All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 7, 2021 - Jimmy Dore Show
01:13:23
20211007_TJDS_20211006_Podcast
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We're doing stand-up comedy in Florida in West Palm Beach and Danya.
And then we're going to Buffalo, Baltimore, Tempe, and Portland.
Go to jimmydorecomedy.com for a link for all our tickets.
Go to jimmydorecomedy.com for a link for all our tickets.
We are pleased to have with us renowned inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology.
As a researcher at the Salk Institute, he pioneered in vitro RNA transfection technology.
He subsequently pioneered many new innovations in the fields of RNA vaccination and immunization.
We welcome his expertise.
He is Dr. Robert Malone.
Thank you for being on the show.
Thanks for the opportunity, Jimmy, and I look forward to sharing ideas with you and with your audience.
So could you very briefly, could you explain to our audience what an mRNA vaccine is and how they protect against infectious diseases?
So that's a question that can carry us forward for the next two hours, or I can try to oversimplify everything.
And so please forgive me because that's what I'm going to do or we won't be able to talk about anything else.
So I don't mean to in any way talk down to anyone.
And if there's any molecular virologists in the audience, I apologize in advance.
The core idea here and insight is that methods developed for gene therapy purposes for correcting genetic errors, defects, can also be applied to generating immune response.
So mRNA vaccines employ a molecule called RNA, which is in most cases derived from DNA.
In the case of the virus itself, SARS-CoV-2, that's an RNA virus.
That's how it carries its genetic information.
It can be done either way with DNA or with RNA in different viruses.
But for this virus, it uses RNA.
People are confused about the M part of the RNA.
That's nothing to be afraid of.
There are different types of RNA in cells.
Some RNAs are used as scaffolding, as structure, for the little tiny biorobots inside of all of our cells called ribosomes that manufacture proteins.
So that's one kind of RNA, ribosomal RNA.
mRNA, the M stands for message, is the type of RNA that's used to carry information from the center part of your cell, the nucleus where the DNA lives, out to those little protein manufacturing biorobots that are out in the cytoplasm, the outer part of your cell, that actually make the proteins.
So don't be intimidated.
The mRNA is just designating that it's one particular type of RNA.
It's a message that goes to these little protein manufacturing facilities called ribosomes and causes them to make the protein from the virus called spike in this case.
And it's a slightly modified version of spike.
It was designed to make that protein that's produced a little easier for your B cells to recognize to make antibodies.
Now, there's a lot of information that data suggesting that actually that wasn't the necessary, that modification, but it was believed to have been necessary back when they engineered the vaccine.
The spike protein that's produced is largely the same as the spike protein produced from the virus.
And we do know that the spike produced from the virus has certain types of toxicities.
The people that did the engineering were not aware of those toxicities and problems at the time they did it.
So yes, they did make some modifications to the spike protein when they engineered it for putting it into these genetic vaccines, but they weren't designed specifically to make it more safe.
They were designed to make it more immunogenic, a better immunogen.
Now, the important thing to understand about all this, I think, for all of us, is there are no perfect vaccines, just like there are no perfect drugs.
Just like if I, with my table saw or a drill or anything else, if I use it wrong, inappropriately, without caution, I can cut off my finger or do damage.
Likewise, drugs and vaccines have to be used intelligently and cautiously.
And we have to understand the risks so that we can avoid them when it makes sense.
And so there's much discussion and consternation about the fact that we don't fully understand the risks of these experimental products.
And I think that there's merit to that.
But like with everything in life, there's risks when we get into an airplane.
There's risks when we get into our cars.
And we, all of us, have learned to deal with those risks.
What we think about, what we do, is we say, oh, when I get into my car and I need to go to the shopping center, is it a good idea to travel 65 in a 35 mile an hour zone?
No, probably not.
There's a good chance you're going to get a car wreck.
So we all the time make decisions about what we do and how we do it based on an understanding of risks.
The same is true with medicines, and the same is true for physicians.
What's important for us to understand is because we're going to take risks, we need to understand those risks, and we need to have the information necessary for us to make an informed decision about whether or not we wish to take those risks.
And that's kind of the core of my position here, is let's use the vaccines intelligently and let's make sure that we really understand the risks and that you and your audience understand the risks because it's your body and you have the right to accept or reject a medical treatment.
I believe that is a fundamental right.
So as long as, well, well, as long as you left it there, let me just go ahead and I'm going to jump ahead and just ask you a question.
What are the bioethics of the current campaign to get the vaccine in everyone's arm?
Personally, I find this public position confusing.
It's not consistent with my training and my understanding of the proper practice of medicine and the proper practice of regulatory oversight.
These vaccines are known.
The government acknowledges that there are risks associated with these vaccines.
This was not the case six to nine months ago.
So now they've taken the position, they acknowledge their risks.
The risks that they formally acknowledge in the licensure package for the BioNTech product are incomplete.
They are known in the literature, numerous other risks, and the FDA in that licensure package acknowledges that there are other risks that remain uncharacterized, risks such as birth defects, the extent of which the cardiac risks manifest, etc.
In addition, there are many other risks such as reactivation of latent viruses.
We know this as shingles, also Epstein-Barr virus, cytomeglovirus, and other viruses that can be triggered by vaccination, may also be triggered by the infection.
So there is a portfolio of risks, only some of which are understood to any significant degree, Many of which are known to exist, but they're not well characterized yet, even after all these many months of dosing of these experimental products.
In my opinion, based on both decades of practice and international consensus as embodied in the Nuremberg trials and the Helsinki Accord and the Belmont Report here in the United States, and captured in the code of federal regulations, that's to say federal case law, as what's commonly known as the common rule.
There are well-established practices which must be followed for experimental products and in general need to be followed for all medical procedures, such as when you go and have a surgery.
You look like you're about in the same age bracket or less as I am, and you may have experienced a colonoscopy or other practices.
And if so, you'll recall when you had those that the surgeon came in and described, or whoever was going to perform the procedure, described the risks and asked you if you willingly accepted those risks.
