All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 11, 2021 - Sean Hannity Show
30:20
Meet Dr. Robert Malone - October 11th, Hour 3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
This is a special edition of the Sean Hannity Show.
America trapped behind enemy lines.
Day number 40.
40.
All right.
Hour two, Sean Hannity Show, toll-free or numbers 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
It's an amazing thing, isn't it?
That we, you know, here we are a year later, last year at this time, uh, heading into a presidential election, and now we're 300% higher in terms of COVID positivity cases.
And meanwhile, we've got three vaccines.
We've got now Joe Biden for the first time, what, last week or a week and a half ago, mentions monoclonal antibodies.
You know, it's a year ago Donald Trump had used regeneron as part of a therapeutic that got him well very quickly.
Um I'm not a doctor.
I'm not going to play one on radio and TV, and I'm not going to give you my whole spiel.
Um, but I'm fascinated with science.
I believe in science.
I believe in in vaccination science.
But I'm not your doctor.
I know nothing about your medical history, your current medical condition, and and I urge everyone to take it seriously and talk to your doctor.
We lost nearly 700,000 people.
I don't want my audience dying.
I don't want anybody dying.
I don't care if you hate me, I don't want you dying.
Anyway, and so I was reading the Epic Times last week, and sure enough, they interviewed a guy.
I don't know why I had not heard of him before, because I'm following this daily.
His name is Dr. Robert Malone.
It turns out he is the inventor of the technology of mRNA vaccines and RNA as a drug.
In other words, the technology that led to the Pfizer Moderna vaccines, a little different than the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, and I'll let him explain the difference because he joins us now.
Uh, sir, welcome uh to the program.
Thank you for being with us.
Thank you for um the opportunity to speak to you and your audience.
The first question, Doctor, is Am I doing the right thing by telling people to take it seriously?
Take, you know, do your research, learn as much as you can, be informed, um, take into account your unique medical history, your current medical condition, and please talk to your doctor uh and then make the right decision based on on that conversation.
Is that the right advice?
Because I see all these people in Washington that never went to medical school and all these people on TV that never went to medical school with one size fits all medicine, and I have a problem with that.
Um, you're dead on, and thank you for saying it.
It's a precisely the thing that I've been trying to say.
I'm not anti-vax.
I've been a vaccinologist for 30 years, and as you say kindly, I did play a key role in inventing the technology platform for these.
Um and I've done many other things in my career.
But um I I believe firmly in um uh ethics and bioethics and in uh ensuring that we have safe and effective products.
And it's always been the case that vaccines have been stratified for their um for deciding whether or not to recommend based on age, and this is clearly a disease of the elderly and the obese.
Um so you're as far as I'm concerned, your messaging to your audience is pitch perfect.
Well, I appreciate it because I'm I get the crap beat out of me, doctor, every day, and I don't know if you can uh I don't know if there's any medicine you can.
You and me both.
You know, you know, um I actually am fascinated with medicine.
Um I did an hour special with Dr. Doctor's name is Dr. Rodriguez and MYU Langone, and he did the first successful face and double hand transplant.
Um I have two friends of mine that are brain surgeons.
I've actually been in an operating room watching brain surgery.
I'm fascinated by it, and I'm fascinated by science.
Can you explain to this audience, because I don't even know the answer, the difference between MRNA technology that you played a big part in discovering versus, say, the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, which is more historically how they did it.
Um the Moderna Pfizer vaccines would be this new technology, MRNA.
Can you explain it?
Actually, you've got something a little bit wrong.
Uh the J and J vaccine, and I've heard this before.
The J and J vaccine is not a traditional vaccine technology.
Okay.
All three of those Are basically gene therapy technologies applied to vaccines.
The J and J technology has never been rolled out at this level.
And in fact, it stems from the same laboratory at the same time that I was in when I had the mRNA discoveries, that being the lab of Inderverma at the SALK Institute, molecular biology and virology labs.
So I'm very familiar with both platforms.
But the advector tech uses a recombinant cold virus, an adenovirus, which is a DNA virus, and it puts the a gene from the SARS-CoV-2, the spike protein gene, into that virus, and then they grow that, and that's what's used to infect you and produce this SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
So in that case, your cells are the actual manufacturing factory for the final vaccine product.
This is very different from a traditional vaccine if you think of, say, um a flu vaccine that is a purified uh fragment of a vaccine that's manufactured using chicken eggs or various other processes, and then mixed with something that makes it more reactive and then injected as a purified protein preparation into your arm.
What these vaccines are more like is uh um attenuated vaccines.
So that's uh polio, smallpox, yellow fever.
