I think I hear some choppers, I got some choppers over my house, I don't know what to say but
Andrew Huff said choppers, other people have had choppers, I got choppers over my house
every night, I must be over the target.
I found the mummy!
Well, gang, I guess that wraps up the mystery, and the mummy too!
We will win!
Are we doing the city of the A's?
Yes.
Are we doing the city of the A's?
Yes.
Two days ago.
What sites did you see?
Think of a bear and a tummy.
Ball?
You don't understand Mr. Brown.
The bomb is a holy weapon of peace.
Are we doing the stand on the city of the A's?
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
This is KIGO, oh, biological, high-resistance, low-noise,
information brief brought to you by a biologist at 7th of October, 2023.
The Nobel Prize has recently been awarded for the extraordinary
extraordinary vaccines that have saved almost 14 million lives.
They're misleading the young ladies and gentlemen.
We've got to put a stop to it.
They are misleading the young.
And we've got to put a stop to it.
We've got to teach them the history before it's erased forever.
The next generations are being set up with lies.
We cannot hand over our children to these charlatans.
It's going to require everyone to stand up.
Even if you can see the brick wall at the back of the theater,
there are other people who can't.
We've got to show them.
There was no spread in New York City infectious clones,
and the only real threat to placebo batches were likely
distributed, and transfection in healthy mammals is dumb.
Protocols were murdered, gained a function in mythology.
The Scooby-Doo mystery is a real thing,
and the players are spectacularly committed to lies.
That's all we got here.
MUSIC
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
This is Giga Home Biological High Resistance Low Noise
Information Brief brought to you by a biologist.
My name is Jonathan Cooey.
I'm coming to you from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Like I said, it's the 7th of October, 2023,
and we've got so much work to do.
It's kind of absurd.
So we just have to keep working,
and that's why, once again, I'm here to tell you
not to take the debate on social media,
not to take the debate on television,
but keep learning the biology,
keep trying to learn the real history,
keep trying to learn how money really works,
and take measures to save your family from this nonsense,
but definitely, please definitely disengage
from solving this mystery.
It's not a mystery that needs solving,
and that's the reason why we're here at Giga Home Biological,
because it is not a matter of what is true that counts,
but a matter of what is perceived to be true,
and they've known that for a very long time,
much longer than a few years.
Chatty GTP is an illusion compared to the amount of control
that they've had over us through this very mechanism
of controlling the spectrum of debate
and having a very lively debate within that controlled spectrum
to make it seem like everybody's free.
When in reality, the very perceived reality
is defined by that debate itself,
and that's what the intellectual dark web has done to us.
That's why we keep making these people map discussions,
because we need to figure out what these people did in 2019
and 2020 and 21,
so that we can see if there's a consistent pattern of behavior
fighting for sovereignty and fighting for the sacred,
and if not, then we need to disengage from them.
And so we've talked many times,
but the essential illusion, the essential faith,
is the idea that there was a novel virus
that everyone was vulnerable to.
The idea that we had to do something,
and that's why we took the extreme measures
of giving little kids iPads at home
and shutting down schools,
shutting down small businesses,
masking children,
separating people from their elderly family members,
the whole nine yards.
And if you want to really see through it,
the easy way to do it is to find people
who are telling you that this transfection is not immunization.
Try to find people that are telling you
that intramuscular injection
of any combination of substances,
the augment the immune system is a pretty dumb idea.
And then you'll be able to whittle it down really fast,
because most people are talking about bioweapons,
most people are talking about amyloidosis,
most people are talking about crazy lipid nanoparticle,
poor quality control,
and people are talking about DNA contamination.
And so we're almost there.
But as long as we stay focused on their little spectrum of debate
where maybe the mRNA was done or rushed wrong incorrectly,
Nobel Prize was given to the wrong person for the wrong reason,
then we're not arguing about what we should be arguing about.
And we're not asking the right questions.
I think that's another way to think about it if that helps you better.
These people have tricked us into asking the wrong questions.
These people have tricked us into chasing the wrong villains.
These people have tricked us into trying to solve the wrong mystery.
And they've given us this illusion of consensus about what that mystery is,
the illusion of consensus about what the obvious conclusion is,
the illusion of consensus that we have all come to agree about this
when we haven't.
We have discussed recently with Denny Rancour and Peter McCullough on my stream
about the all-cause mortality being quite unrevealing with regard to
a novel cause of death sweeping the world like a plague.
The math doesn't support the idea of a novel cause of death
sweeping the world like a plague.
