All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 1, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
01:31:12
Live Stream with Dr. Robert Malone! Viva Frei Live!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Shaving cream?
Say it with my friends?
On yourself or?
Yeah, on myself and my friends.
Is this a Halloween tradition here in Brooklyn?
Yes, definitely.
But what about this woman with shaving cream on her car?
They're having a good time.
Could have been worse.
Could have been eggs.
Eggs?
What are you going to do with eggs?
They're going to throw them at people.
I'm going to hit this kid over here.
See?
Extra large, great egg.
They put the eggs away because look at this.
Down the block, a constable on patrol in the mood to confiscate.
Let me have it.
Come on, please.
Let me have it.
Come on.
He finally did hand it over.
As for the rest, they wrapped up their Halloween on the run.
New York police say they will be out in force to make sure no one violates the spirit of Halloween or the law.
Will Spence, Channel 7 Eyewitness News.
Look at that.
It's like a trip down memory lane where...
That's sort of how I remember my childhood.
I think it's roughly the same era.
And it's a sad reminder at the, what I'm calling it, the Wittgenstein's ladder that we have been climbing to an authoritarian, totally tyrannical type of reality.
An Orwellian reality to which we have climbed.
You go by steps and you don't really appreciate it as each step goes by, like the learning process.
And then you just look back 20, 30 years.
When police and community trusted one another, when people had a relationship with the police, when, at least by the looks of this one nostalgic video, old people tolerated young people.
There wasn't this existential fear among citizens.
There wasn't this unbridgeable political ideological divide among citizens.
But I want to coin that concept, the Wittgensteinian ladder.
It used to be referred to as the steps of learning.
You get to the next step, you kick away the ladder, you're on the next step.
We have been going down a Wittgensteinian leveling up to absolute loss of freedom to the point where we don't even understand what freedom was that we have sacrificed in the name of security.
And security that is actually...
Arguably not even there.
So I don't like hierarchizing interviews because each interview is special, unique in its own right.
I have been looking forward to this since I first started listening to Dr. Malone.
And admittedly, I'm in the Wittgensteinian leveling up of knowledge, of information.
I remember...
Dr. Malone saying things that I heard two years ago and simply not understanding what he was saying and not understanding the importance and the importance, for lack of a better word, of what he was saying.
I've leveled up now and I understand now looking back and I've got more questions.
We're going to get into the discussion and I hope.
I'm going to ask the questions that many of you out there have.
We have a live chat running on Locals.
Get your questions in there.
Get your questions on the post.
And we're going exclusive to locals, I'd say, in about 12 minutes after.
We're going to do a bit of an intro.
I'm not going to delve deep into the childhood of Dr. Malone, but I want to know who he is, where he's from, how he got to be where he is, and then we're going to get into the meat of it.
Dr. Malone, get ready.
Incoming in 3, 2, 1. Sir, do you prefer like this?
I think this might be better.
We get to see your diploma this way.
I have a diploma, but I got my dogs up in the back.
That was a courtesy of a sub.
This was at Peter McCullough's strong advice that I was really doing myself a disservice by not having the papers in the back.
So we'll see how important that is.
Well, I now know because I saw more of the backdrop than you're showing now.
There's six diplomas back there, correct?
Yeah, and we still have to hang the patents, but that's...
We're going to get into all of that.
I don't want to get into the credentials yet.
Everybody knows who you are, 30,000 Foot Overview, so I'm going to skip that for the time being.
The most...
I need to know.
Where are you from?
What did your parents do?
What was life like growing up?
Just so I can understand how you got to be where you are now, and then after we get that intro out, I'm going to wind this up on YouTube, and we're going to have the discussion on Rumble.
So I was born in Palo Alto at the old Stanford Hospital in...
1959.
I just turned 63. And my dad was still an electrical engineer student, I believe, at the time.
He had been in naval intelligence, stationed in Japan, and came back and met my mother, who was from eastern Oregon.
From a farming family that had a large sheep ranch, sheep and wheat.
And she was going to Mills Teachers College.
So they met in the Bay Area.
Dad was from Pensacola.
And so this is the Deep South.
And he came from a family that was long in banking and traces his roots back to early days in the United States through...
A notable great great that was a captain in the CSA serving under Stonewall Jackson and Lee who got shot up in the Battle of Richmond, which isn't too far from here where the farm is.
So deep southern roots on that side and then on Mom's side, farming that traced back to England in eastern Oregon, which is also kind of a conservative area.
As I said, they met in the Bay Area.
I was born in Palo Alto.
And Dad went to work in the defense industry along California.
California at the time, in the 60s and 70s, was really a major hub for all defense, particularly engineering.
So he first went to work for Hiller Aircraft that was involved in...
Project to prove a new technology in Southeast Asia that we call the helicopter and helicopter gunship warfare now.
So that was kind of how he started, and he spent his entire career moving up and down the West Coast.
We moved every two to three years, lived in Seattle.
He did instrumentation for the 747 when it was being designed, and ended his career working in what's called high-energy systems.
Involving the technologies of electromagnetic surge protection, low inductance capacitors, so this is rapid discharge, high energy capacitors, and technology called exploding bridge wire and exploding foil, which is what they use for the very precise detonation of thermonuclear bombs.
And the other major male influence in my young life was my father-in-law, who was head of a special projects division at Raytheon, who had spent time during World War II in India and really was involved in the birth of radar and then came back after the war.
Left the UK, migrated to Montreal, and then to the Los Angeles area where he got involved with Stoddard Aircraft, did some of the early avionics for the SR-71, and then ended up in Goleta, as did my dad, where I spent the rest of my young life.
Goleta is kind of a middle-class suburb just north of Santa Barbara, along the coast.
Pedaling my bike across one-on-one to Paschal's Beach, the Pacific.
That is now a huge resort called the Bacara, but back then it was oil land and tar on the sand and dead seals and just hanging out.
And then I spent a lot of those teen years as a...
Horse enthusiast, which is how I met my wife.
She was 15. I was just barely turned 16. And we used to go riding all over the hills along the cow paths and stuff.
You can't do that anymore either.
And the oil company folks would let us ride along the cliffs and beaches along the coast because we weren't hippies by definition because we were riding horses.
So that was kind of...
A little slice of paradise just doesn't exist anymore.
The house where I grew up in Goleta was about four miles as the crow flies from Ronald Reagan's ranch, just to give some context.
Okay, that's fantastic.
It's fascinating and probably not the only slice of paradise that is no longer left.
All right, I'm going to end it now so that we won't have to get complicated in a second.
Everyone head over to Rumble, which is where the conversation is going to be.
I'm going to end it on YouTube and leave it up here just so people can migrate over so we can actually have free and meaningful discourse.
So ending on YouTube, going to rumble now.
Okay, amazing, and I won't belabor that anymore.
One question.
Moving around every two to three years, what does that do to a child in terms of making friends?
What type of childhood does it have?
Do you end up being something of a loner, taking pleasure in books, or you made friends wherever you went?
Books was it.
Books was my refuge.
A very young person in Stanford, Palo Alto.
For some reason, you know, an overachieving engineer and a teacher decided that I should get an IQ test, and I kind of pegged the needle.