Those are all attenuated live attenuated vaccines.
But in this case, both the adenovector, J and J and the Moderna or Pfizer, that's the mRNA, employ methods for putting a foreign foreign genetic material into your cells, causing your cells to make the foreign protein spike, and then that is what generates the immune response.
Does that make sense?
It does, but uh, you know, you're way more you you're way more sophisticated about this.
No, it's not I if if if it's not making sense, I'm not doing it well.
As Richard Feynman said, if you can't make a complex topic understandable, then you don't really understand it.
No, but I do.
Let me ask it in these terms, because okay, people, you know, we have seen the results and the efficacy, you know, the early efficacy was in the high 90s for both Moderna and Pfizer.
I think it was 74 or 77% for the Johnson and Johnson vaccine.
Now we've have the Delta variant, and behind that the Peruvian Lambda variant, and then this new MU variant, and there's a new variant.
I don't I don't know how to actually pronounce it.
It's R.1 or R.1 or whatever they're calling it that infected 45 residents.
It seems that the greatest fear now surrounds this one in a Kentucky nursing home where uh all the patients were fully vaccinated and they had every one of them was a breakout case.
Yep.
So uh what what we're so well how how what's your question?
How let me focus on the question is we we didn't we we knew there'd be variations.
I mean, people study viruses their whole life.
Obviously, you have spent a uh devoted a long period of your life doing this.
Well, now we didn't expect breakout cases, you know, and then people now are talking about boosters and people talking about well, what the efficacy of Moderna Pfizer J and J is over time and that the efficacy lessens.
Um what is natural immunity, uh how does natural immunity impact a decision to get uh the vaccine?
That's that's let's stop there.
That's a good that's a goodly amount of stuff just to talk about right there.
Sure.
So um let's start with efficacy.
So there's um the language you'll hear is efficacy and effectiveness.
Efficacy is something that's measured in a clinical trial, which often will overrepresent how good something is because of the the controlled nature of doing a clinical trial.
Effectiveness is how good does it work in the field in the real world, okay?
So those are two key words.
And the efficacy that you're talking about from these um relatively modest, very brief initial clinical trials that they rushed, um, was efficacy.
You're s you're citing the numbers for death and disease, protection against death and disease.
That's different from protection against infection or replication Or spread.
Okay.
So it turns out that even back in the day when we were dealing with the original strains that are the ones that are matched to these vaccines, because now we got different viruses, basically, that aren't matched to these current vaccines.
But back in the day, what they didn't disclose, you know, wasn't in the press, and you're no stranger to the the uh let's say legacy media um uh just basically regurgitating whatever Pablum the government gives them and the pharmaceutical companies give them.
So that's what we had.
They just kind of regurgitated it to us.
They didn't ask questions, but in fact, the ability of the vaccines to block infection was not anywhere near 90 percent.
Now what we have is um evolved strains.
So this is you know fundamental Darwinian evolution kind of stuff, where you have selective pressure imposed by the vaccines, and no surprise because you only have a single antigen, a single protein from the virus that's being produced in the vaccinated.
Um surprise that the virus is evolving to escape that uh immune pressure caused by those vaccines.
Now there's another wrinkle to this in that um generally we use vaccines before we have a pandemic, right?
That's how we need to try to get them out, and that's a different situation.
Vaccinating into an ongoing pandemic when there's a whole lot of virus circulating is a whole different kettle of fish.
And what happens then is you really do have a setup for development of these escape mutants, which is what you're seeing.
The virus is evolving to escape the vaccines, and it will continue to do so, particularly if we have a universal vaccination policy.
Um what we've got, I like to say is the situation.
I don't know if you have kids, sir, but I I've got to be.
I do.
I have two kids.
They're older.
Okay, so uh yeah, mine are now um married and off for their lives.
But um, I always like to say if you give a three-year-old a hammer, everything becomes a nail.
And they seem to think yeah, you get it, right?
Right.
These fundamental things, you know, this is everybody can understand this.
You know, you give somebody cool new tech that's really powerful, and they think that they can just drive all their problems home with that tech, but it's not that simple.
And what what we're at risk for with this universal policy is we're gonna continue to generate escape mutants, and they will converge on escape mutants that, and this is happening, we can see it, and if you follow the genetics, it's kind of complex stuff, but it's for sure happening.
It will drive towards some common set of variants that's really good at replicating and escaping the vaccine.
And then what happens?
Oh, the people that really needed the vaccine the most, the elderly, the obese, the immunosuppressed, they're no longer going to have first-line protection.
They're gonna be back where they were before, only with viruses that are even more highly replication competent, because that's the other thing that's happened, is these new variants replicate at much higher levels, whether you're vaccinated or not.
