The Highwire with Del Bigtree - DR. ROBERT MALONE ON MRNA RISKS & CANCER VACCINE CONTROVERSY

Episode Date: January 28, 2025

Physician & mRNA pioneer, Robert Malone, MD, joins Del to discuss tech giant Larry Ellison’s recent promotion of employing mRNA vaccine technology to fight cancer. Get his expert view on his serious concerns about this technology that has already been proven to be dangerous and how Moderna has nearly gone bankrupt in the past after years of failed attempts of creating a vaccine for cancer. Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

It was a dizzying full first day in office for Donald Trump, but his key announcement was the creation of a huge artificial intelligence project. President Trump just moments ago here at the White House announcing this new project for infrastructure inside the U.S. for artificial intelligence. Three tech leaders joined President Donald Trump at the White House for an announcement that could have some pretty big implications for the economy as well as your health. World leading technology giants are announcing the formation of Stargate. So put that name down in your books. And the potential of Stargate is as big as the imagination of future business leaders. But tech veteran Larry Ellison thinks the first applications will be in medical treatments. This is going to touch all of us.

Yes, it takes a huge investment, but the result of the investment will be vaccines that prevent cancers. We're talking about things like advances in medical technology to possibly cure cancer using MNA vaccine technology to target a person's possible cancer down the road through blood test and then vaccinate it. Once we gene sequence that cancer tumor, you can then vaccinate the person, design a vaccine for every individual person to vaccinate them against that cancer. AI can shrink all of those development times, not only in terms of developing break drugs faster and sooner, but developing drugs that we can't even do today, i.e. cancer drugs that are particular to your own genome sequence.

It's really a revolution in medicine. Well, if it is a revolution in medicine, we know one of the people that started this revolution. I just thought it would be very interesting to talk to him right now. It's my honor and pleasure to be joined by Dr. Robert Malone. Dr. Malone, thank you for joining us today. I appreciate it. Thanks for having me on, Del. It's interesting times, isn't it?

It really is. And I, you know, as soon as this story popped up, I just thought to myself, what does Malone think? There's so many questions I have, but as you saw this announcement being made, I'm curious what were your initial thoughts about it, an MRI technology that everyone can take to get rid of these little floating cancer cells. What were your thoughts? to be brief and blunt.

Been there, done that, seen that, and got the T-shirt. These are not new ideas. We've added a veneer. We just lost. Hold on one. Go ahead. I thought we lost audio. Yeah, they're good. Go ahead. Yep. Yeah. So the addition of artificial intelligence

and spinning it as a way to apply MRNA vaccine technology is somewhat novel, but remains a business plan for Moderna. So what Larry is reciting is the original Moderna business plan, which failed. Moderna was about to go bankrupt in trying to develop cancer vaccines and apply their technology for that purpose. Before it functionally got rescued by the U.S. government and Tony Fauci and pushed forward as the brave new technology for the COVID-19 response that was, you know, we've lived through that for the last four years. So what is what is Larry talking about here?

And it's important to remember that he is a staunch advocate for both this MRNA vaccine technology. He believes there's separate clips in which he's talking. about how it's completely safe and it's been basically a miracle during COVID. So that's his frame of reference. He's also deeply committed to transhuman technology. So that's where he's coming from. A fascinating wrinkle in this is that his senior biologics expert is expert in biostatistics. A gentleman by the name of Bill Dumichel was in January 2021 collaborating with people at the FDA in the office of the

commissioner in the office of the chief scientist to analyze the data safety signals that were coming out of the trials and initial deployment of the MRNA vaccines. And it was that team that originally detected the myocarditis signal. Now, that was then denied by the CDC, denied by the FDA. They notified the data team in Israel, these same group of people, including Bill do, Duma shell, chief biostatistician. for Oracle and notified the Israelis because at the time the Israelis were believed to have the best database relating to the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines, this vaccine platform,

and notified them of what had been detected using non-parametric methods, that's a fancy word for advanced statistical methods, and that had been applied by this team. The Israelis then queried their database, confirmed that they were seeing the myocarditis signal, informed the CDC of their findings, and that's when the CDC and the FDA finally started coming around and talking about myocarditis. The key point here is that Oracle's chief biostatistician was well aware of the risks associated with the mRNA vaccine, particularly the myocarditis risk, but others also. And this has been denied by the CEO, Larry. So that's where he's coming from.