And so then that triggered a whole set of things, and I was tracked back in California, back in the day they had.
Special programs for gifted and talented.
All that's gone away now.
That's, I don't know, I don't know what it is, racist or something.
But it shouldn't be done.
And so I kind of grew up tracked to intellectual life.
And I had a younger brother, have a younger brother.
I guess I've always been someone who likes small groups, small groups of people, close friends, people that I can trust and feel comfortable with, and people that like to talk and think about things.
I've never been an athletic type person, except for I decided to...
I really love the outdoors.
And so, for instance, when I was 15, I did the Muir Trail from Whitney to Yosemite.
So that's backwards.
That was, let's see, 1976.
So it was the anniversary year.
And so I loved backpacking, hiking, and rock climbing.
I was an avid rock climber.
So that was my, that plus.
Equitation, kind of just casual Western writing was the stuff that I did for exercise.
And then I started working when I was 12 or 13. I think it was 10 cents an hour.
Doing landscaping and mowing the lawn and stuff like that for the neighbors.
So I've always worked with my hands.
And that was kind of an intentional thing.
I didn't want to just be a geeky book guy.
I wanted to be able to work with wood and with my hands and with tools and machinery.
And that led to my spending a number of years in orchard work.
I planted I don't know how many avocados.
And I can set up your avocados with drip systems and all that good stuff.
And harvesting avocados and spraying weeds and fertilizing.
And then was a carpenter for a few years before I decided to go back to school.
So I've kind of been a weird mix of laptop class tract and, you know, real world tract.
I'm one of those weird crossovers.
Very cool.
My wife and I, we're growing an avocado seed and it just split in half and the little thing is coming out of the middle of it.
That's not going to work because you have to graft.
So that's avocado businesses.
And as I understand it, it's now all in control of cabals.
It's quite twisted.
We're going to get there.
And also, in respect of, if you had not trust issues, but if you only trusted small groups of people before, I imagine that's only been exacerbated in the last two years.
Let's get into credentials.
You get into university.
What do you study?
How do you get to where you are?
So the path was, when I originally went to UC Davis in 78, I guess it was.
I graduated in 77. I didn't do well.
I was smart enough that I never had to study before in high school, and I got good grades.
And then I hit UC Davis and got tracked for heavy-duty sciences, and I just blew it.
And basically, I dropped out before they kicked me out and went and lived up in the hills just on the...
California side of Lake Tahoe up in the Sierras along Highway 50 on the American River.
And where I was joined by Jill, who's now my wife.
We got married about a year later.
And then I did this, worked in carpentry for a while, and decided that I just didn't want to spend the rest of my life doing that.
And I wanted to make more of myself.
It was kind of a...
Let's not go into the details, but I had an epiphany on New Year's Day, 1980, and decided I just wanted to turn my life around, that I didn't like who I was.
And so I enrolled in community college, and my parents had told me that I had destroyed my brain at that point because of...
My youthful indiscretions in the 70s along coastal California.
We'll leave that alone.
And so I was really not very confident about how I do.
But I applied myself and I got straight A's, much to my great surprise.
So I spent the next two years just busting my can at Santa Barbara City College and graduated.
You know, with straight A's, top of the class, student body president, had been student body vice president, got awards for top computer science student.
I was a computer science major and top student at graduation and blah, blah, blah.
And took calculus at UC San Diego so I could get back into UC Davis.
And then they readmitted me.
And I...
My mother had, you know, it's one of these things, you want to please your parents at some point, and I'd come to that point.
My mother was deathly afraid of breast cancer and had really wanted me to become an MD, which at that point in the 70s and early 80s was just an absurd fantasy, especially for, they call them bent arrows, people like me.
And it was just wicked hard to get in.
So I kind of figured I'd temper my bets.
And I decided to get a degree focused on this new technology that really sounded interesting, molecular biology.
And they didn't have a molecular biology program there, so I graduated in biochemistry, but took all of the microbiology and molecular biology coursework I could get.
I probably should.
I made probably a bad decision there.
There's been a number of them.
For instance, not carrying forward with computer science in 1982.
That was not financially rewarding.
But I didn't want to spend the rest of my life in a basement staring at a computer screen.
And so now I do that, but I make far less money.
And so, you know, I...
I decided to prep myself, and I thought, well, if I couldn't make it into med school, then at least I could get a decent job in this new technology space.
And while I was doing so, I wanted to do an internship in the laboratory.
And so, starting in 1983, I managed to convince a MD-PhD pathologist to take me in.
And I'll just turn in the mic here because we're getting some airplane noise.
I think it's on my side.
Yeah, it sounded good on my end.
Okay, so this Dr. Robert Cardiff, who is working on mouse mammary tumor virus breast cancer, which is caused by a retrovirus, took me in and basically gave me free run of the place, but he was a rather harsh taskmaster.
And so every week, you know, I had to present in the lab meeting, and it was, what are the positive controls?
What are the negative controls?
What's your interpretation?
What's your hypothesis?
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Just bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.
And after two years of that, I became pretty good as a scientist.
I probably learned more of my scientific training from him in my last two years of undergraduate than I did since.
And while I was there, the...
A professor who was in charge of the department, the department chair, a guy named Murray Gardner, who was quite a character, and had come to UC Davis from having set up the cancer center at USC because his wife wanted to have a red barn and a pond.
And so to recruit him, they found a farm with a red barn and a pond, and that was that.
And Murray was extremely well-connected in the virology community.
One of the pioneers, his father had been a big shot at Berkeley, and so he'd really been fast-tracked.
And Murray and Preston Marks...
In 1983, as there was this immunodeficiency syndrome brewing in the Bay Area in San Francisco, just down the road from UC Davis, noticed that the non-human primates at the primate center also had an immunodeficiency issue.
And they worked on that and identified and isolated a virus that was a retrovirus.
And so that was the first real clear indication of a retroviral component in a primate model relating to the AIDS.
And at the time, that was a very controversial position.
But I was there, you know, participating in the lab right at the forefront of that and all of the cascaded things that happened, the heavy-duty politics.
Murray flew out to the Pasteur Institute and met with Francois Barret and Luc Montagnier and brought back the virus that caused AIDS in his pocket.
I remember, I'll never forget him, almost, you know, this man in his late 50s, gray hair, almost dancing down the hall when he came back from Paris with this thing in an Eppendorf tube in his pocket.
And so I got to see a lot of stuff on the front row seat at a time when a lot of things kind of came together.
Bob Gallo, Tony Fauci, the origins of the virus, really the origins of that whole juggernaut of money that flowed into immunology and virology and molecular biology.
Because of that, I got an MD-PhD scholarship, so I way overshot the mark of what I thought I could get.
And I went to Northwestern because I should have said yes to USC, but they were just holding on so long.
And I went to Chicago.
And there was a break in the weather in February for my interview, and I thought, it's not going to be so bad, coming from Santa Barbara.
And my wife will never forgive me, and I'm not allowed to make any relocation decisions anymore.
So that's kind of what got that kicked off.
And because of my work with the retroviruses and isolating DNA and RNA, I developed a fascination with RNA.
