All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 4, 2025 - Epoch Times
01:05:32
Dr. Robert Malone Explains What’s Really Happening at the CDC
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
With President Trump challenging pharmaceutical companies to justify success of the COVID-19 products and with the recent removal and resignations of several top CDC officials, I'm sitting down with Dr. Robert Malone to get his insights into what's going on behind the scenes.
He's basically put his foot down and said, guys, I'm tired of this.
Let's get to the bottom of it, get it cleaned up, and move on.
What does the future hold for the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, ASIP, of which Dr. Malone is one of the members?
What are the challenges and major opportunities he sees?
This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Yanya Kellek.
Robert Malone, so good to have you on American Thought Leaders.
Thank you for having me back, Jan.
These are interesting times.
Well, incredibly interesting times.
Over the weekend, President Trump had a Truth Social post that when I looked at it, I thought to myself, My goodness, has the world changed?
What was your reaction?
You said, hmm, very interesting, but I know there was a lot of thought behind that.
Well, of course, it's a little bit tongue-in-cheek having to do, if you're of a certain age, with Rowan and Martin's laugh-in, where there was a character that always had that tagline, hmm, very interesting, when various interesting things were occurring on the show.
In this case, what we've got is President Trump putting out a very thoughtful post on Truth Social, his home platform, in which he is taking the position that he has questions about the safety and effectiveness of the COVID products, medical products in particular.
He never says vaccines, and he's apparently perplexed that the information that has been shared with him from Pfizer and others about the success of Operation Warp Speed is not universally shared by others.
And he is, in a very cautious way, laying down a challenge to the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry that they make public the information that they've been sharing privately with him.
And one can infer that the logic here is that this will be made public and subjected to public scrutiny.
And Jan, you know as well as anybody that there was an attempt to not make any of the information available having to do with the clinical trial data and post-marketing data acquired by Pfizer in particular for decades,
that this was all going to be sequestered and it required a court determination, a federal court determination, to insist that the FDA go ahead and make those data public.
These are the data that were summarized and analyzed by various groups, but notoriously by Naomi Wolf and the Steve Bannon mega policy posse that resulted in Naomi's book, the Pfizer Papers.
And so the president here, for the first time, I think, is publicly questioning whether or not the narrative that he has been provided and the information that he's been shown is Aligned with or fully transparent,
and is insisting that with data that's otherwise available, and insisting that the manufacturers provide the data that they've been showing him because the inference is it's discordant with the data that others throughout the world, including in other regulatory agencies, have been identifying and disclosing publicly.
And that comes on the heels of years of his insistence that Operation Warp speed was a huge success, a major breakthrough.
And I don't think you can question that bureaucratically, Operation Warp speed achieved far in excess of what anybody would have expected would come out of the U.S. federal bureaucracy in terms of timelines, in terms of overcoming bureaucratic obstacles, and really pioneering a whole of government approach to a healthcare crisis, a public health policy crisis.
But the question is: were too many corners cut?
And were people mandated and otherwise persuaded, enticed, compelled to accept a medical product that wasn't as safe and effective as they were told?
And this is particularly important in that most, if not all, of the major criteria that underpin modern biomedical ethics were breached in that response.
And informed consent was not only not required or enabled, but it was actively suppressed, is what currently the data indicate: is that the communications, both from the sponsors and from the federal government, actively suppressed information about potential adverse events, in particular.
And that's just not acceptable in terms of modern medical bioethics, that it became the standard.
So it is a huge event that President Trump, on his Truth Social platform, raised these questions that he has really avoided asking in the past.
And that's been perhaps the largest reservation that his base has had about him.
And certainly to make America healthy again, grassroots movements have had about President Trump is his insistence that this program was a spectacular success.
Thank you for tuning in to American Thought Leaders.
In a world where spin and agendas dominate the headlines, I'm proud to bring you unfiltered insights from the brightest minds in America from a relative outsider, Canadian perspective.
To keep this possible and to access even more exclusive content, in-depth documentaries in our daily digital newspaper, consider subscribing to the Epoch Times Today.
It's your way to support independent journalism.
Just hit the link in the description below to subscribe and unlock the full American thought leaders experience and so much more.
You can try it today for just $1 a week.
So just hit the link in the description below.
And now back to the interview.