He's coming from a strong endorsement. I don't know if he has a financial conflict of interest, if he's a major investor in Moderna or whatever. But I certainly think that's something that bears looking into is why is he such a staunch advocate for this technology platform when it's not really in his business space? Be that as it may. what he's talking about, picking up peripheral, circulating peripheral blood cancer cells,

has been in the literature for at least 20 years. It's a challenge to be able to capture those cells and then do single cell sequencing, which is basically what he's talking about. That's not cheap. It's technologically challenging. And it's outside of his core competence, by the way. That has nothing to do with artificial intelligence. Then we get into, okay, now you've sequenced these circulating cells.

And by the way, only a subset of cancers are associated with these circulating peripheral blood cancer cells. It's not all cancer. Okay. So it's a subset. And sequencing those and then trying to discern what makes them different genetically, what makes them unique, is something that's been ongoing for decades, really. for my entire career, that's been a major emphasis of many groups because it's kind of the

holy grail if you could do this. If you could then identify things that were different, that could be antigenically used in a vaccine. And there's lots of different ways to advance those vaccines. People have been trying to develop cancer vaccines using all kinds of platforms, including standard gene therapy technology for decades. So that hasn't turned out to work so good. in either humans or animals. Why not? Because the real problem is not identifying potential novel antigens associated with cancer cells. That's old school. It's been done for years. The real problem is that cancer exists in us. It gets a foothold when it evolves under the pressure of your immune system to be able to escape your immune system. I just noticed there's a nature medicine paper

out today that talks about how cancer cells basically poison the immune system. The problem is that these many different types of cancers evolve to be able to evade immune surveillance, host immune surveillance, your body's ability to suppress them. It's a fundamental principle in oncology. The cancers are arising continuously in all of us. You and I, being of one of the two genders that happens to have a prostate, it's a clinical saw in pathology, which is the world I come from, that if males live long enough, they will die with prostate cancer even if they don't die of prostate cancer. Cancers are occurring all time in our bodies, and the thing that keeps them in check

is our immune system. And the real problem is that we don't understand very well. well, how that works. We've had some advances in coming up with biologics in particular that help overcome this immune evasion, but we don't really understand it because it's enormously complex. And by the way, it's a good news thing that humans are outbred, unlike inbred mice. And we have a very diverse set of genes and molecules that are responsible for determining what antigens get recognized. and how this call our major history compatibility complex, and there's various proteases also associated with it.

So that means that you can't make any easy prediction that what works for you is going to work for me. You can't come up with a universal cancer vaccine, which is something that Larry seems to have said, but maybe I'm misinterpreting that. But this idea of personalized cancer vaccines, frankly, if he came to me and said, Dr. Malone, I'm going to pay you an exorbitant fee like I pay all my other consultants.

And I want you to tell me what we should spend our time with in with our fancy new artificial intelligence Stargate tool in order to crack the problem of cancer. I wouldn't say, hey, why don't you try to do what everybody else has been doing for the last 30 years? I would say, why don't you apply your artificial intelligence to trying to understand why and how cancer evolved to escape immune surveillance. That's where we could really use the artificial intelligence. So what this strikes me as is somebody who really doesn't know what he's talking about. That's pretty clear to me and probably every cancer biologist that saw this clip. And to have this guy lecturing at me with his hands, just was a little bit over the top.

As I said, I threw up in my throat a little bit, listened to this. And what we ought to do is get real about what can be done. I don't know who's been coaching Larry and his buddies. It sounds like a pitch that, in my experience, would not survive scrutiny for five minutes at any of the venture capital firms I've ever pitched. It's naive. It's overly simplistic.

and it's jingoistic. They're taking a bunch of terms that are really sexy, stringing them together and spinning them to the public. Personally, I find that pretty offensive. I find it kind of abusive. It's not even at the level of psychological warfare. This is just a crude marketing push using buzzwords. And I'm sorry to say this.

Somebody was just advising me, Don't get on the bad side of Mr. Trump. He'll kick you out and that'll be that. But I honor and respect that President Trump is fully committed to helping the United States become a global leader, if not the global leader, instead of the CCP, in artificial intelligence. Bully for him. That's fantastic. Is this the best use of half a trillion dollars? You know what they say in D.C.

