Dr. Robert Malone: Pfizer Data Dumps 'Highly Problematic' (Epoch Times)
YouTube video by Dr. Robert Malone (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTzHJfXMx3Q). Transcript is the auto-caption track — verbatim ASR, not a certified transcript.

let's talk about this is something I haven't had a chance to discuss yet with anyone um on the show so you've looked a bit at some of these data dumps from fizer right and you're saying that you're seeing things there that are highly problematic um what have you seen in there that you feel is you know the most egregious well the uh table with the 11 I think it's 9 or 11 pages of Adverse Events single line listing concatenated separated by uh semicolons so these aren't separate points line by line they are concatenated so there are multiple Adverse Events on each line in and of itself is shocking that this was known that this is the work product of the pharmaco vigilance globally of the fizer bio inch pharmacovigilance team which just uh I know pharmac vigilance is another one of these long technical terms what what the if I can break it down what it means is that after a product medical product is licensed the international standards say that the marketing company the comp the sponsor that's that's manufacturing and marketing that product has an obligation to set up a separate department so it's it's one of these kind of quality control things where a separate Silo is set up for monitor moning reports coming from patients and Physicians saying that these things have occurred after we have received this product and they have an obligation Global standards to follow each one of those reports up which is akin to the cdc's obligation with vs but the CDC doesn't take it as seriously as the pharmaceutical industry has to take it and so this is the work product from their farbo vigilance shop at fiser bio inch and clearly they did not want to disclose this information because they fought hard as did the FDA to withhold this information most of this information in these disclosure documents were available to the FDA when they made their decision that these were safe and effective vaccine products and they should be fully licensed so that the table that lists these Adverse Events in and of itself is stunning these are Adverse Events of special interest they've redacted the information about their frequency um uh there is some overall tabularize by organ category which is the like grossest highest level summary um they're not giving us the data about their event rate um uh for each specific uh category or or diagnostic code which is essentially what all these are is separate diagnostic codes um then that's that's one that's shocking you may or may not recall I think it goes all the way back to our first interview when I was talking about this Japanese common technical document dossier that Byron Bridal had obtained and and I spoke about that and and we both got plenty of uh push back from the fact Checkers back then I think none of us really recognized that whole ecosystem of what the fact Checkers were and what they have become uh but back then we all took it seriously and it seemed so unfair and they were attacking based on things that I had said and Byron Bridle had said when he' evaluated we both independently evaluated this Japanese common technical dossier what we find now with the fiser releases is that all that was true and more um so the suspicions that we had that we had inferred because we couldn't read the whole document neither of us are fluent in in Japanese um we could look at the tables and listings that were in English and draw conclusions based on that and the and the um Footers that were describing those tables but we didn't have the whole body of the document let alone have the body of the parallel document that had been submitted to the FDA we live in an era of censorship and disinformation and it can be really hard to know what's true and what's false in this information climate to get honest information and insights you can trust join us on Epoch TV you can sign up for your 14-day free trial at ep. msre trialon that's ep. msf freet trialj and just to reel back again in time I specifically called Peter marks Center Center for biologic evaluation and research and had a conference call with him this is before the vaccine license or anything else and said I was really concerned about these various things that I was seeing um and my concern was that the agency may not have had a full appreciation of some of the subtleties and nuances that I had as somebody who' been involved in creation of the original technology and he assured me that um we now they we I'm he's speaking on behalf of the agency and the government now have a much more complete uh document set from fizer and there's nothing in this is his statement there was nothing in that that worried him now I get to see we get to see what he was actually talking about and in fact everything that Byam and I had observed and more turns out to be true these were not rigorously uh characterized in terms of uh pharmacokinetics that's another big long word how long does the drug stay in your body uh pharmaco distribution where does it go in your body genotoxicity does it impact on your DNA um reproductive toxicology is it a risk for Reproductive Health in animal models and subsequently in humans now we see from these documents that that fizer knew that it was grossly overstating the efficacy they knew knew that the all cause mortality was higher in the treated groups than the untreated groups they knew that that all cause mortality was associated with cardiotoxicity they knew that many of the things that have subsequently come out had to trickle out we've had to it's like pulling teeth out of the CDC to get this information as you know because they've been so aggressively withholding things and we've had to go to Israel and Great Britain and swed Sweden and Germany and UK and Scotland to pull this information and coate it and try to make sense out of it visor knew all that um so a lot of I think there are many in the legal profession that are looking at this and um raising questions about whether in fact this does meet the criteria of fraud in terms of withholding information and whether or not it would break the legal Veil that is protecting the pharmaceutical industry from any liability because it appears that they knew of many of these risks and Adverse Events clearly they did and yet never formally doc disclosed them to patients which gets to my core as you'll recall my original original P you know under the mattress the thing that really aggravated me at the start was the breach of fundamental medical ethics having to do within informed consent and the importance of disclosing to patients fully and completely what the potential risks are and we now have clear documentation that those risks were known they were extensive and information about those risks were withheld and we have that in we have that knowledge through the fiser document dossier and the documents that are being disclosed um as well as through um the GAO report the New York Times report on President's Day Etc it's becoming more and more clear and yet the government continues to deny it the first point in this new declaration is that the you know Universal vaccination should end you praise it differently but I I understand that's what that's what the point is um so presumably that's because of your understanding of the science among the doctors in your organization can you give me an overview of how you reached this conclusion this is not something we've said trivially or lightly in any way shape or form we recognize that this is going to subject us to all kinds of derision pressure censorship attacks Etc and you know from my our prior interviews that I have always been very reluctant to come to a position where I say these vaccines are not indicated for any cohort over time as we've learned more and more about the risks the Adverse Events the all cause mortality now

Summary: let's talk about this is something I haven't had a chance to discuss yet with anyone um on the show so you've looked a bit at some of these data dumps from fizer right and you're saying that you're seeing things there that are highly problematic um what have you seen in there that you feel is you know the most egregious well the uh table with the 11 I think it's 9 or 11 pages of Adverse Events single line listing concatenated separated by uh semicolons so…


Is COVID Vaccine Dangerous? Dr Robert Malone on Joe Rogan
YouTube video by Dr. Robert Malone (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZFt3uGrJF4). Transcript is the auto-caption track — verbatim ASR, not a certified transcript.