You know, the president talks about the CDC being ripped apart over the question, indeed, of, you know, what was the effect of these products.
And maybe, why don't you chart for me a little bit of the process of getting here?
Because, you know, this didn't come out of the blue.
There was a whole lot of activity.
I mean, almost too much to cover as a media company, frankly, or as yourself on your platform.
But give me, why don't we start with where this actually came from?
What catalyzed this?
So I agree.
Those were remarkably strong words from the president, ripped apart.
And let's walk back over the last three weeks.
Three Fridays ago, in the evening, about 5 p.m., a, I think we can best say unhinged young gentleman decided to open fire.
The term has been used, a spray of bullets on the outside of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention building.
Unfortunately, a police protection security personnel assigned to the CDC, who is a father of a young family, lost his life in this attack.
No one else did.
The facility itself was not breached.
And by the way, ever since that event three Fridays ago, virtually the entire CDC staff has been on paid leave, which they will need to return to work on September 15th.
So five weeks of paid leave for the traumatic event of bullets being sprayed in downtown Atlanta against their workplace.
So that then was followed by various statements from Senator Blumenthal that were a little personal for me, in which he reacted to Friday Funny's meme roundup and called for Senator Kennedy to fire me from the volunteer position at the ACIP, which I wouldn't mind if I didn't.
I'm doing this because Bobby wants me to.
And then that happened in the context of what's been about seven weeks of slow walking of the ACIP subcommittee working group on the coronavirus vaccines, attempting to get CDC senior leadership to authorize what's called a terms of reference statement.
Thank you.
which for those of you that are not federal bureaucrats, you might just call it a scope of work.
But terms of reference is the terminology that is approved within the CDC, as well as authorization to query the FDA for the data that were used to support the SIBER director,
Vinay Prasad's decision to authorize the Moderna product for high-risk children and adolescents, which is still pending that authorization.
But that had to go through CDC approval, vetting, lawyers, et cetera.
And there was a concerted effort to control what that agenda would be.
And it finally came to the point last Monday, apparently.
I infer this.
And by the way, I just need to give the disclaimer, Jan. I'm speaking in my personal capacity, not as a member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or as a special government employee, or as a representative of the U.S. government.
My opinions are my own in this interview.
And I haven't spoken to Bobby directly or Stephanie about this cascade of events, just to be clear.
What I've learned from reading tidbits from the likes of Stat News and the Washington Post, et cetera, and then a little bit of chatter from insiders, not Bobby or Stephanie, was that last Monday, so two Mondays ago, the Secretary called in the newly confirmed, only been on the job for about a month,
director of the Centers for Disease Control.
And there was a discussion that apparently included the issue of letting go certain CDC senior staff.
I infer those senior staff may have been involved in the slow walking of the ACIP terms of reference document.
And I know that in prior statements in the context of her confirmation, the director had made a statement to the effect that she would not terminate the existing, any of the existing CDC senior staff.
It appears that the secretary asked the director of the CDC to terminate some of these senior long-term staff that were insisting on basically controlling the agenda for the upcoming ACIP COVID subcommittee work group and what they would be allowed to consider,
as they would investigate and make recommendations to the director of the CDC concerning the three COVID vaccine products that are currently on the agenda for discussion at the upcoming ACIP meeting,
which Bobby has insisted occur in September and is now finally scheduled for the 18th and 19th of this month.
So stay tuned.
If you're enjoying the last week, you'll enjoy the week of the 17th and the 18th even more.
And with the decision apparently by the secretary coming out of the meeting with the director to ask the director to vacate her position, and then last Wednesday, the Washington Post came out with a brief breaking news article that, in fact, the director had been asked to leave.
The director apparently had already engaged attorneys to work to neutralize the decision by the secretary and allow her to retain her congressionally authorized position, claiming that the secretary didn't have the authority to terminate the director of the CDC that reports to him.
Somewhere in there, apparently, I'm not clear the dates, but the director of the CDC apparently spoke to Senator Cassidy and complained that the Secretary for HHS,
RFK Jr., Was politically interfering with the processes, the science occurring at the CDC.
And then almost within an hour, so it's been a pretty compressed news cycle, as you say, the Washington Post came out with this story on that Wednesday.
