Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Jan. 17, 2023 - RFK Jr. The Defender

01:15:22

Doctors Discuss the Fauci Film

Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Robert Malone discuss the Fauci documentary film from RFK Jr's NY Times Best Selling book in this episode. For a preview of the movie, click here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3eQSet-3hA

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I've got Jeff Hayes of Jeff Hayes Films with us.
	Jeff, take it away.
	There's plenty of stuff to talk about, but when I've got Dr.
	Robert Malone sitting in front of me, it almost feels stupid for me to talk very much.
	Dr.
	Malone, thank you so much for being here.
	My pleasure.
	You called and I answered.
	Well, that's happened several times, so thank you for answering when we call.
	I really loved your appearances in the film.
	The thing that only I know is, you know, it's also heartbreaking in that, you know, we did several hours of interviews with you for the film and used probably a total of, you know, Eight to ten minutes.
	And so there's so much great material that I know we have one thing that people can buy where they get all this extra footage.
	I'm really excited for those people to see that just because the information that you provide is always fascinating and interesting and compelling.
	But mostly I want to thank you for doing what you do.
	Well, thanks.
	Now, you guys are the ones, pretty sure, I did an extended interview last fall with.
	Yes, with Patrick Gentempo interviewing you, and then we did the interview where we sent someone, maybe it was in New York, where it was, you know, not an interviewer with you.
	Yeah, so are you going to include that fall hit in this package?
	Not the one with Patrick Gentempo, the one that we filmed you where we only filmed one side.
	Okay, so the one with Patrick, I would love, there are two interviews that I've done over the whole course of all this crazy interview.
	That are fairly comprehensive summaries of the history, the early history.
	And yours is one of those two.
	If you're not going to use it, I would love to be able to put it out and make a transcript of it.
	So that's, I just wanted to mention that.
	And I do have a transcript of that.
	People can buy it.
	That was a part of a series called COVID Revealed.
	And I know that's being offered to the people that bought the real Anthony Fauci.
	So I'll get into just a little bit of the history of how this film came to be.
	I was one of the people that was really unaware of Fauci's history.
	To me, he was a guy who showed up at Trump's side, who was this avuncular, grandfatherly.
	And when he talked, I liked him.
	And very early on, he said, masks don't work for this, and it's not worth it, and you can actually cause more trouble by wearing a mask because people touch their face.
	And I agreed with what he said.
	Then he reversed himself on that.
	But then when I read...
	Bobby's book and his history with the HIV-AIDS controversy and that epidemic and the power base that he built, I was stunned.
	And it's interesting that Dr.
	Malone had already had a rich history with Dr.
	Fauci and seeing the damage that he had.
	Can you comment a little bit about that, just about your personal interactions with him over the years?
	So I've only met him in person, up close and personal, in his office once, and that was probably about 2000.
	It was brought in by a colleague of mine, Dr.
	Cecil Fox, that ran a company called Molecular Histology that had done a lot of Tony's very technical work.
	I don't want to go into the words having to do with localizing the AIDS virus in various tissues.
	But other than that, I've met him repeatedly in the context of Just so many presentations, announcements, public interactions, particularly scientific ones.
	And all the way through, he's always been somebody for whom the rules did not apply.
	Things that myself and my colleagues were bound to rigorously or we would be at risk for losing our ability to do clinical research None of those rules ever applied to Tony Fauci.
	He is amazingly arrogant and dismissive and has all of those various characteristics, has a sense of just deep entitlement.
	You know, whatever he says goes.
	And it was really captured, I think, over the last three years, we've seen him at a level of kind of reveal and intimacy that I've never seen before.
	Quite so overtly.
	I've seen him do these various activities and because of my various quirks and my background, I knew quite a bit of him and Bob Gallo and those interactions.
	But the things like the interviews in which he asserts that he is science and just so many others, That demonstrate his, you know, narcissism, I think, is the most benign term for what we've seen,
	you know, up until this recent recording where he was receiving an award from one of the academic groups that he gives funding to in Seattle, Washington, Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, where he said he spoke about the Fauci effect.
	I mean, this is just a man who is so surrounded by sycophants and has been for so long.
	He has developed an amazing sense of entitlement and self-centeredness.
	He has portraits of himself on his walls.
	We've seen that repeatedly.
	All kinds of artifacts.
	That are self-affirming, and he seems to want to surround himself with that.
	So I'll just leave it at that.
	I'm not a psychiatrist or psychoanalyst, but I do believe strongly that his activities throughout his career have profoundly compromised the scientific enterprise in both biodefense and infectious disease and allergy research.
	It's amazing to me, as I got to know you and as I got to know Peter McCullough, we take a couple of men who are really at the top of their profession, well-respected, and if you step outside of the narrative, the machine quickly grinds you up.
	And if you look into who's driving the machine over and over, it's Anthony Fauci.
	So to that end, as you probably know, we do a substack and we treat it like a business, just like you treat your film studio as a business.
	And one of the substacks we put out, we did a deep dive into Tony Fauci, his actual employment status, rank, compensation, and some various aspects of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, and some various aspects of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease,
	And one of those included using publicly available databases to search out information about the staffing that he has available to support him in a PR sense for managing press and for managing Congress.
	He has over 60 FTE, full-time employees, serving him in managing his social media and press interactions.
	And then I think there's eight in the office that manage the interactions with Congress.
	And that's just for NIA. That isn't for the total NIH. I think most press organizations would consider that to be a pretty robust newsroom.
	Yeah, I had no idea.
	So we're going to get to the screening here in just a minute.
	We're going to be showing part two, which you make a number of appearances in.
	I've watched it night before last.
	If you can imagine, I've sat in the edit bay with this film for a long, many times.
	And I just thought, well, I want to make sure I'm still clear on part two.
	So I watched part two again.
	And man, it...
	This story, the source material that we drew from Bobby's book was just astounding.
	And once again, I can't thank you enough for the role that you played.
	How can people support you that want to support your work, support your efforts to get the truth out?
	Well, that's very kind for allowing me to do a punch.
	I'm not doing this to make money, but I do have to live and feed the horses.
	And it's looking like hay is going to be expensive this winter.
	So our main income stream comes from Substack these days.
	We've become journalists, opinionators, authors, and that's rwmalonemd.substack.com.
	And we have received some generous donations through our nonprofit, which is the Malone.
	It's called maloneinstitute.org.
	And there's three members on our board.
	The third one is Ed Dowd, myself and my wife being the other two.
	And that is where we've been doing more of the work relating to the World Economic Forum and other deeper investigations.
	So those are the two primary ones is maloneinstitute.org and our substack.
	And Tricia has just posted the link.
	Thank you, Tricia.
	I was just getting ready to ask you to repeat that so we could post it from here.