And RNA viruses also.
So when I was at Northwestern, I did rotations in RNA-binding proteins and influenza.
And then I decided to leave Northwestern, took some exams for my PhD part.
And to my surprise, I had wanted to do gene therapy, which was all about retroviruses at the time.
And I got it accepted into UC San Diego, who had the...
They had the top two gene therapy researchers in the world.
And so that's what brought me to that part of that story.
Okay, that's fascinating, actually.
And now, for anybody who's read or listened to the real Anthony Fauci, to contextualize your life experience, you sort of lived through that twice now, I guess.
You knew Anthony Fauci before anybody in modern times even knew what his name was.
Okay, so I guess now we're in the thick of it, because people on Rumble get into the mRNA stuff.
First things first, can you explain the difference between DNA and RNA for the layperson boob out there like myself?
Okay, so we're going to go high level.
Yeah.
I like to use the metaphor of pearls on a string.
So that's a good metaphor for a polymer.
And if you imagine the pearls have four different colors.
So that's...
Those four different colors, how they're arranged in that string of pearls, can convey information.
Does that make sense?
Just like your computer has two base systems, zero and one, right?
So with DNA and RNA, it's a four base system.
And those four bases with DNA are four different chemicals that are hung off the side of a polymer.
And those four different, in a very structured, regular way, in those four different chemicals, Are abbreviated A, T, G, and C. And with DNA, one strand wraps around another strand to form the famous helix that Watson and Crick got a Nobel Prize for discovering based on interpretation of other people's data.
So DNA is two...
Spirals that wrap around each other and do so in a very structured way by base pairing between the chemicals that represent those colored pearls.
And that makes it so that when you want to replicate DNA, you can run the little replication machinery up one strand and it can check against the other strand so it's really accurate.
That's a good thing for DNA.
For humans and animals and stuff like that, plants.
RNA is almost the same, except instead of ATGC, it's AUGC, and it's a single strand, but that's kind of a misrepresentation because RNA, instead of binding to an opposite strand like DNA does to form a helix,
RNA binds to itself, so it forms really complex three-dimensional structures that are so complicated that you can't really predict them with a computer, even with the most high-powered whiz-bang stuff.
So RNA is another polymer with four components, four bases.
They're AUGC, and it is generally used.
For a number of things in biology.
It can be used to serve as a structural scaffold for proteins.
That's ribosomal RNA.
Proteins are assembled around an RNA core to form the little robots that produce proteins.
It can be used to transfer amino acids.
So amino acids are the subunits of proteins.
And so that's transfer RNA or tRNA.
Ribosomal RNA is rRNA.
Transfer RNA is tRNA.
And it can be used as a message, like a ticker tape that comes from the DNA, goes out into the cytoplasm where those little machines are that produce the proteins, and it gets read like a ticker tape.
It fed through those little machines base by base.
Codes the sequence for the proteins that it wants to make, that your body wants to make.
And so that is a ticker tape that comes as a single-stranded molecule from the nucleus DNA out into the cytoplasm is called messenger RNA.
There we go.
So hence mRNA.
Okay.
And so the interplay between mRNA and DNA.
What is the interplay?
Explain the interplay, because mRNA will affect DNA.
Okay, yeah, so there's that whole thing.
What you're referring to is the laboratory work that shows that RNA, it's well known, so there's a particular virus that is able to take RNA and make it back into DNA.
And that sounds very retro, doesn't it?
It's a retrovirus.
It goes backwards, okay?
And so in the presence of that protein, RNA can be made into DNA, and then once in DNA, it can do things.
And RNA can also bind to DNA or interact directly with DNA.
So if you want to, if you, let's say, in the hypothetical, somebody wants to make a drug out of RNA and put it into your cells, And then a concern might be raised that that RNA can somehow affect the genome of the person receiving it.
Generally speaking, that RNA would need to be turned into DNA, which means that viral protein would have to exist, because this is not something that normally happens.
The Nobel Prize was given for discovering that.
That does that.
And actually, my mentor at the Salk was the one that characterized that protein when he was working for a guy named David Baltimore that got the Nobel.
So it's a rare protein.
It's mostly associated just with viruses.
And the truth is that we have some old antique retrovirus DNA in our genome.
And under some conditions, you can have reverse transcriptase turned on.
And under those conditions, you can take the RNA and make it into DNA.
And then in rare instances, that DNA can stick itself into the genome.
But there's other ways that RNA can interact with DNA, like I said, through base pairing.
And so it's not just that.
But that's probably what you're referring to.
And that's the work that...
Has been shown to occur rarely, particularly in liver transformed, so cancer liver cell lines in cell culture.
But I'm not aware of anyone having shown integration or modification of the genome of a patient or a large mammal.
From an RNA administration, they have shown that with DNA injections for DNA vaccines.
It occurs very rarely, but it can occur.
I hope I've answered your question.
Well, it's good.
I mean, it's good enough.
I'm going to have to process this afterwards.
But just so we can contextualize, the technology that we're talking about now with mRNA vaccine technology, people will take issue with the term vaccine.
Yes, I do too.
Well, and if we go back now, because we're going to get to your patent on the version 1.0 of mRNA technology, and it has since evolved.
If you can do it in a way that I'm going to understand, you're credited until your Wikipedia page was edited of having been the founder.
Or at least the co-creator, co-discoverer, however you call it, of mRNA technology.
I wrote the patent disclosures.
I wrote the original patent disclosure for mRNA as a drug.
I came up with the original idea.
Patent authorship is a complicated thing.
Anybody that contributes anything intellectually.
That goes into the patent is listed as a co-inventor.
It doesn't matter if they came up with the main idea or they came up with add-ons.
And by patent law, there's no distinction between who is first or last in authorship.
It's all irrelevant.
It's not like academia.
Um, so that's, that's just want to kind of put a stake in the sand, but, but I, you know, I've, there's a documentary that's going to be coming out.
I think in February it's in late stage production right now.
Um, uh, I think it's called something like, uh, MRNA success has many fathers or something of that.
Uh, it's in the IMDAB listing, um, for me and you can find it there.
So, so I. You know, I have all the documents, the signed invention disclosures, etc.
So, you know, put a stake in that.
That's how that went.
I came up with the ideas.
I had the insights of how to apply it.
And we could go down that rabbit hole of how I came to that.
I've done other podcasts on that one.
Well, that's big.
We're time limited.
And also, I might be limited in terms of the ability of...
Of even asking a meaningful question.
If you could oversimplify how mRNA technology, what they're calling the mRNA technology in the vaccine, even works.
Distinguishing it from the...
Okay, so really simple.
High level.
The core idea is literally to use gene therapy technology to cause your body...
The cells in your body to be the manufacturing facilities for the protein, which normally your body's cells would make if it was infected by a virus.
So what happens, for instance, with a coronavirus or an influenza virus is RNA is delivered to your cells.
Using viral proteins evolved in an evolved viral delivery system.
That's what it is, okay?
That's what infection is.
That's what infection is.
Okay.
And so the idea here is once I had inadvertently, you know, through a series of things, discovered how to make large quantities of RNA and engineer it so I could detect whether or not it made a protein in cells very sensitively, And had a delivery system that worked not very well, but way better than anything before.