Near as I can tell, I think it's four CDC personnel, senior personnel, resigned almost immediately after that announcement and in their resignation letters asserted again the narrative that the secretary was politically interfering with the science at the CDC.
I infer that the science at the CDC that they're referring to they're claiming had to do with this terms of reference at the ACIP working group.
The person who's functionally serving as spokesperson for this group of people that resigned has denied that that's the case, that there's a cause and effect having to do with the terms of reference, and that his objection was that there were policy decisions being made.
It's unclear what policy decisions he's referring to.
And the chairperson of the working group, Retz F. Levy, has given an interview with authorization by Andrew Nixon of HHS Communications with Dr. DeMasi,
who writes a Substack, in which Dr. Levy, full professor of risk management and identification at MIT,
so no small chops there academically and scientifically, makes it very clear that there was absolutely no policy discussions between himself and the individual or individuals that have resigned that are claiming that this was a policy dispute,
but that in fact, the only subject of dispute and subject of discussion was the scope of what would the ACIP working group for COVID vaccines would be allowed to investigate.
And the position taken by the senior CDC staff that resigned was that the CDC has already done all the necessary investigations about, for instance, the adverse events.
The only adverse event that is occurring with the COVID vaccine mRNA products is myocarditis.
There are other ones that haven't, that have not met statistical significance.
That's a different nuanced question of how they're determining that.
But this is to not be on the table for the ACIP to investigate.
What this teaches, in my opinion, is that historically, what has been observed by many and complained about by many is that the ACIP seems to be a rubber stamp organization.
And this has often been attributed to financial conflicts of interest.
And certainly those have existed.
And many of the ACIP members and the working group subcommittee members have been drawn from the various medical professional societies, which have been documented as pretty much universally receiving major funding from the pharmaceutical industry.
So the secretary, in deciding to retire, the former ACIP committee, that's his words, had indicated that there was this chronic financial conflict of interest that had characterized many of the prior ACIP members, and that it was necessary to start over.
So those were the claims, and then they were reinforced through a number of venues.
First off, there was a protest at the CDC that was apparently a previously scheduled rally.
It was mostly comprised of the approximately 600 full-time employee personnel that had been made redundant by the Doge effort when Elon Musk was still functioning as a special government employee.
And then their termination had been delayed because they had filed a court case seeking injunction against their termination.
And they just lost it.
They just lost the court case, so they were officially fired.
So when you read the headlines, Bobby Kennedy has fired over 600 FTE at the CDC.
Well, actually, that happened weeks ago.
It's just that the courts finally allowed it to happen.
So a lot of these people had a rally protest in front of the CDC.
Apparently, they're not worried about shooters.
And in that context, some CDC personnel walked out and joined them.
One, including the chief medical officer, and the other being this individual that has really become a bit of a media darling recently, been on ABC News, et cetera,
speaking about the narrative that they've resigned because the secretary, RFK, has politicized the CDC in some way and also introduced the narrative.
Why this person did this, I don't know, that they feared that the next thing that was going to happen was that the ACIP was going to recommend that the hepatitis B neonate vaccination policy would be changed.
And what a tragedy this would be.
I think if you polled American parents, most American parents would disagree with this senior bureaucrat from the CDC that has resigned.
But that created a whole new narrative that Ron Paul felt that he had to, Senator Cassidy endorsed that.
And Ron Paul, then, who is actually a physician, as is Senator Cassidy, contradicted Senator Cassidy and said, no, there isn't a good justification for hepatitis B vaccination of the newborn.
So the president then dropped this post that we've discussed, and that set off another whole round of social media turmoil.
I haven't encountered that level of hate directed at me, oh, at least for about three weeks since I was appointed to the ACIP.
And there was a whole round of media posts about me.
So Clearly, a concerted effort to attack the secretary, delegitimize him, accuse him of interfering in the public policy positions of the CDC, which to my eyes has no merit.
But this then reaches this point where we're at today, where this morning I had conference calls with the other members of the ACIP COVID working group,
but we have four meetings scheduled because we have to jam all of our hearings in between now and when we have a slide deck available for the other ACIP members and draft recommendations that will be rolled out during the 18th and the 19th.
So everything is compressed like usual.
It all got delayed because of the slow walking.
Now it all has to be done in a very short timeframe.
