PBD Podcast - Dr. Robert Malone | PBD Podcast | EP. 113

Episode Date: January 7, 2022

PBD Podcast discusses current events, trending topics, and politics as they relate to life and business. Stay tuned for new episodes and guest appearances. Follow Robert Malone on Gettr: https://bit.ly/3HDkJmw Check out Robert Malone's website here: https://www.rwmalonemd.com/ Link to article for insurance numbers: https://www.thecentersquare.com/indiana/indiana-life-insurance-ceo-says-deaths-are-up-40-among-people-ages-18-64/article_71473b12-6b1e-11ec-8641-5b2c06725e2c.html --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/pbdpodcast/support

Gentlemen, we're live. Okay, so thank you for making the time for being here. It's my pleasure, thanks for having me. So you are right now probably the most popular trending name in America. I would say you're loved and hated at the same time. Is that a fair assessment of where you are today? Absolutely. Okay. So we're going to do the impossible today.

This is my challenge for myself and see if we can pull this off or not. I would assume that folks at YouTube, they follow our content very closely, especially when we do some of the interviews. I'm one that's a fan of YouTube. I'm one that I think YouTube is a very, very important platform in a marketplace right now. I think it's something where it's a great opportunity for us to do debates and folks make a decision for themselves

and people like yourself can come and make an argument. I hope the people at YouTube allow this interview to stay up, let the audience make a decision, and if they don't like the way I interview you, take it down. If they like the way I interview you, I hope they leave it up because I think millions of people need to hear what you need to say and make a decision for themselves.

So folks at YouTube, give us a shot, we have a bet here, just so everybody knows. Our bet is, I can't say the names, but it's fair to say, well, I made a bit wager here, on how long everybody thinks this interview is going to stay up. Our bet is I can't say the names, but it's fair to say, well, I made a bit wager here, on how long everybody thinks this interview is going to stay up. We have from 45 minutes to some longer, some shorter, but we're going to see what people are going to say.

Having said that, let's get right into it. So, number one question before we go through all of these things. First thing I'm going to do is I'm going to go through reasons why people dislike you, disagree with you. Your last tweet I was able to pull up on Twitter, on whether that was the cause on why you were taking down. And it will go through a lot of different stories. Recently, obviously, we're on the Joe Rogan podcast,

over 50 million downloads. It's been said as the most popular podcast that they've done on Spotify and Spotify is kept it up, a couple of short clips that you had on, have been taken down. Many of the short clips, I say, Dr. Robert Malone, have been taken down. The one word that's concerning a lot of different people is mass formation. The following word after that, which Forbes has been talking about, maybe we'll get into

that a little bit as well. And I'll push back on that with you. But a few different things here. Why do you think, why do you think so many people are trying to, you know, silence you from having people here what you have to say? There's got to be a reason for somebody to say, listen, this guy's doing more harm than good. What do you say to those people? So we're this and it partially relates to mass formation, this theory of Matthias Desmond, not my theory. And it partially relates, it goes back to a very active

campaign to promote two people for the Nobel Prize. If you track back to the origin of a lot of these attacks, it goes back to the very concerted effort that was mounted by BioNTech Fizer and by UPIN to promote Curricle and Weissman for the Nobel Prize. And they got most of the major prizes. They got the Lasker Award, which by the way is managed by an investment fund, but they didn't get the Nobel. And it was fascinating watching this play out.

It was a standard concerted campaign. And there is a school of thought that if one wishes to win the Nobel Prize, you have to use mass media in order to influence the committee. And so I saw this playing out, particularly my wife did, which is what kind of sparked all of this off, is I was being written out of history in Wikipedia and in every other platform.

And people were, it's basically a stolen valor situation. People were taking credit for what I did in the late 1980s. I've never denied what they did. I've never attacked what they did. I've never attacked what they did. It is, it's a scientific effort that they have published. Why would they do that? Because, Kai, can you do me a favor? Can you pull up the article I gave you

from, I gave you an article in regards to who came out with mRNA? If you can pull that article out, it's not that one. It's one of the most recent ones I just sent you. This is a... You're talking about the nature one? That one right there. Okay, so this article came out because the biggest thing is, when I go online and I see where people give you a lot of criticism is, he has on his LinkedIn

profile that he's the inventor of mRNA, right? That's what they say. So let me kind of put this on there and see what you're going to be saying. So I go online and there's this doctor called doctor Eric Toppil, if I'm pronouncing his last name correctly or not, and he's followed by some credible people. It's not like he's not followed by credible people. Yeah, he is, he is part of the mainstream narrative has been going to fair enough. He said on a related matter, Dr. Malone, who asserts he is the inventor of mRNA vaccine, The related matter, Dr. Malone, who asserts he is the inventor of mRNA vaccine, and actively cultivates vaccine skepticism, is not and has admitted that fact. And then he puts the links below and talking about two other people.

And then he brings up this picture of UNA's tweet. But if you read this article, go all the way to the top. And the article that says, go all the way to the top, all the way to the top and the article that says go all the way to the top all the way to the top. How scientists drew wise men, MED87, GRS87, and Catalan Carrico developed a revolutionary mRNA technology inside COVID vaccine. While I'm reading through this article, there's not a single mention of your name in here. And in the comment section, some people say, if you can do control F-type and Malone, do control F and type and malone, the only place you see this is in the bottom by John Carter, whoever commented this on January 3, 2022,

which is three days ago. This article is complete rewrite of history, no mention of Dr. Malone who claims to have discovered in vitro and in vivo RNA transfer of affection at the Salk Institute in 1987, and that he later invented MRN vaccines in 1988. This pre-dates anything cited here. So, your claim is I'm the inventor of this. They say you are not, they don't mention any of the names. Why are they saying that and why are you saying the UD inventor?

So the reason that I'm saying it is because I have nine issued patents that have my name on it that were filed in 1988. OK. OK. And this is public information. It's widely available and never cited. So for instance, the Nature article

of the Tangled History of mRNA vaccines, which I was, I provided that author with extensive access to deep information, including the primary invention disclosure, which I validated by allowing him to speak, enabling him to speak to the scientist, Mark Kendi, the cross-signed it. I think it was 1987 or 1988. You said enabling him? Who is him? I'm speaking of the author of the article in the Tangled History of mRNA that was published in

Nature. None of these articles have cited the patents that have been part of this mainstream press narrative all the way through, including, so this traces back to the, let me roll back a little bit more. True Weissman is a Tony Fauci postdoc. Katie Carrico is literally a former Hungarian spy. Can you type that up there? Just type in her name? Yeah. And type in Hungarian spy. Because I want us to just go back to the article prior to that, go all the way to the top.

It's in the European press. My goal is by the end of the interview. Just type in a copy paste to her name. Yeah, but I recommend you just don't use Google. And then go do copy paste. What would you like us to use? Okay, go to duck.go and type in her name and Hungarian spy. Hungarian spy. So just so you know, nothing pops up so far. Okay, the typical Hungarian story when I was on the conspire. I'm COVID-19 accident. So let's sit there. There's no more names.

I'm a Pfizer. There we go. Second click, your own news. Second one. There you go. That's third one. This is. So this is.

Soviet air goes returns to a hot COVID-19 vaccine scientist. Kyrgyzga has just got her job as a journalist. I agree. In 1978, the secret police knocked on her door. Kyrgyzga has just got her job as a conglomerate in 1978, the secret police knocked on her door. Kyrgyzga was given a choice, agreed to cooperate with the Communist State Security apparatus, or accept that her career in scientific research was over before it had begun. I knew how the system worked. I was afraid so I signed a recruitment document, she signed.

So this is her response. There's multiple other publications to go back back and I was contacted by people from Hungary early on in this and said look This is what we know about her who has verified that she was a Hungarian spy. There's a credible multiple articles Do you know any one of them they can like no I can you can easily search and find okay? So fair enough Go ahead. You're saying so she's a Hungarian spot. So these two have an interesting history background. Okay. Katie, I learned about Katie, she contacted me. It was almost a decade after I had done the original work.

I was working at UC Davis as a assistant professor. Okay. And you can find this, the footprints of this interaction in her first mRNA-related paper, in which she not only cites my work as one of the standard academic citations, but she lists in the acknowledgments appreciation for my interaction with her. She called me, I put her in touch

with junior people in my laboratory group, another assistant professor, I put her in touch with junior people in my laboratory group, another assistant professor, I put her in touch with a professor at UC Riverside who had done key work in mRNA, 5 prime and 3 prime and translated region interactions. And did anything I could to help her invited her to a conference in anapolis that I had set up that I was organizing and actively tried to help her move forward with her work. This is all literally just about a decade after I did my work. So she is very aware of what I had done. I helped her early on. And then when she and Drew Weissman

wrote their initial review paper, where they talked about mRNA and mRNA vaccines, which is what this whole thread builds off of. They grossly minimized my contributions. Why would they do that? And how could they do that? This is way science is. Science is a wicked competitive business and it's easy to do. You just it's you under sight or you miss sight or you fail to sight. So let me ask you let me ask you this. For me my experience have been for whatever reason doctors are extremely arrogant and very cocky almost like a God what's the word I'm looking for. He the hubris might be a word. a God, what's the word I'm looking for?

Hebrews might be a word. Hebrews might be the word, but more like the feeling of, I'm God, I know what I'm talking about, I'm the expert. It's insanely competitive. It's all about money and power. So, but here's the point though. When I do a lot of the research,

when people come, I'm not in your world. So all I'm doing is I'm just speculating stuff and I'm trying to get a little bit closer to the truth by asking people on both sides. So, you know, most people will say, nobody ever invented a vaccine. It's co-inventor. You did it with a group. There was a group of people that had to do it. That is the criticism.

So let me play some feedback. Sure. It's a metaphor. Just because a group of engineers designed the 737 Max, it doesn't mean that the Wright brothers didn't invent powerflight. The core technology and the applications are disclosed in nine issued US patents and multiple foreign patents that were filed in, I think it was March 1988, and another patent that was filed by the Salk Institute, but dropped, and it was filed on exactly the same day. So there, this whole issue, this is why, you know, and it's, frankly, it's my wife that

is really, really pissed off about all of this, about this stolen valor, is because she lived through it. It was an incredibly stressful period in our time. I don't understand how that's possible, though, doc, because Steve Jobs can talk about, he invented the technology. Everybody in the world knows it's wasnyac. Nobody can take that credit away from wasnyac.

That was a 1977, 1976. So there has been a concerted campaign to write me out of history all the way through. Why though? Because of the Nobel. Okay, so then I read another article that said something about the fact that this man is so confident, he's so semi, you know, you can't even tell him anything,

it's hard to communicate with him. I'm sure you've read this article yourself as well. I'll find it and I'll give it to you. I can understand that part, meaning I can understand working with a personality that is unreasonable, that is extremely confident, their ways of doing things, that maybe they rub people the wrong way. So would you say you're somebody that maybe through a career, rub some of your peers and colleagues the wrong way? Because that could be a reason.

For sure. OK, cool. There's been times in my career, especially when I was younger. I was very confident. I came out of an intensely rigorous training environment at UC Davis with a mentor, two mentors, one in particular, the just was on a daily basis in lab meetings, stand and deliver whatever the data, what are the controls, bang, bang, bang, bang.

And I came out of that, I was cocky. Guy, and it's part of why I experienced what I experienced intense hazing at the Salk Institute. Them hazing you? Yeah, okay. And there's a long history of hazing of young people at the Salk Institute, but that's a tangent, okay? We're really, that's a rabbit hole.

Absolutely. When I was- Who did you piss off coming up? Folks, by the way, if you're listening to this, couple things I don't want to tell you is we are extremely thankful that Dr Dr Robert Malone agreed to flee out flow out fly out here David. How long has this been scheduled for this has been scheduled for a few weeks? Yeah, yes two or three weeks two or three weeks

But you one one of my suggestions. I want to make to you folks share this with anybody You know because it is live and we don't know how long it's going to stay live. And if you, if there's any chance it's gets taken down. Text us at 310-340-1122, 310-340-1132 with the word Malone. Just put Malone, M-A-L-O-N-E. We will get you the link on an interview that may be elsewhere, but we are optimistic that YouTube's going to allow this to stay on. So let's go back to the question I was asking you. Who did you piss off coming up? We all, I'm a very competitive guy. I've been in the financial industry for 20 years.

So the name is Indoverma. Indoverma. Okay, Inder was my mentor. Okay. Can we Google Indoverma? Please do. Yeah. Google Indoverma Science magazine. Inderverma Science magazine. Inder Verma Science magazine.

Yeah, okay. Key words. All right. It's his name. There we go. There we go. There we go. Right?

So, yeah, you got to put a space in your space, Verma. Kai, it's pretty impressive what you're doing today. Okay, there you go, click. And then there's the following article. Famed cancer biologist, alleged sexually harassed woman for your back. You need to understand that Inder was the postdoc in David Baltimore's lab, that characterized her first transcriptase. When I joined his lab, I was two, the reason I went to UC San Diego

is because the two leading gene therapists in the world at the time were both there, Ted Friedman and Inder. Ted was on the main campus. He's a pediatrician, and Inder was at the salt. Inder was one of the top scientists at the salt. His mentor was David Baltimore. David Baltimore was one of the top scientists at the Salk. His mentor was David Baltimore. David Baltimore was trained at the Salk

in the laboratory of Rinaldo Dobeco, who also won the Nobel Prize. Are they both around today? Inder has apparently vanished off the scene. No one can find him. I'm told from multiple journalists that have tried to find him. But he's alive.

