Dr. Robert Malone, mRNA pioneer and former Salk Institute researcher, exposes how Event 201—a Johns Hopkins war game on October 18, 2019—shaped Western COVID responses, mirroring China’s authoritarian tactics despite WHO plans favoring restraint. He links Bill Gates’ pre-pandemic investments in Moderna (funded partly by CIA-linked money) to his later admissions about vaccine limitations, questioning Gates’ role as a "premier monopolist" in global health, including ties to Jeffrey Epstein and WHO leadership like Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Malone’s testimony before the Texas Senate and suppressed Substack warnings on UN power and transhumanism reveal systemic risks—from lab leaks to profit-driven policies—that demand urgent scrutiny over pandemic governance and biotech ethics. [Automatically generated summary]
Today, a very special interview with Dr. Robert Malone, MD, one of the innovators, the early researchers behind mRNA technology, who became a dissident voice during the lockdowns, both on the issue of the virus itself and the vaccine response to it.
What an incredible man.
And we have such a deep talk today about everything from event 201 to who exactly is financing the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
I think you will be riveted by every word this man has to say.
That's ahead.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to what we call Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe.
It's $8 a month, which I think is a bargain, frankly.
But to us, it really adds up because we don't take any money from the government.
We rely on you, our viewers.
So, you know, eight bucks here, eight bucks there.
Before you know it, you can meet some payroll.
We've been demonetized by YouTube, of course, so we rely on you.
Please go to RebelNewsPlus.com and click subscribe.
All right, without further ado, here's my interview with Dr. Malone.
Tonight, a very special interview with a very special person.
We spend some time with Dr. Robert Malone, MD, the developer of mRNA technology.
It's March 23rd, and this is the Ezra Levance Show.
Shame on you, you sensorious bug.
Hello, my friends.
You're about to hear one of the most amazing guests that I've ever had on this show.
I was riveted by it.
I hung on his every word.
I'll introduce him in a moment.
But first, I want to explain we connected to our guest with Starlink Internet Technology.
We have regular internet here that was working fine, but his is via Starlink.
And he explained to me after the interview that sometimes the signal drops.
So there will be some moments where his video freezes and where his audio drops.
But I encourage you to stay with this interview because you will hear things that you have never heard before.
All right, here's today's program.
I've never seen the word disinformation and misinformation weaponized as much as I have during the pandemic, not just for skepticism regarding the lockdowns, but for questions about the virus itself and the vaccines that were proposed as a response to them.
However, it's tough to call one of the innovators, the creators of mRNA technology.
Tough to call such a man when he has a master's in science and a medical degree.
Tough to call him a disinformation man.
Of course, he knows more on his little finger than the entire press corps does combined.
But that's what they tried to say and do to Dr. Robert Malone.
Now, longtime viewers of Rebel News will have followed Dr. Malone's passionate exhortations and attempts to teach the public what the political class would not hear about the virus and about the vaccines.
He has emerged vindicated in so many ways.
In fact, he just returned from Austin, Texas, where he was testifying before that state senate, giving them advice on how to shape public policy so that the crisis of the last few years doesn't happen.
Again, we are delighted to spend the course of the next half hour with Dr. Robert Malone.
Dr. Malone, thanks very much for joining us.
It's a pleasure to meet you.
You've met and dealt with other rebel news staff, but it's nice to have you on my show.
I appreciate that.
Thank you, Ezra.
Thanks for having me on and for the chance to talk.
Well, it's my pleasure.
Now, let's reintroduce you a little bit for guests who may not know you.
Tell us, in a nutshell, how you came to know mRNA technology.
That's a word a lot of people know now, but three years ago, I don't think one in a thousand people have ever heard that.
How mRNA Technology Evolved00:03:21
Can you sum up what mRNA technology is?
And would you say that it's inherently hopeful a technology?
What was your point of view when you were helping to develop it?
So, this goes back to my graduate school days at the Salk Institute in the Laboratory of Molecular Biology and Virology in the late 1980s.
And then I left the Salk and joined a startup company called ViCal in La Jolla, California.