That's typical medical practice.
That's how we should perform medicine.
We need to inform you of the risks in a full sense for a procedure or a medical product.
Those have to be expressed in common language so that you can understand them.
I can't hide those risks using fancy medical language.
And you have to willingly accept those risks, whether it's an experimental product or a therapeutic or product that has already been approved.
So, three key things: full and complete disclosure of risks, as best as they're known at that time.
The risks have to be communicated to you in language that you can understand.
And you have the right and obligation to willingly accept those risks.
In my opinion, the rights of the collective do not outweigh the rights of the individual.
And that is explicitly true with medical practice.
Now, there are those in the New York Times and the Washington Post and others where you've seen op-eds.
And for instance, Atlantic Monthly, my journal that I'm not very happy with right now because of their attacking me.
You've seen these articles in the headlines of the Toronto Star basically saying that it's acceptable to withhold medical care from those who have not taken vaccine.
I strongly object to this.
So, there is a logic that if you don't accept vaccine, you really don't deserve to be treated on the same basis as somebody who did if you come into the hospital.
Okay, and that is a slippery slope.
We go from there.
So, what's the next thing?
Well, let's see.
The people that are at highest risk are obese.
Well, obesity is something that you could control.
That's your fault.
You had too many McFrys and too much sugary Coca-Cola.
And so, it's your fault that you're obese and at high risk for COVID.
So, maybe we shouldn't treat you.
Maybe we shouldn't treat you if you've smoked.
It goes on and on and on.
How deep is that hole?
I strongly object to that kind of logic, but it's being promoted both across the United States in high-profile papers of record and in Canada, across Canada, like the Toronto Star.
So, you ask about the ethics.
I strongly object to mandatory vaccination for multiple reasons.
I believe it's not ethical, and it's also not good medical practice from the standpoint of a virologist and vaccinologist.
What we're doing by excessively using vaccine inappropriately for people who don't really need it is that we're driving the virus to be able to escape through evolutionary selection the benefits of the vaccine.
Now, we all understand how this works intuitively because most of us are aware that the agricultural practice in feedlots and other places of medicating or chicken houses, of medicating poultry and livestock indiscriminately with antibiotics, leads to antibiotic-resistant superbugs that then turn around and attack us.
It's the same basic logic: overuse of vaccine will drive the development of viruses that are able to evade vaccination.
Now, who cares?
Because we know that natural infection provides broader, longer-lasting, and up to 20-fold more effective immune response in terms of preventing reinfection than vaccine does.
So, if the vaccine is no longer effective, why should I care?
Because I'll just get natural infection, and that'll be better in the end, anyhow.
The answer is that we do have people in our population that are at high risk.
The risk if you catch this virus and you're elderly and have significant other core morbidities like pre-existing heart conditions, obesity, or other characteristics, your risk is quite high.
You know, it can range up to 50% probability of death, depending on your pre-existing conditions.
And the people that will suffer from this naive, inappropriate policy of global universal forced vaccination when the potent virus escape mutants develop is going to be those people that are at high risk, the people that most need vaccine.
So, what we risk doing is destroying the one really effective weapon that we have.
It's already happening.
The effectiveness of the vaccine is dropping quite rapidly because of the evolution of the virus to escape it.
This is one of the lessons coming out of Israel and the UK: that high levels of vaccination are associated with escape mutants.
Those escape mutants are able to infect even the vaccinated.
The vaccinated do shed virus and replicate virus at levels at least that of those that are unvaccinated and maybe higher.
They still do get disease, although maybe less disease.
And in some ways, that might be worse, because that means the vaccinated that do have breakthrough infections are walking around feeling relatively healthy and yet producing and shedding just as much virus as the people that have received vaccine.
And so, we have a word for that.
We call it super spreaders.
So, this is just the whole policy is poorly thought out and so poorly thought out that you're left with wondering: are these people just not very aware and experienced?
Is this incompetence?
Or is this the consequence of the pressure of the pharmaceutical industry on the people making decisions.
And I'm not those people.
I can't get in their heads.
I don't know what's going on.
But there are a lot of signs that we're seeing what the term is is regulatory capture.
That really doesn't even cover what we're talking about.
Let's say undue influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the entire public health enterprise decision-making process because you either are left saying these people are grossly incompetent or their decisions are being inappropriately influenced.
It's hard for me to come up with other explanations.
So let me ask you: I heard you say, so you're kind of explaining something I heard you say before that we can't vaccinate our way out of this pandemic and we shouldn't be trying to do that.
And you kind of, I think what you just did was kind of explain why.
Can you just expand on that a little more?
So for me, you can appreciate I'm a little sensitive to people taking credit for my ideas.
And so it's really important to me to give credit to other people.
It's, you know, like I say, I've been sensitized to this.
So in my case, there are many other physicians and scientists, and most notably Gert von den Bosch, who I used to work with at Solvay, have pointed out that and really championed the logic and taken the hits in the press and Wikipedia and everywhere else for having done so,
making the point that in an outbreak when there is very active spread of high levels of virus, you cannot vaccinate your way out of the risk of that virus during an active outbreak with an imperfect leaky vaccine.
And that's what we have.
We have a vaccine that currently, various estimates coming from Israel and other places suggest that its ability to prevent infection is something in the range of 40 to 60 percent.
So let's just take the middle point there.
That means that if you go kiss your spouse and she's got an active virus infection, in general, your probability of being protected in that case, where you've been exposed to a goodly amount of virus, is about half.
So half of you that have that experience may be protected if you've taken vaccine, the other half won't.
And if you do get infected, the virus will replicate at at least, if not higher, levels of replication in your body than if you weren't vaccinated.
And you will be producing the same or higher levels of virus in your nose, in your mouth, in the places where you can shed it and potentially infect other people, the same levels or higher than somebody who had been previously vaccinated.