And we're not going to be able to do a very comprehensive job on that.
Last week, the Secretary also announced that the emergency use authorization for the COVID products had finally been rescinded.
The emergency medical emergency had been declared ended months ago, but they managed to kind of retain the EUA authorization for these products, even though there was no longer a medical emergency.
And that's finally ended.
And so now we have termination of that and three products authorized Moderna Pfizer and Novavax, you know, in short, for limited indications of basically elderly and populations at high risk of at least one high risk factor, undefined by the FDA, what that meant,
which is part of the remit now that's been tossed into the lap of the ACIP, because we're obligated by statute to advise the secretary at the meeting following any FDA determination about a vaccine.
So the FDA basically took this hot potato, threw it right straight in their lap in the midst of all this other chaos.
And there we are.
Robert, from what Dr. Levy, what Retzef said, it seems like they wanted to keep any discussion of COVID vaccine injury out of the scope of the work that the subcommittee was going to do.
Now, explain that to me.
I'm perplexed also in that the subcommittee is supposed to be independent of the agency.
This is fundamental to the FACA, the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The FACA structure is supposed to allow outside experts to independently assess and advise key personnel and decision makers within the federal government.
But the position taken by these individuals that have resigned, apparently, was that, in fact, they were the ones that were authorized to determine what the scope would be for the ACIP's investigations and decision-making.
And that the CDC Had gathered all the necessary data concerning adverse events and effectiveness of these products, and that those data from the CDC were available for the ACIP to evaluate, and that it was out of scope for the ACIP to consider other sources of information.
That I think is a perverse interpretation of the charter, but it is the clearest indication of how we got to this point where the ACIP had basically become a mouthpiece for the interests of both the CDC bureaucracy and the pharmaceutical industry.
As opposed to a check, you know, on the system because really that's being an independent assessment and advisory to the director, which is what the charter is.
So, where does that leave Dr. Levy and this subgroup, which I understand is going to be meeting soon?
So, our first meeting, I think, is tomorrow, and then another one on Friday, and then two next week.
And so, now those folks that were obstructing and insisting on controlling the process and the scope are no longer there.
And new people have stepped into those roles.
And as Retzaf Levy, Dr. Levy, elaborated in this notable interview, currently, all indications are that we will be able to move forward as partners with these CDC personnel.
And that is absolutely our approach to this.
There are those that insist that there should be some accountability for these actions, but from the standpoint of the committee, it's not our job.
We're not in charge of accountability, or it's also not within our mission and remit to assess or do fact-finding on any things that might have occurred over the last few years.
Our focus is going forward.
Our focus is on the current circulating strains of SARS-CoV-2, on the currently available products, and advising the director of the CDC on what the data show as the safety, effectiveness, and utility of these products should be.
And to follow the data wherever it should lead.
So, current discussions include all of those that will be testifying to the subcommittee, may well include some members of the prior subcommittee that was terminated under the Secretary's order when the ACIP was retired and the new one rolled in.
We're absolutely on board with having a full diversity of opinion and commentary.
And it may well be, looking forward, I speculate that there may be a presentation to the general ACIP and the public that has bullet points for those that are advocating current policy and those that have testified about things that might cause reservations about current policy.
One of, and what's on the table is what would be recommended.
And the recommendation range of options for ACIP is really pretty constrained.
And it doesn't include, sorry, Maha Base, it doesn't include throwing them in jail.
It's very straightforward.
We can recommend that these vaccines be administered in alignment with what FDA has authorized.
We can recommend what's called shared decision making, in which there must be a discussion and informed consent between a physician and the patient or the caregiver that is responsible for the patient.
So a father, mother, et cetera, for the child.
And then there is the option of no recommendation.
And certainly, if, for instance, our request to the director of CEBR to share with the ACIP the data he and his staff used to support the decision to authorize these products for these populations, it's reasonable that the ACIP should receive that same information that the FDA used in their decision making.
Otherwise, we can't really know what was the basis of the decision.
We also, you might imagine, would very much need to receive the documentation about what constitutes a special population or a population at high risk.
It's not good enough to just say anybody that high risk or has one risk factor, well, define what that is.
And what are the data to support that?
Not all risk factors are the same.
Somebody that's recovering from cancer or has certain conditions, let's say cystic fibrosis, may not be the same as a child who is just moderately obese.
