(0:00 - 2:26) After Donald Trump appointed such persons as Robert Kennedy Jr., Dr. Marty Makary, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya as heads of Health and Human Services, the FDA, and the National Institutes of Health respectively, as well as a number of others who have been outspoken critics of mRNA vaccines to key positions, there was a great deal of hope that it would not be long before mRNA gene therapies would be banned, at least in the U.S. But nine months after Donald Trump took office, that has not happened. In fact, other than a very recent withdrawal of half a billion dollars for mRNA research, no steps have been taken to curtail the use or availability of these shots. Dr. Robert Malone is well known as the inventor of mRNA gene therapies, a mission which he took on many years ago under the purest of motives, a belief that these technologies could be used to treat genetic disorders.   Dr. Malone also abandoned that research many years ago of his own free will when he discovered that there was no way to safely use that technology. The risks simply far outweighed the potential benefits. Dr. Malone also has decades of experience working with the government of the United States, with various health departments, and with the Department of Defense, and he is currently co-chair of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, after having been originally appointed as an advisor by Robert Kennedy Jr. Throughout his tenure with these government organizations, Robert has also had many interactions with the intelligence community, and so understands on a very deep level how they operate.   He's published two very important books on government corruption and manipulation of the people, Lies My Gov't Told Me, and published last October, PsyWar: Enforcing the New World Order. Dr. Malone joins me today to explain the complex reasons why these dangerous injections are still not only available to the public, but are still being recommended by the various U.S. health agencies. The answers are far from simple, but Dr. Malone remains hopeful that in time, the data which tells the real story will be allowed to dictate policy.   (2:34 - 5:38) Robert, it's a pleasure to have you back on the show. My pleasure as always, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to your viewers and colleagues up there in the People's Republic of Canada. Well put.   Before we get into the things, the specific things that I wanted to talk to you about today, there's a lot of people still who only see you as or know you as the inventor of mRNA. They do not know about your vast experience working with the government, the deep state, probably don't know about your current appointment as an advisor and coacher, I believe, on ACIP appointed by Robert Kennedy. So would you please give the viewers a brief summary of that experience that you have? So the challenge in addressing that is the statement brief.   So I'll do my best. The whole mRNA story thing happened when I was 28, and working on my MD-PhD, I ended up with a master's because I had a nervous breakdown over all the downstream effects of having these inventions and kind of the avaricious behavior of various attorneys and other scientists and academics in the context of the Salk Institute in UC San Diego, which are across the street from each other, but competitive and not under the same administrative structure, which means they don't have the same patent royalty structure, which is the key item here, having to do with the Bayh-Dole Act, which was relatively recently implemented. So that's way back in the past.   I was then an academic in pathology at University of California Davis in the Department of Pathology, teaching medical students Path for a number of years and running basically a discovery non-viral gene therapy laboratory and then was recruited from that to University of Maryland in the Department of Pathology, where I also taught pathology and molecular biology to medical students and graduate PhD students. And then, you know, I left out the small business at VyCal, where a lot of the mRNA tech and DNA vaccine tech was reduced to practice back in about 1990, 1991. So University of Maryland, Baltimore, and then Uniformed Services, University of Health Sciences, which is the DoD medical school in Bethesda, where I set up a a kind of a tissue bank genomics program for breast cancer research in western Pennsylvania in affiliation with USUS and their breast cancer program.   (5:38 - 6:44) Then started a company called Inovio that was based on tech that I'd helped pioneer involving use of post-electrical fields. That money was coming out of Norway and we had just finished the incorporation of the American branch of Inovio when the planes hit the towers. And the investors pulled.   Jill and I were left high and dry and I reached out to a colleague at the Department of Business and Economic Development in the state of Maryland, who basically opened a door for a young federal contracting company that was really a satellite of, I didn't know it at the time, one of the two mercenary armies that were maintained at the time within the United States. That was called DynCorp. The other one, of course, being Blackwater.   (6:45 - 8:05) And this is all in the context of the wars and it occurred shortly after the anthrax attacks, which we were also right in the center of living in Rockville, Maryland at the time. So, DynCorp, I joined as the associate clinical director, as I recall, and they had just acquired, it's called, the systems contract for all biodefense products for the Department of Defense. So, suddenly I went from being a discovery academic researcher, entrepreneur, doing startups and building labs and doing basic research and teaching, to just being thrown into the world of advanced development, which is to say clinical research, regulatory affairs, program management, project management, business development, all of that world in the context of really an operation that was supporting USAMRID, which is the U.S. military biodefense base up in Frederick, Maryland.   (8:07 - 10:00) At one point, I was actually vetted to become chief science officer of USAMRID. Lost that out to a former VyCal employee who didn't last very long. And I continued collaborating with people at USAMRID.   That's where I did the Zika work with repurposing drugs. I've done a lot of cutting-edge stuff in drug repurposing. I've done cutting-edge stuff in immunology, like intracellular cytokine staining technology development.   