Now, what that means functionally is that with these now further evolved virus strains like Delta, Lambda, and Mu, we're in a situation in which the virus is increasingly infectious, increasingly able to transmit from one person to another person.
And when you do the math, that epidemiology can model these things.
When you do the math, even if we all had perfect practice in N95 masks all the time, the best we could do is slow these viruses down.
They will spread through the population.
So we need to come to grips with that.
These are leaky vaccines, and this policy of universal vaccination isn't going to get us to being able to get back to normal.
Furthermore, what we now know, as if that isn't bad enough, is that to the extent they do provide protection, the protection seems to peter out at about half a year after vaccination.
So then we're in a position where, well, maybe we can re-vaccinate.
And we've heard the Biden administration talking about taking the jab again, so a third jab.
The problem with that is that they made those decisions without actually having any data to support that.
And that has kind of been a problem all the way through this when we've heard Dr. Fauci or others saying, well, we should do this or we should do that or we should do the other thing.
And they're flying by the seat of their pants.
They're substituting opinion for data.
And that might be okay if we were doing animal experiments or we had a few monkeys that we were going to be testing out, a hypothesis, but it's not okay when we're going to implement authoritarian measures across the country or across the world in which we mandate everybody takes this, that, or the other intervention.
You darn well better have rock solid data saying that that's a good idea.
And even then, I object to doing it.
I believe in the sanctity of the individual is more important than the sanctity of the collective.
That's my personal opinion.
And I think I'm backed by an ancient document, it's a little over 200 years old called the Constitution of the United States.
So that's where I stand: the sanctity of the individual.
And the underlying logic here that's being advanced will not get us to where the promised land that we're being pointed towards.
It will not get us back to normalcy.
It won't get us back to economic strength.
It won't get us back to our jobs.
And this logic that we're going to vaccinate, mandate vaccination in this company or that company or across the military or whatever, when you look at it now, it is outdated and grossly naive.
The vaccinated can spread infection and disease.
The unvaccinated can spread infectious disease.
And the vaccine, to the extent the vaccine provides benefit, it only is good for about six months.
So then, okay, are we all going to take revaccination every six months?
Could there be a problem with that?
Well, actually, there is.
Okay, that logic absolutely requires data because those of us that have gray hair and have been around a little while in the vaccine world know and understand immunology, know that there's a thing called high zone tolerance.
Vaccines are not linear.
Dose response in vaccines are not linear.
The immune system is really complicated, and more is not always better.
Sometimes more can turn off the immune system, can shut it down.
So we can't just assume that a third jab or a fourth jab or a fifth jab is going to do good.
It actually might make the immune response worse, not only in people who have just received vaccine, but potentially also in those that have the benefits of natural infection.
So it's just bad science, it's bad policy, it's bad ethics, and we've got to slow down.
The government has to get away from this seat of the pants, you know, fly-by intuition kind of thinking based on the opinion of one individual, which seems to be often what's going on, and you know who I'm speaking of.
And we have to get back to this thing called evidence-based medicine, which is what I was trained to do, and most of us were trained to do.
The other thing we've got to get back to, in my opinion, is stopping this bureaucrats or Tony Fauci dictating to physicians how they should practice medicine.
Allow physicians to practice medicine, to practice their art for good heavens.
There are drugs that many physicians, and there is significant data supporting this, believe can keep people out of the hospital.
Now, for some reason, and you and I have theories about what that might be, having to do with conflicts of interest and the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry, for some reason, the government is adamantly opposed to early treatment.
I don't get it.
It's bad medicine.
It's bad policy.
When have we ever had a situation where patients go to the emergency room, they go to the hospital, they go to their physicians, they say, I'm having trouble breathing, Doc.
Somebody tests their blood oxygen and says, well, it's low, but it's not low enough.
Go back home and come back when you're really sick.
You know, when have we ever had this?
This is insanity.
And it's totally antithetical to good medical practice.
And now we're having a position where, you know, appointed bureaucrats in state medical boards and the American Medical Association in Chicago, which is largely a bunch of lobbyists, sit around and say, oh, no, thou shalt not do this or thou shalt not do that, you know, based on what appears to be lobbying and influence of the pharmaceutical industry.
It is killing Americans.
It is killing people worldwide.
And how do we know that?
Okay, we're always told we have the best medical system in the world, right?
Well, we certainly have the most expensive, that is for sure.
And if you run the graph and look at outcomes from COVID and compare them by nation in terms of death and mortality incidence per case, what you see in those curves is that just about everybody has beaten the pants off of us, including the poor countries that are using things like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
So something's not right here.
We're spending tons of money.
The government is telling physicians how to practice medicine.
And people are dying here at a higher rate than they are in a lot of other places.
And I think that there is certainly the signs that something's rotten in Denmark.
And why don't we get back to a position where we stop letting the pharmaceutical industry dictate what we should do and start allowing physicians to practice their art.
So just so I'm clear on what you mean when you say, so you're definitely pro-vax, that your whole life has been dedicated to developing vaccines.
And you're the pioneer of the mRNA vaccine technology.
So what do you mean when you say because you're pro-vaccine, but this vaccine you say is leaky?
What does leaky mean?
Almost all vaccines are leaky.
It's a question of degree.
So this is actually a technical term.
I didn't just make it up.
What it has to do with is the ability, it's a characterization of the ability of the vaccine to prevent the spread of the disease between individuals.
And ideally, a vaccine that's going to be used for containment or prevention.
For instance, we talk about the pediatric vaccines, or we talk about influenza vaccines.
We try to administer those in times when the virus is not circulating.
The way those things work is we give as many people as possible before the vaccine, before the virus is circulating.
So for instance, with influenza, we deploy influenza vaccine in the offseason.
And it provides imperfect protection, but enough protection that the virus can't get its foot in the door and start spreading wildly within the population.
That's the logic.
In this case, the wolf is not just in the door, he's in the kitchen, right?
He's in our houses and our businesses and our workplaces and everything else.
And that takes a different strategy.
