Robert Malone, MD—a pioneer with nine mRNA patents—returns to The Joe Rogan Experience after five years, confirming his vaccine-related warnings while detailing his own Moderna-induced inflammation and FDA resistance to ivermectin trials. He ties COVID-era suppression to nudge technology, corporate censorship (e.g., Coca-Cola pressuring Spotify), and globalist wealth transfers, like Gates’ polio vaccine controversies and Merck’s influence on ivermectin retractions. Malone, now vice chair of the CDC’s ACIP, critiques reckless biotech risks—from gene drives to artificial wombs—and lab leak parallels in Spain’s African swine fever outbreak, warning of unchecked tech-driven manipulation. His shift from hostility to cautious optimism reflects growing acknowledgment of these dangers, urging critical scrutiny of rapid advancements and their societal costs. [Automatically generated summary]
I was amazed that the claims that the problems that I encountered when I had been working on it had been solved.
I didn't see how that could be the case, but I knew that a huge amount of money had been thrown at it, so it was possible.
What were the problems?
In my hands, it was inflammation primarily.
It was also, you know, it was absolutely not localizable.
It was, in the monkey models that we tested, it was incredibly inflammatory.
It didn't give long levels, long, prolonged levels of expression.
It was hard to make.
It was kind of back then, it was almost a little bit of witchcraft.
You'd drop, I mean, for me as a graduate student when I was doing that, it was incredibly scary because it was a couple thousand dollars worth of reagents in a little tiny tube.
And, you know, back in the late 80s, that was real money.
And it didn't always work, the reaction.
So, you know, it was a little bit of a wing and a prayer.
But then as I started working with animal models and with the different formulations, I could come up with a variety of different compounds and formulations that worked pretty well in cell culture, but not so well in animals.
And I spent a lot of time trying to do that, optimize that, and what I ended up with is just seeing that it really caused, you know, I'm sorry to use medical jargon, that's kind of where I'm from, so that's the language of the microphone.
No, it's probably better.
It caused a lot of inflammation, you know, white cell infiltrates, really aggressive white cell infiltrates in my hands in both mice and monkeys.
And I'd abandoned it as something that just, you know, was useful in research, particularly in cell culture, but I just didn't see it maturing as an efficient delivery strategy with low risk, you know, acceptable risk, in animals.
And that also became the experience at this company that I had first joined where a lot of the original patents were filed, ViCal.
They abandoned the RNA because they couldn't make it.
And they turned largely to this strange discovery that we had that was a negative control, that the RNA alone or DNA alone was actually more effective in animal models, mice for instance, than it was to use the positively charged fats.
Now people call them lipid nanoplexes, lots of fancy words around it.
It was just positively charged fats of various types that were mixed that bind the DNA or the RNA and kind of spontaneously assemble.
And a lot of work went into trying to improve that.
We did what we could in the 90s when I was at Davis to try to advance that technology and develop new lipids.
And we had a number of them get patented and they were marketed by ProMega and others, but could never solve the delivery in vivo.
But this group up in University of British Columbia that had been banging away at this kind of related liposome tech for years and years, even before I had known anything about it, were the ones that kind of came up with the magic sauce that is used essentially by both the Moderna and Pfizer products.
And that's the stuff that we've all been exposed to, those that have taken it.
Yeah, and I called my colleagues at University of British Columbia that I had known back in the day as I was grappling with whether or not to take the product because I had to travel.
As you recall back then, forget international travel if you weren't jabbed.
Yeah, so I called Peter and had a chat with him, and he said that they had solved the problems of the distribution, that now when you injected it, it would stay local.
It would go to the draining lymph nodes.
It was much more effective, and that they didn't have those safety issues anymore.
So that was one of the reasons why I decided to go ahead.
Yeah, yeah, I asked in detail because I knew some of the nature of the formulations.
Again, I don't want to get too technical.
But what was claimed was that the incorporation of polyethylene glycol, so this is, you know, you would know that as antifreeze.
But it's in the liposome world, it's long been known as a way to create what are known as stealth liposomes that circulate in your body for a long period of time and make it so that these particles don't get inactivated by extracellular proteins and the liver and stuff like that.
And so he was using the gentleman in particular named Peter Cullis.
By the way, he's the one that should have got the Nobel Prize for these products as far as I'm concerned and got slided in the pick.
But Peter Cullis said that they had experimented with a lot of different structures of the fat particles, chemical structures.
So they came up with some that had these properties of staying localized and then built the formulations in ways that were similar to what I'd done with cholesterol and other things, but then also added these shorter polyethylene glycol molecules attached with a really short organic, you call it fat or gasoline-like molecule,
that put the peg into the liposome particle, but in a way that once it got into the body, it would fall off.
And so this is, you know, some people have the sensation as I did with my second jab of, you know, you get it and then suddenly you feel tingling in the end of your fingers or things like that.
That may be the peg.
But it was those advances in the components, because these are self-assembling particles, that were used that Peter and his group.
I mean, he's an extremely experienced, knowledgeable liposome formulation expert, quite senior.
He's older than me by another decade at least, and been doing this forever.
And he asserted that he had solved the problems.
And I believed him.
I needed to travel internationally.
And also, there was this buzz going around at the time that if you had long COVID, which at the time, if you think back to then, there was a whole cloud over even using the words long COVID, that the idea that you would have these long-lasting effects from getting the infection was controversial and not really accepted, but partially promoted.
And there was a narrative that was in retrospect actively promoted that if you took the vaccines and if you had this symptom of this chronic malaise and loss of stamina, I mean, you're a guy that's, it's important to you to be physically fit.
For me, it's been important to be physically fit all my life because I've always been a farmer and a carpenter and worked with my hands and my body.
And I have farm chores.
I still have farm chores every day.
And I couldn't do them.
I couldn't walk up hills.
I just had lost my stamina.
I'd lost my pulmonary function.
And it wasn't getting better.
And nobody knew anything about this, what was causing it, whether it was even real, but I was experiencing it.
There's a whole cluster of people who say there's no virus, and there's certainly not any long COVID, but I experienced it.
And so it was promoted that if you took the jab and you had this symptom, then it would kick your immune system up.
You get more of a response to the spike antigen, and that would allow you to clear these symptoms of long COVID.
That turns out, now we have data in just fairly recently, that in fact the opposite is true.
Yeah, I got infected in late, very end of February 2020.
I was in Boston at a conference on drug discovery, computational drug discovery, high-throughput stuff, very high-tech MIT, and staying in a little firehouse that had been converted to a hotel right across the street from the biotech company that the initial Boston outbreak was associated with.
And I came home sick as a dog.
I thought that I had influenza B because the narrative was that was circulating at the time.
And I was just, I remember laying in bed just feeling sick as hell, hard to breathe.
And my wife came in, it's just been on the TV.
COVID is circulating right there in Boston where you were.
So that was pretty early on, and it hit me pretty hard.
So my whole story, there's a whole bunch of what I did back then that never gets discussed, and that's okay.
But the kickoff was that I got this call from Wuhan, I think.
It was Remuhan from this guy that used to be CIA named Michael Callahan, who I'd worked with in the past.
And had told me, he told me with the call that there was this virus in Wuhan, this coronavirus, that looked like it was going to be serious.
And I ought to pay attention to it, and I ought to get a team wound up to try to address this.
So, what I'd done, because this is coming off of what I did in Zika, I'm a vaccinologist at CORE, but developing a vaccine in the face of an outbreak historically has taken a decade.
And it just isn't a practical way to address an emergent infectious disease crisis.
And I had become convinced that the best way to do that was through repurposed drugs.
So, after I get this call, I put the team together building on the technology that I'd been working with at USAMRID during Zika for rapid identification of repurposed drugs to address a new crisis.
And this time, we'd really taken a computational approach.
So, I used some tech out of UC San Francisco to recreate one of the key proteins in SARS-CoV-2 based on the sequence that got published from Wuhan in January 11th, I think, of 2020.
And we started doing what's called computational docking of very, very large virtual libraries using Amazon AWS and high-throughput parallel processing and came up with a list of compounds and then kind of screened those against problems, adverse events, that kind of stuff.
More coffee, good.
I would, thank you.
And what's happening?
So, I had this list of compounds, and then I was sick as a dog.
And, you know, what you get trained in if you do clinical research is docs don't experiment on themselves.
That's like breaking the rules.
But I'm lying there so sick that I'm just like, what the hell?
What do I got to lose?
I'm probably going to die.
You know, at that point, I'd spent a lot of time already looking into the virus and what it was causing and what people were saying it was causing.
I don't know if you noticed, but I've dropped about 40 to 50 pounds since we last met.
So I started taking some of those compounds, and one of them was this drug that is normally taken for stomach acid called famatidine.
And I got an immediate response with that.
And so I also tried isoquercetin.
That didn't seem to make so much of an impact on me.