	So that is, and if people want to turn on their chat, they can see that that's there.
	And again, to the people that are watching, this was a subset of people who supported the film early and allowed us to...
	To raise some extra money for the marketing on this film.
	So this is a thank you for them.
	We'll come back after the part two plays and Bobby Kennedy Jr.
	will be joining us and several other people and again this is a A celebration of the effort that went into this.
	It's been very difficult to keep this site up.
	They took us down on Sunday in a very clever attack after numerous attacks for the week.
	And I always think, you know, they took us down.
	Who is they?
	Someday it'll be really fun to find an answer to that question.
	But Dr.
	Malone, again, I thank you for everything you do.
	I thank you for your willingness Over the last year and a half to visit with us and film with us and you make the world a better place and you certainly improve my world so thank you.
	Well, that's very kind.
	I've been taking a lot of hits from both flanks, but the warm embrace of new friends all over the world is what keeps Jill and I going.
	So it's quite sincerely appreciated.
	Yeah, my last comment is that when we're interviewing people, as we interviewed Dr.
	Malone, and we would ask him, why do you think Fauci did this?
	Why do you think this person did this?
	And I literally changed the tenor of the film because Bobby's exactly the same way.
	When you ask Dr.
	Malone, why did Fauci do this?
	He will not answer that question.
	Say, I don't do mind reading.
	I'll stick to the facts.
	I'll tell you what happened.
	But I'm not going to try to tell you what was in somebody's head.
	And now that I'm doing all these radio interviews, that's my answer.
	I got it from Dr.
	Malone and I'm fine.
	You inadvertently gave me that training because I would have ventured off the reservation.
	Yeah, I had that drilled into my head from some very good attorneys.
	They're called KETAM whistleblower attorneys.
	And I got rigorously trained as a expert witness.
	And that was the thing they hammered into my head is you can't know it's in somebody else's.
	So don't speculate.
	Well, thank you.
	I know you didn't intend to train me to extend that training, but you did, and it served me well.
	Thank you.
	No worries.
	Justin, are you ready to get started?
	Yep, let's go ahead and start part two, everyone.
	Remember to stick around.
	We're going to have a Q&A following.
	Wow, that was amazing.
	Jeff, that's the first time I've watched part two completely to the end.
	Can't thank you and the production team enough for putting that together.
	Yeah, like I said, I watched it night before last, and after seeing it so many times and so many different iterations and versions of it, I'm like, wow, this is really good.
	Sometimes I just get to be a viewer.
	I'm really proud of this whole project.
	Well, we've had some guests join us while we were watching that.
	I'd like to introduce Dr.
	Pierre Corey and then obviously Robert Malone.
	You stayed on and watched the entirety of part two.
	What'd you think?
	Really good.
	I just saw part one just a couple days ago.
	It'd be nice to watch them consecutively.
	And I guess that'll be possible soon.
	Great job, guys.
	I know I've learned...
	One of the journeys I've had to make over the last three years is to learn more about media and film production.
	And this has led me to have a deep appreciation of good editors.
	So, well done.
	Thank you very much.
	Got one of those good editors sitting right now.
	This is Sean Coyne, who was...
	This, like all projects, has many parents.
	And so we had a husband and wife team who were primary editors on...
	I don't know, half or so of the film, and Sean was primary editor on the other half, but also had to assemble everything and also did all of the graphics and artwork in it.
	So one of the most talented people I know.
	Too kind, thank you.
	Well, into that, Dr.
	Corey, I know you joined us towards the end there, and you might have caught glimpses of yourself.
	What did you think?
	Yeah, no.
	Well, I did my homework.
	I watched it last night.
	I sat back and, you know, I watched both parts.
	And, you know, for me, the second part in ways was more powerful to me because I had already deeply studied and read Bobby's book.
	And I thought the first part really covered that in a really powerful way.
	But I don't know that the second part brought things home in these...
	I mean, there were things that came in the second part that I was not aware of.
	And they really, you know, Robert just said the same, you know, he said to be a student of media and film over the last, we've been a student of a lot of things.
	But for me, the regulatory capture, you know, the corporations literally running our government, you can talk about multiple industries, but the things that came out in the second part, The most egregious and brazen examples of the fact that pharmaceutical companies control those agencies and have for a long time.
	And there was just innumerable and quite scary examples of that.
	For instance, the 75-year request.
	I mean, the way Bobby puts it in part two, it literally, you have the FDA running cover for Pfizer.
	You know, Pfizer says, go to the judge and keep this stuff under wraps for 75 years.
	And the FDA, like a water boy, you know, an errand boy goes and does it.
	And it's absurd on its face.
	Like, I was just thinking just in a practical level, if I wanted to hide something, I would ask for two years, five years.
	I mean, the 75 years is just absolutely shocking that they actually did that, and they're doing that for a pharmaceutical company.
	And then the other part, and I could go over the things that stayed with me, but the part about the redactions on the FOIA requests for the payments, $350 million over a decade, and they will not tell you the dollar amount for the scientists, and they will not tell you who gave that money.
	And so you're seeing an agency awash in industry money, and they are hiding it from us.
	I don't know.
	Maybe I'm going in too deep too fast, but it's very hard to watch that because that's literally the basis of our lives and society right now.
	I mean, we got overrun with COVID and it's these agencies driving it for industry.
	And I don't know.
	It's hard to really contemplate more.
	I don't know what to do with this information.
	Yeah, that's for sure.
	Jeff, would you like to take the time to introduce our special guest that just joined us?
	Yeah, so Bobby Kennedy is here, obviously.
	I gotta tell you, I'm so inspired by the ending of this film when Bobby tells the crowd, our job now is to go out and the people that are still hypnotized, we will fight for you until you wake up.
	And this rallying call, you know, it is not a fight that we're against these people that disagree with us.
	We're in this fight for them, and that's easy to put your heart behind.
	Bobby, thank you so much for taking the time to be here.
	Thanks to everybody for showing up.
	And Robert Malone, Pierre Corey, thank you so much for joining us on this.
	And thanks for coming to the conference this week.
	It was really fun to see you guys there.
	Great.
	It's great.
	Loved every minute.
	The one thing that stuck with me from that conference more than anything was the chart that you showed, Pierre, of the...
	Of all the drugs, I think there are like 50 drugs on that list that treat COVID at different levels of efficacy.
	And I think they were arranged in order of the most effective drugs, you know, with the highest impact studies with the most effective drugs.
	And it said, it claims, I think Paxovid was 85% effective, which I don't know if that's true or not.
	It's not true.
	I'm sure they can get a study that shows that it is, and then it gives it to you a week later, and they don't count that.
	But then I think ivermectin was next, and hydroxychloroquine, but then there were probably 30 or 40, maybe 50 of them on that list.
