Dr. Robert Malone on the Spike Protein (To Be Frank)
YouTube video by Dr. Robert Malone (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E2UkhCWosg). Transcript is the auto-caption track — verbatim ASR, not a certified transcript.

hi everyone i'm dr aaron stehr and this is the trial site news podcast and i'm here with dr robert malone who like became a celebrity overnight literally so you're famous now how does that feel a little weird um uh you know i i've never sought out media attention i matter of fact i usually try to stay below the radar can i say can i tell the story of how i met you yeah please do so i have i have a pod a smaller podcast called causes or cures and i was reading about antibody dependent enhancement um which like a lot of people were saying this is going to kill us all with these vaccines and i'm like okay this sounds like hyperbole let's get someone on my podcast who knows what they're talking about and i reached out to so many different people and they're they had to ask permission from their academic institutions and they all declined and then one person referred me to dr malone and i sent him an email and and then i think he wrote back asking a vaccinologist to talk about this is um asking them to commit professional suicide or something like that was funny and i just wrote back well okay are you okay with that and then he did the podcast but it turned out to be an amazing podcast because you explained stuff so well and all my friends like you know most of my friends who listen to that podcast they don't have scientific backgrounds and they're like i even i understood that aaron i was like well there we go so cool but yeah you're famous now so how does that feel it feels really hectic i'm not getting any of my day job done um but it it what a tayer and what's happened is um the combination of this cascade of events and my own cv and my role in the initial discovery of the rna delivery in vaccines and stuff gives me legitimacy that i guess largely is protecting me from being censored by the usual social media channels and so i'm saying things i'm able to say things i i really careful what i say i try to be careful and so they don't have a good excuse to whack me um and uh it's brought people all over the globe out of the woodwork i i feel like i'm channeling the collective angst of a global network of frustrated scientists and physicians and by the way i'm inundated with calls random calls i mean i can hardly have dinner from patients that just need to be listened to or patients parents or patients spouses or patients brothers or whatever um and there's there's this groundswell of angst and it's channeling to me and and i feel like i have a responsibility to them uh as a physician to kind of um give voice to a lot of this stuff and then there another thing that happened with trial site that was crucial was i had a so trial side is an interesting vehicle because it's very rapid and relatively unfiltered i don't have to go through peer review and uh so i was on a phone call with the canadian physician that went from like 10 to midnight and the the gentleman is just pouring his heart out to me about his patients and how every time he files something that's an adverse event it just gets immediately dismissed without any investigation and he's telling me about what's happening in canada from the government and i'm listening to this and i just keep having to say to him there's nothing i can do for you and i wake up in the morning and i like aha i know what i can do and i built this logic structure around bioethics and it was the bioethics of experimental vaccination for kavit and uh and it was published on trial site news and in every the red pill metaphor from the matrix keeps getting overused but this thing is like a red pill it people that are in denial read it or you walk them through the logic and it just opens up their mind that that um it's not okay what's going on the censorship isn't okay the um gaslighting of people who have symptoms the censorship on social media that these things just to give one example there was a a facebook group of kind of a contact group of people that were sharing stories about adverse events associated with vaccination there's about 200 250 people strong and it just got deleted and if if you're one of those people if you kind of put yourself in their position for a moment all around them they're getting the message that you you're crazy you couldn't possibly be having vaccine related adverse events because they don't happen and so you participate in this in this uh shared experience with other people on social media and then you get deleted it's it's it's flat out depressing for these people yeah i i agree and i think people just want to be heard i i you know and it's difficult too because you're dealing with a complex media lance landscape here and different things are might be expressed online you know there is misinformation right there is that and then like i said you might have saw my tweet i said there are people who try to latch on to like scientific dissent or scientific concerns from legitimate that are legitimate rooted in science to kind of bolster their own position and there's people who disinform like who have more like nefarious motives but the problem is that it's all getting looped together right there's no such thing as scientific dissent or questioning it's all misinformation which is not right that's incorrect it's inaccurate um and it's very frustrating i mean and over overlaid on this so this is one of these things that came to me from other docs is the trusted news initiative so trusted news initiative is not a crazy figment of somebody's imagination you can look it up and it's a consortium you can google trusted news initial initiative and bbc and vaccines and you're going to find bbc proudly announcing that they're taking the trusted news initiative consortium which includes facebook and associated press and all the usual actors and was designed to combat misinformation in times of crisis and political change and as of last december they decided that vaccine disinformation was one of those things and uh they were going to clamp down on it and it it feels to many of us like it's coordinated censorship in fact it is it's not it's not crazy talk i ha i have to laugh sometimes when i read people um who fact check you i gotta i mean i laugh because they'll be like there's some guy in a video and i was like oh my gosh they didn't even say who he was who's the original inventor of mrna technology but i have to laugh when they're like fact checking you they're like some guy sitting in a chair on this podcast is saying something weird about the spike protein and nobody knows like nobody but none of the fact checkers bothered to like to check out who you were so like you i've been swimming in this social media environment for a couple of decades uh for me i mean it goes back to me interacting on yahoo stock chat boards at least 20 years ago so i'm kind of like i say i put on my big boy pants in the morning and i'm fairly immune to most of this stuff i mean there's always haters and you know you just delete them or you don't answer them or you know you don't talk to the crazies and stuff like that but yeah it is so you know when i get fact checked by politifact and reuters and they get it wrong um i i do have a certain sense of being threatened but i try really hard to be well grounded in the data and to speak from the data and from the science i don't always get it right but when i get it wrong and somebody points it out i immediately say yeah you're right i'm wrong and you know why they pointed it out because it's so rare it's so rare to see somebody do that they're like did you see this guy he said he was wrong about this and it's like it's like it goes viral it is isn't that sad this is weird times and there's so it's not just disinformation coming from social media the truth is that we're inundated with disinformation from our public health agencies globally and i'm sure it's all with the best intent uh but you know dr fauci was quite clear in the foyed emails that he has been comfortable substituting his own opinion for facts because he thought he was saying things that would be helpful but that's not okay and it's compromising people's faith in the public health system and a lot of other things and as you may recall early on in this outbreak i made a bunch of statements on linkedin that we better make sure if we're going to rush these vaccines that we get it right and if we didn't get it right we're going to play right into the storyline the memes of the anti-vaccine crowd and lo and behold here we are and i think too it's it's a dilemma it's a dilemma like i think there should there should be more focus on early treatment right but like i think there's not going to be a perfect solution in this and i think we also have to remember that and like like you said like people working at these organizations they're not like we tend to dehumanize them and that kind of thing but they're just people they're people trying to do their best and they're not making most of the people are not making tons of money and that kind of thing and i think people have to remember that too i agree yeah and it's just people trying to do their job they're they're receiving all the same messaging the rest of us are right that uh these vaccines are perfectly safe and so you know for them to go against that and to be wary or alert that maybe there are adverse events you know they're they're risking their relationship with their supervisors you you guys all work in office environments you know how this works i to go back to your i've been uh seeing like you know there's so many different sources of media out there now and one thing i do is i follow like blatant misinformation and i've seen you put you pulled into some of these memes they list your name and i have to laugh because i'm like this guy is not an anti-vaxxer in fact you like eat drink sleep vaccines that's what you do um right so like that's why it's so funny to me because if they knew like all the vaccines that you kind of had you played a hand in bringing to fruition it's so ironic like it is it's just a weird time um it is yeah and i and i i get beaten up all the time and i just i've just come hot off of a meeting with these three insider fda buddies that i occasionally refer to in these various podcasts and i felt the need to check in with them and say okay guys you know that i've said these things are we all okay am i still on message you know am i missing something so i just needed felt the need to check in with them and one of them uh was quite agitated because i found myself on tucker carlson last night and uh his comment was uh tucker is you know his mission is to take down the administration and he didn't have any specific he was completely aligned with what i said um matter of fact i was basically serving as a mouthpiece for a lot