But I experimented on myself.
And the famatidine at higher doses now has been verified to be helpful.
And it was one of the first things out of the box that people started taking even prophylactically before we knew about ivermectin and other things.
And then that went on.
I mean, there's a whole thread here we could go on for an hour about what was done with the repurposed drugs.
I was working closely with the Defense Hurt Reduction Agency and I managed to capture a few hundred million dollars and direct that towards drug repurposing adaptive clinical trials, et cetera.
And the thing that I zoomed in on through a collaboration with a doc up in Minnesota was the combination of famatidine, another anti-inflammatory called silicoxib.
And then the thing that really kicked it in high gear was the forbidden horse medicine, ivermectin.
And we got, I managed to, working with DOD, got over $100 million, set up a contract.
It got managed by SAIC, and we were going to go after that using a very cutting-edge clinical trial design.
And remember, this is the DOD.
We submitted initial drug applications for using this combination of licensed drugs, well-known licensed drugs.
And the FDA just dug in, again and again, rejected the application.
So long, what they said was we were going to have to do cell culture tests to demonstrate the antiviral activity of ivermectin before they would allow us to proceed.
And so in the end, the DOD caved, and they dropped the ivermectin component and proceeded with the fumatidine and silicoxib, which showed some effect.
I really, people think that I have visibility into the FDA, and yeah, I've met with them, and I have a background in regulatory affairs, but the policy decisions that were made during COVID and still to this day are perplexing.
They deployed, what do we want to call it, propaganda, psychological warfare, nudge, everything, just like they did after you and I had our little discussion.
It was stunning.
I mean, like after we had our chat, I don't know if you remember, you asked me about what is this about mass formation psychosis.
And it, I mean, the term broke the internet is overused.
That's fun to dive into because it relates to the psychological warfare domain that now I've become a pseudo-expert on, just in trying to understand what the hell I experienced and what's going on.
So Matthias Desmut, who's a friend at University of Ghent in Belgium, who, by the way, has been pretty well railroaded in his university now.
Not allowed to teach his own book on the psychological basis of totalitarianism, which is where that book had not come out yet.
But it was the mass formation hypothesis is what was the kind of core of that book that's now published and widely regarded.
So Matthias came, Matthias is somebody who, as a PhD, a full professor, had long taught 20th century psychology work relating to totalitarianism and thought that goes back to Freud and beyond, really all the way back to Plato and the allegory of the cave.
And in particular, there was a number of philosophers in the 20th century associated with trying to make sense of Nazi Germany and what had happened to the German people and really all over the world, but particularly relating to the Germans.
And Matthias had been teaching this on a regular basis.
And the way he tells the story, he had an epiphany one day that, oh my God, the thing that I've been teaching, I'm living.
We're experiencing it.
We're experiencing this process of the formation of masses.
And you could call it crowd psychology.
So mass formation, it's kind of awkward or mass formation psychosis, which is what the term was that was used in the initial podcast that he gave out.
So that's why I use that term.
But, you know, it's not in the, the attack was that it's not in the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual for the American Psychiatric Association, so therefore it doesn't exist.
But, you know, all the attacks.
But the core of it is that when people, to make it simple, become disassociated from society and from each other, they become extremely vulnerable to manipulation of a variety of different types.
And a leader can come into that environment and offer, to simplify it, offer a solution to their pain.
Because being isolated, socially isolated, is associated with pain.
We as human beings have a need to connect with others.
It's a fundamental aspect of being human.
It's what you do.
I mean, you connect.
That's the essence of the Joe Rogan experience, I think.
So we need to connect with others.
And in certain situations where people are threatened, and in particular in the modern era, where we have all of these things that drive us into isolation, most notably our electronic tools, we become disassociated from our community.
And when that happens, we have a strong need to become associated with community.
And a leader can come into that environment and basically say, I have the solution to your pain, your psychological pain.
And what will happen is a strange phenomenon where people will, rather than building social networks, let's say horizontally, to those around them, they'll attach to this strong leader.
And they'll get fulfillment for that need to belong by this attachment to that leader and following the edicts of that leader.
And this leads to this phenomena that gives rise, you know, enables totalitarianism, but gives rise to this whole cluster of things that Mistius described that He uses the term mass formation in a way that's kind of an odd artifact of translation, I guess, from the Dutch.
And in his examination of the history of what happened in Nazi Germany, where things, people really went crazy.
I mean, mothers were turning their children in.
Children were being executed consequent to mothers' testimony, which is really strange when you think about it, just in a fundamental way.
We had all of this dear leader kind of stuff, the linkage of the self and the soul to this central figure in deriving a sense of identity and belonging from that that went on.
And there's still people from that generation in Germany that are still caught up in a lot of that.
That's why the German laws.
And so that's the short version.
When we spoke before, I gave a much more technical, precise definition of Matthias' core thesis.
But once this happens, then people become very, very easily manipulated through propaganda and a variety of techniques that now I have a better comprehension of.
I mean, then I was still just trying to make sense, just like all of us, of what the heck was going on.
What's with this crazy?
But now it's kind of coalesced into an understanding of the fact that modern psychology has been weaponized.
It's been intentionally weaponized in the context of military activities in the domain that, you know, one way to express it, the term is used, the kind of term of art in military jargon is fifth generation warfare, or you could call it psychological warfare.
And what it distinguishes the present from, say, Sun Tzu and, you know, ancient propaganda has always been part of warfare in humans.
But we haven't had the digital world.
We haven't had modern psychology.
We haven't had nudge technology.
We haven't had all these tools that allow the control of information, thought, perception, feelings, emotions that have become commonplace.
And that, you know, is, and has, you know, this suite of technology and capabilities that we saw deployed in all of us were built in a kind of a structured way, largely by UK and U.S. leadership in the intelligence community as a weapon of war to counter these successful insurgencies that we keep losing wars over, you know,
Vietnam being a notable example all the way through Afghanistan.
And so that's why it was built.
But then that tech got deployed by governments against their own citizens.
And this was really launched in large part in the United States by a presidential directive from Barack Obama.
I'm not making this up.
You can look it up.
And by the way, the presidential directive is still in place that established the nudge technology units of the United States.
They were already operating in the UK.
And in the UK, it's quite advanced.
When you look at UK politics right now and what's going on there with all the censorship and everything, you know, this is no joke.
We're barreling right to that endpoint, same as Canada has.
You know, we're just a little bit behind.
And there, you know, we have the benefit of the First Amendment and a Constitution.
And, you know, often on courts.
But there, they don't have those obstacles.
And the government believes in the UK that once they have won an election, it's perfectly acceptable to deploy this modern psychology and information control technology on their own population.
And I argue that once that Rubicon is crossed, the idea of democracy, because the tech is so powerful, becomes completely perverted.
And we got a good hard taste of that during COVID.
What you and I experienced, what you experienced with Ivermecton, what you experienced with just talking about your own experiences and the blowback that happened after we did that little hit is a super powerful,
clear case study in understanding this intersection of modern psychology, warfare technology, and the digital world and algorithmic control of information, the creation of digital avatars for all of us,
the application now in the present of artificial intelligence to custom craft messaging that gets fed into our digital domains on a regular basis in order to sell us whatever, but also to shape how we think and to control what information we get access to all the time.
Just to give an example, my wife, who does a lot of our research for our Substack, was talking to me the other day.
She just gave me a couple examples where stories that were in corporate media in the United States that weren't listing certain key names or whatever.
She said, I just go to the Hindustu Times.
Hindustu Times is a great source for all the stuff that we're not allowed to see here in the United States.
You're now in an environment, in an information environment, where you cannot rely on, but we all know that.
You can't rely on corporate media, but the rules, the boundaries that are being set up about information are profound and they're completely distorting our ability to process what's happening around us.
Can I give you the example of what actually happened?
You said in our example with the blowback in Spotify, this is documented by a report out from the House about COVID and what happened.
And that report only carries just through to the early part of the vaccines and then it stops.
For some reason, they didn't really want to go down the road to the vaccines.
They did talk a lot about the events around the, let's say, lab leak hypothesis, which is allowed.
So what was documented was that the trail of events was that we had our discussion.
That triggered, and this is going to sound bizarre, but this is what's documented.
That triggered Coca-Cola Corporation to complain to the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which is created by the World Economic Forum.
It's one of these global aggregators that controls advertising.
The Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which, by the way, had a dust up with Elon Musk and lost, and they closed it down as a nonprofit.
It still exists in other ways, but as a structure that could be sued by X, it disappeared when he stood up against it.
But Global Alliance for Responsible Media had a socket with Google AdSense, by the way.
So they control the advertising ecosystem, which kind of matters to Spotify.
So Coca-Cola complains to Garm, saying, this guy, Rogan, you got to shut him down.
You got to put pressure on Spotify.