So a leaky vaccine, virtually all vaccines are leaky.
Those of us that have done animal research and non-human primate research and vaccines know that you can overwhelm any vaccine with enough virus or pathogen.
So no vaccine is perfect.
But this one is particularly imperfect in that the protection against disease is modest.
As I mentioned, protection against infection is something like 40 to 60% and going down as the virus evolves.
And that's never Going to be able to get us to the nirvana that we seek, which is herd immunity, because it's leaky.
Does that make sense?
Yes.
Yes, that makes sense to me that because people who are vaccinated can still spread.
The vaccine doesn't stop you from spreading the virus.
Precisely.
And it's actually only about, on average, something like about 50% protective from you getting infected if you've had the jabs.
And that actually only lasts for about six months.
Whereas if you have been infected and recovered like I have, and to my great surprise, although I was infected and had serious COVID in February, late February of 2020, I got infected with the Boston outbreak, which was very early in the States.
And I thought I was never going to be the same again.
I just got my pulmonary function test back, and I'm 100%.
I'm within normal limits.
So this disease, it kills.
I don't wish to am not saying it's the flu.
Believe me, I've had it.
You do not want to have this disease if you can avoid it.
I had it very early when we had virtually no drugs.
Matter of fact, I discovered one of the drugs that appears to be effective by treating myself, and that's Pepsid.
I'm not here to push Pepsid, but that's the situation I encountered, and yet I survived, and my body has recovered.
So for most of us, this is a survivable disease that doesn't necessarily cause long-term damage to your body.
For those of us that are at very high risk, very old with multiple pre-existing conditions, and even in the very young, the honest truth is that we've had a little less than 400 deaths, pediatric deaths, since the beginning of the outbreak.
That's people up to the age of 18, a little less than 400.
Now, the annual death rate in the pediatric population from influenza tends to hover around 600 to 800 per year, just to compare.
Of those little less than 400 deaths in children and adolescents, virtually 100% of those had major pre-existing conditions like morbid obesity or significant obesity or heart disease or other things.
So if you're a healthy young person, your probability of dying from this disease, if you get infected, is infinitesimal.
It is teeny, teeny tiny, you know, something like 0.000, maybe another 0%.
Okay.
And for most of us, that's the case.
Our probability of death from this is very small unless we have one of those major pre-existing conditions.
So the point is, you've all been subjected, I'm going to say it, to a heck of a lot of fear porn.
And that maybe serves the interests of the pharmaceutical industry.
It serves the interests of the major media outlets that, you know, by driving you with fear, they get readership and clicks and everything else.
And many of which, many of these major outlets like Google and Facebook have significant investments in the in of back not just pharmaceuticals, but in vaccine companies.
So you really got to be careful.
We got a whole lot of conflict of interest going on here.
And a lot of people controlling your thinking through the information they present to you.
And you've seen it in action recently.
If you were a skeptic, all of the, you know, just bizarre inundation of press and information about ivermectin as a horse drug.
I breed horses.
Okay.
I use ivermectin to clear out the bots and the worms.
In Africa, Merck has been donating millions and millions of doses for decades to Africans for river blindness and other conditions.
And ivermectin is extremely safe when used dosed at the right levels.
All of this media chatter about don't use horse ivermectin is just a it's noise.
It's a distraction.
I don't know, you know, it appears that our media has been captured by our pharmaceutical industries.
And those that spend time trying to ferret these things out see that there's a lot of evidence that this is the case.
Yes.
Well, I can't.
So I could show you, let me just go real quick.
So ivermectin is on the WHO list of essential medicines.
You would never know that if you were a casual consumer of news or even a serious consumer of news in the United States, you would never know that.
You would think that this is some kind of horse medicine drug instead of what it actually is and a medicine that's been prescribed to billions of people around the world and is on the WHO list of essential medicines.
In fact, this is from the NIH.
The NIH says it has had a measurable beneficial impact in improving the lives and welfare of billions of people throughout the world.
That's from the NIH.
That's they're talking about ivermectin, and it has immeasurably beneficial impact in improving the lives and welfare of billions of people throughout the world.
Again, that's from the NIH.
And this is right now, this is from the NIH.
The NIH is saying that they're not saying that COVID doesn't work.
They're not saying that ivermectin does or doesn't work.
They're saying that there's insufficient evidence for either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID.
So what they're recommending is that well-conducted clinical trials need to be taken care of so they can provide more specific evidence for the guidance.
And why do they say this?
The rationale for them saying we need studies is because it's been shown that ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures.
So now the NIH, CDC, is now recommending that doctors prescribe this in controlled trials.
One of those trials, I'm in.
I'm in one of those controlled trials that is being submitted for, I'm a data point in the trial because I've got long-hauler syndrome.
And so that's, so that's what's, so this isn't, so that's right from the NIH.
NIH says ivermectin shown to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures, and they recommend that doctors start giving it to people for studies.
So it's the Exact opposite of what you're hearing in the mainstream news media.
And a lot of us suspect it's because of the undue influence of pharma.
In fact, the people who invented ivermectin won the Nobel Prize for Science.
So William C. Campbell and Satashi Omura.
Now, this guy's invented hundreds of pharmaceuticals.
These people are the smartest guys.
And you would never know that, by the way, you would watching the news or listening to the news here.
And by the way, this is from the Farmer's Journal.
Everybody's saying that ivermectin is a farm medicine.
Well, here's what the Farmers Journal says.
The compound ivermectin was developed into effective treatments against parasitic diseases that affect humans, particularly among the world's poorest populations.
It radically lowered the incidence of river blindness and lymphatic feeleric.
I don't even know how to say that word.
Thank you.
As well as showing efficacy against an expanding number of other parasitic diseases.
So even the farmers journal knows that ivermectin is unbelievably useful in treating many parasitic diseases.
And here's Matt Taibbi said earlier in June: ivermectin, can a drug be right-wing, a potential COVID-19 treatment has become hostage to a larger global fight between populists and anti-populists.
