The Highwire with Del Bigtree - DR. MALONE ON THE BIGGEST THREATS TO HUMANITY

Episode Date: June 18, 2024

Immunologist & Vaccinologist, Dr. Robert Malone, MD, gives an expose on his extensive background in vaccine development from his significant contribution to the invention of mRNA technology to his involvement in the real life ongoing case about the injury cover-up from the MMR vaccine, portrayed in the film Protocol 7. Hear first hand why he believes gain-of-function research is one of the biggest threats to humanity.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

I keep saying, you know, they're using health and science as a weapon, this concept of health. No one saw it coming. When we started doing this work at the highway, we were all alone. There was nobody reporting on the dangers of vaccines long before COVID. We started the show at the end of 2016 and into the beginning of 2017 because what we're finding the work that we were doing with Aaron Siri about the actual testing going on, that there was things that no one knew about and it could only be revealed by suing the government. of the United States. But what if you worked with the government?

What if you were on the inside? What if you, you know, grew up believing, you know, that the future, you know, had to do with virology and immunology, and you studied it and you were doing this great work and creating amazing vaccines and maybe even dabbling a little gain of function or watching it happen and recognizing it was going on. And suddenly you realize, oh, my God, I'm surrounded by morons. and I think they might just destroy the world.

I might be overstating it, but I'm going to let him tell you all about it himself. I'm talking about Robert Malone. An internationally recognized physician. A scientist, an author, a speaker, a bioethicist, the global clinical research scholar at Harvard Medical School. He holds 10 patents. His published works have over 7,000 clinical citations. One of the bravest voices in the medical. medical community speaking out against censorship.

And the inventor of MRNA vaccine technology, Dr. Robert Malone. The apparently very dangerous Dr. Robert Malone. Welcome Dr. Robert Malone. I spent 30 years as a scientist and as a physician developing vaccines, including the core technology that gave rise to these MRNA vaccines. I'd spent my whole career in vaccines. I literally invented MRNA vaccine technology. when I was 28.

I was working at the California Regional Primate Research Center with my wife trying to develop this tech and tested in non-human primates as well as mice. And we could not overcome the toxicity. Our top expert in Gain of Function Research, a former project manager at DARPA, he called me up and said, hey Robert, we got a problem. This novel coronavirus that's circulating here

in Wuhan looks like it's gonna be a problem. I did a threat assessment, made a decision that once again, like with Zika, there was no way to develop a vaccine in time to really mitigate the risk. What we needed to focus on was a repurposed drug, so that's pretty much what I did, largely with DOD fundings. What I originally highlighted when I kind of came out of the closet metaphorically on the COVID crisis is the gross ethical failures that were ongoing. I'm a scientist. I'm committed to this. and I'm committed to medical ethics. Unfortunately, we've politicized this situation and we didn't need to. And we really should have been focusing on the science,

and now the science is making it clear that these vaccines are no longer making sense. It has been a sharp shock for me to come to terms with what modern propaganda and media manipulation really means. You cannot underestimate the abominent. absolute lack of any morality on the part of these people that are that are promoting these false narratives. There are no boundaries. This executive branch has invested over $1 billion in promoting these narratives in social media and in the legacy media. When you have a society that has become decoupled from each other and has free-floating

anxiety in a sense that things don't make sense. can't understand it and then their attention gets focused by a leader or a series of events on one small point just like hypnosis they literally become hypnotized and can be led anywhere we're gonna be living with the consequences of this in so many different dimensions for it not just our generation you're talking about your children and my grandchildren are gonna be living with it in so many different ways it's it's profound what we've done the truth is like a lion You don't have to defend it.

Let it loose. It will defend itself. Well, he's an immunologist, a vaccinologist, a molecular virologist, a pathologist, and a physician. And he's also one of the inventors of the MRNA technology. It's my honor and pleasure to be joined right now by Dr. Robert Malone. Welcome back. Thank you, Dill. It's really good to have you.

It's been a while. Yes, it has. I've seen you out in the speaking circuit. We've been doing a lot of things. And clearly by that montage, you have been a busy man. Yeah. But we find ourselves in this incredible time. And in some ways, I would say, the public has been educated in a way that has been very helpful in that.

Concepts like, you know, immunology, biology, vaccine development, gain of function is now something that, at least on a cursory level, your average person watching the news knows a little bit about, which makes this conversation a little bit easier. But they don't seem, I think we're just because also, well, like I know, they just let it roll off. But you have both been a part of the process around biology, immunology, working with pathogens like this, how to stop them, how they're created. But you've also been inside and seen how the government thinks about this and Department of Defense. So So for people that maybe I have brand new followers and watching the show every day, just very quickly, what is your background, especially in your interaction with government agencies, which seems to be a really big part of this conversation now? A key part of my story is that the guy that ostensibly was my mentor at the Salk Institute, Dr. Indurva, got pretty proper pissed off at me when I left his laboratory.

and this was in the context of the initial patent filings relating to the use of RNA as a drug and RNA as vaccination. And he insisted that he should be an inventor on this. And the Salk attorneys made a determination that he wasn't an inventor. And that and a cascade of other things led me to just say, I'm done. I left with my master's degree. And when I did, he said to me, you will never get an NIH grant. And for the most part, he's right. He was a very powerful researcher.