So what are those data?
What are those criteria that supports that?
And if those data aren't aligned or aren't made available, then one can reasonably infer that it's not possible for the committee to formulate a recommendation.
If we don't have the data and our charter is to follow the data, then how can we make a recommendation when the data don't exist?
Just on good faith.
Sorry, I can't do that anymore.
So that's a hot topic.
And then another one, looking forward, if we were to, if the committee was to make a recommendation here, there, anywhere about shared decision making, that implies that there must be a dialogue and informed consent between patient or patient representative and the physician, prescribing physician.
It also implies that these products would be available via prescription, but not necessarily you can just walk up to Walmart and get a jab in the butt or in the shoulder or whatever.
So already a lot of the reports are that CVS and Walmart, et cetera, are pulling back from their campaigns for administering these various products.
So if there's going to be shared decision-making, there has to be informed consent.
Why there doesn't have to be informed consent in the case of what is functionally a standard of care mandate, if the ACIP recommends and the CDC director endorses use for a particular indication is beyond me.
As somebody schooled in medical ethics, informed consent is the cornerstone of all medical practice, but that's how it's been interpreted.
That's the system we have.
But if we're going to move towards shared decision-making, which the pediatricians hate, by the way, they just want a cut and dried, you know, if you're 36 months and you have you're overweight or whatever the risk factor is, and you get it.
That's the cut and dried world of modern corporate medicine.
So they don't like the idea of shared decision making where they're going to have to have a discussion with a patient and justify why this particular child or that particular elderly person should receive the product.
We believe that it's necessary, it's a responsibility of the ACIP to provide the physician with guidance about the information that must be shared with the patient.
So we can't just say, well, you have to have informed consent and it's shared decision-making, but it's up to you to figure out what you have to discuss with the patient.
Now, that doesn't really work.
It doesn't help anybody.
So part of what we are going to seek to do is to provide clear guidance.
It's fact-based, documented, that in fact, A, B, C, or D are known risks and FGH and I are potential risks.
And I'm pretty sure that one of those risks is going to be death.
So stay tuned on that.
But the database is being independently examined, I think, for the first time.
Robert, the last time you were on the show, actually with Dr. Retzf. Levy, one of the topics we covered was the difference in your vote and Dr. Levy's when ACIP was voting on authorizing these RSV monoclonal antibodies.
And since you've actually seemed to have some second thoughts about your decision and actually have been asking questions about whether you are going to be trusting CDC presentations to ACIP going forward.
I'm wondering if you could just unpack that for me, please.
So this kind of illuminates one of the key problems in relying on a bureaucratic structure to assess data without peer review.
And in the case of the ACIP, which ostensibly might function as a peer review structure, being presented with the data the day before the meeting, actually the night before the meeting.
So no chance to evaluate it or ask questions.
In the case of the RSV products, it was a very strange presentation that was made in which information about other RSV products was more prominent than that of the monoclonal antibody that was actually the subject for discussion.
So, a lot of kind of ancillary information that wasn't specifically relevant to the question at hand was presented.
And the information that was presented now, in retrospect, appears to have been incomplete.
And the claim advanced most clearly, once again, by this PhD investigative reporter, and her PhD is not in English literature or women's studies.
It's directly relevant to this topic of imaginicity and immunology.
So, Marianne DeMasse, working with others, evaluated, in particular, two of the signals that were present in the data, but not entirely clear in the presentations at that ACIP meeting, having to do with the new RSV monoclonal antibody product that we collectively ended up endorsing for virtually all newborns, much like the hepatitis B vaccine.
But we had a couple of, we had two precisely dissenters in that vote who voted not to recommend, one of which was the same Retsif Levy.
And there were the particular issue that raised Retsif's, you can almost think of it as spidey sense, his intuitive sense that something wasn't right was data having to do with deaths in clinical trials.
Deaths is a rare event in this case, fortunately, post-inoculation with these monoclonal antibodies, which are not vaccines.
But there was an imbalance, this, you know, all the infamous, there's never a proper negative control with the vaccine products.
Well, in these studies, there were proper negative controls.
And there was an imbalance in deaths with more deaths, slightly more in the inoculated group compared to the control group.