To best of my knowledge, I have no idea. He just played hide and go secret world. Because of what happened here, there's a follow-on, enter what happened. I mean, this is a whole rabbit hole. Do you really want to go here? I actually do, because I want to know who you pissed off on your way up to have. If you really are the inventor of the vaccine

that you're claiming you are, why would all these people not, you must have pissed somebody after all the way? So let me modify what you're saying, because I've been really clear about this too, repeatedly. I have never claimed to be the person that invented these vaccines. I invented the platform technology

and its applications. There have been two improvements, fundamental improvements in that technology subsequently. One of them is the use of pseudo-yiridine. So incorporating pseudo-yiridine is a chemical molecule into the RNA backbone is the invention of caricol and weisman. The other one is the move. Now this is techy stuff so this is deep technology chemical structure is the migration from a quatton area mean that is permanently positively charged on these catanacphids to the use of a tertiary mean. That is the seminal enabling invention improvement that has given rise to these current products. And that is attributed to the company Acuidis

and researchers at the University of British Columbia. And as far as I'm concerned, if there is a Nobel for these particular vaccines, that goes to those people in that group. The thing about the claim of Creecon Weisman that has been so actively promoted, is that the use of pseudo-yuridine is not actually enabling. The Kurevack product, which is developed, so this is a separate mRNA vaccine company,

young Germany, okay, and their product was late to market. They did the proper preclinical testing. They weren't fast-tracked in the same way that bio-intech and Moderna were. Kurevack developed their product which does not incorporate pseudoyordine and they did their safety testing and they administered a dose of 15 micrograms of RNA. Pfizer is at 30, Moderna is at 100. Kurevac's trials elicited about a 40% response in terms of immunogenicity. The other ones were more in the low 90s, high 80s. And so the assertion was made that the Kurevac product failed.

Within the political context of when it came out because it came out later, they decided, Kurevac decided, I'm not part of that company, just carefully watching it. Kurevac decided not to go forward. They're going forward with other vaccines and the European Medicines Agency, the European Union, actually issued a contract to buy that vaccine from them. The Kurevac decided not to go forward with it, but they did large-scale clinical trials and develop their safety profile and everything else. But they used a much lower dose. But it was still highly immunogenic, which clearly demonstrates that the incorporation of

this artificial compound pseudo-uridine, which is the basis for the critical and weiceman claims. The basis for their claims is not that they came up with the idea, and I had a very active back and forth discussion with Katie Carrico over this. Why? When was this? Many, many months ago, last fall. Okay.

And I've got all those emails. Matter of fact, I provided all those emails to both the guy that wrote the Atlantic article and the guy that wrote the Nature article. And what do you do with it? Disregarded it largely. Who else have you shared those emails with? Those are the only ones that have asked for it. I think you give it to us. We'd love to share with the world for a paper. So I can show you the email correspondence with Katie in which Katie admits that she didn't come up with these ideas. So my fundamental position, this is why all of this doesn't really bother me, there's two reasons.

Number one, I have many, many issued patents. In my opinion, inventorship, this term, inventorship, remember, I've been writing patents my whole life, dealing with a patent and trademark office my whole life, I don't know, 18, 15, something like that. Including a fundamental patent that I shared just the patent and trademark office my whole life, I don't know, 18, 15, something like that, including a fundamental patent that I shared just with my wife on mRNA vaccines for intranasal administration, mRNA, DNA, recombinant viruses. We got the fundamental Bucosal vaccine patent,

which Pfizer at one point wanted to license from us, by the way. When was that? Always mid-90s. OK. So, so so so point is in terms of who invented what? In my opinion, inventorship is not established by a journalist or a fact checker. Inventorship is established by the US patent and trademark office.

Then if that's the case, if that's the case, how easy would it be for an average human being to go and find out that the patent of that vaccine is you? It is trivial and what my wife has done, Dr. Jill Glasspill Malone, wife and partner for over 42 years. Right. Live through all these things directly. Okay. First person account has been on our webpage for ages. She sent it out as an email blast. We have some very large email lists.

Sure. With all of the primary information documented, you can go on our webpage at www.rwmaloonmd.com and see the whole history with the supporting documents. Put that link below for people that can go to that. Okay, all there. Okay, but I'm talking about for me, the average person, if I go up there, go to duck.go or go to Google

and just type in inventor of mRNA. Let's see what comes up. Again, the reason I, to me, you got to start with Google. So you're asking, you're asking, while we're doing that, you're asking the question about Inder. Okay, go to inventor of mRNA. Who invented?

Okay, it's fine. Inventor of mRNA. And this term is used. It's used widely. It's like a shorthand that a lot of journalists use. Yeah. I've never said this is accurate. I didn't invent mRNA.

If you're a believer, God invented RNA, mRNA. If you are a... But that's what it says on your LinkedIn account. Inventor of mRNA vaccine technology and mRNA vaccines. No, I don't have a Twitter account anymore. I'm sorry, your LinkedIn account. You're... Doesn't say that I invented mRNA.

What does it say under this? It says inventor of mRNA vaccines or mRNA vaccine technology. Okay, so type in mRNA, inventor... I no longer have a LinkedIn account or a Twitter account. That was also taken down. Yeah, two days ago. So your LinkedIn is now down. Yeah, with no explanation. I was trying to research you right now and LinkedIn, I couldn't find you.

Okay, so that gentleman that you were going to go back to the gentleman he was talking about. So this whole thread, I have, mRNA is a fundamental biological model. Go stay on that guy, stay on that. What I'm trying to find that is the following. Let me go back to the question, you were going there and then you said, you want to know the whole story and we want a different direction.

Why is he the wrong person to piss off on your way up? Who was he? He is incredibly powerful. He ended up being the president of the Saul Institute. What does that mean to the average person that's listening to this? He was, I think they had in the national. He was certainly the editor of the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. He was the editor-in-chief of the Maine Oncology Journal. He is, the way science has played in the United States is hardball, full on hard. And there are cabals, associations of scientists and their former postdocs.

And they operate as units. They are competitive units. And Inder was sitting at the top of an amazingly powerful stack in large part because his mentor was David Baltimore, who got the Nobel Prize for reverse transcriptase was seminal in setting up the regulations for recombinant DNA, former head of Caltech. Left the salt, went to MIT, ended up head of an instituted MIT before he went to Caltech,

and there was a huge scandal around him in terms of his ethics. Inder was the postdoc that characterized reverse transcriptase for David Baltimore. Inder was, I think, a full professor at the age of 30. He was fast-tracked, incredibly powerful, controlled a very large amount of money. Incredible guy. Incredible. He, he, science, for me, science is science. You know, whether, whether you're powerful or I'm powerful or Tony Fauci is powerful. One of the things I love about it is it's an environment of ideas. And, you know, if I say something in a scientific forum, and a young graduate student pops up in the audience and has an argument that demonstrates that my interpretation of the data is wrong.

That person will be heard, and I will change my opinion. That's the fundamental nature. That's why science has to have this dynamic attention. I totally agree with you. We need that discourse and the debate because for me, the hardest thing for the average person you talk to is who do you trust? So if you can flip back on your search engine and go to the next science article, Bingo, Salk Institute professor. So that's not a science version, that's a San Diego version. Resigns after investigation.

Yeah, so Inder had a long history of abuse. Why should leave that article? Go back to that article. Resigns after investigation, go to the top, San Diego Union. He's an incredibly powerful person, and this is typical of these super powerful scientists, as they can do no wrong. Because the indirect money, indirect cost money,

that they generate, supports their institute. In modern academia, these institutes and universities are supported by the indirect cost at Harvard. For every dollar, if you get a federal grant or contract, for every dollar that you get to spend on your research, something like a dollar ten goes to the university. For every dollar, you get to spend a dollar ten goes to the university. Dean in the university. Okay.

So, your generating is as a faculty member. You're a revenue, a major revenue source that supports the university. This is all built into the structure of NIH. Part of the NIH mission is to support American medical colleges. So did he ever lose his license? He's not a MD. He's not an MD. He's a PhD. He's a PhD. So he resigns after investigation and what? Is this sexual allegations type of thing? Well, that is only part of how he operated. He was incredibly powerful and grossly unethical. Um, this is a little... Who respects him? Maybe tell me this because you know a lot of times you will learn. Uh, if you're, if you're,

if you're editor in chief of proceedings of National Academy of Sciences and the major ARC on College E-Channel, everybody has to be nice to you. Ender did stuff routinely. Let me tell you a story. I'm a graduate student. And I spoke to a postdoc in the lab at the same time who had exactly the same experience. So I'm a graduate student. I'm working in this laboratory.

I'm the only graduate student. It's an intensely competitive environment. The way he run his lab is he would have multiple postdocs all assigned on the same topic and they would compete with each other within the laboratory. So that's one strategy that these big, big scientists use. So when I was in the lab, Inder came to me with a stack of people's grant applications. These are supposed to be confidential. And he gave them to me and he said, read these and get ideas. So I, I was shocked because this is how old are you at that time? Mm, 27.

He said, read these and get ideas. Right. Other people's grants. Now, I was supposed to be confident. Now, let me ask you, is that a traditional exercise that many people were doing at that time? Or that's, you know, I don't know about anybody else, but that is grossly inappropriate.

Okay. We're going to ethical. Grossly enough. I asked that because I don't know your world. Grants, grants and grant proposals and contract proposals are supposed to be that legal, I'm not going to be that legal, grossly unethical. I asked that because I don't know your world. Grants and grant proposals and contract proposals are supposed to be strictly confidential when they're sent out to their viewers in these days. The NIH will actually put you in jail if you do this. Okay.

So he asks you to look at these and come up with ideas. To get ideas from other people's submission. So you're there at 27 years old at the time. Okay. So I go to the head, the functional science head of the Saul Institute and I say, this has happened. What am I supposed to do about this? And he said, maybe Inder isn't the best mentor for you. Who said that to you? This I'm blanking on his name. It's not Tony Hunter. There's another lead scientist in the molecular biology and virology laboratories.

Okay. So this is the environment where this kind of thing is tolerated. In an addition, in Inders lab, there was this long history of sexual harassment by him, in the dark room with women, et cetera, et cetera. Eventually it caught up with him. But for a long time, I'm told that the way the Saul handled this, because there were multiple claims, is that if you were a woman and you wanted to work in his laboratory, you felt like you needed to as a postdoc or whatever, you had to sign a disclaimer with the Saul Institute that you would not sue them if he did any of these actions to you. That's how it was handled. Is that known? Is that known amongst people that worked there? Yes. Okay. Now, who would you say were some of his allies names? Like, is he an ally with Fauci? Is he a friend of a Fauci? I don't know

what his relationship is Tony. His main power structure runs through the David Baltimore network got it Got it. Okay, so what was the fallout with the two of you? What was there a obvious fallout? Or was it just like subtle look? We're gonna go our separate ways. No, it was really I mean I ended up with a nervous breakdown over what happened I I had a formal diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder when I took my master's degree and left I took a master's in a little of a PhD. Okay? There was a cascade of events. And for me, you got to go back in time. I'm this cocky, arrogant, believe in

myself, been out of this, come out of this high pressure environment where I'm rigorously trained, I'm able to withstand scrutiny and go toe-to-toe with the best and have been now, but I'm in my 20s. And so I own those character flaws and I compensate for them now. It's part of why I am the way I am that I went through that transition. But I own what I was then. I would challenge anybody. I would challenge Inder. And publicly or privately, both. Okay. Because that's an extra science, sure. Okay. Or I thought it was, sure. I mean, to set the framework, I think there was six or seven Nobel laureates at the Salk at the time, in addition to Jonas Salk. It was the pinnacle of molecular virology in the world, arguably.

And I was working for the top gene therapy expert, Retroviral gene therapy expert, which is what I wanted to make my career. The laboratory, when I was there, included a guy named Dinka Valerio, who was pioneering a whole new technology for gene therapy, using recombinant DNA virus called adenovirus. Dinka left the lab, founded a company called Crucell. Because of my ideas, he came to me once, and he said, after we'd both left the lab, I'm setting the stage not ragging on myself, okay? This was a period of intense intellectual fulfillment.