Then it was just a small intellectual step to say, hey, we could take this RNA, this technology, and deliver a subunit of the viral genome rather than the whole virus.
Into people's cells, just as if they were infected by the virus, but they would never make another virus.
They would make some of the proteins of the virus.
Simple enough.
And they would mount an immune response as if they were infected by the virus, but there's no virus.
So that was the concept in a nutshell, is do what viruses have learned to do through a millennial evolution.
In a very inefficient way, without having them replicate, of course, that assumes that the protein being made is not pathogenic, that the protein made is not causing a disease.
The protein being made as your body's response being triggered by this?
No, the protein made by your body.
Okay.
The protein encoded by the RNA.
So the thesis, I never envisioned somebody being so, how do I say gently, irresponsible to use this system to express a protein that is a toxin at levels that it would cause significant human toxicity, when in fact that's exactly what they did in the case of the spike protein.
Okay, that's the part you're going to have to flesh up.
And if we can back it up and just make sure I sort of understand.
And it might require a comparison to traditional vaccines.
We understood traditional vaccines would be made from an inert or...
Okay, that's a gross oversimplification.
Okay.
So a traditional vaccine stimulates something of an immunological response, but not enough for infection, but enough to create a defense.
I'd still say that's not right.
Okay, go, please.
So traditionally, a vaccine is a material that you administer, typically a biologic material that you administer to a patient to elicit an adaptive immune response that will provide some degree of protection against a pathogen.
Okay?
So there's a whole bunch of different ways to do it.
You can make a weakened virus.
That's what the live attenuated polio vaccine is in the sugar cubes.
Remember the sugar cubes?
That might be before my time.
Well, then it's also before your time, the vaccination for smallpox.
The vaccination for smallpox used a very closely related virus that would elicit a protective immune response against smallpox, but it would give you a little bit of disease.
It was actually a replication-competent virus.
And those that were immunocompromised could actually get significant disease from that.
So that's another kind.
Another kind is bacteria.
For instance, there is a live attenuated tuberculosis bacteria called BCG or Bacillus calibet-guerain that...
Is closely related to tuberculosis that's used all over the world as a vaccine.
So there's a case of a...
...to people that gives them a little bit of disease.
But we can argue about whether or not it provides any protection against tuberculosis.
But a lot of people believe that that's the case throughout the world.
So there's a whole bunch of different ways that you can cause somebody...
To receive a, you know, you can do it orally.
You can smell it.
That's the flu mist product for influenza vaccine.
You can sniff it.
That's a live attenuated cold adapted influenza virus.
It's actually a live influenza virus that you sniff.
There's a lot of different ways that you can get biologic material into somebody's body to cause them to make an immune response.
But none of those really involve making a synthetic polynucleotide in a test tube, manufacturing it, mixing it with other chemicals in a way that causes it to slip into your cells and enable your cells to start making a protein.
It's a kissing cousin to live attenuated vaccines.
And it's also a kissing cousin to recombinant, for instance, adenovirus vector technology.
That's the J&J product, which has also pioneered that technology in the same lab where I developed the RNA tech.
And that's an example where you take one virus, a cold virus, and you engineer it so that it doesn't produce disease and it's weakened.
And then you put in a snip of gene.
Once again, in this case, encoding the spike protein.
And then manufacture lots of that recombinant virus and give it to people through injection in this case.
Or you could, in some cases, sniff it.
And then it replicates in your cells and causes your cells to make the spike protein.
Same basic idea.
Does that make sense?
It makes sense.
I guess where I'm getting a little confused internally is...
In this particular case, the mRNA, is it injecting a spike protein or tricking your body into generating a response?
It's no trick.
No, no, no.
It is putting...
So remember, I used to talk about the ticker tape.
Yep.
The ticker tape is the information that causes the little protein manufacturing...
Robots in your cells to make proteins, including the spike protein.
If those little robots are agnostic, they will make anything depending on whatever the ticker tape says.
And so if you feed them a ticker tape that says make spike, they will make spike.
Okay, so where are they going to get that ticker tape that says make spike when there's no virus around?
Oh, well, you can slip that into the cell artificially.
Having made it in the test tube as an mRNA product and purified it, and you can slip that into the cells, and it will go and find those little biorobots, those ribosomes, and those ribosomes will make spike protein.
So it's your body still making it, and the mRNA is just the ticker tape.
It's the information to tell those little biorobots to make spike protein.
Did I get through that?
I think so for me and I hope for the crowd as well who might have had the same question.
Another question, are there various types of spike protein or is spike protein something very specific and unique?
Almost all viruses, I think pretty much all viruses have a surface glycoprotein.
That's a fancy word that means it has sugars attached to it and it's on the outside of the virus that is used to bind to cells.
And cause the virus to be taken up by those cells and release the RNA or DNA genome that the virus uses to transmit its genetic information.
So a spike is an example of an envelope glycoprotein.
Another one is the hemagglutinin protein of influenza.
So virtually all viruses have something like that.
Even bacterial viruses have little things that stick out that grab onto cells.
The spike is a slang, really, that's typically used with coronaviruses, but it represents a class of protein that's on virtually all viruses.
And it is a protein, in the case of spike, that has, for coronavirus spike, has particular structure.
It's made of three, it's actually three proteins that come together.
And I like to use the metaphor, if you've ever gone fishing for bass, you might have used a treble hook.
So if you understand those that go fishing, a treble hook, a treble hook has got the little part down at the bottom that you tie the string to, and it's got the three barbs that stick out.
Spike is kind of like that, and each one of those is a monomer, a single.
Spike protein comes together to form a trimer.
And the part that you tie the fishing line to is the part that sticks into the cell and attaches it.
And the part that sticks out that's got the barbs is the receptor binding domains in this metaphor.
It's not a perfect metaphor, but it kind of gives you the idea.
And it undergoes a change in structure when it binds to its target.
And that would be the ACE2 receptor, among others.
And so when it binds to ACE2, it undergoes a conformational change.
And this causes the RNA to be taken up into the cell.
It kind of grabs onto the cell and then ratchets down the virus onto the cell surface.
It's really amazing.
Evolution is an amazing thing.
So spike is an example of a...
Envelope glycoprotein of a virus that is used to bind and attach the virus to a cell and to inject its genetic information into that cell.
And it has these unique characteristics.
And are there different spikes?
Of course, spike is mutating all the time because...
These envelope glycoproteins, and this is why they put sugars all over them.
The virus causes the protein to be decorated with sugars, much like you would decorate a Christmas tree, but in very specific places.
And it does this to avoid both antibodies and cellular immune response, but particularly antibodies.
So sugars get all kinds of water all around them, and it makes them more like a gel.
You know, I'm sure you're familiar with the gels that are, if you have a child and you had to change the diapers, that inside those paper diapers is a gel product.
So there's an example of a gel.
And gels are easily formed with sugars that kind of coat the surface of the spike protein with structured water that makes it really hard for antibodies to attack it.