The work was done to try to enable me to ask some fundamental questions about retroviruses.
And at the time, I was very passionately pursuing a career in gene therapy.
So, I wanted to be a pediatric gene therapist, and I was working on trying to improve the use of the utility of the leading gene therapy technology at the time, which was retroviruses.
To do it, I had to develop methods for working with RNA because retroviruses are packaged as RNA, ribonucleic acid.
That's their genome.
And they're retroviruses because they're able to change the RNA into DNA.
Most viruses, RNA viruses can't, like coronaviruses can't do that.
And so, I needed to develop methods to allow me to manufacture large quantities of pure RNA and include and learn about what were the appropriate genetic elements in that RNA and chemical elements necessary to make it so that it could produce protein when it was delivered into a cell.
And then, I tested all the different methods of delivery that were available at the time.
None of them worked.
And was fortunate to be the first to test a new tech that had been developed in the Bay Area involving positively charged fats.
And so, that's what gave rise to that suite of technologies.
And then, having established that I could do all these things, make large quantities of RNA that had the proper structure and cause it to be slipped into virtually any cell type, and then testing it in embryos and showing that it worked in embryos.
The question was: what was it good for?
And so, I came up with the idea of using RNA as a gene therapy medicine, which was considered to be radical and bizarre at the time, not at all feasible.
And of all the potential genetic medicines that could be developed using this technology, I proposed that the leading one would be for vaccines because the tech didn't work very good.
It would produce a little amount of protein, but a little amount of protein can provoke a very large immune response.
So, the core idea behind genetic vaccination was to mimic what happens in the immune response when you get infected with a virus without having the whole virus, only part of the virus.
So, that's what gave rise to it.
And those are the concepts and the origin.
Well, I understand some of that, but not all of it.
Someone Deeply Involved00:03:10
Admit I'm a layman on these things, but it's clear that you are not just a casual pundit who has only had a recent and passing interest in this technology.
You were deeply immersed in the development of it in the early experimental days.
I think that's what made you so powerful a voice during the pandemics, especially when issues like mandatory vaccination suddenly impose themselves.
Is that you weren't someone who had just Googled mRNA and read the Wikipedia page.
You were someone who was deeply involved in it.
Yeah, those things behind my back are the patents.
That's incredible.
I think that made you very valuable in the debate.
And normally, an expert with a wall of patents like that would be the toast of the town, except that I think the opposite.
They tried to denormalize you, they tried to defame you, they tried to marginalize you.
For example, can you tell us what was done to you on social media?
Were you censored?
How were you censored?
Did political leaders demonize you?
What did Anthony Fauci say or do?
What did the pharmaceutical companies say or do when you started pumping the brakes a bit on the cheerleading of this?
I mean, you're someone who was obviously very open to this technology, but you had criticisms of its application.
How did they respond to you?
So we still don't have the real answers to that.
The Twitter files, if there are any, that talk about me, haven't been disclosed.
There is a FOIA document that shows that the question of who I was was brought up to Tony Fauci.
And Tony Fauci indicated that he didn't know me.
We have met the position that he took with that NIH group that contacted him after the press had contacted them.
So I don't know what was said, if anything, behind the scenes.
And I've had no direct contacts with Pfizer or Moderna personnel.
I spoke briefly early on with Bob Langer, who's the chief science officer and one of the leaders in founding Moderna.
And he acknowledged my early role in that conversation.
But in general, I've had very little formal interaction or pushback from anyone that is affiliated with a traditional corporate organization.
What I got was all the surrogates.
So the fact-checker organizations, Associated Press, it's Atlantic Monthly, New York Times, Rolling Stone, Washington Post.
Media Scrutiny00:06:19
So the media coming after me.
And in particular, the fact-checkers would jump on anything I would say.
And fortunately, I've always spoken truth.
And so that came across.
You know, their criticisms of me over time have proven to be false.
There was a great hit piece from Business Insider about two years ago that had a series of statements about me and had interviewed with other scientists, known scientists, about what I'd been saying.
And they disagreed with that.