And that's a problem because if you say to somebody that there's a new cause of death on Earth
and that everybody's equally vulnerable to it,
and then there isn't an increase in all cause mortality across age groups
that's detectable in temporal relationship to this declaration,
you have a problem.
If where there is an outbreak in one geographic location,
there isn't an outbreak in subsequent nearby geographic locations,
then you have a problem.
And that's what seems to have happened in a lot of places in the United States
and in fact around the world.
And Denny Rancour's data seems to show a sharp increase
in all cause mortality as the countermeasures were rolled out
and specifically the mRNA shot around the world.
And as would be expected,
serial exposure to this kind of a reagent
is going to result in possible cascading effects or avalanche type effects
in the immune system as the reactivity of the immune system builds.
Now there's some people that are arguing that IgG4 is showing up
and so that means that we're building a tolerance to this spike protein
and that is possible.
It's possible.
It's one possible mechanism, one possible outcome,
but they have no, they can't guarantee that because they don't understand
the mechanism by which in some people that's occurring
and in some people it's not.
In some people they just keep getting repeated respiratory disease
and repeated somehow become COVID positive again
or not COVID positive but still sick.
Long term lack of energy, all the other things that people have
around this thing called POTS or whatever other description it's had.
So we're really dealing with something very spectacular because
even Peter McCullough, a guy who was surrounded from the very beginning
by people whispering in his ear,
assuring him with high level national security phone calls
that this was a national security issue that we needed to be afraid
of whether we were under attack or whether this was a release.
We don't know where this is going to go.
It could be a worst case scenario.
So you got to be really careful what you say there, Mr. Peter.
And so for him to be very impressed
with Denny Rancor's ability to explain,
yeah, but despite what you think,
I've cleaned this data up, I've looked at the dates,
we've only looked at the data that we can trust and we look at many,
many countries and many, many places we see the same signal.
Peter needed to hear it from Denny and he did hear it and it was really
impactual because this was around the same time that Peter had just recently
come out like I have with the idea that just the whole vaccine schedule in America
needs some serious reconsideration.
Then we ran into this character.
We did a video about him.
He tweeted some nonsense about how in the hands of,
in the hands of a competent scientist, PCR is highly accurate, well, duh.
And then he blocked me.
And of course that's not surprising, right?
Because he was involved in the testing and he's involved in perpetuating this idea
that we have nothing to question about the faith.
The novel virus is defined specifically by sequencing reactions,
which are all driven by PCR.
And that's his wheelhouse.
And he wants you to believe, just like Kevin McKernan,
that he has no conflicts of interest with regard to telling you
that the fidelity of these, these diagnostics and the fidelity of these
sequencing reactions is beyond, beyond question.
You can't question the accuracy of these things.
Even though there are articles where they talk about
viruses raining down from the sky on the order of 800 million viruses per
square meter per day.
Some absurd number like this giant amount of RNA is floating around
in the world.
But you know, we can find all these little pieces and put them together
and convince you that what we're finding is real.
I think there's a lot of shenanigans going on and I think the behavior
of these people reveals that it is indeed shenanigans.
It's not people genuinely fighting for the truth, trying to organize
around health, freedom and sovereignty over ourselves and our children.
You know that Kevin McKernan is not fighting for that.
He's fighting for something to do with personalized weed
and genetically modified pot plants.
Philip Buckholtz is making money as a sequencer and as a test maker
and as an advisor to all the companies that would ever want to take advantage
of any of this mythology in the future.
He's asserted himself as a guy who does that for a licks.
We're really good at that.
Me and my lab are really good at that.
100% on board with the idea of a novel virus for which we have to do something
which we could keep tracking and we should keep sequencing
and keep making better sequencing technologies and sequencing products for.
We've looked at these four guys because there's some game being played here
because it's just really short through the corner.
George Webb's favorite biological advice comes from Dr. Paul Catrell
who's not even a doctor even though George Webb says over and over and over
and over again for three years that Paul Catrell is going to med school
and was going to med school at the beginning of the pandemic when he wasn't.
Every once in a while he says it wasn't med school.
It was something you do before med school.
So then he's not Dr. Paul Catrell but he is because he has a PhD
from Walden University in finance where he did chaos theory and bond trading.
So he's kind of like that guy that does pizza reviews from New York City
but then this guy is more like the Jurassic Park character
who did chaos theory so he's like a combination of the guy in Jurassic Park
with that pizza delivery or the pizza review guy that also traded,
day traded and made a lot of money like I don't know it's just such a joke to me
and what becomes more of a joke is that somebody like Robert Malone
wants us to believe that in his quest to save the world
he came out on the bread wine steam podcast in the way that he did in June
and then also he came out on Paul Catrell
with Paul Catrell and some other radio network enlightenment radio network
because he's just trying to get the word out there.