of their angst in what i said but he just was adamant that i shouldn't be interacting with conservative media but right now conservative media are the ones that are open you and i both you know do this where we work with the government and do other things and we must remain agnostic apolitical yeah i can't be i can't be aligned with this administration or that administration um because they'll change um and that's the nature of working with the federal government is check your politics at the door yeah absolutely and i think just speak your truth and and you know you're coming with good intentions um and you want people to informed consent and i know you're you trained in bioethics and that you know kind of guides everything you do and say so i respect that and uh i thought you did a good job on tucker um thank you it's a little weird yeah was there like a bright light training on you yeah no they they they sent so so this is the reality of it it's a little bizarre so i live in a horse farm it's about 50 acres in virginia between charlottesville and dulles airport and so they decided that in their wisdom that it was too far for me to drive into dc to get their studio and so they were going to send a van down and uh so this van shows up and uh it's all black inside and they park and they get the connections with the cell tower just like i use here and uh and i go and sit in the chair and they've got a tv monitor behind me and and they decide if they're gonna make it look like i've got a city back backdrop there's all this rush oh trying to make all the connections work and everything and uh then suddenly you're on and uh i don't even get to see tucker um you know there's a slight delay in the signal and i'm looking at myself they got these bright lights all on me that are all pre-arranged in the van it's super lighting and uh you know i i looked fairly good there was no makeup and uh and i'm on for barely three minutes and then it's done about the door and and off he goes to the to falls church for the next appointment it's just a little bit surreal okay spike protein let's start with the natural spike protein on the virus what what do we know that it does and doesn't do so uh this question of the activity of the spike really developed after well well into the outbreak and it was coupled with people asking what was the activity of the virus itself using cell culture animal models organoids organizes a is kind of a new term for a lot of us these are our are human-like organs that are grown in a test tube using stealth stem cell technology and they've been developed uh alternatives to animal models and uh ability to capture data from human tissues without having to do human experiments so a series of experiments were done after they initiated the development of the vaccines that asked questions about the toxicity of the virus how it would interact with brain cells blood brain barrier vascular endothelium cells in general etc and then as that science developed people started asking well how much of these things that we are seeing our response are are due to this part of the virus or that part of the virus and one of the things they focused on was this knob of three things that kind of sticks out that we call spike um it's not it's not spike is not uh um like you would see on the collar of a fighting dog or something like that it's not a bunch of sharp things that come out it's a bunch of little knobs of protein that are what the virus uses to stick to the cells that it wants to infect and it also has this characteristic that it changes its shape as it infects like a lot of the virus receptors do a lot of the receptor ligand interactions the virus first binds in an open conformation to its target and then it undergoes a change in shape that helps trigger the ability of the virus to enter the cell spike does this and so there was data started emerging really last fall with human organoids and with mouse models and then with other tissue models in some some whole animal studies including a nice one from the song institute by alma mater that in fact despite what reuter says yes spike is cytotoxic and spike also opens the blood-brain barrier in animal models and in human organoids and uh then there's this whole group of things around symptoms human symptoms after infection in development of this disease that we call covet and the long-term kavad that we call long carpet [Music] and in some of the side effects that people have reported with the adenovirus based genetic vaccines first so here in the states we call it the j j product and we found out the j j product was causing blood clotting blood clotting is a major problem with the disease it's one of the core problems and the vaccine was also causing blood clotting that's kind of odd now we're seeing that the rna vaccines a different genetic vaccine technology that also expresses the spike protein is triggering some of those same symptoms in some small subset of people and in some small subset of people they also have clotting problems including these brain clots which are worrisome but that's very rare and i don't want to alert the audience or or scare you my i i have no interest in spooking everybody and making a big kerfuffle some people enjoy that i don't these vaccines work they're saving lives but in some people they're having these adverse events and the odd thing is that those adverse events seem to overlap with some of the symptoms of the disease that's caused by the whole virus and they seem to overlap between the two different genetic technologies that are used for the vaccines and so and they overlap with some of the things that we know that spike can do by itself and so this is one of those i'm sorry i'm going to say it it looks like a duck it walks like a duck it quacks like a duck might be a duck and it might be that these known toxicities associated with the wild type spike protein might be also associated with the engineered spike protein that is used as the antigen in these uh vaccines and right now we don't know that's the case for sure but it kind of looks like it might be so the spike protein and this is from the salt paper that you i don't know how i got it i probably maybe got it from you but i read it and they make it very clear in there they're like this is very different this natural spike protein is very different than the one used in the vaccines meaning something was done in that dna or messenger rna that genetic material to make spike protein do something a little different than the natural one is that right it is um so two things were done and it varies with each vaccine so you're exactly right and that's one of the criticisms of uh me in saying that spike is cytotoxic uh that it's you know when i've been fact checked um but but the one of the lovely things about interacting in social media is that everybody says their opinion and uh it's a great place to kind of learn about what the criticisms of the alternative thinking might be which is what science needs to be so for me it's really useful and one of the criticisms is that the spike protein in the vaccines has been engineered that's true some people assert that it was engineered to be more safe that i have a little problem with because the engineering was done before we knew that it was a risk so that's kind of sounds like the cart before the horse why was it done if they didn't know it was a risk uh good question that's the circular logic that i'm talking about the cart before the horse the one of the engineering things that was done was to a lot i mentioned to you that spike undergoes a conformational change that's fancy science talk for it moves from one structure to another structure as it binds and starts to enter into the cell and the part that's changing its structure involves what's called the receptor binding domain now what does that what do those words mean um spike interacts with a specific cellular receptor called ace2 and it's present on things like vascular endothelial cells these are the cells that line your blood vessels okay so spike binds ace2 and that is used to help cells get infected that's how it gets in and it binds initially in an open conformation where the receptor binding domain is wide open makes sense okay and then it undergoes this change uh appropriately this has been a strategy that that the uh vaccine research center nih has used with other antigens this isn't their first uh rodeo with a respiratory virus um they're the ones that engineered the modernity product just to clarify and so it's it's a known strategy to engineer these virus receptor proteins surface glycoproteins and spike is heavily coated with sugars by the way but this area where it binds to ace2 is open it's not covered with sugars because it's got to bind to ace too so it's an open channel and if you the perfect antibody to knock out the ability of the virus to infect is an antibody that binds the receptor binding domain so you want to make sure that that receptor binding domain is open so that it can be presented to b cells and provoke the right kind of antibodies and that's why they do it okay is they want to lock it into an open conformation so it's a good antigen makes sense in in addition they wanted th this engineered spike that they've now made so that it stays open so it's a better antigen they wanted it to stay put in the cell that was expressing it and so they put a transmembrane tag on it so that it'd get stuck into the membrane of the cell and it'd stay there it wouldn't go floating around so those are the two main things that for instance constitute the modifications in the moderna product so if i address that why did they do it they did it to make it a better antigen and to make it so it stayed put we're tests done like hey okay yeah wow this works it stays put yes um so those so the initial what she's asking about is how well was this characterized did it behave the way it was supposed to behave and by the way the other job that had to be done in a normal situation um just i just want to kind of digressed a little bit um when you're developing a new product the rules are kind of french rules if you imagine the french judicial system you're guilty until proved innocent in the u.s it's different right you're innocent until prove guilty for pharmaceutical product development you're kind of assumed to be toxic unless you prove you're not and it's the job of the pharmaceutical company interacting with the fda to prove that this kind of a modification is safe and to prove that everything in the system behaves the way it's supposed to behave the way that you claim that it's behaved so the fda is really typically pretty persnickety if you say that the spike is going to stay put they want you to show that it stays put and if you say that it's safe they want you to prove that it's safe um it would appear based on the what let me put it this way it was a bit alarming to some of us when this study came out from harvard and