But as you look back at that Business Insider piece, pretty much everything I said was right.
And likewise with the Joe Rogan hit, which went crazy.
Joe Rogan, apparently that broadcast was seen by over 100 million people and caused a lot of controversy.
And various Republicans actually inserted it into the congressional record because there was such a strong attempt to suppress it.
Yeah.
That was all been vindicated.
The things that I said are all come to true.
Your description of what you called mass formation psychosis was so spot on.
I think that really lit up a lot of people's thinking.
It reminded me of the psychological experiments done 50 years ago by the ash conformity test and even in a way the Milgram experiments.
And I think you nailed it.
And I remember at the time the phrase mass formation psychosis just went viral, ultraviral, on Twitter and elsewhere.
And if you Googled it, you got that strange result, which is things are happening very quickly.
Sometimes when something breaks, Google wants to tamp it out.
So they have this weird generic response, results are changing quickly.
So our search isn't working right.
Like something that's so obviously designed as a euphemism for we're trying to redirect the links.
You know, I Googled your name just to refresh my memory about some basic facts before today.
And you're really the only person I've ever seen that when you Google their name, the first result is not a Wikipedia page.
And Wikipedia, of course, is horribly biased too, but it is that Atlantic Monthly hit piece that you described.
I think a lot of search regarding you and your name has been hand curated by social media bureaucrats to direct people to opposition to you, to embarrassing hit pieces on you.
I've just never, like the results that came up when I typed in your name, I've never seen anything like that before.
I think you nailed it.
Let me just play a clip from that Joe Rogan interview because I can see why it went viral.
It was very exciting to hear it.
And I think you explained sort of the mass hypnosis that was going on here.
Take a quick look.
How does this happen?
How do we have this emergent phenomenon?
The how question, right?
And behind the how question is the why question.
The how question of a third of the population basically being hypnotized and totally wrapped up in whatever Tony Fauci and the mainstream media feeds them, whatever CNN tells them is true.
Let me illustrate that.
The other day, I was looking through New York Times recent articles about Omicron and pediatrics in preparation for this and for making some slideshows.
And I saw this headline in the New York Times, epidemiologist and a vaccinologist.
And the title was, How You Should Think About Children and Omicron.
It was blatantly saying, this is how you should think.
We're going to tell you how to think.
People kind of got to get that in their head.
That's the world we're in right now.
Now, what Matthias Desmett has shared with us, brilliant insight, is another one of those, aha, now that part makes sense, which is that this comes from basically European intellectual inquiry into what the heck happened in Germany in the 20s and 30s.
Very intelligent, highly educated population, and they went barking mad.
And how did that happen?
The answer is mass formation psychosis.
When you have a society that has become decoupled from each other and has free-floating anxiety and a sense that things don't make sense, we can't understand it, and then their attention gets focused by a leader or a series of events on one small point, just like hypnosis, they literally become hypnotized and can be led anywhere.
And one of the aspects of that phenomenon is the people that they identify as their leaders, the ones typically that come in and say, you have this pain and I can solve it for you.
I and I alone can fix this problem for you.
Then they will lead, they will follow that person through hell.
It doesn't matter whether they lie to him or whatever.
The data are irrelevant.
And furthermore, anybody who questions that narrative is to be immediately attacked.
They are the other.
This is central to mass formation psychosis.
And this is what has happened.
We had all those conditions.
If you remember back before 2019, everybody was complaining, the world doesn't make sense, blah, blah, blah.
And we're all isolated from each other.
We're all on our little tools.
We're not connected socially anymore, except through social media.
And then this thing happened and everybody focused on it.
That is how mass formation psychosis happens.
And that is what's happened here.
You had a bigger audience in that moment than any politician, than anyone other than maybe St. Fauci himself.
I think that's why they tried to censor you.
Let me ask you this.
Who funded mRNA research in the first place?
You said you were with the Salk Institute, Jonas Salk, of course, very important medical researcher.
Infectious Disease and National Security00:03:42
Is the funding for viruses these days, is it all military, either our military or the Russian military or the Chinese military?