okay so in this video i wanted to discuss a little bit of the science that was uh that was talked about on this joe rogan experience podcast with dr robert malone and so this is concerning the the coronavirus vaccines in particular the mrna vaccines which dr robert malone was involved in well he wasn't involved in coming up specifically with the covet 19 mrna vaccines but he was uh instrumental in the development of mrna vaccines in general and so this is a fraught topic to i guess put it mildly so i wanted to start with a little bit of a preamble before actually getting into the science uh and i guess to start that preamble i say specifically i'm going to get into the science of it and i'm not going to try and get into the sort of political debates or anything like that i just want to strictly look at the science uh that was discussed uh on this joe rogan experience podcast and so as a preamble to this because it's a fraught topic i wanted to point out a couple of things and so people when they are engaged in discussions on this topic are prone to two well a lot of different biases but two in particular that i'm interested in here in this little preamble is what's called motivated reasoning and the second one i wanted to discuss was called my side bias and so motivated reasoning is uh is the human propensity to to reason like a lawyer so a lawyer instead in stead of a scientist and so what this means is a lawyer is somebody who has a conclusion already so if they're a defendant then it's their conclusion is you know my client is innocent and if they're a prosecutor then their conclusion is you know is is the defendant and i was putting deep here the defendant is guilty so they they start with these conclusions uh guilty rewrite them a little bit so they start with these conclusions and then they try to argue for that case so they start with a conclusion then they go looking for arguments and evidence that proves their case where a scientist and i'll even put here an ideal scientist is somebody who gathers data first and then comes to a conclusion comes to conclusion and so the scientific method is you know humanity's best attempt to sort of mitigate this this uh motivated reasoning that everybody everybody does i do it you do it if you think you don't do it then you're probably worse than the people who know that they do it but everybody does this everybody has beliefs and then they go looking for evidence and arguments to support those beliefs everybody reasons like a lawyer so the scientific method ideally is supposed to mitigate this because we're in science the sort of you know ideal science is that you are looking to falsify your hypothesis and only you know after you've gathered data can you say well does the data uh say that the the hypothesis is wrong or right and so that is what the science the scientific method is at least supposed to be obviously scientists are people who are like everybody else engaged in motivated reasoning uh so the other one which is very related is my side bias and this uh is sort of observed in that uh that people are are good at at uh at refuting they with uh bad at refuting ideas they agree with so people are quick to refute ideas that they disagree with i put bat here that should be bad bad at refuting ideas they agree with so people are very credulous when they are presented with an argument or with evidence that you know goes that supports what they already believe in or they're likely to see it go oh yeah that that makes sense that's you know that a course of what i already believe with and so that must be true whereas when they are presented with something that goes against what they believe and they're going to be very good at picking out little inconsistencies and poking holes and things like that and so uh so with fraught issues like this with the covet 19 these two things this motivated reasoning we reason like a lawyer we start with a conclusion and then with this my side bias we can if we're presented with something that goes against what we already believe and then we're we're good at nitpicking and finding all the little possible holes but when we are presented with things that we do agree with then we are bad at looking for those holes and logical inconsistencies and things like that and we're going to be very credulous and uh sort of just continue buying into it even if it's a flawed argument or a fallacious argument but yeah anyway i just wanted to point this out because i think just in general this is important to uh remember uh you know when you're doing your own research and you're especially looking at places like news sites and things like that where people are you know trying to push an agenda most of the time they're going to run into this and so uh this is kind of uh this gets into why i want to essentially just look at the science here just look at what the science says about what uh what dr robert malone said and this video is not supposed to be a debunking i'm not trying to debunk dr malone i'm not trying to support him uh i actually hadn't heard of him before until he was on the joe rogan podcast so i don't have any sort of prior acts to grind with him or anything i just want to look at the science and see what that says uh and so like i said this is not a debunking video but this is also not you know a you know pro robert malone you know i'm on his side and this is why he's right kind of video this uh i'm trying to as best as possible uh not engage in motivated reasoning or my side bias i just want to sort of look at the science to read to you what the actual scientific papers say uh and you know then you can i guess come to your own conclusion uh using your own motivated reasoning and buy side biases i i suppose since uh those things are pretty much inescapable uh and so i guess to kind of play my biases out on the table before getting into this science here uh so i am vaccinated so i am vaccinated uh i have i have two pfizer i got my first two were the pfizer then i have my my booster which is the uh the moderna so both of them are the the mrna vaccines so i'm 36 years old as i'm making this video so you know take what you want from that what you know whatever cohort i'm in uh i'm also over weight uh and i i don't i don't exercise but i did not experience any side effects so i did not experience any side effects from getting vaccinated uh so i guess to lay my sort of political biases uh i am against against uh that should have i misspelled that against against uh the the uh the mandates so i do not think there should be mandates i'm against coven mandates i don't think the government should be mandating them i think a private business can say uh you know if you want to enter my private business then you have to be vaccinated or you have to wear a mask or whatever but i don't think the government should mandate uh mass i don't think the government should mandate vaccines so that's sort of my uh political stance on this i'm for getting vaccinated but i'm against mandates i guess is sort of to sum it up all right now to actually get into uh some of the meat of this here so i first wanted to point out this uh this here which is called the tangled history of mrna vaccines which came out in september of this year in nature and has this nice little timeline here of the history of mrna vaccines so showing you know back here in 1961 mrna was first discovered uh so you can go through here and you get up to 1989 and 1990 so this is the synthetic rna cationic liposomes so this is the stuff that uh dr robert malone actually did right here uh so this is just showing uh a timeline of uh sort of the big events in the development of mrna vaccines so we can see back here in what is it 2013 uh was the first clinical trial of an mrna vaccine against rabies and then we can kind of zoom up to here uh so mrna based copy 19 vaccines win emergency authorization in 2020 uh but anyway this will be the link the first link in the description down below and as usual everything i'll be talking about here will be linked to in the description down below uh but if you're interested in sort of the story of how mrna vaccines came to be then this will be the first link in the description down below all right and so this is a art an article that dr robert malone actually sort of cited specifically in the joe rogan experience uh video and so this was looking at uh at uh sort of well what he used it for was saying that the spike protein after taking the mrna vaccine ends up in the blood and i think he specifically said that's in the blood for weeks after getting the mrna vaccine so this is looking at so this mrna 1273 is the moderna version and so in this study there were 13 nurses so it's a pretty small sample size of 13 nurses who received the vaccine and they wanted to look at how much the the at the spike protein actually reduced in the bloodstream over time and so i've kind of fast forwarded here to sort of the the punch line of this uh you can read through the whole thing if you want like i said it'll be linked to in the description down below but uh so after the first 100 microgram dose the uh the moderna vaccine produced detectable levels of s1 antigen so that's the s1 uh subunit of the spike protein so the spike protein has an s1 and s2 which are cleaved from each other during the the viral infection uh process and so the s1 kind of gets cleaved off and that's what ends up in the blood if you get a coven 19 infection so this is looking at s1 antigen in the plasma of these nurses and so in the plasma of 11 participants spike antigen was detected in three of 13 participants uh so the nucleocastic antigen which uh is another protein in the cova 19 virus which is not present in the um in the vaccine so that's why they use it as a negative control so they look for the nucleocastid to see that all of the the spike protein that that they are detecting actually comes from the vaccine and not from you know getting infected you know sometime after getting the vaccine so nucleocastman antigen was undetectable or at background levels and all participants as expected all right so the s1 antigen was detected as early as day one post-vaccination and peak levels were detected on average five days after the first injection uh the mean s1 peak level was 68 picograms per milliliter plus plus or minus 21 picograms per milliliter s1 and all participants declined became undetectable by day 14. no antigen was detected at day 0 for 12 of 13 participants as expected however one individual will present a detectable s1 on day zero possibly due to assay cross reactivity with other human coronaviruses or asymptomatic infection at the time of vaccination spike protein was detectable in three of the 13 participants average or 15 days after the first injection the mean spike peak level was 62 grams per milliliter after the second vaccine dose no s1 her spike was detectable and by the way the the they were getting the second dose 28 days after the first dose that uh was listed uh somewhere up here uh yeah somewhere in here or it's in the um i think it might have been in this which is the supplemental material uh but anyway the so what this is saying though is uh that the s1 spike protein or the antigen which is you know the s1 spike protein was not detectable for weeks it was uh only detectable in in uh for up to five days after the first injection uh then down here after the second vaccine dose no s1 or spike was detectable and both antigens remain undetectable through day 56 for one individual spike was detected at day 29 one day after the second injection