So the people that, so the not only is the regulatory capture happening because of Big Pharma, but the journalistic capture is happening.
And here, for instance, here's a typical news hack from the intercept.
His name is Ken Klippenstein.
And, you know, we've outed him before on the show.
And his stance is that vaccines should not be voluntary.
He thinks that everybody should, that's his position.
And so I tweeted out this from the NIH.
I tweeted this out from the NIH.
This is right from the NIH.
I didn't make it up.
It's issue one, January 1st, 2021.
It says the use of ivermectin is associated with lower mortality in hospital patients with coronavirus disease 2019, the ivermectin in COVID-19 study.
And I just, without comment, I tweeted out the study from the NIH.
That's what I did.
Here's what Ken Klippenstein from the intercept said: Jimmy Dore is a horse dewormer med guy now.
It's right there.
It's from the NIH.
So he doesn't want to contradict.
He's not saying the NIH is wrong.
He's saying Jimmy Dore is a horse dewormer guy with it's completely anti-science.
So someone said, Can he link to a medical study?
If you want to argue the quality and accuracy of that research, that's one thing.
But to blithely dismiss Jimmy Dore as a horse dewormer med guy when the drug exists and forms safe for human use under medical supervision ain't it.
Didn't matter.
This tweet where he called me a dewormer guy got like 12,000 likes.
It was very popular on Twitter.
Nobody bothered to look that I was tweeting out without comment the study from the NIH.
It wasn't from the National Inquirer.
It wasn't my opinion.
And I tweeted it out without opinion or comment.
I just tweeted out an article from the NIH.
And that's how strong the propaganda is.
That's the stranglehold that the big pharma has on the establishment media.
And that's a billionaire-funded pro-censorship intercept.
And there they are trying to squelch actual scientific information from the NIH.
And they're doing it in the most anti-science way possible.
It's despicable what Ken Klippenstein did.
He's intentionally misleading people.
And the people that are following him are so intellectually lazy, they won't even bother to click on the study that he's commenting on to see that it's from the NIH.
It's not made up.
And it's science.
So people don't mind being anti-science to pretend to dunk on someone who for being anti-science.
It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.
I'll show you a little bit more.
And I tweeted out.
I said, I don't know what's going on here, but I tweeted on an article of 18 studies from the NIH, not my opinion, about ivermectin.
People being anti-science to dunk on me is a very weird trend.
So there it is.
I even circulated it's from the NIH, but it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter because what that guy's doing is spreading propaganda.
And again, if you're spreading propaganda at the behest of the establishment, if you're lying at the behest of the establishment, which is what he's doing, there's never a price to pay.
There's never a price to pay, right?
So there might be a price to pay for us for actually telling the truth today.
And here's what Isaiah Jelani said.
He says, why is basically the entire media lying about what ivermectin is and calling it a horse drug?
Now, thank God a lot of people like that tweet.
So it gives me faith in humanity again that some people on Twitter are complete herd mentality idiots.
He said, owning people they dislike seems more important than the truth.
And it got so bad.
Here it is getting so bad that the Rolling Stone, this is a big story over the weekend.
They printed a completely bogus false article about ivermectin and people in red states using it.
It says gunshot victims left waiting as horse dewormer overdoses overwhelm Oklahoma hospitals.
Doctors say that's from September 3rd.
Now that's completely made up.
That was not that there's not one piece of that that's true.
Not one person was being treated at the hospital for ivermectin.
Nobody, gunshot victims were waiting.
Nobody.
Everything was operating as normal.
Completely false story that Rolling Stone printed and it got passed around the internet like crazy.
This is the message from the hospital.
The hospital says, although doctors, so they based this on an interview this guy, Dr. Jason McClea did.
They said he's not an employee of the NHS Sequoia, which is the hospital.
He is affiliated with a medical staffing group that provides coverage for our emergency room.
With that said, Dr. McClea has not worked at our Salzville location in over two months.
NHS Sequoia has not treated any patients due to complications related to taking ivermectin.
This includes not treating any patients for ivermectin overdose.
All patients who have visited our emergency room have received medical attention as appropriate.
Our hospital has not had to turn away any patients seeking emergency care.
So what the Rolling Stone then did, by the way, a million other news organizations picked up this same morning, including Rachel Maddow, including the Newsweek, all of them picked this up and repeated it without, all they had to do was pick up the phone and call the hospital and ask them if it was true.
And none of them did it.
They didn't do the bare minimum of journalistic ethics or investigation.
So what the Rolling Stone did was they printed, they didn't take the article down.
They just printed this thing above it and they left the whole article up, which is 100% misinformation.
And by the way, they're not going to lose their Twitter page or their Facebook page.
There's no note on this article on Twitter when you want to retweet it That says, are you sure you want to retweet this?
This is maybe not, this is a conspiracy.
So, what Glenn Greenwald says is the only reason Rolling Stone is calling this an update as opposed to what it so plainly is, a retraction, is because liberal outlets know that their readers don't care at all if they publish fake news as long as it's done with the right political motives and goals.
So, what this story did was it was dunking on Oklahoma, Red State, and it was dunking on dumb what they consider to be Trump voters who take ivermectin horse to wormer to treat COVID.
Oh, they're also crazy.
Well, again, that didn't happen.
It's a completely made-up story.
Why do you got to make up stories to scare people?
Of course, it's going back to the fear porn we're talking about.
Also, this gives people a false sense of superiority that they're all vaccinated and not taking that.
And it gives people a false sense of superiority that they're better than someone else.
That's what this is.
I want to just really quickly show you how bad the establishment media covered this.
We've got to talk about the Rolling Stone ivermectin story.
Turns out the story about rural hospitals is so flooded with the, it's completely invented, and a lot of people took the bait.
Here's the insider, they repeated it.
It wasn't just the Rolling Stone, the business insider repeated it.
Here's No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen, right?
That's a big popular show.
It's called No Lie.