	And then you had the price of each of those drugs.
	The cost per treatment unit, per dose.
	And there was about probably six drugs on that.
	Most of them were expired patents.
	They're generic drugs that cost a couple of pennies per dose.
	And none of those were approved.
	I think the six of them approved.
	And they were all ones that cost like $1,000 a dose.
	And it was just such a clear...
	You know, illustration of what we're in now that this is not nothing to do with public health.
	You know, Bobby, it's almost like I was just talking about, you know, in the second part of the documentary, you know, the images of the redacted payments, you know, and they just, they take, they hide the payments and who it's from, but it's just a visual, like you see this and it just says so much, but you're right, that chart, it's about three dozen different compounds have been tested.
	To get on that chart, you needed at least two trials.
	Ivermectin was the number one which had more than four trials.
	And Ivermectin has 92 trials.
	But the point is what you just said is that of all of the dozens of effective compounds, antiviral, anti-inflammatory that have shown efficacy, The only things approved in this country are obscenely profitable patented drugs.
	Nothing off patent, not even vitamin D, nothing is approved.
	They recommend nothing.
	And so, yeah, it says the same point.
	I mean, this is not public health.
	This is, you know, the pharmaceutical industry dictating what we're treated with and what's being offered to us and recommended to us.
	Yeah.
	And I think, you know, I guess Pax of it, is it Pax of it or the other one that's the Merck one that is, is Merck Pax of it?
	No, Merck is Molnupiravir, Pfizer is Paxlovid.
	And Molnupiravir operates on the same biological pathways as ivermectin, right?
	Well, no.
	So, yeah, it gets a little complicated.
	Paxlovid inhibits a protease that ivermectin also inhibits.
	So it has one mechanism that's shared with ivermectin.
	But the thing about ivermectin, it has about 12 to 20 different other mechanisms in which it's effective and Paxilvid is a really lame, narrow overlap with ivermectin.
	Ivermectin has a lot more to offer than Paxilvid.
	When you just brought up the fact that Paxilvid was number one on that list, that actually was an outdated slide because since the other trials on Paxilvid have come out, Paxilvid has slid far down on that list.
	It's not number one anymore.
	Molnupiravir is kind of off.
	We just did a study on Molnupiravir.
	5,000 patients and it didn't work.
	We knew it didn't work before.
	And I don't want to get too geeky here, but in the molnupiravir trials, or in the one trial, it was multi-country trial.
	It failed in every country except in Brazil.
	And Brazil is notorious for having corrupt, what's called contract research organizations, groups that actually carry out the studies And that was the only country that it was affected.
	Gates did a lot of his research and they ended up one of those research groups actually that was hired to His credit, I think, was hydroxychloroquine, and they actually, I think they gave him the five times the lethal dose.
	They killed a lot of elderly patients, and they would end up being prosecuted by local prosecutors for murder.
	Yeah.
	I mean, Bobby, that was in your book.
	When I read that, I was shocked.
	And I went deeper into that story.
	The actual principal investigators, like from the Solidarity trial where they did this, they've been asked by reporters, how did you come up with this dose?
	And they give conflicting answers, and they could not cover up how they chose really what was a sublethal dose.
	They literally made the patients toxic with this dose in order to prove that your drug didn't work.
	And that's the other aspect of it.
	It's not just the regulatory capture.
	It's the depravity.
	It's the lengths that they will go to ensure their products receive approval.
	I mean, they don't care.
	They don't care if it doesn't work.
	They'll figure out how to prove that it's somehow effective.
	And they don't care if it's dangerous.
	I mean, the biggest joke of it all is in my entire career, I've never, ever heard of a drug like Paxlovin.
	It has interactions with 125 different medicines across 25 drug classes.
	I've never prescribed a medicine that has that many interactions.
	And it also doesn't work.
	They showed it worked in this high-risk group.
	It failed in standard risk.
	It failed in prevention.
	Whereas ivermectin has positive trials in every single phase.
	And at some point, Bob, and you've heard me talk, I don't even like to talk data anymore because the data has been so clear for so long.
	Now, the data is distorted in the public.
	It's misrepresented in the journals.
	They know how to distort the science around A drug that they don't want used, but it's not about the data.
	It's about what this film is about, really.
	It's about that we're really held at the mercy and we're victims to those that control information.
	They control the regulatory bodies.
	They control the science, what gets published, how to do those trials.
	And it's almost like, I mean, not almost, science has been captured.
	I mean, the medical science is just not functioning and probably hasn't for a long time.
	You know, I read, I was seeing today that Robert Malone had a subsack of the CIA's role in the COVID countermeasures.
	You know, that's another kind of sinister dimension of this whole thing.
	Robert, you talked about that this week.
	I mean, what is the CIA doing at the table of a public health response?
	Yeah, the CIA doesn't do public health.
	Robert, you've seen them throughout your career, at least on the margins of public health.
	And when you were part of that superstructure, what was your impression that they were doing there?
	Well, that's complicated.
	Thanks for that, pitching me that ball.
	And I was very glad to see the coverage of Bob Kadlec.
	Throughout this, Bob is absolutely a central figure and was a central figure in the COVID response within the Trump administration.
	You probably could have covered that even more so had you had the time, Jeff, to include that.
	Let's see, how do we begin?
	It's important to understand that modern biology As practiced molecular biology, virology, microbiology, biochemistry is in significant part a consequence of massive, massive sustained biowarfare spending by the U.S. government.
	The head of the American Society of Microbiology for years was one of the top people in our biowarfare complex.
	This goes way back to World War II. I don't know if it goes back further than that.
	I was told at one point in a briefing that the investments in biowarfare exceeded the investments in thermonuclear war.
	So this whole infrastructure that we have in much of the faculty has been, certainly since Vietnam War era, has been grown up in an environment in which the The big money, which is what everybody has to chase if you want to get papers and become a very important person and win Nobel Prizes.
	The big money has always been in this interface of bio-warfare and infectious disease and medical countermeasures.
	And there's various slang over time.
	In one of those terms is the Yellow Berets.
	Much of the NIH infrastructure is built off of people who sought a pathway, upper middle class or upper class, children of the wealthy or the upper middle class, that sought a pathway to defer children.
	The draft, to avoid the draft by joining the Public Health Service.
	And Tony Fauci is one notable example of that.
	So we've had this long, massive investment, and it's run through both nonprofits.
	Patel, you were very generous not to mention some of those corporate names as you skipped through the data in your film clips.
	There is a huge infrastructure that's been built up at universities and in nonprofits and nongovernmental organizations over decades.
	And that all shifted with the signing of the Biowarfare Treaty.
	But it kind of stayed and went underground.
	And I'm very glad that you covered, Jeff, the Anthrax attacks.