You know because he's got all these connections in government that just ignore him
so you know what does he got to do he's got to stream with these kinds of people
even though he used to work with carrot funded bullshit
carrot funded bullshit has already been on the web all over the place
for six months before June 21
Robert Malone comes out and pretends he doesn't even know
or doesn't even mention that he knows carrot funded bullshit until June of 21
now all of a sudden yeah okay I'm on Paul Catrell and I know carrot
it's not good ladies and gentlemen because
Malone also says that George Webb's a bad guy right but
but tells you where to find him and Paul Catrell
was streaming many many many times with Kevin McCarron
and you know that we followed Charles Rixie and Kevin McCarron
not too recently or not too long ago
April 26th on this Vay John health conference which occurred on a Saturday
and it was Christine Grace followed by Charles Rixie
and Kevin McCarron
and these were really quite
let's say low level poorly organized talks all three of them
Christine Grace may be very smart and she may have a lot of information
about how lipid nanoparticles work she may have a lot of information
about the kinds of things that they can do when they interact with DNA and RNA
she may have a lot of information about the polarity
different particles and how that figures into how they cross membranes and that kind of thing
but the talk that she gave had slides
that had too much gibberish and
readable material on it with not a lot of obvious
messaging and she she skipped a few slides
every once in a while and she talked very nervous and very fast so
wasn't pretty difficult to get much from her talk
then Charles Rixie gave a talk about censorship
and used a bunch of slides you couldn't read or see what they were but you were supposed to
take your word for it that that was his
sub stack or this is a multicolored spreadsheet
with all the papers that he's read and then Kevin McCarron
came on and did a I don't know what
would you call that like if you were a master student giving a
presentation about amyloid that that's the level it would be at
it definitely wasn't at the level of somebody who studies it
or at the level of somebody who's got an idea of the next project he wants to do
or how he's going to do experiments to prove that this is happening
he never once really made the argument about why
this particular virus as opposed to any other virus with a fusion protein
or any other transfection of any other fusion
protein would be any less toxic than this one
he never made an argument about why the
the virus would be particularly dangerous and the
transfection would be particularly dangerous or which one would be more dangerous
when I'm clearly arguing that the transfection is much more dangerous
than whatever is floating around as the virus even if it's an
infectious clone and that's what I've been trying to argue from the beginning
if you're unlucky enough to be sprayed with an infectious clone
or made to inhale an infectious clone then things bad things will probably happen
but if you transfect yourself with a
foreign protein most assuredly you're playing the same game if not
much much worse with many many many more tissue in
your body than just the mucosal of your lungs
and gut and so we're in a big trouble here
because interestingly enough these stars
have all crossed again and this illusion of consensus
seems to have really really strong connections between
all of these pieces the
laying down of this worst case scenario
which was done by people like Paul Catrell
people like George Webb people like Kevin
care people like Charles Ricksey people like all
the people in drastic like me there were screaming very early on
that this could be a lab leak and unable
to get the message out that that doesn't mean it's danger as it just means that it's probably more likely
a man-made thing than it ever is something coming out of a bat cave
the worst case scenario a billion
people going to die was something that needed to be seeded
it had to be something that was whispered in every water cooler
it was whispered at every coffee room
it was talked about on every talk show
behind the scenes and that's what this is about now
to give you this continued illusion that everything's okay
that it all worked out people on the TV say look they gave them the Nobel Prize
you can even point to it for a judge
Pfizer's guilty of nothing you know because I mean we just used the Nobel Prize
winning technique I mean what could we have possibly done wrong
so curiously enough today
at six o'clock UK time which was around
one o'clock our time someone sent me a link
thanks Cara of reflections on the Nobel Prize
from the mRNA originator
the mRNA originator
and who is he talking with Dr. Philip
Macmillan where do we recognize Dr. Philip
Macmillan and Vay John Health from well we recognize them of course
from the Vay John Health Conference just a month ago
August 26th
where he hosted
Kevin McCarron and Charles Ricksey
the people that are connected to George Webb
via Paul Cottrell
people that Robert Malone has streamed
with like Paul Cottrell and
incidentally you're going to hear in this interview that
Robert Malone came first time on Dr. Philip
Macmillan's Vay John Health stream in June
of 2021
the same month that he made his debut
on Brett Weinstein I just can't believe
that this happened today and more importantly I can't believe
the kinds of things that he says unfortunately it's already
950 so it looks like I'm going to be up a little later
than I wanted to be up on this Saturday but I am going to be up because it is
a video that needs to be wrestled with
it's extraordinary
hello good evening good afternoon to everyone
here thank you for joining me for this really really