Spike is an example of these glycoproteins that have sugars, and those sugars are modified where they are and how they're structured in order to make it easier for spike protein to avoid antibody pressure and neutralization of the virus to keep the virus from replicating.
So it requires other mutations as it's doing this along the...
Protein backbone, the amino acid parts that the sugars hang off of.
So I hope that's a quick zoom.
It's complicated.
I mean, it leads into the next question.
I'm sure my wife is a neuroscientist who's going to probably understand this at the next level.
So this is the question then.
The difference between the spike protein generated from the jab versus the spike protein generated from natural infection.
Ah, so this is something that the fact-checkers hit me with really early.
And by the way, they were abundantly wrong.
But, you know, if you get somebody that doesn't have even an undergraduate degree in biology that isn't even a journalist, fact-checking a seasoned virologist and immunologist, you know, some things get lost in translation.
So the spike is a toxin.
We knew that at the outset there was a paper from the Salk Institute that wasn't yet published, but they had posted the data that showed that spike protein could cause cells' normal connectivity to loosen up, and that really matters in your brain, your blood-brain barrier.
And there was other papers coming out that showed other types of toxicity associated with spike.
Famously on the Brett Weinstein podcast, I said spike is a toxin, and it was like the orcs were released from Mordor.
And they all said, no, no, no, this is not true.
They engineered the spike protein to not be toxic.
That was a bald-faced lie.
There are two point mutations.
That means single amino acids that are changed.
Remember the fishing hook?
Yep.
In the part of the fishing hook that attaches to the cell, that's like where you tie the string, there are two single amino acid mutations that are put in spike that were discovered years ago with SARS-1.
So this is not new, cool stuff that somebody figured out in three days before they started engineering the virus, you know, that whole timeline.
But rather, years before with SARS-1, And MERS, other coronaviruses, people had shown that if you change these two single protein subunits, these two amino acids, it could make spike become a better immunogen.
It would get a better immune response.
And it had to do with locking the spike protein.
Remember I said that it changes shape when it binds and attaches to cells?
It makes it so it can't do that.
Those two-point mutations can make spike elicit a more effective antibody response, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the toxicity, which is largely associated with the receptor-binding domains and the parts that are out, you know, in the treble hook metaphor, they're out there where the barbs are.
And so that whole storyline that was promoted...
Obviously, as propaganda through these fact-checker organizations and through the press, was a lie.
It has no scientific basis.
The protein produced by the vaccines all have these two-point mutations, which make spike slightly more immunogenic, but they get left when spike gets cleaved off of the surface of cells, which it does when it's released and circulates in your blood.
The two-point mutations stay with the part that stays attached to the cell that manufactured it, and the rest is let free, and it does its damage to the heart and blood clotting in your brain and everything else.
So that part is identical, whether it's from the vaccine or from the virus.
Now, the big difference, you haven't asked the question yet, that people often ask, well, how come then you get...
You seem to have these toxicities and these problems with the vaccine that you don't get with the natural infection.
That's a complicated question, too.
I think I asked that in some form or another to Dr. Francis Christian, and I think I understood the answer, but now there's a lot.
It seems it's more complicated than I might have oversimplified it to myself.
Because, Dr. Mullen, it's not wrong to say that people do have reactions.
Similar to the adverse reactions from the vaccine from infection itself, the question is severity and the question is frequency.
Just so.
And there are other, so there's an overlap.
And the long COVID or the post-vaccination syndrome, there's a great paper out from months ago that showed that you cannot distinguish between the symptoms of long COVID and the symptoms of post-vaccination syndrome.
They are virtually identical.
The difference is the severity and frequency with some exceptions.
And so the thing is that it turns out, and we could go down that rabbit hole, the stuff that's used to slip the RNA into your cells also has its own toxicity.
So that's different from spike toxicity.
And then in addition, the RNA itself is not natural RNA.
What's being used these days is not the...
It's not RNA like your body makes.
It's a synthetic product.
Remember I said AUGC.
The U is actually modified.
It's pseudouridine.
And that pseudouridine placed at high concentration in RNA is still not really understood.
Another thing that the FDA didn't do their job on.
But it can cause immunosuppression and it can cause the RNA to last for really, really long.
Long time, like 60 days or more.
And so you have effects from the spike.
You have effects from the delivery system.
People talk about the nanoparticles, positively charged fats.
You have effects from the polyethylene glycol that's made to keep the nanoparticles from sticking to each other.
Some people have hypersensitivity to PEG.
And that's the short-term hypersensitivity that people get.
And then there is the effects of the RNA.
So when we talk about these toxicities, there's overlap, but there's also additional things with the mRNA products that aren't with the virus.
And frankly, a lot of those problems are the reason why...
I stepped away and my laboratory stepped away from continuing to pursue the tech and working on other things and other approaches.
So that's a whole other thing.
But we always had that problem with the inflammatory response.
Now, in terms of why the difference, This is another one where the FDA didn't do its job, or better to say they didn't force pharma to do it, because the rule in pharma is you don't ever do anything unless the FDA forces you to, because you might get an answer that you don't like.
And so that's just the way things are in that big, bad world of pharma.
It's not about doing the right thing.
It's about doing the profitable thing.
And so if FDA doesn't do its job, pharma won't do their job, and that is absolutely the core story here.
And so they didn't check for these toxicities, and they didn't check for where these things go, how much protein is made, how long it lasts, where is it distributed, all the core things that you do.
Anybody that has taken first-year pharmacology knows you have to do this.
And so this paper came out in Cell from a very large group in Stanford that was one of the first to talk about immune imprinting, which is a whole other thing that we could talk about, the reason why you really don't want to take the boosters.
You know, in addition to the toxicity.
But this group from Stanford, instead of relying on cell culture or mice or monkeys or something, they actually stuck needles into the lymph nodes of people's armpits or axilla on the same side where they took the jab in their deltoid muscle.
And they pulled out cells from those lymph nodes, which get quite swollen and can give false positive readings on breast cancer screening.
And they pulled those cells out and they looked to see, did they still have RNA there?
And then they also did blood draws and they looked to see, is there any spike protein there and how much and for how long?
And what they found was the RNA sticks around for detectable at least 60 days.
They didn't test beyond that.
So this whole storyline that the RNA only lasts for a few hours or maybe a day or two that was promoted by pharma was another lie.
And so that means that the adverse events that we need to monitor to see if it's vaccine-related really need to have a window of up to two months, not two weeks, to calculate those adverse events and things like VAERS.
And the study showed that the levels of spike protein that were being produced rise very rapidly, which is very different from a natural virus infection.
And they rise to levels that's considerably higher than you observe after natural infection.
So you get a lot more protein, spike protein, a lot faster, and then it persists for at least 60 days.
So you've got more for longer all over your body of this toxic material with the jab, and it comes at you fast and hard.
And then tapers off, whereas with the virus, it slowly climbs as the virus replicates in your cells.
Did that make sense?
That makes sense, actually.
And now it allows me to ask the question.
We understand the term toxicity at large, but from the physiological perspective here, when we say it's toxic and causes cancer, heart attacks, what is going on in terms of the actual toxicity as relates to the various adverse effects that the toxicity can trigger or generate?