It's kind of ironic they would call it no lie as he lies.
People are backing up hospitals in Oklahoma by overdosing on Hook.
That's not true.
Again, this is a weird liberal dunk on a red state.
And that's not really true.
That's not true at all.
Look who else did it.
Executive producer of MSNBC.
That's an excellent Laura Pepikoff.
Who else did it?
The British tabloids.
The Daily Mail did it.
Also, look at the Hill Newsweek.
They look at it.
There's Newsweek.
Patients overdosing INIvermectin, clogging Opal.
Not one of these places picked up a phone and called that hospital.
There's a New York Daily News doing the exact same thing.
Hospitals in Oklahoma are being overwhelmed with patients overdose.
That's not true.
Completely made up.
The Hill completely made up stories.
Doctors say that not.
So you see, here's, and here's Ian Higgins.
And he's the worst, one of the worst ones at this.
I'll show you.
Here's Ian Higgins.
I don't really have a problem with people taking ivermectin if they want to.
And he puts it in quotes and it links to the horse ivermectin instead of the human ivermectin.
Again, pushing a lie as a journalist, which is the worst thing you could possibly do.
And of course, he's informed.
He knows what he's doing.
He's lying.
Everyone knows that ivermectin is on the WHO list of essential medicines, that it's been prescribed to billions of people, that they've used it in not only Mexico, but India.
Now, the head of the Doctors Association in Japan is recommending it for everybody who has COVID.
And guys like Ian Higgins are confirmed liars and propagandists, and that's exactly what they're doing.
Here is Rachel Maddow did the worst.
So she tweeted it out.
Patients over, she did the same thing.
Now she's got millions of followers, and people think she's telling you the truth, and she's not.
By the way, those tweets are never, none of them were flagged by Twitter.
None of them were censored.
None of them, when you went to retweet it, said it was, oh, Joy Ann Reed, Joy Ann Reid from MSNBC doing the exact same thing.
Wherever there's fake news, there's Joy Ann Reed.
It should go without saying, but inventing a narrative out of thin air simply because it confirms your priors is not going to help rebuild trust in the media.
It would have taken a single phone call to shoot down this story.
Why didn't that happen?
At the same time, people who purport to be concerned about misinformation and how it spreads on platforms like Twitter will surely be silent on this.
Where's the gnashing of teeth from the disinformation reporters?
Where are the Twitter content warnings?
Where's the outrage?
You won't hear any because this is the acceptable type of political lie.
And none of these people or outlets will learn anything.
They'll keep doing this because they care more about scoring cheap dunks on their opponents than getting to the truth.
Again, there's COVID-19 from the NIH recommending ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2.
So now we should do studies on it.
And again, this show is not recommending ivermectin or any treatment.
This is for educational purposes only.
And we're showing you the misinformation around pharmaceuticals by the mainstream press, which is overwhelming propaganda.
And there it is.
It's on the list.
So I just want to show you this.
This guy very hilariously tweets out: I can't believe people are taking horse medicine when they have a headache because this is aspirin for veterinary use.
Oh my God, you're using an aspirin for by there's a oh my god, there's penicillin for fish.
Oh my god, I guess it's a fish medicine.
So you get the point.
And I just wanted, so I want to bring back in Dr. Malone.
So what do you make of all this propaganda and why is it so hard to get the truth out about pharmaceuticals that are in the WHO list of essential medicines?
It's hard to come up with any explanation.
I mean, you've given one, which is the politics of the situation.
Another is that the media, what we're referring to as mainstream, or I would call it legacy media, is owned by a total of six companies which have structural cross-links and integration with the pharmaceutical industry.
This concerted effort on the part of major media to delegitimize anyone using this agent, which is not perfect.
It doesn't provide perfect protection or treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID disease.
But it's a heck of a lot better than doing nothing.
And there are many papers and meta-analyses that suggest that it's something like 70 or 80% effective if administered early in disease in preventing hospitalization, serious disease and death.
And when administered at these doses that have been proven over decades, with, as you say, billions of doses administered, it is perfectly safe.
So this is hard to reconcile.
How do you have a situation in which a safe, off-patent, inexpensive drug, it costs like a buck a dose in Mexico?
How do you reconcile that this drug that's being used in emerging economies all across the world to good effect is being trashed in U.S. and Western media?
The appearance is because these folks are bought and paid for.
And they are acting in a concerted way to advance the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry.
It's hard for me to come up with any other explanation that makes any sense at all.
Even let me hopefully I have it.
By the way, do you see this?
COVID-19 is not so spread in Africa.
How does ivermectin affect it?
Now, there's a theory that they provide that to people.
They said COVID was going to be raging in Africa.
And of course, it never did.
And now a lot of people are attributing that to ivermectin.
That hasn't been proven clinically.
Yeah, you got to be a little cautious.
Like I was saying about the Israeli data, all these things are really complicated.
The technical term is they're confounding variables.
So the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 in Africa roughly tracks the prevalence of obesity in Africa.
And the Central African nations, which is much of the continent, are poor enough that they just don't have a whole lot of fat people.
There's also widespread administration of hydroxychloroquine for other diseases prevalent in Africa in this region.
So we've got multiple effects going on here, not the least of which is that much of Africa is pretty skinny and pretty fit because they live more of a rural lifestyle.
They don't have McDonald's on every corner and Pepsis and stuff in their mouth with french fries and ice cream all the time.
And so they have much lower risk.
It underscores the point that, in my opinion, this disease is a disease of the elderly and the obese for the most part.
And that's what's going on here.
And we can shift this risk profile even more favorably by using these imperfect drugs that have been used for decades in humans.
By the way, hydroxychloroquine is proven safe in pregnancy.
That's not the case with these vaccines, just to say.
So there's there, I don't, I really, it's hard for me to make sense out of a lot of the public messaging coming out of our government without invoking what we call regulatory capture.
And it's a lot worse than just regulatory capture.
The pharmaceutical industries have basically bought and paid for our entire Congress.