So Spotify gets the message from Garm that we're threatening to pull your advertising.
Now, what happens between that and your experience, I don't know.
It's not transparent to me what you experienced.
Yeah, we all remember the Laurel Canyon crowd saying they were going to pull their Cadillacs, which they didn't actually own, right?
That was another thing.
And then they went after you with this mashup of N-word historic events.
There was clearly a concerted effort to take out Joe Rogan, much more than to take out Robert Malone.
And so then the question comes: why the heck would Coca-Cola be the socket with the Global Alliance for Responsible, one of the biggest advertisers in the world, right?
Why would Coca-Cola give a hooey about what Jogen Rogan said to Robert Malone on New Year's Eve?
Coca-Cola is really tight with the CDC.
Coca-Cola has funded buildings at the CDC.
Coca-Cola funds the CDC Foundation, Foundation for the CDC, as does Bill and Melinda Gates, as done all the major vaccine manufacturers, et cetera, et cetera.
The appearance is, I can't verify this, that CDC acted through its ally, Coca-Cola.
Why are they allies?
What's Coca-Cola got to do with CDC?
The angle there is that Coca-Cola wanted the CDC to get WHO to not implement restrictions and messaging about sugar use.
Okay?
They didn't want those messages.
Remember, this is at the heart of the inverted food triangle now.
The old food triangle was the product of sugar lobby.
I mean, the sugar lobby is incredibly powerful because this stuff is addictive.
I mean, it's like having the cocaine lobby, right?
Well, and, you know, that's an interesting analogy because, of course, the history of Coca-Cola.
But, so sugar's addictive.
The CDC, Coca-Cola didn't want the CDC to influence public health policy to avoid global positions on the risks associated with sugar intake because it would potentially hurt their market share.
They're a major globalized company.
So that little ecosystem that I just described illustrates what we're dealing with here and the many ways that all of this kind of influence and messaging and signaling happens in this kind of integrated horizontally and vertically ecosystem that we live in right now.
And one of the things that came out of that, you'll recall, was that you were asked, as I recall, you gave this, you know, I've had a hostage video.
I think that was close to a hostage video from you back in the day when you were saying, this is what I'm going to do.
It was like out on your porch or something.
I remember, I was sitting around a campfire in Maui, quite literally, when somebody said, no, did you just see this from Rogan?
And a matter of fact, I was sitting around Gavin DeBecker's campfire at that time, somebody that you know.
And so the compromise was that there would be a little trailer put at the bottom of that episode.
And by the way, you probably know that episode for a long time became very hard to find.
It was basically blacklisted from the search engines, et cetera, et cetera.
But it carries, and I think it still does, that little banner that says, you know, you should go to the CDC if you want the true, true about COVID.
And you can still find those kinds of banners popping up all the time on YouTube.
If you talk about vaccines or COVID vaccines, that will get, if you pass the filters, if YouTube will allow that to still be up because you didn't say something, whatever it is, then you'll get the little banner.
That banner is pushed out by the nudge units at the CDC.
That is nudge technology.
It is all around us all the time, and it's basically still public policy consequent to the old Obama presidential directive that still hasn't been rescinded.
I love President Trump.
I think he's doing amazing things.
I think he's amazingly brave.
I just mentioned our friend Gavin DeBecker referred to Trump the other day when I saw Gavin in Maui as a once-in-500-year leader.
And that's not nothing coming from Gavin.
And so I'm a big supporter, but the president has still left in place this mechanism that exists that directs the federal government to use nudge technology and related what I assert is psychological warfare technology on the American populace.
And then you had his, you had Obama's subsequent, like the notorious speech at Hoover at Stanford, where he talks about in order to preserve democracy, we're going to have, basically, he says we're going to have to have censorship in order to preserve democracy or whatever democracy.
But as I examined Smith-Munt, and we did an essay on this in the Substack, you know, like three years ago, because that was the kind of the narrative that was coming out in, let's say, our side of alternative media.
And in my examination, Smith-Munt's impact is a lot more limited.
Has to do with Voice of America and some of those things.
The broad impact wasn't quite, in my opinion, what was believed to be of enabling propaganda domestically.
More specifically, there is a presidential directive that nudge technology, that established a nudge office that nudge technology shall be used.
It's called the Social and Behavioral Science Team.
Wikipedia says that that was stopped in 2017 but continued under the Trump administration under the General Services Administration's Office of Evaluation Design.
And so this has kind of become, thank you so much for pulling that up.
That's super helpful.
So this is, like I said, if I can illustrate, I was on a Great Britain News broadcast about four years ago at the time when they would, you know, there was a window time where they would have me on, but it was sketchy.
And GB News was the only one that would do it.
But the rules were then that if you were going to have somebody that was speaking against the government narrative, then you had to have somebody representing the government's interests in the same broadcast.
So that's implemented by, basically, the UK has an active censorship organization that controls news media.
And so I'm on with this guy, Great Britain News, Pinstripe, Bowtie, you know, it just reeks.
And I'm talking about psychological warfare and the 77th Brigade, which is part of the British Army, which is their psychological warfare unit.
It's very open that that's the case, as is the existence of a civilian branch that they set up and paid people to do social media in opposition of counter-narratives that the government didn't approve of.
I mean, now they just, under Starmer, they just censor you and send you to jail.
Cut out the middleman.
But back then they were still kind of buying civilians.
And so I'm talking about this.
And that's that, the guy says, yeah, but here in the UK, our belief is that if the government wins the election, they have the right to govern.
And that right to govern includes our ability to use this type of technology, and we believe that it's justified to do so.
And that, when that conversation happened, frankly, we hadn't launched the book yet, Cywar, which is our most recent publication.
And it just kind of all coalesced in my mind that, oh my God, what all these things, Matias' teaching about mass formation, what I saw, what I experienced with you, what I experienced with the concerted attacks of the media.
And then subsequently, it's been validated by this congressional report that talks about, for instance, the juror ticket system.
Jura tickets are what it's a system that all the software companies use to track glitches and complaints and stuff like that.
Well, the government had their own juror ticket system set up to log information about activities of persons that they wanted to have censored and suppressed.
And they would build these juror tickets with information.
And so one of the things that's out on the congressional report was that I actually had a juror ticket.
I was surprised that this is the case.
Orman, not surprised in retrospect.
And my personal sins were that I was listed as an anti-vaxxer and a conservative.
It's fascinating to query things like Grok, even Grok, about certain subjects.
And you will find where they have algorithmically built firewalls.
And you can approach them and detect them because it will act dumb.
It'll lock up, seemingly.
It won't give you that answer.
Or it'll talk around the issue, et cetera, et cetera.
You can identify these things that have been built in algorithmically.
And of course, then we had all of the disclosures, the Zuckerberg, oh, I'm so sorry, apology tour that happened, remember, when basically he got outed by Congress, and the rest of the tech bros.
And of course, the thing that catalyzed all of that was that Elon decided to pony up a good chunk of change and buy Twitter.
How can you debate it when you look at the Twitter files and you find out how much the government was involved in censoring accurate information from legitimate professors, esteemed researchers, anybody who didn't go along with the official narrative?
And we're dealing – now the lovely thing about all of this.
I mean let's try to – it is morning in America in my opinion.
I mean a lot of people get very dark and there's a darkness to the times.
But there's – not to push the metaphor too far but there is new light coming in and the fact that we can now see this and we recognize that – you and I are of a similar generation.
I mean one of my earliest memories was the assassination of the president.
And all of the propaganda around that, the propaganda around Vietnam War, ever since, we've just been swimming in information control that's gotten increasingly sophisticated.
And fortunately as Americans, we also kind of have become more and more immune to marketing and propaganda over time because we've been living with it, trying to discern what is real and what is false.
Again, this is – it's a core part of what you do for a living I think is just try to have conversations to be able to get to the bottom of the bullshit.
But that – we've been swimming in it and now we can see it.
We can see the structures, you know, the power of artificial intelligence and influence mapping and all the things that are going on in the internet right now that are the cutting-edge technology.
They're scary because they can be weaponized against us but they're also super cool because we can now see those relationships.
If you want an example of that, look at the threads that are coming out on X, illuminating the networks of affiliation associated with this latest Epstein file release.
I'm somebody who was raised a Christian and went to Bible school and that kind of stuff as a kid and youth groups and then growing up in central coast of California, let's say, veered in different ways.
But the experiences that we've encountered over the last half a dozen years, it's hard to come up with a language to express what we're observing in the world other than the language of theology.
So whether or not demons exist, if they did exist, that is how they would behave.
They would prey on children and torture children.
And there was the one where there was a suggestion where a child was praying to Jesus that like there was a joke that someone should dress up like Jesus.
And it goes back to the current king of England was the guy that kind of launched that.
He was the first one to be really talking about that you can use your favorite AI and track it down yourself.