So if you get infected, if you're vaccinated, here's the paradox that is just um a lot of people are waking up to this.
Okay, that there's all this talk that it's the unvaccinated that are creating risk for the vaccinated.
Now that just doesn't make sense when you think it through.
If these vaccines are worth a grain of salt.
Um other words, you're saying if you got the vaccine, you should be protected regardless of what you have a logical, right?
Yeah, right.
Okay.
So how how does it make any sense at all that the unvaccinated are the ones that are the problem?
In fact, what's happening is that the vaccinated are when they are infected, and these we now know with these new strains that they're the protection against infection is something like 40 to 60 percent.
Okay, so it's really not that great.
And if you do get infected, your chance of having severe disease is lower.
Well, that sounds good, right?
That's a good thing.
Well, that's what the science has showed us, you're right, and risk of hospitalization and death is lower.
You're right.
Here's here's here's the wrinkle in that, okay, is that what that means is the folks that are vaccinated are still getting infected.
They're replicating virus in their bodies at the same or higher levels than they were before.
They're shedding virus at the same or higher levels than they were before.
Remember at the out beginning of the outbreak when we talked about super spreaders?
We've created a whole huge bunch of super spreaders.
So the truth is that it's the unvaccinated that are at risk from the vaccinated.
Does that make sense?
It does, and it doesn't, because they're also at risk of just getting it also, especially the more highly contagious variants, no?
If you're on vaccinated Yes, it's true.
But the difference is that now we have folks walking around who think they're perfectly healthy, but in fact are making a lot of virus.
And we have a lot of those people doing that.
So that's the difference.
You look at it sideways, different from the way you're being told.
You know, it should be that the vaccinated are protected.
They're not at risk from the unvaccinated.
That should be the way it is.
All right.
We got to take a break.
We'll come back.
We have more with Dr. Robert Malone.
He played a very key role in inventing the technology behind mRNA vaccines.
And it's a fascinating discussion.
I I go back to my admonition, though, that I make every day is please do your own research, talk to your own doctor, but please take it seriously.
Um I don't want anybody in this audience ever dying ever.
Um and then we'll talk about therapeutics on the other side, regenerate, monoclonal antibodies, and we got a lot of questions for Dr. Malone.
Um it's, you know, this is way out of my arena, so I'm I'm learning like you are.
Uh we continue our discussion.
We're joined by Dr. Robert Malone.
Uh you've heard of the Pfizer vaccine, the Moderna vaccine.
He happens to have played one of the key roles, if not the key role in inventing the technology that led to the mRNA vaccines like Moderna and Pfizer.
And where we're talking about, you know, all things involving COVID.
Again, information and and again I urge you to talk to your own doctors about what the right decision is.
Doctor, if I might just ask a simple question.
Because obviously this is your technology that they've used.
Um you helped invent this, which means you're a pretty smart guy.
And you you're you're telling us things about these variants.
It gets a little chilling to me to hear some of what you're saying.
I don't know why we haven't heard more from you up to this point, but my question is this.
So for people, you support science, obviously, and you support the vaccination science, and your breakthrough led to these vaccines.
So I I know it's a general question, and you can't answer specific questions of individuals with unique medical histories and you don't know anything about their conditions, but generally, how do you feel about the vaccines based on the technology you played a pivotal role in discovering?
I think they've been rushed.
I think that's pretty clear.
Two key things.
We needed more information about the adverse events, the risks of the vaccine.
And the other was that the database structure that the CDC had used to capture these adverse events was broken.
It wasn't working.
That was really controversial at the time, but both things have now been proven true.
So, in terms of my point of view, um, these were rushed, and unfortunately, we're now dealing with the consequences of things that weren't detected when they should have been.
But I I personally, my position is that based on the current data, and I've I've written in two op-eds in the Washington Times with Peter Navarro about this.
Based on the current data, it makes sense to vaccinate people 65 and older, morbidly obese, and people with immunodeficiencies.
These are the specific groups that the FDA um uh Verbax committee and endorsed for the third jab.
Okay?
And and would you add to that comorbidities, pre-existing conditions that might be applicable?
Yeah, that's why I said high risk conditions.
Understood.
Now, what the what just to dive in down that rabbit hole for a moment, what the FDA just did um was they authorized for the third jab for those specific people, but then also extended it to anybody who has frequent contact with the public.
So that's where the FDA is at.
That's not where I'm at.
I'm suggesting that the data show that the risk benefit ratio for elderly, morbidly obese, immunodeficiency patients and others that are very high risk, it's still a good bet to take the vaccine.
