pretty deep credentials also on the drug side, particularly in drug discovery, drug development, computational drug analysis, high-throughput analysis, that kind of cool stuff. 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Well, thanks for bringing us up to speed on your credentials and your current state. I would contend that you transitioned into this latter phase of your life into something that you felt you're better apt to do and there was less qualified people to do it, and here is that you're transitioning to an area that there's even far fewer qualified people to do it. And that is really expert academics who have a deep understanding of philosophy and ethics. And it's clear that one of your biggest contributions is the commentary you're making on the bioethics of what's going on. So I'm wondering if you could share your views on the bioethics as what's happening and how shocking it really is and really what seems to be the catalyst that got you into this discussion. 

Dr. Robert Malone: Well, thank you for taking that up and for the respect in your comments. Both my wife and I are deeply ethical people. We've been married – we're high school sweethearts. We try really hard to live ethical lives and to help our fellow man as well as the animals in our lives. So that's just the place we come from, it's bedrock. We're not rich people. The logic here, so I had this fascinating too, I recall, with the Canadian physician that you alluded to that poured his heart out about the situation in Canada that he's encountering both with a vaccine administration in primary practice, and also in administering alternative therapies to outpatients, which generally have no therapies available. 

Dr. Robert Malone: I mean, the position is a bit shocking in the emergency rooms all across the world, it's basically, you go to the ER and if you're O2 sets are down pushing 80, they say, "Well, go back out and come back when your lips are blue." And that's the essence of it. They don't really offer anything. So many physicians, including this gentleman in Canada, have been seeking alternative strategies and they've tested and administered these various agents. We've heard of fluvoxamine, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine. There's many, many others now including those that we're working with that seem to have therapeutic benefit when administered early to shut down this hyper-inflammatory response. 

Dr. Robert Malone: So he shared this and he shared the stories of multiple reports of vaccine adverse events that in his clinical judgment were clearly vaccine-related, and some of them quite serious, and that the Canadian government would summarily dispose of those as non-related even though in his clinical judgment, they clearly were related. And he spoke about the enticement of children in Canada with ice cream and the willingness of the Canadian government to administer vaccine to children without their parents’ or guardians’ consent after enticing them with ice cream cones and some of the other things going on in Canada that I just found shocking. But I

Dr. Joseph Mercola: This was all legal, right? This is legal in Canada? 

Dr. Robert Malone: It is government policy. Whether or not it's legal, the lawyers have got their teeth into this now, and that will play out over the next few months. But it is government policy. So a fine distinction, but I think not a trivial one. And it mirrors what we're seeing across the world, where governments are taking liberties with people's health and their rights without real legislative authorization to do so in most cases. 

Dr. Robert Malone: So Jill and I are both trained in bioethics. I listened to this and called the call off, finished the call at midnight, went to bed on Saturday night, and woke up Sunday morning, said, "Oh, I know that there is something I can do to help this gentleman. I can apply my knowledge and Jill's knowledge of bioethics and write a lay press opinion piece relating to the bioethics of experimental vaccines under emergency use authorization." I have intimate knowledge of not only the emergency use authorization legislation, the FDA policies behind it, I even know the people that wrote it. 

Dr. Robert Malone: So we dove in, refreshed our memories on the whole history of the modern bioethics construct that briefly runs from Nuremberg Trials to the Nuremberg Accord, to Helsinki Accord, to the Belmont Report in the United States, and to the common rule that exists in the code of federal regulations. 

Dr. Robert Malone: And we reviewed all that and then wrote a piece based on that that is informed by what I understood about emergency use authorization status, which is that, in short, all of these vaccine products, these genetic vaccine products that we have available here in the States and in Canada remain experimental products. They are not authorized for marketing. They're being deployed under emergency use authorization, which is actually something that's rarely been used, was used with anthrax vaccines, by the FDA for vaccination in an epidemic or pandemic context. For instance, with the Ebola vaccine that I worked with quite a bit for DoD, that was prosecuted under expanded use access, which allowed much more rigorous capture of adverse events and enabled those clear licensure for Merck based on that. 

Dr. Robert Malone: So the core bioethics here have three key components. This is solidly grounded. It's written into federal law. This is not subtle. You have the right as someone who potentially would accept an experimental product, which is what these are right now, the full disclosure of any adverse events. So associated with that product, any adverse event risks. That's akin to the little package insert when you get a prescription drug, or even Tylenol. That little white piece of paper with a small writing. And when you read all those things, you start at things you say, "Oh, that's not too bad," and then you end up at saying, "Holy moly, this is going to kill me." 

Dr. Robert Malone: And the ones at the top are the common events and the ones down below are the rare events that may or may not be related to the drug. Well, you're owed the same level of disclosure about these vaccines. And I don't know if any, but have you seen the sheets that they give out for these? But they're essentially blank. 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Blank. Yeah. 

Dr. Robert Malone: So, that's not okay. So there has to be full disclosure of risks, can't be hidden. Number two, it has to be communicated in a way that you can comprehend it. What that generally means is that the disclosure of those risks and other aspects of that experimental contexts have to be written in about 8th grade language. And usually one is required for clinical research to undergo a process to verify that the people that are participating in the trial or the experimental research fully comprehend what those risks are and what the nature of the trial is. So you don't just toss it out. You usually have to verify that in fact, people comprehend it. 