	I think you were still soft-peddling that.
	Personally, I think that's even more nefarious than you covered.
	And, you know, that was sold to us as another Saddam Hussein is the bad guy.
	It was clearly intended to be deployed in that way through the language used in the letters, etc., The FBI itself calls it Amerithrax.
	That was the case name.
	And for some reason, they never got to the bottom of that, despite having abundant data.
	And there remains a lot of controversy.
	So what we're dealing with is a deeply, deeply entrenched interface between academe, microbiology, molecular biology and And this biodefense industrial complex that I think that's another strength of the part two is the identification of Dick Cheney and his leadership role.
	And once again, Jeff, you kind of pulled your punches.
	We could do a whole film just on what happened right around there, which really set the whole train in motion.
	And what's been fascinating is these same folks have persisted through time.
	Bob Cadillac is one example and have remained within this complex and then now have been promoted further up into these global organizations.
	And CEPI is a notable example.
	So really, we're now in a situation in which the intelligence community is deeply embedded throughout this.
	And as you also appropriately note, Jeff, I think you used the term, it's the tip of the spear of American foreign policy.
	It's long been the case that infectious disease and infectious disease intelligence It's been used, exploited as a tool to gain information about emerging economies and many opponents, of course, including the People's Republic of China.
	I often am amused when I see these accusations of the Russians doing such bad stuff or the Chinese doing such bad stuff and interfering on our computer networks and stuff.
	Knowing that going back to Project Argus and beyond, we've actively deployed computational intelligence gathering capabilities in China and throughout the world and use those for data fusion projects relating to infectious disease and So, Bobby, I hope I've given you a flavor.
	You threw me a pretty open-ended question, so I've tried to respond without taking too much time.
	Yeah, that was beautiful.
	Thank you, Robert.
	It's funny, as you're talking, I'm thinking, man, I need to sit down and do another interview with you, Dr.
	Malone, on where Jeff pulled his punches.
	And you're right, there's a whole story there.
	I did the documentary of the 9-11 Commission Report, and we sat in a room.
	Most people didn't know how many people jumped to their death from those burning buildings.
	And it was that day, it was literally raining people.
	The first fireman who was killed was killed because someone landed on him.
	And the TV networks, quite responsibly at the time, pulled back from that as it was happening.
	And so we were sitting in the edit room making a decision of how much of this do we show So we convey the truth and the horrificness of what happened and how much of it, you know, when does it become gratuitous and awful and where do we pull back?
	And unfortunately in this film, Bobby had set some really good factual boundaries with the book, so we had a guide.
	But as you're talking, I'm like, wow, there's so much of this.
	And I just want to say, I could probably spend the rest of my life just exposing the work of the people that were in the film today.
	And certainly the people sitting here right now is to be able to take what you know and translate that so more people can be aware of it.
	I'm probably the luckiest guy in the world.
	Well, speaking from that, Jeff, we've got some questions from the audience, and some of these are directed for some of our panelists, but a lot of them are open-ended and really anyone can answer them.
	But I have a feeling that this first question is going to be more geared towards Robert here, Robert Kennedy, sorry.
	So this question is from Stephanie.
	It is, do you think anyone will ever get convicted or go to prison over these crimes that you have exposed in the book and Jeff in the documentary?
	You know, I don't know.
	I think it is possible.
	It would be unprecedented.
	But the crimes were so blatant.
	And, you know, particularly the things...
	I mean, I was thinking this weekend about just the fraud, the blatant fraud around remdesivir.
	Now, if I was a prosecutor...
	And if somebody brought me that case and said, will you prosecute Anthony Fauci for murder on this case, I would take that case.
	Because I think that the crime was so blatant, and what he did was so blatant.
	And then, you know, they took a drug that was so horrendously toxic, a chemotherapy drug that was used in a trial in 2019.
	We're Ebola in Africa, and Tony Fauci had put it in that trial, and the Safety Review Committee ordered the trial to stop because it was killing so many people.
	So Ebola is a disease that kills 50% of the people who get it, and this was too deadly to use against Ebola.
	How in the world, three months later, do you put it in a trial where We're good to go.
	And so he steps in and changes the endpoints of the trial in the middle of the trial, which itself is misconduct.
	And then before the trial is over and before anything is published, and this is at a time when he's telling everybody else, you can't use ivermectin, you can't use hydroxychloroquine because there are no placebo-controlled studies.
	In the middle of the trial, Without a publicity-but-control study, he goes to the White House and he makes this momentous announcement, we have the solution, we have the cure.
	And President Trump jumps on that, and then they take it and they They bribe hospitals to force patients to give them.
	First of all, they tell the hospital they do something that has never been done in medicine in our country or anywhere in the world before, which is you go to your doctor or the hospital with a respiratory infection with full symptoms of COVID. You get a test that says you have COVID and the doctor gives you no treatment and says, go home and wait till your lips are blue and And you can't breathe and then come back to the hospital.
	So there's so many things wrong with that.
	First of all, the doctor is supposed to treat people.
	Even if you treat them, you know, throw mud against the wall, but give them some relief of their symptoms.
	And you send them home, which is a super spreader event.
	They're now going to infect their family.
	And then when they do come back because they can't breathe, The Uber driver, the ambulance driver, the DoorDash drivers, everybody who touches them gets infected.
	And then you bring them back and you give them two options alone, and both will kill them, intubation remdesivir.
	And then to make sure the hospital doesn't screw around, you give the hospital a 20% bonus for giving them the remdesivir.
	And meanwhile, at the same time, You've told the hospital, you've got to get rid of all of your, because you're locked down, you've got to get rid of all your elective surgeries.
	So these hospitals are now going broke, because elective surgeries is where their bread and butter is.
	So they've closed down the elective surgeries, they've strangled the hospital financially, and then they say, they dangle these 20% bonuses in front of them, and say, you know what, we'll pay you back, but you've got to kill your patient.
	And that was their solution.
	And remdesivir, if you look at the descriptions of how people were dying in New York City at the beginning of this, they were dying of kidney failure and they were dying of their lungs filling up, which are the two symptoms of remdesivir that kill you.
	And Remdesivir was killing people in the Ebola studies that only took it for five days.
	They were giving it to people for seven or eight days.
	Bobby, it gets worse than that.
	Bobby, I don't want to interrupt, but it gets worse because it's not only everything you just said.
	You know, this nonsense study, and he comes out, this is a game changer.
	You know, he presents the data as if it's way more impactful than it was.
	But the thing is, is remdesivir is purportedly an antiviral.
	We knew from early on, you know, myself...
	Why are you giving it to them when they're dying in the hospital?
	We had data showing...
	Well, first of all, all antivirals are generally given within the first couple of days of symptoms.