He was the editor-in-chief of the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences. And one of the things that I found then as a young scientist physician, as after I completed my MD, I went back and finished the last two years of my MD, was that the Department of Defense was less focused on all of the kind of self-aggrandizement, published for fame and more focused on actually producing products and getting things done. And I've always been kind of a work with your hands. Remember I was a carpenter and a farmhand before I became a physician and a scientist. And that's where I come from is I just want to get things done. I want to solve problems. And you were alluding to my history. Actually, my father worked in defense and was very involved in some key technologies like

that that's used for exploding thermonuclear devices. And I didn't want to be any part of the weapons industry. Okay. And so that's part of why I went into biology. And so I knew that DOD in their biology area was focused on protecting war fighters from disease. And I found them easy to work with. I found them much more practical, less focused on ego, more focused on actually producing a product that would help the warfighter.

Okay. And so that's why I started working with them. And I was glad to do so and have been glad to do so. And over time, because I was not able to sustain my own laboratory because it's so wicked hard to get funding, I started a consulting practice, and among other things, even though I couldn't get grants for myself in contracts, in contracts. I was excellent at writing grants and contracts. And so I began to specialize

as a consultant in working with the government kind of as an intermediary between people within DOD and the government that would come to us and say, hey, we have a need. We need this kind of a capability. And we'd like these types of technologies brought together in some way that would allow us to build this solution that we're envisioning. And so they'd come to me and I was able to go around and basically serve as an intermediary and solve problems, pulled together teams to come up with technical solutions. Because what I observed was that again and again, the big contractors, we call them Beltway bandits in the D.C. area, were often providing suboptimal solutions.

that really weren't the best tech at the time, for government contract opportunities. So you and I were paying for second-tier science, second-tier product development, coming out of the big corporations that had the lobbyists and the capabilities of working with the government and being compliance. And the little guys, who were the innovators,

coming up with new solutions and understanding new technology, didn't understand how to write federal contracts and win them. and maintain them. So I became that person, basically to enable innovation from the small guys to compete in the same arena as the big boys. And I did it quite successfully.

And that people criticized that I made so much money to know. I'm sorry, working as a consultant is pretty much a hand-to-mouth existence. But I did win literally billions of dollars for my clients. And I think we did a lot of good work, including into the COVID crisis. you know, work with Ebola. I was at the tip of the spear in bringing forth the Ebola vaccine for a small company in Iowa that eventually sold it off to Merck, and that's the licensed Ebola vaccine for what it's worth. It's not a great vaccine, but in the face of Ebola, it's better than nothing.

And worked on repurposing drugs for Zika. And then along comes this COVID-Corps. crisis and I again did a threat assessment as was mentioned in one of those clips and determined that there was no way that you could build a safe and effective vaccine against this coronavirus because no one had ever built a safe and effective human vaccine for a coronavirus. It evolves too quickly. It's too slippery. It has too many ways of evading immune responses and that what we needed to do was focus

on repurpose drugs. And so I pulled together a team and that's what we did. We focused on repurposed drugs, early paper on the use of famadine. The treatment's made a lot more sense, just treat this illness because it's going to evolve too fast, it's just going to get around a vaccine. And that kind of became in the group of dissenter physicians, and you've had many on your show here, that kind of became the norm is focusing on early treatment and repurposed drugs.

In our case, with DOD, we came on. up with the combination of famadidine cellicoxib, another off patent drug. These are both off patent drugs, you know, with safety track records, et cetera. And then particularly effective is if you added ivermectin. And we tried to then the data was so compelling that we were able to convince Department of Defense to allocate a substantial amount of money to move this into real solid clinical trials. you know, well-structured, randomized with controls, et cetera. And we got stonewalled by the FDA.

For me, it was stunning. I pulled together a highly experienced team of vaccine specialists, clinical trial specialists, regulatory affairs specialists. And we had the capital, a couple hundred million bucks from DOD to do this, and we put together the INDs and all the documentation. We had substantial clinical data. These are all licensed drugs, off-patent, inexpensive, what's not to like. Right.

Okay. And presented that to the FDA, no. DoD. Okay? Then we revise that. Present it back to the FDA. No. You have to prove that Ivermectin, you have to prove the mechanism of action of Ivermectin in vitro.

in cell culture, which is not how it works. Right. Okay, if we're going to allow you to go forward. And so each time this is months of work and months of delay. And in the end, nothing came to those trials. And I left the group, I stopped being a consultant because I started speaking out, as was mentioned, about the bioethics of what was going on,

the jamming of these products into people without allowing them to understand what was really going on. You'll remember the Dark Horse podcast with Steve Kirsch, which was kind of a, most of us got introduced to you. A moment in time, yeah. It was a moment in, I like to say, three old men sitting around a table talking for two hours, and it goes viral. That's when I knew something weird was going on. But you'll recall that we talked about this, the technical word is common technical document that Byron Bridal from Canada had obtained from the Japanese regulatory authority

because they had placed it on their website, whereas the FDA hit it. Ed did the TGA in Australia, etc. But for some reason, the Japanese made it available. And when I read it, after, you know, Byram read it, and then there was an effort to write a little summary document for trial site news. And trial site news was spooked by this.