Like who would have an interest in poking and prodding viruses and testing their reaction to things?
Like the kind of research that was being done at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, it seems so evidently designed for military purposes.
What are your thoughts on that?
So the truth is that the modern discipline of molecular biology and virology and microbiology has largely been created through massive, massive investments in bio warfare during the 60s, 70s, and 80s in particular.
And a case can be made that modern biology, as we know it, exists because of these huge investments in biowarfare.
The head of the American Societies for Microbiology was typically in past generations closely tied to the leadership in the biowarfare enterprise of the United States.
The CIA has long maintained programs involving surveillance of viruses globally.
And this has been a part of the entire intelligence community.
There used to be a program and now it's matured in different ways in which there was a very active effort by the intelligence community to gather data from all over the world about infectious disease and then process that.
And they used virtually all sources of intelligence information, Computer embedded reporting and other things to gather information about everything having to do with infectious disease and potential infectious disease outbreaks.
Infectious disease is perceived as a national security threat.
And that's what's driving a lot of this.
And then we had the whole ramping up of this biodefense industrial complex, particularly around the time of the anthrax attacks and immediately before.
And then subsequent, of course.
So I wouldn't say it's just military.
It's military, industrial, and intelligence.
And it's very much embedded in the national security enterprise.
And most of the people that we perceive as leaders at HHS, including Tony Fauci, that are involved in these biodefense-related activities, have deep ties both with the military and the U.S. intelligence complex.
That's undeniable.
One of the things I'm trying to wrap my head around is the back and forth between Fauci and Senator Rand Paul about what was being done in the Wuhan Institute of Virology with American money, direction, guidance, et cetera.
Senator Paul's Inquiry00:03:49
And this is what I find so baffling.
I mean, China is at best a rival, at worst, an enemy of the United States.
It's a competitor for sure.
And militarily, scientifically, they're either competing against America or stealing American intellectual property.
So the idea that there would be American research in Wuhan and that it would be so obviously adjacent, if not directly, military research, I find baffling.
Senator Paul outright says that it was illegal research.
Anthony Fauci denies that and has a definition game.
Here, let me just play a bit of an exchange between these two men because they've sparred over this a few times.
Here's a quick clip of that.
It's quite something.
Take a look.
Dr. Fauci, knowing that it is a crime to lie to Congress, do you wish to retract your statement of May 11th where you claimed that the NIH never funded gain of function research in Wuhan?
Senator Paul, I have never lied before the Congress.
Microphone, Doug.
Your microphone.
Senator Paul, I have never lied before the Congress, and I do not retract that statement.
This paper that you are referring to was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gain of function.
What was you take an animal virus and you increase its transmissibility to humans?
You're saying that's not gain of function?
That is correct.
And Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about, quite frankly.
That's the ongoing quarrel, but here's a new clip as recently as today from your Twitter feed, Doctor.
Here, take a look at this.
You brought this to our attention.
Thank you.
On September 12th and November 7th of last year, I sent letters to the State Department asking for records about coronavirus research that had been funded by the State Department.
State Department refused to comply.
When Assistant Secretary Sherman came, I asked her the same question.
She didn't seem to be aware that you had been funding coronavirus research, but you are.
And I got the, I'll get back to you, Lon.
A couple weeks later, I met personally with you at the State Department and asked you the same question.
Will you not divulge to us the records of the State Department's support for coronavirus research, particularly in China?
You assured me you would help.
We communicated several times over the phone with another assistant secretary of state who finally sent us a letter and said, no, we're not going to give you anything.
So that's where we stand.
And my question is, what's the State Department hiding?
Why won't you give these records to the American people?
Senator, thank you.
And yes, I appreciated you raising this when we saw each other a month or so ago.
And my understanding is that our teams have been working to find an accommodation.
There's longstanding...
We've got a refusal.
Blanket refusal.
No, they are not going to give us records.
We cannot directly provide the unredacted cables.
We have a long-standing practice with this committee about how we do it.
You're refusing to release that.
No, but I think you can't.
There's a difference between can and may.