brigham's of nurses that had received moderna vaccine that showed with a very sensitive assay that they had free spikes circulating in their blood because that wasn't supposed to happen according to what was published before and um that pre-spike is circulating for like 14 to almost up to a month at detectable levels and again that should have been known before it ever went into humans based on animal model studies it's not that hard to figure out um but for some reason it wasn't so that study it's like 23 of the there was only 13 people in that study right okay so small sorry it's a small sample size but it's like it it's a proof of something like it's it's it's but i think only 23 but here's my um had spike protein it was af and it used the mrna vaccines right there's a moderna so it's the highest dose it's the highest dose of the mrna vaccines okay but and i might be remembering this incorrectly so you can jump in if i am they found the spike protein after the first dose is that correct and after the second dose they didn't but when you're seeing adverse um these adverse effects and they they are pretty rare aren't we seeing most of that after the second dose second dose but remember the reason they're not seeing the free protein after the second dose is because you've already got antibodies against it right and that raises a key thing about this is that what they were detecting with this super sensitive assay is the free spike which is an equilibrium with ace2 bound spike which is an equilibrium these are biochemical terms it means that it's going from this it's it's balancing between one form and another form so there's free spike in the blood there's spike that's bound to ace two and there's spike that hasn't yet been cut off the surface of the cell so what they're measuring is really the tip of the iceberg and no surprise that after dose number two when you get a lot more antibodies well that free spike is getting sucked up by those antibodies but it doesn't mean that it's not there i mean that's what they probably should do larger studies on that i guess with more more people right i guess but uh it's pretty definitive i mean you you uh administer the vaccine this is this is essentially a challenge study it's it's uh not subtle and we're not looking for some random statistical effect we're measuring something directly so i find it fairly compelling and yeah it would be a good idea like all science to have two or three other universities or laboratories or the truth is this should have been known at phase one that should have been the kind of thing that in this case moderna should have done uh with their phase 1 or 2a studies but for some reason they didn't now that's another thing that kind of doesn't seem right so let's talk about the there was a freedom of information act from like canada there was um some kind of pre-clinical paper technical paper um pre-clinical meaning this was done in mice right animals and they were looking at the bio distribution of the mrna vaccine for some kind so it's a little it's a little it's a little more than that okay yeah can you explain what that was and then um we could talk about what it showed yeah i i have to lapse into regulatory speak for a moment i'm sorry in drug development um you have to submit when you want to go into humans you have to submit a document to the regulators that summarizes everything you know about the product and uh that includes how you manufacture it how stable it is the test that you run to make sure that it we call it identity that it's exactly what it's supposed to do that it's not contaminated so purity um the non-clinical that what that means is animal studies basically and other bench studies that assess uh the potential toxicity distribution other things any clinical data that's known literature basis or justification for use in humans what are you tending to do all that stuff goes into a package a document kind of a super report and it has a we've got to the point now where all the governments pretty much of the world all agree that if you do this with a certain form then they'll all accept it so you don't have to take the same data and change it put it into europeans change it put into the chinese whatever okay so we call that the common technical document in the united states we used to call it the initial new drug application but now it's pretty much called the ctd is the acronym so what aaron's talking about is that a group of canadians um one of them uh dr bridle that's a different story is being really uh attacked hammer doing this hammered yeah uh they're trying to make him lose his funding and lose his job um he's got a family he's a really nice guy so a group of canadians that were worried about the toxicity events the signals that they were seeing did a freedom of information act to obtain the common technical document on the pfizer product from the regulatory authorities in japan now why they chose japan i don't know normally these ctds you cannot foia you can't obtain them they're confidential but they got them out of japan and uh within a day trial site news had them and asked me to review them so that's the context that i'm talking about and trial site news also asked me to review the public letter that the european medicines agency issued after reviewing presumably the same ctd but it was in english not in japanese um presumably uh and so this i was given the uh summary letter from the european medicines agency and the japanese uh common technical document that had been obtained and most of that japanese document is in japanese and i don't read japanese so there's that but there's some data tables in there that are in english and so what she's referring to is the non-clinical data tables that are in the ctd obtained from japan for the pfizer vaccine that's the lower dose of the two some in particular two two groups of data all addressing the biodistribution in addition there was summaries of the toxicology in the non-confidential ema document um and uh so i reviewed these for trial site news and then i was uh alarmed a bit by what i read and so i had a even more senior regulatory affairs specialist read them uh and uh see if i if he agreed that uh these looked alarming or concerning and he did and he pointed out some other things that i missed such as that the reproductive toxicology studies had only been done partially and there was no genotoxicity studies okay so um the details that aaron's talking about involved studies designed to address where is the protein being expressed after injection using rodent models and where is the rna going after injection and where is the lipid part now i'm this is uh we're getting into the weeds of how this stuff works and i i heard the metaphor the other day of a fedex package if you imagine a fedex letter package we all know that um the letter inside is the rna and the cardboard on the outside is lipids it's fats and that and it the package is designed to deliver the letter into a cell and as it does that the lipids the fat part the package falls off and the rna becomes available to be loaded onto the machinery that translates the rna and makes protein what was unusual was that these typically critical experiments were not done to the high standards that they usually are so that the the regulatory languages they were non-good laboratory practices as opposed to the usual required good laboratory practices what does that mean non-glp is kind of like what a graduate student might do in a professor's lab to ask a question about biodistribution they don't have a bunch of protocols they have to follow the machines don't have to all be calibrated they don't have to keep good notes about everything they can kind of say this is the results it looks like this um and that is usually not acceptable the rule in this kind of world is if it's not written and documented it didn't happen because people make mistakes from time to time so non-glp small number rodent studies i want to emphasize one of the things that means is that if we criticize those we have to keep in mind they're not the final answer those studies and in fact apparently according to peter marks when i spoke to him about this at the fda he's head of the center for biologics evaluation research he said hey we've received a new i'm paraphrasing he said we've received a new package from pfizer it's updated and uh robert just back off a little bit and give me the time to uh have my people review that package um and then we're gonna make our determination on presumably licensure based on these new data so the japanese data we have to keep in mind was done to a standard that was not rigorous and furthermore they're outdated they were probably the same data that was used to justify the emergency use authorization that is the basis were all receiving those vaccines so there it is it's not perfect data but we can't then turn around and say oh but it shows these things we have to kind of say it might show these things but it might not because it wasn't done rigorously well right and i think too um you know these are these are done in mice that doesn't mean like it could be different very different in humans yeah those those of us that have done mouse experiments uh often say uh my sly monkeys mislead and the only thing that really predicts response in humans is response in humans is the general rule okay so you're you're dead on um all kinds of caveats about these data but what they show in this experiment is that they use they don't actually use the spike rna they use an rna that codes for a luciferase which is the thing that makes the firefly tail glow and that's a really sensitive we call it reporter gene because we got good technology to detect photons and they used that to detect where it went and they used the least sensitive method which is to look at the whole animal so that means that wherever the luciferase goes in the whole animal the photons have to go up through that tissue through the bone and muscle through the skin and hair and hit the photomultiplier tube which means that most of those photons bounce around they never get out okay and so what you get when you use that method um it's really cool you get glowing mice you know like firefly um but the signal you detect is where the majority of the expression is you don't detect um the areas where there's less expression and so it's kind of a biased experiment it is a biased experiment to only detecting the areas that have the highest level of expression that's a little bit fishy because you're trying to ask the question where in the body is this protein being expressed and you would think you would want to use the method that would be most sensitive but they didn't point number one point number two um there's a data table there that they radio labeled so they put tritium radioactive rna and uh that allows you to really sensitively detect where the rna goes and then they used an assay for this novel engineered fat that is