And so they said, well, we're going to get this guy Malone to review it. Byron Bridal was scared silly, thought this Malone guy was really going to rip him an extra one. Right. And what was posted? Was this the actual genetic sequence, or what are we talking about? No, it was the common technical document is essentially the body of information that is submitted worldwide. They translated, but it is a common format.

It used to be called the I-N-D. It is a body of evidence that says this is what we know about this product from our non-clinical testing, et cetera. Okay. And this is why you should allow us to move forward with emergency use authorization or clinical trials. All about the vaccine, okay? And so this was the document that showed that the product didn't stay at the site of injection.

Right. It went all over the body. Right. Okay. That the levels of protein production were sky high, that it had this paradoxical affinity for ovarian tissue. Remember all those? issues, okay? That was that document. So concerns about fertility. And what, you know, there's a whole lot of nuance that, yeah, in all this jibber jabber about what Malone did or didn't

do or who he's with or whether he's controlled opposition. I actually set up, I had enough status in the field and history that I was able to get Peter Marks on the phone. And we scheduled a Zoom conference, and I was assuming that the FDA was basically having the wool pulled over its eyes by Pfizer and Moderna. Okay. You know, how else could you explain the FDA allowing this to go forward with this body of data that was so shocking? Yeah.

It clearly demonstrated that it did not meet normal criteria, established criteria for a vaccine candidate. I was shocked. And so I assumed that somehow the FDA had not had sufficient expertise to really comprehend this information that was being put in front of them. Seems like a logical. If you're coming from the position of assuming the government is actually competent. Yeah, you had experience of believing. I was assuming that they were competent and that somehow they had just been manipulated.

And so I set up this phone call with Peter Marks and offered my experience. You know, I created this tech. I was the one that pioneered the use of luciferase in animals as a reporter gene. This whole system is based upon what I did when I was 28 and 29. So I'm thinking they just don't comprehend what's going on here. And if I can just help them to understand, then they'll do the right thing. And what comes back at me was Peter says, well, you actually have only seen this one document. And there's much more information now that we've received.

And I've reviewed it, Peter, okay, he's not a vaccinologist. He's not an immunologist. He's an oncologist. He's a cancer guy. Okay. But he's reviewed it and he sees no concerns. Okay. Now, what is that new body of evidence that he's received, that he's telling me to basically

he tells me straight out. I would really appreciate it if you would back off of this, not make a big issue, and let me discuss this with the public at, you know, in my own speed at the right time. So I'm, you know, I'm still assuming that these guys are acting in good faith

and they, there are government employees, they've come to this position, they understand what they're doing and giving them the benefit of the doubt. Well, the document that he's referring to is the Pfizer dossier that the courts, they tried to lock up in the courts for, what is, 65 years? 75 years, yes. I think you guys played a role in busting that loose, okay? So that document that then, Natalie, you know, was gone over by so many people, including your team, that revealed all kinds of additional malfeasance and misrepresentations and redirections and, you know,

we could call it lies, was what Marx was referring to. Okay? So at this point, as this is starting to happen, I realize that you're not in Kansas anymore. Right. And all the assumptions that I've made about what's going on here are wrong. And that's what really starts the cascade.

And then I get booted off of Twitter. I get booted off of LinkedIn. And as many say, and I don't, you know, we've had you on before and the rest is history. You were now the Robert Malone that's traveling around. I want to get into some detail. There's so many places I would want to go with this conversation. But I'll try to stay specific. To begin with, you said that the DOD who you're used to working with was the ones that wanted treatments.

Even early on in COVID, they're looking at that. That segment. That segment. That segment. DoD is a huge enterprise. Okay. Now, the question I have for you, because there's something that really shifted fairly recently.

I mean, I don't know. It was probably maybe a half a year ago when I interviewed Scott Atlas. That changed my perspective. Who I have deep respect for. Yeah, the amazing guy. Amazing guy. Was there in the thick of it. Truth teller at the front lines and just got treated like dog dirt.

So it comes down to that they, right? We hear everywhere we go, it's the they, the they, the they got it all worked out. They're working all together. They, you know, as though there was this sort of diabolical. Playing like the puppet masters, but what he revealed to me, and I wonder if you feel the same way, but he revealed in many ways he was saying in his book that essentially Deborah Birx never believed in the vaccine, right? She didn't care for the vaccine. She thought the vaccine was stupid and it wasn't going to work.

She was really into the lockdowns and the social distancing and the masks. And then Fauci, on the other hand, is the one in the task force that really starts promoting this vaccine, pushing the vaccine. Of course, he's with Nyad, which is connected with Moderna, and that there was really sort of a little battle over what would really go on. And you see some of that in some of the interviews where Redfield's saying, I don't think the vaccine is going to work. You're better off wearing a mask, and that probably doesn't do much. And he's sort of, so these three, they're sort of called the Troika in Atlas's book, right? But it gave me this sense where I thought they were all aligned. And what I also did not really realize is she comes in through, I believe, Department of Defense

and really is a military operative that should have been wearing epaulets. We're all thrown off by the, you know, the scarves, but she was actually military. And it seems that this whole thing had a military function that wasn't necessarily about the vaccine, seemed to be more about distancing and lockdowns. Is any of that? I mean, I know that you've looked at some of this. Extensively. Yeah.