You won't do it, but you can do it.
My hope is that we can find a way forward that answers your concerns so that you get the information that you're looking for.
My understanding is that our teams have been working on that, and I commit to continue to do that so we can get you the… We're talking about unclassified material.
Most of this is unclassified.
And so we just had a unanimous vote in the Senate and in the House.
And President Biden just signed a bill saying he's going to declassify stuff.
But if you declassify it and you still hide it from the American people, that's a problem.
War Game Leaks?00:14:52
So what really was going on there, Doctor?
And will we ever know?
And how can we be working with America's, like I say, enemies, rivals, you use the word.
How can America be in Wuhan?
How does that even work?
So there are various theories about this.
And it's fascinating that Stefan Boncell, the CEO of Moderna, was very involved in the construction of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology really only became functional a couple of years before this outbreak.
And at the time when it appears that the virus escaped the laboratory, they shortly thereafter had engineers in to reorganize and restructure a lot of their ventilation systems because management of air pressure is often the cause of viral leaks in environments like this.
The one working hypothesis, let's say, for what has driven this situation is that a few years before all this happened, there was a leak that caused a large number of CIA assets within the People's Republic of China to be identified.
And when they were identified, they were shot.
Suddenly, our intelligence community was blind to what was going on in China in biowarfare and biodefense related activities.
So one hypothesis for what has driven this, which is consistent with what I've heard, for instance, from my colleagues at Defense Threat Reduction Agency in the Department of Defense,
is that our intelligence community basically did a deal with the CCP in order to be able to get some visibility and insight into what's actually going on within the revolutionary army in the People's Republic as it relates to biowarfare and biodefense product development and research.
And there appears to have been a quid pro quo in which we were allowed to have some intelligence visibility in exchange for technology that was transferred to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, including reagents.
And a case can be made: these viruses were technologically transferred from North Carolina into the Wuhan Institute.
And there was a tight working relationship there.
And it had to do with this logic that we would engage with the opponent, just as we had done.
And it's the same groups basically, the same logic, just as we had done with the loose nukes in the Soviet Union after the collapse of the Soviet Union to try to mitigate the threat of those nuclear armaments and warheads getting into third-party hands.
And so that appears in one version of this story.
It appears that what happened here was a naive, or maybe not naive.
There's no way to really know because it's all cloaked in this cloak and dagger world where there was some sort of exchange of technology in exchange for access, limited access to visibility of what activities were going on there.
And it was done in a laboratory that the West was involved in creating at the Wuhan Institute of Virology of the National Academy of the Chinese National Academy of Sciences.
And to keep it in context, there's a very, very deep and active exchange of students and leaders between Chinese academia and many of the leading U.S. academic institutions, including Harvard, Yale, University of Texas Medical Branch, Stanford, et cetera.
But in particular, Harvard has a very active exchange program with various Chinese universities, including ones that are right around Wuhan, that brings Chinese leadership, scientific leadership into the United States to work with top academic labs in the States.
And this is all perceived as something akin to detente where, through this exchange of technical capabilities and information, we are reducing the risk of unintended consequences or confusion that might cause a diplomatic or potentially a biologic weapons.
event that no one wanted.
Now, what we have, of course, is a biologic event that nobody wanted and that it came out of this whole system.
And that gives rise to the kinds of things like one of the bills that I was just testifying on in Texas, the movement to ban gain of function or directed evolution research to the extent possible, because I think a strong case could be made that the risks far outweigh the benefits.
And we've had three years of experience on that.
Well, that's a shocking story you've just told.
If I had one question for Anthony Fauci, I would ask him this.
Now, maybe he's already been asked this question.
Do you know?
My question to him, and I doubt I'll ever have a chance to ask it, would be: have you ever been to Wuhan, China?
Do we know if he has been?
Maybe that's not a secret.
Maybe he's already been asked that.
I don't know the answer to that.
There are individuals who assert that Tony Fauci has a very, very close personal relationship with the director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology that spans many, many years, probably spans before the advent of the Institute of Virology.