what's used to slip the rna is the package in the fedex metaphor so we have looking for luciferase rna expression that says where we're getting expression there's looking for the tritium on the rna that says where does the rna go and then there's the assay they use what has a lot of people concerned is in this imperfect small rodent experiment one of the things that's striking you know you see the lipids and the rna going to organs that you would expect it to go to like liver and spleen but the lipid part strangely in female rodents collects at about 12 of the total injected in the ovaries but not in the testes that's kind of odd um uh it also goes to bone marrow and other sites now the rna people get a little confused about this the rna signal is the right side of that table and it's the radioactive rna and in ovaries that only shows that less than one percent of the rna goes there so for some reason the lipids are accumulating in the ovary although the rna isn't why is that how is that happening unknown does it mean anything unknown because we didn't do reproductive talks experiments and uh we we don't really have any prior experience with this novel synthetic lipid so we don't we you know a lot of folks got pretty bent up and said oh this means that the stuff in the bone marrow is going to cause leukemia and steve said these things on the weinstein podcast and i couldn't get an edge a word in edgewise with him but these things were said um that that you could have these bone marrow diseases and you could have horrible reproductive effects and the truth is i can't say that that there won't be problems because i don't have the data we don't have the data um it doesn't mean that they're they're absolutely going to happen either right and i think you cleared up something that a lot of people think it's the lipids in these preclinical studies that were in the ovary not the messenger rna which codes for the spike protein so that means your over ovarian cells were not expressing this spike protein well i so there you said it um i can't say that they weren't okay um well i can't either i would say that yeah nobody can okay that's the whole problem is that the studies weren't done well and so we're left with all of these coulda shoulda woulda uh oh what's happening and that's what's a little odd here is normally all that stuff would have been cleared up and for some reason it wasn't presumably because everybody was in a rush because they wanted to save the world for good reason and they were doing you know presumably the best of intentions but to say to the public no corners were cut isn't really true and that's where i start to have problems with all this is i think that the government owes it to their populace to be open and transparent about what's true what's known and what's unknown because you're they're obligated to in the pharmaceutical company is obligated to fully disclose all risks because this is a fundamental precept of bioethics in human subject research full stop it's i think i mean that's fair that's the why the whole field of bioethics exists because it was abused in the past right so it's it's like the golden rule of research i i would agree with that and i think what you're saying um being honest with people and it's part of informed consent um and like no saying what you know and what you don't know part of informed consent but that also doesn't mean it has to take away from the efficacy of the vaccines are like the great benefit that we're seeing in terms of how they're working um and people agree yeah those both of those things can be true at the same time um yep and like yeah and i think that's like i think sometimes people will they try to like reduce you to like one side and you're just like trying to you know be scientifically a scientist yeah i'm a scientist right i live in a world in which almost nothing is known i mean if you ask me how much do you actually know about this nine times out of ten i'm probably gonna say i don't really know the answer yeah um and i try hard to be honest and that's the nature of science right and it's the nature of scientific discussion is then us scientists and physicians like yourself um have this active dialogue where and we use this term hypothesis instead of fact where where we're constantly kind of second guessing ourselves and each other saying are you sure this is really what's going on and that's why we have to not be censored we have to be able to talk about this that's how we get to truth or our version of truth so in terms of censorship how would you handle um misinformation like blatant misinformation um my thoughts six months ago uh probably very different from what they are now having been through what i've been through you've been censored you've been censored a lot which is and as tragic does have many of us yeah no i mean i agree i agree i i think that this whole meme of me as the guy you know i i i'm not somebody who seeks attention i don't blow my own horn generally and my wife criticizes me for that uh and wishes i would do more of that but it's not my style but now that it's come out that i play these key roles it allows me to have legitimacy and i think it may be partially protecting me from the uh the sensors that are out there and i'm i think i'm being able to say things that i'm that i know that i'm being able to post things and say things that other scientists post might you know often posted before me made the same observation and got deleted uh so for some reason i i and i think it may be because i have this legitimacy now from this story uh my personal origin story um that is keeping them from uh uh censoring me in the same way as they might but um i what do we do about the deliberate misinformation such as the paid trolls um that are out there uh i think this is one of the toughest decisions in topics that we have to deal with as a society right now because clearly our elections have been subjected to manipulation by these kinds of paid trolls um and i know enough from my work with various clients and interfacing the intelligence community there are some really powerful tools that can be used to shape public opinion and uh and i think the trusted news initiative was intended to help circumvent that but the rubber hits the road at the level we were talking about just average middle-class folk that are trying to pay their mortgages are where the where where this gets operationalized and they're not um you know yale trained md phd's they're just folks trying to make a living and they've got a list that they have to go through and if they see ivermectin and covet in the same paragraph off it goes and that's the rules that they're given and they follow the rules i think that's kind of what's happening and um i think that we may have to come so um it as as a you're you're more on the millennial side i'm at the tail end of the boomers both of our generations but particularly yours has been subjected to amazingly refined tools for advertising and and you've grown up with it and learned how to manage that information and that manipulation and to be resistant to it and go on with your life i think that we may be better suited to learn to adjust and tolerate to some of this disinformation and take personal responsibility for validating things ourselves it's tough to do but the the loss of freedom to speak of this first init amendment thing and that's part of i think is something that uh is really damaging and troubling i think we're seeing it expressed now in in this real world situation but i can tell you that part of the reason why i'm getting hit by the conservative media all the time for talks is because they're really sensitive to these first amendment issues and that's part of what they're lighting up about but i i i think with this disease and this situation there is a ton of fear yeah absolutely and knocking people out and deleting facebook groups and things like that um is a form of gaslighting it's denying their fear and denying their anxiety and that's really counterproductive and i think kind of as physicians you and me we can both appreciate that that's just not good for their mental health no i think it's terrible that's why i always tried um even if i see if someone writes something that that's the thing you can always find the common ground with someone if they don't have an agenda to personally if they're if they aren't there to attack you sabotage you they're really probably there just looking for information you know like i have flight anxiety and the things i say before i get on a plane are probably crazy like i mean i'm just like you know and i'm like analyzing the pilot as if i knew where he was like you know let me see his eyes like let me see her eyes like it's just it's really um but it's not it's just a fear it's a fear and i think like somebody is around they can talk me through that fear and i'm like okay yeah you know they're not gonna be like hey just shut up and sit you know you're you you don't count your views don't count you're not scientific enough um when you have these these platforms where like they pride themselves for the democratic sharing of information well guess what guess what that's going to be messy right that's going to be messy yeah so i think we have aaron i i i think that so bridging from that to what we're doing right now we're we're trying to provide understandable information that kind of disambiguates and clarifies a lot of these issues that people have anxieties about and i some on the web have criticized me for speaking slowly it's me compensating for the fact that i natively often talk too fast and also trying really hard to process inside of my own mind what i'm about to say so that it is understandable and less likely to be misunderstood and i try really hard as you hopefully just heard to make complicated stuff easy to understand for folks that haven't had this stupid long period of post-graduate training that you and i have had to been through because there there's a supposedly fineman uh richard feynman nobel laureate the guy that figured out the challenger disaster and a lot of other things supposedly once said if you can't say it simply you don't really understand it and and i think there's merit to that so

Summary: hi everyone i'm dr aaron stehr and this is the trial site news podcast and i'm here with dr robert malone who like became a celebrity overnight literally so you're famous now how does that feel a little weird um uh you know i i've never sought out media attention i matter of fact i usually try to stay below the radar can i say can i tell the story of how i met you yeah please do so i have i have a pod a smaller podcast called causes or cures and i was read…


This Might Be The Next Pandemic - Dr. Robert W Malone (Mario Nawfal)
YouTube video by Dr. Robert Malone (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F1LBMpMAak). Transcript is the auto-caption track — verbatim ASR, not a certified transcript.