Half a trillion here, half a trillion there. And pretty soon you're talking about real money. It's just a substantial sum. And is this the best way to use it? If we take this into maha space, this is still focusing on treating disease. And we could take a large fraction, if not all of that money. and invested in promoting health and advocating for healthy lifestyles, healthy eating habits,

etc., etc., in things that can make more healthy foods available to the general public and probably have a bigger impact on cancer, incidents, and survivability and overall disease, than we would by trying to piggyback on top of a sexy new AI tool that's going to cost us a big, money, you know, moonshot kind of money. And that's where I come down on this is Larry, sometimes I get lectured that I'm outside of my lane. Well, in this case, Larry's outside of his lane. He doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. And I think that as I look at these clips, what comes to me is that these guys were in the middle of presenting this new initiative that the president is strongly endorsing and rightfully so it would be great if the united states had

world class at a world leading capabilities in artificial intelligence it's almost essential for defense purposes if nothing else that we have that capability but then they were in a position what it strikes me is that somebody said well you got up find some way to make this accessible to the common man to express to the common man how this fancy new gadget is going to make his life better his or her life better and so they said oh i know cancer everybody's afraid of cancer and we could come up with a little uh logic of how we could make this work for cancer but that is absolutely not the primary purpose that's going on here it's a potential spin off application just like Tang orange juice and space food sticks were spin-off applications from the Moonshot program.

But it is not the primary purpose, and I think it's a little duplicitous, underhanded, not transparent to spin this and pitch it as a way to solve the cancer problem. it's really intended for much larger issues. And I'm personally a little bit offended that this data guy and these Silicon Valley moguls and this bank are going to come in and act like they really know what's going on when they clearly are clueless. I agree. I mean, I didn't, this didn't strike me with the same alarm as many in our movement. I recognize the alarm. To me, it was somewhat imbecilic. It's, you know, we're going to land on Saturn.

And all I need is, as you said, a half a trillion dollars. I'm like, good luck with that. I think he's about $10 billion into the raise or something like that. But whatever the case, you know, it's still this idea. And AI, of all the things that we'd use it for, what I'm shocked at, it just seems like the simpler conversation is you could use. AI right now and it's in it's you know in the form it's in which is still got a long ways to go uh in your paper in your sub stack i think you joke that just trying to create an image it was

incapable of throwing an image together uh that that suited like it couldn't tell the difference it couldn't tell the difference between mrna and d and a so you're like not so sure how long is going to be you know we can trust this technology um so i thought the same thing i think there's a lot of alarm is that like I think the concern that people have after COVID is they'll just rush just right in the market and it'll be right there. But why isn't AI the conversation? Why do we look at the databases right now? I feel like it'd be very helpful in figuring out what's causing a lot of these cancers. What is the cause of these chronic illnesses like autism? We don't know what's causing autism. I feel like you could be using it there in a very, you know, utilitarian way, right?

Yeah. This is a hammer for big data. Right. Let's apply it to the big data problems that we have. That's precisely correct. And that requires that we access public data and health data. But many of these large HMOs are quite willing to. And of course, there's the DOD health database, which is one of the best in the world. So there's a lot of things that could be done,

as you point out very appropriately, to apply this. And I think it just shows how simplistic and naive the thinking was it's almost as if they were caught flat-footed and they had to pull something out of a hat. Right. Because if they had sat down with some serious scientists and had an advisory session about how to apply this supercomputer version of artificial intelligence or in the health space, they could have come up with 20, 30, 40 ideas that were better than this one. It also smacks of them kind of playing Donald Trump because they're hitting hot buttons that he personally is invested in.

He's invested in the idea of Operation Warp Speed. He was invested in the success of the mRNA technology. He still thinks that the MRNA products were safe and effective, except maybe they were overdosed in children. And so it feels to me like he was being pitched in a way that really wasn't, you know, very respectful. Let's put it that way. Well, one thing is for sure I think is if AI actually did look at our databases, I doubt its conclusion is going to be that we are drug deficient, that we don't have enough drugs in our body yet.

Right? Like, as it turns out, you need more drugs, which is where Larry knows the money has to be. be made. Drugs make money. Find me out like. Yeah. So that's Dell, great point. So another thing that AI could be used for is drug repurposing. Right. Yeah. And that that could be, you know, because we have this enormous pharmacopoeia now of off patent drugs. And that's what we, our little group, started working on, was drug repurposing and computational docking, et cetera. That's, applications that absolutely would be a perfect fit for a great AI engine. And, you know, that, that is something that could provide a lot of benefit in a very short time. Let's remember that that's the mandate that Bobby's been given by the president, is that Bobby is supposed to show

measurable improvements in health of Americans within 12 to 18 months. Yeah. So it's not a time for some fantastic new gadget that's going to take a decade and going to result in products that are going to cost the consumer or Medicare and Medicaid. I wonder what Dr. Oz has to say about this. You know, this is a budget buster. This is going to be how many hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions per patient for this custom vaccine production? You kind of were touching on that a little earlier in an earlier segment.