I'm relatively proficient, or was at one time, in flow cytometry. But in particular at DynCorp, I really plunged into the whole world of government contracting, big government contracting, biodefense, have experience in literally all of the biodefense vaccines out there. So the whole narrative that I don't have any background in vaccinology is absurd, for anybody that actually reads the CV, and have served as a study section member, and in many cases, study section chairperson for both DoD and NIH NIAID contracts, largely in this space of biodefense.   So typically, I used to do SBIR review, but up until I started speaking out about COVID, it was more in the range of $80-$150 million contracts. I have a lifetime capture of about $7 billion in federal funding for my clients. I'm formally trained by a Beltway Bandit company, TASC, it's been absorbed.   (10:00 - 10:36) In federal business development, I've worked for Aeras Global TB Vaccine Foundation and PATH, PATH, which are both Gates-funded entities. So again, the narrative that I don't know anything about vaccines, except for I've worked for all these vaccine companies. I was a clinical head, a clinical director of influenza vaccines at Solvay before it got sold to Abbott.   (10:37 - 11:25) I was basically responsible for about $250 million in federal contract funds for the development of a cell-based influenza vaccine. So a lot of that kind of work, but I also did a fellowship in global clinical research at Harvard, a two-year fellowship. I've done hundreds of clinical trials, phase one through phase three, worked for a regulatory sweatshop in Rockville, filing INDs and meeting with the FDA, and also with a clinical research organization, actually a few of them, that focus particularly on vaccines.   (11:25 - 13:21) So this is doing clinical trials. You can't be a principal investigator in clinical trials without taking a lot of bioethics training, they require it. I was also trained in bioethics formally, both within the DoD world and at University of Maryland.   So I have a really strong background in bioethics. I was one of the principal whistleblowers about the Jesse Gelsinger case involving the adenovirus vector gene therapy death at University of Penn, associated with Jim Wilson, and kind of destroyed my academic career by doing that. That's part of why I ended up doing Inovio and then moving into the DoD, and spearheaded a bunch of work in Zika, and also was working in support of DoD Defense Threat Reduction Agency.   I've never worked for DARPA, that's another false meme, but Defense Threat Reduction Agency, yes, in the Chem-Bio Defense Group. It was DTRA's Threat Mitigation Branch, separate branch, that funded in large part the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and I was actually the one that broke that story, revealed that, so that was another whistleblower event. And through COVID, well, before COVID, I was actually the guy on point for NewLink Genetics.   This has a Canadian link. The Canadian Public Health Service developed a very unusual vaccine strategy for Ebola, that is a recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus-based vaccine. It was known as RVSV-ZBOB.   (13:24 - 14:58) Referring to Zaire Ebola, and in its wisdom, the Canadian government sold that product, including clinical lots, to a little company in the United States called NewLink Genetics, plus all the rights for the platform for other applications for a little over a hundred thousand dollars. And when the original West African large-scale Ebola outbreak happened, there was a lot of scrambling on the part of the U.S. government to try to evaluate candidates for Ebola. One of those candidates, the one that Tony Fauci and the NIAID thought was least likely to be licensed was the PHAC product.   And so it got given to my buddies at DOD and DITRA to take care of. And the company had basically fired everybody, NewLink Genetics, that knew anything about vaccinology because they couldn't get the project funded. They used to call it free Ebola.   And so I ended up leaving my job in the beltway for a defense contractor. And with DITRA surreptitiously telling NewLink Genetics, you've got to hire this guy Malone as a consultant if you want us to fund your program. Now, I've never said that, but that's what happened.   (14:58 - 16:49) And so suddenly I found myself almost literally parachuting into, was it Minnesota or wherever the heck NewLink is, and in a very intense period of time writing proposals to BARDA that resulted in a couple hundred million dollars in awards, in shuttling back and forth to the World Health Organization, and kind of being at the tip of the spear of getting that product moved forward at a time when the WHO was very invested in the adenovirus vector technology for Ebola. It was being promoted by GSK. So we were like the poor white trash that were allowed to sit at the table, but it turned out that our tech worked and theirs didn't.   And so then NewLink, I came back from one of those meetings and met with NewLink leadership and basically said, Chuck Link and his buddy, who were focused at that time on a cancer product. And I said, well, you kind of got three choices. You can develop this vaccine yourself and save the world.   You can sell it to another company like Merck and let them save the world. Because at the time there was projections of a billion dead from Ebola coming out of Osterholm. Or I said, you can just let this go and West Africa will burn.   So it's your choice. And they said, sell it to Merck. So I was kind of the guy that brokered that, set the whole thing up, wrote the contracts that funded Merck to do what it did.   (16:50 - 17:23) And that's the license to Ebola vaccine. So once again, Robert Malone doesn't know anything about vaccine development. All he's done is mRNA vaccines, not so much.   So then COVID rolls around and I get this call from Michael Callahan, who's a CIA officer that I had collaborated with previously. I'm not CIA, never been CIA. That's another false meme.   But you can't be in biodefense and not have sockets with people in the intelligence community. They are everywhere. They're like flies.   (17:24 - 23:06) And so Callahan is the MD with the position at Harvard that often he's advised multiple presidents, been in the White House multiple times, and has kind of been one of the CIA's point persons, particularly on Ebola. He ran the Ebola remdesivir trials in Africa, for example. So he called me from Wuhan and said on January 4th of 2020 and said, hey, there's a coronavirus here that looks like it's going to be a major threat and you ought to get another team spun up to address this threat.   