So I can also say that when Tony Fauci was put on the stand by the attorney generals in their lawsuit against the state attorney generals and their lawsuit against Google and the United States government, Tony Fauci pleaded, I cannot remember, over 160 times.
So I think that's a prelude to how he's likely to testify in other cases if he's put on the stand and sworn in.
It'd be quite something if he couldn't remember a trip to Wuhan.
Let me ask you about something else that's curious.
And I find this so astonishing, I can't even believe it.
But again, I went on Google and I typed in event 201.
And the first hit that came up was not a conspiracy theory page or even Wikipedia.
It was Johns Hopkins.
And it was a description of Event 201 sponsored by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
On October 18th, 2019, the who's who in the virology vaccine world had sort of a simulation, a war game simulation of a pandemic event.
And it wasn't just a medical simulation, it was a political simulation and a media simulation.
And by the way, this was when COVID-19 was already out of the, the genie was out of the bottle.
I don't know the exact date that has been accepted as the beginning of it, but October 18th, 2019, I think it's generally accepted that the virus was out and some people would have known it by then.
And event 201 was a war game where Bill Gates was up to his eyeballs.
What do you know about Event 201?
Do you think that they knew that COVID-19 was afoot?
And this wasn't actually just a hypothetical scenario.
This was, okay, guys, we've got about a month before this gets serious.
Let's try and think this one through politically, militarily, economically.
What the heck happened in Event 201?
So one of the things you left out with that preamble is that there were two main sponsors of Event 201, which was held at a basically a think tank at Johns Hopkins that's known to be closely affiliated with the CIA.
The two sponsors were the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum.
This is one of a series of war games that have been run for decades.
And it is at a minimum.
Event 201 was amazingly prescient.
Were the participants there aware that the virus may have entered the population in Wuhan with the military games that preceded that?
Or did the virus enter the population in Wuhan in November?
That's all that timeline is still murky.
But there's no question that Event 201 pulled together a selected participant list of people that largely had a bias towards more military or militarized responses to an outbreak threat.
And I argue that if you bring together If you're going to do a war game planning exercise, you have to have a broad representation of the population.
But unfortunately, our government has had a tendency, and this is pseudo-government, this is government plus these large NGOs, has a tendency to bring together people that are kind of insiders in the industry,
plus, for instance, in this case, the press people that have ties, for instance, in Council on Foreign Relations, which many of the press people from CNN and MSNBC are members of that, and intelligence community people and defense community people.
And it's no surprise if you bring together a group of people that have a bias towards authoritarian responses that you're going to end up with a plan to respond to a public health emergency that is very authoritarian.
And it appears that the plan that was developed, whether it was developed with awareness that that particular coronavirus had already entered or that something akin to that was highly likely, certainly there was awareness that something like what we now call SARS-CoV-2 would originate and potentially sweep the world.
And clearly there was research, multi-staged research going over many years to develop a novel coronavirus that was much more highly infectious in humans.
So I argue that what happened was in Event 201, they came up with a war game plan that was very heavy-handed, authoritarian, based on three core assumptions.
One was that we would have a highly lethal, highly infectious coronavirus.
That was false.
This virus is nowhere near anything close to the lethality, for instance, of Ebola.
That we would have an effective and safe vaccine produced rapidly.
And at that point, the investments in the RNA vaccination technology were already maturing.
Moderna had been assembled with CIA money, et cetera.
And the third assumption was that there would be no drugs that would be effective in a timely fashion against this agent, this hypothetical new coronavirus.
And we had, you know, whatever the relationship is, it's lost in the mists of time.
And I don't, you know, I'm not privy to the information.
I don't know if we'll ever get to the bottom of how this virus entered the population intentionally or unintentionally.
But it did.
It was highly infectious.
It swept through the entire globe, perhaps facilitated by a failure of China to do lockdowns before the Chinese New Year, which is traditionally a time of diaspora from Wuhan and China throughout the world, and certainly facilitated the rapid transmission globally.
And the governments, particularly the Western governments, particularly the Five Eyes Nations, that's the intelligence alliance that ties together Great Britain, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, implemented this very heavy-handed authoritarian response that had been planned in Event 201.