Well, doctor, it's a pleasure to speak to you again. Been a very long time. And um you know, everyone's distracted, including myself, distracted with what's happening in Iran. And then I saw the news of a of a of of some outbreak on a cruise ship heading to to somewhere in Cape Verde, I think it was, in West Africa. Um and then I saw it's called hantavirus, something I've never heard of before. And then I heard there's casualties. I'm like Okay, well, there was only a few that had the virus and there's already casualties in Cape Verde. They did not want to accept the cruise ship to dock in there in their country and they sent it back all the way to um to Spain. Um I think to the Canary Islands. So, I'm like, all right, I need to understand what's going on. Why is everyone concerned? Why is this all over the news? And there's no better person to speak to than the doctor himself that I haven't spoken to for a long time that was the leading voice when it came to COVID. So, doctor, please explain to me, to the audience, um what is hantavirus? Why why So, hanta is a multi-segmented RNA virus. I'm going to go geeky for just a minute just so we get that out of the way. It is so it's a a segmented negative strand RNA virus. So, it's kind of like influenza in the sense that it has a segmented genome and it's an RNA virus. It's enveloped. That's important because it means that it's a kind of virus that can be readily inactivated by a variety of different kinds of agents, disinfectants. An envelope makes a virus susceptible to various types of of It's a member of a family of viruses called bunyaviruses that's quite large and uh and most of those are carried by insects. They're it's an arthropod-borne virus, usually. But, hanta is different. Hanta is in the in hanta is not just one virus, it's many different types of viruses. They're subclasses. And they each have their own name. Uh there's uh a virus um that circulates uh rarely in North America. Uh but, in this case, what we have is the Andes virus. No surprise because the cruise ship, I think, originated in Argentina or or um uh somewhere in in uh South America. Uh that for which this particular Andes Uh these uh hantaviruses are universally associated with rodents. So, this is mice and rats. Uh and uh they're the infection of humans is almost always associated with exposure to rodent feces or fecal material that gets breathed in or somehow ends up in your mouth. Okay? So, it's mucosal uh contact with rodent uh um uh detritus. Uh particularly excreted material, so poop, rodent poop. Um and rodent poop that gets dried, this virus can survive. And uh you know, becomes particulate and uh so, you hear the stories of people that went to an old house or something like that and were poking around in it and got exposed to mouse droppings. Uh And in the case of the United States, it's typically deer mice. Uh they may be camping or something like that. So, that's usually the exposure. Andes virus is different from most of the other hantaviruses because it can rarely transmit between humans. But this is not COVID. This is not um measles. This is not something that is going to cause a widespread pandemic to answer your byline for this particular broadcast. Um it is associated with rare human-to-human transmission. And that always requires uh body fluids. Let's put it that way. Uh being exchanged between individuals. So that can include fomites. Uh things that are on your hands, that you touch a surface. Uh hanta can stay on surfaces for a while. Doorknobs, tables, kitchen utensils, things like that. Uh and so if two people were sharing a meal and they were sharing kitchen utensils, they might exchange the virus. Or if they were um very amorous and and uh prone to kissing and other things. Uh yes, even old people on cruise ships do have uh kissing and other forms of interaction. Uh they they can transmit the virus between themselves. In this particular case, what appears to have happened, at least this is the official byline right now. Official explanation. Is that two a couple that were on this cruise visited an area that had a uh landfill. Refugee dump, essentially. And the official explanation is that's how they got exposed to the hantavirus. Now, um an alternative frankly more likely explanation is that rodents uh from South America ended up on the boat. Uh and that certainly is something that happens uh with boats Uh quite frequently and of course we those stories are legion. The the black plague being the notorious example in human history. So but like the black plague when you have a a boat that is sailing from one region to another and checks into a port and it has a history of novel infections occurring during the cruise. Uh typically that vessel will be quarantined. This is the origin of a lot of the original need for international conventions having to do with infectious disease. And in this case as the boat pulled into its port it's a Dutch registered ship. It's kind of an expeditionary expeditionary cruise ship. So this is not like the Diamond Princess. This is one of these smaller boats where you're you're having an adventure whether you're going to the Antarctic or whatever. And in this case it was in in South America. And a number of people got infected and it's now we have a few that have died. What happens with the uh Andes uh hantavirus is that it gets a different pattern of infection than is typical in the old world. The old world gets a uh um more of a renal syndrome. The new world hantaviruses are associated with a uh kind of a pulmonary or cardiopulmonary syndrome. And it's quite lethal. And the truth is that there are no FDA authorized remedies for this. It's people speculate that you might be able to treat it with steroids such as was done with COVID. But that's not there's so few cases of this that have ever arisen that there no real treatment protocol has been developed. So this is not highly infectious. Matter of fact quite the opposite. It's rarely infectious between humans. And if you see a cluster of humans infected usually your conclusion if you're an epidemiologist is that there is rodent material that is you know for instance in the ventilation system for the ship or people are encountering it in some environment. Maybe there's a region of the ship that has had poor hygiene. And that would be the usual conclusion. This couple both of which I think one of which is passed away and the other is quite ill at the moment last I heard. Is you know likely to have encountered it together it seems like and with these Andes Hantavirus it has a latent period of infection of kind of a week to two weeks until the real significant clinical syndromes develop. And that absolutely tracks with the timeline on this particular cruise. So is this another pandemic? No, I'm sorry. Um why is it being amplified in the press? Because it gets clicks likes and follows and sells advertising. I call this fear porn. I've called it out now for years. I called it out with the uh monkeypox outbreak. The press really likes to amplify. You know the saying, Mario, if it bleeds, it leads. Well, the kind of the new hot and sexy version of that is it if it's an infectious disease, uh then that then it leads. Then it is really good press. And uh if you want to get your article seen by many or your newspaper read or whatever it is, you know, because everything's online these days, what you do is you >> Or our our video or our video watch. My team is good at coming up with good thumbnails. Right. Okay, yeah. Right. You're So, you're an early adopter of kind of the new uh cutting edge now, which is uh reals and uh streaming. Uh so >> a I have a quick question. So, just quickly, the on the numbers, the what is concerning, so I looked it up very briefly before we jumped on the show. And the thing that caught to my caught my attention is the fatality rate. So, from what I understand, is seven to eight have caught the virus, and three have already died. It is it's likely that those many of those eight will pass away. It is highly lethal. >> This is a highly lethal virus. So, the other highly infectious. Yeah, exactly. So, then So, then I checked it it said it was not very infectious. And I asked I've got the chat the chat here with ChatGPT as I was researching it just before we jumped in. I'm like >> Well, well, there's an exception. Yeah, so I So, I was you know, I was going back and forth just to do a quick debrief. Um so, my question >> thought is thought, but you know, to each his own. >> Ah, okay. I I used ChatGPT this time around. Usually I use Grok, but I was using my other phone. Um So, then the the other thing is that the the the the the spread the the infectious rate infection rate is very, very low. Um So, then my other question is Cape Verde did not accept the ship to dock there. The next question is, why would the country