Dr. Robert Malone: Third point is that the acceptance of the experimental product has to be fully voluntary, pre-IND willing, uncoerced, and not enticed. I argue that all of this public messaging that we've all been bombarded with and now it's turned into these, really, biopsy psychological operations-based messaging that's coming now down through various fact-checking organizations and media. That all constitutes coercion. It's putting pressure on you and your children and your aunt and your grandmother and everybody else. 

Dr. Robert Malone: And the most egregious example of this happened two days ago, that I've ever seen, which is the federal government identifying 12 people, this is a point near and dear to your heart, Dr. Mercola, and labeling them as The Dirty Dozen. That these are people spreading misinformation, and that they are contributing to death. They are responsible for causing death because they are disseminating what the government has determined to be misleading information about vaccines. This is mind-boggling to me and to most of my colleagues that

Dr. Joseph Mercola: If I can just put in an interjection there because not just I'm number one on the list, but this is a classic illustration of Orwellian doublespeak because they are the ones who are causing the deaths as you're going to go on and [crosstalk 00:29:04]. 

Dr. Robert Malone: Precisely. 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: It's a classic doublespeak. And this is old news. This is from a PDF that was created by an organization called CCDH, center for something opposing digital hate, when they're the ones that are promoting digital death. And they're funded. They spun up about less than two years ago and they're funded by dark money that is undisclosed and clearly a front group for the nefarious organizations that are pursuing this. So I'm sorry for the interruption, but I just [crosstalk 00:29:38]. 

Dr. Robert Malone: Yeah, you don't even have to go to dark money, it's out in the open. There's this Trusted News Initiative led by the BBC which overtly [crosstalk 00:29:51] they're very proud of this. They even announced this in a press release from the BBC last fall that they have integrated Big Tech, Big Media and new media — Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc. — into an organization that was intended to control false narratives relating to elections, but they decided to turn it on what they perceived as false narratives for vaccines. 

Dr. Robert Malone: And then, as if that wasn't enough, the Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have announced initiatives where they're, for instance, making block grants to Facebook, which is then funding these new pop-up fact-checker organizations staffed by – some people have sent me the adverts, it's basically, "Hey, want to make some money, you can be a fact-checker too. Sign up here." And that's the level of expertise they're bringing to this. But they are employing methods to smear people and to bandage information that people have available. 

Dr. Robert Malone: And what happens is these fact-checker organizations will make their pseudo fact-check, like even what I experienced with Reuters, which was transparently false, their fact check, but then the media will recycle the fact-check. So that moves up in the Google ranking and they're citing themselves. There's some slang for this type of behavior that ends in the word jerk, and we'll just leave it at that. But that's what's going on. And it's sponsored by the likes of Wellcome Trust and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and they're quite proud of it. 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Yes, indeed. So let's continue with the bioethics violations. And I wonder if you could also focus with respect to that, which there's two ones that seem particularly egregious and one would be the intention of using this gene intervention for, and it is, and you're an expert and probably one of the most qualified people

Dr. Robert Malone: Yeah, assertive. Dr. Joseph Mercola: -in the world who call it that because there are others who have really blasted me for misdescribing this, but it is a gene intervention. Dr. Robert Malone: The German government has specifically outlawed the use of gene therapy-based vaccine as a term. It's a disallowed term. One can only call these vaccines. One cannot call them genetic vaccines or gene therapy vaccines by law from the German government. 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Yeah. So anyway, they're intending, targeting these gene therapies to children who are at virtually no significant clinical risk and even worse, pregnant women who has an unborn child, which has radically increased the risk of spontaneous abortions in the first and second trimester. So if you can comment on that and the fact that there is, by design, by intention, no system or process to capture all the side effects, it was somehow left out. 

Dr. Robert Malone: Okay, so those are two big topic areas that [crosstalk 00:33:25]. One involves the self-reporting of adverse events, and that relates to the story I was telling you about the difference between this vaccine and the Ebola vaccine. And the other one relates to this push for universal vaccination and for vaccinating children, infants through adolescents and forced vaccination of young adults through a requirement, if they wish to return to their university education and complete their degrees, this includes physician students, by the way, so a med student in his or her third year must accept vaccine now or they won't finish their M.D. So that's sounds like coercion to me. 

Dr. Robert Malone: And so the situation, as you say, and I think it's important for the listenership to recognize that what we have is still an emerging understanding of what the adverse events are. So if you want to go there, let's park it, but I could tell you the story of how the cardiotoxicity adverse event was recognized, and it was not through official channels. So there is the appearance that the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) is deliberately underreporting adverse events to the public. 