I had come up with these ideas about using gene therapy technology for vaccines. Dinko created this company, Crucell, acquired this cell line called Percy VI, which is a fetal origin. Tried to develop the platform for gene therapy purposes and came to meet a conference a few years after we'd both left Inters Lab and said, Robert, you're right. The best application for this technology is for vaccines. And I'm going to change the focus of Crucell to become a vaccine company instead of a gene therapy company. Cousel was later sold for what was considered to be a huge amount

of money at the time to a company called Johnson and Johnson. That is the technology that is in the J&J vaccine. That is why the J&J vaccine technology exists. It goes back to that same laboratory in that same time frame. It was an intense period of innovation. But Inder had this weakness. He talked about Erigan. A cascade of events happened that I've spoken about for hours and hours on other podcasts and you can look on our website and you can see my wife's first person accounting with all the documents, et cetera. So, the reason to go over the cascade of things that happened that led to the inventions and the discoveries. No, I'm more curious to know, was it a public fallen out where afterwards you haven't been just you? Just you? Yeah, okay. So, I filed invention disclosures, had Mark Kendi, the postdoc in the lab working next

to me, cross-sign them for this stuff, and filed them with the sole-kinsed. I'd been trained in what one had to do to protect intellectual property. Okay? So, filed them with the sole-kinsed too. I had an filing with the Saul Kinstuth, I had an interview with the Saul Gluiers. They made a determination that I was the Saul inventor. Meanwhile, the head of the Saul Kinstuth, the Hoffman, who later died of AIDS

from a blood transfusion. He, I think he worked on the Manhattan Project. He was a big shot. Yeah. Okay, he was the head of the Salt Institute. The salt had created an organization, I think it's called Sibia. Salt Institute, Biologic Associates,

I think was the acronym. And it was intended to be their for-profit arm of their not-for-profit salt institute so that it would generate revenue so that they could become independent of the NIH for funding or less dependent. So they were hoping that all this massive amount of intellectual property they were creating would go to this for-profit company generate revenue so that the professors didn't have

to write grants and contracts all the time. And so DeHoffman calls Inderin and calls me into the office on short notice and says, what is this about you setting up a collaboration with syntax? Because syntax had been the source of the Canonic lipids consequent to Tony Hunter, another senior salt faculty member. It's a brilliant mind, still there. senior salt faculty member. It's a brilliant mind still there. Tony had advised me to get in touch with these people at Syntax to access this new emerging technology. I think because he'd reviewed the paper. It wasn't published yet. He said, Robert, you need to get in touch with Syntax to test their new lipid technology. That is what led to the fundamental

final invention that enabled all of this. And I had set up a collaboration agreement with Inders full knowledge with syntax in order to get them to transfer these Canon Eclipse into the Salks so that I could use them as intellectual property and composition of matter transfer. To Hoffman heard about all this, because he heard about the invention disclosure and he called Indarin and then I got called in and I got asked what was the story what happened here and Inder was being attacked for having established this illicit collaboration with syntax and Inder denied knowing anything about it said that

I was a sole actor in this. He had no knowledge of this. He didn't know what I was doing. I had just done this independently. I was blown away. I thought in good faith I was coming into this really high level person to disclose the chain of events. And in fact, what I hadn't realized

as I was coming into an environment where Inder was being called on the carpet for doing something that was expressly forbidden by the new policy at the Salk because it would result in an intellectual entanglement and intellectual property entanglement with this for-profit company called Cintex and Bellowalto. And so Inder denied knowing anything about it.

I was stunned. You know, remember, I'm not even 30 years old. I believe in science, all right? And I've just encountered big science. For the first time. Good and hard. Okay, not for the first time. I mean, I cut my teeth at the laboratory and Davis

that made the first discovery of a retrovirus being involved in Indian Indian deficiency syndrome and primates. No, no, I'm talking about you're coming across for the first sound the manipulative sight of science. This powerplay. That's what I'm saying. This powerplay. Okay. And so I go to, in this one I went to Tony Hunter, and I said, Tony, Inder said this, I can't believe it. And he said to me, Robert, a course-ender lied, what did you expect him to do? And that was a, you're no longer in Kansas moment, for me. But, is that how it ended?

No, Inder had, so then there became this whole long thread. I worked with the salt lawyers. We wrote a patent based on what I had done and what I disclosed. Sure. And the potential applications for it. And then there was a series of papers that came out. So this is when you invented the mRNA vaccine technology. This is when I invented the, so the thing, the trip wire that made everybody realize that

I'd stumbled onto something big was this serendipitous series of events where I was teaching an embryology course where I was preparing embryos that we would call them frog tadpoles and chick embryos. And I decided to take the technology that I've been working on and see if it would work in these whole animals and it did to my great surprise. And that was the trip wire that set this whole cascade in motion, because that was the origin of In vivo non-viral delivery. Everybody suddenly realized that this was a fundamental change. And the University of California, and the professor at the University of California

that was the professor teaching the embryology course that I was working under, names Christine Holt. She was a fellow still training, not a real faculty member. She insisted that she should be on the patent, she should be an inventor, and her insisted that he should be an inventor, even though the Salkins Institute said in their initial assessment that he wasn't a co-inventor, and he denied knowing anything about it to the half. So long story short, just for the sake of time, because I got a lot of other things

that I want to go through with you. Just, is it fair to say that the whole dispute was over, here's a young guy that comes in, you, you stumble upon something that is absolutely ridiculous, that can help a lot of people out. It's transformational. And then everybody wants to take credit for it because there's a potential huge.

Which happens all the time. The whole huge gold rush. Which by the way, that happens all the time. Not only where the whole story with Tesla, not the car Tesla, but Tesla Edison, you know that whole story, things like that. This has historically happened many times. Do you remember that one movie called The Genius?

What is that one movie, Kai, where the guy creates the windshield wiper and Ford tries to zoom in, and then we came up with it. And it's a very good movie. Those types of stories are everywhere. So I've experienced this kind of behavior all through my career.

Well fair enough, but what I want the audience to know that the story is that's where the friction happened. You your claim is I'm the guy that put it together. Those guys who were more powerful than you wanted to say no, no, it's because of us. You did it. And it is more depth to it. I left the sulk after this no break down and joined a little startup company in LaHoya called ViCal. ViCal ended up licensing the technology I brought all my reagents, protocols, etc. over to ViCal. I was set up as a skunk works and there was no molecular biology. ViCal was antivirals and calcitonin analogs

with Carl Haas-Dettler, Doug Richman, and Phil Thogner as the key principles there, and Dennis Carson. And within like two months, we had a following fundamental discovery of naked RNA and DNA that led to a science paper. And then I sat with lawyers down in San Diego and spent days talking about how this could be used, the potential clinical applications. That resulted in this huge group of patent filings that lay out all the fundamentals of the idea of RNA vaccines. And at the same time, they ended up coordinating with the Salk Institute. Ender became an advisor to Vykel, and there was a coordinated filing of all of the patents from Vykel and the patent from the Salk Institute on the same day so that one didn't have a priority

date before the other. Now Now what eventually happened if you read forward to 1991, the sulks surreptitiously dropped their patent application. They didn't tell me about it. They denied that they have any records of that, but I have a copy with the letter from the sulk institute and the Filed Patent. So this is why I say there was coordination between VyCal and Salk. Inder was on the VyCal Scientific Advisory Board. And for some reason, the Salk decided, and this is illegal by the way, into the Bidol Act. Any inventor is supposed to be notified, under the Bidol Act, if there's a decision to drop

the patent so that they can then pick it up. But the Salk didn't notify me. The lawyer that did it has retired. The Salk denies that there's any record of what happened and who did it and why. They've been, I've sent direct inquiries to them about it. They deny, they just don't respond. The press has submitted inquiries and they've said, we have no record of any of this.

I have the remaining record, which is the signed Saul Constitute Letterhead letter with the attached patent that they sent me in 1991 when I made an inquiry. Let me ask a question just for the sake of legal reasons. Do you have any pending lawsuits right now? Where? Okay, so to talk about these topics, you're not in liability or anything like that.

Can we just move on to a different topic? Sure. Okay, let's move on to a different topic. So that's one part that we just addressed. Let's go to the next one. The next one is your last tweet. Kai, if you can pull this up, I just want to get these three things knocked out of the way. Then I want to get into the real topics that I want to talk to you about.

Yeah, that is the one. So did you get the clip that I pulled directly off of my Twitter account that shows the Twitter comment about this? Is that your last tweet or no? No, this is not the last tweet. This is like the third from the last. But this is an odd thing happened with my Twitter account. It went completely blank with no notice, okay?

And then I had clicked on a tweet from somebody else so it had opened Twitter and read the tweet from somebody else because I was seeking information to link and then left it open on my browser went back later later, clicked on it, and it refreshed. And to my surprise, my entire Twitter account was still there. It had been edited to the graphic that was on my landing page. It was dropped. Interesting. It had zero followers and zero following.

So everything had been reset. It had the banner saying that I'd been banned and it had the one tweet that is this one. Okay, and if you can scroll. This is the only one that we have. This is what pulls up. When I type in last tweet, and this is what comes up, the Pfizer calculations for COVID-19 more harm than good video.

The Pfizer and six-month data, which shows that Pfizer's COVID-19 onoculations caused more illness than they prevent. Plus an overview of the Pfizer trial. So in my substack, I've got an article that covers all this. And it's got a clip, screenshot, of what Twitter has inserted. And so with this one tweet, it's the only one in the stack, they've inserted a statement that this constitute misinformation and cannot be shared and cannot be viewed. So I infer this is the only form of communication I've had from them. I infer

that this in fact was the inciting event, the final straw. Have they responded back to you? No, that's lawyers have contacted them. Nothing back for us has contacted. It won't speak to anybody. That's interesting because typically when Jack Dorsey was there, we would have gone a respond from Dorsey. But Dorsey would have said something.

But he, Dorsey actually got blocked. He got deleted for a while. Well, I know what I'm saying, because obviously, you know, Dorsey's gradually stepping down and a new CEO that's taken over. He's now out. Yeah, so, but may he's also gonna be off the board, right, not the new CEO that's taken over. What I'm trying to say is credit to Dorsey,

if Dorsey was around, he would have given an explanation to say here's what we took him down. Maybe, I don't know. He had to be Trump. That's why I'm saying that. Okay, maybe that's the case, it's speculative. That tweet links to a video and a slide deck

from the Canadian COVID care alliance that explicitly, carefully, logically, documents the data manipulation of malfeasants associated with the Pfizer clinical trials. Many, many people have looked at it. It is precisely accurate, technically accurate. Everything it says there is true, is verifiable. So let me go to another one.

Kai, pull up the Instagram posts where there's a post. There you go. Go to the next one. So they created this to respond to what you had to say. Robert Malone. I haven't seen this. Okay, I want to show it to you, I want to show it to you. I want to show it to you because this is how you respond

and let the audience make a decision on where they are. So they don't, these folks don't agree with what you had to say. Their account, if you go all the way to the top, is unbiased. What is it? Cypod. OK, so Robert Malone, these are virologists and immunologists with an MD from North Washington, beginning pandemic,

Malone was involved in briefly a drug repurposing trial for COVID-19 Malone has proclaimed himself. Briefly, that trial just opened. We're now enrolling patients. There's two trials. It's on clinicaltrials.gov. It's funded by the US Department of Defense.

It's managed by Lidos, ever gone to the airport lately. See the scanners, they all say lightos, huge massive government. This is one point. So you can give your argument perfect. Not the audience knows. Malone has proclaimed himself the inventor of mRNA vaccine. He is not the inventor of mRNA vaccine.

He participated in some early research looking at delivery of mRNA in two cells. You've already explained that part. He has spread COVID-19 disorder pandemic. He is fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine, which we openly talked about, Moderna. But I get that question all the time. Why did you do it?

When did you do it? For some people, for some reason, people feel like they need to have my medical history. But when you said, when you got COVID, you thought you were going to die. It's true. February 2020. And in February 2020, for me attending a computational drug discovery conference at MIT where I was staying directly across from the corporate headquarters of the company that is associated

with that initial outbreak in Boston. Got it. Okay. So then he recently joined Joe Rogan, podcasts, etc. Go to the next one. There's four of them I want to go through and to see what you're going to say about it. Okay. So then he recently joined Joe Rogan podcast, et cetera, so go to the next one. There's there's four of them I want to go through and to see what you're going to say about it. Lip it. Okay, change it. We can skip this one. Go to the next one. This is my main focus today is spike protein almost all side effects. Okay, go to the next one. Go to the next one. Here we go. Claim at the top. Your claim. They, the spike protein should have been made less toxic.

Their response is there is no evidence that the spike protein itself is toxic. Toxic means a substance that kills cells. The vaccine has one of the best safety cells of the vaccine that they know of. So this is a fascinating example of how fact checking works. Okay, they take this, I've been dealing with this

all the way through, initially with Reuters, Thompson Reuters. Matter of fact, the original been dealing with this all the way through, initially with Reuters, Thompson Reuters. Matter of fact, the original reason that I got kicked off of Twitter, I mean off of LinkedIn, and then reinstated after Steve Kirsch called the Vice President. The reason I was kicked off of LinkedIn was I posted something after Reuters had made exactly this claim. And I had posted the links to the science, including from the Salk Institute, demonstrating the toxicity of spike, with multiple papers.

This is just propaganda. The multiple papers showing that spike protein itself is a toxin. Here they're defining what toxic means a substance that kills cells. I disagree. A toxin is anything that causes adverse events in a animal or in human. What is, is there a clear definition that we can follow, Webster? So I have no idea.

Webster is no longer, has no longer has integrity. They've shifted the definition of what, of vaccine, what do they call it? The definition of anti-vaxxer. I saw that, right? They've changed the definition of anti-vaxxer. People are trying to change the terms of the Nuremberg accord. People are trying to change the hypocritic oath to be consistent with this party line that's being pushed out. The rewriting of history is profound. It's not just me. That's the thing about all of this.

And we're seeing that in a different way. Yeah, I know that I'm being targeted. But for me, part of the reason why it doesn't bother me that much, is I know it's not personal. It is part of a systemic effort to promote a storyline. Yeah, I mean, we know that just yesterday, I don't know if you follow football or not, are you a football guy or no? No, doctors don't do football.