For everybody else, in my opinion, and that of many other colleagues that are out on the front lines actually treating patients in their homes now instead of waiting for them to go to the hospital.
We should go ahead and make available the variety of drugs, largely anti-inflammatories, not perfect, but um that are being used by physicians all over the world to keep people out of the hospital and keep them from dying and keep them from developing.
These are the steroids that are often prescribed when people test positive.
Steroids are one solution, um, and that's part of the arbumentarium, but frankly, so is hydroxychloroquine um and many others.
So there's a and by the way, uh, this is a simple thing that your audience can do, and it's good for all of us.
Go to your doc and get your vitamin D levels checked, and there's a darn good chance that they're gonna be too low.
And if they are, you ought to take supplements because the data are pretty clear that having your vitamin D levels up at the right level can go a long way to preventing you from getting this disease.
Let me let me go and ask this question.
So I have two friends of mine that live in Atlanta.
They were unvaccinated, one seventy-four, his wife is I think sixty-eight.
And within twenty-four hours of their diagnosis, they were at Emory University Hospital getting an infusion of regenerating the monoclonal antibodies.
Um I have another friend of mine who lives, you know, ten minutes from my house, and he's fully vaccinated, and he he got a home test first.
He had that Abbott test, and it turned out to be accurate, and he got it confirmed at a lab.
Um he had a breakthrough case.
He had been fully vaccinated for quite a while.
Um within 24 hours, he got the monoclonal antibodies, regenerating fusion in his case, and he's you know, it was a little overweight, and um he had the best 10 days of his life.
He sent his family down to Florida so they wouldn't contract the the virus from him, and he went fishing every day and was sending me uh, you know, pictures of 40 pound striped past that he was catching uh enjoying his free is what he called his COVID v vacation because he felt great after the getting the infusion.
Um and then there's Joe Rogan, right?
Then there's poor Joe Rogan.
And by the way, why am I like the only one saying, Thank God he's okay?
I don't care what your politics are, Doctor.
I mean this with all my heart.
I I don't want anybody dying from this thing.
I really don't Joe Rogan.
Joe Rogan is a hero all over the world.
I just spent um two weeks in Europe um touring relating to COVID, and and people know about Joe Rogan um everywhere.
He's he's uh got amazing reach.
But if your point is, um uh, and I'm gonna mention a name, Ron DeSantis, uh, who went out hard in favor of these antibody cocktails, and has specifically called out that this was what they used with the POTUS.
Um, and uh he has really quenched the outbreak to a large extent in terms of death and disease in Florida because he has aggressively made available these antibody cocktails.
Well, now uh I from what I've been able to gather from my sources is we don't have a shortage of monoclonal antibodies.
Not quite the contrary.
I mean, we're sharing it with with countries all around the world.
I agree.
And yet, and yet paradoxically now the federal government is going to restrict availability of these monoclonals in Florida.
Now, wrap your head around that.
Well, let me ask this question then.
Whether you're unvaccinated or vaccinated, like my friends in Georgia were not vaccinated, my friend in New York was vaccinated, and they come down with COVID.
The next question is what is the next course of action?
I I personally might and I've interviewed doctors graduating from Harvard and Yale, and we've had, you know, people on the front lines on unlike Dr. Fauci, who I'm not particularly fond of at this point.
And you know Well, remember Dr. Fauci doesn't treat patients.
It's kind of important to know.
Dr. Fauci.
Yeah, that is an interesting little point.
And those emails were pretty revealing, and the intercept uh pages were more revealing, but that's a different story for a different day.
Just wait.
But I want to give good information to my audience.
Wait until the first thing's book comes out.
I'm sorry.
Wait until uh JFK Jr.'s book comes out about Mr. Fauci.
You will open your eyes.
Really?
Okay.
So my question to you is now I'm not a doctor, and I'm not going to play one on radio, so I'm asking you.
You're the you played the big role in inventing the technology for these vaccines, which is pretty fascinating to me.
You're obviously a brilliant man.
And my question is so you have a breakthrough case or you're unvaccinated, you contract COVID, and what's what's the next bit of advice you'd give people.
My advice would be immediately go talk to your doctor about monoclonal antibodies.
That's what my first bit of information would be.
Ask I think that's I think that's great advice.
There's also um many other um complementary uh drugs and agents that you can take.
But uh you, you know, given that uh you're responsible broadcaster and journalist, um, I think that's a super position to take.
Nobody in in the FDA or in the fact checker community can hit you on that one.
Quick break more with Dr. Robert Malone.
He played an instrumental role in the invention of the mRNA technology.
All right, we continue.