And pottinger's role in this. and Berks bringing Pottinger in and the role of Pottinger's CDC wife who had the back channel with Berks, who got Pottinger in, and Pottinger who, I'm told by a variety of different sources that Pottinger is very much an anti-CC person, and yet he was the one with the back channel back to the Central Communist Party in China that pushed lockdowns in alignment with Berks and a lot of these other what are called non-pharmaceutical interventions.

And one way to phrase it as my friend Frank Gaffney likes to say is they imported the China solution, which, by the way, was reinforced by Tedros and the WHO. I know you're shocked. But that was physical. So it's complicated. And Scott got sidelined quickly. Yes.

And his observations are crucial artifacts to help us discern what transpired here. But they are from the perspective of someone who was in that position was in that position for that brief moment of time and then was basically ejected out. Trying to bring this person, that person, and saying, why are these people not communicating the way one would naturally believe they are? Yeah. And the dynamics going on here are fascinating because they're still playing out in the presence. So we had the Fauci testimony and then immediately.

By the way, people like, wow, we're still on COVID. I mean, look, we may be facing a pandemic coming right around the corner. We should all know how these cogs are working because they're still spinning right now as we speak. So, yeah, and these three characters, this trucker that you're talking about, have longstanding professional rivalries. Deborah Birx is a Tony Fauci postdoc. Deborah Birx ran the DOD HIV vaccine program. They did things there that were contrary to what Tony Fauci wanted them to do. Okay.

Okay. Bob Redfield was basically rescued out of obscurity because of, um, some misstatements and actions that he made within the DOD having to do with AIDS vaccine. All this goes back to the early days of AIDS, okay? So all AIDS. This is like the AIDS team that were all fighting each other. They've all been fighting each other for decades. My entire career, okay?

Wow. And Bob Gallo and Tony Fauci gotten a big fight over who was going to control the AIDS money. And Bob lost. Okay. And Redfield pushed a vaccine story for a vaccine candidate that turned out to be wrong. And he got ejected out of the DOD basically for research fraud, whether or not that's actually what happened. That's the politics of what happened. And Bob Gallo saved him.

So Bob Gallo and Tony Fauci are frenemies going back decades. Okay. Bob had to create this new vaccine research center in Baltimore. and he hired Redfield, who now is running a clinic, as was discussed with Chris Como the other day. And this is what was fascinating, that Como interview followed almost right on the heels of the Fauci testimony. And Redfield directly contradicted a bunch of things that Fauci said in his testimony, no surprise. Right. Okay.

What you're looking at is you're getting a window into the academic politics and government politics that surrounds this. whole domain that is clear and this is why I love these hearings right now and I don't want to see anyone get elected that's going to shut them down because they're starting to turn on each other these tensions are rising everyone's turning on each other you bring up this redfield interview with Cuomo which I think is a good bridge into the next question I want to ask you so let's take a look at this the problem with what I call scientific arrogance about all the people that were doing this work they never really realized that that that they were kind of unlikely being able to contain a respiratory pathogen, particularly in the

laboratory situation that they were doing it. I've mentioned to people when I was CDC director, one of the most difficult decisions I made was I shut down Fort Detrick. I had been at Walter Reed for many years. I had worked at Fort Detrick. These are my colleagues. But CDC normally inspects these laboratories for their biocontainment adherents. And they've had some problems with the inspection. And then the follow-up inspections, they had the same problems. And I felt it was just inappropriate for them to go on doing those experiments, particularly for the people of Frederick and the area around there, because they had some various of severest laps in their biocontainment strategy, and I shut them down. They were shut down for about six months. So I think there was a lot of arrogance

here. We know that the containment in this laboratory was not optimal. But I will also say, and maybe we'll talk about it later. You know, I'm very worried about gain of function research that's being done in a lot of university labs that don't have the containment to do it. Bingo. Bingo. And so, of course, we now have Tony Fauci said so many times definitively,

as definitive as you can be with Rand Paul. It's not gain of function. You don't know what you're talking about, but now in the hearings, I think the current NIH head is saying, yeah, by definition, it was gain of function. you have Redfield saying we were doing gain of function. The Wuhan Lab clearly was doing gain of function. So this whole conversation, we just got done with Jeffrey Jackson talking about.

Yeah, that was a fantastic piece. Right. Gain of function on bird flu. And so, you know, this gain of function thing is currently, I think, maybe one of the most important stories of our lifetime, and we can't seem to stop it. This insanity is just getting crazier. So I'm completely aligned with Bob Redfield that what this is is a culture of arrogance and entitlement.

Okay. Now, I want to just a small correction, Lawrence Tyback, who you're referring to. What he said in the testimony was that by the common definition of gain of function research, they were doing it, but by the technical definition or regulatory position, and that's what fact is that, Fauci falls back on. Okay. They weren't doing gain of function research because they, the NIH has constructed this House of Cards, this definition that allows them to continue doing what allows their chosen elite to continue doing what it is that they want to do by defining it as gain of function

as not involving a highly transmissible pathogen with pandemic potential. Okay? Okay. And so by that definition, so not involving a highly transmissible, but if you take one that it's not highly transmissible and you make it more transvisible, that's considered not, no, it's not considered gain of function research. That's crazy. It is bizarre. It's upside down. Okay, it's transparently a fabrication.