Dr. Robert Malone: And there's the appearance that there was manipulation of safety data analysis and reporting in the phase 1, 2, 3 clinical trials for some of these products by focusing on, I don't know if this is within your lexicon, patients who had completed the study per protocol, as opposed to those that entered the study as intended to treat. That's a subtle distinction, but what it means is that if you've only accepted one dose of vaccine under those clinical trial protocols and you have an adverse event and you decide to drop out or they gently suggest that you shouldn't take the second dose, that information about the adverse events that you received which would have made you at even higher risk for the second dose is lost, is not included in the safety analysis. 

Dr. Robert Malone: This is a classic way to manipulate safety data in clinical research. And it's strictly forbidden. So the FDA is onto that trick. And normally, if I was to do that, I would get slapped down immediately. Why they allow these large pharma to do this, and you can't claim that Pfizer didn't know what they were doing, is beyond me and I'll just leave it at that. 

Dr. Robert Malone: In the case of the current data, now that we know about the adverse events associated with the cardiotoxicity in adolescents and the damage to the heart associated with that, and the deaths associated with that, if people can start to do calculations based on official CDC data, and those data are flawed. They probably underreport the true adverse event rate by about a hundredfold if you're relying on the VAERS database that's historic information. But you can look at those data. And if you're a data scientist, you can do the calculations that the CDC is not doing and not disclosing to us about risk benefit. 

Dr. Robert Malone: And the ones that I've seen done by well-trained and highly experienced actuarial specialists, people that work for the insurance industry that do this for a living because it's how they make their buck, come out literally upside down. It's important to understand the total number of deaths in children up to the age of 18 from COVID in the United States according to CDC from the beginning of the outbreak to the present is less than 380 people, and similarly in the U.K. Most of those are people with significant pre-existing conditions. So if you're talking about your average healthy kid, the probability of death and disease from COVID is tiny, the probability of cardiotoxicity or death is also tiny. 

Dr. Robert Malone: But there you got a ratio of tiny to tiny, and that ratio comes out suggesting that there will be more lives lost to receipt of the vaccine in a universal vaccine campaign than there would be if all those kids were infected by SARS-CoV-2. This upside down ratio appears to extend or very close to equivalent at least up to the age of 30. So we're in a position where the data that we have admittedly flawed, and as you point out, is that by intent or what? From my standpoint, the data are the data, so I can't smoke out what somebody within health and human services intended to do, but I can look at the data and others can. 

Dr. Robert Malone: And the data absolutely do not support a positive risk benefit ratio for vaccination of infants through young adults and based on any normal criteria. So then why are they doing this crazy stuff? It seems to all be wrapped around the axle of the need to justify universal vaccination. 

Dr. Robert Malone: And I argue that this goes back – this is actually a midcentury policy, this goes back to the '50s and the '60s. In the polio vaccine campaign when the government and world health authorities established a position that it was okay to lie, to withhold information about risk for vaccines, because to have the full spectrum of information about the risks of vaccines would cause people to not accept the vaccine. So, "Shut up, we know it's best for you and don't question us." It is a firmly authoritarian position. It is intrinsically Orwellian. 

Dr. Robert Malone: It's exactly the kind of stuff that George wrote about in his little book, “1984,” but it was a warning to us to the future from the past of how governments and authoritarian structures will behave. And they do behave. In China, China is very good about this, very efficient in controlling their population, controlling information, controlling information on the internet. And some might say that the Western democracies look at China and say, "I'd like some more of that because you're being really successful and I'd rather prefer to have a compliant population." 

Dr. Robert Malone: So this is justified. I learned this recently, I don't read Plato on a routine basis but in the philosopher Plato's writings, he speaks about the noble lie, which is the idea that people in positions of authority or high status are justified in lying to the general public for their own good. So this is much like daddy is going to tell you a lie or mommy so that you will do what they want you to do and you shouldn't question it, or here, is intrinsically authoritarian and paternalistic. 

Dr. Robert Malone: But this was the way people thought about things mid-century. And I think what's happened is that this has perpetuated, somebody found a clear and explicit statement to this effect that in the 1984 federal register, that's ironic, in which they say, the government posts in the federal register that any information about risks of vaccine that would be contrary to perceived need of vaccine uptake shall be suppressed. So it's clear federal policy going back to 1984 and beyond that this is the way they're going to handle things. And they're going to handle it with the noble lie of saying, "No, there's no risks and what we're doing is fully justified." 

Dr. Robert Malone: And that now I think as it's moved through time, it's standard CDC and HHS policy to do this during outbreaks or vaccines. But now it's run into this whole new world where people expect to be able to access information efficiently and transparently, and on the other hand, the government has these amazingly powerful tools with social media and media management that they've never had before. So the size of the hammer that the government has to impose their will on us and try to manage the words that we use and the thoughts that we can think has become enormously powerful. 

Dr. Robert Malone: And I don't think we have to go to imagining some grand conspiracy at Davos between certain individuals, I think this is an emergent phenomena of the intersection of old-school of thinking about information management and new-school capabilities and technologies. And I think the CDC, HHS (Health and Human Services), WHO (World Health Organization), and Wellcome Trust or Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, etc, etc, have just grossly misread the population, certainly in the United States. And so now we're in a position where before, according to Del Bigtree, if you can believe, that there was about 1% to 2% of people who self-identified as antivaxxers, and we're now up north in 40%, and clearly we have about 40% to 50% of the population, they're just dug in. They're not going to accept these vaccines. 