No many do, but it's not my thing. Aaron Rodgers, I don't know if you're... I'm a question. You are a question. My wife is as well. Okay, do you know. Aaron Rodgers, I don't know if you... I'm a question. You are a question. My wife is as well. Okay, do you know who Aaron Rodgers is? No. He's got 35 touchdowns, four interceptions.

He's got the best record in the NFL. Handsome guy, Gulluk and Guy Welfz spoken. And he's just a guy that had the photograph with his bookshelf that has a N-Ran. Yes, that's the one. Good for you. So that's what you remember, the N-Ran book. Anyways, one of the 50 judges that votes for MVP

came out yesterday and said, I think it's a, you know, we should not give the MVP to a person that jeopardized the health of his players, et cetera, et cetera. And he should not get the MVP. Yeah, this is all about the mass formation. So that's part of it. We'll get to that. We'll go back to it, go back to it,

go back to the other claims with the Instagram. I just want to wrap this up before we get into it. So as we go through this assertion, the first part is there's no evidence that the spike protein itself is toxic. That's false. That's demonstrably false, multiple publications, furthermore, their definition of what toxic is is false. Okay. A toxin is something that causes disease in a person. When it's injected, it doesn't necessarily have to be directly cytotoxic, although the native spike protein is. So the debate would be here, the definition of toxic. Next one is a long one.

That's the first start, and it goes on from there. This is how the fact-checkers work, is they'll take a statement, they will restate it using their own words. In other words, they will set up a false statement in how they interpret what was actually said, and then they'll refute it. I think this is called a straw man argument. There's a number of classic logic flaws that run throughout this. Strong man is a favorite of the fact checkers. Another one is sorry. This is logic. Okay.

No true Scotsman is often used. So no true Scotsman argument, which is a logic error in debate, is to say the example would be, all scientists believe that this is safe and effective. Well, I don't think it's safe and effective. Therefore you're not a scientist and you should be de-platformed. That's no true Scotsman. So it's a way of enabling a narrative and indicating to the audience that whatever the audience is, in this case, it's the world, that there is a consensus, that is a false consensus, because you've deleted all voices that disagree.

You've eliminated competition essentially, and there's a... So let me open that up just a little bit more because this really matters to your audience. What has happened is that tech, and media, and pharma, all who are only integrated in this messaging, have set up a situation in which you, the audience, are not able to get access to the full spectrum of information. Concerning the risks and benefits of these products, which remain experimental, they are not licensed. There is no community that you can go buy in the United States.

They are not shipping it into the United States because some of the clauses that were put into the FDA statement with their licensing agreement. Okay, where the market authorization that the FDA provided for community has clauses in it that make it so that Pfizer and BioNTech will not ship community into the United States. They ship it to other countries. Okay, but all of our products are still under emergency use authorization, which is to say they remain experimental. They are not approved.

Okay, and so that this is the fundamental argument in terms of the bioethics, which is where I started by the way in all this. Is somebody trained in bioethics saying this isn't right. This does not follow the common rule, is the slang that's used for the Code of Federal Regulations. I wrote an article in trial site and who's about this? Way back. I think it was in trial site, and who's about this? Way back. I think I was the first person to really raise this.

What the government has done is they have made assertions that these products are licensed, and so therefore, you don't have to have full informed consent, which is not true. And tech has conspired fundamentally to silence the disclosure of any information, which is defined. Here's how they've done it. They did it through the Trusted News Initiative, is they set up a definition. If any information is likely to result in vaccine hesitancy,

then that information shall be censored. The derivative of that is that any information about the adverse events, an adverse event profile, by definition, will cause vaccine hesitancy and therefore cannot be shared, cannot be presented in any media or social media environment. We're all seeing that. Okay. It's written right into the charter, the trusted news initiative. What the functional consequence is, is that the law is, that when you receive a medical procedure, if you go get your, you're not old enough, let's hope I am, I had my colonoscopy

and the- You're a second person that asked me that in 24 hours I'm not gonna do it. Yeah, so you know, what's this pressure all about? I you know, it's it must be driven by social media. Um, so Craig think and ask me yes, but I'm using it as a trivial example. I'm teasing you. I have a minor medical procedure Yeah, eventually it happened on that radio and And when you go when that time comes, the dock that will perform the procedure will have an extensive discussion with you saying this could happen, that could happen, the other could happen, and you know, scare the dick inside of you and

you'll say, okay, we're going to go ahead and anyhow, because I don't want to have only concern. Right? Okay, so this is informed consent. Yeah. You have to be given a full briefing on the risk, sand potential benefits, and alternatives of a treatment by suppressing any information about early treatment options. So this is the whole Ivermectin hydroxychloroquine, et cetera, flu voxamine, that whole story. But that is one of the requirements for informed consent, is you have to be made aware of alternative treatments and you have to be made fully aware of the risks and benefits before you receive a product, any medical procedure, including a vaccine, and furthermore, it's even more emphasized if it's an experimental product. This is what happened at Nuremberg. We

all agreed that it is not okay to force people to take a medical procedure against their will. In what was the punishment for people that did this? No, I'm not saying this was what should be done, but the punishment that was needed out after the second World War is those docs that did that were honked by the neck. Okay, it is an important fundamental principle of medical practice. You don't want to go to the doctor and have the doctor force you to do something without telling you the risks and benefits. This is fundamental medical ethics. What tech This is fundamental medical ethics. What tech and pharma and media have done through the trusted news initiative

and that whole agreement is they've made it so that you and your audience are not able to get access to the full spectrum of information to make an informed decision about whether or not you should receive these vaccines. My mission all the way through this, as I said, it comes off of the initial platform of bioethics. My initial objection here was that what was being done

was fundamentally wrong biologically, and the way these were developed had fundamental, were fundamentally inconsistent with all of the training I've received as a professional in clinical research and regulatory affairs. I'm fully aware that I want to challenge you on something. Is that okay with you? Of course it is. I'm going to go through the next three of my challenges to see if you can respond

within 60 seconds because we had other topics to get into. Go for it. Your brain is filled with so much information. I want to keep it. I know. Here we go. Go to the prior one. Go to the prior one. Top right claim. Long COVID and post vaccine symptoms are indistinguishable. Their response, Malone makes this claim with no evidence. There's a data that shows more than half of those who had COVID-19 have symptoms that persist six months after illness. The same is not true after vaccination. Long term series effects after vaccination are different.

This is another example of the straw man. Okay. Notice what the claim is. Yep. The symptoms are indistinguishable. There is a peer-reviewed publication that demonstrates that. Specific point. Okay.

But they don't address that point. The symptoms are indistinguishable. Notice what they say. Number one, there's no evidence. Sorry. There's a peer-reviewed publication on it. Okay. Second point. There's data that shows that more than half of those that have COVID-19 have symptoms that persist six months after illness. I'd never said otherwise. The same is not true for vaccination. Long-term and serious effects after vaccination are extremely rare.

I said nothing about the incidence rate of post-vaccination syndrome in that statement. I said that if you take statistically, those that have had the post-vaccination syndrome, list it out what their symptoms are and take people who have long COVID, list out what those symptoms are, and do statistical analysis are those two groups different? The answer, by peer review, is that they are not different. They cannot be distinguished statistically one from the other. I said nothing about the incidence rate. So this is another case of straw man. Perfect. That's that's exactly what we want to do. Go to the next one. Go to the next one again. I'm trying to see which one there's a

natural organism. Go to the next one again. So natural immunity does a great one. So let me read that one. Let me read that one. Let me read that one. So the audience can read it and you'll respond. Natural immunity is better. I protect them against developing the disease. Natural, they're claimed. Natural immunity and the first vaccine, those D1, may elicit similar antibody levels. This is not true for everyone who gets COVID-19. In addition, natural immunity doesn't include a second dose of D2, which amplifies and prolongs antibody levels. Another straw man. Okay. This is irrelevant what they are saying. And by the way, it's wrong. What I say is the end point of disease and death is natural immunity superior to vaccination with two doses of these

genetic vaccines because there's other vaccines. Remember there's seven WHO licensed vaccines. We only have access to three and now the CDC is telling us not to use the J&J product. Okay, so now all we have available here in the United States is two mRNA vaccines, which Tony Fouchia certs are the best available in the world, the best technology we don't need any other vaccines. But the rest of the world has access to many others. For instance, there's a vaccine called coronavirus vaccine, unfortunately, because the politics produced in China.

But in some of the Latin American countries, they're showing that that has better efficacy at protecting against some of these variants. So that's a key point. But what they're saying here, natural immunity is better at protecting against developing the disease, which is what I said. There's over 140 publications that support that. So now I'm going to give you a challenge on that.

I have a guy in my office that's probably the most conservative guy in the office. Can't name him. He knows who he is. He's listening. He is a bribe art guy. He's a drudge report guy. He's a Trump guy. He's a Steve Bannon guy. He hasn't taken a vaccine. You already know who this guy is. He's subscribed to the daily bar. He's that guy in the office. We have guys on both sides, but this is that guy. Has not taken a vaccine. In the last six months, he's at COVID twice. As a guy. And he brought it up. He's not in the last six months.

I've had COVID twice. Yeah, but he's had in the last six months and he's had it twice and he's currently got COVID and he's not too happy about it. So he's at home following the CDC guidelines of five days, you know, quarantine that he's doing. He probably has on the crumb, he's probably watching a ton of Netflix,

but the question I got for you is the following. He's asking, if I had the antibodies, why am I getting it again? Okay, if I had the antibodies. One of the key flaws here is everybody's focusing on antibodies, antibodies are not what protect you against viral illness. Okay.

It's T cells, okay? So it's the T-affecter response. It's not the antibody response. So if that's the case, Kai just came back from Norway yesterday. Kai, can you pull up what you have here to lead this? Let's finish the thread before we jump. Okay. Regarding our own. I'm very surprised you want to stay on this. I'm impressed that you want to stay on. You want to finish this one here with these guys before we move on. This is crucial to under for your... But let me stay on your arms.

Because we'll come back to this. I promise you. Let me just explain to what I'm showing this to you. Do you have the notes? If you pull up the notes for specific to Norway, okay? So here's what Norway is doing, which I thought is pretty impressive. In Norway, if you go up and you say reasonable approach to get vaccination cards in Norway, okay? Here's the reasonable approach. If you are protected as a result of having had

COVID-19 disease, your test results from a PCR rabbit antigen test registered in Norway will be shown between 11 to 180 days after a positive test result. Meaning, if you've had COVID, you tested positive. Yeah. Afterwards, 11 days later, you got the antibodies, they're given you essentially the vaccination cards to say, yeah, that's a policy in multiple European states. So, but they're not saying T cells, they're saying antibodies.

Antibodies are a surrogate. So, when you list it and immune response, you get both an antibody and T cell response. And the T cell response is much harder, technically, much more expensive to monitor. But that doesn't, that has no relationship to my statement. It continues if an antibody test is used as a documentary proof of having COVID-19 disease in combination with vaccination. This will also not be shown in the certificate. We know it provides basic basis for fully vaccinated status for COVID-19 stat certificate after only one vaccine dose. So you can go get a vaccination card there

after you've had COVID-19. And many in many other year can we do that in America? Why? Why? I thank you for saying it. I've been saying it forever. I think that's fair if somebody has had it. Absolutely. Okay. But here's the thing. Okay. with Omicron, that is irrelevant. Why is that? Because Omicron is blowing right through vaccination. Now you cited the Norwegian position. Sure. Okay, you should cite the position some of the data coming out of Holland right now.

The Denmark data is showing that there is a stepwise negative efficacy. This is more techy talk. What that means is if you take one vaccine dose with these genetic vaccines, you are more likely to acquire Omicron based on these data. And we can go into down that rabbit hole about what that means and the confounding variables and blah, blah blah blah.

Okay, there's a whole lot of explanations, so don't everybody just jump to antibody dependent enhancement. But the data are that are coming out and this is one of the most heavily tested countries in the world. Okay, rigorous testing. So that means that their baseline for incidence rate is actually fairly reasonable. Our ours is junk because we don't do that kind of testing, but there they do. So if you go through with one dose, you are more likely to be infected by Omicron than if you've had no doses. Now it's important to remember that those...

No, I'm not going to go to the White. I just said we were not going to go to this multiple working hypotheses. Okay, I'm not going to go to... Sure. I just said we were not going to go to this multiple working hypotheses. I'm not going to go there. It does just stick with the data. One dose, you have increased risk. Two doses, you have even more increased risk. Three doses, you have even more increased risk. Relative to unvaccinated.

Now here's the problem. There's all kinds of problems with looking at data like this. Raw data. But the effect is so strong that it's hard to imagine that these data do just to artifacts. But an example of the kind of artifact you can have is that vaccination will change people's behavior. So I'm just giving this as one example of a confounding variable. So it could well be, this was a risk with AIDS vaccine development that everybody was worried about.