We don't work with supervillains. That's illegal. But if we make a super villain, then it's okay. By the definition, our regulatory definition that we cite, that we've defined by ourselves, and by the way, which we change the definition of in the middle of all this stuff that we're flying. So that brings us to this other story that's developed just yesterday. Another truth bomb dropped. And this is from a different committee in the House.

than this select subcommittee that's investigating the origins of SARS-CoV-2. This is the Energy and Commerce Committee, which paradoxically under Title X, they make very clear, has the authority to oversee HHS, including NIH and NIHED. Okay, so that's the cascade. And they have now disclosed that a high-status, NIH researcher, Bernie Moss, that is probably, you could consider him the guru of pox viruses within the United States. Okay. And he doesn't, he's not one of these like Barrick or Dasik that relies on NIH grants.

He's intramural. That means that he gets the money straight. He doesn't have to submit a proposal or something. Okay. Or if he does, it's a big general proposal. He actually works within the government's facilities. He works in the government. Peter Dazzack's an outside group. He needs funding. He needs...

Right, okay. So he's semi-independent, EcoHealth Alliance. This is dependent on government. And supposedly was just cut off. We'll see how long that lasts. But Bernie Moss works directly for the government. Okay. And it turns out that NIH has approved him doing gain of function research on get ready for it. What are the three big pandemic potentials that we've encountered over the last two years? Okay. today, it's SARS-CoV-2. Right, coronavirus. H-5N1.

Flu. Monkeypox. Okay. So Bernie has had approval. Now, the NIH denied it. They lied to the committee that has line responsibility for their oversight. Nyad lied to them, said that we didn't approve Bernie to do any gain of function research on monkey pox. And then the document somehow came out because Moss gave an interview to Science Magazine in 2022,

in which he said outright, we're doing gain of function research on monkeypox. He's bragging about it, okay? And he says that they have swapped. There's two main clades. We're familiar now. This term clade is a evolutionary cluster of related viruses under a species. So species have clades. That's like the difference between a Holstein and a black Angus.

You could see big differences. So there's two clades of monkey pox. Clade two is the one that's circulated after this Canaryland's rave event that Tedros declared was a, being gentle. No, no, some people have said some things about right. Yes, I got you. Yeah, okay. Which Tedros declared to be a worldwide public health threat in the pandemic. Giant sex party, if you will.

As you wish. Of a certain orientation. But clearly monkeypox is something that was a pandemic. But at the time that Nyad approved this, wait for it, monkeypox was not considered a virus with pandemic potential. And so therefore, they considered that it was okay for Bernie to do this gain of function mix and match between the more highly pathogenic clade and the more highly infectious clade, which happened to be the one that was circulating a year later. Strangely, a year after they did an event 201 planning session that almost predicted it to the date. But Bernie is busy doing mix and match experiments to try to figure out can he take the...

the more pathogenic parts of clade one, put them into clade two that's more infectious and create a virus that's more infectious and more pathogenic. This is dual purpose research. I mean, this is clearly bio-warfare research. Yeah. Okay. There's no ambiguity here as far as I'm concerned. Right.

Okay. And the NIH said that's perfectly fine. You can do that experiment. We're good with that because, of course, this is not listed as a virus with pandemic. potential. But we really want you to come back and check with us if you're going to go back the other direction. And then in 2022 in this interview with Science Magazine, Bernie drops the truth bomb. He says, I've been doing this. Okay. And Nyad blows a gasket. And they tell Science Magazine they have to write a retraction. They have to pull this back. Bernie starts denying it.

And the committee gets wind of it and starts doing the investigations in 2022. And at first, The NIA lies to them. They say, no, none of this happened. We didn't approve this. This is all, you know, Bernie must be, you know, the implication is that he's just an old senile fart. And I don't know what he was thinking. You get millions and hundreds of millions of dollars, but when we finally start pointing it out,

you're an idiot. Then you don't know what to do it. Yeah, well, kind of like Tony Fauci's senior advisor that he was so careful to distance himself from, but which had his phone number and would go to his house to drop up documents. Right. So they lie to the Oversight Committee, which has direct authorization for overseeing all activities within HHS. They are the committee in the House. They lie to them.

Then they obfuscate. Then they withhold documents when they requested. They do everything they can to block the committee from finding out what actually happened. And they continue to deny that Bernie did the things that Bernie said to Science Magazine he did. Okay? Yeah. They continue to assert this. And finally, out of the blue, I knew nothing about this.

And I've got inside contacts that have some pretty good ideas about what's going on in D.C. That share from time to time. Yeah. And out of the blue yesterday drops this statement from the Republican side. and somehow only the Republicans have known that they were doing this investigation. Right, or seem to care. Right. That, in fact, this has been going on, that there's been this gain of function research happening intramurally,

and the NIH is hiding it, denying it, obfuscating, doing everything they can. And the committee in their statement, which I'm sure you'll link to this clip. I know you've got a substack on it and everything else right. Yep, yep. So it's readily available. Anybody can go look for themselves. But the committee says in a court of law, if a defendant withholds information,

then it's legal to consider in a court of law that basically, I'm paraphrasing, I'm not a lawyer, that they're hiding something. Right. If they're refusing to disclose under FOIA, stuff that your group and Aaron Siri is trying to get out of them, It's usually for good reason, right?