I prefer not to use Google these days to try to find stuff.
But we see vertical after vertical after vertical after vertical where information has been crafted and manipulated.
And the same tools of delegitimization, of promotion of these messages that you are a conspiracy theorist or that you are controlled opposition is another favorite one.
A lot of this was pioneered in the 60s by the FBI against the various protest movements and you can go back and track that.
The narrative of being a collaborator surreptitiously is called bad jacketing and it has its own language and protocols for how to do this to people, to divide movements.
We're in this – I mean in a way, it's kind of a glorious moment where we're having a huge amount of social pressures coming together in this moment in time that you and I happen to live in.
To be at a – to be at a point in time where there is so much change, there's so much social interaction and pressure and competition between these different philosophies and we're swimming in it.
As somebody writes on a daily basis these essays on Substack because that's how I make my living now because I can't do what I used to do.
And so if you're in the business of trying to help people to make sense out of that, which is kind of what I do now for a living, it's – I wake up every morning.
There was an announcement the other day from HHS that they are launching new initiatives to investigate the use of ivermectin in cancer.
And there was immediate blowback along the lines of oncologists are outraged.
You know, the narrative is Bobby – you know, not saying this explicitly but basically Bobby Kennedy is at it once again promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.
And it's going to – you know, we're all going to die because scientists are going to investigate the use of ivermectin and other drugs for cancer.
So this is the core question and this is one of the things that puzzled me to no end.
I understood that they were upset that I had gotten better without the use of the vaccine, that I was a popular person, that I was a famous person and I made a video about a canceled show.
Dave Chappelle and I were supposed to do a show and I made that video to let everyone know that I couldn't do the show because I got COVID.
I had no idea it was going to be even controversial.
And the response is as if it represents a significant threat to some business interests.
It's hard to discern that.
And you mentioned Z-Pak.
So that's another fascinating one.
And to say that it was only ivermectin.
Ivermectin was the most prominent.
But they were actually effective in shutting down the Z-Pak, the use of hydroxychloroquine.
And hydroxychloroquine has a fascinating story.
When you mention Z-Pak, you're talking about Zev Zelenko.
And Zev was the one that wrote the letter to the president saying, hey, here's this data and this information about this drug that is off patent.
We have a huge portfolio of experience in using it.
Millions and millions of doses.
It's safe in pregnancy.
What's not to like here?
And the story of that is a fascinating microcosm.
Because it goes back to Ralph Baric.
Ralph Baric had published that back years ago when he's kind of the guru of coronaviruses.
And a good case can be made that he had his fingers all over the engineering of this particular virus.
So he had published that this drug was effective against coronaviruses.
And Zev Zelenko, who's passed away now, got engaged in trying to find some way to help his patients in New York with recovering from COVID and treating COVID.
And he went back, did a deep dive into Baric's work, pulled out this drug, hydroxychloroquine that had been recommended, wrote to the president about it.
He got clinical experience with it.
And, you know, caveat, Mickey Willis is doing a bio on Zev now.
And I'm involved in that.
So conflict of interest.
But he was the one that pulled it out, sent the letter to the president with his clinical experience.
President tasked Peter Navarro with sourcing the drug.
And Peter, an economist, went to town.
I remember the company I was working with, Alchem at the time, getting a call from Peter.
Can you come up with some way to make more of this drug here domestically?
We want to source it so we have enough doses for everybody.
And then I think it was Lancet published this paper that had totally made up data that trashed the drug, said that it's toxic, doesn't work, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
It was all fake.
OK.
They pulled the paper when it became revealed that it was based on nonexistent data, that it was more propaganda published in one of the top medical journals in the United States.
But by that time, it was completely crushed.
So they didn't have to go after Z-Stack.
They'd already killed Z-Stack.
Ivermectin, though, that was a new threat.
And one of the reasons why it was a threat was there was a meta-analysis that had been done at the Cochrane.
So the Cochrane Institute in the U.K. is like, you know, the holy grail for analysis of drugs and biologics and this process of meta-analysis.
They kind of wrote the rules for how to do it.
And they had done an analysis that showed that ivermectin was quite effective.
And then something happened and there was some influence exerted.
And suddenly that meta-analysis got quenched.
It got squashed.
There were two investigators that were involved in building that.
One kind of went underground and got a big grant and carried on as an academic.
The other one got so pissed off that she created this organization called the World Council for Health.
That's Tess Lurie.
And she really objected to what happened.
But ivermectin, you know, there was a signal there.
There was a clear signal there.
There was data supporting that signal.
And then something happened to cause that meta-analysis to be restructured.
And certain studies that were showing how effective it was to be thrown out.
And then the suppression of the data coming out of India.
You remember that?
Uttar Pradesh.
And Uttar Pradesh.
And I guess it had kind of – it's like the cat was out of the bag.
And they had trouble putting it back in.
So they just – my sense is they turned up the amplitude on the propaganda and the censorship in order to try to overcome this.
And I'm pretty sure – remember, who was it that held the original patent?
Merck.
Now, I was involved as an observer on behalf of DITRA to the active trials that were going on under the Foundation for NIH, which is sponsored in a significant way by Merck.
And which is now headed up by the former head of Merck Vaccines, Julie Gerberding.
Bobby can't get her out.
It's the rules.
And they were running these clinical trials, including the clinical trial that essentially by tweaking the dosing, et cetera, made it so that they came up with a result suggesting that ivermectin is not effective.
There was a whole lot of manipulation in the why part.
Still, the best explanation I've heard is that it had a lot to do with the risk that if there was an effective countermeasure,
then the utilization of the PrEP Act and the emergency countermeasures to process to enable fast-tracking of these vaccines using this new technology.
Would no longer be valid because those are the rules is if there's an existing countermeasure, then you can't implement those clauses.
Well, and that – the ugliest part of all of this, I mean people – the big, big picture when I talk to people that are still kind of on the fence trying to make sense out of it.
You know, there's still a lot of those folks out there.
The thing that kind of gets into their brain is the greatest upward transfer of wealth in modern history occurred during COVID.
Lockdowns, all the – what was done to small businesses, what was done to the economy, the stimulus packages, they're still digging out of all of that fraud.
It – you know, in retrospect, for average folks that are just trying to put food on the table and pay their rent, to look at in retrospect what was, you know, quite literally done to them.
The middle class was hollowed out in – like on hyperspeed.
Yeah, because that's the propaganda along with safe and effective.
That was a promoted narrative and that was – by the way, the rationale given by the Nobel Prize Committee to award to Carrico and Weissman was that these products, which they had – the thesis is they had been playing the central role.
I disagree.
I think Peter Kolas is the one that should have got it.
If you're going to give it for – if you're going to give it for these vaccines, it was Peter Kolas and his team at UBC that really was the enabling tech.
But be that as it may, the decision is made and the committee said basically millions of lives have been saved and by giving this Nobel at this time, we are – we hope that it will promote more people to accept this product.
That was explicitly the logic given at the time and that reflects what was really a thrust vector.
Joe, I've – you know, it's – what a bizarre world since we met.
And so I've been sucked into – to call it the center-right of Europe is a little bit of a misnomer because they're all socialists as far as I'm concerned, Georgia Maloney and everybody else.
But, you know, compared to the far left, they're labeled as neo-Nazis.
But I've been traveling to Europe, interacting with these people.
You think it was bad for us.
The European Union and the UK and the Canada were an order of magnitude worse.
That we should be so grateful that we live in this country at this time and that we still have something like a functioning constitution with the First and Second Amendment.
Look at the poor suckers in Australia and New Zealand.
You know, remind yourself it could be a heck of a lot worse here and it has been a heck of a lot worse in Europe.
I've got buddies in Romania in the leading alternative party, you know, calling it center-right, let's say, but that, you know, recently – I think it was the vice president that came out and said specifically that that last election was stolen.
It was in Romania.
Georgescu, they tried to put in jail and the logic was that – I think it was TikTok supporting his campaign had been sponsored by the Russians.
It was the same game that they played against Trump of Russian collusion.
They played that same book in Romania successfully.
But in the European Union environment under the European Council, they don't – you know, they ain't got a constitution.
And they can just step right in and throw you in jail, inactivate your candidacy, do whatever if you represent a populist threat to the existing structure.
But it's – it doesn't – you know, yeah, it's a problem here.
But – and thank – Mike Benz, I defer to as a notable expert in that space.
But it's a lot worse in Europe and Australia and Canada and the UK.
And I think, you know, we're in a perilous time here in the United States where, you know, we have the midterm coming up.
But people like Bobby are making progress and these dissident physicians that have risked so many things – and I'm just one.
You know, people – I hear people saying, oh, Robert, Robert, they've been so mean to you.
I'm like, come on, guys.
You think they've been mean to me.
Then look at what they did to Bobby.
And then if – you know, and then look – I don't have a nick out of my ear.