It could be that people have a false sense of security. And if they're triple jabbed, they're more likely to go clubbing than if they're double jabbed, and that's more likely than if they're single jabbed, and if they're not jabbed at all, maybe they're just hanging out at home. Okay, so that's more likely than if they're single jabbed. And if they're not jabbed at all, maybe they're just hanging out at home. Okay, so that's one example of the confounding variables

that can exist when looking at data like this, but it is clear as a bell that prior vaccination is not protective against Omicron. We're seeing that all through the country, I'm sure your audience can cite multiple examples at this point in their personal lives if not they will soon. So if you test for COVID, the PCR test for COVID,

is that also tested for Omicron, or is it a separate test for it, or is it the same thing? Okay, so let's pick that apart. You're making an assumption there's a single test, so for instance, with PCR, the CDC has recently said that Okay, so let's pick that apart. You're making assumption there's a single test. So for instance, with PCR, the CDC has recently said that their, the early PCR tests were junk. Sure.

Okay. So what that means is our baseline in terms of COVID incidents and death during year one is junk from the United States, consequent to this problem. So be careful when you're talking about PCR because all the trolls and concern trolls are gonna be all over you because it all depends on the cycle number that you run because you can get false positive results

really easy with PCR. Personally, I like the ramp at antigen test and you can get it over the counter. I think it should be widely available for some reason we don't have enough tests in the United States, which I think is another error on the part of the government. If you want to go back to that, because you want to finish that off,

with the claims that people made on that Instagram post, okay, you want to go to the next one, negative efficiency against Omicron with each subsequent vaccination. That's right, it was just telling me. Okay, so go to the next one, date or out there? Go to the next one, Do we have any other one? No, go back to.

Go back to. Boom, boom. Okay. Vaccination, be infected with SARS-CoV-D prior to vaccination. At least to more adverse side effects. Okay, vaccination. Multiple vaccine doses.

But in their commons, they say nothing about the risk benefit ratio. They just make these assertions. 4.7 billion people have received it. It says nothing about the adverse event risk benefit ratio. This is what they do again and again. I make a statement and they set up a straw man

and refute the straw man. Okay, so this is the standard practice for these fact checkers. Let's go through this. Let's talk about the these fact checkers. Let's go through this Let's talk about the mass formation psychosis. Let's talk about that and I said the word I did say the word Michael Don't say psychosis Right now, but no, but let's let's agree that it's not a psychosis. It's not in the diagnostic statistical manual for psychiatric illness. It's not in the DSM.

It is not a illness. It is not a psychosis. It is a fundamental phenomena of human behavior and probably non-human primate behavior. It has been with us throughout his long time. So a case can be made that this process of mass formation and awareness of mass formation and what it leads to is behind the story of Jesus Christ. Not saying, I'm going to say it so that I don't get that headline on the bloody

fact-checkers. I'm not in any way. I'm not in any way saying that I or Peter McCullough or anybody else is Jesus Christ. It is probably also what was behind Socrates being forced to drink the hemlock. It is what is the process that was behind Stalin, and Stalinist Russia, and the Gugarka Pogo, and the Purges. It is the process that clearly was behind what happened to the German people in the 1930s with the rise of socialism, right? What we call the Nazi Party.

It is probably what was behind McCarthyism, this psychological process, frankly, it is what happened to us when the twin towers got hit. This is a fundamental process of human beings. And I had the great pleasure and privilege of being on a podcast with McCullough and Matias Desmond, who is the champion, who has had the brainstorm of that this known phenomena mass formation explained what was happening in society as he was observing it in real time during 2020. And with the podcaster, I was able to go through with Matthias and Peter and walk through

my understanding of mass formation and get feedback from Matthias Desmond, who's the person that had this insight. He's written a book recently, it's only available in Dutch right now. They're trying to get a contract. Anybody wants to drop the money for the list translation? I can put you in touch with Matthias and his publisher. But get feedback about this process and what it means

and what the implications are. So I've recently been coached and let's go to it. I will do my best to represent Matthias' insights. So mass formation. Okay. In 30 seconds, what's the death? What does that mean? 30 seconds mass formation.

What does that mean? It is a process of development of a consensus among a crowd or group of society that leads to their becoming hypnotized and developing a common sense of identity around a single point, an event, a ethnic group, anything that causes them to have their focus fused on that one thing, and the consequences of that event. And as Matias points out, mass formation in the modern sense, and apparently this is a big discipline, I didn't know. Lots of academics participating in this. The observation has been made is that the tendency towards

global and national mass formation is a phenomenon of the 20th century and the 21st century, it's become much more pronounced than it ever was in the past. And Matthias attributes this to the rise of mass media. entering the 21st century, it's become much more pronounced than it ever was in the past. And Matthias attributes this to the rise of mass media. So Forbes writes this article, right? And they're saying, what is a young guy? Yeah, what is a, by Bruce Wiley, right? Senior contributor, what is mass formation psychosis?

Robert Mimwell makes unfounded COVID-19 vaccination claims on Joe Rogan's show, et cetera, et cetera. So the part with mass formation is it's both sides, right? There's a community that believes, you know, January 6th is as bad as what happened on 9-11. Betmitler said this yesterday, which is craziness. There's another community that believes the election was stolen from Hillary Clinton because the Russians helped Trump win the election

There's another community that believes you know, Biden didn't really become a president the 81 million votes that was voter fraud East side has their own side of so that's not necessarily mass formation Okay, that's conspiracy thinking and that's that is a tangent that's related, but it's not the same That's conspiracy thinking and that's that is a tangent that's related, but it's not the same Mass formation is a formal process and it is much deeper than just that and by the way There are there's depth of levels that a society can undergo with mass formation Okay, so mass formation is is far beyond conspiracy theories. And this little ankle-bunking fact-checker at Forbes

didn't take the time to even learn the literature or listen to Matthias Desmond's videos. He does. He's a senior contributor to that. This is modern journalism. He doesn't expect that senior contributor to that. Right, that means a lot. Well, it's a nice title.

It's a nice title. It's a nice title. Did he do his homework? That's the point with modern journalism. He flipped this thing out on short notice without doing his homework. I'm a writer, journalist, professor, system model, or I'm telling you what he's explaining. He's a computational and digital health expert.

Avocado eater and entrepreneur, not always in that order. He likes avocado. So, so why? But it's irrelevant, okay? Did he take the time to understand mass formation theory? Did he read any of the books? Did he read the articles? Did he listen to Matthias?

Or did he just react to something like I said on Joe Rogan? So, let's transition into a different part of the question you that's kind of within the same context. How many people have died so far from COVID? I don't know. The answer globally. The problem with that statement is that that mortality rate from COVID is a contaminated

statistic. For instance, if you look at the United States, because the CDC made a determination in 2020 that anyone hospitalized or dead that had a positive PCR test, whatever they died of, would be listed as a COVID death. Okay? So I used on Rogan the facetious example, just as an extreme to illustrate the point, that if somebody comes into Rush University, Emergency Room in Chicago,

and they have a gunshot wound to the head, and the university can get a nasal, oral, or rectal swab that is PCR positive when we talked about that. You know, you can run it up to 42 cycles. They have a financial incentive to do so. Because if that gentleman dies, or whatever the gender is, but they're usually guys, having been trained in Chicago.

If that gentleman dies of lead poisoning to the head, but they have a positive PCR signal for COVID, that university and their hospital gets a bonus from the government. So they have a financial incentive. And the CDC has made a determination for whatever reason, that if a case meets those criteria, it is listed as a COVID death. It's clearly not. There's a whole bunch of bad data that's built into our system. So we can't, when we talk about the incidents of COVID-19,

it is a grossed overestimate of the true incident. When I look at the numbers, here's what I see. I pulled up the number of people that I've died over the years, right? And you look at 2013, 2.6 million people died. 2014, 2.6, 2.6 million people died. 2015, 2.7 million people died in America. 2016 is 2.74 million people died. 2017 is 2.813. Then 2018, I want to 2.813.

2019, I want to 2.854. So 2019, we got 2.8, 54 million people that that in America. Next year 2020 with COVID, it went to 3.358. So that's a plus of 500,000. So let's just say it's growing at a, let's pick a basic number. It's like 50,000. So what you're talking about.

This is super important. And if you're folks running the web, if you can pull my substack article, so that's rwmalonemdsubstack, okay? And pull the substack articles, and then mail o&emdsubstack articles and then a mail o&e md sub-stack okay pull those

okay there we go now i want you to click on the one that so it keeps scrolling what if the largest experiment click the one what if the largest experiment okay because this one, what if the largest experiment? Because this has some citations in it that I want to lead you to as we scroll down, because I want to cite the journalist, Margaret Mange of Center Square. So here's the thread I want to develop in response to this comment.

You were talking about what we call all-cause mortality. It is the only valid outcome indicator in this environment because all the data are contaminated. I totally applaud your focusing on that, that data set. Now here's what's fascinating. Scott Davidson is a CEO of a $100 billion life insurance company that primarily ensures individuals who are fully employed. He sells his insurance to employers. So his data set is 18 to 64 fully employed. And on a Zoom call with other insurance executives that was recorded. And I've got a subsequent on my getter count that

links to the actual video. So you can look at the source data that Margaret was using for this fantastic article in this obscure publication. She did some of the best journalism I've seen so far. She actually followed up with these quotes from this gentleman on this podcast, the CEO of a $100 billion insurance company, okay? Not a little thing. In which he's making amazing statements, scroll up so that we can see the title of the article.

No, not that mine, mine is just jabber. Okay, can I just read it? Yeah, go. Okay, so the head of Indianapolis based insurance company, One America said the death rate is up standing 40% from pre-pandemic levels among working age people. We are seeing right now the highest death rates. We have seen in history of the business, not just as one America, the company, CEO Scott Davidson said, during an online news conference

this week, the data is consistent across every player in the business. One America is a hundred billion out of insurance company that has its headquarters at Indianapolis, that have 2,400 employees. Davidson said the increases in death represents huge, huge numbers and that it's not elderly people who are dying, but primarily working age, people 18 to 64 who are employees of companies that have group

life insurance plans to the one America. And what we saw just in third quarter we're seeing it continues into fourth quarter is that death rates are up 40% over what they were pre-pandemic, just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three sigma or one in 200 year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic. So 40% is just unheard of. Read that paragraph. So what is driving this unprecedented surge in all calls mortality. Most of the claims that are deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19. That's what the data is shown to us is that the death, that's are being reported as COVID,

that's greatly understated. The actual death losses amongst working age people from the pandemic, it may not all be COVID under that certificate, but that's a rough, just huge, huge numbers. So click on the article since I've got that link there. Right there. Okay, so to make sure that the right people get the credit.

So center squares, the publication and Margaret manage. So look it up. Read this article. Margaret did a fantastic job. So unpacked what this means to you. So he's saying it is up 40% but not just because of COVID. Right. So. And so, so what this is a breadcrum, okay? This is a leading edge indicator That something is going on here that is surpasses anything that the government is sharing with us right now And it's coming from a highly credible source Now you look in my sub-stack. I haven't made conclusions about what this means. I'm very careful not to But what's intriguing about it is that he's reporting on a

data set that is an age cohort that has very low mortality from COVID-19. These are not the high risk people. 18 to 64. 18 to 64. That's not high risk. I'm in the insurance business. It's not risk. Fantastic. Okay. You know what I'm talking about. Okay. So this is a guy that's got his finger on a massive data set. And it's a selected data set. It's employed people, employed at a level that they're employed. These aren't McDonald's.

You're speculating anything though. Yeah, what do you expect? So, I'm observing that this is likely to be a highly vaccinated cohort because they are fully employed predominantly ICE project, ICE aspect, at companies with greater than 100 employees. I'd like to look into this more because if I see, if I just, it's not just you, okay, sure. This has set a fire. When this came out, I posted it first after this article, on my substack, zero hedge posted

it with their interpretation, then there's a follow-up that's come out because another reporter went and got a statement from the company and got a graph from the company that shows a point of inflection after 2021 takes off compared to 2020. Okay. That's what the others can read it as well. That's directly from them. That's when the, I think her name is, I've got it on my cell phone, the reporter that did this. She got a statement from them and she got got a graph The graph shows an inflection point because it's just you know 2019 2020 2021 insurance companies are the right ones that can give you Unbiased information. Yes, and a lot of data a lot and by the way

I if I'm if I'm See the if I'm anybody from the government. I'd want to through New York life, I'd wanna go through Northwestern Mutual and see what kind of data they would give us, because those actuaries know more than many people. And one was objectively seeking true data, which I remember true data are not allowed here, because these data are going to lead to vaccine hesitancy. Well, I don't, okay, so let me give you

how I'm doing the math. Here's how I'm a math guy So I'm just gonna do basic math. Okay, so we go 20 13 2.596 to 2.626 That's an increase of 30,000 30,000 on 2.596 is a little over 1% let's just point It's a three standard deviation would be a 10% increase. So but I'm just going I'm just going at a growth rate of the next year It goes up by a hundred thousand so let's just say that's 3%. So, let's just take an average of 2%. Okay, so in 2019, we have, in 2019, we have 2.854 million people that died.

What's 2% on 2.854? 56,000? Whatever that number is, okay. So, it would go to 2.9 million regardless to follow on your, because every year more people died than year before, right? That's the numbers that we're looking at. So we go to 2.9 million.