Furthermore, that trend of statistically not significant, but still numerically split with the same trend was present in the studies involving the other marketed monoclonal antibody product.
So Retsif's, as I recall, his particular objection was that there were these trends in the data about excess deaths that were in, this gets back to another nuance in clinical trials.
A death is a severe adverse event, full stop, and usually will trigger a stop to trial enrollment, clinical trial enrollment.
And someone has to adjudicate the decision whether that death was associated with the product or not associated with the product, basically.
And the person who gets to make that determination is the principal investigator for the study.
Principal investigator for the study is often working for a contract research organization that gets its money from the sponsor, say Merck.
So the principal investigator, one might infer, might not be entirely objective about, or there might be some even unintentional bias towards Making a determination that a death is unrelated to the product.
Because if the death was related to the product, then there is a huge cascade involving disruption of the study, major revisions, delaying timelines, which means delaying when you're going to get paid, et cetera, et cetera.
So a lot of structural disincentives in clinical research to make for a principal investigator to make a determination that a death was related to the product.
So, in all these cases, in the treatment group, the principal investigators made the determination that the deaths were unrelated to the product.
Now, there's historically examples where this was the case.
For instance, in some of the cholesterol-lowering drugs that are particularly potent, there's a notorious example of suicides, deaths being higher in the treatment group than the untreated group, and yet the determination that it's unrelated because they were suicides.
But it turns out that when you draw down cholesterol, you draw down cholesterol out of the brain, people get depressed, and then they have more suicides.
So, it actually is related.
But at first blush, when you just look at the data, oh, come on, they're taking a cholesterol-lowering drug and they commit suicide.
Clearly, that's unrelated, right?
And historically, that has just been the way the system works.
And the FDA blesses that and endorses it, and it's the way things are.
I think that what this death signal teaches, and I suspect we've had some informal discussions.
I think that there's support for this.
When we have death data like that, the ACIP is going to need to require that we get our hands on the primary clinical records associated with those events so we can make our own assessment of whether those were related or unrelated.
Clearly, we need to do something more than just accepting what comes at us from the pharmaceutical industry.
The other signal that was worrisome had to do with seizures.
And in particular, there was a timeline that appears on the surface to have been arbitrary, wherein seizures that happened after that timeline were determined to be unrelated to the product, whereas seizures before that timeline were.
And once again, there's an imbalance.
There's more seizures in the inoculated group than the uninoculated group, but it didn't rise to significance, statistical significance.
It's just under the threshold of statistical, predetermined statistical significance.
But there's this, what appears to be an arbitrary cutoff.
And in fact, there was one or more additional seizures after that timeline.
And when you take those data and wrap them in together with the seizures prior to the cutoff date, that is not justified, it wasn't unjustified in the presentation.
I'm sure they have a reason, but they haven't shared it with us.
If you lump that, suddenly the seizure signal is statistically significant compared to the comparison group.
The appearance is that at a minimum, the data presented to the ASIP on very short notice has the potential appearance, I'm choosing my words, of having been, let's say, selectively reported.
And that With just a slight turn of the knob, the interpretation would have been very different.
And on the basis of that, we're making a decision.
I voted for universal administration of this product to the newborns during RSV season whose mothers were not previously vaccinated.
That's hence my objection in my sense of, frankly, betrayal is that I made a very public vote on a rather sensitive issue at a time in which the ACIP was, this new ACIP was under intense fire.
I was under intense fire by corporate media, unqualified, you know, crazy, anti-vaxxer, that whole care, you know, media characterization that's promoted about me.
And yes, I am an anti-vaxxer if you define anti-vaxxer as somebody who's against vaccine mandates, which is how Webster's defines it.
So I'm guilty as charged of not being for vaccine mandates, which is defined by Webster's as an anti-vaxxer.
But they don't put all that context in.
They just say, that guy Malone, he's crazy.
He's an anti-vaxxer.
So all this was coming down.
We were under direction from leadership to be gentlemanly, I think is one word.
In our initial interactions with the ACIP.
The press was on us like flies all the way through that.
They were staying at the Emory Hotel where we were at.
The long lenses were out, focusing on each other of us.
You can see the photographs of me asking questions.
And they were looking for us to make a misstep and to do something that would fit into their narrative of being a bunch of rabid, anti-vaxxer, crazy, unqualified people.