You know, look at what they did to Trump.
What they did to me is just – I'm nobody compared to that.
And they're willing to deploy that kind of capability against me.
Think about what's really going on at the higher levels where the big games are being played.
And, you know, at least we can see it now.
At least we have – for those of us that have our eyes open, we have some ability to be aware.
But what I've spent the last two years mostly trying to convince people about – I hardly ever talk about RNA.
I sit – oh, Joe, I've got to give a caveat.
Forgive me.
The opinions I'm expressing here are my own and not those of the U.S. government, the CDC, or the ACIP.
There, I said it.
OK.
But, you know, we're in a moment where we're seeing this – how – the levers, the gears of how all this works.
Give you an example.
Tomorrow, Friday, February 13th, what could possibly go wrong?
Hopefully my plane flight out of here works OK.
And they don't have a drone attack or something, right?
So tomorrow there's a lawsuit filed on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics that seeks to shut down the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the changes that Bobby has implemented there.
And force all of that to go back to the way things were when it was functionally controlled by the professional societies and particularly the American Academy of Pediatrics.
They – we talk about this, you know, propaganda and weaponization and lawfare and those things.
And we talk about it as if it only happened in the last administration.
And it is going to go big time if the House turns, which I think it probably will.
I mean there's a good chance that – they've already drawn up articles of impeachment against Secretary Kennedy.
They're talking about articles of impeachment against President Trump.
We're about to go into another two years of stagnation and, you know, functional – what do we call it?
We can't call it civil war.
You know, war by other means is where we're heading right now.
But at this moment, I'm seeing major movement.
You know, Kennedy is doing great stuff.
The president is doing great stuff.
We're seeing a transformation in America's global reach, totally restructuring global politics and on the health side, the Make America Healthy Again movement.
You know, there's some pushback against that and a heck of a lot of propaganda being deployed against it.
But also captured by their past actions and constantly trying to obfuscate from all the things that they have done in the past that could be – like if you just went into Bill Gates' stuff that he did in Africa.
But if you were a politician or you were some megalomaniacal billionaire sort of business character that just wants to dominate and was involved in a bunch of antitrust lawsuits in the past, that would be what you – Not that we're naming any names.
To counter Russian disinformation and then repurposed to counter vaccine disinformation.
And they – and I read this report about – I'd gone on your show.
So I was a little bit of a fan.
Forgive me.
And so I'm reading this report and they're talking about threats to the industry because TNI is basically another trade organization.
It's another guild.
It's a global major media guild.
And so they're doing this internal analysis and reporting and they're talking about the risk vectors that they face.
And they had a whole great big section on Joe Rogan.
Joe Rogan represents – that was their threat.
That was the major threat to their business model is you and what you represent.
You – as a metaphor for this new information economy.
And by God, they called it right.
It's – and when I – this – again, this has been part of my journey.
When I realized what I was experiencing and what it meant to come on your show and have that event occur, which, by the way, blew up my subscribers on Substack.
Thank you so much.
I still get a wave every year about – in the month following – so January, I get a big bump in revenue.
Those males don't have anybody in mainstream news that represents anything that resembles them.
I mean, I know I'm much older than them, but I never went down this path of decay and weirdness that a lot of adult males go into corporate business and industry and they become something unrecognizable to these young men who have freedom in life and they're being suppressed and they're being told that they're toxic.
So this decentralized subscriber-based model, the epiphany was – and I'm being quite sincere.
You know, it was one of those moments my wife and I looked at each other and we said, what the hell are we going to do now?
Our consulting business is shot.
Nobody wants to talk to me.
I've been delegitimized.
As they say, I don't know what I know.
I haven't done what I've done.
And this has been promoted by all the top liberal publications in the world.
And so I said, OK, Rogan built this thing day after day, week after week for years.
He just stayed on it and doing it and we can do that too.
We can bring that kind of work ethic into our world.
Steve Kirsch had told me you ought to get on Spotify and we went – we took it on seriously.
We've published thousands of essays now almost every day.
It's, you know – You mean Substack.
Substack.
What did I say?
Substack.
I apologize.
And so we just work at it again and again and again trying to put out content.
And we're shadow banned and small roomed on X in a serious way.
You know, we got 1.3 million subscribers of which, you know, all the time I get feedback.
I never see your stuff.
Well, it's algorithmic.
Whatever it is.
You know, and you can ask Grok about Robert Malone and, you know, you get back – you know, I'm a controversial figure.
But, you know, not whining.
And so we have a lot of subscribers but we just have this core paid subscribers and they send in their five bucks a month and it's all we need and it totally sets us free.
We can talk about whatever we want and yeah, now that I'm a pseudo-government employee, I'm a special government employee without pay.
Boy, that's like the worst of both worlds because there's – I have – the truth is I have guardrails that constrain me in a way that I didn't used to be constrained for talking about some things.
You know, I have to live in this world.
I interface with the secretary and with the deputy chief of staff and other people and now I'm working with the State Department more.
And so, you know, I have to – I have to be more mindful.
I like to say I'm in the same category as Elon was, only without all the money.
So he was an SGE without pay.
I'm an SGE without pay.
And because I serve on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the CDC, which is this – they call it – it's a FACA committee, Federal Advisory Committee Act, that advises the director of the CDC – that's its only job – on vaccine policy, OK?
So I'm the vice chair, which is largely honorary.
What that means is that if the chair isn't there, I draw the short straw and I have to chair those bloody meetings, like the last one for hepatitis B, birth dose, which was just a slugfest, ugly.
The worst meeting I've ever had to adjudicate in my entire life.
But for the most part, I sit on these subcommittees.
I sit on the COVID working group subcommittee.
I'm not supposed to talk about the next meeting.
I was told two days ago.
So that's one of my guardrails.
But stay tuned for what is going to come down if the AAP lawsuit doesn't prevail and we're allowed to actually have the meeting.
But – so that's that.
I'm also the chair of the Influenza Working Group.
Stay tuned for that.
And now I am – so – and I – from time to time, the secretary asks me to help him sort out some issue.
I'll get a phone call.
I once got a phone call on the Big Island.
I did this recent series of rallies to try to – to recap the whole reason why that we did that first hit was to try to publicize the Stop the Mandates rally in D.C.
That was the subtext for that, as you'll recall.
And I forgot to even mention it.
We had to go back in to do another shoot for that.
Remember?
I'm still fighting that same battle of trying to stop these mandated vaccines.
So I'm sitting there in Hawaii.
I'm going to another one of these rallies.
I get a call out of the blue from one of Bobby's people.
And they want some advice about a topic having to do with the decision he has to make about spending money on another biodefense initiative.
So I get that kind of stuff.
He called me soon after he was confirmed to get my opinion about what was going on in the chicken industry and all the slaughter that was happening for bird flu.
And I told him this doesn't make sense.
It's not good policy.
There's no way you can get rid of bird flu doing this.
And already China has locked down and will not accept Spanish pork.
And it is a lab leak.
And there was a bunch of dead hogs last November around this facility.
And now it's the Spanish and the European Union are blowing a circuit over this because it's really compromised the Spanish pork industry.
So this kind of stuff, when this happens, the reaction is we just have to kill all of them.
We have to kill all the potential carriers.
And this has been the wisdom, quote, in this kind of agrarian animal husbandry world for a long time in the context in particular of factory farming.
So the logic is that if you were to vaccinate these birds with a leaky vaccine, which COVID was a leaky vaccine, influenza is a leaky vaccine.
If you give the birds a leaky vaccine, what you'll get out of that is precisely vaccine-resistant flu.
And so we have no choice, has been the logic, but to exterminate – like the ostriches in Canada, remember that story?
That was shocking.
There was no logic behind that.
It's gone.
It's become entrenched as policy, as kind of this reflexive knee-jerk thing that if we have an outbreak, what we do is we kill because we can't control the virus.
And the things that we could do to control the virus aren't really going to control it and it's actually going to make things worse.
But when you got something that – if you had something that didn't have a natural reservoir, then you can make the case that you could eliminate it in that geographic population and keep it from spreading outside.
But when you have a natural reservoir like – Explain that.
In the case of avian influenza, waterfowl and migratory birds are amazing vectors for carrying and propagating influenza.
And influenza survives in water for a very long period of time.
And so you've got ducks and geese traveling north to south all over every continent that are susceptible to infection by avian influenza and all the other migratory birds.
But in particular, the waterfowl, galiforms.
My wife would wrap me on the head if I didn't use the right term.
So she's an avian specialist.
So these birds carry the flu and a number of them are relatively resistant.
They've been subjected to avian influenza for centuries or millennia.
And sometimes you'll get a variant come out that will wipe out a whole bunch of birds.
West Nile virus in crows is a great example.
And now you have crow populations coming back that are resistant to West Nile.
We haven't gotten rid of West Nile.