3.358 people died, million people died. That's an additional 458,000 people died. And then the next year in 2021, this is this year, it drops by 200,000. So, it drops by 200,000. So if it drops by 200,000, and it's supposed to go up by 2%, it's 140,000, 140,000 plus 450,000, that's still 600,000 people. So if we're dealing with 600,000 people net net that died,

more than they usually would, let's use with 600,000 people net net that died, more than they usually would. Let's use that 600,000. Then the math would be, I would want to know how did the 600,000 that died? How many even died because of mental anxiety stress that out? Precisely. This is a multivariate. I want to know that precisely. Because word will lead me to is the following doc.

Here's where I'm going to. Remember, I'm the amateur, the expert. I'm simply speculating to learn from home found. I got go. Go, go, go. So 600,000. So here's where I go to. Okay.

600 more thousand people have died in the last two years. We could have prevented this. If 66% is due to COVID, you said you felt like you were going to die. So you know it's legit. It's not like I had COVID for two weeks. I lost 25 pounds. I look like a toothpick afterwards. Tell a lot of people. Yeah. I was I couldn't eat anything for a few days. So I respected what it is by having COVID. It's not nothing. It's not. It's not. So although Omicron is a different beast are not scores higher five to six, which means it's spread. No, I would

say more like seven to 10 for a hundred. Okay, seven to 10, even worse. It spreads even faster. It's weasels. COVID was what? to 10 for my time. Okay, 7 to 10 even worse. It spreads even faster. It's weasels. COVID was what? 2 to 3, precisely. Okay, 2 to 3. So our delta is 5 to 6. Wow.

So delta is 5 to 6, Omicron is 7 to 10. It's not deadly. So it's a good sign that's getting weaker and weaker. Well, we can, and I've spoken repeatedly about what the data are that is behind that fascinating observation. It's less pathogenic, more infectious, and produces higher tiredness of virus. Okay, so let's go 600,000 is what increased. Now, the question I got for you the next question,

I want to see what you're gonna say about this one. If you know the answer to it, great. How many people have died taking Ivermectin? Okay, so fantastic. My understanding is there's virtually no cases associated with Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine treatment in the United States. There was overdosing with hydroxychloroquine, and if you can kill people by overdosing with hydroxychloroquine, do you know how many people?

But, well, it's all in the... I don't know personally, I can't tell you directly. I'm very so curious. It's less than a thousand, it's more than a thousand. I don't know, because it depends on the dose. Hydroxychloroquine has a fairly narrow window of therapeutic effect. Where if you go above that, you'll keep people. This is one of the key comments about the clinical trials that were run with hydroxy is one criticism as they were designed to fail because they were dosing too late at a known toxic level.

And that's why it was kicked out. Okay, so is there a way to- But the mortality associated with Ivermectin is one of the safest drugs in the world. Two people died in New Mexico and article came out from Ivermectin. I'm just trying to find out if there's a number- Is that even real? We have multiple reports where people are serting that something has happened. And then when the journalist actually follows up,

you find out that was a false statement. Remember, there was the hospital report that the hospital was filling up with Ivermectin toxicity, and then somebody actually called the hospital, and they said, are you crazy? And the person that was saying this is actually a locom tenons person that wasn't actually part of our staff.

Likewise, there's been multiple reports of death from Omicron that when followed up were found to be false reports. 200% they if CDC came out and apologized on a 200% you know, mishap whatever the number of that. Oh, the CDC has made multiple mistakes with Omicron because they have substituted data based on computational models from the Imperial College. So here's here's our actual data.

Here's what I'm going with this. So if we can find out how many died from hydroxychloroquine, okay? If we can find out how many have died from Ivermectin, okay? And if we find out how many people have died from taking a vaccine, do we know how many people have died from taking a vaccine? No, because no, we don't. Okay, so we don't have the data to know how many died from the vaccine. Because what's happened is the denialism about the risk in terms of death is so high.

And here's so, if you guys could do something for me, pull up chilling pandemic data from the insurance industry because I want to give credit to Mary Beth Fyfer, who's the journalist that actually went and did the primary research? This is leading me to your best friend Fowci by the way. I want to ask a question about it. So if what you're driving at, there's very credible hard core estimates of the excess due to suppression of early treatment that is north of half a million excess deaths in the United States. That was actually a funded study from children's health

defense from a well-known economist that actually health care economist that is not anti-vax at all. What do you want to do with this article before? that actually healthcare economist that is not anti-vax at all. What do you want to do with this article before? They scroll down. Oh darn it, okay, because you hit the... So there's also this same version of this in her substack. So if you do that and, you know, see if you can pull that.

There you go. That's the comments section. There you go. That's the graph. Okay, look at that one. Can you make that bigger? That comes from one America. Make that bigger.

That is a Mary Beth. This is Mary Beth. We're reaching back out to that same company and asking him for a statement. I think she gets a lot of credit for actually being an investigative journalist here. So 2019 is straight flat, which makes sense. 2020 is up then stays flat at 125, 126. And then we have 2021. 2021-145.

2021-145. From Q2 to Q3. That is implementation. That, that, that, this is association, right? Association does not prove causation, but that is associated temporarily with the deployment of the vaccine. So this is where this takes me to it.

This is where this takes me to it. So for me, when you run a business, everything's about whose responsibility was it, right? You got to carry your own weight, everybody has your own departments, you got to carry your own. Well, I would argue if you're running a business, everything's about whose responsibility was it, right? You got to carry your own weight, everybody has your own departments, you got to carry your own. Well, I would argue if you're running a business, it's all about risk mitigation and cost effectiveness.

That is a part of it, but I'm talking management, like you have a certain, you're talking about retrospectively, who, you know, if bad stuff happens, where does the buck stop? So I pulled up and I wanted to find out what role does the CDC FDA and NIH play, okay? What caused them to start and who was the president

when they got started and what is their responsibility? From your experience, you're understanding, what CDC's responsibility, what's FDA's responsibility and what's NIH. So, okay, that's fascinating approach. I want to say one thing about CDC FDA, USDA, FAA. By statute, the way we've set up those agencies, they have dual roles, all of those,

of a CIA is a different matter. Now I'm going in a different direction with this. Let's stay on this. But each of those of a CIA is a different matter. Now I'm going a different direction with this. Let's stay on this. But each of those has dual functions. They are there to promote the industry and regulate the industry simultaneously. Promote and regulate the industry. So for instance, we end up with USDA repeatedly being headed by former Monsanto executives. We have an FAA that is so compromised by regulatory capture with Boeing that we end up with the

737 Max Fiasco. And we have a CDC that has a dual mission of promoting and regulating vaccines and monitoring vaccine safety and adverse events. And the CDC, like any federal federal agency responds to their funding stream. The funding for promoting vaccines is far greater than the funding for regulatory on vaccines and monitoring vaccine safety. So vaccine safety is relatively underfunded and vaccine advocacy is a relatively overfunded. This has to do with the sausage making that happens on the hill.

Under the influence of big pharma, one of my fundamental positions, and this gives back to, you know, I think what you're starting to tap into, is where you're talking about where is the blame rest, the blame rest on our political process. We have a situation in which the pharmaceutical industry is allowed to charge more for drugs in the United States than almost anywhere else in the world. And much of the significant fraction of that profit basically goes back to fund elections. They cycle that money back in and they sponsor people down to city council level.

45% of FDA's funding is from Pfizer. We pulled up some of these numbers. I understand. They lobby for that position. I'm trying to find out from 40 audience to know what is FDA's job, what's NIH's job, and what's NIH's job, and what CDC's job? FDA's job is both to promote the pharmaceutical industry and to regulate it and ensure that we have purity, safety, efficacy of medical products. NIH? NIH is supposed to be review and in scientific investigation, novel information. CDC? investigation, novel information. CDC. CDC is public health and remember is the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Prevention was added. So CDC is supposed to be our premier vehicle for capturing public health information and advising on policy relating to public health, but they have a special carve out that's unique. Okay, the ACIP and the Vaccines for Children Program is funded in a unique manner. If a pharmaceutical company can get a vaccine approved by the advisory committee on immunization practices and recommended for the

vaccines for children program, they immediately get broad immunity. So this is the indemnification. If you can reach the point where you get licensed for a pediatric vaccine, then that vaccine will be purchased for pediatric use as part of the vaccines for children's schedule by the U.S. government deployed nationally and it doesn't require oversight or authorization by Congress. They have a direct pipeline into the federal budget that if you can get your vaccine product through the ACIP and get it recommended by the CDC vaccines for children program, you are fully protected against any future liability and you have a cash cow, the likes of which any CEO

would dream of. Yeah, I mean NIH is a six billion out of budget as they got, but I ask this question because all I'm talking about, not NIH, I'm talking about the vaccines for children program from the CDC. The CDC has authority through the vaccines for children program to purchase product using the federal budget without direct congressional authority. So this is leading me to the following. Each of these

organizations was started with good intentions. When you look at the history of why it got started. So George Washington and 1777 instigated mandatory inoculation against smallpox for all continental army troops. I was in a military. God knows how many vaccines I took day one. I didn't have a choice. I took 11 shots and it was like the air guns that they gave it to us. Well, thank God it wasn't bend over because it was more shoulders, I don't remember the bend over. But the FDA in 1880's Harvey Washington,

Wiley, a scientist with the US Department of Agriculture, Brewer of Chemistry, he was known as crusading chemists pushing for tighter regulations over food and medicine, even conducting highly publicized experiments in which he fed healthy, maintained food as a result of intense lobbying by Wiley and other reformers. Legislators came out with the Food and Drug Act of 1906. Eventually it led to the FDA,

and then we had the Thalidomite event. And then the next one is the NIH, 1789, which led to that. Today, the NIH has 20 different institutes and centers including the National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Mental Health. And then you got the CDC, it started out as the Office of Malaria Control and War Areas and obscure branch of public health services founded in the community. Which is why it's in Atlanta, by the way, and it was the CDC that was responsible for

the Tuskegee experiment. So a lot of these things were good intentions. Good intentions. Absolutely. They started off with good intentions. And I think if you and I were to start a country together, let's you say we started a country together. We would say those are all essential functions.

We need those organizations to help us out. Absolutely. But then the challenge becomes hiring the right person to run those things. Here's my, I wouldn't even put it that way. I would say the challenge is to structure those organizations in a way that those that are hired are properly incentivized. So for me as a guy that is running a business and I have seven C-sweets report to me, I'm running all these different responsibilities, I have a board, I have investors, I deal with

carries, I'll deal with insurance companies, all the buck start, you know, everything comes to me, everything rises and falls on leaders. In the American capitalistic society, that's the way that I like it. I wouldn't want it any other way. I think that's how it should be because of responsibilities on the guy. It's the absolute worst system in the world except for all the others. Yeah, that's a good way of putting it.

That's a very good way of putting it. But here's where it goes. The guy at the top is a guy named Anthony Fauci. Okay. When, when, when, when you say at the top, it's important to say, we're not talking about the top of Nihat, even though that's his appointment. Well, he advises the president.

He is in charge now. He has the power of the presidency for everything relating to this disease. It seems like he kind of got a little bit more power than even the president does, okay. I'm with you. So where I'm going with this is the following, who can fire him?

Who has the right to fire him? So this has been a discussion among my peers for decades. We've all been wondering when Tony was finally gonna leave. He won't go. But who nuts? And who precisely that question? He's like Jordan Belfer from Wall Street. I'm not quitting. You know, I'm not going to go. You know, that's I know. I know. Look, I asked a different question though. I have dealt with Tony my whole

life. I asked a different question. I didn't see that. Has the power to fire him? My understanding is it's Congress. Okay. So Congress and how does that work if Congress wants to? But remember, Tony is holding two jobs. Okay. He is advisor to the president. Sure. So President has that authority.

So that's one. And then he has this position as director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. He is not the head of NIH. Okay. Francis Collins was until he resigned recently. So Francis Collins was until he resigned recently. So Francis Collins was until he resigned recently. Okay, so I went back and I wanted to find out

the history of Tony Fauci. Okay, when he first came out, did you read Bobby's book? Oh, oh, oh, yeah, absolutely. Phenomenal book by the way, but even outside of that, these open letters and everything that I have, I went back and I wanted to find out, who is this guy? What did he do?

How did he come up? How did he become who he is? Obviously, extremely ambitious guy, extremely competitive guy, extremely all of that. Okay. Who is bike peddling medicines for his parents? Sure. But there was an era in 1980s where he got an open letter from a friend, not a friend of his, an open letter from Larry Kramer.

I don't know if you've read this letter or not. Okay. So do you know anything about this open letter? This has been in Rolling Stone. This has been all over the place. He wrote it. And this I suspect was the old Rolling Stone. No, this is, this is an open letter from Larry Kramer. Now let me give you an idea of Larry Kramer. And of course, talking about Rolling Stone, Rolling Stone is not now what it once was before. This is from 2020, but I'm not going to read that one. I'm going to go to this one. Kai, do me a favor.

Before we read this article, go to Wikipedia. Let's find out who Larry Kramer is. It's important for us to know who Larry Kramer is. So I'm a Larry Kramer. We decay, but it's okay. It'll come up right there. That's the one. So go to his Wikipedia.

So Larry Kramer was an American playwright, author, film producer, public health advocate, and an LGBT right activist. He was gay. He was married to his spouse, David Webster. He's covered in the book and the band played on. Yeah, that's right. HBO series. And he is written many, many controversial. He called out many folks, you know, Kramer witnessed the spread of disease later known as AIDS amongst his friends in the 80s.