and was undetectable two days later uh we can actually look at this in their uh their um their supplementary material here so this is for each participant so this top graph here is the antigen uh days on the bottom uh in concentration so this is the one participant where they found uh the the spike protein antigen uh here on day 29 and then it went down to zero and so you can see on all these other ones that that spike protein antigen uh was staying low uh well pretty much you know after after just a few days after their first injection uh and so you know the the so once again these are for each participant looking at these top graphs on here looking at the antigen these bottom graphs are looking at the different immunoglobulins present but so the idea here is you know these spike proteins are not found uh for very long after injection of the uh of the the vaccine and so it's kind of a a stretch to to interpret this data as saying that that spike protein stays in the bloodstream for weeks after it's after the vaccine is administered and in fact there was only that one out of 13 participants that actually had it around uh for much longer than just a few days after after the injection and all of them had none of it after the second in in injection and so what that's saying is that uh the the these uh igg and iga and ign these these antibodies are actually neutralizing the spike protein and so uh after a second dose of the vaccine we're not they're not seeing any of these uh spike antigens in the bloodstream so that that's kind of important to remember when you are uh interpreting this data so it's showing that like i said uh that the that this spike protein is not staying in the bloodstream for uh for days after or for weeks after the injection as uh dr robert malone uh intimated in the in the uh joe rogan podcast interview all right so one of the other things he talked about was uh was cyrus covey to entering the blood brain barrier and so i have a couple of articles here talking about that i've highlighted a few things so this is just giving so the impact of saris cov2 and the blood brain barrier structure and function so these are sort of uh mechanisms that could possibly be be responsible for allowing the virus to enter the the brain so the blood-brain barrier so what it is showing in the top up here the top left the blood-brain barrier is not you know like this sort of wall in front of the brain that you know like this a wall around the brain it's more that these asterocytes which control sort of blood flow to to and from neurons are able to sort of filter out certain things from the blood before it actually gets into the neurons so there were a few things i had highlighted on here i wanted to show so a recent study using primary human in vitro blood brain barrier models has shown that components of these sars cova2 spike protein including s1 and s2 and the receptor binding domain can all cause blood brain barrier leakage in the absence of toxicity induction of blood-brain barrier leakage occur in response to glycosylated and non-glycosylated forms of s1 and s2 infection of primary human endothelial cells and over expressed ace ii uh with cyrus cov2 induced the over expression of clotting factors adhesion molecules and plo pro-inflammatory cytokines as well as formation of multinucleate synchitia and endothelial cell lysis together these data suggest that saris cov2 infection in contact with viral proteins could contribute to brain endothelial dysfunction and damage uh so this is talking about sars kovi to infection so this is uh this is uh not talking about the um the vaccine in particular all right so some coronaviruses for example mirrors cov2 and cytoscopy one can infect immune cells which has led to speculation that startus cov2 may enter the brain via infected immune cells uh so yeah i think this was the part i really wanted to focus on so ace ii sought to play a dominant role in uptake of stars cov2 by all tissues including the brain barriers and central nervous system tissue however several studies have presented various types of results indicating that s1 could use other glycoproteins as receptors or co-receptors including some of these different proteins here in the s1 study and i'll look at this study itself here in in a minute evidence suggests the role for s1 uptake into brain but was also suggestive that other binding sites may also play a role in contrast ace 2 played a much larger role for uptake by the lung but little or no role for uptake by other tissues suggesting other binding sites could be more important for their uptake at present our interpretation is that ace 2 is important in brain uptake but may not be the only binding site involved as a corollary of the s1 study ace2 is likely much more involved in lung uptake but other binding sites may play may be key and viral uptake by other tissues given the experimental design in the s1 study the vascular blood brain barrier is likely a site of entry into brain ace2 is expressed on the epithelial cells which comprise the choroid plexus of the sars coat and sars cov2 can infect those cells in vitro this suggests that the virus likely enters brain at both vascular blood brain barrier and choroid plexus and so this uh the study they're talking about which is their uh reference 162 is this one right here so the s1 protein of stars cov2 crosses blood brain barrier in mice and so down here so we obtain s1 proteins from two commercial sources we determined whether intravenously injected is1 could cross the blood brain barrier in mice by measuring its blood to brain influx constant so this is important to remember here uh is that they are injecting these this uh s1 uh subunit of these fight protein intravenously in this study uh as opposed to intramuscularly uh like what you get when you uh get the uh the vaccine and so here is uh their data for this so this ki is essentially uh the ability of of the spike to enter through the blood brain barrier and so uh they can we can see that this is higher than these um than these uh these controls here so the 0.295.304 is you know several orders of magnitude higher than these controls which is indicating that this is entering the blood brain barrier you can read through this whole article if you want it's you know it's interesting but also quite technical but as far as the blood brain barrier issue so like i said the one thing to keep in mind is that this is looking at intravenous uh intravenous injection rather than intramuscular and it's looking at intravenous injection of s1 protein rather than intramuscular injection of mrna so i also found these nice articles here on medium these will be linked to in the description down below so they're all by this guy xinji and uh he talks about so so dr malone talked a bit about this on this japanese biodistribution study in the um in the interview and so uh these articles talk a bit about this study so the japanese bio distribution study and i'll have that study linked even though it's uh it's in japanese and i can't read japanese which is why i had to uh find um find sort of a blogger i guess who uh was able to interpret the data because i can't read japanese so the japanese bio distribution study of fires mrna vaccine has also found that 0.02 percent and 0.009 percent of the vaccine administered dose ended up in the brain at 2 hours and 48 hours respectively and then he says down here this japanese study has also been widely misused to push the notes that mrna vaccine could concentrate in the ovaries these bio distribution data are discussed more in depth here and so that's actually this article right here uh and so i'll read through this so basically the numbers highlighted in yellow he's talking about in this image which is a figure in this uh japanese bio distribution study the numbers highlighted in yellow refer to total lipid content including both the rna vaccines lipid nanoparticles and lipid tracer thus the more appropriate numbers to look at would be the percent of administered dose highlighted in cyan over here now the numbers are no longer nerve-racking only only less than one percent of the injected mrna vaccine got into the ovaries adrenal glands heart brain and other tissues at 48 hours most of the vaccine remained in the injection site and went into the liver suggesting these lipid nanoparticles may be eliminated mostly via hepatic or you know i.e liver clearance route so you can see if we zoom in here the small percentages here of of this in these different tissues uh at at different times here uh even the dose the japanese study uses very high when controlled for weight that is 18 to 35 times higher than what is injected into humans uh as david h gorski a professor of surgery and blogger explained the human vaccine contains .46 milligrams lipids or 460 micrograms that's just let's just round up to 500 micrograms that's approximately 10 times the dose given to the rats however for the typical 70 kilogram male 1.5 milligrams represents a per weight dose of 0.0071 milligrams per kilogram let's compare that with the rats which generally weigh around 200 grams that would translate to a per weight dose of 250 micrograms per kilogram uh compared to the 7.1 micrograms per kilograms in humans that would translate to a so even if you used much older rats who can weigh as much as twice as much that would still translate to a dose of 125 micrograms per kilogram so we're looking at a lipid nanoparticle dose 18 and 35 times higher heavy as a rough estimate than the typical adult human dose the japanese biodistribution study results were consistent with pfizers that was submitted to the european medicines agency in february of 2021 pfizer also found that lipid nanoparticle encapsulated mrna vaccine was mainly metabolized in the liver and did not enter other tissues easily they also noted no effects on fertility or ovarian functions so the take home message here uh essentially being that the the rats uh that the that were injected in this this uh this japanese uh this japanese study they were injected with a huge amount compared to their weight and that yet they found only a small amount of it uh actually in peripheral tissues or tissues outside of of where the injection was placed so in places like the the liver and brain and so forth and so it doesn't seem like this uh this uh japanese uh study here this japanese biodistribution study really supports this idea that there is this you know huge issue uh of the of it going into the brain though i did find this study here which uh looked at two different patients uh who did end up getting neurological cases uh after they were vaccinated and so i put this i highlighted this because this is from uh june of 2021 uh and so uh so the these two people these two so they have case one case two they they looked at two people who did end up with neurological effects uh and we hypothesized that a post-vaccine inflammatory response resulted in the hyper-acute presentation of these lesions these cases further emphasize the need to cautiously consider and evaluate new neurologic symptoms following coveted 19 vaccinations so you can look at the actual cases if you want i'll sort of uh jump to the punch line here so we we report two cases of new onset neurological symptoms after covenanting vaccination in both cases for their diagnostic testing revealed neuro oncologic so that's uh cancer you know oncologist is a cancer doctor neuro-oncologic process that required neurosurgical intervention administration of these vaccines was unrelated to the oncologic diagnoses themselves however