Dr. Robert Malone: And clearly based on the messaging and the facial expressions of Tony Fauci and others that we're seeing in the action, think this through, the White House finds it necessary to have a special group to identify and target 12 American citizens for what they believe to be vaccine disinformation, and to make a big public press announcement about it. Don't they have anything else to do? It seems like the world has got bigger problems than Dr. Mercola, but what do I know? Dr. Robert Malone: The whole thing is mind-bending. And for a lot of people, including many Europeans, are really lit up over this. They remember – European intellectuals are very aware of the dynamics that happened in Germany in the 1930s. And they are [inaudible 00:45:23] and very radicalized over this massive media management and government authoritarian messaging that's coming down. And I think this could be a turning point in a lot of things. Now, I've gone on at length, I apologize. 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: I got no problem. Dr. Robert Malone: I'm going to pause and let you ask a few questions. Dr. Joseph Mercola: It's what you're here for. Yeah, I have a few questions because I have a partial disagreeing with you and I'm not sure who's right but it's a different opinion. And I think it's only a disagreement because my suspicion, and I certainly could be wrong, is that you don't have the data, you haven't been exposed to the data. So the question I have for you – we talk a lot about George Orwell, “1984,” great book, very small, but there's a much bigger book. It's 1,200 pages or close to it. It's called “Atlas Shrugged.” And I'm wondering if you've ever read it. 

Dr. Robert Malone: Of course, I have. Dr. Joseph Mercola: Okay, good. Then if youDr. Robert Malone: So I feel like I am John Galt in many ways. 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Yes. WellDr. Robert Malone: And that may seem egotistical, but I posted the other day on Twitter, I feel like I'm living some bizarre hybrid. If you remember, probably you do as a physician, Sinclair Lewis's book “Arrowsmith.” 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Sure. Dr. Robert Malone: It certainly had a big impact on my thinking as a young physician. I feel like I'm living some weird hybrid of “The Fountainhead” and “Arrowsmith,” both of which didn't have very pleasant endings. I mean, they ended up torturing John Galt in the end. But maybe it's partially because I channeled the script of “The Fountainhead” subconsciously. I live on a farm. I opted out of society in some ways. I have a virtual practice that I consult in my areas of specialty. I leave people alone, I try to stay below the radar. And then these set of events that thrust me into the limelight inadvertently, and now I'm being subjected to a character assassination and many other tools that are rather unpleasant, but [crosstalk 00:47:39]- 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Yeah. I mean, I'm actually reading it now for the first time, “Atlas Shrugged.” And just when I first heard your story, it was clear to me that you were one of the people, and there many people who haven't read the book, but it's just one of the best books you'll ever read and there's no question, especially pertinent to this. The book is 75 years old, and it's very impression of what's happening now, even more so than “1984.” 

Dr. Joseph Mercola: But people like you who are really unbelievably committed to doing hard work and identifying and providing benefit and value to society are targeted and abused. And it's just essentially, ultimately you just got to escape and get out and what you sounds like you've practically done to your own life. But, where was I going with this? The extension of this and what we tie together is you in other interviews you've said you avoid discussing conspiracy theories because you prefer to take the high road and dismiss this as incompetence and groupthink. And it very well may be, but there were some pretty powerful data points that are just otherwise. 

Dr. Robert Malone: I'm not saying there isn't sneaky stuff going on. I am intimately familiar with the power of large Pharma to manipulate governments. For instance, Pfizer has purchased the entire data set from Israel from [inaudible 00:49:16]. Pfizer is acting globally with many, many major Western democracies to have their way. And this is what Big Pharma does if it's given freedom to do so, it seems, and Pfizer has a long history of misbehavior, but I also work as an expert witness and I have intimate understanding of other large pharmaceutical firms in the vaccine space and there is a rich and long history of misbehavior. 

Dr. Robert Malone: And here we have a situation where they have been given free reign. They've been absolved from literally, “go forth, thou shall not be held liable, and save the world.” And if you give that kind of liberty and power to a global multinational and absolve them of any accountability, they will serve their stockholders. They are not geared to serving the rest of us, whatever they may say in their press releases. And that's just how Big Pharma behaves. And we've chosen this model, and you face it in your practice in messaging, having to do with alternative treatments and the importance of wellness, etc., those are not consistent with the, “Take this pill, pay your price and shut up” kind of business model. 

Dr. Robert Malone: And I'm not saying that, personally, I think that Mr. Gates and his foundation has done enormous irreparable harm to the world health community through his actions and his own personal biases and he has really distorted global public health. And at some point, there will be books written about this, and I'm sure enormous number of Ph.D. theses will be granted. But meanwhile, back at the ranch, we all got to live it. And I'm not saying that it's not going on, I'm just saying that I have to stay grounded in data and facts. And investigative journalism is not my business.