We've just bred more resistant birds.
That's kind of – that's Brett Weinstein's space, right?
That's evolution.
It's magical.
And so if you have a natural animal reservoir like the ticks and lime and deer, what are you going to do?
Exterminate all the deer?
No, that's not practical.
Well, Mao tried to exterminate the birds because of the thesis that they were eating up all the spare grain and compromising availability of food to the populace, right?
And what happened?
Major ecological catastrophe.
You can't eliminate the birds.
You can't go and kill all the waterfowl.
That would just be ecologically insane.
But, you know, sometimes we do insane things.
And in the case of avian influenza, it's there.
It's endemic.
It's in all that migratory waterfowl.
They poop an amazing amount of influenza.
It gets in the water supply.
The water supply goes everywhere.
They – you know, small birds are interacting with – I don't know if you've ever been around a chicken barn or turkey barns.
Yeah, there's chickens and then there's commercial chicken production, right?
So these operations are like petri dishes for bad stuff happening.
And the only way you can interfere with that – and by the way, the Amish are starting to do it – is put something in the water supply.
And what the Amish are using is a compound called hypochlorous acid and it's stopping these things and it's stopping the E. coli and a lot of other stuff.
But the U.S. – that's another problem is, you know, when you have these – the momentum of these large government agencies with their consensus about the way things are done.
You know, there's a saying that the only time the FDA ever changes is if somebody in a key position retires or passes away.
They kind of get entrenched in this is how we do things.
We kill chickens.
If we have avian influenza come out, we kill chicken barns.
And this is the beauty of Secretary Kennedy coming in, being kind of not invested in the way things are and the way we do things and being willing to ask the questions, does this really make sense?
And that has been heresy.
It obviously is still heresy to do that, to ask those questions, to, you know, have the president say we need to restructure the vaccine schedule.
Oh, my God.
The sky is falling.
Kids are going to die left and right.
There's going to be death on the street because we ended the thimerosal in multidose influenza vials.
This kind of catastrophic thinking.
But Kennedy has – and the president have the courage to question these narratives, these long-held standing beliefs.
And in the case of the bird flu, you know, he called me up.
I said, Bobby, I don't think this makes sense.
I think that what we really need to do is we need to breed resistant chickens.
And the way we breed resistant chickens – and by the way, we've written about this also in our sub-stack.
There are in the domain of chicken cultivars – you have chickens.
You know, there are people that are just freaks about chickens.
And all of these – but because of that, we have this huge repository of different cultivars of chickens.
You know, we could say they were all generated through gain-of-function research, the old school way.
And a number of those are relatively resistant to bird flu.
Well, in a logical world, you would have Tysons – you know, maybe the government has to incentivize this.
It shouldn't have to.
You would have Tysons in there saying, well, guys, what we need is a bird flu-resistant chicken.
Let's get on it.
And that is essentially the position that the secretary took is this policy of just extremely aggressive mass culling is not producing the outcome that we want.
It has never produced the outcome that we want.
It will never eliminate bird flu because it has an endemic reservoir.
And we've got to think different.
And now that's starting to percolate through the system and there is more research into alternative strategies including the possibility of various prophylactic interventions in feed and in water.
That's – you know, and a lot of these chicken houses mist.
As you recall, they have the misters because they've got to control the temperatures.
So they are set up with misters and that can also be a way to deliver things that are non-toxic like HOCL that can knock out these viruses and E. coli and other things that cause reduced growth and loss of weight in chickens, which is the metric that Tysons and those guys is food conversion.
You know, there's different – we can think differently and we have been locked into, you know, consensus that has emerged over decades based on old ways of thinking.
And they kind of – often kind of have these lineages where they're passing power on to the people that they've mentored.
So that's my HHS world and then the State Department world is a new thing that's come in.
I have a – I'm starting to support the group under Secretary Rubio that's responsible for the various treaties having to do with arms containment and in particular the bioweapons convention.
So this morning I got up early and there was – so honest to God, I don't want to pump you up too much.
I mean you might get an ego or something.
But so I say to the state – they say, Robert, we want you to go to Geneva to give this talk on the use of AI for monitoring bioweapons threats because we have no way of monitoring compliance with the bioweapons convention right now.
And it's been a historic problem and the president has said that we're going to – we think that we can apply artificial intelligence to this problem set of monitoring and verifying compliance with the bioweapons convention, which is heresy.
It's another one of these thinking outside of the box things.
So they say, we want you to go to Geneva and give this talk and be the keynote.
And I say, and what's the date?
Oh, it's February 12th.
And I say, I don't talk about this because it's the general thing.
You don't tell people that you're going to be on Rogan.
You let Rogan say that when Rogan is ready.
And so I said, but I'm scheduled for Rogan that day.
And they're like, oh, Rogan.
Well, OK, absolutely.
You got to go on that one.
That's way more important than going and speaking at the UN.
So you're – the State Department thinks you're more important than me talking about bioweapons.
And they let me web exit.
So that's what happened this morning.
And it is – so I'm supporting that group now and maybe increasingly over time.
It is being covered in Europe and particularly in Spain.
This is a major economic threat because they're, I think, the number two pork producer in the world.
And in the hogs, they're feeding on acorns, et cetera.
That's a big specialty market space.
So last November, this laboratory that is ostensibly working, this is – I mean, it's Wuhan 2.0.
Only the good news is that this is not swine flu.
People get that confused.
I'm not talking about swine flu.
This is African swine fever.
It's been around for millennia.
It's never crossed into humans.
It's a very different virus.
So just make sure we got that clear.
So this highly lethal African swine fever virus is a threat to the global pork industry.
And so this laboratory in Spain is cooperating with the USDA to try to develop a new vaccine for African swine fever.
And in doing so, our government once again was unaware that this even existed, there's a cooperative agreement between USDA and this laboratory to engage in – if you read, they don't call it gain-of-function research.
They call it building recombinant viruses and experimenting in different virus structures to allow them to better – build a better vaccine.
Exactly the same logic that was used in Wuhan, OK?
Now, then last November – so this is ongoing in this little laboratory.
And what this relates to, Joe, is the idea that is being promoted that for justice and equity and sharing, we need to enable there being distribution of highly infectious pathogens all over the world in separate laboratories so that we in the big bad West are not imposing and enabling our industries to prey on,
name your emerging economy, by taking biologic resources from them.
In other words, new viruses.
And using them to build stuff, we have to cooperate and they have to have access to these reagents.
So the logic right now that's in play and being promoted by the WHO is that we should have high pathogen repositories and research programs all over the world, decentralized in these emerging economy states.
Spain is not Germany.
But so there's a Spanish lab.
USDA is cooperating with them.
They're going to build an African swine fever virus vaccine.
They're doing gain-of-function research.
And then – and by the way, just like in Wuhan, there's some construction going on related to that.
And then suddenly – and it's an area that is very dense in wild hogs.
Now, somehow we got to get this through our brain, OK?
You don't put the facility in a place that's proximal to the thing that might get infected if you have a lab leak.
I mean that ought to be like rule number one stamped on everybody's brain.
You don't do it.
Like the Rocky Mountain labs make a lot of sense.
If you're going to be working with nasty stuff and you got to do it, put it somewhere obscure, not in Boston, right?
So they're doing it.
They're surrounded by dense wild hog population.
And suddenly last November, people detect there is wild hogs dead all over around this facility.
What could possibly have happened?
So they start investigating the police have been in, grabbed the records, grabbed the digital information, et cetera, because the entire Spanish pork industry is now compromised.
Their major client, China, has already pulled their trade barriers.
No more Spanish pork going into China.
I advocate that President Trump ought to drop the curtain right now because when I looked at the distribution of wild hogs, I mean, you've traveled enough.
You know how important wild feral hogs are in the economy in Italy.
The wild hogs are all over in Europe.
And this place in Catalonia is right near the French border.
I don't – and then like right on the other side, a couple hundred miles is Italy and the band of high-density wild hogs spreads like that up through the mountains and then down into Italy.
And I think that if I was sitting in the White House right now, I think to protect, you know, both for the president, core constituency is ag.
Voted for him, you know, three times.
And he's – he holds that near and dear.
And I think that it's good politics and it's good public health.
It's good health agricultural decision to raise the barriers now until we can see that Europe has resolved the risk associated with this.
So the former assistant director general of the WHO, who I knew, this was her claim to fame, was she had led the development of rabies baits, and they would bait with a rabies vaccine to try to control the incidence of rabies in particularly foxes was the problem throughout Europe,
and a lot of the foxes were crossing from the less developed part of the European Union into France, which was not acceptable.
She was French.
And so what they did is they developed these baits with a vaccine and they would distribute them out of helicopters.
And there's a whole science about how dense the baits have to be to get immunity against rabies in fox populations, a whole science around it.
But they were successful.