The industry has so much money, and this is making them even more profitable.
Just think this through.
We have paid for the development of these vaccines, and we have paid to purchase these vaccines through the government.
And now we're going to have them marketed on us so that all these companies can make even more billions in profit.
In my opinion, if we think back, I mean, there are a few of us left here that belong to the greatest generation and remember this gentleman, Harry Truman.
What did Harry Truman come to power?
Why did he rise politically?
One of his key issues was war profiteering.
And in my opinion, what we're seeing is florid war profiteering and the consequences of it.
There's so much money sloshing around in the system in big pharma that they're able to corrupt almost everything that they touch, and they do.
And we've got to deal with it.
We've let this thing fester.
We've let it go on.
We've let the conflict of interest build and build and build until the pharmaceutical industry has basically, to a significant extent, compromised our entire government and also compromised big tech and also compromised media.
And I don't know how we take back our country.
I don't know how we prevent them from actively inserting ideas and falsehoods into people's minds.
But that's what they're doing.
So I just wanted to show you this from the FDA even tweeted out.
You are not a horse.
You are not a cow.
Seriously, I'll stop it using drug ivermectins.
This is what set it off.
And I want to highlight the y'all.
Okay.
I live in Virginia.
I was born in California.
I know what YAL is referencing.
Okay.
This is called gaslighting.
This is basically attacking people that were previously characterized as deplorables during a prior election.
And it is really being used in a pejorative fashion.
I mean, y'all isn't something that's used by folks up in Wisconsin or New England.
Y'all is a slang for attacking people that are characterized as stupid and incompetent and living in red states.
And it's just absolutely inappropriate communication to be coming from our federal government.
No matter what else you think, no matter what side of the fence you sit on, that this is absolutely inappropriate public communication.
It's not professional.
It is immature.
It reads like something written by a 22-year-old.
And this is what set off this whole brushfire is this really highly inappropriate public comment coming from a federally funded agency.
I don't know what else to say about this.
Well, when I saw that, that shocked me too.
So I did a little investigation.
And it turns out, who funds the FDA?
Did you know that it's funded by the pharma companies it regulates?
The Fed and Drug Administration.
Go ahead.
Yes, I do.
It's about 70% of the agency.
It didn't used to be this way.
The pharmaceutical industry plays a long game.
Okay, 45%.
I've heard higher numbers.
So the pharmaceutical industry plays a long game, and they've gradually got their interests more and more and more embedded.
And the justification for this change in policy was that, well, it's so expensive, and we can't afford to really fund the FDA the way we should be funding it.
And so we're going to do it by fees.
And maybe your listeners understand the metaphor of the camel's nose.
You know, the way it goes is once the camel's got his nose under the tent, pretty soon the whole camel is in the tent.
And that is the case with the pharmaceutical industry.
They have proven time and time again, if you give them an inch, they will take a mile.
And they are constantly, constantly pushing, backed by enormous profits, which come directly out of your pocket.
And I don't know what to say.
They are now dictating how physicians shall practice medicine.
This is what other word for it.
This is corruption.
I mean, let's call it like it is.
And so I also did a little digging.
Pfizer expects to make $33.5 billion in vaccine revenue in 2021.
That seems like a lot of money.
Moderna says it doesn't intend to profit from its COVID vaccine, yet estimates its 2021 revenue will be up 22 times higher than their revenue in 2020.
In fact, Moderna's stock is up 230% from last year.
Not 50%, not 100%, 230% from last year.
So I think this gives validity to what you're saying.
And of course, even further, Bill Gates is on record bragging that he's had a 20-fold, that's 20 times, that's not 200-fold.
I mean, that's not 200%.
200%.
That's 2,000% of a return on investment from Bill Gates' investment in vaccine companies.
He's not giving money to vaccine companies.
He's making money on vaccine companies.
This is the case.
You know, we always think if you dial into PBS, you see the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is bankrolling PBS.
Well, it turns out that that name, Robert Wood Johnson, comes from the fact that Robert Wood Johnson is one of the largest shareholders of the company called Johnson Johnson.
And it just so happens that Robert Wood Johnson is shoveling money into these fact-checker ankle biters to try to defend and take down folks like you and me that are saying things they find uncomfortable.
And as you said, it doesn't matter if you retort and show that their, quote, fact-checkers were wrong.
They'll never say sorry.
They'll never pull it down.
It doesn't matter because their job is not to ascertain truth.
Their job is to reinforce the dominant narrative that the vaccine companies in the pharmaceutical industry want.
Now, you're pointing to an interesting character here.
Throughout the emerging markets, there's growing skepticism about this whole vaccine strategy, vaccinate everybody strategy.
They're the ones deploying these alternative therapies that are off-patent.
They can't afford to buy into the big pharma merry-go-round anyhow.
And the irony is they're having better outcomes.
They're having fewer people die.
There is a price to pay in death and disease for allowing pharma to own our system.
And we ignore it at our personal peril.
Now, go ahead, please.
So he also, this is the president of Mexico, and he was also warning against the influence of big pharma with this vaccine rollout.
And of course, they rolled out ivermectin to everybody in Mexico.
Of course, that doesn't get reported in the United States.
We reported it here on this show.
So they didn't know what to do.
Their ICUs were overflowing.
They started giving people ivermectin and their ICU rates went down, and then they gave it to everybody.
And so, and as you point out, they're having better outcomes than the United States.
So India also has had success with this.
And again, the head of the Japanese Doctor Association came out and recommended that everybody who has COVID use ivermectin.
Again, we're not recommending anything here.
We are just telling you this for education.
There's a great example cited in the paper just published two days ago that Peter McCullough is a co-author on, which is Peru.
In the case of Peru, the military widely deployed ivermectin, and the case, the fatality rate plummeted.
There was a change in administration.
A new president came in.
He reversed that policy, and the death rate took off and went almost to where it was before.
I mean, we call this a challenge-re-challenge study in medicine and clinical research.