COVID-19 Injection Campaign Violates Bioethics Laws

 

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Safety data analysis and reporting in clinical trials of the COVID jabs appear to have been manipulated in at least some cases. One method for manipulating randomized clinical trial safety data is to only analyze the “per protocol” treatment group (those who completed all doses and were fully compliant with the study design) as opposed to “intent to treat” which would include all patients that have signed informed consent
  • For example, if a participant only accepted one dose and trial protocol called for two, under a “per protocol” analysis, adverse events they experienced would be dismissed and not included in the safety analysis. This is a classic way to manipulate safety data in clinical research, and it's usually forbidden
  • Since the COVID shots only have emergency use authorization, they are experimental products and, as such, they are not authorized for marketing
  • Bioethics are written into federal law. As an experimental trial participant, you have the right to receive full disclosure of any adverse event risks. Full disclosure of risks is not being done, and in fact is being suppressed
  • Adverse event risks must also be communicated in a way that you can comprehend what the risks are, and the acceptance of an experimental product must be fully voluntary and uncoerced. Enticement is strictly forbidden

As the inventor of the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine platform, Dr. Robert Malone is one of the most qualified individuals to opine on the benefits and potential risks of this technology.

His background includes a medical degree from Northwestern University, a master's degree from Salk Institute, a bachelor's degree in biochemistry from UC Davis, a Giannini fellowship in pathology and a post-graduate fellowship in global clinical research at Harvard.

He taught pathology to medical students for about a decade at the University of Maryland and the University of California Davis, and then became an associate professor of surgery at Uniformed Services, University of the Health Sciences, where he launched a major research institute focused on breast cancer and high-throughput screening in genomics for breast cancer.

After that, he helped found a company called Inovio, which has brought forth a number of gene therapy discoveries, including vaccines, and the use of pulsed electrical fields as a delivery method. After 9/11, a colleague at the University of Maryland's department of business and economic development connected him with Dynport Vaccine Company, a startup that had received a DoD contract to manage its biodefense products.

"That's when I transitioned from being more of an academic to the advanced development world of clinical research, regulatory affairs, project management, compliance, quality assurance — all of that stuff that goes into actually making a product," Malone explains.

"It was a huge epiphany that the world really didn't need more academic thought leaders and [that] I was wasting my time focusing on that. What the world really needed was that people understood the underlying technology and the discovery research world, but also understood advanced development, which is that drug development is a highly-regulated world. And there aren't very many of those.

So, I set out to become really expert in that latter part and worked with the government, particularly in biodefense and vaccine development, for a couple of decades. And that brings me to the present.

I've captured a couple of billion dollars in grants and contracts for companies that I've worked with, and clients from the government, from BARDA [Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority], from the Department of Defense and others."

COVID-19 'Vaccines' Are Gene Therapy

I've been accused of falsely stating that these COVID shots are not vaccines but gene modifying interventions. However, even Malone agrees with this statement, and as the inventor of the technology, he should know. He points out that in Germany, by law you cannot refer to this technology as a genetic vaccine or gene therapy vaccine. "The German government has specifically outlawed the use of gene therapy-based vaccine as a term," he says.

With his background, and having received the COVID shot himself, he can hardly be called an "anti-vaxxer" and/or someone who doesn't believe in gene therapies. Yet, he recently went public with concerns about the safety of rolling out this kind of technology on a mass scale, and the unethical ways in which they're being promoted.

As has become the trend, he was immediately censored. Wikileaks even went so far as to erase him from the historical section of the mRNA vaccine page and his own personal Wikipedia page was removed. All references to Malone inventing the mRNA technology were removed and attributed to a variety of institutions instead.

Blowing the Whistle

Malone's public involvement with the COVID jab issue began with a short essay1 reflecting on the bioethics of the current campaign to get a needle in every arm. This essay grew out of a conversation he'd had with a Canadian physician. Malone's essay catalyzed an interview with Bret Weinstein in June 2021 on the DarkHorse Podcast.

This isn't the first time Malone has spoken out against unethical behavior in science. He was also a whistleblower in the Jesse Gelsinger death case,2 back in 1999. Gelsinger was a young man who had a rare metabolic disorder called ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency syndrome (OTCD), where dangerous amounts of ammonia build up in your blood.

He'd been diagnosed at the age of 2, and was managing his condition with a regimen of nearly 50 drugs a day. At 17, Gelsinger signed up for an investigational gene therapy. Like the COVID shots, the therapy involved injecting a gene attached to an adenovirus, which would be integrated into his DNA to permanently produce an enzyme that prevents ammonia buildup.

Gelsinger was the 18th person to receive the gene therapy, and while the others had only experienced mild side effects, Gelsinger had a severe response after scientists at the University of Pennsylvania administered adenoviruses doses that were far above what had been approved by the corresponding safety committee.

Gelsinger became disoriented and developed jaundice and acute inflammation, followed by a rare blood clotting disorder and multi-organ failure. He was dead within days. Even a decade later, Gelsinger's death is still considered the biggest setback for gene therapy.3

"When the Jesse Gelsinger events happened, I also had long been a deep insider in the gene therapy space, so I had specific knowledge of what had happened at Penn — the ethical transgressions, shall we say, that occurred — and had awareness, again, just like now, of the technology," Malone says. "So, I was able to make sense of things that otherwise were obscure for journalists and even other scientists."