Dr. Robert Malone played a an integral part, a key role in the invention of the mRNA technology that led to the Moderna Pfizer vaccines.
Now, let me ask you about these new variants here, and this one in particular in Kentucky.
I'm not sure how they're pronouncing it, R.1 or R1.
Um, it infected 45 residents and employees in this one particular facility in Kentucky.
So there's a there's a great there's a great article in Forbes on that written by Bill Hazeltine.
It's really comprehensive.
Um that's a good one to look at.
Um and then there is a CDC report from about two months ago that's easy to find um by just searching the CDC MMWR journal.
Um, and uh that'll be a good one.
Well, let me quote the Forbes article for you.
Scientist uh by the name of William Hazleton, and maybe you know, maybe you don't.
He says smart guy created human genome sciences.
Former code, he's a big shot.
A Harvard big shot, okay.
R1 is a variant, is the variant to watch, he said.
It's established a foothold in both Japan and the U.S. And he added it features several unique mutations that could give it advantages in transmission, replication, and immune suppression.
And one mutation named E484K, and I have no idea what I'm saying here, just stay with me, Doctor.
Located in the spike protein of the virus gives it, quote, an increased resistance to antibodies generated by the vaccine, and R1 shares an additional mutation, D614G, with all other variants that over to have that have overtaken the original alpha strain, which increases infectiousness.
So I'm giving you a lot of information there.
It has another mutation that increases its replication in humans.
I didn't want to show off.
I could have brought that up too.
You're you're you are on it, my friend.
Uh so I but what does it mean though?
Because I really don't understand it.
So um this the uh current vaccine products, and there's new ones coming that are second generation products, but the current vaccine products all rely on the spike protein.
And the spike protein was the focus because it was known that um uh that protein would provide pretty good protection.
And so it was a safe bet.
And uh the problem with that is that the antibodies that for the B cell antibody-based immunity, um, in order for them to be effective, there's uh limited number of targets, places that they can bind to on the spike protein to block the ability of the virus to infect other cells and neutralize the virus.
And the the thing is that those it's kind of it's really turned out to be complex.
There's been some fascinating science done in La Jolla Institute of Allergy and Immunology uh by a large international team mapping all these different domains.
And basically what Bill is pointing out is that one of those domains is being mutated so that the vi the antibodies which normally would be able to bind there aren't binding or aren't binding as efficiently, the ones evoked by the vaccine.
Because remember the vaccine is against the original alpha strain, so it's no longer matched.
This is one of the big problems.
The truth is that we're vaccinating for yesterday's virus.
okay and so we're generating friends of mine yell at me for getting a flu shot every year and half of my friends agree have disagree And I know it's on average 30 to 40% effective because they guess what strain it's going to be.
So it's kind of it sounds a little similar to that, right?
Well, it's a good point.
Um and uh in fact, there's even more uh you're you're even more accurate in talking about flu.
That's a super analogy.
Because for a number of reasons, many vaccinologists, myself included, think that overvaccinating for flu is is actually not a good thing.
One of the things that's kind of uh a little bit worrisome about this, uh, we're just gonna go ahead and give everybody a jab every six months strategy, is there's a thing called high zone tolerance and another thing called original antigenic sin.
So those are fancy immunology words, but what they equate to is that more is not always better with vaccines.
More vaccination, more frequent vaccination can in some cases actually make it so that you're less able to mount an immune response against the pathogen.
I I'm running out of time, unfortunately, and I rarely give a full hour of the of my program to any one person, but I mean, considering you're up to your eyeballs and all of this and you know, play the key role in discovering the MR uh MRNA technology to to build out the the vaccines, Moderna and Pfizer.
I I just think that you know I want everybody to put this in the category of information, take it seriously, talk to your doctor, doctors, look at your unique medical history, your current condition, talk to your doctor, and and make the make the right decision for you.
Um I I just want everyone to be informed and smart and safe.
And uh, you know, obviously now I now I understand after all of this why people spend their entire lives studying one virus.
It's crazy it's crazy to me.
Um but I do appreciate you being on the program, Doctor.
I hope you'll come back again and uh we you know you should really take a bow.
I mean, you know, for the people that you know you pointed out absolutely need this vaccine, uh 65 comorbidities, pre existing conditions, compromised immune systems.
You know, you're very clear on it, and I appreciate your uh forthrightness on it.
I'm glad to be on your program any time, my friend.
Uh and be good.
All right, thank you, sir.
Dr. Robert Malone.
Fascinating.
Talk to you, doctor.
There's a lot to learn.
I mean, every time I think I know something, I I I'm learning more.
Quick break, right back.
▲
Export Selection