This is going to be a budget buster if it even were to come to fruition. And the other problem with this kind of personalized medicine historically, by the way, is the FDA doesn't like it very much. They are very resistant to this kind of approach because they like things that are manufactured at scale that they can oversee. This kind of one-off manufacturing process smacks of the formularies that are busy producing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, et cetera, that the FDA really doesn't like at all. So what are we going to have, kind of a decentralized operation of a small, portable

MRNA manufacturing facilities located in every state to avoid the FDA oversight? Or are you going to have to go to Puerto Rico to get your MRA and A vaccine custom built? You know, it's just, I'm sorry, Larry. a nice try, go back, set up an advisory board and think this through again, because a lot of stuff that your tool could be used for that would be really helpful. This one, I don't think so. Let's just talk about MR&A technology for a second, because the big question, as we, is getting back to the nuts and bolts of this little bit. One of the things I see argued all the time is the COVID vaccine shouldn't have been called a vaccine. It's a gene therapy.

You know, I've seen that argument all sides of it. And here again, it sounds like what we're talking about is a gene therapy. Do you have a definition that could help us understand it? Because you're the one that was in gene therapy, as you've described it to me. You're trying to use MRNA as a delivery system to insert into the genome in some way to affect a positive change. It was getting attacked by the immune system, if I'm right, it couldn't survive. You're like, but maybe this short-lived adventurous take it would be better as a vaccine, so it wouldn't cause autoimmunity and hang around too long.

But is this a vaccine? Is what he's talking about, even if it worked, is it a vaccine or is it a gene therapy? And what's the difference? Okay, so to recap, I was in Indurma's lab, who is Dr. Indyverma, who is, arguably at the time, one of the top two or three gene therapy experts in the world. Right. He'd been trained by David Baltimore, Nobel Prize laureate, and had been one of the key people that characterized reverse transcriptase,

this key enzyme for which David, Baltimore, and Harry Timman got the Nobel Prize. So I'm in a gene therapy lab at the Salk Institute, working on retroviral vectors. And by the way, the person that founded the company that eventually became J&J was the senior postdoc. And he was working on adenovirus vector technology. And he eventually created a company and then took that company to focus on vaccines because it wasn't working so well for gene therapy in the classic sense. And he once came to me and said, thanks, Robert, for the idea of using gene therapy for vaccines. That's what we're going to focus our entire company on and that eventually become J&J.

So that's that. What my little project was was focused on a nuance of retroviruses, how the RNA gets packaged. And in order to ask some basic questions, I had to develop some new technology. I had to learn how to manufacture large quantities of RNA at scale and purify it. By the way, I was totally obsessed with getting rid of the DNA and showing that I got rid of the DNA, something that has come back to bite the industry right now, as we all know, because of the adulteration with the DNA fragments. Right. So I learned how to make it at large quantities, and then I set about trying to find ways to get it into cells so I could ask my basic science questions,

and that eventually led after testing everything else to this catamaclypid business that had just been discovered at syntax. And then I tested that on a wide variety of cells and then on frogs and just. chick embryos, and lo and behold, it worked. It could deliver RNA. And then the question was, I had, at this point, I am so far off the reservation. I'm in a viral gene therapy lab, viral vector gene therapy lab, doing non-viral delivery and not even doing it with DNA. I'm doing it with RNA. That's way off the reservation. And I filed patent disclosures about this, about the idea of using RNA as a drug. And then as somebody who had been in the vaccine space for years, years. Going back to my time at UC Davis with Murray Gardner and Bob Cardiff and the early days of