After speaking out about the ethical transgressions that contributed to Gelsinger's death (dosing which exceeded approved levels), Malone became a "persona non-grata" in the gene therapy community. In other words, he was blacklisted by his peers and prevented from participating in gene therapy research.

"That's part of why I went in a different direction with my career and focused on government work and biodefense, supporting the Department of Defense," Malone says. "The lesson learned for me is that I'm able to be resilient, together with my wife's support.

Another key lesson was that your friends will support you through times of crisis if you behave with integrity and maintain your friendships and treat people with respect. I also had a lot of support for having spoken out and taken an ethical high road on that and not compromised myself …

It's part of why I'm comfortable [speaking out now]. People tell me that I come across as balanced and calm. But yes, this is a little bit frightening and once again, [I'm] putting my career on the line. But once again many of my colleagues in the government are grateful that I'm speaking this way. They are not able to have a voice because of their jobs and government policies about speaking out."

Public Responses to Censorship Make a Difference

As explained by Malone, he's been heavily censored since his three-hour interview with Brett Weinstein. LinkedIn even deleted his account. However, LinkedIn users all around the world canceled their accounts in protest and wrote the company, explaining their cancellations were in protest of Malone being censored.

The social media uproar culminated in a major news article in a mainstream Italian paper, which appears to have pushed LinkedIn over the edge. LinkedIn eventually reinstated Malone's account and even sent him a letter of apology.

"I don't think I've ever heard of a company writing a letter of apology after delisting and deleting somebody," he says. "My sins were 'profound,'" he says sarcastically, "They were that I outed the chairman of the board of directors of Reuters who is also sitting on the board of Pfizer, for cross-posting the Wall Street Journal article on vaccine toxicity risks, and well, basically for complaining about censorship.

So, they sent me my list of sins with six different posts that were to pretty much anybody's eye innocuous, which I then took and cross-posted onto Twitter. So, that revealed the absurdity of that … The note [of apology] that I received basically said, 'Look, we don't have the expertise to censor you, but if you cross the line, we have the right to summarily delete you again and so mind your manners.'"

The Repurposing of Drugs to Combat Pandemics

In recent years, Malone has been involved in yet another startup company (Atheric Pharmaceuticals), in collaboration with the DoD, that focused on repurposing drugs to combat Zika infection. That company went bankrupt for lack of investor interest in repurposing drugs for treating infectious diseases.

When the COVID-19 outbreak began, he got a call from a colleague who works in the intelligence community in Wuhan, China, who urged him to put together a team to investigate the possibility of repurposing old drugs against COVID.

His team is currently about to enter clinical trials for a number of licensed off-patent drugs. That said, his biggest contribution so far is probably his commentary on the bioethics of what is going on.

"Both my wife and I are deeply ethical people," he says. "We're high school sweethearts. We try really hard to live ethical lives and to help our fellow man as well as the animals in our lives. So that's just the place we come from. It's bedrock. We're not rich people.

I recall a long telephone call with the Canadian physician that poured his heart out about the situation in Canada that he's encountering, both with vaccine administration in primary practice, and also in administering alternative therapies to outpatients, which generally have no therapies available.

I mean, the position is a bit shocking — in the emergency rooms all across the world. Basically, you go to the ER and if your O2 sets are down, pushing towards 80, they say, 'Well, go [home] and come back when your lips are blue.' And that's the essence of it. They don't really offer anything.

So many physicians, including this gentleman in Canada, have been seeking alternative strategies and they've tested and administered these various agents. We've heard of fluvoxamine, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine. There are many, many others now, including those that we're working with (famotidine and celecoxib) that seem to have therapeutic benefit when administered early to shut down this hyperinflammatory response.

So, he shared this and the stories of multiple reports of vaccine adverse events that in his clinical judgment were clearly vaccine related, some of them quite serious, and that the Canadian government would summarily dispose of those as non-related even though in his clinical judgment, they clearly were related.

He spoke about the enticement of children in Canada with ice cream and the willingness of the Canadian government to administer vaccine to children without their parents or guardians consent after enticing them with ice cream cones, and some of the other things that I just found shocking ...

It mirrors what we're seeing across the world, where governments are taking liberties with people's health and their rights without real legislative authorization to do so in most cases."

Core Bioethical Principles Are Being Violated

Malone and his wife Jill are both trained in bioethics, so after listening to this Canadian colleague, he decided he could help by writing a lay press opinion piece about the bioethics of experimental vaccines under emergency use authorization.

"I have intimate knowledge of not only the emergency use authorization legislation, the FDA policies behind it, I even know the people that wrote it," Malone says.

"So, we dove in, refreshed our memories on the whole history of the modern bioethics construct that briefly runs from Nuremberg Trials to the Nuremberg Code, to Helsinki Accord, to the Belmont Report in the United States, and to the common rule that exists in the code of federal regulations."