So that was the context.
I voted with Cody Meissner, who is a member of the ACIP now and was a member of the RSV subgroup, who very carefully walked me through the logic of what the prior working group had determined as it related to these products.
And I trusted how the data were presented.
And what I said in reposting DeMasse's substack was that I no longer feel comfortable assuming good faith and transparency and integrity in the presentations.
In this case, the presentation was provided by a contractor, not actually by CDC personnel, that works for one of the large HMOs.
I believe it was Kaiser Family Foundation, as I recall.
So it wasn't CDC personnel making the presentation.
And so nobody within CDC can actually directly be held responsible for that.
But this raises the, you know, not to say that CDC personnel are liars, but we've all heard the saw that, you know, statistics can lie.
They can be used to distort information.
And one of the ways that statistical analysis of clinical data can be manipulated is through choosing the analysis window so that if you're right at the threshold of something being statistically significant, you can shift the results by very carefully choosing how you analyze the data.
And if you're going to choose a particular cutoff in a sensitive situation like this, our position now is that you have to have clear justification for why you did that.
And we're now insisting that there be a lot more transparency about what has been done to validate these findings.
And we are seeking to have more independent scrutiny and review of the information presented to the public and the ACIP in these presentations.
And that's consistent with the Secretary's mandate that we follow the data.
And in order to follow the data, the data have to have integrity.
The analysis has to have integrity because we don't have the time, nor does the public, to go through line listings of clinical trial data and reevaluate them.
We have to have summary statistics.
And the position of the CDC as it relates to, for instance, the adverse events associated with COVID products is if it doesn't meet statistical significance, functionally it didn't happen.
So if you have signals that are rare and they don't rise to the level of a sufficient number of signals to meet a statistical test, then the position is essentially they didn't happen.
That's not valid.
That's a distortion.
And it's a distortion that is common in epidemiologic MPH-type public health analyses.
That basically the position of modern public health is, of course, the greatest good for the greatest number.
And that functionally, what their position is, is that the only truth in a world in which truth has become based on feelings and subjective criteria, the only truth that they will endorse is that truth which is validated through statistical significance and their particular epidemiologic assessments.
Any other data are anecdotal and irrelevant.
And that's just not okay.
And it flies in the face.
This is at the root of the complaints by so many in the American public that they have experienced firsthand or secondhand in most cases adverse events associated with these products that are more than just myocarditis.
But the CDC denies that that's the case.
And hence, you have a public that, for this and other reasons, no longer trusts the CDC.
Of course, that getting back to the cascade, amazing cascade of the news cycle about the CDC over the last three weeks, The positions taken by those that have resigned and their backgrounds have raised even more questions about the CDC's integrity,
caused other authors to go back and look at the history of the Tuskegee experiment, which is a very dark time in CDC history, and many of the other historic transgressions associated with the CDC and revisit those things.
And it's, as I posted somewhat facetiously, I don't think that those that have been doing the media circus right now and calling for the secretary's resignation appreciated the Streisand effect, wherein if you go and try to cover things up and make excuses, all you do is you get more public scrutiny and attention of whatever the topic area is.
And you better be prepared for that scrutiny and attention and have your own house in order because it's going to get examined.
And that is pretty much what's happened over the last three days.
So, bottom line here is: ACIP has been tasked with looking at the safety and efficacy of vaccines and other products, of course.
And it seems like the CDC was basically resisting your ability to do that.
In fact, am I reading that right?
That's certainly my impression: there absolutely has been a lot of barriers to moving forward as a fully independent organization as opposed to one that is very dependent on the opinions,
structures, and agendas and subcommittee membership advocated by CDC senior administrators.
So, I believe that RETSIF and the committee are well within the committee charter to seek to function independently, but there has been enormous resistance to that idea.
And it's very strange for those on myself and for anybody on the outside to grapple with.
Why would CDC personnel be so actively resisting asking the independent advisory committee asking questions about issues such as the safety and effectiveness of these products and the wisdom of the current childhood vaccine schedule for many of these products, for example?
It seems, I think, for the average person, self-evident that an independent advisory committee would need to ask independent questions about the safety and effectiveness of these products and the underlying immunology associated with how they're working or not working, interactions, potential effects in terms of class switching, which is functionally a form of immunosuppression.