	Their efficacy later is gone.
	But particularly with COVID, those that are in the hospital, when they did culture studies trying to find live virus in patients, after about day six or seven, this is the first strain, there was no culturable live virus.
	And people weren't arriving to the hospital until day seven or eight or nine.
	So they're literally giving a toxic antiviral to patients who are not harboring live virus anymore.
	They're just in this hyper inflamed state.
	So not even the studies or the bonuses or all that, it was illogical to begin with.
	And you know what the converse of that is, Bobby?
	So remember, if you've heard me talk, I started out COVID very naive.
	I had no idea how the depth and depravity of the corruption.
	But the first time, the first day that I thought something was really, really wrong in the pandemic was when I read, this is March of 2020, that the FDA was restricting hydroxychloroquine to the hospital.
	And I said to myself, wait a second, if it's going to work as an antiviral, why would we limit it to the hospital phase and not allow it to be used as outpatients?
	And so it's almost like the flip side of the two.
	They wanted to use the drug where it didn't work rather than use it where it worked.
	And it's endless.
	And so, you know, the question, going back to the original question, can we prosecute them criminally?
	Could somebody prosecute them criminally?
	What we just talked about here is a prima facie case, you know, and then there's a lot of other stuff.
	I mean, we had the highest kill rate in the world.
	We had the highest body count.
	We have 4.2% of the global population.
	We had 16% of the COVID deaths.
	And, you know, a lot of that's probably from, but just following Fauci's protocols and, you know, which is no early treatment by drugs that we know work and only treatment you get is by stuff that's going to kill you.
	And so I think we could, I could get in front of a jury and And bring on people like Pierre Corey to talk about what he just talked about and a lot of other people and persuade that jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Tony Fauci is guilty of at least manslaughter and massive manslaughter of tens of thousands of people.
	I think you could do it.
	The problem is that for the Department of Justice, The client of the Department of Justice is the regulatory agencies.
	And so it's really hard to persuade the Department of Justice to prosecute a regulatory agency.
	You may be able to get, but the U.S. attorneys are appointed by the administration and they're part of the Department of Justice.
	They're supposed to report to the Attorney General.
	So it's a little tricky getting a U.S. attorney to prosecute a federal official, criminally or civilly.
	There's a bunch of barriers to it.
	If you got the right president in there who understood the, yes, as Pierce said, the depravity, the venal, craven, mercenary, murderous, homicidal depravity of what they did, I think you could make the case and you could win a jury trial and you could put them in jail.
	Wow, thanks for that.
	The next question is from Philip.
	I am from Dusseldorf, Germany.
	What is the best thing I can do to wake people up in my area?
	I'm struggling to have people hear me out.
	I'm struggling to get people to watch footage, film, even this film from Jeff Hayes Films.
	What can I do?
	Well, our book, the book has been translated into German.
	You're right.
	It's hard to get the people who tend to read the book are people who already have an open mind.
	And the question is, how do you get the people who have a closed mind and are hostile to any...
	It's the same thing as religion.
	If you notice you start questioning somebody about their religion, isn't this belief ridiculous or whatever?
	It makes them mad and you become the threat.
	And this is true with all orthodoxies.
	The human impulse for orthodoxy is a hardwired biological impulse.
	It's an impulse that kept us safe.
	During the 20,000 generations that human beings were wandering the African savannah and tiny little groups that were warring with everybody else, and you need to follow a powerful male leader, you needed to have unit cohesion, you needed to be willing to sacrifice yourself in the group to kill people who are outside of the group.
	All of those things conspire, all of those biological hardwiring conspire to create various forms of orthodoxies in the way that we handle fear, that we handle threats in our lives, is to retreat into a group And to close our minds to information that challenges, you know, our loyalty to that group.
	So how do you break through?
	How do you get those orthodoxies to unravel?
	And, you know, I talked to a psychiatrist about it, and this may not be helpful at all, but the psychiatrist said to me, he said, you can never challenge somebody's orthodoxy successfully by giving them information or through a direct attack.
	And he said, the only way you can do it is through questioning.
	And you have to be patient with the person.
	And you have to ask them questions, never tell them facts, but ask them questions.
	And that allows people in a non-threatening environment to start questioning their own belief systems.
	I don't know if that's helpful, but anyway, that's what a really good psychologist is.
	Bobby, I want to add to that.
	So I liked how you also were like, I don't know when you started.
	And I know how not to do it.
	And it's exactly what you just said, because I learned this the hard way.
	I mean, I was like a battering ram with data.
	I just felt like my data was so good and unassailable and comprehensive and overwhelming.
	How could you argue against my impeccable data?
	And it's not a data argument.
	And you're exactly right.
	You can't go to an orthodoxy with data because that's not where they're engaging.
	And...
	I think what you said is draw them out with questions.
	That's one thing.
	I also think you try to identify and connect.
	When I moved away from data, I try to talk humbly about how I came to believe how I believe.
	I used to think this.
	This is what happened.
	This is what I think now.
	Or ask some questions like, don't you find it odd that what we were told is not what the truth was?
	And again, I don't have a real answer, but all I can tell you is it's exactly like you said.
	It's not by hammering them with your own private data.
	It just doesn't work.
	In fact, if anything, they get more resistant.
	And also, the other thing that I find that the barrier is Is when I used to talk to people, let's use the term blue-pilled, they have such an implicit faith and trust in societal institutions.
	And so when I bring forth data, which calls that into question, whether you should have faith in Fauci, the agencies, the government, the media, you A sound like a conspiracy theorist, but you're also threatening their belief system.
	And I don't know how to shake them of that faith.
	I mean, I think there's plenty of data for them to really lose and weaken that faith in those institutions that have lied to them.
	What's your book called, Robert?
	My new book.
	No, no.
	I'm talking to Robert Malone now.
	What's the name of Robert's book?
	The Lies My Government Told Me in the Better Times Ahead.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Well, and that's the thing.
	Trying to convince people that they're being lied to is difficult.
	And so I try to just tell my story.
	That's right.
	We have P.T. Barnum or Mark Twain, who said that it's much easier to fool a person than it is to persuade them that they've been fooled.
	Once they've swallowed that load, they have a hard time disgorging it.
	And, you know, we also have to consider the fact that we're all, at this point, the targets of a PSYOP. Of organized propaganda that we see every day on TV. This is not paranoid.
	It's something that anybody can see, the constant, you know, panic porn and the fear.
	And then the shaming and the sanctimonious kind of virtue signaling and, you know, all of these things that fortify the orthodoxy.
	And to the extent that that's purposeful, you know, the people who do these things for a living now have these technological innovations, AI innovations that make it formulaic to install and implant orthodoxies in large populations at Medentimate.