They controlled fox and wolf population rabies in Europe, largely eradicated it through the use of baits distributed by helicopters.
That's the, there's one of the dark themes about COVID was that they wanted to promote the spread of COVID in order to sell the vaccines and blah, blah, blah.
You know, so that's the narrative.
And so in this case, well, they want to spread African swine fever because somehow they're going to profit from that while destroying their pork industry.
You know, but this is, this is the armchair strategists on the internet.
unidentified
But that has it gotten into the domestic pork market?
Not to my knowledge yet, but I have this interesting colleague that I work with closely at the ACIP named Retsif Levy, who's the chair of the COVID working group and has giving the pharmaceutical industry a run for their money right now.
And it's, of course, being vilified by the press, et cetera.
And Retsif is a full professor at MIT and his core competence is risk analysis and mitigation.
And he's, he, he reads my sub stack because we're friends.
He doesn't subscribe, I'm pretty sure, but he reads it.
And so he, we're talking and he says, yeah, I read that thing that you put out about that virus.
And he said, I wrote a proposal years ago about risk mitigation and the need to do something about that because of it, the ease by which it can enter the domestic pork population.
So I infer from that, that there is a whole body of science and logic about, and he said, it's, it's, it's very readily transmitted into commercial pork, which is why the Chinese have already dropped, you know, dropped the curtain and said, no, we're not going to allow any of that into our, into China because of the risk.
I mean, what we're talking about.
So I wrote an essay about low risk, high impact events, which is what we're talking about.
Another example of a low risk, high impact event is gene drive technology that Gates is promoting to exterminate the mosquitoes, for example, you know, gene drive technology can be used to exterminate a species, particularly ones that have a high reproductive rate.
And, uh, you know, it's another one that is a CRISPR application.
Uh, but there's a whole school of thought that gene drive tech should never be let out of the box into the environment because in, in the, what's, you know, there are those that are actively promoting its use, uh, and, uh, to eliminate bad stuff.
And, uh, you know, we're all for eliminating bad stuff, uh, um, uh, you know, organisms, insects, worms, flies, stuff, uh, and yet it, and, and we can do experiments where we say, oh, we'll cultivate this kind of fly together with that kind of fly.
And only these flies are going to have gene drive.
And we're going to look for whether or not it gets over to these flies.
And if it doesn't, then we can conclude that it's unlikely, but as Brett would tell you, um, we're dealing with ecosystems here, really complex ecosystems and the, the risk environment now that I think grownups have to acknowledge coming out of COVID, you know, the big lessons we can, we can, we can talk about these egregious things that we've all experienced that have been put on us.
But the big picture is this thing came out and I'm convinced it was engineered.
I'm, I, I believe the most likely hypothesis is not that it was intentionally released.
I still think that's a possibility, but that it was an unintentional, uh, release, uh, an infection of, of a lab worker or something like that, that let it get out.
Cause that's what happens again and again in these facilities.
Uh, the, these low probability events can have extremely high impacts and as we've seen global impacts and we have to rethink how we're managing risk, which is, as I mentioned, RETSF's kind of core competence.
And, and, and that logic runs up against this belief that, well, it hasn't happened so far and I'm an expert and I have the right to play around in this, in this sandbox that I've helped develop.
I know more than you do.
How can you tell me that I shouldn't be doing that?
You don't have the right to tell me.
I'm the expert in this space and, uh, to come into that environment and say, look guys, you're playing around with stuff that could have a very high impact, even though it hasn't happened yet.
And you got to, to rethink, uh, what is acceptable.
And, and I think that, that, you know, we were talking a moment about the state department and, uh, um, uh, weapon control.
We're now in an environment where the speed of, of, um, growth of the power of biotechnology is accelerating.
It's going exponential, just like what we saw with semiconductors and, uh, our bioethics, our regulatory structures, our, our way of thinking about those risks.
Is completely unable, unable to keep up with the pace of the advance.
And that is creating, uh, a whole new threat scene, not to scare people.
I mean, I, I, as I was thinking about coming on here, I was saying to myself, okay, Robert, just take a deep breath.
It's only Joe Rogan.
He's a human.
And, uh, you want to stay positive.
And I, I don't want to go dark and just scare people, but we've got to take a deep breath.
Hey, um, we got to recognize that, uh, this is a different world now.
We have all of this digital tech and, and what it means and information control and, and suppression and manipulation psychologically, uh, basically programming, customized programming, uh, through avatars and all of this power.
But we also have in parallel, uh, this world of rapidly advancing biotechnology that is, you know, for, for the likes of Yuval Harari and those that are imagining a future of transhumanism,
uh, uh, and all of that means, uh, we're, we are moving very rapidly into a world, uh, that we can hardly even process.
One of the big thrust vectors in Silicon Valley right now relating to reproductive rights has to do with the development of artificial wombs.
You're, who knows what kind of humans you're going to develop with no interaction with the mother at all, the entire nine months where they're developing, the exchange of hormones.
Which I think is like the only print newspaper left in the United States that's worth reading that ascribes to classical journalism.
But he's just come out with a book about organ harvesting in China and organ harvesting on demand, documenting that they are using live prisoners and keeping them in compounds and testing them for their genetic background and characteristics, and then harvesting them when necessary to provide organs for transplantation, largely to Westerners, because it is enormously profitable.
And also to leaders in the CCP.
This is what all this brouhaha was about the open mic event with Putin, about, uh, we can use transplantation to let us live another hundred years that remember that little clip.
So that this, in, in a world in which we can have artificial wombs, um, we can grow our own clones to provide donor tissue, to buy, provide an insurance policy.
And once you have that in the, in a world of CRISPR, okay, you can do genetic modification of a very small number of cells and then grow a fetus from that.
We're moving to that space where we have custom built humans.
Now it's being, you know, what's driving that?
Convenience.
Who doesn't want to have a child that's better than, that's like you, but better, stronger, bigger, you know, smarter, better vision.
Get rid of all the problems that I've got, right?
Or you've got, or whomever, you know, and, and in your, in your next offspring and all you got to do, because here's another fun fact.
At bulk, whole genome sequencing is now about 300 bucks.
Whole genome sequencing is the, is the portal for selective engineering with, with Cas9 CRISPR systems.
So we're, we now, we're right on the threshold of that entire spectrum of capability of manipulating animals, life, fundamentals of life in every species and humans.
And concurrently, we have the incoming vector of robotics technology and modern computational advance.
You know, we're moving rapidly.
I, you know, people say, oh, it's going to be next month.
We're going to have general artificial intelligence.
Early stage neural development is amazing and profound.
By the way, this looks back to the vaccine story.
When we're, when we're doing all these jabs and these little tiny kids like hepatitis B birthdose, they are at a stage where this thing is just growing like crazy.
Well, the, the, having them exempt from any legal ramifications of the adverse side effects of vaccines, what they did during the Reagan administration, it's really, it gave them this.
So if you want to go down that rabbit hole, it's even worse.
Once functionally, because of how difficult it is to prove an endpoint and get a vaccine licensed, once you get it licensed, you basically have a cash cow in perpetuity.
And if you get it down on the pediatric schedule, in other words, you manage to jam it through the ACIP.
Because the ACIP, the wisdom of Congress, is vested with the authority of authorizing the vaccines for children program acquisitions.
So if the, there's no other program in the entire U.S. States, United States government that is outside of congressional oversight.
The ACIP can decide that this vaccine needs to be purchased for the vaccines for children program.
And historically, because the ACIP has been captured by pharma and by the CDC itself and by academia, those decisions, they never go backwards.
And so you get the product down onto the VFC, the Vaccine for Children program, and the pediatric schedule.
And then that triggers the indemnification clause that you're talking about, which, by the way, is different from the one that kicked in with the COVID situation with the PrEP Act.
That's even worse.
But what you end up with, Joe, is a situation where, as the vaccine manufacturer, think it, you now have no legal liability.
You have guaranteed purchasing, distribution, and marketing.
Because the CDC does all the propaganda.
Vaccines are safe and effective.
You must take this, right?
And then you end up with, and it's in many cases, it's school district level.
It's not even state level.
The states have the right to regulate the practice of medicine.
The federal government doesn't.
That means the CDC can advise that this is the vaccine schedule.
And many states, because they don't have the infrastructure to actually process what's going on, they say, well, if the CDC advises it, then we're going to mandate it.
OK?
Or school districts do.
And so you end up in this situation where you, as the manufacturer, get your product on the market, you get it down into this special program, you got guaranteed purchase, guaranteed profit, full indemnification, marketing, purchase, distribution, all paid for by the taxpayer.
Well, I had Suzanne Humphreys on who wrote that book, Dissolving Illusions.
And that book is a must-read for anybody who wants to really understand the history of vaccines and what really happened in terms of the end of pandemics and the introduction of these vaccines.