AIDS and AIDS vaccine development in 1983 and 1984, and then worked with a flu virologist at Northwestern, Robert Lamb. I was very aware of the need for better vaccine technology and for an alternative to live attenuated viruses. So I just had the aha, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, uh, moment where I realized that this tech could be used to produce something that was more like a natural viral infection, but without having the whole virus. And in a way that was very simple and straightforward, you could use RNA as a drug to produce, to cause your body, to produce a protein, just like a virus does when it infects you. But you wouldn't have the whole virus. That's the idea. And then got developed. It got demonstrated when I left and went over to VICAL. We demonstrated

immune responses against AIDS proteins using RNA and then with flu and in a mouse flu model. And then it all got dropped because nobody could figure out how to scale up what I was doing in the test tube in terms of the manufacturing until the patents expired and then the government dropped a ton of money on moderna etc and the rest is history so that's how that that's that's my had nothing to do with these vaccines etc that's that's how that came to pass now the idea is still solid the idea that you can produce an immune response against a foreign protein using a gene therapy technique any gene therapy technique mrna happens to be one and uh that That is absolutely solid and it's gone mainstream now.

And it's very much akin to live attenuated. It was at the core of the vaccine that I help bring forward. It is now the Merk Ebola vaccine. It's a different platform. It's another kind of recommant virus, succulostomatitis virus. But that worked. By the way, that is a nasty vaccine.

It is a really reactogenic vaccine and people line up to take it because it's Ebola. Big difference is the risk benefit ratio. And here we ended up with something that's more like the flu in terms of its risk. And the benefit associated with these products, not so much. They're really not very effective.

One of the problems that existed all the way through the DNA and RNA vaccine space has been known for decades, is that they produce an interesting and different immune response that has more of a cellular component. So they focus obsessively on the antibodies, but it's actually the cellular immune response that matters more in most of these. And it tends to come on strong and be short-lived.

It is not a very durable response. And what have we seen with the RNA vaccines? They aren't durable. You have to keep jabbing and jabbing and jabbing. And every time you do that, you expose the patient to the same risk again. So that's what has come down here. That was the whole origin of the idea.

And I abandoned it because I could not overcome the toxicity associated with formulations. They were incredibly inflammatory. But I was told that the group at University of British Columbia had solved that problem and that they had made new lipid preparations and formulations that made it so that the product would stay at the side of injection and the draining lymph nodes, and it didn't have all this toxicity. And it turned out that that was all a lie, as you've just shown with that most recent paper looking at the biodistribution. But Pfizer knew it was a lie because that's shown in their early submissions to the FDA, which the, you know, Steve and myself, and Brett talked about on the Dark Horse podcast so long ago. It's all been out there. And what's happened is every time we confront the government and the FDA, and especially Peter Marks,

with the truth, they just deny it. And it's kind of amazing watching it happen. This denialism about scientific data at the same time that there's all this propaganda going around about trust the science and I am the science and blah blah blah. But the data have been there. They've been there for four years now or five years. And they haven't overcome the problems. They're just denying them. And people ask me again and again, could MRNA technology be made safe by, for

instance, coming up with a different delivery system? And other than these catanic lipids, which, as you point out correctly, across the blood brain barrier and have all kinds of biodistribution. issues associated with toxicity also. So yeah, it's conceivable that one somebody someday might solve these problems. They might solve the problem of the pseudo-uridine, the thing that Carrico and Weissman, together with their work on creating the vaccine got the Nobel for. The Nobel was not given for the idea or the invention. They don't even mention vaccines in their initial patents. The idea that the Nobel was given specifically for these vaccines and the people the role of

krekeland weissman in enabling these vaccines and the Nobel Prize committee specifically said the reason they were awarding it was that it would encourage more people to get these vaccines so let's put a pin in that that's what that's about it's a political award um and that's the Nobel Prize has often been political it's there's nothing new about that you know we all talk about about Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize is one particularly example. That's what went down. And I like to say, could RNA delivery for gene therapy and vaccines be made safe? And my response is, if pigs had wings, they could fly.

It's purely speculative. It's possible. Somebody might solve the problems. Now, is this gene therapy or is it vaccines? Vaccines are a subset of gene therapy applications. You have a platform, a capability of doing something, of transferring genetic information, foreign genetic information into somebody's body. Well, that's gene therapy.