	And two of the techniques that the agencies have used for a long time are kind of illustrative of what's happening, whether they're being used or not.
	I do believe they're being used.
	One is Stockholm Syndrome, where the people who are being locked up I'm grateful to their captors and they start to consider anybody who criticizes or messes around with their captors.
	They're the enemy.
	They're the ones, you know, that compliance is the only road to survival.
	And anybody who tries to interfere with my Compliance is somebody who is now my enemy.
	And then the other one is the Milgram experiment, which I've talked a lot about, which was a CIA, you know, MKUltra experiment where they put people in a room and had to electrocute a guy in the next room who was actually an actor in a confederate.
	But most of the people didn't want to do it, but there was a doctor there with a stethoscope and a white coat saying, turn it up, turn it up, and 67% of the people turned it to 60 to 250 volts, which had said on the dial, potentially fatal.
	Some of them were crying, and they were begging the doctor not to make them do it.
	But when the doctor ordered them to do it, that overwhelmed, overruled, Their values, their, you know, principles, their everything, you know, their humanity.
	And today we're all kind of in this big Milgram experiment where, you know, there's a doctor in a lab coat who's ordering us to do stuff that we know is wrong, to destroy our constitution, to censor speech, to abolish jury trials, to get rid of property rights,
	to get rid of the right, you know, to assemble the And is, you know, telling us to do these things and then to be bigoted and cruel to people who don't comply, to exclude them, to deny a baby who's unvaccinated the kidney that that baby needs to survive, which is actually a true story, you know, where a hospital system says, no, we're not going to give it to your baby because he's unvaccinated.
	So...
	You know, those things are things we know better than, but if a doctor orders us to do it, and if there's enough fear in the atmosphere, you know, people will do it as they're told.
	So it makes it harder to unravel the orthodoxy, since it's constantly being reinforced, and it appears to be, please, Robert, save me from this.
	So one studies events around World War II, Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, etc.
	People that...
	You're speaking of the orthodoxy.
	We could talk about people who were hypnotized in the narrative.
	But what the history has demonstrated...
	up in these, it's almost a cult, to call it an orthodoxy is generous, I think.
	They will do almost anything to demonstrate their commitment to the cult, to the organization, to the belief system.
	And as they go into it, there's multiple examples of people turning in their children, people turning in their neighbors.
	And a case could be made that the acceptance of the multiple inoculations in the face of the data showing the risk is a way to demonstrate one's commitment to the tribe.
	So there's tons of literature on this.
	And, you know, mothers sending their sons to the gallows for heterodoxy.
	When people go crazy like this, they will do almost anything to demonstrate tribal commitment.
	And it's almost as if the more extreme, the more they find value in demonstrating their commitment.
	And this gets, you know, then we go all the way up into the teaching and totalitarianism, the lessons learned from Hannah Arendt and so many others.
	That history teaches that if you want to rule in a totalitarian society, the harsher the better.
	There's actually kind of a positive feedback loop that a large fraction of the population, as we've discussed, really wants to be told what to do.
	It's only a small fraction, maybe 10%.
	That want to be free.
	Most people want to be told what to do.
	You know this, Pierre.
	I mean, it was one of the hardest lessons for me as a physician.
	I would always go into the interaction with the patient from the intellectual respect, you know, help them make a decision.
	And most people just want to be told what to do.
	Let me ask you two guys something.
	I didn't mean to interrupt you, Pierre, but please finish what you were going to say.
	What do you think it is?
	Do you think there is something about the medical profession that makes...
	It more amenable to kind of an authoritarian, you know, top-down.
	Because you see so many doctors who are trained to treat people, who have devoted their lives to healing people, and we're watching them do exactly the opposite.
	And, you know, in the face of all...
	And they're scientists.
	I mean, at some level, the doctors and scientists, they ought to have a critical mind.
	They ought to be challenging evidence, always looking for...
	A better solution.
	And always alert to, you know, to unforecast outcomes or unintended outcomes.
	Hold it.
	I think just to say, I've heard Pierre speak quite persuasively and eloquently on this multiple times.
	And so I'm going to defer to him and then comment after.
	Over.
	Yeah, no, I think your question's brilliant.
	You know, it's interesting.
	You would think a physician, right, who's part scientist, part clinician, part healer, well-intentioned, you would think that we would have, we would be chosen for our critical thinking skills, our open-mindedness, our willingness to test hypotheses and ideas.
	And it's just not the case.
	It's maybe how we're selected, how we're recruited into medical school.
	But, you know, it's funny.
	I was going to say something before you said something, is when Robert said 10%, the reason why I kind of like got triggered at the 10% is The first time I met Chris Martinson, who's a colleague of ours who's been really outspoken in this movement, I met him and we were having a discussion about this.
	And he said, you know, he said, what percentage of the doctors do you think are truly open-minded, critically thinking and able to, like, sort of navigate this?
	And I said, Chris, I'm going to answer that, but we're going to answer at the same time.
	And I said, one, two, three.
	And we both said 10%.
	And the other part I want to say about that is that impression of doctors is actually the opposite.
	First of all, we represent their human race on a normal distribution.
	There are some that excel, some that are poor.
	There's the great average.
	But I think there's also stuff that happens in medicine that makes them particularly conformist and rule followers.
	And that's actually what I struggled with my whole career because it's maybe my personality, my intellectual character, but I've always pushed back against the status quo.
	I was always saying, why are we doing it this way?
	Can we do it better?
	And I've gotten into famous arguments and challenges throughout my career.
	So that was just like my natural kind of stance.
	And I just thought with COVID, for some reason in the beginning, before I really knew how effective propaganda was, I thought doctors would be particularly immune to all the propagation.
	We look objectively and I found, Bobby, is that I was really shocked by this.
	Doctors, medicine from the media, as much or maybe more than the journals.
	Like, literally, I was hearing, when I was having discussions with doctors, I was hearing them parrot stuff that they were getting from the media, not from journals, not from critically thinking.
	And so that's one point I would make, is that I don't think we're different than others, although you'd think we might be.
	The other thing, there are forces, like in medicine, it's a highly regulated industry.
	There's lots of rules and policies and practices.
	And when you try to stray outside of those, there's a lot of forces moving back at you.
	And then if you look at malpractice, right?
	Malpractice is someone who's not meeting the standard of care, right?
	So there are these guardrails in medicine that if you want an easy go of it, you're going to follow rules, you're going to do what you're told, and you're going to follow the masses.
	And those that try to come out of that, there's this great book written actually by a friend of mine who's a transplant surgeon.
	He wrote a book about the history of transplant surgery.
	And when you think about the giants who invented transplant medicine, each and every one of them was literally almost criminally accused for everything they were doing.