not allow the ship to dock there if it has such a low infection rate? That was the thing that caught my attention. I'm like Okay, you know, Robert will probably explain it to me. So, what you're seeing is a standard protocol when a when a ship is contaminated like this. And one of the things that was done was they put medical care personnel on the ship, which is the standard protocol. So, what you're seeing here is a very standardized process that these are these are subject to international treaties. This was the origin of the World Health Organization, by the way. Uh was the creating a central structure for adjudication of these international treaties that were largely driven by exactly this kind of scenario. An infected ship comes to port. And uh so, they they kind of it's it's baked into their protocols that if you have evidence of an infectious outbreak, because it's possible theoretically possible that this virus might be some new variant. It might have mutated. Um and so, the preponderance of caution is that uh the authorities, these port authorities will always default to quarantine and blocking ship from coming into >> was my That was my next question as well. It's my first question here on the list is mutation. Could that have Is there a possibility this might have mutated and when would we know? Isn't that one of the risks you said the country might have taken into consideration that this may become something a lot more significant? Yes, absolutely. But, uh is there evidence of that at this point? No. Uh so, overreacting, uh you know, it's great press, but uh the probability is extremely low. Uh hantavirus outbreaks have been around for a long time. They're rare. They never spread. So, that would be a very unusual feature that the virus had somehow acquired in its jump to humans uh in this one specific case had acquired new mutations. Usually, the acquisition of kind of the adaptation to a new host, which is what we're talking about, um cuz the host is a rodent classically. >> Mhm. Um adaptation to a human host would uh typically involve a series of these infectious events in which a the virus is uh gradually adapting to the new host. And uh that that just doesn't fit the timeline here. Here, what we have is something that uh fits the pattern, frankly, of either these this couple was uh really good at uh maybe they were maybe they were from uh the Mediterranean, and they just like to kiss people. Uh or maybe they uh were actively involved maybe the cruise ship had uh buffets. Uh and this particular couple was uh sloppy about uh um moving food back and forth. Who knows? Uh but uh eight infected people on a large boat uh does not sound like a uh human adapted respiratory transmitted virus to me. Another for that's a valid point. Eight people on a massive cruise ship is still a relatively small number, but it's it's also it's So, in again, very limited research, it's not that small of a number, and the explanation was but because they were all together constrained on the cruise ship, that's why it spread faster, cuz usually spreads slower than that from what I understand. But then I I have a a counterpoint is that the odds of what happened with COVID the COVID the coronavirus the transmission from from what I understand that was a leak leak out of a lab I could be forgot, but there's other viruses where the transmission rate is really low. What is the risk of let's put this one aside maybe in this one, but what is the risk of we have something like COVID that ends up spreading globally. Is that something that the world should be concerned about that it may happen? And what what would you give it as a probability of something like a mix of hantavirus that we're talking about now with a 50% or more fatality rate based on the numbers from the cruise ship but spreading as quickly as something like COVID. Uh very unlikely. So, what happened with COVID was frankly an intentional engineering of a pathogen to make it more human infectious. And that was a concerted you know, gain of function research program. And we're still not to the bottom of that. Uh it it involved an international collaboration that among others uh involved the United States uh certain academics at UC Davis and University of North Carolina. And the Wuhan Institute of Virology funded by USAID and other organizations. Uh including the DOD. So, that's that's what happened there. And they specifically were engineering a virus to become more infectious in humans. That is a difficult thing to do in terms of natural evolution. Now, an example where it did break out a virus did break out in recent history was the West African Ebola outbreak. Typically Ebola is so highly pathogenic, which this virus is also. Um uh Ebola is so highly pathogenic that it would cross over from uh typically bats or bat feces, so kind of again similar, you could think of bats as flying rats or mice. Um uh and and uh you know, the child is playing in a hollow tree and and gets ex- that kind of thing or in the cave or whatever. Gets exposed, brings it back to their local village. It spreads in that local village and it's so infectious that pretty much everybody dies out in these small isolated villages. What happened in the West African outbreak was paradoxically that it the virus was uh transported probably by some poor soul uh into a major urban center. And then when that happened, what's the situation with Ebola virus is that people uh actually have a lot of virus on their skin and surfaces. And it's highly infectious. And if you touch somebody, let alone um get a body fluid contact, but you can touch the skin and get infected with Ebola virus. And unfortunately, the practice in West Africa, the dominant cultural practice is when somebody passes they have a wake and the cada- the body is left lying in state and then the family and friends come around in the wake. They cry and they touch the body, etc. Well, the body is still covered with infectious uh Ebola virus. And that's why it took off. And once it was in those urban centers then what happened was that it did seem to adapt to becoming uh more endemic uh and start to infect tissue areas, uh the eyes. Um it uh adapted to uh basically hide. Uh the eye is a privileged immuno-privileged uh compartment. Uh and you ended up with people who had kind of chronic low-level Ebola virus infection, and that's a real setup for eventual adaptation of Ebola virus to become more of a human pathogen and so forth instead of a bat pathogen. In this case with Hanta virus, we have no evidence of anything like that currently. Uh it's always possible. Uh it could well be that uh when the dust settles on all this, uh no pun intended having to do with rodent feces, uh but when the dust settles, it could be that uh we do have a problem here, and you've got a virus that's more able to jump from person to person than the parental strain. >> What would be the What numbers What numbers do you need to see to worry that, "Okay, this could be something concerning." We have right now eight cases. >> to see not so much as numbers, but evidence of a prolonged transmission chain. So, if you see it go from, for instance, this index couple, that's why you do index tracing, by the way, in epidemiology. Uh if you see it it's it's clearly we have an index case, or it appears with this couple. Uh they and let's just accept the approved narrative that they went to some place that uh had had uh rodent feces or detritus. And they got infected, and they brought it back in the boat. Now, if you if you were to do contact tracing, and I'm sure they're doing it right now, and you found out that um there are people that were in close contact with that couple, uh that uh got infected, okay? So, that's first-degree transmission. Now, what you want to see, if you want to really get yourself worked up, is you want to see those people that got infected from the index cases transmitting it to other parties, third parties, okay? So, if you see that evidence of kind of a a spread in which you have a chain, [clears throat] a sustained chain of infection. Uh even if it's just a small number of individuals, but if you see evidence through contact tracing of a sustained chain of transmission, that's the signal that you want to pay attention to, and that suggests that there has been adaptation. Unless you can clearly demonstrate that those people, the secondary contacts, uh also were engaged in, I don't know, you know, whatever body fluid exchange might have been involved, uh or they all happened to eat at the same, you know, table or or whatever, you know, if you can establish physical link, then that's that's a uh uh that frankly that would be comforting. Uh doctor, I just realized while we're speaking, I remember the hours of spaces I would do on COVID and understanding COVID, and then we started getting the reports