these two independent processes both came to the clinical forefront following vaccination we hypothesized that the inflammatory response to the covid vaccine may have played a role in increasing clinical symptoms in these patients potentially in relation to the covet 19 spike protein i'm going to kind of skip down to here although the precise mechanism of post vaccination inflammation is unknown it is known that spike proteins can initiate inflammatory cascades and cross the blood-brain barrier in covenanting infections it is possible that encoded spike proteins post-vaccination therefore across the blood-brain barrier and enhanced inflammatory responses to nascent pathology uh so it's essentially saying that there was already a pathology there uh and that this uh the vaccine sort of uh sort of made it uh worse i guess bob made it so it was no longer nascent so made it so that it was present so the blood brain bearing enhanced inflammatory response to nascent pathology within the brain following vaccine administration we believe that an augmented inflammatory response following vaccination called attention to these neural oncologic diseases by exacerbating paratumoral edema and worsening clinical symptoms and so there is this study here like i said it's looking at two cases where it seems that uh it's possible that that the the vaccine caused um caused nascent issues to actually sort of uh start presenting and so like i said so the take-home message on the blood-brain barrier thing is that it does seem that the spike protein can cross the blood-brain barrier that's what this study here was showing so when the spike protein itself is injected intravenously then it does cross the blood-brain barrier uh but if we look at this uh this japanese uh bio-distribution study uh where they inject between 18 and 35 times as much of the vaccine into mice they do get small amounts of it actually going to different organs such as the brain and the liver and places like that all right so one of the other things that was talked about in the video was uh the mrna covet vaccines causing myocarditis in and in particular in adolescence so i don't think this article so this article was essentially just saying that uh even though this uh this hong kong article which i think was referenced in the video specifically uh even though it found some cases of myocarditis uh they are still uh telling people to get the covet vaccine but if we look at some of these actual studies here uh so i'll go down here so in this population based cohort study of of a little under 2.4 million individuals who received at least one dose of coven 19 mrna vaccines acute myocarditis was rare at an incidence of 5.8 cases per 1 million individuals after the second dose and one case in 172 414 fully vaccinated individuals the signal of increased myocarditis and young men warrants further investigation then they kind of go into some of the the the limitations of their study so here cyrus kovi to vaccination myocarditis or myopericarditis population based cohort study so i will scroll down to the punch line here so among cohort members a little over 4 million were vaccinated with a saris cov2 vaccine during follow-up uh with about three and a half million individuals vaccinated with the bnt so that's the uh pfizer yeah the pfizer and then 498 000 individuals vaccinated with the moderna while the remaining vaccinated individuals were vaccinated with the johnson and johnson on the vaccinated cohort 3.4 million individuals vaccinated with pfizer and 483 000 vaccinated with the the moderna had received both vaccines all right so during follow-up 269 individuals had myocarditis or mild pericarditis of whom 108 or 40 percent were in the 12 to 39 years old and 196 were male so 73 percent of them were male so males seem to be uh more highly represented uh in people who get the myocarditis among individuals vaccinated with the pfizer and moderna 48 and 28 individuals had myocarditis or myopair pericarditis within 28 days of vaccination respectively overall individuals vaccinated with pfizer had a non-significantly increased rate of myocarditis or myopericarditis in the 28 days after vaccination compared to unvaccinated follow-up adjusted hazard ratio of 1.34 so the adjusted hazard ratio is essentially the uh number of or the percentage of people who got the vaccine and got myocarditis uh of people yeah of people who got myocarditis after getting the vaccine divided by the number of people who got myocarditis who did not get the vaccine so so and i think uh where was that yeah so this so you can we we can see here uh this is the hazard ratio so unvaccinated divided by unvaccinated is obviously going to be equal to one uh and so if we do the uh pfizer divided by the unvaccinated uh we get this 1.37 to 2.64 uh and then adjusted uh so the adjusted hazard ratio so adjusting for uh for things like age sex and priority group season and clinical comorbidities uh then it goes down to 1.34 uh and they they say that it's not significant because it's still within this uh confidence interval which is between point nine and two so if it's within the confidence interval then uh it is not statistically significant but it was saying up here uh yeah so 1.3 so yeah that's the confidence interval the point nine to two after adjustment for age sex vaccine priority and so on among individuals 12 to 39 years old we also found a non-significantly increased rate in the 28 days after vaccination individuals vaccinated with the moderna had a significantly increase so uh in you know usual parlance you think significant well that must mean big but what that is talking about is statistically significant uh so uh the it's uh the confidence interval is out or the one is outside the confidence interval so one being sort of the null hypothesis that uh that there is no change is outside the confidence interval for the moderna vaccine so that's telling us that there is that there does seem to be at least some small uptick in the amount of uh of myocarditis and myopericarditis compared with the unvaccinated population and so that's what this is saying up here but then they also tested for cardiac arrest or death they actually found that the vaccinated populations had lower rates of cardiac arrest or death compared to the unvaccinated so over here the overall absolute rate of myocarditis or myoperocarditis within 28 days of sardis cov2 mrna vaccination was 1.7 uh 95 confidence interval 1.3 to 2.2 per 100 000 vaccinated individuals the rates of the of the uh pfizer and the moderna vaccinations separately were 1.4 and 4.2 per 100 000 individuals within 28 days of vaccination respectively so yeah that is uh so that is telling us that at least with the moderna vaccine there does seem to be some uh statistically significant uptick in the number of cases of of myocarditis and myopericarditis where the pfizer in this study which as i said had uh had several million people in the um yeah so among cohort members so a little over four million uh people in the sample size so that's a pretty robust data set for that yeah these um these other these other articles that i have open up here i'm not going to go through the well i think i have some things highlighted here but i'm not going to go through these uh individually because each one of these articles could uh be you know an entire video unto themselves but these are definitely interesting to look at they're looking at how how the vaccines and the virus affect the um affect your immune system and it does seem to have some you know sort of weird effects uh you know with how it affects the t cells and stuff so this is what i found while looking into because uh because uh in the interview uh in the interview he talks about how there's this sort of you know this t cell this t cell suppression going on and then it can increase infection rates of other things like the cytomegalovirus and things like that and there does seem to be some weird things going on with uh the immune system how it uh it reprograms both the adaptive uh and the innate immune response so adaptive is the one that we are sort of trying to reprogram with a vaccine we want to have an adaptive immune response against the virus that's what the vaccine is trying to do but in this one for instance it also found innate immune responses which is sort of your just general frontline immune response and uh it found you know some some genes have been sort of uh down regulated while other ones are up regulated and there seems to be different responses to other viruses it you know it's still not clear like uh how big of a a change this is but uh you know it does there does seem to be some changes to it uh when you get these uh these mrna vaccines um but yeah uh i like i said these will all be left in the description down below uh if you want to look in them into them yourself uh maybe in the future i will go over each of these papers individually in their own separate videos uh but these these papers are really long they're very technical uh so it will take me a bit more time to sort of digest them and come up with a way of actually uh sort of presenting them but yeah if you want to look into them then i would uh highly recommend looking into those uh if you are interested but anyway i hope you found this video uh at least somewhat illuminating uh whether you've you know watched this interview or not and if you haven't i would recommend going and watching it and uh i would recommend you know looking into all the claims that he makes for yourself uh you know that it's a three-hour interview and there's a lot of things covered in it uh including you know more speculative things about you know why uh why people might want to lie about possible you know negative uh detrimental side effects of the vaccines and things like that so things that are sort of outside the science uh which is sort of what i wanted to focus on here uh sort of you know specifically i didn't want to get too much into sort of the the politics and the speculation of who's lying and you know why they're lying and and things like that i do definitely agree with dr malone that that there it there does seem to be sort of a i don't know this weird chilling effect where uh where the the free uh discussion of this issue is sort of not allowed and you know that is quite worrying so you know i will sort of uh proffer that as my opinion on sort of the political side of this so i think some of the the scientific claims that he makes are not really all that well supported but you know some of them are supported and you know there there were a lot of points in the interview where he says you know this thing or that thing is happening but there are there isn't science on it because you know the powers that be won't let there be science on it then you know that always kind of begs the question so how do you know that these things are happening if there isn't science on it yet uh but you know but i i agree with him in that if if these things do seem to be popping up if there's even anecdotal evidence of it then it does seem like it would be incumbent on the scientific community to look into those things and find out if there is any veracity to them uh but anyway i don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole this is something i mean this is like i said a three hour interview if you want to you know go down that rabbit hole even further but this video is already getting long enough uh i hope you found this uh at least somewhat illuminating in your journey to better understand this complex and fraught issue you