So I did the research, wrote a threat assessment, which is my usual process, decided that there's no way that you could build a safe and effective vaccine in time and that we needed to focus on drug repurposing. So I started down that with the latest cool tech of robot screening and computational docking and all that cool stuff into a derived x-ray crystallograph, since I got the initial sequence downloaded before they withdrew it from the NIH databases. And that was what led to the discovery of famadidine in the whole logic of really the first paper, a very high profile, huge team of kind of Nobel Prize also ran level people on famadidine and COVID or SARS-CoV-2 and the mast cell hypothesis, which now is one of the prominent hypotheses for what's going on physiologically.   And then I was asked, I wrote in response to a Canadian, actually a Canadian called me seeking through Steve Kirsch, seeking my assistance with the PHAC regulators over what he was seeing was intentional manipulation of PHAC data and a deletion of data reports concerning adverse events associated with the vaccines and coercion, enticement and compulsion, particularly of children. So this was his complaint. He wanted me to help.   And I had to say kind of like, I don't have contact. I can call people at the FDA, but I don't have contacts in Canada, really can't help you. The gentleman was subjected to the retraining, mandatory retraining in Canada, and he really doesn't want his name mentioned.   So we'll just leave that. But I woke up the next morning, the Sunday morning and realized there was something I could do to help him. And so I wrote what is, I think the first essay talking about the medical ethics of what was going on and fitting it into the context of the Nuremberg trials and the Belmont report and Helsinki Accords and all of that whole history of biomedical ethics.   And that kind of set off a cascade that involved people asking me to comment about what I knew about the RNA technology and the findings of Byram Bridle having to do with the Japanese common technical document. Again, another Canadian link. You guys are responsible for me getting kicked off of Twitter, you know, ultimately.   And so then the Bret Weinstein podcast, a number of other podcasts, the whole blowback and psywar kind of implemented on me by every liberal publication you can name, pretty much beginning with the Atlantic Monthly in particular and the New York Times, the Washington Post and all the usual characters, Bloomberg, etc. And then there was the big event. Paradoxically, strangely, what a coincidence, two days before the Joe Rogan podcast, I got deplatformed from both LinkedIn and Twitter on the same day.   Then Joe Rogan, that was his biggest interview, I think, until Bobby and then Trump. So that one went big. I talked about mass formation psychosis that broke the internet, etc.   And right about that time, the people that I was working with under contract, moving forward a group of clinical trials under DoD funding that I'd obtained to look at repurposed drugs for Ebola. So this is early treatment stuff. I'm sorry for COVID.   The DoD let me know that, and the NIH let me know that they really weren't OK with me speaking out like this. And so I have faced another one of those forks in the road and just dropped those contracts and threw myself into this brave new world of alternative media and some stack. And then here we are today, me sitting in an old pig barn with the studio that I created so that I could talk to folks like you.   (23:07 - 23:50) If that was brief, then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. Well, yes, but there's a very good reason why it takes you 10 minutes to give your history, because it is so extensive. And I'm sure that at this point in time, you've established for our viewers that you are not only a very well-rounded scientist, especially in the areas of the vaccinology and virology, but you've also worked with many companies that have worked with the government.   You've worked with government agencies themselves in the areas of health, Department of Defense, their various subsidiaries. And along the way, you've come in a great deal of contact with the intelligence community. And so you have seen from the inside firsthand how these organizations and the intelligence community operate.   (23:51 - 34:05) Which is why Bobby contacted me years ago when he was writing this book called The Real Anthony Fauci. And that was kind of the starting point. He asked me some questions and then he asked me to edit the book twice.   And that kind of was the basis for building that relationship. We've You know, it was floated by many whether or not I wanted a position in the administration. And my answer was, you've got to be kidding.   I don't want to, I'm 65. I don't want to spend the next four years being stabbed in the back on a daily basis. But agreed that if he wanted me to, I would serve on this advisory committee on immunization practices at the CDC, which is an unpaid volunteer special government employee position.   So SGE is the same category that Elon Musk was in, which constrains me in various ways having to do with conflict of interest, but allows me to make contributions in particularly in the area of vaccine policy and what's going on at the CDC, which is what brings us to the present. All right. Now I was wanting to move on to talking about principles in your book, PsyWar, and folks, if you have not read it, I strongly recommend that you do, because in that book, Robert explains the tactics that they're used in psychological warfare so that you can recognize them against them.   Yes. Thank you. However, I think it just said, I think there's, there's one other thing where I need to want to address before we get to that, because it'd be kind of out of place if we did it later.   And that is the current status of mRNA technology under the various administrations in the U.S. We've had Jay Bhattacharya take over the NIH. We've got Robert Kennedy, Jr., HHS. We've got Marty Makary, the CDC.   All of these people have been very critical of mRNA vaccines, and yet they have not been banned. Do you have any comments? Yeah. So I'm, I'm right in the sausage making process.   