and revelations and more evidence of it leaking from the Wuhan lab. And it's just it's clicked in my head. I'm like, "Wow, the world has really forgotten of the atrocities and the craziness of what happened just a few years ago. And just moved on like it's become the normal. First, that is terrifying. >> uh Senator Johnson >> are so vocal about it. Yeah, Senator Johnson was uh speaking >> to him 2 days ago. Yeah. I spoke to him a few days ago on the internet on the show. his hearings about what went on at FDA with Anna Sachman. What's not generally known is that Anna Sachman and myself and Bill DeMichele were in a uh group uh that uh and there's two others uh that I'm not going to name right now, ex-FDA employees. They both retired. Uh we're in a uh group that was meeting weekly uh between 2020 and 2023. I have hundreds of emails from them including a lot of the documentation that uh the senator is talking about concerning this masking problem. Uh absolutely, there was a concerted effort to uh suppress uh key information about risks and adverse events at the FDA and at the CDC. That's one of the things that I found most disgusting during my time working as the vice chair at the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices at the CDC that was uh then dissolved under court order. But um uh the there the people that are responsible for covering up this information and withholding it from the government and from the public uh are still there. Um and uh those that have left are still around. Um Peter Marks, who was a central figure, is uh working of course in the pharmaceutical industry right now and still very active. Uh so I've I've had people come down and I'm not going to name names, but uh folks that were working at very high levels at the FDA uh come down here to the farm. I'm currently that's my my my broadcast studio here is on my farm and it's an old pig barn just in case you were wondering. Uh um hence the open beam and etc. etc. But uh uh we got rid of the pig poop and and I don't think there's any mouse poop right now, but I did see a deer mouse, so I got to be concerned about >> [laughter] >> Um you said the question I want to ask you though doctor is um the leak from a lab and the research that was that was being worked on that led to that leak. That does that still continue? >> [gasps] >> Uh I don't know whether Wuhan Institute of Virology is still doing uh coronavirus >> gain of function research. Uh I Ralph Baric at UNC, this has been his main focus most of his career. I doubt that that has stopped. Uh and they we are we there's been attempts to force disclosure of uh Ralph Baric's research notes uh from the University of North Carolina and that has been blocked by uh the judges in North Carolina. So, uh this is a kind of a chronic problem and I've been investigating uh in in support of uh a presidential initiative having to do with applying artificial intelligence to uh validation of the Biological Warfare Convention compliance. And uh so I've been investigating um various outbreaks. Like for instance, there was a recent uh very odd outbreak of African swine fever in Spain right next to a USDA-funded research facility that is doing gain of function research on African swine fever. Uh and uh for some reason uh the wild hogs around that facility suddenly started dying off and they had African swine fever, which is highly unusual. That's crazy. >> when they went and investigated this uh and got viral samples uh um the courts in Spain uh made a determination because of course this would be an international scandal uh and was already uh, really compromising the pork industry in Spain. Uh, you know, China blocked uh, Spanish pork from coming in. Uh, so the courts made a determination that no, no, no. Uh, the fact that all these wild hogs were dying right around that particular facility was coincidental. Uh, and uh, oh, by the way, the viral sequencing data that would allow one to make your own judgment about whether that was coincidental has been embargoed for 10 years. Uh, um, you know, that it just doesn't stop. There's certain patterns of behavior uh, that happen again and again with with these kinds of outbreaks where the uh, the government uh, in the host country typically kind of circles the wagons and denies what happened. Uh, and blocks anybody from getting data that might contradict their official storyline. Do you worry, as a final question, do you worry we could have a a similar leak to COVID again as that research continues? We could have a Right now uh, all of us, quite literally, have uh, natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2. And I think it's uh, it's un- we we did already, by the way, have natural immunity against beta coronaviruses which are related but distinct. Uh, and that's probably a big reason why this uh, SARS-CoV-2 was not more lethal than it turns out it actually was. You know, we were scared we you know, the modeling suggested oh, we're all going to die or three out of 100 of us were going to die or whatever the number was. That turned out to be all more fear-porn. Um, so at this point that virus and uh, related viruses we all pretty much have a pretty robust immunity. Frankly, my titers are through the roof. Um uh and that probably has to do with me having stupidly accepted these RNA vaccines, but that's another story. So, I I don't think that's a huge risk, but gain of function research is a risk. There's no doubt about it. And uh I strongly support the president's position that there should be a an international treaty negotiated that bans gain of function research. Agree. Agree. Well, uh Dr., it's always a pleasure to have you on the show. It's been a very long time. Um hopefully I hopefully I won't have to have you again, cuz that would be really really bad news. >> [laughter] >> But I've I've been appointed to the UN uh um council for investigating uh breaches of the biological warfare convention. And uh when people ask me about that, I say, "I hope I never have to do that job." >> [laughter] >> Agree. Agree. Uh but it's you know, again, never really had the chance to thank you for what you did during COVID. And the you know, you continued fight despite all the attacks that you faced back then or the criticism that you faced. People have forgotten that. Um and uh thank you for still being vocal. It's a pleasure to have you on the show. Thank you, Mario. Uh so, uh you know, God bless you and all of us. >> [laughter] >> Thank you. Let's let's stay uh focused and balanced and and >> rat poop. And and avoid avoid rat poop and uh try to be immune to the uh press and its willingness to try to scare us all in order to sell clicks, likes, and follows. >> Well, we've got we've got people like you. I got the clicks to this video, so you tell them all to not worry about this video and other videos like it. >> [laughter] >> Thank you, Robert. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Um All right, everyone. I'm uh uh Robert is someone I haven't spoken to him in a long time, but he's you know, he's the best person to explain this for us. As we saw the news I'm about I saw the news this morning. I saw it my team posted it, tweeted it on my account. Now, I read it and I kind of dismissed it. I'm dealing with all the Iran drama, but I read it and I was like, "Oh, that's interesting." Um and then I saw that the ship is not docking. And I'm going through you guys might have seen me live. I was going through my calendar see what interviews I have and I see Robert Malone. I kind of huh, I know Robert Malone. He's on my show. That's nothing to do with Iran. And I click on it and I see hantavirus on my calendar. Then I realized my team um got an interview to discuss it. Um so, yeah, and I think he's educated us really well. I hope you enjoyed it. Let me know if you want me to do more interviews uh on topics like this instead of just focusing on war and geopolitics. But otherwise, I'll be going live again in exactly 13 minutes with our regular Larry Johnson to talk about the Iran war. There's some developments that just happened there while the doctor was speaking. All right, everyone. I'll see

Summary: Well, doctor, it's a pleasure to speak to you again. Been a very long time. And um you know, everyone's distracted, including myself, distracted with what's happening in Iran. And then I saw the news of a of a of of some outbreak on a cruise ship heading to to somewhere in Cape Verde, I think it was, in West Africa. Um and then I saw it's called hantavirus, something I've never heard of before. And then I heard there's casualties. I'm like Okay, well, ther…


Dr. Robert Malone on WHO Amendments (Tony Perkins)
YouTube video by Dr. Robert Malone (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ESB_zEalX4). Transcript is the auto-caption track — verbatim ASR, not a certified transcript.