So let's start off with making sure that we define our language because our opponents like to pervert our language all the time so that we don't know what we're talking about, right?
What is an anti-vaxxer?
It's somebody who believes in the rights to informed consent now.
That's an anti-vaxxer.
Just to put a stake in that.
And that is actually correct.
Even if you oppose legislation that makes vaccination compulsory.
You're an anti-vaxxer.
Just so.
So there's a lot of this kind of Orwellian word redefining and twisting going on over the last two plus years.
So a toxin is something that causes toxicity.
What is toxicity?
Toxicity is pretty much anything that causes damage, particularly clinical damage.
It could be that it causes something causes cancer.
It could be something that causes you pain.
It could be something that causes redness.
These are all examples of toxicity.
It could be something that will kill you indirectly by causing some effect that will have a 10-year lifetime to eventually get you.
It can be almost anything that produces an adverse event in an animal or a patient.
So a toxin.
Toxin.
Typically is something that would damage a cell.
So then the question is, what is the toxicity associated?
Let's just compartmentalize to Spike.
Spike does a bunch of things.
Those treble hooks that sit out there bind this receptor ACE2.
ACE2 controls a whole lot of things like blood pressure.
Your salt balance in your body, how your kidneys function.
It controls how cells attach to each other and whether they open or they open those attachments.
There's a lot of complex biology.
And ACE2 is right in the center of a bunch of key pathways.
So this thing, if it is biologically active, which it is, binds to ACE2.
And by the way, Because of their modifications to the furin cleavage site, paradoxically, I'm sure this was not intentional.
It has a predilection for binding and causing problems with non-Asian populations.
So just park that and chew on it.
And so it can bind to ACE2 and cause damage by a variety of pathways that way.
Okay, park that.
It is really a sticky protein.
It just is.
It binds to all kinds of stuff non-specifically.
And when foreign proteins bind non-specifically to your natural proteins, your immune system can get confused.
And it can think, oh, this is a new protein.
It's got this new thing hanging off of it in addition to the old thing that I have learned over time since.
My host was born and their thymus matured.
I have learned what the normal things are in your body.
And when I see something sticking onto one of your proteins, it looks like a non-normal protein and I should attack it.
So that generates the autoimmune phenomena.
There seems to be a direct cytotoxicity on heart.
And then there's these various indirect things.
I think a lot of the brain toxicity has to do with the tight junctions being open.
And then this other core problem.
If I may ask you just one more thing.
Cytotoxicity versus toxicity?
Cellular.
So it kills cells.
Sorry.
This is immunobabble, I'm talking.
If you put immuno in front of any other word, then it becomes a special word, right?
And you can publish a paper.
So, in any case, spike, because for whatever reason, it has a tendency to bind to platelets and cause those platelets.
Platelets are the things that cause your blood to clot or help facilitate blood clotting.
And it seems...
Now somebody's bothering me and I need to...
Hey Jill, what's up?
Hey, when do you want dinner?
It's 4 now.
How about 4.30?
Sounds perfect.
Okay.
Bye.
I get dinner in half an hour.
So isn't it magic?
That's the lovely thing about having a 40 plus year marriage and a trusted partner.
So, in any case, spike binds platelets.
Then you get something called thrombocytopenia.
That's a fancy word for not enough platelets because they're getting cleared by your spleen and other things because they've got this foreign protein sticking on them.
And then there is also an immune thrombocytopenia.
This is an autoimmune process, just like you have the Guillain-Barre.
That's an autoimmune attack of your peripheral nerve cells, etc.
And so there is a direct platelet interaction that can lead to both the direct thrombocytopenia and an autoimmune thrombocytopenia.
And then, so that's a problem with not clotting properly.
And then spike also appears to interact with the fibrin.
And it does so in a way that causes those blood clots to get cross-linked in an improper way, which makes it so that they produce these really thick, stringy clots that your body's normal processes for clearing blood clots can't clear.
And then it also causes...
Here's another fancy word, microcoagulopathy.
So it can cause little teeny tiny blood clots that block up your capillaries.
Capillaries are the little teeny tiny tubes between your arteries and your veins.
So it goes through kind of as it moves in, it kind of arborizes like a tree root at your capillary base and they get really small.
And if you get little tiny...
Clots in there, it'll block those.
That probably has to do with the brain fog, and it may well have to do with a lot of the cardiotoxicity.
It may be this kind of microclotting problem, in addition to potentially an autoimmune problem, because that autoimmune cardiomyopathy has been a problem, for instance, with the smallpox vaccine, and it seems very similar.
There, there's a quick overview of bad stuff that happens with spike at the lowest level.
Let me ask you this now.
It makes the jab sound really wonderful.
What does the jab actually do to actually achieve the stated objective of preventing infection?
So it makes this spike protein and your body makes an immune response against that spike protein.
Unfortunately, the jab...
Is using an RNA sequence that is outdated.
Because of the evolution of the coronavirus.
In particular, in response to universal jab policy.
And this is something that I've spoken out to for a very long time now.
And of course, Kurt Von Basha has also, just to give credit.
And that is that if you deploy into the face, into the teeth of a pandemic.
When there's already a lot of viral pressure, you deploy, widely deploy a vaccine indiscriminately.
What you will do, particularly a vaccine that only expresses one of the proteins from the virus, you will cause the virus to evolve to escape the vaccine.
And the reason why, among other reasons, natural infection produces a better, longer-lasting immunity.
Is because you mount an immune response against all of the proteins in the virus, not just the spike protein.
And so it's really hard for a virus to evolve against, to escape pressure against 10 different things.
It's really fairly easy for it to escape pressure against one thing.
Because otherwise it has to mutate all those other things all at the same time.
And it basically, if it tries to do that, it loses its ability to be viable as a virus.
I'm oversimplifying, but that's basically what's happened is that by deploying a universal vaccination strategy, it was known from the outset that it was highly likely that that would drive And so the worst thing that could be done is to keep jabbing with
the old virus sequence, which is what they've done.
And then the other problem is, and I mentioned it earlier, immune imprinting.
And that's also used the term To express that is kind of easier to remember and kind of sexy.
It's called Original Antigenic Sin.
And what this means is that it's the reason, by the way, when you get repeatedly jabbed for influenza over the years, the effectiveness of the vaccine goes down, down, down, down.
Right now, it's well below 20% for most people.
And what happens is that your body learns...
From the first jab, from its first exposure to that protein, and it develops a memory.
And just like when you develop a memory of stubbing your toe or breaking your leg or whatever as a child, forevermore, you will probably avoid the conditions that caused you to have that event happen.
You'll become gun-shy for, you know, whatever it is that caused you to break the leg.
And your immune system kind of reacts to the thing that it knows from the original event, and it creates a bias.
Another metaphor I've used is the French in World War II and the Maginot line.
They thought that they could put up these defenses against the German Blitzkrieg, and the Germans just basically produced better technology and blew right past it.
But the French had invested all their time in building defenses for the last war.
And that's kind of how your immune system works.
And so when you repeatedly jab like this with the old sequence, From one protein, what it does is it forces your immune system to become more and more and more focused on World War I tanks.
And then when the panzers come through, they just mow you right over.