It's a classic example.
So, Jimmy, I can't be on too much longer.
We kind of got to wrap.
But I think I strongly support what you're doing, and I suggest that your listeners, if they're not outraged, they should be.
This is one of those cases, if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
Because this isn't just about us having our pockets picked.
This is about us as a collective community losing members, having people die and have severe disease unnecessarily.
And we can be a lot smarter about this and a lot more targeted and strategic.
Use the tools that we have at hand, but we can't do it with our hands tied behind our back by pharmaceutical industry lobbyists and government officials that have been corrupted.
I know you have to go.
Before you go, you just give me a, how would you attack if you were the chief medical officer of the United States and you had power to do whatever you wanted?
How would you attack the COVID crisis?
So Peter Navarro and I have addressed that question.
Thank you for asking in the Washington Times and two editorials.
And we have a four-pronged proposal.
And I'm also going to be traveling to Italy in about a week to Rome to present these ideas to the Senate in Rome.
And also I'm arranging to speak with folks at the Vatican about this.
I believe that we need to save the vaccine that we have and use it globally to protect the elders and the very high-risk individuals and do not deploy it universally and drive something like Merrick's disease, such as Gert von den Bosch has been warning us about.
We need to make these imperfect but relatively effective repurposed drug combinations widely available.
We need to allow physicians to practice medicine, stop putting these barriers in place that keep physicians from practicing proven early intervention strategies.
This idea of only treating people after they get in the hospital is just crazy.
It makes no sense at all.
Furthermore, so that people are able to rapidly identify whether or not they actually have this virus as opposed to respiratory syncytial virus or influenza or any of the other respiratory viruses that are circulating at the same time that mimic SARS-CoV-2 infection.
We need to make rapid test kits available in the home.
There's many examples of rapid test kits.
They are deployed in many countries throughout the world, just not here for some reason.
I don't get it.
Okay.
And then the third, the last, so those are, you know, vaccines for the people that really need it, not for everybody, because we're just generating mutant viruses that are going to overwhelm the vaccines.
Number two, early intervention with imperfect but quite effective drug combinations and make those available, allow physicians to practice medicine.
Number three, rapid test kits that will have many false positives.
This is, I'm trained as a pathologist.
When you widely deploy tests for screening purposes, you always set them so that you have false positives.
And then when they come in, you can confirm with more specific tests.
Number four, there are multiple examples of computational tools, apps, things that you can load on your computer or your cell phone and key in your own information privately that will tell you about what your risk is so that you can make an informed decision about whether or not you think you're in one of those high-risk groups and you should take vaccine,
as opposed to this, you know, give a child a hammer and everything becomes a nail approach where we're just going to jab everybody on the planet with a vaccine.
Very good for Pfizer's business and Moderna's business and JJ's business and AstraZeneca's business.
Not so good for the rest of us.
Okay, so we just got to stop this crazy.
I don't know how we do it except for folks who've got a, this is a different kind of woke.
This is waking up and using your brain.
Look at the information that's available.
Think for yourself.
Don't let the media pump ideas into your head.
Look at the actual information and apply your common sense.
This doesn't take, you know, you don't have to be somebody with a stupid long time of postgraduate education and MD and all that stuff.
This is simple stuff to figure out.
If you wish, you can find many of these articles and pointers to articles on my Twitter feed at RWMalone MD.
But I think that the only solution here is people have got to wake up, look at the information themselves, and then make their own informed decisions.
And if the politicians are going to try to jam us all with these authoritarian practices, you know what the remedy for that is.
It's at the ballot box and it's letting those people know that there is going to be a change in the Senate and the House pretty darn soon and they better wake up or it's going to be a wave.
Well, I really appreciate you spending time with us.
I hope you'll come back on to talk about vaccine passports and the effects, side effects from the vaccine and the scare tag and the people afraid to talk about their experiences with the vaccine.
I'm one of those people, so I would love to have you come back whenever you can.
Thanks for making yourself available, Dr. Malone.
He's one of the renowned, renowned inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology.
Dr. Robert Malone, thank you so much for being with us.
And thanks for the chance, Jimmy.
And good luck in all things and particularly in your clinical study.
I appreciate it.
Hey, this is Jimmy Door.
Who's this?
Hey, Tara, look out.
We've had some awkward times.
You know, I think we really need to talk this out.
This whole thing.
Joe, this is Jimmy Doerr, Jimmy Door.
Oh, great.
I'm glad you called.
Hang on.
Hey, Tara, I have Jimmy Dore on the line.
So I'm going to have to call you back.
There's an Amazon gift card.
And if we could just, you know, put this whole thing behind us.
Okay, I'm back.
Hey, Jimmy, I got things to talk about today.
You got 20 minutes?
Of course, Joe.
Take all the time you need.
Bring!
Because now I got to take a leak like nobody's business, except it's everybody's business with me.
Okay, I think I'm done.
I'm in back.
You know the thing.
Speaking of a thing, here's the thing.
Remember what I promised Camelia one day to codify Charlie Rose versus Wade?
Joe, it's not Charlie Rose versus Wade.
It's Roe versus Wade.
And yes, I do remember when you promised to codify it.
Well, that's exactly I've done, Jack.
I codified it.
Subject over.
Let's move on to getting out of Vietnam now.
Hey, you know, there's a lot more to that phone call, but we don't have time in today's podcast.
How do you hear the entire phone call?
You got to become a premium member.
Go to JimmyDoorComedy.com, sign up.
It's the most affordable premium program in the business.
Today's show is written by Ron Placone, Mark Van Landuit, Steph Zamorano, Jim Earl, Mike McRae, and Roger Rittenhouse.
All the voices performed today by the one and the only of the inimitable, Mike McRae, who can be found at MikeMcRae.com.
That's it for this week.
you be the best you can be, and I'll keep being me.
Don't freak out.
Do not do nothing.
Do not not freak.
Do not freak.
Do not freak out.
▲
Export Selection