Summary: okay so in this video i wanted to discuss a little bit of the science that was uh that was talked about on this joe rogan experience podcast with dr robert malone and so this is concerning the the coronavirus vaccines in particular the mrna vaccines which dr robert malone was involved in well he wasn't involved in coming up specifically with the covet 19 mrna vaccines but he was uh instrumental in the development of mrna vaccines in general and so this is…


Who Is Nicole Saphier?

President Trump withdrew the Casey Means nomination yesterday afternoon, blamed Senator Cassidy, and within minutes named Dr. Nicole B. Saphier of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center as his third Surgeon General nominee in fifteen months. The first MAHA-base reaction I have seen, online and in my inbox, has been something between “who?” and “Fox News pick - sellout.” I want to push back on the second reaction before it hardens, because the documentary record on Saphier is genuinely more interesting than the press coverage has so far conveyed, and the right MAHA reading of her is not the obvious one.This piece is a working assessment, not a verdict. The Senate confirmation process is going to surface more than the public record currently shows. What follows is what I have been able to learn in the twenty-four hours since the nomination, the parts of her record that bear directly on MAHA’s questions, and the things I think are worth watching as she goes through the committee.The fact that reframes the restSaphier wrote a book calledMake America Healthy Againin 2020.That is not a typo, and it is not a coincidence. The full title isMake America Healthy Again: How Bad Behavior and Big Government Caused a Trillion-Dollar Crisis. It came out from HarperCollins’s Broadside Books imprint on April 21, 2020, and it was a national bestseller. The argument is that American healthcare spending has spiraled past seventeen percent of GDP because the system reimburses acute-care intervention rather than prevention, and because Americans themselves have allowed personal-responsibility habits: diet, alcohol, sedentary lifestyle, to drive the chronic-disease curve that the federal architecture is then asked to manage. Her data points include the figures the MAHA movement has been citing for two years: roughly eighty percent of cardiovascular disease and forty percent of all cancer cases preventable through lifestyle change; nearly one in five American deaths associated with poor diet; the federal government spending over a trillion dollars annually on healthcare. She makes those points five years before “Make America Healthy Again” was the political brand of an HHS Secretary.The book is not Kennedy’s book. The causal emphasis is different. Saphier writes from a Fox-News-aligned conservative-health-policy register, and her policy targets are the Affordable Care Act, Medicare-for-all proposals, and third-party-payer fee-for-service incentives. Kennedy’s targets, when MAHA was forming, were environmental toxins, agricultural chemistry, pharmaceutical regulatory capture, and the autism epidemic. Both frameworks land on the same operational fact: that American chronic-disease costs are the principal public-health problem of the period and that the federal architecture is structurally mismatched to addressing it, but they get there through different doors.Here is the thing that matters for MAHA. The vocabulary was already in the conservative-health-policy bloodstream before Kennedy took it up. There was a 2020 conservative-health-policy book using exactly that title, with exactly that diagnostic premise, and it was a bestseller. The MAHA movement did not invent the framing; it organized a much broader political coalition around a framing that was already partly there. Saphier was one of the people writing in that register before the political brand consolidated.That is a fact worth sitting with.Her clinical record, brieflyBefore I get to vaccines and the question MAHA most cares about, the credential summary, because the press has not laid this out cleanly.Saphier was born in Phoenix in 1982 and raised in Scottsdale. Her father is an attorney; her mother is a licensed counselor who worked with children who had experienced abuse and mental illness. She did her bachelor’s at Arizona State University, then went to Ross University School of Medicine in Dominica for her MD, graduating in 2008. From there she did a five-year diagnostic-radiology residency at Maricopa Integrated Health Systems in Arizona, then a subspecialty Oncologic Imaging Fellowship at Mayo Clinic Arizona with a focus in breast imaging. She is a diplomate of the American Board of Radiology.Her current position is Director of Breast Imaging at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s Monmouth, New Jersey facility, with concurrent service as Interim Director of Breast Imaging at MSK Basking Ridge. She has a substantive peer-reviewed publication record, co-author on multiple papers in the radiology and oncologic-imaging literature, including recent work on artificial-intelligence applications in breast MRI, deep-learning approaches to breast-imaging triage, and image-guided localization techniques.She also has the advisory-and-policy work that a serious Surgeon General nominee needs to have. She has served on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer in Young Women. She sits on advisory committees to the New Jersey Department of Health. She is on the executive and legislative committees of the Radiological Society of New Jersey.Some critics will note that Ross University is a Caribbean medical school and that this is “lower tier” than the Ivy League pipeline. I would urge MAHA readers not to make that argument. The Caribbean-medical-school path is one of the most common pathways into American medicine for first-generation and non-traditional students, and Saphier’s subsequent career: five-year residency, Mayo Clinic fellowship, MSK directorship, board certification, peer-reviewed publications, is the record of a serious cancer specialist. The Ross University detail will appear in critical coverage; the appropriate response is the documentary record of what she did after.The personal-biography element that will recur in coverage is that she had her oldest son in high school, kept the pregnancy, and has framed the experience publicly as her own decision to choose life rather than abortion; a framing she has connected to her broader advocacy on patient autonomy and personal responsibility. She is married to Dr. Paul Saphier, an endovascular neurosurgeon. They have three sons together.She has been a Fox News Channel medical contributor since 2018, with regular appearances on Fox & Friends, The Five, Outnumbered, and Mornings with Maria, and occasional commentary on Fox Business and MSNBC.The vaccine question, told straightThis is the part MAHA readers care about most, and it is the part where Saphier’s record is most genuinely mixed. I want to lay it out as it is, not as either side of the coalition would prefer to read it.In February 2021, Saphier wrote a Fox News opinion piece supporting the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for elderly and high-risk populations. She cited the Israeli population-protection data, by then the Israeli health ministry was reporting that the mRNA vaccines were 98.9 percent effective at preventing COVID-19 death among elderly populations, and made the case that prioritizing the elderly and long-term-care populations was the right epidemiological allocation. She was not equivocating on the vaccines for those populations. She supported them.In October 2022, when the Biden White House and CDC were pushing the bivalent COVID-19 booster as the answer for healthy children ages five and older, Saphier turned hard against the recommendation. She went on Fox News and called the booster rollout “a political stunt.” She argued that the safety and benefit data did not support universal pediatric administration, that ninety percent of children had already either had COVID or been previously vaccinated, that natural immunity was widespread, and that the demonstrated risk-benefit calculation for healthy young people did not support the recommendation. This was not a fringe position; it was substantially the same critique that came from Marty Makary, Vinay Prasad, and Jay Bhattacharya during the same period. But it is on the public record under her byline, in her own words, in 2022.In February 2025, during the West Texas measles outbreak, Saphier did a Fox News Digital piece on MMR that is the single most relevant documentary item for understanding her current position. She endorsed the MMR vaccine as “important and lifesaving.” She also said that for parents who are concerned, it is acceptable to delay specific shots through the developmental window during which signs of autism would typically present, roughly ages one to three, so that parents can make their own decision with their pediatrician. She framed the conversation as one that should be between doctor and patient, and said that during COVID the CDC and many healthcare professionals “really took away” that conversation. And in the same piece, she expressed hope that the MAHA movement’s vaccine-safety-surveillance work would “give parents the confidence they need to continue with the vaccine programs.”Read as a totality, the position is what I would call moderate-MAHA. She is pro-individual-vaccine on the merits. She is supportive of parental autonomy on schedule. She is critical of universal pediatric mandates absent benefit data. She is explicitly sympathetic to MAHA’s vaccine-safety-surveillance reform agenda. She is not, in any reading I can construct from the documentary record, an anti-vaccine voice in the medical-freedom register that, say, Children’s Health Defense operates in. She is also not, in any reading I can construct, a CDC-establishment-defending voice of the kind Cassidy is looking for.Whether that is enough for Cassidy is the operative question. My honest answer is that I do not know. The COVID-pediatric-booster criticism is going to come up at her hearing. The “political stunt” line will come up. So will the autism-developmental-window framing. Cassidy is going to want to know whether she would, as Surgeon General, recommend MMR universally on the existing CDC schedule, and what she would say about a parent who chose the delay-through-the-autism-window path she has publicly endorsed. She has answers for those questions. Whether they are the answers Cassidy wants is what we are about to find out.What the nomination signalsIf you read the press coverage straight, the story is: MAHA’s Surgeon General pick failed; the administration retreated to a Fox News pick to get the seat filled. There is something to that reading, but it misses what is actually interesting.The nomination does several things at once.It preserves the chronic-disease-and-prevention framework that has been the most popular part of the MAHA agenda. Saphier wrote a book about it. Her appointment is a signal that the Surgeon General’s office, under this administration, is going to be organized around that framework regardless of who occupies it. That matters for the food-and-chemical regulatory work, for the medical-school nutrition-training initiative, for the Dietary Guidelines posture, and for the broader public-communications register the office sets.It moves the vaccine question off the front of the Surgeon General’s portfolio. Casey Means’s nomination put vaccines at the center of the confirmation fight, and the Senate Republicans most committed to the existing vaccine paradigm — Cassidy, Murkowski, Collins — refused to advance her. Saphier’s record is mixed enough on vaccines that it is harder to organize a “this nominee will undermine American vaccination rates” objection around her. That is a tactical retreat, but it is also a recognition that the Surgeon General’s office is not, structurally, the right tool for the vaccine reform fight. Vaccine policy runs through ACIP, CDC, FDA, and the litigation inAAP v. Kennedy. The Surgeon General sets public-communications register. Putting a moderate-MAHA radiologist in that seat is not the loss the framing presents it as.It also gives the administration a Surgeon General with a mainstream-credentialed cancer specialty, which is the kind of credential that travels well in mainstream press coverage and in physician-community engagement. The mainstream-medical community is not going to embrace this nomination — they will note the Ross University degree and the Fox News record, and the editorial pages will run their usual coverage. But Saphier’s clinical work at MSK is real, her peer-reviewed publication record is real, and her advisory-committee history is real. These are not small things. The press shop will be working with stronger material than they had on Means.The hard question, on the MAHA side, is whether the chronic-disease-and-prevention framework Saphier brings, distinct from Kennedy’s environmental and pharmaceutical-capture framing in its specific causal emphases, counts as a continuation of the agenda or as a narrowing of it. The honest answer is that it is some of both. The food-and-chronic-disease half of MAHA is fully consistent with the framework Saphier was already articulating in 2020. The vaccine-policy half, the medical-freedom register, and the environmental-toxin and pharmaceutical-capture critiques are not her register. She will not, as Surgeon General, be the voice for those parts of the agenda. That work runs elsewhere in the department, and it has run elsewhere in the department for the entire fifteen months of this administration.What I am watchingA few things are going to tell us, over the next sixty days, what this nomination actually means in practice.The first is whether Cassidy schedules a hearing. He did not schedule a vote on Means; he scheduled a hearing and let it die. Whether he treats Saphier the same way will be the immediate signal. The Trump Truth Social attack on Cassidy was unusual in its directness, calling Cassidy “very disloyal,” referencing the 2021 impeachment vote, endorsing Cassidy’s primary challenger Julia Letlow, and Cassidy’s response will tell us whether he is willing to be the Republican senator who blocks a second consecutive Surgeon General nominee. The political math has changed since February. Cassidy is in a primary fight, and the calculation that protected him through the Means hearing may not protect him through the Saphier hearing.The second is what Saphier says about MAHA at her hearing. She has been sympathetic in her published commentary, but the confirmation register is different from the Fox News register, and she has not been asked, on the record, the questions a Senate hearing will put to her. Will she defend the Kennedy ACIP reform record? Will she defend theAAP v. Kennedyinjunction-stay litigation? Will she defend the September 22 acetaminophen and folinic-acid announcements? These are not the Surgeon General’s portfolio in the strict sense, but they are the questions the hearing will use to test her relationship to the rest of the department. Her answers will tell us how she will function alongside Kennedy.The third is what happens with theAAP v. Kennedyappeal. The federal government filed its Notice of Appeal yesterday morning, sixteen days before the appellate window expired. The government’s posture toward the appeal — whether the administration treats the First Circuit as a serious recovery opportunity or as an institutional minimum required to preserve the record, will tell us how committed the administration remains to the original ACIP restructuring. Saphier’s nomination, on the same day, sits inside that broader administrative posture. If the administration is treating both the appeal and the Surgeon General nomination as commitments to be defended on the merits, that is one reading. If the administration is treating both as institutional housekeeping, that is a different reading. I do not know yet which it is.A note on the register I am writing inSome readers have asked me, on Substack and on X, why I do not write in the harder register some MAHA voices use. The answer is the one this piece embodies: the documentary record on Saphier is mixed in ways the harder register cannot accommodate. She is not the MAHA Warrior the administration nominated when it nominated Means. She is also not the establishment-physician sellout the harder register would have to make her in order to dismiss the nomination. She is a credentialed cancer specialist who wrote the MAHA case under the MAHA title five years before MAHA was a political brand, who has a mixed but defensible vaccine record, who is sympathetic to the parts of the MAHA agenda that have the broadest public support, and who is going to be the third Surgeon General nominee the administration tries to push through a Republican Senate that has already refused two.That is the actual situation. The right MAHA response is to look at it clearly, support what is supportable, ask the right questions at the hearing, and reserve judgment until the record on the floor is fuller than the record we have today.The chronic-disease epidemic in American children is not going to be solved by any Surgeon General. It is going to be solved by the broader political and cultural realignment that the MAHA movement is one part of. Saphier, on the documentary record, is part of that realignment. Whether she is the right person for this particular seat at this particular moment is the question her confirmation hearing is about to test.I will be watching, and I will write more when there is more to say.Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public so feel free to share it.ShareMalone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Summary: A working assessment of the new Surgeon General nominee, from a MAHA vantage point