	Because what they were doing was so outside the norm and so groundbreaking and innovative, they had a lot of their colleagues that would attack them and scream at them for being murderers and unethical and all these things.
	Like to innovate in medicine or to depart from the crowd, there's a lot of headwinds.
	There's a lot of forces against you.
	you.
	And so when those of us who saw what happened, we know the truth about the medicine COVID, and we see the entire system, all the doctors in lockstep following these things, to me, it's somewhat not a surprise.
	And in the best example, you brought up remdesivir.
	So when remdesivir came out, and the point that I made to you about like, why are we using an antiviral 10 days into the illness?
	You know, I would say this to my infectious disease colleagues, right?
	The experts at infectious disease.
	And their answers were so lame, and they were routinely writing for it.
	None of them refused to give it.
	I would discontinue it.
	If they came into my ICU on remdesivir, I would stop it right away, and then I got into arguments there.
	But you're literally dealing with supposed experts in infectious disease who are doing something nonsensical.
	And then add to that the fact that the entire health system, overnight, because of something that came out of Fauci's mouth, they immediately ignore natural immunity, something that we've known for decades.
	It's like an implicit foundation of medicine.
	And that was the most terrifying, is that suddenly, based on almost no data, they're saying, vaccinate those that just recovered from COVID. And all of the doctors went along.
	I don't know if I'm adding any new information that the people who are listening or you guys know, but the conformity and the lack of resistance or critical thinking is somewhat not a surprise, but it's shocking.
	Robert, I hand it to you.
	So I was hoping that Pierre was going to say this one comment that I've heard him say a couple of times that I thought was profound.
	The medical care providers were in the first wave of the vaccinated.
	And so they basically all bought the narrative, assimilated it and subjected it to themselves.
	And so to buck that narrative means that they would have to own their own mistake, which I've had to do because the likes of Stu Peters has forced me to, in that I took both jabs, as the documentary indicated.
	The other thing, in traveling about, particularly in New York, there's a large, and in Boston, in the hospitalists, That were active during the first wave, there is a lot of PTSD. Those folks that were at the front lines, as Pierre was, you know, manning those ICUs, have seen things that they never expected to see in their lives.
	Those that were in that front wave, and in Italy too, where they were overdosing and overventilating, And just losing patient after patient after patient, many of those people are deeply traumatized.
	And to acknowledge that what they did had a role in causing unnecessary death, I think generates too much cognitive dissonance.
	I just don't think they can tolerate it.
	Well, thank you guys for that.
	We've got about five to ten minutes left.
	So this next question is a two-part question.
	First part is going to be for Jeff.
	So this question is for Jeff Hayes and RFK. First, Jeff, I will assume you've read the book more than once, LOL. While filming and putting everything together, is there anything that you learned outside of what is in the book?
	So I really don't even want to waste a minute.
	I'm happy to answer questions by email.
	I'm sitting here listening to these three men talk, and I feel like a guy who in a hotel stumbles into the wrong room and suddenly is in a room full of brilliant people that are so far beyond.
	And I want to sit back and not get kicked out of the room and listen to what these guys have said.
	I have a radio interview in the morning at 5 o'clock, and I've made notes.
	I'm going to be so much better on the radio interview.
	So yeah, I'm looking at stuff from outside the book on every time I get to visit with any of these men.
	And I'm just so committed to my career that I get to help people be exposed to your thinking.
	And beyond that, I don't want to take one second of time away from this.
	All right.
	Well, then I'll ask the second question.
	And Jeff, did I not text you that exact same thing not too long ago saying, I feel like a fly on the wall?
	Yeah.
	All right.
	So second part of that question is for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
	Do you have any plans of putting a follow-up to the book or are we living that follow-up right now?
	I'm about to put out the follow-up book, the sequence, which is called the Wuhan cover-up.
	And a lot of the things that Robert Malone was talking about, you know, which he always knows things before anybody else does.
	But I go into the entire history of bioweapons and what happened after World War...
	Well, during World War II, during the Japanese...
	You know, the Japanese were the first ones...
	After bioweapons been used throughout history, but the Japanese used them intensively and did it in an industrial way where they built, you know, factories in Manchuria.
	They experimented on probably 10,000 materials.
	Guinea pigs, human guinea pigs.
	They built entire complexes where they could house thousands of people with cells where you would stick the prisoners in the cells who were all super healthy because they were doing scientific experiments and they wanted to see how these viruses and these pathogens would work on healthy people.
	And the people would put their, and the prisoners would put their arms out into a hallway through a special hole in the cell, and they'd receive an injection, and then they would be observed, and it would be plague, or it would be hemorrhagic fever,
	or any of these, of dozens and dozens of these terrible diseases, and then Every single one of them was autopsied while they were still alive, usually without anesthetic.
	Because the Japanese scientist, whose name was Shishi Hiro, who was running the whole thing, wanted to make sure that they could see the activity of the pathogen on a healthy human.
	So...
	They did things that were extraordinary, but after the war, those scientists who all would have been paying for war crimes were brought to the United States and brought some of them to Fort Detrick and to laboratories.
	And then the Nazi scientists who were doing bioweapons were brought over on Operation Paperclip.
	Those scientists like Werner Erhard, who had this profound impact not only on the development of our nuclear weapons and our missile system, but also on the kind of ethics in that these scientists dictated a kind of ethical culture in the bioweapons field that has never gone away.
	And it's kind of this moral myopia that allows them to, bioweapon scientists, to justify experiments on human beings for the greater good.
	It allows them to do things that, you know, most doctors, physicians, and scientists would consider abhorrent.
	And yet those cultural tags, those, you know, moral myopia, also in some ways a contempt for science, has really been infiltrated, the culture of bioweapons development ever since.
	Now, those people were smuggled in by the defense intelligence agencies and ultimately by the CIA, which was running for Dietrich.
	And as Robert Malone showed, when Nixon did something extraordinary in 1969, he banned all bioweapons.
	He unilaterally terminated the American Bioweapons Program.
	And the reason he did it was because, one, he thought it was morally wrong, but also, bioweapons are a poor man's nuclear bomb.
	Anybody can develop them.
	And we had already signed an agreement that gave us essentially seven nations of nuclear monopoly around the world, and we had the best one.
	And yet we were developing technology that could easily be stolen or misplaced or given away to rogue nations or individual malefactors in a garage.
	And they could create weapons that would kill the same amount of people, had what they called nuclear equivalency.
	They could have killed the same amount of people as died in Hiroshima.
	And so Nixon said, this is not a good strategy.
	Plus, unlike chemical weapons, bioweapons always have blowback.
	And we used bioweapons during the Korean War that we got from these Japanese scientists, and we dropped them in Korea, we dropped bug bombs in Korea, we dropped them in China, and guess what?