If you are giving a genetic material to a patient to confer a therapeutic or prophylactic end point, you're administering a gene therapy. There's no denying it except by the fact checkers and the propagandists. When I said this early on, I got hammered for it, just unrelenting. But you can't deny it is what it is. It is a gene therapy. You are administering foreign genetic material to a patient in order to produce a medical benefit. And of those potential benefits, one is,

is an immune response, an intentional immune response. And that we happen to call at this point in time vaccination. If you're gonna talk about a cancer vaccine, you're talking about causing a immune response that normally would not happen to occur by transferring genetic material into somebody's body. So it is both gene therapy and the application vaccine. vaccine. You can also use gene therapies to correct diseases of the inner eye. You can use gene

therapies to correct thalassemias or sickle cell anemia or maybe someday cystic fibrosis. But one application is to use a gene therapy method, almost any gene therapy method, in order to cause a body, a person's body, to make a foreign protein, just like when they're infected with the virus, so that you mount an immune response. Why don't you, why not just administer the virus? Well, the reason is because viruses have all kinds of tricks to evade the immune response that they've evolved. They upregulate cytokines.

They downregulate cytokines. They produce their own pseudocytes. They got all kinds of tricks, just like cancer cells develop all kinds of tricks, to evade the immune response. And so the idea that you can take something from a virus, it's immunogenic that causes an immune response and produce it in your body without all the extra baggage that the virus uses to trick your body is you know this is not rocket science this is straightforward stuff and and anybody can understand it if it's not wrapped up in scientific

gobbled so that's what's going on it's both a gene therapy and a vaccine technology and but first and foremost, it's a gene therapy technology. Why have they wanted to deny that it's a gene therapy technology? Well, because there is a big established body of regulatory science and regulatory policy about what you're supposed to do when you're developing a gene therapy before you ever put it in patients, among which, by the way, is shedding studies. That's a whole other. That's one of my big concerns here, too.

It's everybody's getting some individual. vaccine for their own particular cancer, and then they're shedding it on all the rest of us. I mean, what is that going to do if that happens? I mean, but continue on. They were in total denial that shedding was even possible, but now the data are coming in, and not so much. It's looking like it may well be happening in some subset of cases by various routes, not the least of which may be respiratory exosomes.

And so, you know, what bothers me about Peter Marks in Operation Warp Speed is that the logic is that we can jettison basically regulatory wisdom that's been accumulated over decades because it's burdensome. The reason why the FDA is burdensome is because they don't think very well and they tend to be really dogmatic. But, and so they insist on a lot of extra studies that don't necessarily need to be done. But there are a body, there is a body of knowledge that's been established internationally over decades about what you need to do to avoid causing harm to human beings through pharmaceuticals and biologics. And each of these regs is there because something, happened at some point in time. So it's lessons learned and then that's codified as regulatory

rules, guidances. And what Peter Marks was promoted for into his position, who's the guy that created Operation Warp Speed. OWS comes from Peter Marks. And on the biodefense side, you know, the DoD side, it comes from Bob Cadillac, who used to be the Assistant Secretary for preparedness and response. So these two guys get together and they basically said, let's throw out the rules that are in, we think are inconvenient because this pathogen is such a huge threat. Three to four people out of every 100 people infected are going to die from it. We're going to have mass death, the death in the street, nah-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da. So we've got to throw the rules out and we've got to jam this thing through as quick as possible. But it turns out that the rules,

particularly relating to development of gene therapy products were there for a good reason, and they probably should have been followed. They shouldn't have jettisoned them, and they should have allowed alternative therapies to flourish, like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, cellicoxid, famadine, so many other things that were in protocols, dexamethosone, etc. And treat people early, don't wait until they get really sick, and then, you know, come back when your lips are blue, all that story. And I talked about on Joe Rogan so long ago, you know, there's things that could have been done, but they became obsessed with this shiny object of this technology.

And that Dell is a human story. That fascination with shiny things gets us in trouble all the time. And that's why it's useful to have gray hairs around like you and me. me. They've been a block a few times and can say, hey, as you said, just a little while ago in this program, hold on, wait, just a minute. Let's think this through again. Maybe we have some other options. And instead of just trying to jam this cool, new, shiny tech through the system by throwing away the rulebook and then dealing with all of the problems, not the least of which is this huge amount of damage that's been done to the public health enterprise. You know, if to the extent that

vaccines do good and we can arm wrestle over that, I think it needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis, and I absolutely support the thesis of turtles all the way down, that we need to have better controlled studies to establish what the true risk benefit is. But we're now in a situation as I've heard you point out, we're a large fraction of the American public in the world it had become full-on anti-vaxxers because they just don't trust the government anymore for, you know, could reason here. And so that's, I think the big tragedy here is that in their rush to push all this stuff through us, they caused unnecessary death, unnecessary harm, avoidable harm, disillusionment, social strife,

through their propaganda and their censorship and their defamation and their gangstocking, you know, sponsored CDC sponsored gangstocking physicians through the public good project and the shots heard around the world program. All of this stuff has just been enormously damaging and was avoidable. They didn't have to do this. Yeah. And I think it's, you know, the good news is that people are looking. listening to you. And with the transition and Bobby's hopeful soon confirmation.