And the way I like to put it is that it's taught in every war college in the world, I'm sure, that your plans are only good until you encounter the enemy.
Core Assumptions Flawed00:10:53
And then you have to re-envision them.
You have to replan based on the ground truth of what you're encountering.
And that was never done.
So they had those three core assumptions.
All of them were wrong.
The vaccine is not safe and effective.
Existing drugs could be used very effectively to treat this virus.
And this virus was nowhere near as lethal as was presumed based on the Chinese propaganda, which was probably informed by what, you know, may well have been informed by Event 201.
It may have been playing to the audience and telling them what the audience expected to hear.
But there's no question that these governments implemented this very heavy-handed authoritarian plan in lockstep.
And as they did it, they also brought in aspects of the Chinese response, particularly the lockdown strategies.
And the Brownstone Institute has done a great job of tracking these citizen journalists, the cascade of events that led to the wholesale importation of what was called the China solution,
the CCP strategy of lockdowns, masking, social distancing, et cetera, and implementing it in the Western nations, although that was very different from what the plans had been based on prior World Health Organization consensus and prior outbreak planning.
So Event 201 absolutely happened.
It is at a minimum rather odd that it was held at that point in time.
It does appear in retrospect that Mr. Gates is able to leverage the insider knowledge that he gains from funding these types of war games to make strategic investments.
And he did make, by his own account, huge amounts of money on his investments in the vaccine industry, including in the RNA vaccine industry, which apparently, according to his recent statements, he has sold all those assets and then shortly after selling off that stock, came out with statements to the effect that the vaccines did not perform in the way that was anticipated.
So there's a whole lot of evidence of war profiteering and mismanagement based on these planning war games that were held, and then a failure to think.
As I like to quote Hannah Arndt, the banality of evil lies typically in the failure to think.
This is based on her observations of Eichmann and Jerusalem.
It's incredible that Bill Gates, when he was deeply invested in the vaccines, touted them as infallible.
And as you say, once he was out of the stocks, he spoke quite plainly.
And it almost sounded like, well, of course they're not effective.
Of course they don't work.
Why would you doubt?
He went from being a Fauci style evangelist for them to sort of almost like he sent that down the memory hole.
Oh, I never said that.
Like he was Robert Malone.
Here's a clip of Bill Gates just so matter of factly.
Of course they don't work.
Of course that's a problem.
It's almost like there's a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Here's Bill Gates disparaging the vaccines that moments earlier he was saying were a must do and the world must buy them and indemnify him for any product liability, by the way.
Take a listen.
The current vaccines are not infection blocking.
They're not broad.
So when new variants come up, you lose protection.
And they have very short duration, particularly in the people who matter, which are old people.
And every one of those things is fixable.
In fact, doing that work is going to help vaccinology very, very broadly.
The idea of checking if people are vaccinated, you know, if you have breakthrough infections, what's the point?
I find it incredible that Bill Gates is as prominent, successful, influential, and powerful as he is, not the least of which is his involvement with Jeffrey Epstein, well documented even by the New York Times.
Uncontradicted reports say he met with Jeffrey Epstein more than a dozen times, repeatedly met even after the truth was known about Epstein, kept meaning so much that his own wife divorced him over that.
And I mean, I don't know what went on in their family, but surely his wife would start by saying, please don't go, or you must not go, or I insist you don't go.
I mean, by the time any marital quarrel gets to the point where she divorces him over it, that must have been ongoing for a long time, and he must have been so insistent.
Here's a clip of Melinda Gates with some caution.
Maybe there's some rules about what she can or can't say.
Just you can feel the rage in this woman.
Take a listen to Melinda Gates explaining why she divorced Bill.
You know, it was also widely reported that Bill had a friendship or business or some kind of contact with Jeffrey Epstein and that you were not, that that was very upsetting to you.
Did that play a role in the divorce at all in this process?
Yeah, as I said, it's not one thing.
It was many things.