I hope that metaphor works, but that's the simplest I can make immune imprinting.
Okay, well, someone had asked the question.
I want to get to...
When Fauci decided that natural immunity was no longer the best response.
We'll get to the absolute corruption of the medical practice in a second, but when they were saying mix and match jabs, if the jabs trigger different responses between them, how on earth could the concept ever have worked that you can mix and match willy-nilly just as long as you took two?
That was a...
You know, basically hand-waving for convenience.
All through this, there's been a lot of stuff that have been said by...
You've got to remember, epidemiologists, MPH people, they're not...
You know, some of them are physicians, not all of them.
They're not trained in virology and immunology, really.
And they say a lot of stuff.
The MPHs are trained...
Around the logic of utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number.
And then there's a whole lot of teaching about how to do statistics and biostatistics and monitoring and surveillance and blah, blah, blah.
But they're not really hardcore scientists.
And we've had a whole lot of horsepucky thrown at us over time here that just isn't scientifically based.
What they did with the mix and match is another case where there was a breach of their rules.
Normally, by protocol, you would have to do a rigorous clinical study to evaluate whether mixing was better, worse, or the same as using the product repeatedly.
The same product.
And they just blew that off.
I don't know why they did it.
Well, I'm sure, I infer, I speculate.
They did it out of a sense of necessity.
A whole lot of, I mean, when you listen to Debra Burks and Rochelle Walensky again and again and again, and the woman, I can't even remember her name from the World Health Organization that's been spouting so much stuff.
What you hear from them is the word, well, we just hoped it would work.
Traditionally, that's not good enough, especially if you're mandating a medical product that's unlicensed.
But that's kind of what they did, is they substituted hope for science.
And then we get to the booster or what the White House, the FDA calls it a booster.
Updated vaccine.
Yeah.
Updated, whatever you want to call it.
And the White House says, no, it's a new vaccine.
So apples, you know, tomato, tomato.
It is what it is.
What they did was they took the spike sequence from Wuhan 1 and mixed it also with spike encoding RNA from the latest Omicron version.
I think it was BA4.
It's actually 3-4, because the changes between 3 and 4 weren't in the spike protein.
And they gave that to everybody at a time when the virus was already evolving to the new variant.
And so what they did with that is they further reinforced all of the memory cells that had been generated off of Wuhan 1, and they further reinforced those.
And then to some extent, they provided some Omicron boosting.
Which had already been shown if you did that, you would actually suppress the immune response to Omicron compared to if you didn't do it.
So what they did there was they just completely ignored the data that we're already in that had been published by major labs and peer-reviewed papers in places like Cell and Science.
So it was just, they're getting increasingly desperate or egregiously Profit-driven?
I don't know.
But it made no sense at all from a scientific standpoint.
Now, I'm going to ask you this.
I was watching, I don't know which podcast, and I don't want to get into the population control hypothesis, but I do want to know.
Well, let me ask you, because I know that you're vaccinated as well.
You talked about it.
I don't know if you're boosted, and I would never ask.
No, no boost.
And you're not?
Jab 2 gave me such...
Toxicity.
And it was from one of the known bad batches that I'm lucky to be here.
Hypertension, systolic hypertension to 230 is life-threatening.
I've got to ask you this because I hear the rumorings, but then you never know what's rumorings and what's not.
I've heard about bad batches and they made jokes when...
Certain high-profile celebrities experience random events, and they say, that's got a bad batch.
What does that mean, Dr. Malone?
What was the bad batch?
What made it a known bad batch?
So normally, and we can't go on too much more because I have to go get my dinner, but normally there is very rigorous quality control over the vaccine, over any medical product manufacturing, whether it's drug, vaccine, or a device.
And testing processes that ensure that everything that goes out the door is the same as the thing that was originally licensed.
And Pfizer and Moderna managed to negotiate contracts that As governments all over the world were quite desperate, they got terms and conditions that essentially said, no, Mr. Government, you cannot test our product for lot consistency, purity, potency, etc.
And then we ramped this up from an experimental technology that had hardly ever been used before into billions of doses.
And you cannot do that.
Without having things go wrong from time to time.
And you're bringing new manufacturing facilities online and they're learning, etc.
So normally this would be tested before it ever got released to the population, but basically they just put it all out and jabbed everybody.
And a group that you can find, How Bad Is My Batch, if you Google that, or please don't use Google anymore.
But How Bad Is My Batch?
And you can go in within the states and dial in.
Remember when you got your little vaccine card?
I know you got jabbed, I got jabbed.
When you got your vaccine card, they put in a little reference number.
That was the lot number.
And you can dial in that lot number.
Take that card if you still have it.
I do with my passport because I've had to travel.
And dial that in.
And you can see, because people have cross-referenced the VAERS data, the Vaccine Adverse Event Related System data, to the batch numbers.
And they have shown that certain batch numbers have many, many more deaths and adverse events than others.
It's not randomly distributed.
And so you can go in and see retrospectively, oh, I took a bad one or I took a good one because the quality control is Shiza.
And that's what's going on is another case of the FDA failing to do its job.
Let me ask you this, if we have a few more minutes.
What was your black pill moment in all of this?
Hmm.
That's a...
I've kind of been black-pilled my whole life, one way or another, starting with my nervous breakdown at the Salk Institute over the politics that I encountered when I made these first inventions.
I the There's a number of them.
Our book that Jill produced in a month by working her can off...
And published in the first week in February on preparing and protecting yourself from the novel coronavirus.
Remember, we got this call from the CIA officer on January 4th alerting me.
And we got busy and she, I helped her, but she wrote the book.
You know, well over 100 pages of highly referenced stuff written for average folks.
And it was published on Amazon Self-Publishing and lasted there until March when they deleted it for a reason that we had never heard before, violating community standards.
Now, of course, we all know that term.
And in retrospect, I don't think there's anything in that book that was at all controversial.
But that was a moment.
That certainly upset Jill quite a bit after all the effort she put in.
There was an event that the kind of growing realization that the ethics of what was being done were just absolutely wrong had to do with a physician that has almost lost his ability to practice medicine in Canada for mentioning these things.
He doesn't want his name mentioned, but I had a long phone call with him.
About what he was seeing in Canada and the use of things like ice cream to entice children and the Canadian government not taking any of his vaccine adverse event reports seriously from his patients and dismissing them all.
And then there was the Byron Bridal From Canada, this vaccinologist academic from Canada that grabbed the preclinical package from a Japanese regulatory agency server from Pfizer that was sent to me to basically independently review what he had said and observed.
And I confirmed that.
I wrote a paper for Trial Site News on that that documented the failings of the toxicology testing and the preclinical testing that had been done.
And then there was being lied to by Peter Marks at the FDA reassuring me that everything was going to be okay before I took the jab.
And it just kind of went on and on and on.
The propaganda that was transparent to me and the just vile attacks by the fact checkers and the corporate media was also a huge reveal.
So I'd say it's been more of a kind of a gradual ramping up than any one discreet thing.
And what do you make of the most recent CDC?
Voting unanimously to add the jab.