He co-founded gay men's health crisis, GMHC, which has become the world's largest private organization assisting people living with AIDS. Yeah, yeah. So anyway, so you know who he is. Now go to the open letter. So I'm asking this question because When you when you have somebody give a little context for this. This is my origin story

I was at Davis as this happened Don Francis is a So you know the open letter. I don't know the open letter But I know the context and I know a lot of in first person What it's what happened because I was going back and forth to San Francisco and my mentor, my guard was doing it, okay? But I thought I understood what was happening here until the first time I had to edit Bobby's book. And I was blown away by how naive I was.

I thought I was the ultimate cynic. I had no idea about the depth that what went on here. So carry on. By the way, Pelosi has comments about him. It's not like it's just people that are from the gay community on what happened with AIDS and how we handled it, because the way you handle, yeah, the way you handle AIDS,

I'm trying to say, if this guy's in charge of COVID, you had a year, second year, you're failing, we gotta get somebody new to replace him. That's my pitch. My pitch isn't about who this guy is, but this story comes out. Everybody asks me this all the time. How do we get rid of Tony? It's not about how we get to me. It's very binary.

He can sit as an advisor to give feedback to the new person, but somebody's got to take over. So here's the open letter from Larry. The only way this is going to happen is at the midterms. Go to the top. Go to the top for me to read. No, no, where you were at. Okay. So an open letter to Dr. Anthony Fauci.

This is written May 31, 1988. You care I'm told, although I'm no longer, I no longer believe it. I've even heard you called a saint, but saints have imaginations, vivid enough to know how to spend $374 million in a dire emergence. Okay, so that was 374 way back when.

And that was a big number. That's a big number. Let's just say it's a couple billion today. Okay, he's still, that was 374 way back when. And that was how it was big number. That's a big number. Let's just say it's a couple billion today. Yeah. Okay, he's still got more today than he did back then, by the way. Yeah, for sure. No, he's leveraged what happened in the anthrax attacks to basically capture the DOD budget for biodefence from the DOD.

What he has done in building this empire is profound. May I read this? Yeah. Okay. So, in 1980, I used to have a Larry Kramer, or the Dr. Frown, Joe, or the others, or the others. Okay. A few months later, Kramer is dead from pneumonia in May 2020. It came out, et cetera, et cetera. But this is the article. Let me see which one it is that I got.

Okay. Kai, I think you got the better one. Keep going down. Keep going down to right there. Okay, the president was okay. I have been screaming at the National Institute of Health and IH since I first visited your animal house of horse in 1984. I called you monsters then and I call you idiots in my play the normal heart and I call you murderers. You are responsible for supervising all government

funded AIDS treatment to research in the name of right. You make decisions that cost the lives of others. I call that murder. At hearing on April 29th, before Representative Ted Weiss and House subcommittee on Human Resource, after almost eight years of the worst epidemic in modern history, perhaps, to be the worst in all of history, you were pummeled into admitting publicly what some of us have been claiming since you took over three years ago. You admitted that you are an incompetent idiot. Now, I'm not saying this. This is what he's saying, right? Over the past four years,

374 million dollars have been allocated for eight treatment research You were in charge of spending that much money. It doesn't take a genius to set up a nationwide network of testing sites commence a small number of moderately Size treatment efficiency efficacy test on population desperate and to participate in them, import any and all interesting drugs from around the world for inclusion in these tests at these sites and swiftly get into circulation. Anything that remotely passes muster,

yet after three years, you have established only a system of waste chaos and uselessness. It doesn't take a genius to announce that you have elected to personally supervise the study of broad range of new drugs. Yet two years later, you are forced to admit you've barely begun. It doesn't take a genius to request. As you did 126 new staff persons receive only 11

and then keep your mouth shut about it. It takes an incompetent idiot. Anyways, this continues. No, he's not incompetent. Can you do me a favor and continue to the part where I wanna read what Pelosi says about it? Let me see if this is the one. Okay, go to where you are right there.

Go to where you were at. Go back to where you were, I will get to Pelosi. Zones on again, Zones on again. Okay, then to quote Representative Harry Waxman at the above hearings, Dr. Fauci, your own drug selection committee has named 24 drugs as high priority for development and trials.

As best as I can tell, 11 of these 24 are not in trials. Yet, six of these drugs have been waiting for six months to more than a year. Why did the delays I understand the need to do what you call setting priorities? But it appears even with your scientist's choice to trials are not going on.

Your defense, these are just confounding delays that no one can help. We are responsible as investigators to make sure that in our zeal to go quickly, that we do clinical study correctly that it's classic to you. And this is classic double speak. But go to Pelosi. Now Pelosi is Pelosi, right? But no, not quite what she is now. No, no, no, but this is old school Pelosi, but this is old school Pelosi when she's largely representing this

constituency from from San Francisco. That's her own based assume that you have AIDS of course and that your Assume that you have AIDS and that you've had pneumonia once representative Pelosi said you had you know that aerosol iside pentamidane. Perseveralized pentamidane. Was evaluated by NIH as highly promising. You know as of today that the delays in NIH trials may not be solved this year. Would you wait for NIH? Would you wait for NIH?

I'm aware of this quote. So then he replies, I probably would go with what would be available to me, be it available in the streets of or what you have. We tell you what the good drugs are, you don't test them. Then you tell, then you tell us to get them on the streets. You continue to pass down a word from on high that you don't like this drug or that drug. When you haven't even tested them, there are more AIDS victims dead because you didn't even test the drugs on them because you did.

And then there's the whole fiasco of AZT. AZT. We wish directly mirrors Remdesivir. Yeah, AZT. The parallelism between his strategy then and what he's done now is almost one by one. If folks, if you haven't read this article, I'm going to put the link below. You have to read this entire article. And there's more here, okay, that if you dig deeper, because I've been dealing with Tony my whole life, okay.

Tony does stuff that would get me eliminated from the ability to do clinical research. I would be, I would lose my ability to serve as a principal investigator. He routinely does things like break the blind disclose data prematurely. It's no one says anything because he's got so much power, but because he controls the purse. This is part of why the academics won't criticize him is if you criticize Tony, he will retaliate. Peter Duceberg is the case study in this. One of the top virologists in the history of the 20th century, and he got canceled, full on canceled. Full professor, University of California, Berkeley, fantastic scientist, and he got canceled

because he questioned Tony's party line about the origin of AIDS and the basis of it of what is now named as HIV. But that Tony does more than this and I've watched him again and again and you can go back in C-SPAN and find this stuff. Tony does the same pump and dump scheme that the vaccine companies do was basically pioneered by Vikeckel. The way the game works is there's an outbreak and Tony goes to Congress, there's a hearing. Tony says, if you will only give me fill in the blank billion dollars, I will solve your pain by producing a vaccine rapidly. The vaccines up until this point have never come. These are the first vaccines that come out of the vaccine research center ever

that has reached the stage of development. But here's where I'm going with this doc. In this sense, when Pelosi's asking the question, saying, if you had nothing else, what would you take? He says, I got it. I got it. But my question for him is the following. If that's the case, why were they so hesitant about folks using hydroxychloroquine? If that's all we had, that's on pre-doc scene.

So Zebsolenko put together this fantastic video where he summarized this. Zeb is the fundamentalist Jewish person in New York, who was one of the early advocates of the hydroxychloroquine is a thermoscent treatment. There was pioneered in France. So here on the state side, he is the personal physician to a number of right-wing politicians that I'm not gonna out him on, that you would recognize from New York.

He writes a letter to Donald Trump saying that hydroxychloroquine works and we should make it available. Trump looks at the information, talks to Peter Navarro and says, we want to make hydroxy widely available. They tell Rick Bright, who heads up Barda, which is the organization that gives out billions and billions. They're the ones that funded the J&J vaccine. He threw the food chain through Bob Cadillac, the Asperr, who's at this point in time, Rick's boss, tells them to make hydroxychloroquine widely available. Peter Navarro starts sourcing hydroxy for the whole world, for all the United States.

Yeah. And Rick is on video saying directly that he worked with Janet Woodcock because he believed this is what he says, it's not consistent with the data. It's been known that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were effective against SARS-1. I'm the first guy that got to the best of my knowledge, the Chinese protocol because I had colleagues within the Chinese public health system. And I got them to send me the Chinese

treatment protocol which has both traditional Chinese medicine as well as Western medicine versions. And I sent it into my buddies that, buddy that's at the CIA who is reporting to Bob Cadillac, the Asperr. At the time when Rick Bright asserts that there was no information supporting the efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine,

that is an overtly false statement, demonstrably false. But what he says on video is flat out he worked with Janet Woodcock to ensure that hydroxy would not be available for early treatment. He doesn't say why. He only says the reason is because there was no data and it would kill people. Now, hydroxy is on the WHO list of essential medicines. It is one of the only of these drugs that has this broad spectrum anti-viral activity that is safe for use in pregnancy. We had actually written a patent on it when I was working with a defense threat reduction agency in Yusamrida on repurposing drugs for Zika, because Zika was a problem of pregnancy.

Hydroxy is a very interesting drug, just like Ivermectin is. It has broad spectrum activities. They're not particularly potent, but they're there. And repeatedly, many papers, including for these coronavirus. So, ricca certs that it has no activity, there's no basis for this, they're gonna kill people, and the president is telling them to make it widely available. So he and Woodcock concoct a scheme, but using the emergency use authorization to make it so that hydroxy is only to be used

in the inpatient hospitalized environment. Which, by the way way is too late. Hydroxy is something that needs because it's not super potent. It needs to be administered early. It's another one of these agents that appropriately are used as soon as you're diagnosed together with iburemectin. So whatever the reason is, there was a concerted effort to buy these two players. Janet Woodcock was head of Operation Warp Speed

for drugs at the time. Rick Bright was head of Barda, and they conspired to circumvent for better works. Whatever you think about Trump, he was the president. The president said, make this drug available, and they worked together to make it so that it wasn't so. Now, what is the driver behind that? Why do we see the FDA marketing Ivermectin as a horse drug when it's clearly isn't also

on the World Health Organization list of essential medicines? Why did Merck come out with their PR piece that Ivermectin is toxic, an agent for which the Nobel Prize was awarded. This, I have to live, I can't get inside of people's heads. I don't know what they were thinking, you know, in terms of all these conspiracy. I mean, for you, you can speculate. I try not to. All I'm saying is these are the data, demonstrapled data.

Have you ever seen the Michael Wallace 60-minute interview from 19, I don't know what it is? In 1976, I want to say about Swine Flu, you ever seen that 60 minutes? No. Yeah, I have seen clips about that. He talks to this one lady who took the Swine flu vaccine and afterwards her name is Julie Roberts, believe it or not, and not no relation to the Julie Roberts, but she afterwards has side effects

and they were trying to sue the forms of car race and death story. Yeah, and then you know, if you haven't seen that folks, I highly recommend you go watch that because it's 1976. I mean, as a vaccinologist, I've had to deal with this my whole career. People come up to me and say, you make vaccines, you cause me to have Guillain-Barre syndrome from flu vaccine because I've been involved in flu vaccine.

But you know how I processed that when I watched that. In that, when you watch that, Gerald Ford doesn't look good. Gerald Ford looks like he's the enemy. Okay, because he's talking about, hey, 500,000 people died from slime flu and this vaccine's gonna help us out, et cetera, et cetera. Right, so. Those are projections, by the way. That's another case of overmodeling.

Sure, but the point I'm trying to make is, I remember when Trump said, we're gonna come out with the vaccine and NA, that's Kamala, would you take it? I don't trust, I wouldn't take it, I wouldn't trust it. Right. And then Biden says, I wouldn't take it. I wouldn't trust it. Right. And then Biden says, I wouldn't take it. And then I think the unfortunate thing that makes me feel very uncomfortable, I've been

living in Iran 10 years, we escaped from a family of communism and imperialism, mother side communists, that side imperialist. I lived in a refugee camp for too many two years. Fantastic background. Point I'm trying to, I don't know if it's a fantastic background, it's just my background. So you know, the point I'm trying to make to you is my concern is when politicians use anything to scare the hell out of people, I mean, if they're watching back in the day, they said, if you touch somebody, you can potentially get vaccine.

That was not the truth. All right, no, disease. You can get the disease, yeah, you can get the disease aids if you touch somebody and then they're on, they backed off. It's set off crazy all of the United States. That's fear of gold children and everything else. But I think folks, I call it fear porn. Yeah, I, I, you know, folks who are leading organizations like CDC, FDA and IH, I think they need to be more, you know, you go to a doctor, the doctor want to talk to us like the best of all, of all possible worlds. They're objective and they have no conflicts of interest

instead of flipping like Scott Gottlieb straight into becoming a board member. And vice-pramp out of people, like thinking Groverid says people have six biggest fears, you know, at the top is death. People are afraid of dying. You come out and you drop words like this. Words have weight.

The Biden comment for about dark winner and the unfaction they have. And what's whitehouse.org? Yeah. So all I'm saying is I think the only person that's constant here, we can bash Trump, we can bash Biden, hypothetically, both parties. But the only person that's constant is one person. And it's not gotten better. So we've said you say America fires Trump.