Oh, that – and there's a whole thread of – of how prevalent lead was in the population in the powdered wigs and so many things that we had.
And then when they got rid of the lead, that was concurrent with the onset of widespread vaccination.
And so the loss of life associated – or the improvement in loss of life and birth outcomes associated with getting the lead out of the population, well, that's ascribed to the vaccines by the people that are busy marketing vaccines.
And likewise, all the work associated with water sanitation and all of that.
No, that's all true.
The first time I – to credit what credit is due as a vaccinologist.
The first time I really encountered that logic was Candace Owens had me on years ago.
And she said, you know, we've done this deep dive and we've looked at this thing and these infectious diseases go down before the vaccines come up.
Because when people are so concerned about polio and polio vaccines and we've cured polio, they're going to bring back polio if they stop the vaccines.
When I tell them what percentage of polio do you think is asymptomatic and that most people think like none, right?
It's 95 to 99 percent of polio is asymptomatic.
And then you find out through Suzanne Humphrey's work that they were spraying DDT ubiquitously all over the country at the same time.
And it gives you the same exact symptoms of paralytic polio.
And then subsequently the actual first infections that started occurring in this country were occurring in rural areas where they spray DDT everywhere.
Yeah, so one of – so there's – if I can kind of throw another log in the fire on that narrative.
One of the cool things that I'm getting to see from my perch at the ACIP is people working at the cutting edge of modern genetic technology investigations about cause and effect and genomic effects.
And one of the things – you talk about this rare incidence of paralytic polio or myocarditis, OK?
Myocarditis is rare with the vaccine and yet it happens at a significant rate.
It happens more in certain populations than other populations.
This was heresy at first and now they were forced to admit it and stay tuned later in February.
But there's a group that had a big grant to look at genetic links associated with risk factors for this.
And strangely, halfway through their program during the Biden administration, all their funding got caught.
But they still made a lot of progress and they kind of limped along with volunteer stuff.
Modern – I mentioned the genome costs, 300 bucks a genome.
So these guys have gone through and they've identified seven genes that represent high risk factors for myocarditis after vaccination.
Myocarditis after vaccination, by the way, was a major side effect associated with the smallpox vaccines or one of them.
It's been associated with vaccines for quite a while.
We just kind of haven't heard about it and it's particularly bad with these.
But there – we – one of the – trying to continue my theme of it's not all dark.
One of the things that's coming out is that if we commit to it and do the research like Team Kennedy is committed to doing, we may well be able to detect those people that – the genetic characteristics of those people that might have been at higher risk for say paralytic polio or myocarditis.
So that we can have genetic tests and you can have that test and determine whether you actually have that risk factor.
It looks like because of the dynamics of clinical research and epidemiology in infectious disease that this kind of application of genetic diagnostic technology may give us whole new insights into those small populations that had those rare events.
You know, we know the big picture in COVID and the COVID vaccination, post-vaccination syndromes of the high-risk individuals with obesity and elderly and basically people with a high inflammatory set point.
But now we're getting down into some of the nuances and I think that that's – you know, I talked about some of the dark sides of biotechnology.
But there are some real bright sides that offer hope, and what will happen as that kind of starts to roll out is that manufacturers and academic surrogates and others are kind of – they're not going to be able to continue to hide behind these narratives that they have promoted now for decades,
because the true-true is going to come out.
It is going to come out.
Is it going to come out during this administration?
No.
To do long-term follow-up studies are going to take a decade.
That's the unfortunate truth and that we're going to have a lot of grief around that.
But it's going to happen and that is another big plus of what's going on right now kind of behind the scenes at HHS.
Hopefully, they get a chance to still do it after the midterm and they don't get hogtied.
But I'm optimistic that we're – these narratives that have been promoted, these false narratives, we're going to be able to break them through doing actual science if we're allowed to do it.
And this new technology is particularly with sequence analysis and identification of risk correlates.
The intersection between sequence analysis and epidemiology is going to really open up new understandings about what's going on in human disease.
I'm absolutely convinced.
What we do about it is that's a whole other kettle of fish.
I mean we can do the science until the cows come home.
This is talking more about kind of the Silicon Valley culture that's pushing transhumanism and how integrally it's become involved in this space.
I mean what – I don't have – I don't pal around with Elon and – not to say he is or whomever you want to talk about in that space.
That's – that's not my pay grade.
But my understanding and I read these things.
Maybe they're also – maybe that's also propaganda that a lot of these people of let's say the Bill Gates cast and the younger ones associated with that would – are advocates for a world in which they are able to upload their avatar consciousness in a digital space and live forever.
Trevor Burrus So I'm now – I'm now of the belief that there exists a capability that transcends physics as we know it.
let's say Einsteinian physics and is more aligned with Hawking's physics that we can't – we don't comprehend right now.
Trevor Burrus And it has to do with extremely high energy systems and I having – I mean I've had some of these guys because I'm now known worldwide as a nutcase I guess and conspiracy theorist.
Trevor Burrus I've had them on my farm, you know, staying in our guest house and shooting the bull and me trying to understand their world and what they're seeing and what they've experienced and observed and the information.
Trevor Burrus And I'm – there's a lot of different models for what the hell is going on here and maybe it's all us, right?
That's one model.
Trevor Burrus It's all us with – Trevor Burrus Secret technology.
Trevor Burrus Yeah, that's one model for the – what do they call it? Tic-tacs and – I'm increasingly convinced by the logic that there is a physics beyond the physics that we know that is the physics of extremely high energy systems.
Trevor Burrus And in high energy systems, a lot of the rules about motion and transportation and matter and the ability to cross between matter states that is repeatedly observed and reported by responsible people, military folks that have strong disincentives for saying this stuff.
Trevor Burrus And yet still they're saying, that's what I saw, OK?
Trevor Burrus So I – one of the models of that is that this has to do with having some extremely high energy source in a very small package.
And is that possible?
Trevor Burrus We're now moving into a new fusion world, right?
We're talking about these microfusion reactors that are going to be powering our data centers all over the world, transforming the whole energy, right?
I mean there's this logic in crossing over into the economics, Bitcoin or kind of space.
Trevor Burrus There's this logic that it all comes down to energy.
Energy is the one thing that fuels economic development and everything around us.
Trevor Burrus And I'm not a physicist but I listen and learn and it sounds to me like these micro-reactors and the technology that was involved strangely in this assassination.
Trevor Burrus Remember that bizarre assassination in Boston that happened?
There was two competing companies.
Trevor Burrus The MIT guy.
Trevor Burrus Yeah, there's something going on there that's really transformational and if it matures – remember Trump has invested in this in a big way.
Trevor Burrus If we emerge into a future within my lifetime probably of these micro-nukes as energy sources decentralized, first driven by the tech bros because they want to have their data centers.
Trevor Burrus But then suddenly we have – as that matures and the patents come off, we have the ability to put power generation in very small packages wherever we want in the world.
Trevor Burrus Suddenly the entire landscape of economic activity and the future of humanity is transformed like that and that's just the beginning.
Trevor Burrus If we push that technology, we may find ourselves in some space where we have the ability to produce extremely large amounts of energy in a very small package and use that – of course it will be weaponized.
Trevor Burrus Use that for a variety of things but I think the guys that are speculating about these phenomena being driven by the existence of almost point sources of unlimited energy functionally may make sense out of things that otherwise are really hard to wrap your head around.
Trevor Burrus Yeah, but – Trevor Burrus The company working on it.
Trevor Burrus Nonetheless – Trevor Burrus Nonetheless – Trevor Burrus They are working on artificial worms.
Trevor Burrus We're going to come out – so see if you can find the – since you're so good at Googling or whatever you're doing, see if you can find the images of this artificial womb and I believe it's a lamb.
Trevor Burrus No, but I think your message was a lot more hostile and it's the way it was received, you know, like you were received in a hostile way.
Trevor Burrus I don't think this one is going to be hostile.
Trevor Burrus I think pretty much everything that you said, most people are aware of now and then the other things that you're saying, they're not far-fetched at all.
Trevor Burrus And I think there's a lot more people that are more open to receiving information like that now than ever before.
Trevor Burrus Well, some of it can be attributed to you.
Trevor Burrus And of which I'm a vehicle, have been at times.
Trevor Burrus A lot of the stuff that I shared with you back then was the consequence of a community that I was embedded in, of other physicians and scientists, many of whom were primary care practitioners.
Trevor Burrus And I was attending weekly meetings with these people and I had frontline knowledge of what they were seeing and experiencing.
Trevor Burrus And I had frontline knowledge of the physicians that I was collaborating with at DITRA, of what they were experiencing.
Trevor Burrus I was never managing COVID patients except myself.
Trevor Burrus But I knew what others were experiencing and you gave me an opportunity to share their voice through me and I thank you for that.
Trevor Burrus It was a moment in time and I think we did good, but by God, they came at us.