The Senator the mRNA Industry Built

The Senator the mRNA Industry BuiltTwo weeks from now, on May 16, 2026, Louisiana Republicans will vote in a closed primary that has become the single most consequential intra-party election of the second Trump term. Senator Bill Cassidy, who has held the seat since 2015, is fighting for his political life against three challengers. They are Congresswoman Julia Letlow, who carries President Trump’s complete and total endorsement and the endorsement of Governor Jeff Landry; State Treasurer John Fleming, the former congressman; and Mark Spencer.The most recent Emerson College poll, released April 26, shows Fleming at 28 percent, Letlow at 27 percent, and Cassidy at 21 percent. Twenty-two percent of voters remain undecided. The senator’s path to the runoff is narrow and getting narrower.A development from the past 72 hours bears registration before the substantive argument begins. On April 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court ruled inLouisiana v. Callaisthat the state’s current congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The day after the decision, Governor Landry signed an Executive Order suspending the closed-party primaries for U.S. House races only until July 15, 2026, or until the Legislature redraws the maps. Secretary of State Nancy Landry’s official statement made clear that all other races on the May 16 ballot would proceed as scheduled.Senator Cassidy’s public reaction to the governor’s decision is itself worth registering. Within hours of Landry’s executive order, Cassidy posted on X that “the governor’s decision to move ahead with the Senate race during a confusing time is disappointing.” It is an unusual move for an incumbent senator to publicly object to his own state’s governor for proceeding with his primary on the originally scheduled date.The reason it happened is straightforward enough: Cassidy is running third on the most recent polling, and a delay of his primary into July or later would have given him weeks to consolidate institutional support, allow national press attention to shift, and possibly insulate him from the redistricting drama that is dominating Louisiana political coverage. Governor Landry, who has endorsed Letlow, declined to extend that lifeline. The senator’s “disappointing” statement, directed at his own state’s Republican governor two weeks before voting, is the response of a man who knows the math.A great deal has been written about why this primary matters. Most of the coverage has focused on the obvious: Cassidy’s 2021 vote to convict Donald Trump in the second impeachment trial, the President’s resulting determination to drive him from the Senate, the spectacle of an incumbent Republican facing a credible primary challenge in a state Trump carried by twenty-two points. That is the political surface of the story.The deeper story, the one that should matter to anyone who has followed the MAHA movement’s first fifteen months in federal power, is something the political coverage has barely touched. Bill Cassidy is not just a Republican who voted to convict Trump. He is the senator most directly responsible, on the documented record, for the institutional containment of Secretary Kennedy’s MAHA agenda.He is the senator the mRNA industry’s principal lobbying organization has been engaging with since July 2023, before Kennedy was even nominated. And he is the senator who, in February 2026, used his Senate HELP Committee chairmanship to publicly confront NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya over the very mRNA grant terminations and contract cancellations that the President’s own Health and Human Services secretary had ordered.This essay lays out the documentary record. It argues that the record, fairly read, makes Cassidy’s primary defeat not just a Trump loyalty question but a substantive policy question, a question about whether the MAHA agenda will continue to be contained by a Senate health committee chair operating in alignment with the very industry incumbents the agenda was elected to confront.Louisiana voters have an opportunity, on May 16, to settle that question.Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The Cassidy Confirmation ConditionsThe contained-MAHA story begins on February 13, 2025, the day Bill Cassidy announced he would vote to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services. The vote was 52 to 48. Cassidy was the deciding Republican; without his vote, the nomination would have failed. The Senate health committee chairman had spent the preceding weeks publicly wavering, and his eventual yes was conditioned on what he described as “a series of promises from Kennedy aimed at protecting faith in vaccines.”Those promises, as Cassidy later detailed in his floor remarks and in subsequent interviews, included commitments that the Kennedy HHS wouldmaintain unchanged the existing CDC vaccine schedule, would not seek to remove vaccines already on the recommended schedule without conducting evidence-based reviews, would maintain the existing Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System rather than replacing it, would seek Senate input before making major changes to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and would refrain from using HHS authority to discourage childhood vaccination broadly.Every one of those conditions was structured to preserve, in its essentials, the pre-2025 vaccine-policy status quo, the status quo that the MAHA movement’s most committed adherents, including the millions of Americans who voted for Trump-Kennedy on the explicit promise of vaccine-policy reform, had been organizing against for fifteen years.The Cassidy conditions were not, in retrospect, the act of a skeptical senator preserving institutional integrity. They were the act of a senator with a specific structural relationship to the mRNA-platform pharmaceutical industry, exacting policy concessions on that industry’s behalf as the price of allowing Kennedy’s confirmation to proceed.The Alliance for mRNA MedicinesIn November 2023, more than a year before Kennedy was nominated, a new pharmaceutical-industry trade association quietly registered itself in Washington. Its name is theAlliance for mRNA Medicines (AMM). Its founding members numbered thirty-one. Its operational vehicle was Leavitt Partners, the Washington consulting firm founded by former HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt, under George W. Bush. Its Executive Director, Clay Alspach, is a Leavitt Partners principal and former Chief Health Counsel for the House Energy and Commerce Committee under Representative Fred Upton, where he led the committee’s work on the 21st Century Cures Act and other major health legislation.The Alliance for mRNA Medicines did not exist to lobby for the mRNA platform’s continued commercial viability against competitive threats from other pharmaceutical platforms. It existed to lobby for the platform’s continued regulatory and political insulation against the mRNA-skeptical political movement that, by November 2023, was clearly emerging as a major force in American politics.AMM’s first inaugural Washington meetings, which the organization itself documented on its LinkedIn account on July 27, 2023, four months before its formal founding, were not held with random congressional offices. They were held with a specific list of officials whose positions on mRNA platform policy mattered.The list, as AMM publicly disclosed: SenatorBill Cassidy. Representative Brett Guthrie. Then-FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Peter Marks. Cancer Moonshot leadership. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy leadership. Senior staff for Senators Gary Peters and Bob Casey.Senator Cassidy was on that list before the Alliance for mRNA Medicines had its formal founding meeting. He was on that list because his position on mRNA platform policy mattered to the industry building the lobbying organization that would be deployed against the MAHA movement’s agenda eighteen months later. The senator and the trade association have been documented as engaging with each other since July 2023, before Kennedy was nominated, before Trump’s 2024 victory was assured, before Cassidy cast the confirmation vote that placed Kennedy at the head of HHS subject to the conditions Cassidy himself had extracted. It does not appear that his clear conflict of interest was disclosed to the Senate at the time of the vote, or the public at large.By late April 2026, AMM’s membership has grown from those original thirty-one members to more than one hundred. Moderna and Merck were added to the public membership roster in the period since the Kennedy HHS confirmation.The trade association has continued to engage with Senator Cassidy’s office throughout the period the MAHA agenda has been advancing. AMM’s news platform amplified Cassidy’s February 3, 2026 Senate HELP Committee hearing on NIH modernization, the hearing at which Cassidy publicly confronted NIH Director Bhattacharya over the cancellation of $500 million in HHS mRNA contracts and the termination of mRNA research grants the Kennedy HHS had determined did not meet evidentiary standards. At no time during this hearing, did Cassidy disclose his affiliation with AMM.This is a documented chronology. Every claim in the preceding paragraphs is sourceable to AMM’s own public communications, to Leavitt Partners’ corporate disclosures, to LegiStorm’s lobbyist-registration database, to the Senate HELP Committee’s published hearing record, to Cassidy’s own February 3, 2026 press release, and to contemporaneous reporting bySciencemagazine, by Holland and Knight, and by the trade press. None of it is contested.What is contested is what the chronology means. I will offer my reading.What the Documented Chronology MeansA senator the mRNA industry has been engaging with since July 2023 cast the deciding Republican vote to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as HHS Secretary on the condition that Kennedy preserve the pre-2025 vaccine-policy status quo. After the confirmation, that