In summary, since the COVID shots only have emergency use authorization status, they are experimental products, and as such, they are not authorized for marketing. The core bioethical principles that apply therefore involve three key components:

1.Bioethics are written into federal law — As an experimental trial participant, which is what everyone is at the moment who accepts a COVID shot, you have the right to receive full disclosure of any adverse event risks. Based on that disclosure, you then have the right to decide whether you want to participate.

Adverse event risk disclosure should be provided at the level of detail disclosed in any drug package insert. However, the COVID shots have no such insert or detailed disclosure, and adverse event reports are even being suppressed and censored from the public.

Instead, as explained by the FDA,4 since the COVID shots are not yet licensed,5 rather than providing a package insert, the FDA directs health care providers to access a lengthy, online "fact sheet" that lists both clinical trial adverse events and ongoing updates of adverse events reported after EUA administration to the public.

A shorter, separate, online fact sheet with far less information in it is available for patients — but, provider or patient, you still have to know where to look up each of the three EUA vaccines separately on the FDA website to access those fact sheets.6

2.Adverse event risks must be communicated in a way that you can comprehend what the risks are — This means the disclosure must be written in eighth grade language. In clinical trials, researchers must actually verify participants' comprehension of the risks.

3.The acceptance of an experimental product must be fully voluntary and uncoerced — enticement is forbidden. "I argue that all of this public messaging that we've all been bombarded with … constitutes coercion," Malone says.

"The most egregious example of this that I've ever seen, is the federal government identifying 12 people … and labeling them as the dirty dozen, [saying] that they are responsible for causing death because they are disseminating what the government has determined to be misleading information about vaccines. This is mind boggling to me and to most of my colleagues."

How Falsehoods Are Getting Top Billing

As you probably know, I am on that "disinformation dozen" list. The irony of this situation is that government officials are really the ones contributing to the deaths by not adhering to bioethical principles that are enshrined in law. It's a classic case of 1984 Orwellian doublespeak.

As I mention in the interview, the "misinformation dozen" list is the creation of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a shady organization funded by dark money that sprung up less than two years ago.

"Yeah, you don't even have to go to dark money. It's out in the open. There's this Trusted News Initiative led by the BBC. They announced … last fall that they have integrated Big Tech, Big Media and new media, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, et cetera, into an organization that was intended to control false narratives relating to elections, but they decided to turn it on what they perceived as false narratives for vaccines," Malone says.

"As if that wasn't enough, the Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have announced initiatives where they're making block grants to Facebook, which is then funding these new pop-up fact-checker organizations … [that] are employing methods to smear people and to ban information …

What happens is these fact-checker organizations will make their pseudo fact check, like what I experienced with Reuters — which was transparently false, their fact check — and then the media will recycle the fact check. So that moves up in the Google ranking and they're citing themselves. That's what's going on. And it's sponsored by the likes of Wellcome Trust and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and they're quite proud of it."

Why Target Children and Pregnant Women?

Considering the unknown risks involved, why are governments and vaccine makers pushing so hard for children and pregnant women to participate in this experiment? Both have an extremely low risk for complications from COVID-19, which makes adverse effects of the vaccine all the more unacceptable, if not all together intolerable.

There's the appearance that there was manipulation of safety data analysis and reporting in the Phase 1, 2, 3 clinical trials … by focusing on patients who had completed the study per protocol, as opposed to those that entered the study as intended to treat. [If] you've only accepted one dose of vaccine under those clinical trial protocols and you have an adverse event … that information about the adverse event … is lost. It's not included in the safety analysis. This is a classic way to manipulate safety data in clinical research, and it's strictly forbidden. ~ Dr. Robert Malone

Making matters worse, there's no process in place to capture all side effects. Somehow, this was left out, and there's evidence to suggest this was done intentionally.

"I think it's important for the listenership to recognize that what we have is still an emerging understanding of what the adverse events are," Malone says. "I could tell you the story of how the cardiotoxicity adverse event was recognized, and it was not through official channels. There is [also] the appearance that the CDC is deliberately under-reporting adverse events to the public.

And there's the appearance that there was manipulation of safety data analysis and reporting in the Phase 1, 2, 3 clinical trials for some of these products by focusing on patients who had completed the study per protocol, as opposed to those that entered the study as intended to treat.

That's a subtle distinction, but what it means is that if you've only accepted one dose of vaccine under those clinical trial protocols and you have an adverse event, and you decide to drop it out, or they gently suggest that you shouldn't take the second dose, that information about the adverse events that you received — which would have made you at even higher risk for the second dose — is lost. It's not included in the safety analysis.

This is a classic way to manipulate safety data in clinical research, and it's strictly forbidden. So, the FDA is onto that trick. Normally, if I was to do that, I would get slapped down immediately. Why they allow these large drug companies to do this (if, in fact they did) — and you can't claim that Pfizer didn't know what they were doing — is beyond me.

Now that we know about the adverse events associated with the cardiotoxicity in adolescents and the damage to the heart and the deaths associated with that, people can start to do calculations based on official CDC data, [but] those data are flawed.

They probably under-report the true adverse event rate by about a 100-fold if you're relying on the various historic analysis information. But you can look at those data. And if you're a data scientist, you can do the calculations that the CDC is not doing and not disclosing to us about risk benefit.