Something I've been attacked for saying is occurring, and yet the data are very clear, and that this is functionally a version of an acquired immunodeficiency.
It's not AIDS, but it is an acquired immunodeficiency, which is the formal definition of that category of diseases, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
Doesn't mean that it's triggering HIV disease, but the press is not very good with nuance.
And I think that in particular, this grassroots movement, this grassroot movement of make America healthy again that has got so much momentum and interest on the part of the public is insistent that these questions be asked.
They have lost confidence for good reason in the decisions that have been promoted by the CDC and in particular by some of these staff.
The investigator, MDMPH, that has resigned so publicly was specifically brought on to be Rochelle Walinski's specialist in COVID.
This is the same person that advocated for universal American vaccination against monkeypox.
This is somebody who is intimately involved in the decisions about social distancing, mask use, lockdowns, and the pivot within the CDC, under the influence of the teachers union, away from a historically more rational position on children and schooling and lockdowns that was involved in the decision-making,
to pivot to advocate for these harsher measures.
And the public, you know, in retrospect, the data are quite clear that major harms have occurred.
Financial harms, learning harms, socialization harms, educational harms.
There's discussions about this being a lost generation educationally, consequent to these, what are fundamentally CDC positions.
So we have entered a new era.
And as mentioned in your lead, when we first started this segment talking about the president's statement, this has changed the entire landscape.
And the CDC is receiving a lot more scrutiny.
And again, let me emphasize, CDC has a lot of good people there.
There's some folks that have advanced questionable policy that is being challenged.
But the ones that are remaining that are working with RETSF-Levy, the subcommittee, and the ACIP in general are fully committed to working in an open, transparent, cooperative way with the appointees that are currently participating in the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
And we at the ACIP and the work groups serve at the pleasure of the Secretary.
If the Secretary decides that it's time for all of us to be retired or just for me to be retired or whoever, it's his call.
And likewise, the Secretary serves at the pleasure of the President.
And the President making this statement about seeking transparency from the manufacturers concerning the data that have been presented to him appears to me to be a tacit support and acknowledgement of the Secretary's position that we deserve to get to the bottom of these data.
He doesn't want the news cycle dominated compared to stopping the Russian-Ukrainian conflict or managing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Iranian nuclear weapons or trade policy.
This is, for some of us, this is important.
But if you think about the president's portfolio, he's basically put his foot down and said, guys, I'm tired of this.
Let's get to the bottom of it, get it cleaned up and move on.
And I fully support the president in that.
That is where we're from, coming from at ACIP is let's, you know, it's a show me the data.
Well, and I think that's the thing that really struck me here.
And this administration, you know, part of its mandate or part of its promise was that it would provide some transparency.
And it seems to me that this particular post is a demand for that kind of transparency.
Another thing that people overlook, and I'm often asked the question, what is the bond between the secretary and the president?
They both have a firm bedrock commitment to families and children in America.
And if you look at what's going on with the Maha Commission, you look at the President's statement with the rollout of the first commission report, in which he emphasized that if we don't change something, we're on track for our children to live shorter, sicker lives than their parents.
That's where Bobby and the president have strong shared commitment is over American children.
And all of this relates directly to that issue.
Are American children being well served in federal vaccine policy or not?
And I know that the Secretary is committed to having that question addressed.
And I've heard through back channels that the president is also personally committed to having that issue addressed comprehensively.
And it's our intention at the ACIP, in my opinion, not speaking for the ACIP, that we meet this mandate in an open, transparent, open-minded fashion, despite all of the horrible things the press is saying about me and my colleagues.
If it turns out that I was wrong about the data having to do with adverse events, deaths, et cetera, stratified by age and risk factor associated with these products, I will say so, just like I said that I was wrong in my vote with the RSV until proven otherwise.
And if the data show that I was wrong on the COVID products, I'll be glad I'll be the first one to announce that I was wrong and my detractors were correct.
I don't think that's going to happen, but time will tell.
Well, Dr. Robert Malone, it's such a pleasure to have had you on.
Thanks for having me on, Jan.
And thanks for the opportunity to help your listeners navigate these challenging news cycles.
If you like what you just saw, support independent journalism and subscribe to the Epoch Times.
▲
Export Selection