	There was blowback on U.S. forces and 2,800 U.S. troops got hemorrhagic, you know, Nile hemorrhagic fever, which didn't exist in Korea, but we were putting it there.
	So there's always blowback.
	Chemical weapons, you don't necessarily get blowback, but with biological, there's always blowback.
	And that's why you need a vaccine, because you need to, a vaccine is part of the offensive weapons package.
	You need to be able to inoculate your own troops and your own citizens against blowback.
	And that's why vaccine development is always the same steps, and it's the outcome.
	You need a vaccine before you can deploy biological weapons.
	So the people who are developing biological weapons, as Robert Malone pointed out, were also the people who were making vaccines.
	Nixon banned it all, and then we all signed the Biological Weapons Treaty.
	Charter in 75, the CIA went to Fort Detrick, and they emptied out the refrigerators, and they took with them samples of all of the worst cultures, and nobody knows what they did with them.
	But then they hired Battelle, which Robert, you know, this intelligence and military consulting firm that Robert Malone mentioned at the They developed illegally and secretly an anthrax bug bomb in the 80s and 90s that was totally illegal.
	It was criminal with a death sentence if you got caught.
	But they did it anyway.
	They had absolute contempt for the law.
	And after the anthrax tax...
	We passed, a week after the anthrax attacks, we passed the Patriot Act, and the Patriot Act, nobody had read it, 300 pages, not a single member of Congress had read it.
	It had been written way in advance.
	It was sitting there on the shelf.
	Somebody had it waiting, and they rolled it out, and guess what?
	It has provisions in it that said it doesn't specifically revoke the Geneva Convention, which bans bioweapons development, and it doesn't revoke the 1975 Bioweapons Charter, which Nixon created and everybody signed.
	But what it says is, if you are a federal government employee, you cannot be prosecuted for violating those laws.
	So it gave full immunity to anybody who's a federal employee To do bioweapons development.
	And that launched this new bioweapons arms race.
	And we are in it right now.
	And Tony Fauci originally was the guy who was entrusted because the Pentagon didn't want to openly do it.
	The CIA didn't want to openly do it.
	So they got Fauci as a front man.
	And in the law, it says NIAID is going to be the center for bioweapons development for the United States military.
	What happened is all of that money goes in.
	It does a lot of things to medicine in our country.
	It contaminates all of medicine with military ethics.
	The ethics of these original Japanese bioweapons developers and the German bioweapons developers will write through Tony Fauci to the entire virology community, and they adopt all of these, the same moral elasticity, I would call it.
	or myopia.
	And that's what you see.
	They contaminated all the medicine.
	They also sucked away a lot of the brains and resources for medicine to do the inverse of medicine, because what are these guys developing?
	They're developing, they're using all of these new kinds of science to develop bioweapons, synthetic biology, to develop bioweapons that are so horrendous.
	For example, we put huge amounts of money Into ethnic bioweapons.
	Bioweapons that will kill certain races.
	And we've been collecting, you know, the Russians have accused us repeatedly, and Hillary Clinton has admitted that we've been collecting Russian DNA for years.
	And we've been collecting Chinese DNA. And the South African government was developing ethnic bio-weapons that only killed Blacks.
	The Israeli government was developing bio-weapons that only killed Jews.
	And one of the interesting things, there's a paper that came out this year that shows that an ethnic differential in COVID-19.
	Oh, there's a few races that COVID-19 It has a disproportionate impact on those are Caucasians and Blacks, and the people who are least likely to be affected because their H2 receptors have a structure that does not fit well with the fur and cleave in the COVID-19 virus.
	And those are Chinese.
	They're fins for some reason.
	They're the most immune.
	People from Finland and Ashkenazi Jews.
	And so, you know, we don't know whether anybody deliberately was looking at these things, but there's really horrendous things going on, and there's stuff that they wouldn't even do in the Wuhan lab.
	And where do they do that?
	They do it in the Ukrainian labs.
	There's 40 labs there in Georgia, the former Soviet state.
	And that's where the really ugly stuff is happening today in bio-weapons.
	And those nations have all signed contracts with the U.S. military.
	It gives diplomatic immunity to Battelle and all the military contractors over there so they can murder people and they cannot be prosecuted by the host nation.
	It makes it illegal for anybody from the host nation to enter the facility.
	It gives...
	Retention to all the pathogens that are developed in those facilities in the United States government, and it makes it illegal if a pathogen escapes and contaminates the local population.
	It makes it illegal for the government to report that publicly or to prosecute or to investigate it.
	And there have been so many leaks over there.
	It's really a horrendous story.
	It's all kind of part of my new book.
	It's a It's distressing.
	And it's infiltrated medicine.
	That's the problem.
	The medical establishment is now part of this deal flow and this connection to the military where they're doing the opposite of what medicine.
	They're developing bugs deliberately.
	Malaria mosquitoes that can operate in cold climates.
	They're developing microbes that are antibody-resistant, that are antiviral-resistant, that are vaccine-resistant.
	So they're trying to develop bugs that will kill you more efficiently, that will spread more quickly, and that will resist any human intervention.
	That is exactly the opposite of what a doctor is supposed to do.
	And these people...
	Are crazy.
	They are insane.
	And yet, they look like adults.
	And people like Peter Daszak, everybody respects them and all of this.
	And they're people who are utterly irresponsible.
	They have horrendous judgment.
	They have no moral core to them.
	And they're in charge of huge, huge budgets of taxpayer money to do evil things with.
	Well, I can't wait to buy that one.
	Well, guys, we've come up on the hour.
	I texted Jeff, you know, about 35-40 minutes ago and I just said I could not believe that I get to be a fly on the wall here and listen to these amazing guys.
	Talk about the work that they do every day.
	I can sentiment that from the audience.
	The audience has been nothing but grateful for your time, for your efforts, and your energy put into this.
	And with that, Jeff, any closing remarks that you'd like to close this out with?
	First off, I want to thank these three men, and I don't want to leave you out, Sean.
	Thank you as well, but specifically these three men for what you do, for allowing us to be a part of it.
	I'm going to ask the audience, The people watching this, the way this film gets out is by us spreading it.
	You'll notice if you put it on Facebook, you'll get like two likes instead of your normal hundred.
	It's being shadow banned everywhere.
	We need to get it out via email.
	We did a good job on this, on exposing the thinking of men like these.
	I can't wait to do more of that.
	I do want to ask you to please help get this message out.
	It's important.
	A lot of people will reject it, but there's a lot of people that are waking up and just need some direction, and this is our best effort to get it out there.
	Thank you.
	Yeah, Robert.
	Thank you so much, John.
	Thanks.
	Thanks a lot.
	We'll see you guys soon.
	Thanks everyone.
	Take care.
	Thanks for having me.

▲