The ones that I've seen done by well-trained and highly experienced specialists, people that work for the insurance industry that do this for a living … come out literally upside down."

If the clinical trials did not include patients dropped after Dose 1 in the safety analysis, this would indicate a "per protocol" safety analysis was performed, and therefore that the safety data analyses leading to the emergency use authorizations were not based on rigorous safety assessments.

Multiple patients claiming to have been included in COVID-19 clinical trials have also reported on social media that their reports were excluded from final safety analyses, although this cannot be verified.

Risks Significantly Outweigh Benefits

A study7 posted July 7, 2021, which looked at deaths occurring in children in the U.K. during the first 12 months of the pandemic, found 99.995% of children diagnosed with COVID-19 survived.

By July 19, 2021, in the United States, a total of 335 children under 18 had died with a COVID-19 diagnosis on their death certificate.8 An analysis by Marty Makary and colleagues at Johns Hopkins, together with FAIR Health, showed none of the children under 18 who died and were diagnosed with COVID-19 between April and August 2020 were free of preexisting medical conditions such as cancer.9

Now, while the average healthy child has a minuscule chance of dying from COVID-19, and their risk of developing heart inflammation from the COVID jab is also quite low, the risk associated with the injection is still significantly greater than any risk associated with the natural infection. As explained by Malone:

"That ratio comes out suggesting that there will be more lives lost to receipt of the 'vaccine' in a universal vaccine campaign than there would be if all those kids were infected by SARS-CoV-2. This upside-down ratio appears to extend or very close to equivalent at least up to the age of 30.

So, we're in a position where the data that we have are admittedly flawed. Is that by intent or what? From my standpoint, the data are the data, so I can't smoke out what somebody within health and human services intended to do, but I can look at the data, and others can.

And the data absolutely do not support a positive risk-benefit ratio for vaccination of infants through young adults, based on any normal criteria. So then why are they doing this crazy stuff? It seems to all be wrapped around the axle of the need to justify universal vaccination.

I argue that this is actually a mid-century policy that goes back to the '50s and the '60s polio vaccine campaign, when the government and world health authorities established a position that it was OK to lie, to withhold information about risk for vaccines, because to have the full spectrum of information about the risks of vaccines would cause people to not accept the vaccine.

So, 'Shut up, we know it's best for you and don't question us' is a firmly authoritarian position. It is intrinsically authoritarian and paternalistic. It's exactly the kind of stuff that George Orwell wrote about in his book '1984.' It was a warning … of how governments and authoritarian structures will behave and do behave."

Denial of Vaccine Dangers Has Been Federal Policy Since 1984

Ironically, Malone points out that in the 1984 Federal Register,10 it's stated that posting information into the federal register about vaccine risks that jeopardizes vaccine I uptake shall be suppressed.

"So, it's a clear federal policy going back to 1984," Malone says. "This is the way they're going to handle things. And they're going to handle it with the noble lie of saying, 'No, there are no risks and what we're doing is fully justified' …

I don't think we have to go to imagining some grand conspiracy at Davos between certain individuals. I think this is an emergent phenomena of the intersection of old-school thinking about information management and new-school capabilities and technologies.

I think the CDC, HHS, WHO, and Wellcome Trust or Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, etcetera, have just grossly misread the population, certainly in the United States. And so now we're in a position where before, according to Del Bigtree, there was about 1% to 2% of people that self-identified as anti-vaxxers, and we're now [above] 40%. Clearly, about 40 to 50% of the population are just dug in. They're not going to accept these vaccines.

The White House now finds it necessary to have a special group to identify and target 12 American citizens for what they believe to be vaccine disinformation, and to make a big public press announcement about it. Don't they have anything else to do? It seems like the world has got bigger problems than Dr. Mercola, but what do I know?

The whole thing is mind-bending. And a lot of people, including many Europeans, are really lit up over this. They remember. European intellectuals are very aware of the dynamics that happened in Germany in the 1930s … I think this could be a turning point in a lot of things."

The Powers That Be Have Been Given Free Reign

While Malone is not interested in speculating about the intentions behind all this malfeasance, he's intimately familiar with the power of Big Pharma to manipulate governments. As detailed in other articles, several of the COVID injection makers have a rich history of illegal activity and unethical behavior, and now they have been given free reign to do as they please.

They're been completely absolved from liability if and when something goes wrong with these injections, and governments are enticing and bullying citizens to participate in Big Pharma's experiment.

"If you give that kind of liberty and power to a global multinational and absolve them of any accountability, they will serve their stockholders," Malone says. "They are not geared to serving the rest of us, whatever they may say in their press releases.

That's just how big pharma behaves, and we've chosen this model. Messaging having to do with alternative treatments and the importance of wellness, those are not consistent with the 'Take this pill, pay your price and shut up' kind of business model.

Personally, I think that Mr. Gates and his foundation have done enormous irreparable harm to world health community through his actions and his own personal biases. He has really distorted global public health. At some point, there will be books written about this, and I'm sure an enormous number of Ph.D. theses will be granted. But meanwhile, we all have to live with it."

Copyright © Fight for Your Faith