What do you think about that? And as you look at it, you've been up, you've been in the machine, you've been in the swamp, if you will, trying to do things like focus on repurpose drugs, which doesn't make industry a lot of money, which tends to this revolving door and this, you know, corrupting that Robert Kennedy Jr. keeps talking about gets in the way of actual science being done because it's always the bottom line, the dollar, you know, who's going to make what money. You've been around those special interests, and that's what many of us are concerned about going into these hearings. You know, what do you feel? What are you, what is your, you know, feeling about Robert Kennedy Jr.'s chances right now of assuming a position at HHS?

My gut says that he's going to make it. Yeah. But I hear there's a subset of people that are vote counters whips. that are saying that he might not. I think we have to acknowledge the possibility, hope for the best and prepare for the worst. I personally think that the momentum is so strong, the public support is so strong,

the unmet need for transformative thinking and new ideas in health and wellness, the idea of refocusing the whole HHS R&D enterprise on promotion of health as opposed to treating disease, that's solid. The idea of changing the incentive structure and putting guidelines on the food industry so that it's more aligned with the science and less aligned with the lobbyists. That's solid. So I certainly hope that Bobby gets in there and that they don't fence him, a perimeter fence him like they did downtown DC.

That's my fear as he gets in. And then they, you know, through circumstance and whether it's nefarious intent or it's just the way things are in DC, he finds himself constrained by the senior executive service and all of the, various people that surround the Senate and the House and the executive branch pushing this, that, and the other agenda that makes it so that he can't get stuff done. My big worry is that

if you look in the plum book, you look at the jobs underneath Bobby, almost all of them that are going to be reporting directly to him are senior executive service. They're career bureaucrats and they a lot of these people were put in by obama that the hope is that this new schedule f like executive order that's been put in that'll allow reclassification of these people um as at will employees like most of us are uh will create some ability of bobby and others in the executive branch in leadership to hold these people account or otherwise replace them. Yeah.

But he's stepping into a hornet's nest. I had a, during your Mahal ball, I had an opportunity to meet some people that will be in senior positions in other HHS departments came over and kindly introduced themselves. And I mentioned to them that they were going to be working in a snake pit. And they quietly said to me that they quietly said to me that, they knew that that was the case. This is not going to be easy. This is going to be a real challenge. And I think I really have strongly advocated through my writing and substack that we give Trump's appointees oxygen and breathing room. Let's let's, you know, it's important.

I think to speak out, continue to speak out, act with integrity, but not be mean or aggressive right now and try to step back from the circular firing squad, at least until he's confirmed. Yeah. And give people, you know, a chance to succeed. Mr. Trump is not shy about firing people. And if you have senior staff that aren't performing, that are presidential appointees, I'm sure that he won't hesitate to find other people to fill those slots. So let's let's let the system work a little bit and let's trust Bobby and trust the team that's been put in place.

But when we have things like day two of the presidency announcing a major AI, MRI personalized cancer vaccine program. I think it's appropriate to kind of give them a little rain back. Using the horse care. I love it. Dr. Malone, you are a prolific writer putting out a lot of great information. How do people follow? Where do we best follow the work that you're doing as you're weighing in on these issues of our time?

Well, thank you, Dill. Of course, there's the books. The Lies My Government told me in the Better Future coming, and Cy War enforcing the New World Order. And I flatter myself to think that we have had a little bit of impact on the legitimacy of the World Economic Forum. And I noticed that they are under-enrolled this time. And Substact is our main platform.

Okay. And blown. dot news and you can subscribe for free. It'll come into your inbox. And we will soon be joining a new platform that was once delisted after January 6 and is going to be recreated. So stay tuned for that press announcement. All right. And join me in that new platform also in addition to X-getter Gab and Truth Social. All right. Dr. Malone, thank you for taking the time today. Very informative, super interesting.

I look forward to speaking with you again. And we're gonna get together in just a moment on off the record and maybe a little bit more personal on some issues, but take care. Thank you for taking the time. Love to your family. Thanks for having me on, Dale.