And they don't want you to see it. Because there's something there that's incriminating. And so this is the conclusion of the committee is that the NIAD has an obligation to prove that these experiments weren't done, despite the fact of Dr. Moss saying that they were done and bragging about it to Science Magazine. And the NIAD is doing everything they can to not provide that information to the committee. And so the committee concludes these experiments probably happen. Right. And the key point here that I'm emphasizing in the substack and I'm grateful for the opportunity

to say here is that we have a culture at NIA and in this gain of function community that is it's sick. It's a culture of with a sense of entitlement that they are the smart ones, they know what they're The likes of Rand Paul is not smart enough, are not smart enough to provide oversight. And so it's okay to hide these things from the government and from the House. It has this obligation on behalf of the likes of you and me and our viewership to perform diligence on these activities. And the position clearly of the NIA is that we know better and we're going to hide this

information from you. Because you're not competent to provide oversight for us, even though that's your job. Instead, I mean, alternatively, their position might be, oh, we're going to help educate you so that you can really understand our point of view. I mean, there's a lot of ways this could be played. Yeah. Okay? But instead, they're just stonewalling.

This is now three strikes. It's time to say you're out. Yeah, I agree. And to his credit, Bobby Kennedy said this a couple of years ago, that we're going to have to shut down the NIAD for a period of time. And that's the importance of that Bob Redfield clip. Yeah. Is Bob had the courage, despite the fact.

They're my friends. I love them. I love the work. And I shut it down. I remember when that happened. Right. Okay? I had colleagues at Ridd that were stunned.

I knew the guy that was operationally in charge of that, and then he got elevated up to the Pentagon. I mean, that was a big deal. And by the way, the reason why that really happened, this is not out in the press, is because they had problems with their air handling for their new facility that they had just built. Multi-million dollar facility. Circulation, when you talk about air. Exactly the problem that happened at the Wuhan Institute of Biology,

where they weren't able to control the air pressure so that it's reverse air pressure. The air only goes into the laboratory and then out through the hepa filters and doesn't come back out to infect people, okay, because a lot of these viruses are aerosolized, okay? And the Yusamrid facility was designed for monkey experiments, including with Ebola, and the architects screwed up, and once they had this multimillion-dollar facility built,

they couldn't fix the air handling. And so there was this risk that whatever nasties were going to go into this new building. Anybody that's been to Yosemrida knows it's basically like an old school. It is way antiquated. It's scary what goes on there under those conditions. And so they built him a fancy new building and they blew it.

And that is why that plus all kinds of malfeasance in terms of fund shifting and not, you know, not, well, it comes down to the same thing. It's arrogance that we at Usamrid or we at Niyadh, doing it. this kind of stuff, no best, and we don't need to listen to Congress or the Pentagon or whatever because we're the ones that really understand what's going on and what the risks are, and you guys are wrong. Yeah. And so I'm with, I'm now, and this is a big move for me. I previously at the Texas Senate testimonies, like a year ago, said that there needs to be a

moratorium on gain of function research. And I advocated that that be written into the law. It didn't make it. Right. Unfortunately. Right. But here we are in Texas. Yeah.

So there is gain of function research going on here at the University of Texas. Wow. On behalf of Pfizer, I documented that over a year ago. Okay. But the legislature wouldn't shut it down and there it is. But we have to stop this. This is an arrogant, entitled culture that believes that it's acceptable to do these things, which we now have clear documentation.

The segment that you just did, documenting the failure of the CDC to provide proper controls. Something we just discovered before having him on the show connects another story. When we talk about arrogance, when we talk about arrogance in science, I was just at a premiere last week of Protocol 7. We had Dr. Andrew Wakefield on this show discussing his film. And just to remind you, there's actually a connection with Dr. Robert Malone. We just found out. And Protocol 7, for those of you that maybe didn't see that show so I can pull it all together.

Here's the trailer for this incredible film that just premiered last week here in Austin, Texas. He was an orphan of conflict in Africa. He was smart and bright. And then we got him home and he crashed right in front of us. Apparently, we're in the midst of a month's outbreak. Another? Some people, some very important people are saying our vaccine does not work. You're going to want to read this.

We have a U.S. monopoly and a major share of the world market for MMR, and we own the only one that works. Except that it does not. We all sign contracts, gentlemen. Company interests, above all others. Make it work. They fake the data. It's all there. They cheated on every level.

You said you're a lawyer. Family law. And you want to understand why. Let me see it. They couldn't get the result they wanted, so they re-engineered it. That objective to improve the vaccine, but find something that gets the result they want. Fix it, gentlemen.

96%. The vaccine fails. We're all out of a job. It has failed. You need to get what's going on here. Is he in danger? Internal memos were released, quote, we may have to seek them out and destroy them where they live. Shelly knows.