same senator, chairing the Senate committee with oversight over HHS, has used his chairmanship to challenge the Kennedy HHS at every major decision point the MAHA agenda has required.When the reconstituted Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted in September 2025 to end the universal recommendation that newborns receive the hepatitis B vaccine on the day of birth, Cassidy publicly called the decision “a mistake” and signaled openness to legislation that would constrain the ACIP’s reform authority.When Vinay Prasad, the new FDA CBER Director, issued the November 2025 memorandum identifying ten of ninety-six pediatric VAERS deaths as related to COVID-19 vaccination, Cassidy described the memo as having “diverged from standard pharmacovigilance practice” and called for senate hearings on the FDA’s pharmacovigilance methodology under the new HHS leadership.When theAAP v. Kennedypreliminary injunction was issued by Judge Brian Murphy on March 16, 2026, Cassidy did not publicly defend the Kennedy HHS’s reform program; he registered concern about the injunction’s procedural findings while declining to take a position on the underlying ACIP reconstitution.When the Kennedy HHS announced the cancellation of $500 million in mRNA contracts in early February 2026, Cassidy convened a Senate HELP hearing which he publicly confronted NIH Director Bhattacharya on the record.This is not the conduct of a senator skeptically supervising an HHS Secretary he had reluctantly voted to confirm. This is the conduct of a senator using his committee chairmanship to advance a specific policy position, the position the Alliance for mRNA Medicines has been advocating since July 2023.I do not claim that AMM bought Senator Cassidy’s vote. I claim something narrower and harder to refute: the documented chronology establishes a pattern of alignment between Senator Cassidy and the mRNA-industry lobbying organization that is, on the documentary record alone, structurally consistent with the regulatory-capture analytical framework the MAHA movement was elected to confront.The senator is on the wrong side of MAHA. Supporters of the MAHA agenda represent a decisive majority of his Republican primary electorate, who voted for MAHA-aligned change in November 2024.The May 16 ChoicePresident Trump endorsed Julia Letlow on January 17, 2026, preemptively, before she had announced her candidacy. He called her a “Great Star” and a “TOTAL WINNER” and wrote, in characteristic punctuation, “RUN, JULIA, RUN!!!” Three days later, on January 20, Letlow announced her candidacy at a closed-door business breakfast in Baton Rouge. Governor Jeff Landry has endorsed her. The America First political infrastructure has aligned around her candidacyLetlow is, what Cassidy is not: a member of Congress who has consistently supported the Trump administration’s agenda across the issue spectrum, including the MAHA agenda’s component policy positions. She has voted for the major appropriations vehicles supporting the Kennedy HHS reform program. She has not publicly broken with Secretary Kennedy on a single major decision. She has not, to public knowledge, met with the Alliance for mRNA Medicines or its operational principals. She has the policy positioning Louisiana Republicans voted for in 2024 and the willingness to defend that positioning under pressure.State Treasurer John Fleming, the former congressman, is also running. Fleming has substantial conservative credentials and would not be a bad senator. But the analytical case for ending Cassidy’s career rests on the specific documentation this essay has laid out, and the analytical case for replacing him with Letlow rests on the endorsement structure: Trump, Landry, and the America First coalition has aligned around her candidacy specifically.A vote for Letlow on May 16 is the clearest available signal that Louisiana Republicans want their senator to be aligned with the MAHA agenda rather than aligned against it. A vote for Fleming, on current polling, risks splitting the anti-Cassidy vote in ways that could let the senator survive into the runoff with a structural advantage from incumbent name recognition.I make this case as the author of the recently completed “The Chronic Rebellion” (Authors Drs. Robert and Jill Malone), a definitive history book that comprehensively documents the MAHA movement’s first fifteen months in federal power. The research performed for the book strongly supports this assessment.  The case is not about Donald Trump’s grievances, though those are real and the President is entitled to them. The case is about the specific structural relationship between Senator Cassidy and the lobbying organization that has been working against the policy agenda the President and Secretary Kennedy were elected to advance.A senator who entered an alliance with the mRNA-industry lobbying organization in July 2023, who used his confirmation-vote leverage to extract conditions structured to preserve the pre-2025 status quo that lobbying organization was protecting. Who has used his committee chairmanship in 2025–2026 to publicly challenge the Kennedy HHS at every major decision point of the reform program.  This is a senator who should not be returned to the Senate for a third six-year term.Louisiana Republicans have the opportunity, on May 16, to end Bill Cassidy’s career by electing Julia Letlow. The opportunity exists in this specific election because of an unusual conjunction of factors: a presidentially-endorsed challenger with the coalition needed to consolidate the anti-Cassidy vote, a primary calendar that places the decision two weeks before the Memorial Day weekend, and Julia Letlow’s pro-MAHA record, which is supported by Republican voters.The opportunity will not return. Cassidy’s structural advantages: incumbent fundraising, committee chairmanship, NRSC backing, the support of Senate Majority Leader Thune, will not be matched in any subsequent election. If he survives the primary on May 16, he survives for six more years. The MAHA agenda will spend those six years contained by a Senate health committee chairman whose alignment with the lobbying organization opposing that agenda is documentary fact, regardless of whether the causal chain is established.The choice for Louisiana voters on May 16 is whether to let that happen, or whether to use the closed primary the state has scheduled to make sure it does not.I urge Louisiana Republicans to vote for Julia Letlow.Robert W. Malone, MD, MSMay 2, 2026The documentary record on the Alliance for mRNA Medicines and Senator Cassidy is laid out at greater length, with full source citations, in Chapter 13 ofThe Chronic Rebellion: How American Parents Built the MAHA Movement Out of Their Children’s Illness, forthcoming in 2026 prior to the midterm election.Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public so feel free to share it.ShareA Note for Louisiana Readers: Five Days Before the PrimaryThe argument this essay has made about Senator Cassidy applies, in different forms, at every level of American governance. The same trusted-association networks, professional-society infrastructures, and coordinated-policy-distribution mechanisms that shape federal vaccine policy also shape what happens in fifty state legislatures. The lobbying organization documented here is one node in a larger architecture, and that architecture operates as visibly in Baton Rouge as it does in Washington.On Monday, May 11, 2026, five days before the primary, I will be speaking in Baton Rouge at an event hosted byCitizens for a New Louisiana, the state-level government-accountability organization that has spent the last several years documenting how policy is shaped in Louisiana before bills are ever filed.The event is titledChampions of Change Baton Rouge: How Policy Really Gets Made. It runs from 6:00 to 8:00 PM at the City Club of Baton Rouge, 355 North Boulevard. I will be sharing the program withNoah Wallof the State Leadership Initiative, whose work examines how policy is developed, packaged, and distributed across all fifty states through trusted associations and professional networks, often moving in coordinated ways that are not immediately visible to the public.Wall’s analytical framework and mine converge on the same structural question: how do the institutional networks operating between elected officials and the citizens those officials are supposed to represent actually shape what becomes law? The federal-level chronology this essay has laid out is one answer. The state-level chronology Wall and I will discuss in Baton Rouge on May 11 is another. For Louisiana voters preparing to cast their ballot on May 16, the connection should be obvious: the same dynamics that produced a senator structurally aligned with the mRNA-industry lobbying organization are also operating, in different forms, at the statehouse. Understanding the mechanism is the first step toward changing the outcome.Tickets are $125 for general admission, with table sponsorship options available at $1,500, $2,500, and $5,000 levels. Seating is limited and the event has historically sold out. Information and registration are atnewlouisiana.org, or by calling Citizens for a New Louisiana at (225) 242-9742. If you are a Louisiana reader of this Substack, and especially if you are a Baton Rouge–area reader who has been following this analytical thread across multiple essays, I would be glad to see you in the room on May 11. We will have a great deal to talk about, and the timing, five days before the most consequential intra-party Senate primary in the country, could not be more relevant.In case you were wondering, I did not ask for and will not be receiving any honorarium or compensation for this appearance other than my travel and lodging expenses.  It has been my pleasure and honor to have traveled to Louisiana many times to support the MAHA moms and the Health Freedom movement (with and independently from Secretary Kennedy), and consider Governor Landry and good friend of both Jill and myself.  As a fellow equestrian, he always asks us about how our horses are doing.