Dr Anthony fouchy the former head of the National Institute of allergy and infectious diseases testified before the house oversight and accountability select subcommittee on the Corona virus pandemic yesterday now throughout his time before the subcommittee he both downplayed his influence on government pandemic guidance and denied that he sought to cover up investigations into a lab leak causing as the origins being the origins of the pandemic now despite the fireworks throughout the hearing did Dr fouchy deflect accountability or did we come any closer to getting answers well with me now to talk about this is Dr Robert Malone chief medical and Regulatory officer for the unity project and internationally recognized physician scientist who specializes in advanced development of medical counter measures to infectious diseases Dr Malone welcome back to Washington watch good to have you thank you for having me on Tony I hope you're doing well I'm doing quite well thank you I want to get your thoughts on Dr fouche's testimony yesterday in particular that he acknowledged that some of the dictates evidence yes so uh in particular the six- foot distancing but uh throughout all of this what was clear in Dr fouche's testimony was number one that he had been very well coached uh this was extremely smooth presentation uh we saw an a Shooks uh down home Tony that I uh have never seen it's not his real personality and we saw very skillful deflection and blaming of others in the case of these things like the six foot distancing mask usage Etc he put the blame for these policies that were he acknowledged were not based on science directly on the CDC and by inference on Bob Redfield who uh he does not get along with uh the the whole exercise of his presentation was fascinating to watch uh from the agulation uh that was given by particularly the Democratic side um painting him as a hero through uh the uh very collegial friendly kind of chummy uh conversation that he had with the Republican uh Council towards the end he made a number of statements in which he threw people under the bus basically uh and notably uh this gentleman Dr Moren right who has the title of being a senior adviser to Dr fouchy had been with Dr fouchy for decades um if you believe Dr moren's emails they have a close workking relationship see each other regularly it sounded like at least on a weekly basis Dr moren's has the ability to visit Tony and his home and pass documents but Dr fouchy basically acted as if he hardly knew him and uh said that the title of senior advisor was really just basically honorific uh it was just a particular governmental title it didn't really mean anything in terms of the relationship with bouchi and yet we have this series of emails in correspondence between Mr daik uh a kind of a intermediary at Boston University and Mr Morin's Dr moren's in in which uh Dr Moren is relating to Dr dazak conversations that he's having with Dr fouchi on a regular basis um down to the level of granularity of talking about Dr fouchy getting rather colorful in his language when he's expressing his sympathy for Dr dazak and all he's been through but Tony acts like Tony fouchy acts as if he hardly knew the guy this is just not credible based on the emails he also uh said that if the great barington declaration had been adopted I believe he said there would be a million more deaths that's completely at odds with the data and remember that the great barington Declaration was basically a restatement of what had been US government and wh policy up until the point when the US government adopted and who adopted basically the cccp solution uh but uh Dr fouchi uh in in his efforts to defend himself uh basically said that the authors of the great barington declaration uh would have caused a million deaths if they had had their way with people uh again striking example of Dr fouchy just going um aggressive directly against people that were saying things that were inconvenient for him this happened all the way through the testimony but he did it with a smile so let me kind of dig down on that Dr Malone to to see kind of what's behind this because when you look at the consequences and and and he you know putting on that different front maybe it's designed to just make this thing go away they can move on but there was some acknowledgement that there were consequences non-public Health consequences to the decisions for shutdowns and such but I don't see any evidence to suggest that any in the scientific field there or here in Washington are acting upon that information in fact you've been tracking the World Health Organization it looks like they're trying to cement into concrete everything that was done wrong during the covid-19 pandemic uh into marching orders for all member states cement and more really further expand uh Dr Tedros uh Power to act unilaterally and uh there's some new Clauses in there about the importance of uh nation states building capabilities in their communication systems for public health to counter Miss and disinformation there two separate statements in I think it's Annex number one right what was particularly striking about what happened in Geneva and of course I was there because I was involved in a conference that was being held simultaneously and then a protest that was held last Saturday against the World Health Organization in front of uh the UN building but uh what was remarkable was that the this um meeting of the World Health assembly which is an annual meeting of representatives from all the nations states that are members of the World Health Organization signatories uh they have uh rules about adoption of new regulations or modifications to these International Health regulations IHS and uh that requires that they complete the draft and then allow the nation states for months to review them but instead what they did is they literally worked late into the night behind closed doors to come up with these modifications to the IHS and then pass them by acclamation no actual vote uh I hear the rumor was that they even turned off the microphones uh for many of the nation states so that they wouldn't interfere in the discussions of uh among those that are were empowered to participate uh this type of unilateral Behavior Uh really arrogance seems to be typical of the World Health Organization under Mr Tedros gabos Dr Tedros uh and uh that is a another reason for serious concern about these policies that are being put in place because he's been given a lot of power he basically is completely unaccountable to anybody that's elected so let me ask you about their procedures that require these to be published in advance so that the member states can review them is there any enforcement mechanism that would require them to adhere to these stated guidelines and procedures only in the sense that if they fail to comply with these agreed upon procedures then uh multiple International lawyers uh from the UK us and elsewhere have asserted that that would make any product work product coming out of their deliberations literally illegal uh it would have no uh weight in terms of international law which is what they're trying to uh Advance is basically a treaty this uh International Health regulations is functionally a treaty and uh so by violating the rules that have been agreed upon by the member states and uh proceeding with this by acclamation rather than an actual vote and I understand that uh at least five nation states subsequently objected to this even though they asserted that it was uh unanimous uh that makes the document uh um not legally binding that's that's the enforcement is that if this was taken into International Court it would it wouldn't hold up so that that would be the remedy then for those concerned about this it would have to go to the international court and be challenged would it have to be by one of the member states who opposed or do individual citiz yeah no member states would be the ones with standing but I'm not a lawyer I'm not an international lawyer but that's my understanding what we have so that's one remedy and and that's obviously challenging and time consuming the other one has been really piloted by the state of Louisiana in which uh uh States within the United United States you know we're focused here on ourselves have uh the state of Louisiana has passed legislation that says that they will not abide by the dictat of the World Health Organization and by the US Constitution uh the right to regulate the practice of medicine is not assigned to the federal government and therefore vests to the States but this sets up is a constitutional crisis because these are being treated as treaties even though the Senate has not reviewed and approved uh and so that gets into some really dicey issues with the Constitution about the Primacy of the Constitution relative to any International treaties that are agreed upon by the executive branch this turns out to not be entirely clear in in the US Constitution as well because no one envisioned that we would be marching down this path to Global governance which is exactly what this this is I we just have a couple minutes left Dr Malone I want to I want to go back to and these two issues are very relevant to what Dr fouchy had to testify before committee uh yesterday and the World Health Organization because what we what we saw during the covid pandemic and what the bite Administration did as you talked about restricting uh communication setting up these systems by which it could be suppressed um the mandates the the closures the masking all of these the vaccinations vaccine cards vaccine cards are included digital or paper we we don't have any evidence to suggest that all of these things worked in fact in some cases it's contrary thank you Tony um yes I could I I could reach out and hug you for saying that uh precisely uh as you point out they're doubling down on failed policies and the L IC is that somehow the World Health Organization with all of its self- congratulation has has done a good job during this and that's absolutely not the case but the logic is they've done such a good job that they deserve more power more Authority and uh more Capital so is so I I want to go back to ear my earlier question is was this the coaching for Dr fouchy knowing that you he represented what the who is after after and so he needed to come in before committee and deflect it and not be combative hoping this will go away so the world World Health Organization is able to advance their agenda I I uh I wish uh I could endorse that Dr fouchy had such a global long range view my personal bias is that Dr fouchy is mostly focused on Dr fouchy and evading accountability for his role in the mismanagement of the covid crisis he showed all the signs of somebody who'd been carefully prepared as one does for instance if you're going into an expert witness situation against hostile lawyers and uh um came came across very effectively uh with this uh as Shu down home kind of tone which was uh contrasted with an audio clip that was played by one of the congressmen one of the uh Physicians who practiced uh during the covid crisis practiced emergency medicine and he played a clip in which Dr fouchy was being extremely aggressive in an interview stating that basically it was going to be necessary to force people to take the vaccine right by uh withdrawing their ability to earn a living uh um and support their families uh as a way to overcome their ideologic uh issues um with taking the vaccine as you know one of those ideologic issues is uh religious exemptions right right which they completely swept just swep aside Dr Malone we're out of time uh always great to talk with you thanks so much for uh joining us today thanks for having me on Tony

Summary: Dr Anthony fouchy the former head of the National Institute of allergy and infectious diseases testified before the house oversight and accountability select subcommittee on the Corona virus pandemic yesterday now throughout his time before the subcommittee he both downplayed his influence on government pandemic guidance and denied that he sought to cover up investigations into a lab leak causing as the origins being the origins of the pandemic now despite…