And yes, he is in danger. What about he shall? Your son and every other son and daughter depends on whether or not you choose to live by their rules. Incineration. Immediately. Can we trust him to keep it together? Were you aware? Some tests included the weakened strain, I believe.

And did you approve? I guess so. Were you aware of the lab's failure to demonstrate efficacy of the mumps vaccine? A level required by the FDA? No. To respond to the FDA's consent? The FDA's concerns. And leave a dangerous vaccine on the market. Dangerous?

Objection. Strongly recommended booster shots. Of course you did. What have they got? Right, nothing is what they got. Would you please identify this document for us? Please identify Exhibit 2 for me. They've got stuff.

Don't play with it! Exhibit 3, please. This is a confidential document. Objection. These were shredded. It's a protocol. They've got the sheets. They've got the evidence I was told they didn't have.

No one will ever believe them again. Well, we saw that the Blaze had an article about the fact that you are actually an expert witness in this case of Protocol 7, which is about the failure of the mumps, part of the MMR vaccine, that it was proving we were seeing Mumps outbreaks all across the country in fully vaccinated individuals. And this movie and this story and this case that's still ongoing is about this cover up by the scientists. How are you involved in this? And when did this start? When did you get involved in this case? 2016. So before COVID?

Way before COVID. Before I think the or around the time of the ban on gain of function research. Okay. And so I have to be very careful because this is an ongoing litigation. Yes. This has not been resolved. Right. And so I'm under nondisclosure agreement.

What I'm allowed to say is that, in fact, yes, I did prepare the expert witness report for the attorneys prosecuting the Ketam case, so this is a whistleblower case, and that I submitted that report. That's all I'm allowed to say. The report has now been recently made it publicly available, which is why it's cited in the Blaze study, or the Blaze press coverage. And anyone can go and read that report and make their own decisions. Yeah.

And that's about all I'm allowed to say. Okay. Well, super fascinating that you're in this world even before we knew it. Long before. Long before. So I imagine that says that you weren't new to questions about science and tampering of science. Again, I have to be very cautious in what I say. I've been coached that I cannot call.

comment on an ongoing case, but I raised concerns. People don't realize this is not my first rodeo as a whistleblower. Yeah. Okay, I basically destroyed my academic career at the University of Maryland on the advice of my mentor, my bioethics mentor, when I spoke out to the press, including Cheryl Gays Stolberg, I was a key source for her during the Jesse Gelsinger case. This was the death by a UPenn researcher and a UPenn research team using an adenovirus vector gene therapy, adenovirus being the same platform that was used by J&J or Jonson and Asterzeneca. So this was a gene therapy trial involving a young man in which the researchers went off protocol because they weren't getting a clinical response with the allowed

doses and so they went to a higher dose without getting permission to do so. And the kid developed what's called DIC or disseminated intravascular coagulation and he died. And it basically shut down the entire gene therapy domain. Right. And a huge black mark for this very high profile UPenn investigator. And I was confront, I shared what I knew about this with my mentor. And he said, you have an obligation, Robert, to go public with what you know. And I knew at that time, if I did so, I would destroy that phase of my career as an academic.

And in fact, I did, and it did. And yet, I survived. I survived because people respected that I acted with integrity. I had numerous friends and colleagues that knew I was a person who acted with integrity. And they supported me. And that allowed me to carry on. You know, I do have kids, now grandkids, obligations, wife, et cetera. I have to pay my bills.

Yeah. But I had the experience of having spoken truth to power once before, in a very sensitive way, compromised what had been my career, and yet the way I like to put is I still own my soul. You do. And there's a question I have to ask because I really think it's pending. And what you're talking about is gain of function is going on for monkeypox. And, you know, they're trying to make these things infectious and, you know, super virulent. For all the best reasons.

For all the best reasons. Fundamental science. They're doing it with bird flu, which is super scary research. We are not, and I'm still shocked that we're just like, oh, yeah, well, consensus now says it was a lab leak. Well, then what the hell is it? What are the consequences? What are the consequence? What is this thing?

Because it appears to me, as I now see it, that if it's a lab leak, we took a virus that didn't really infect humans very well, gave it a Farron-Cleven site and a few other attributes that made it just highly infectious for human beings. Then we put out a vaccine that made sure that we cannot eliminate it from the planet, made it endemic because our bodies cannot fight it off. We're all harboring it, carrying it, sharing it, and it's continuing to evolve. So we sat in a lab, we increased its potential, maybe 100 years. Who knows?

Maybe it would have done it in nature at 5, 10. Could have taken 100 years to develop the ability to infect people the way it does. But now that's its starting point, and now it's off and running and evolving. Okay, Del, there's something, you know that I've now spent four years trying to figure out this core question, who are the puppet masters and what the heck happened to all of us? Right. The other day, a follower on my substack sent me an article. that was written an interview from 2017 from a journal in New Zealand. It comes from a guy named

Alexander Kossomov. I think I'm pronouncing that right. Alexander Kossomov happens to be a former Soviet agent, intelligence agent, from the USSR and then from Russia, whose job it was to engage in bioterrorism-related activities. Okay. Okay. And he got pissed off at his supervisor because he thought he was corrupt and he quit the organization in Russia at this time and immigrated to New Zealand and hung out his shingle as a consultant. And then he did this interview in 2017, right after the prior H5N1 perfuffle. Yes. Okay. Because this is not the first rodeo for bird flu. Right. Okay. This is the gift that keeps on giving. Right. If you're, you know, one of these folks that wants to do this, he uses the term information bioterrorism.