So I said to Bannon the other day, we were talking about this and some other things, and I said, you know, it's just gotten to the point where corruption in the government is boring.
I want to move on.
I'd rather focus on the activities at the World Economic Forum and how this is all being manipulated, the puppet masters up above, because this kind of retail corruption that has...
It really destroyed the reputation of what was once the world's premier pharmaceutical regulatory body and one of the premier epidemiology public health surveillance systems.
It's so pervasive that it's no longer...
No longer intellectually interesting.
It's just, you know.
Absolutely agree.
People are asking also, there was something about the graphene nanoparticles, but I'm not even sure I'm able to ask the question.
Yeah, so the graphene, and I'm kind of at the end.
Yeah, absolutely.
So there absolutely are crystals that form.
And this is complex because these particles have not been well studied, and there's complexity about the effects of temperature and what happens when you open the vials.
There's a lot of graphene oxide contamination in the environment, and we have to acknowledge that.
And when we see these planar crystals, they aren't necessarily graphene oxide until they're proven to be graphene oxide.
And so there's something going on.
With crystallization?
I don't doubt that anymore.
Is it graphene oxide?
I don't know.
Is it some contaminant or intentional addition?
You know, this was early on.
People talked about there's razor blades in here.
Well, that's kind of a...
Let's take that as a metaphor.
I'm sure they didn't go and buy razor blades from Schick and break them up and put them in the vials.
There absolutely are glass fragments in some vials.
This is a known...
That's not too surprising.
If you're running these high-pressure pumps at full speed 24-7 to pump out billions of jabs, they wear.
And so it's no surprise to me that you get some stainless steel shaving contaminants in there.
And that's another thing that should have been picked up by the lot release stuff.
Graphene oxide, I haven't seen that proven to an adequate level.
And one of the problems is the pharmaceutical companies have negotiated this agreement, like I said, where nobody is allowed to do the testing.
And that's just absurd and shouldn't have ever been allowed.
But as a consequence, you're actually legally forbidden.
If you're a physician, if you receive one of these vials, from transferring it to somebody and doing testing.
So all this stuff has to be surreptitious.
It's done through expired vials or things that were left on the bench.
And that's just, you can't do science that way.
The custody chain is just shot.
So you can't really track that things were handled properly.
And so you can't get to the bottom of this because, once again, The FDA didn't do its job.
And this will be the last question, and then we'll end and we'll say our proper goodbyes.
For people out there who are wondering how long the risk lasts for, I presume it's something like a steep sloping curve, like if you've had a shot a year and a half ago?
That's the problem is unknown.
That's the honest answer, unknown.
And I think we have to...
Try to be rigorous about that and not speculate.
There's people that came out and said, three-quarters of the people are going to die.
You're all going to die.
That's not probably true.
We're all going to die.
As Zero Hedge likes to say in a long enough timeline.
Are we all going to die from the jab?
I don't think so.
The data aren't looking like that.
But, for instance, myocarditis mortality is not trivial, and it continues to climb over seven years at least.
We don't know enough about what's happening with the cancers, and that can also be indolent, in other words, progressing over a long period of time.
Autoimmune disease often manifests.
Years later and can take a long time to really get you.
So these rare diseases and adverse events that may occur at the rate of 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 10,000, but if you're the ones that are the short straw, it doesn't matter.
Those can get you and they can get you over a long time span.
So I don't think that...
Any of us are going to be in the clear for probably at least in a decade in terms of being able to be totally relaxed about this.
But also on the other side, I want to say our opponents love fear porn.
They love to frighten us.
They love to use fear to control us and to control our behavior.
There's a whole lot of things in the world to be frightened of if you feel that way.
I mean, when I go for a walk in the back here on the farm, I could get bitten by a copperhead.
It happened to my dog last year.
Or I could fall off the cliff or, you know, it's just a million things.
The airplane could drop out of the sky.
Risk is relative.
But the myocarditis risk looks like it's higher than the risk of dying in an automobile accident.
So I think it's important to balance risk.
And I've heard of people, there's somebody that we know from our horse business that is so deathly afraid of getting infected by this coronavirus that when the feed company comes by to deliver sacks of grain, she comes out in a full Tyvek suit.
And she's been known to go hide in the forest because she's so scared of visitors that might infect her.
So, you know, fear can become irrational.
It can rule your life.
And don't go there.
And don't let the fear mongers, don't let CNN and their fear porn control your life.
And also, I think on our side, we have to be careful.
There are podcasters, and I could name names, that just love to promote fear.
Fear is a great way.
Fear and outrage are a great way to get clicks and views and followers.
And you can build all kinds of stories, etc.
But it's really no different from CNN selling vaccine fear to get sponsorship from Pfizer.
You know, to sell coronavirus fear, as they have done, right?
Even down to the level of our children with Big Bird.
So just don't buy into it.
Dr. Malone, we're going to end it now so we can go and say our proper goodbyes.
Thank you immensely.
Anytime there's anything more to talk about, if you want to grace us again, I would love it.
We would love it.
Where can people find you?
Let me put the book plug, the obligatory book plug in, forgive me, but if I don't, Tony Lyons will be aggravated.
We have finished the editing of The Lies My Government Told Me and The Better Times Ahead.
It is coming out under the Children's Health Defense label published by Skyhorse.
So that's the same pathway as Bobby Kennedy's Anthony Fauci book.
And I am assured that it will absolutely be delivered before Christmas.
And don't shoot me, please.
It's out of my control now.
If you order it and it's available for pre-order and we tried to make it available before the election as an e-book, but I'm afraid we missed that timeline since that, you know, what we can both agree to is get out and vote, right?
So the e-book will come out first and then the proper printed version should be available for Christmas gifts if you want to.
To do that.
And it goes way deeper into these stories of life on the farm and how things transformed for us.
And then it's got a bunch of stories from frontline physicians like Pierre Corey about what they've experienced.
And then a whole deep dive into the WEF and the economics and the science and the propaganda and all that good stuff.
So you can find the book on Amazon.
Follow our Substack, please.
It's free.
You can subscribe, and it will come to your inbox and your email on a daily basis, unless you use Microsoft products, and then it will go into your spam box.
So that's rwmalonemd.substack.com.
And if you wish to subscribe, you don't have to.
But if you do, then you can participate in the chat for each of the topics.
Which does a great way.
It's great for keeping the trolls out of the dialogue because they don't want to spend five bucks a month.
So there's that.
And then gabgetter and trusocial at rwmalonemd.
And maybe, who knows?
The physicians in the health freedom movement might eventually be allowed back on Twitter, but I'm not holding my breath, and I really find Twitter to be just a tiny notch above Telegraph in terms of wallowing in the sewer.
Dr. Mullen, send me all those links and I'll put them in the pinned comment on both Rumble and YouTube, but I think most people agree with you.
Twitter, it is the cesspool, but...
You know, it's entertainment and you get to know what your enemy, your ideological adversary is thinking.
Dr. Malone, thank you immensely.
I'm going to end this on Rumble.
You and I will just say proper goodbyes, but thank you.
Flip me all those links and I'll put them in the pinned comment and blast them around our Locals community.
Thank you very much.
My pleasure.
▲
Export Selection