I'm, I'm, what's going on at ACIP is right at the center of that. And from where I sit, I'm a little bit pissed off at Vinay Prasad or some of the decisions that were made at the CDC, because it functionally resulted in passing the buck down to the ACIP, because they authorize it for marketing, but ACIP advises the director of the CDC. And since there's no director of the CDC, it goes to the secretary, which is Bobby, on how these things should be used, how we think they should be used.   And so, you know, to your point— And just to point something out for the viewers here who didn't catch it earlier, you're not just an advisor on the ACIP. You're now, I believe, co-chair. And I believe that the well-known lawyer, Aaron Seery, of the Informed Consent Action Network reports to you, does he not? No.   So Aaron and I are friends, and we've talked about various things over the last couple of months. But Aaron is no longer part of, so there's various folks that have asserted that they have a role somehow with Bobby. There's this alternative, there's this structure now that's set up.   Bobby coined the term Make America Healthy Again, MAHA. So credit to him for that. And so he ended up kind of owning the intellectual property for that as a thought space and a terminology that is now vested with his former publisher, Tony Lyons.   But there was a time in which it was being led by Del Bigtree, who Aaron Seery is tight with, and that through the ICAN network. And those folks were involved in early vetting for appointees for the HHS. And I don't want to go into the politics of what happened, but we'll just say they no longer were.   In another group, there was actually three competing groups for that vetting, and that group was marginalized. But the MAHA structure remained. Del, for reasons that we don't want to go into, was kind of moved out of that structure.   He's back to running his enterprise down in Austin. And happily doing that, raising money. And the structure vested with Tony Lyons, who was Bobby's publisher, and by the way, who has a vaccine-injured child, a daughter, very vaccine-injured.   So Tony has set up the 501c3, which is American legalese speak for the company that is the nonprofit, that is just a general interest advocacy group. And then there's a 501c4, which is MAHA Action, which is a political action group. And by way of disclosure, I'm a medical advisor for MAHA Action.   So Aaron Seery is not involved in either of those at this point, he's not involved in the administration, he's involved in ICAN, but a lot of folks retain informal links to Bobby and his structure of people like Kelly Means. So these folks within the administration speak often with a variety of people, I'm just one of many voices that Bobby seeks counsel from, from time to time. And so that's where Aaron Seery sits.   And then MAHA Action is holding its weekly meetings now, Canadians might wish to participate in those and get on that mailing list. So that's kind of the structure under which all this is moving forward. MAHA is now considered to be one of the, if not the most significant grassroots movements in American politics.   It's bipartisan. So it's perceived as a major threat by pharma and big ag and big food and processed food industry, et cetera, et cetera. Bobby and MAHA are basically taking on most, you know, they're not taking on the defense industry, but outside of defense, they pretty much are punching the ticket for all the other major corporate interests.   And so no surprise that there's an enormous amount of blowback coming back at them. And that is coming to a head at the moment, right about now in a finance committee hearing that is happening on the Hill. So Bobby is in a position where he's been called to the Hill to testify ostensibly about Trump plans relating to the Make America Healthy agenda.   But the rumor is that the Democrats and Senator Cassidy are getting up to a really attack him about the resignations of the CDC. So that's the inside baseball for, you know, it's American metaphor, I guess you might say inside hockey of what's current, you know, I brought you up to speed with the current politics. But yeah, Aaron is, Aaron and Del are not really mainstream now within that movement.   There's others. Okay. So I interrupted you with clarification about Aaron's theory when I, my original question of which really comes down to what is the current status of policy within the U.S. regarding... Regarding the JAP.   So it's complicated. And that complication derives in part from Secretary Kennedy's campaign commitments that he's not going to take anybody's vaccine away from them, which was one of the criticisms that were being weaponized against him, both in his own campaign and once he joined Trump's campaign. So as a baseline, Secretary Kennedy's position is basically anti-mandate, but also throw availability to those individuals that would choose to have those products, not going to take anybody's vaccines away from them.   That's been one of his core positions. In light of that, there was, you know, it was about a year ago that it was decided that formally by the government that we no longer had a medical emergency, but there was a kind of a grandfathering in of emergency use authorization for the genetic vaccine products, quote-unquote vaccines, the adenovirus and the Novavax and Moderna and Pfizer. Then the adenovirus-vectored products were taken off because of stroke, largely, and myocarditis to a lesser extent.   (34:06 - 35:24) And we were left with the three, Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax. And then Moderna has come out with a new one, you know, and then there was this evolution towards repeated boosters and new versions that were modified to address the emergent strains of SARS-CoV-2 that myself and others have asserted is actually that evolution is being driven by the leaky vaccines that are being so widely deployed, but that's a nuance. So the decision was first kind of unilaterally by the secretary that the data to support universal childhood vaccines as safe and effective wasn't there at a minimum because of the myocarditis.   And remember that at the last ACIP meeting, the CDC, quote, experts asserted that there were no adverse events other than myocarditis. So that's their current position. Read ahead, wait for it for our report on the 18th and 19th.   (35:25 - 41:53) I think that you will see that there'll be data that will counter that narrative, I anticipate, but that's forward-looking. So as they were preparing to withdraw the emergency use authorization for the vaccine products, there was a decision while Bobby was on vacation and Stefanie Spear was on vacation, Bobby was in the med, I forget where she was, visiting family or something. And a Prasad unilaterally without telling, you know, floating off the food chain, the command structure made the decision to provide authorization for Moderna for children and elderly that, you know, all elderly over 65 and children that had at least one risk factor.   Because the data coming out, including from Joe Ladapo in Florida, was that Moderna was safer than Pfizer, which is paradoxical because Moderna is actually a larger dose than Pfizer. So there's something going on there. Maybe, might be manufacturing process and lots and lots of variability.   You might say that, but I don't have any data to support that because the CDC didn't examine that question. And the FDA is not disclosing the date, the answer to that question, despite my asking them at the last ACIP meeting. So that was Prasad's decision.   He made it without consultation and without informing HHS comms, etc. And when Bobby came back from vacation, Vinay was no longer employed at the FDA. Marty insisted that Vinay was his guy and he really wanted him.   So Vinay came back. And then there was this recent decision to withdraw the EUA, but in order to preserve vaccine access for those that wanted it, because remember that's one of the core parameters coming from the secretary, is there was this decision that these products would be authorized for 65 and older and basically individuals with at least one major risk factor for severe COVID. And you might ask, well, what are those severe COVID risk factors? Not defined by the FDA.   So that's another thing that here at the ACIP, that's another one of the hot potatoes we've had to catch and we are busy dealing with it. Fortunately, European policy regarding these products has crystallized increasingly, particularly in the Scandinavian countries that have better healthcare monitoring systems because they're socialist. And so they are being quite specific about what they consider to be the high risk groups and their authorizations have become much, much more restrictive, even relative to what the current FDA position is.   So one might speculate that the ACIP might take those decisions from Europe into consideration and might ask European public health officials to provide input as to why they made those decisions. So all of that is in play right now, but there has been this limited marketing authorization from the FDA. FDA controls interstate commerce.   It comes from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. FDA cannot set or can CDC set policy for individual states that best in terms of medical care, that best to the states by the Constitution. But you can't produce a product in New Jersey and ship it to Maryland unless the FDA says they're authorized for interstate commerce.   So that's where FDA comes in. So when I say it's authorized for marketing, that's what I'm saying is that FDA has said, okay, you can engage in interstate commerce with this product because we find it sufficiently safe, effective, potent of correct identity and security. So that's where things stand right now, is all three of those products, Moderna, Pfizer, and the lead Moderna product.   And now there's also limited authorization for the new product from Moderna that they call mNEXSPIKE. And strangely, mNEXSPIKE, they haven't marketed it as not producing full-length spike protein that's biologically active. But in fact, that's what they did, is they pulled out a couple of the key antigenic regions of the spike protein.   So the biologic activity of spike protein is no longer there and built the vaccine around that. So you might say, Robert, is there any difference in toxicity between spike vaccine and mNEXSPIKE? And the data say no, no difference. So that's a really interesting data point because what it means is that a lot of it, I've been talked, I don't know how many times, but all the different potential sources of toxicity associated with this product that are really uncharacterized.   And now we have this indirect real-world data that even if you don't have spike protein, you're still having pretty much the same range of adverse events. Well, that means that those adverse events and their severity have more to do with the platform than they have to do with a payload. That's a problem if you're somebody using this platform.   (41:55 - 44:17) So that's kind of the state-of-the-art on that one. And I don't know that the jury's, I would say this is not definitive right now about spike and spike toxicity because we had very similar toxicity profiles in the adenovirus-vectored vaccines that were also producing full-length spike. And those adverse events weren't found with other adenoviral-vectored vaccines.   So the platform there had mostly been demonstrated and you knew what the problems were, and these were new things with the payload. So I think that what we may be seeing is an artifact of small clinical trial sample sizes, but time will tell. Right.   Which brings us to the present where the upcoming ACIP meeting in the end of September 18th and 19th is really where rubber is going to hit the road with the report from the subcommittee on COVID products and vaccines. And also the other big shoe that dropped was last Sunday. We had last week, I mean, the news cycle on the CDC has just been on high gear.   And starting three weeks ago with the shooting, almost all the CDC personnel are on leave right now because of the trauma of the shooting, and they'll be on leave until September 15th. And then we had these 600 CDC employees that had been furloughed or made redundant by DOJ that then appealed that. So they've been on paid leave ever since then.   And the courts finally said, no, Donald Trump can't in fact make them redundant. So they were fired. So then they had a big protest last week coming right on the heels of Susan Monarez, the CDC director, who'd only been in the job for a month after Senate confirmation, basically being fired by Bobby because she wouldn't do anything about a lot of the shenanigans that were going on within the CDC and the obstructionism and slow walking.   (44:18 - 45:26) And so then there was this protest of the 600 that had been laid off in Atlanta that were then joined by some that walked out, quote unquote, and four that resigned that were in high-profile positions, one of which I'll just be blunt, has been documented as a Satanist sadomasochist. And he was the one in charge of the vaccine safety committee, the chief advisor to Rochelle Walensky during COVID, and the White House's appointed chief person on point, kind of the czar of monkeypox. So he was the one that advocated for the universal monkeypox vaccination using a vaccine that was not designed for monkeypox.   We know how all that played out. So this character that has been kind of responsible for a lot of the obstructionism we've been dealing with for the last seven weeks, spontaneously resigned and went to the press and accused Bobby of playing politics with the science. The character is not a scientist.   (45:27 - 49:19) He's an MD MPH from Harvard, but not a scientist. No real scientific accomplishments in his history. So he was making the rounds in this whole story about his very overt predilections.   And this goes beyond sexual proclivities. Having somebody who is a sadomasochist as a person making policy in public health for the United States government just doesn't seem like it's a good match. And I think most normal people would agree that that's the case, but the press just jumped on this.   There must've been a hundred publications come out on Saturday last week, all attacking Bobby and together with Senator Grassley calling for Trump to fire Bobby. Just like a couple of weeks ago, there had been a hue and cry for Bobby to fire me. And of course that couldn't have anything to do with the withdrawal of $500 million for research.   Well, there was that, right? There was the BARDA and the backstory to the BARDA decision. So this is the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Agency that funds a lot of kind of new vaccine tech as well as stockpile purchases at about half a billion dollars in current contracts having to do with the development of mRNA vaccines for respiratory viruses, which is another way of saying influenza and COVID. And the backstory to that is that Bobby pulled together an advisory committee from the esteemed people at the NIH, including, by the way, the guy that had been the acting director of NIH before Jay was appointed, the only person that stood up to Tony Fauci during COVID, and the person who happens to be working on a universal influenza vaccine, really the leading universal influenza vaccine at NIH.   He pulls together this team and they advise him basically, look, this tech is not a good fit for respiratory viruses, particularly RNA viruses that rapidly evolve because you get a small mutation in the virus and suddenly the vaccine is no longer effective. Plus it goes everywhere in the body. It can't be controlled.   The pharmacokinetics, the pharmacodistribution, all the stuff that was suppressed in the, but brought to light with those documents from Japan that Byram Bridle revealed that set off the cascade of why he was subjected to what he was subjected to, which was pretty gross at best. All that's true. And the folks that have been in the science world actually dealing with this stuff advise Bobby, look, it's got all these problems.   It's uncontrollable. It's just not a good match. And you're wasting half a billion dollars.   So that's why that half billion dollars got redirected. Other things like universal influenza vaccines. So yeah, it's just been, the news cycle just keeps going and going and going on this.   And then Trump last Sunday in, I think in part to back up Bobby with all these calls for his being fired, dropped this true social post, which you can't call it a tweet, in which he said some really strong words and signed off in a strange way, something like President EJT. I don't think he's ever used that. So did he actually write that? Did somebody write it for him? I don't know.   (49:20 - 51:04) But it got posted and it basically said, paraphrasing the Pfizer particularly, show me the data. You've shown me all this good news data, but a lot of people are telling me it isn't such good news. I need to know the truth.   And the CDC is busy tearing itself apart right now. And I want it to stop. It was kind of a kids stop fighting.   And I want to see the data. If you're going to distill the message there and the response from Pfizer, because it's specifically Pfizer was called out. The implication is that Pfizer was the American metaphor of blowing smoke or giving him only the good news and withholding details like the fact that they stopped the maternal study on birth defects when it got right to the threshold of statistical significance without providing any explanation to anybody.   So a lot of nefarious trickery appears to have occurred, which was not, of course, disclosed to the president. And the response of Albert yesterday to the president's demand that they come clean was Donald Trump, Operation Warp Speed was such a great success. You should get the Nobel Prize for it.   That was just grossly transparent. So it seems to be no honor and no self-awareness there. But it's clearly playing on the belief system that Donald Trump is totally susceptible to sycophants.   (51:05 - 53:09) I my understanding is that is not true in Donald Trump or whatever his flaws are, is a lot more complex than that and certainly not that foolish. Yes. So that's where things stand right now.   It's it's all still very much in the air. I know that there is an initiative at FDA to carefully examine the data, reexamine it, and we'll be sharing those data, particularly as it to mortality at the upcoming ACIP meeting. So stay tuned.   It's all in flux. But to those who are, you know, this narrative, and remember, as if all this wasn't going on, you've also got bio industry organization dropping two million dollars, as disclosed by Secret Memo that we published and spoke about, on a campaign to get Bobby removed from HHS director by the end of September. And so there's that.   One version of this is when you see this kind of blowback in psychological warfare and propaganda, it's a sign that the person that's the target is over the target. And so that's, I can tell you, Bobby kind of doesn't care. And he goes up to the Hill today.   What they don't realize, number one, is they, as they're basically champion and spokesperson, they ended up with this guy who turns out to be a Satanist and sadomasochist. I don't think they realized that at the time. They don't, they didn't really realize the Streisand effect that by featuring this guy, it was going to cause everybody to look into his background.   (53:10 - 54:38) So that's, the optics of that aren't playing so well. And so they've had a number, another of the resignees from the CDC post a op-ed that's rather combative in the Washington Post. And, you know, the Kabuki theater in D.C. goes on.   And that's, you know, we will, the data has a curious way of, as they say, the data wants to be free. Information wants to be free and it eventually will be. And you've got people like Steve Kirsch, you know, gathering stuff from all over the world, which unfortunately doesn't have a clear a chain of custody.   So really can't be used, but he can champion it. And he speaks, he speaks to the choir. But the challenge is how do we move the public? And that is where MAHA Action is, you know, when it's this and food and processed food and and contaminants and, and everything else all at once, you know, it's like that movie, right? Was it everything all at once or something? Everything everywhere all at once.   Yes. Yeah. That, that, so that's basically what it's like dealing with HHS right now.   (54:39 - 55:24) And I can't imagine what Bobby's life is like. I know that for the people around him, it's, you know, as if that isn't enough, the Make America Healthy Again commission that the president impaneled, which is a cross-government organization that put out if basically a threat assessment document previously is now about to drop it's within days, I think of their, basically their action plan report. So that it'll be interesting to see what, you know, what they say about vaccines, what they say about food, what they say about the food pyramid, you know, do they say anything about seed oils? They can do anything about glyphosate.   (55:24 - 55:51) All of this is, is brewing because that commission the work product, I use the term sausage making work product coming out of that machine reflects a consensus, including the secretary of agriculture and EOD and everybody else. So, so that's about to drop. It's just, you know, the drama goes on and on and on.   (55:52 - 56:03) And so the short answer to my question about the current status of mRNA technologies and the American health agencies is that as always, there's a great deal of politics at play. Oh, huge. Yes.   (56:04 - 56:08) And there's a lot of money. There's a lot of money on the table. Well, they're, they're always.   (56:08 - 56:56) Not just for the mRNA products, like this character that I was referring to in his ABC news piece, he talked at length about the risk that Bobby would eliminate the requirement to vaccinate all newborns for hepatitis B, which most of the rest of the world scratches their head and says, what are they thinking? And what they're thinking is it's a multi-billion dollar market. So that, you know, at play at ACIP, there's a working group that is examining the entire vaccine schedule, pediatric vaccine schedule. You know, at play is major financial disruptions for the industry and they don't like it very much.   (56:56 - 57:40) I believe here in Canada, children are now receiving something like 72 different vaccines by the time they. Oh, it's crazy. Is it seemingly invested? Yeah.   If that isn't enough, you've got the accelerating made program and it's socket with organ harvesting. Yes. Yes.   Now folks, I know that Robert and I have taken a long time to get to the intended subject of this interview, but if you've watched my interviews. My fault. No, no, not at all.   Robert, if folks, if you've watched my interviews, you know, that when my guests say things of significance, I want to chase that down so that we're all getting not just the truth, but the whole truth. And so with that in mind, Robert, I have one more question about mRNA technologies. You were the creator of them.   (57:40 - 58:08) And if I, if I get something wrong in what I'm about to say, please correct me. You took on that research with the purest of motives, believing that it could be a way to correct genetic disorders, but discovered in the course of your research that the risks simply outweighed any potential benefits and abandoned that research. So if that is correct, like I said, please correct me in a moment if I was wrong, but that, what you are now co-chair and advisor on the ACIP.   (58:09 - 58:29) What is your recommendation regarding mRNA gene therapies? Do you believe they should be completely banned at this point? So I'm not going to evade that, but I'm not going to answer it. Okay. And the reason is because you've just structured this in the context of that federal position.   (58:30 - 58:48) And my, my position has to be open-minded or I can't serve. So we will follow the data. And in terms of the platform itself, I get hate mail.   (58:48 - 59:13) I got a physical piece of hate mail the other day, which is unusual. Usually it's over social media, but I get a lot of hate from both sides. I'm, you know, I'm a mass murderer because I helped create the platform and I'm a mass murderer because I'm creating vaccine hesitancy and causing people not to accept this life-saving miracle product.   (59:14 - 59:19) So, you know, welcome to my world. I'm not whining. It's just the nature of things.   (59:20 - 59:53) One of the complaints is that I'm trashing this technology that has so much potential for saving lives. That narrative is absolutely amplified by the people that have a financial stake in the technology. So be aware that when you parrot those words, you're basically regurgitating a, a, a narrative that is being actively promoted by the industry itself.   (59:54 - 1:00:18) So then the question is, uh, what is the actual potential? And I have, for instance, my former postdoc, uh, wrote to me the other day, who's still in the field, still working on this and said, uh, you really need to know about this. You need to know about next generation MRNA vaccine technology. It's so much better than all the problems with the first generation that's currently out there.   (1:00:18 - 1:00:34) Uh, and that may well be, uh, you know, it, it, the core concept is that MRNA represents a new drug category. It's a natural product that your body produces all the time. And, uh, it's one that has a very short half-life.   (1:00:34 - 1:01:08) So it's kind of potentially drug-like, but the modifications that have been used in the delivery system that's been used have transformed that into something that is more like permanent gene therapy, uh, but with additional problems like the DNA fragment contamination. Uh, so in, in the intrinsic toxicity associated with lipid nanoparticle, blah, blah, blah. So, uh, you know, the, the, the logic that's usually promoted and advocated by the industry is, well, uh, this can cure cancer.   (1:01:10 - 1:01:55) Uh, in, um, that was, you'll recall, uh, a narrative that was promoted on the first day of Trump's presidency as a justification for a trillion dollar investment in artificial intelligence. Then we were going to get customized, uh, MRNA cancer vaccines on short notice because of AI. Uh, and all of those, including myself that have, uh, decades of experience in cancer vaccines, uh, pretty much universally said, are you kidding? Uh, do you have any idea of, of the complexities and the state of the art of cancer vaccines? They have not fulfilled their potential at all.   (1:01:55 - 1:02:09) There is a ton of complexity there. And, uh, it's grossly naive to say that, uh, all you need to do is build a customized antigen, put it into an RNA cassette and, and presto change. Oh, cancer cured.   (1:02:10 - 1:02:26) Uh, that is not anywhere close to the reality. So, but that's what the industry promotes. So then the naive hear this and they say, oh, it's got all this potential to cure fill in the blank disease that aunt Mary has.   (1:02:27 - 1:02:36) Uh, and where are you stopping aunt Mary from having a cure? You horrible person. I I'm just calling it. Like, I see it.   (1:02:36 - 1:02:59) The tech is what it is. Uh, the, the, uh, um, R and D space is what it is. Uh, the logic of a gene therapy has largely failed for the very reason that I identified back when I was 28, that, uh, your immune system doesn't know that it's the good gene.   (1:02:59 - 1:03:45) It just knows that it's a different gene and it will attack any cells that have it. Uh, and are producing the good protein, even though it may be good if you have a cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy, or this long list of pediatric diseases inborn errors of metabolism that I once upon a time thought I would become a pediatrician in cure childhood diseases using gene therapy tech. Uh, and, and then it was actually at the Salk that I saw the data and correctly interpreted the implications in a mouse model that this whole platform concept that Ted Friedman had developed, uh, wasn't going to fly Ted Friedmann at the University of California, San Diego across the street from the Salk Institute.   (1:03:45 - 1:04:07) It was a competitor with Inder Verma, who was my mentor. Um, and, uh, so the tech didn't work then it still doesn't work. Uh, there's few limited little niches often requiring immunosuppression that, uh, you know, result in incredibly expensive products that, uh, you know, are not practical.   (1:04:08 - 1:04:30) Uh, but, um, maybe, you know, in a Star Trek universe, uh, all this stuff, uh, will become solved and it'll, it'll be, uh, fantastic. And maybe that will happen. Uh, I can't, I don't have a crystal ball about technology development in, in, uh, you know, wide genetics.   (1:04:30 - 1:05:18) Uh, but so far the kinds of things that are being floated do not strike me as feasible based on related technology applications in the same space historically. Uh, so just because you come in with a new widget doesn't necessarily mean that you understand any better the underlying biology that you couldn't solve before. So that's, that's where I see it is, is, uh, can I say for sure that, uh, the team at the university of British Columbia isn't going to come out tomorrow with some fantastic new formulation that specifically targets lymph nodes, stays where it's put, uh, doesn't have any toxicity, doesn't go to the brain.   (1:05:18 - 1:05:38) Maybe they will, uh, could be, I mean, in a way that we all hope that they might. Wouldn't it be fantastic? Yeah. But, uh, I was asked by a German journalist, uh, when I was in Brussels like a year and a half ago, the same question, what's the future for mRNA vaccines and mRNA technology.   (1:05:39 - 1:05:56) And my response in, in canopy, well, the specifically said, can it be made safe? And my response was if pigs had wings, they could fly. Anything is possible, right? And so I can't say, no, it can't be done. Uh, that would be, uh, um, disingenuous.   (1:05:57 - 1:06:41) Uh, but I don't see that solution on the near term horizon right now in all of, in what I do see is the classic, uh, over-promising of the biotech industry that has been a characteristic of that industry, my entire career, 30 plus years where they oversell to get investor money and pay themselves the nice big fat six figure salaries and, and burn up the money. And, uh, nothing comes out of it. Vycal, that old company that I was employee number 10 on spent well north of a billion dollars of investor funds and came up with not a single product.   (1:06:41 - 1:06:57) And they had a 10 year jump on Karikó and Weissman. They had that whole initial portfolio patents relating to mRNA and DNA vaccines and drug technology, and not a single product came out of that. Now it was mismanaged.   (1:06:57 - 1:07:23) There were product opportunities that they could have pursued, but they didn't. Uh, but you know, that's the history of biotech is, uh, occasional, you know, it's, it's like going to Vegas. Sometimes, uh, you, you get, you know, the, the, the ball falls correctly on the roulette wheel, but most of the time not, uh, and, uh, investors get disappointed.   (1:07:23 - 1:07:56) And, uh, so is remember Moderna was right on the ropes, almost bankrupt, uh, because they were pursuing, uh, the, uh, mRNA vaccine for cancer business model and nothing was working and they basically got rescued by the COVID crisis. Uh, so, um, that is not a good precedent. This interview was originally intended to be a discussion on psychological warfare and Dr. Malone had set aside one hour for me.   (1:07:56 - 1:08:38) However, his answers regarding the status of mRNA policies in the U S triggered new and I felt very important questions that we all need answers to due to the fact that Robert's responses to my questions are very information dense. I decided that we're going to split this interview into two parts in order to prevent you, my viewers from suffering mental fatigue as Robert and I continued talking for almost another hour after covering the topics in part one, please join us in part two to be released shortly for a discussion on psychological warfare and to an extent, especially on its use here in Canada to subject Canadians to the globalist agenda.