Summary: Why Louisiana Republicans Should End Bill Cassidy’s Senate Career on May 16


Friday Funnies: The Turducken Dance

It may sound like a small gripe, but when did looking like you do not care become the norm?What is even more striking is who it shows up in. Young, single women. The group that, not long ago, took pride in presenting themselves well. Now you see the opposite. Little attention to appearance, little attention to health, little evidence of discipline in how they care for their own bodies. Poor diet, no exercise, and an overall posture of disengagement.It gets dismissed as rebellion or some cultural statement. I do not buy that. What I see, as a woman, is something much simpler. It is easier to give up than to do the work. Easier to opt out than to invest in yourself.Then comes the next step. Blame men for not measuring up. Raise standards while lowering effort. Walk away from dating. Walk away from marriage. Convince yourself you do not need a family. Replace it with a tight circle of friends and a pet or two for companionship.And call that independence.It is not independence. It is retreat.And it is profoundly sad.Participation trophies…What used to be called indulgence has been rebranded in softer language. Permissive parenting. Gentle parenting. Soft parenting. The labels sound thoughtful, even compassionate. The outcomes tell a different story. Expectations lowered. Boundaries blurred. Rewards handed out with little connection to effort or achievement. Whether it is children or even pets, the impulse to placate has replaced the responsibility to teach.Across homes and classrooms, a cultural shift has taken hold. Comfort is prioritized over discipline. Validation is handed out in place of accountability. Standards that once prepared young people to function in the real world have been quietly dismantled.We now have a generation of young adults for whom an easy A is the norm. Not earned through mastery, but granted for showing up. Participation, not preparation. Presence, not performance.At the same time, they are being told a story. From social media, from peers, and too often from the adults around them. That being unwell confers status. That victimhood brings recognition. That hard work is for those who failed to game the system. That society owes them. Not just opportunity, but outcomes. Resources, money, subsidized housing, endless concessions. The able-bodied are told their role is to provide, not to build. To redistribute, not to create.This is not the old “me” generation. This is something different. A worldview that assigns moral authority to grievance and treats dependency as virtue.The result is predictable. Young adults who are unprepared for the demands of real life. Unprepared for responsibility, for resilience, for the basic discipline required to sustain a career, a relationship, or a family. And deep down, many of them know it.Because opting out is easier. Easier to lean into anxiety, depression, or disengagement than to confront difficulty. Easier to remain on the couch than to step into a world that demands effort. For many, especially young women, the consequences are already visible. Delayed families. Fragile relationships. Metabolic disease. Careers that never quite launch.This did not happen by accident. It traces back to parenting. To the choices made, repeated, and normalized over years.Perhaps this generation will recognize what was lost and choose differently when it is their turn. Perhaps they will rediscover the value of discipline, responsibility, and earned success.Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public so feel free to share it.ShareHave a great weekend everyone!JGM

Summary: It's what for dinner


Sunday Strip: Y,al better Know Who Cooked It

Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public so feel free to share it.ShareMalone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.JGM

Summary: Know the rules...