But I did not like that he'd had meetings with Jeffrey Epstein, no.
And you made that clear to him.
I made that clear to him.
I also met Jeffrey Epstein exactly one time.
Did you?
Yes, because I wanted to see who this man was.
And I regretted it from the second I stepped in the door.
He was abhorrent.
He was evil personified.
I had nightmares about it afterwards.
So, you know, my heart breaks for these young women because that's how I felt.
And here I'm an older woman.
My God, I feel terrible for those young women.
It was awful.
You felt that the moment you walked in?
I didn't feel that.
It was awful.
Yeah.
And you shared that with Bill and he still continued to spend time with him?
Any of the questions remaining about what Bill's relationship there was, those are for Bill to answer.
But I made it very clear how I felt about him.
I mean, that alone, I think, ought to merit a giant asterisk by his name whenever people interview him.
But I see him interviewed every day saying the most absurd and dramatic, like he really is a Dr. Evil character, except for he looks like a schleppe.
Like if he looked more malign, instead he's got these pudgy and he's got the sweaters and he's got that goofy style.
I think there's something deeply wrong with him.
And I think that I think he's the villain in this story.
I mean, listen, a lot of that's an aesthetic and emotional reaction.
What do you make of Bill Gates and the fact that he is not in any way defrocked after this?
I mean, I would say he has more prestige now than ever, at least with the establishment.
What do you make of Bill Gates?
Well, I think that we're seeing an example of the power of wealth.
He has enormous personal wealth and he's leveraged that in a variety of ways.
He's made major investments, for instance, in information, both in information technology companies, but at the level of basic journalism school investments, he's been pushing the teaching of advocacy journalism that's been funded by Bill and Melinda Gates.
And he's made major contributions to a wide number of media outlets.
So there's clear financial conflicts of interest.
I had an interesting set of interviews with Candace Owens a while ago, in which she talked to me about Bill.
And what came out of that was my comment that Mr. Gates may or may not have been a decent coder, but he is absolutely the premier monopolist of the 20th and 21st century today.
He's more successful as a monopolist than any of the classic robber bears.
It is his core competency.
And he has pivoted from monopolizing information technology, and particularly the desktop computer operating system and all the accessories, to monopolizing world health.
He's made massive investments in the World Health Organization.
I think he's not the top funder.
He's one of the top two or three.
Basically, put Tedros in power together with the CCP.
He controls now most of the global public health infrastructure through his various actions and investments.
He controls much of the media.
He controls much of our political system through his investments, as together with some others, George Soros being a notable example.
And so it's no surprise that he's surrounded by sycopants, including in the media, who can see no evil.
They're paid to see no evil.
But whatever Mr. Gates is and whatever he thinks he's doing, he has clearly managed to monopolize world health.
And I was speaking the other day off the record to a senior congressional investigator who made an observation that relates to this.
Very similar, I say the same thing.
Every single rabbit hole she goes down, she sees Bill Gates at the end of it.
And this is somebody who is involved in the investigations into COVID and the origin of COVID on behalf of a U.S. senator.
So she's a very experienced prosecutor, federal prosecutor, and she came to that conclusion herself.
It's Mr. Gates seems to be behind almost everything that's happened here.
Substack Insights00:01:16
Well, listen, time flies.
We didn't even have a chance to get into the details of your testimony before the Texas Senate.
We didn't talk about your substack.
I've been reading outstanding articles from you about the United Nations.
You have a great explication of their power and how their mission creep has given them even more power.
And then a fascinating study on transhumanism, which is connecting people with machines.
I would encourage people to subscribe at rwmalonemd.substack.com.
Dr. Malone, it's been a pleasure to catch up with you.
I know you've talked to other members of our team before, but thank you for this heavy discussion.
I learned about terrifying things, including Event 201 and the nature of the Wuhan lab.
And I think more people have to know the truth, even if it is quite unsettling.
And I'm grateful that you're still fighting and speaking truth, even though everyone from the Atlantic to the so-called fact-checkers are trying to silence you.
I'm glad you have not been silenced, and I'm glad you spent some time with us today.