fascinating discussion with regards to Robert
Malone no it's important for people to realize
that actually I had the first video
interview with him all the way in June 2021
and at that time it was just purely by chance
that I realized subsequently that he was actually
the inventor the creator of the mRNA
technology that in itself was a fascinating insight for me
and since then I have watched him grow from strength
to strength going across the world and
effectively impacting the scientific perspective
and across the world now today is actually
my birthday and the biggest gift that I've had
is the fact that we have here Robert Malone with me
to discuss ideas about mRNA technology
his history how he felt about the Nobel Prize
and all these issues together should in truth
be a remarkable discussion so the first thing that I'm going to do
is bring Robert in as opposed to just have a quick introduction
hi Robert how are you? Hi Phillip thanks a lot for having me back
it's been a long time and a lot of water in the bridge
absolutely grateful for you asking me to come back onto your broadcast
well yes as I said it's a tremendous honor for me to actually have you
because these days you're literally one of the biggest
voices out there depending on which side of the fence you're on it can be a
bit of a problem but in truth everybody does hear what you say
whether they like it or not so with that in view
can you just give us an introduction of yourself
Robert let us
did you just hear that please tell me you heard that without me
having to reel it back and then I'm going to reel it back and we're all going to enjoy it together like an
extra potato chip that we didn't know we had
it does hear what you say whether they like it
or the biggest voices out there depending on which side
of the fence you're on it can be a bit of a problem but in truth everybody
does hear what you say whether they like it or not
everybody hears what you say
whether they like it or not it doesn't matter what side of the fence you're on
isn't that an interesting phenomenon boy I wish I could get my
message out like that I wish I
I don't know how he does it despite the censorship
on either side of the aisle it doesn't matter what side of the issue
you're on you're gonna hear Robert Malone boy that censorship
is rough huh I mean that's that's an impressive statement
so with that in view
can you just give us an introduction of yourself
Robert let us let us know a little bit more about you and your background
here we go so the
truth of the matter is that I actually live
and enjoy living a simple life I live on a 54 horse farm in Northern Virginia
that I homestead it together with my wife Dr. Joel
Glassville Malone from just being atheists
I was born in Palo Alto California
at the Old Stanford Hospital and grew up in the Central Coast California
moving frequently the son of a
Mills University train or college train teacher
and a Stanford trained electrical engineer who was very
involved in the defense industry and high voltage
systems I landed in
high voltage systems is that like high voltage weapons
I mean what does that mean I he's in the defense
high voltage systems it's just so silly
it's gonna get much worse you're gonna gonna believe the kinds of things that he says
here and as you're listening I want you to try and follow
along and see if you
if you hear that bell what I'm indicating is
I'm saying something that he probably said because
he was made to say it because somebody
brought it out somebody reported on it somebody
said something about it it was never intended to have to be talked about
but this is the updated list this is this
October 7th updated who is
Robert Malone speech and it is spectacular sorry
yeah and in my youth
and pretty much grew up in the Santa Barbara metropolitan area
and then went to university at
Santa Barbara City College, UC Davis
Northwestern University, UC San Diego
in the Salk Institute and
Northwestern and Harvard Medical School for my final fellowship
in global clinical research. I'm trained in pathology
I've also in virology
immunology molecular biology and was very active
as a bench researcher really
beginning about 83 84 kind of cut my teeth with
HIV and mouse mammary tumor virus which is
a retrovirus model of breast cancer in mice and then
through my work in gene transfer first at the
Salk Institute focusing on retroviral vectors then
as a assistant professor at UC Davis I grew a
medium sized non-viral gene
therapy program was recruited to University of Maryland
Baltimore where I had additional discoveries that led to
a whole other field of gene delivery that nobody talks about these days
having to use to do with pulse electrical fields
and the founding of a company called Anovio that's still running in San Diego
using that technology and then
to the uniform services university of the health sciences
where I helped create a breast cancer research program
and issue banking laboratory and research laboratory at Western
Pennsylvania and then joined
a company that had just obtained
the what's called the prime systems contract for
bio-defense products for the Department of Defense called Dimeport vaccine company
up in Frederick, Maryland almost across the street from
Fort Dietrich which is where the United States Army
medical research group is that used to be the bio warfare
group but now is the bio-defense group and at that
in that job in that position I had
experience with virtually all the major
well really end minor vaccines that are in development for
bio-defense for the U.S. Army and defense complex
which is where I was brought into connection with a lot of
people that are called you know referred to as deep state
many people who have CIA connections