He is untouchable. He is the J.S. He is the J. Edgar Hoover of our era. I don't know about that. I don't know if anybody is untouchable. Just a year and a half ago, nobody thought Cuomo was untouchable and he would get fired and look what happened to him. Ain't nobody in America untouchable. Nobody. The American president got impeached twice. Nobody is untouchable in America, including himself. I think if midterm elections are coming up, and this COVID stuff is worse, are we still up?

Yeah, we are still up. Okay, I lose. What you said you guys got something at 11.30, is that the timeline is what you guys got, that we had a three hour session, but okay. So, go back to it, with midterms being here, if COVID count goes up and they have to point at- Oh, it's not enough.

If it goes up- I'm a cron is ripping through the entire population. I'm gonna say it, for you when, I'm gonna be the if can, you be the when can't, okay? If it goes up, if they don't point the finger at a person and do something about it, it's going to be a blood bath in midterms. When companies don't do well, someone gets fired. In this situation, so President got fired, either Biden, Kamala, and midterm congresspeople

are going to get fired or this guy's got to get fired. That's why we have this. So, mass formation is really important intellectually. When mass formation happens, the people that now suddenly have developed a sense of community that have bought into that mass formation event have to have an enemy. And that anger is being directed at anybody which ripped America apart and very actively being exploited to do so. And they, their target that has been, the president has explicitly

appointed to a target. The target is the unvaccinated and the anti-vaxxers and they have labeled me as such. Okay? I've got people telling me all the time you've got to have full-time security, my friend. Oh, you've got full-time security. They look very intimidating. You walk down. You know what I'm saying? You walked in on my desk. I just got hand muscles. I've got handlers. No, I got to get Joe Rogan. I mean, Joe Rogan has seals around him. He has to, I met them there. I was on Rogan two months ago. We had a very good conversation together at a studio.

He's the most necessary guy in America today. He's the most trusted, necessary guy in America today because he's pushing the envelope, getting more viewership than Foxy and NMSC. It's not just more. It's like 20 fold more. Yeah, it's blowing them away. Yeah, there is there is but thank God for two. I will tell you thank God and I hope YouTube goes

this direction as well because I think YouTube's a powerful platform. I hope YouTube allows some of these conversations because some I'm looking at the commentary. From your lips to God's. You know what the commentary is saying? The people that love you are upset at me. And the people that don't like you are also upset at me. That's how an interview should be done. I wanted to do it this way. So YouTube leaves this up for people to make,

they can hate me all they want. I'm not in the camp of wanting to be like, that's not my job. You're the product today. They came here for you. They didn't come here for me. And I'm not in the camp of wanting to be like, I'm in the camp of give people. So this is

my fundamental principle and has been all the way through. It's coming from that background of bioethics and the critical role of informed consent. What I say again and again on social media is I don't seek to tell you what to think. I seek to give you the tools and the information to allow you to make your own conclusions. You do push them, look, though. You can't say you're not a rebel. And by the way, you are also part of the camp of imposing 43-year-olds to get a colonoscopy,

which I don't appreciate, but that's a complete different camp you're a part of. But go ahead, I'm on list. It's school. So look, complete different camp you're part of but go ahead. I'm list it's school So look the point I'm trying to make is I You and I get hired were best friends. We've been in the corporate world for 30 years We come and we help companies not go bankrupt. That's our ammo. Let's just say that's my core That's my core business just say that's our job. Let's just say that's our job

It is part of my job. We get hired by XYZ company. We go to AIG, we go to IBM, we go to Target, we go to HimArt before they're about to go out of business, pick any one of these. Or I'm brought in to consult with stock brokers in investment analysts. We're going to make a list of all the leadership team and you're going to see which one of them have become bureaucrats, which one of them have become aristocrats, which one of them are the innovators, the administrators, the builders, the explorers, the synergists, you have to fire the bureaucrats or aristocrats because they're holding the company back. In this constant situation, since pandemic got started, there's only one person that's constant,

only one person, and that's Fauci. I'm not suggesting we fire Biden, America chose to not have president Trump as their president. It's time. It's been long enough. Let's find somebody else. That's my only suggestion. I don't know if you agree with that. Maybe you want to have Fauci stay here for a little longer, but that's your decision. From my standpoint, and this is what's going to get you killed on YouTube, saying this. From my point of view, Tony should have retired long ago, the guy's 80 years old. We absolutely must pass on a decision-making power to a younger cohort. And that for whatever reason, is there anybody that you think would be good? Boomers, or just won't get out? Is there anybody they think would be good boomers or just won't get out

Is there any name that would be so here's the problem with Tony? Okay, what I was trained in in leadership. Yeah when I was a young man is the first job of a leader when they move into an Organization is to begin to train his successor his or her successor Okay, Tony has systematically Eliminated any lieutenants that are potential threats to him. The one person, there's a couple of people that are angling for this position, one of them is Peter Hotez. And you can see the change in Peter's behavior. I've invited him and Offit, neither one of them wanted to come. Paul Offit is a piece

of work. He's a sweetheart type of guy or... He, I don't understand the ethics of Paul Offit. He's loved by a lot of people on the other side. Yeah, they're promoted, you know, he's promoted as the inventor of the rotavirus vaccine. He has leveraged his position, he's totally pro-vaccine. I'm not anti-vaccine, I'm not pro-vaccine, I'm not pro-the-technologies. You've taken the vaccine.

You've taken the vaccine. You've taken the vaccine. But I am fundamentally a clinical development and regulatory affairs specialist. This is what I do. And with a long history of innovation, I know the good, the bad and the ugly and where the bodies are buried for all of these technologies. You want to talk about no Vax? I can talk about the good and the bad of no Vax. I can go on and on because that's my job is to be an independent analyst and a developer and not to be

biased towards this that of the other technology. Last ten minutes that we got, I want to give you a minute to cover your organization, but by what you do, but prior to doing that, I want to ask the conclusion, audiences listening to this. Some of them listen to CNN, some of them watch Fox, some of them watch MSNBC, some of them just watch podcasts like this, like Rogan, like others who are doing a great job, you know, getting people to think and do their own research, right? Are you optimistic about the future? Like, what do you see is gonna happen next to us? Are you at a point where I think the right people

are gonna figure it out and say, listen, we're not gonna tolerate this anymore? What are you think is gonna happen next? So, this is part, I really recommend that people look at this podcast with Matthias, Peter McCullough and myself, it's on my Getter account. We'll put the link there for people to go find you. Tommy Carrigan, Tyve, you want us to subscribe to WebSet or to Getter account?

Either one, it doesn't matter. Let's put either one of them in there. Yeah, the website is, you know, WebSet Getter account in our substack, or the mean, and then the Unity Project, UnityProjectOnline.com and the International Association of Physicians and Scientists, which is globalcovidsubmit.org. By the way, that's over 16,000 physicians and scientists that have signed off on the declaration that includes you should not vaccinate your children.

This is the site, the global COVID Summit site, that has this four-minute video clip of me basically warning parents, you better think twice before you vaccinate your child. It is your responsibility to make that decision. It's not the state's responsibility, and you better think twice, because if your child does experience those rare adverse events,

one in a thousand, one in two thousand frequency. You can't fix them. They're with it for life. You're going to live with it for the rest of your life and your child is going to live with it for the rest of their lives and you better think it through and look at the data and make an informed decision. So that you can find that clip, which is another one that is just exploded virally. So are you optimistic about the future?

That's what I want to ask. Here's, so I am actually, I'm less optimistic about after speaking with Matthias. You're less optimistic. Matthias asserts that he and his colleagues believe that the mass formation has developed to us point that we are going to have to live through that process that is associated with mass formation.

And the best that Peter and I, who are for whatever reason, McCullough and I are identified as the leaders in this, I didn't seek it, he didn't seek it, there's a whole lot of downside, but here we are. Okay? And Matthias' position is that we must continue to speak out, and we have to do so in a rigorously nonviolent, non-confrontational way, because it will provoke violence from those that are suffering from the mass formation. Yeah.

It will, you know, this stuff that's coming out here of these little tack pieces, like the stupid Forbes article, it's just, it's humorous if you look at it and read the logic that's laid out. And the words that are used in your correspondence. Yeah, but it's immature writing. Just the same as the Atlantic monthly is immature writing. I mean, I was, he's not, I write write better pieces on a daily basis in my substack. But he's not optimistic about the future.

He thinks that we are already in it, and folks like Peter McCulloch and I have a obligation to continue to speak out, to reduce the depth of the mass formation phenomena that is developing. He believes that the horse is left the barn. We have this phenomena. It is a global phenomena. It is driven by mass media. It's driven by pharma bucks. It's driven by the tech gods. And it's we're in it. And Peter and I and the others,

and we're experiencing a daily basis. Yeah, I don't know if I don't know if I'm there. And here's why I don't know if I'm there. I think we have to fight. I think only the paranoid survive. Don't get me wrong. I agree with that. Can we not use the term fight?

No, we're going to use the term fight because it's fight, fight, freeze. We're either going to freeze and do nothing. We're either going to fight and run away. These are the same reason why I'm not using the term mass formation psychosis. If we frame this as a fight, a conflict, then we will provoke a fight response from the opposition.

I think we're, you know, I value and respect where you're coming from. Okay, but I'm sharing with you what the psychiatrist are teaching to me that are deep in understanding this phenomena is, for instance, we're gonna have this rally on January 23rd in DC, right? DefeatTheMandadesDC.com. DefeatTheMandadesDC. Okay. January 23rd on the quad. The same day that the worldwide

rally for freedom is happening. Okay. We're going to have to spend over $600,000 on security and the other things associated with it. Everybody is scared silly and yet we're're still going Bobby's gonna go I'm gonna go Peter's gonna go. Peter is gonna go. Peter Cory but we know that we're going into an environment where we're gonna be subjected by hostels in all kinds of stuff but we have no choice. We have to continue to speak out, but we have to do so in a way that is clearly nonviolent. Oh, I fully agree. MLK against Malcolm X. That's absolutely. That's why I understand that.

That's why I'm used to this. That language matters. Totally agree. That power. You know, the only reason to wrap up on this part is the following. If you and I were to talk about the topic of censorship, you're a very smart guy.

Well read, you've been around a lot. You've experienced it intensely. Yeah, so but here's what I would tell you. Would you say it's more censorship today or 100 years ago? Or a thousand years ago? I don't know enough about censorship. I only know about what's being experienced now. And what we have is a toolkit for censorship.

Having been through multiple pandemics, I think you can do is a toolkit for censorship. Having been through multiple pandemics, I think you couldn't do this a hundred years ago. I've never seen anything like this. I don't think we could not do this ten years ago. No, no, no, no. What I'm saying is, I think you would have no voice a hundred years ago. Oh, that's true. There is no Spotify a hundred years ago.

Not twenty years ago. So what I'm trying to say is, as much as there is censorship, say, with Google, YouTube, Twitter, whoever, maybe, the concept of capital is so. LinkedIn. Yeah, LinkedIn, whoever, maybe. No one, you would disappear faster than you know it, just 50, 100 years ago. I can't believe that I have the profile I have now. Well, listen, your wife's got to be careful because when you go out there, I'm sure a lot of ladies are checking you out because you're very famous right now.

I'm just telling you so. And you got that shank kind of reluct, the Hollywood look going. Anyways, this has been a blast. I appreciate you for coming out. Yeah, let me say one thing in closure. Please. In terms of looking forward, there's three words I always try to share in closing. Integrity, dignity, and community. The way that we get out of this

is we have to restore integrity in our public servants, in our corporations, in our communities. The don't belive is not okay. It is corrosive. Integrity, dignity. We have to restore dignity. We have to stop defining human beings as economic units to be manipulated for profit and rent. We have to treat each other with dignity. We have to have social and economic structures that represent that recognize human dignity. Last point and this relates to the fundamental foundation of how mass formation occurs. Mass formation requires, as a key predicate,

the sense of loss of connectedness. We have to get back to where we are connected to each other as local and larger communities. We have been splintered into so many different sub-constituencies and fragments, and we're no longer connected with each other through churches, of social organizations, anything. It's gone. And the data on this is profound. So that's when, if you were to ask me, how do we get out of this?

I think we have these three key words to keep in mind. Restore integrity, restore human dignity, and build community. I like that. I appreciate that. Folks, if you're watching this first of all, some people say this is not going to stay up past 45 minutes. YouTube likes you today just so you know that. So I'm saying you. Thank you YouTube for leaving this up. We hope it stays on for a while. However, for those of you that are watching this, that maybe didn't see the whole thing. If God forbid, this is taking down please text us at 310-340-1132. Kai, my sayinna correctly, 310-3-401132, the word Malone.

We will make sure you will get this link. However, at this page, it's still on YouTube, which we're happy for that. And all the links to follow Dr. Robert Malone will be in the description section. All the articles I talked about as well, we're going to put it in the description section for you to be able to go look it up. With that being said, thank you so much for coming out and doing this interview. You really enjoyed it. Appreciate you. Thank you. I'm glad you pushed me. I have for those that are angry at him,

please understand we had an agreement that he would push me as much as he felt like doing. And I got no problem with that. I come with Stan, scrutiny, and pressure. I've been an academic for a long time. I've had a lot worse. And I salute you for that because most people don't want to sit in this seat here. I salute you for doing a lot of respect for you doing that. Thanks. Thank you. Take care.

you