I use the term psychological bioterrorism. He makes the clear case that the economic impact of information bioterrorism or psychological bioterrorism is at least tenfold greater than any of the documented actual bioterrorism events. Like the ones that happen in the subway and in Tokyo, etc. Yeah. And he goes through a series of steps.

He's speaking as a, as a... an expert in spycraft. He's just laying out, this is how we do it. Okay. Okay. And he lays out this series of steps that are used in promoting weaponized fear around infectious disease for profit and control and disruption of society. And remember this, 2017? Yeah. He lays out this series of steps, he has words to define the different players and how they interact, you know, thought leaders and the press, et cetera, and what their roles are that they play as they go through this process. Yeah. He's just laying out spycraft. This is how it's done. This is how you do it. Okay. And I read through this thing and I'm gobsmacked because it is the script for what happened to

us during the COVID crisis. And at that point, so whether or not it's a biopium, bio lab leak or whatever, it wasn't nearly as dangerous as what they did to us with the fear of this thing out in the public. And which they're doing. We destroyed everything we believe in, took away our rights, took away a right to go to a courtroom, took our jobs away, destroyed our children's education, you know. Destroyed religion and churches, ability to congregate, all of it, all these fundamental rights written into the Constitution just thrown out the door. So then you've perfectly set me up for my final question because I watched it. Deborah Brooks and a lot of we just reported, and they're saying things on the news, like where you're seeing, you know, bird flu vaccines being distributed across the EU,

buying tens, hundreds of millions of these things right now. Ursula Levant-Dolide, you're just doing it again. We're making the same mistakes as COVID, but bum. Yeah, no consequence. Are we about to go into a bird flu pandemic you think this fall? What do you think the odds of that are? So, uh, that's my question. That's my question that we are going into another round of psychological,

bioterrorism involving weaponized fear about an infectious disease. Okay. There is no evidence of sustained human-to-human transmission of H5N1 now or in the past. Right. Remember these stories about the dairy workers that got infected, okay? And yet the mortality rate, according to the WHO and the FDA is 30 plus percent case fatality rate, okay? Right. The problem is that is an error in sampling.

That's a data sampling error, just like the, one that died that you just covered in Mexico, who had all these pre-existing conditions for H5N2, and now the Mexican government says, wasn't even H5N2, okay? This is the same story as using the PCR to get a positive signal for somebody that comes into the hospital, because then you get a federal bonus. Even if they got a gunshot to the head, you can call it a COVID death, and then you can get rake in these extra bucks, right? It's the same kind of thing.

So Deborah Burke's saying that we want to test all the dairy workers and all the cows every month. This is guaranteed to give some positive signal that then can be amplified by the New York Times and the usual cast of characters, the Washington Post, that are basically the new provda for the American government and for this whole cabal that weaponizes infectious disease fear porn. And just like they did with monkey pox. Absolutely, you know, it comes right on the threshold of the elections. Yep. And all these other things, and people are scared silly about what's going on financially, the fact that the central bank digital currency story is ready to be deployed on all of us. And then, Del, as you recall, when we were in Geneva,

the only thing that people could talk about in small groups was not the sneakiness of Tedros and the WHO. show, it was the risk of the American deployment of tactical nukes in Russia right before the election. I mean, all these things, I hate to say it, it sounds so crazy, but a lot of people are saying it now, and you ran, you know, you did a great series on what the meaning of the just concluded European Parliament elections are. And a major thread in all of those parties labeled as far right, I assert these are center right populist parties, is they don't want war.

Right. And they are all scared silly about the drumbeat of NATO, the German Republic has now authorized. The Bundestag has authorized German soldiers to go to battle inside Russian territory. That's crazy. Okay, it's like, it's as if they don't think that the weaponized fear about infectious disease is going to be enough. And so they have to add layers and layers of fear on top of that to get us to whatever end they are seeking and whoever they are. And that's the big question is, who is this cabal that is orchestrating this? And personally, I've come to the conclusion,

and it's totally aligned with Cosmov's statements, operationally, this is CIA, together with the Five Eyes Alliance that are busy doing the kind of technical orchestrating. I don't think they're the puppet masters behind it. I think they're operational. But they are definitely central to it. And I'm concerned. but fundamentally, this is my latest thing, okay, is the deployment of fear about infectious disease

in order to manipulate and control populations is fundamentally unethical. This is wrong. And the people that are doing this type of stuff need to be shamed. They need to be forbidden from engaging in public discourse. They need to be forbidden from participating in the World Health Organization, the United Nations. They need to be forbidden from participating in our government. This is fundamentally wrong. People that will weaponize fear in the general population of infectious disease have no right to be involved in public discourse.

And somehow, we have got to make it clear that this is not acceptable behavior. Yeah. Fantastic. Absolutely, from your lips to God's ears, we've got work to do. And I'm so glad to have you on our team. Thanks. Dr. Robert Malone. Incredible.

Thank you.