I'm not CIA I've never been CIA I've never been approached by the CIA to the best of
my knowledge but you can't work in bio-defense and not work with CIA people
I've also worked for Gates funded nonprofit
one of the first called the Harris Global TV Vaccine Foundation
it's defunct now but I know that world pretty well
I've consulted for PATH which is one of the core gates
companies and I've worked for a
for-profit regulatory
fair sweatshop in Rockville supporting
FDA related work I've written many
INDs presented
to the FDA multiple times written many clinical protocols
and managed phase one and two and some phase three
protocols either as a principal investigator
or as a support person like a clinical
investigator or safety committee member
I've was at the tip of the spear
in bringing forward the vaccine candidate from NewLink
originally from public health agency Canada and getting
it sold to a company called Merck that's now the
only licensed Ebola candidate or Ebola vaccine
and have been very
involved in advancing many different bio-defense products
I've kind of been at the forefront of I think five different outbreaks
did a lot of drug repurposing
work with Zika after I determined
that building a Zika vaccine was not going to be very practical
and many influenza vaccines I have deep experience
in influenza and influenza vaccine development
I'm very familiar with the Novavax
platform and worked for a long time for a company that uses
Baccalaureate virus to express proteins in caterpillars
and I've won over my lifetime well over $10 billion
in grants and contracts for a variety of companies
including companies that are
you know very much beltway bandits
basically inside DC defense contractors
I've been granted a secret clearance but my passion
remains in small farming and my 44 year marriage with
my wife Dr. Joe Glaspel Malone where high school sweethearts
and these days we produce Lucetano horses
here in our farm in Virginia up against the Shenandoah Mountains
so there's a kind of a broad brush stroke
of who I am and what I do excellent listen I think
as I listen to you there I remember
holy cow that was crazy
so let me just see
let me just see if we can do this here
so he did mouse tumor virus
he called himself
he's trained in pathology, virology, immunology, megalactic and molecular biology
cut his teeth in mouse tumor viruses which was a mouse
model for breast cancer then he did retroviral vectors
when he speaks of vectors he's talking about using them to carry DNA
they're talking about transforming things then
so like transfection would be with our mRNA but then with DNA
UC Davis, University of Baltimore
I missed a lot of stuff in there because there was also
the part about windber and the breast cancer institute that had
the really high speed internet pipeline and had access
to all of the military cancer data
and he put the husband
of a postdoc that he had and as a director of
that institute that's a married couple from Nigeria
it's just all very strange
kind of happening there and then that put him in real close proximity to where
the plane went down in 2001 so that's
a little strange he's worked for the Gates Foundation and he's worked for a company
called PAF which was one of the primary guest companies in the Gates Foundation
or funded by them he also worked for a regulatory
affairs sweatshop which I don't really know what that is
he worked with some phase one two and some three trials
he was tip of the spear of the Ebola vaccine where he brokered the sale
of the Ebola vaccine candidate from a company called Newlink in Canada
to Merck. He was involved in a
under a lot of biodefense products I apologize you can't read that
drug repurposing for Zika influenza vaccine development
baculovirus and caterpillars
and he's got what is this
he got 10 billion I thought it was like
2 billion now he says it's 10 billion for
beltway banded companies so he sounds like a really great guy
but really right now he's into his 44 year
marriage with his college or his high school sweetheart
and raising Lucetano horses so
holy crap that's interesting I would say
there's quite a bit in that narrative that wouldn't be there
hadn't been for the work of some of the people that you
follow some of the people that we trust
so thanks to all those people especially Mark Gulag
well the first time that I had an interview with Gert
and he went through his background and I thought oh my goodness
no wonder it is a worry
when you say something that is counter to the narrative
and we're going to be coming into that in a moment
but I think it's very important to start with
that question of mRNA technology
now in all of the background that you have listed
I don't hear a lot about
the work or that original work with
mRNA why did you not continue
after you had that experience of the breakthrough
in thinking so you would have been at that cutting edge
as you said in Salk Institute you had that moment where you
envisioned it why did it not continue
well not only envisioned it but I left the Salk
because of the politics that were going on over the patents
with a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder
my mentor is now out
and basically is being a very abusive person
but I continued that work at a small startup
across the street called Vaikal and it's at Vaikal
that we had the additional discovery of naked DNA
and RNA delivery into mouse muscle
and the reduction of practice of all of this
for the purpose of vaccination
so we demonstrated there that you could inoculate
mice with the messenger RNA that I had synthesized
and caused them to mount an immune response against the encoded protein
and so is that where the patents come from
because yeah looking behind you
there was a number of patent filed
so the original patent disclosure was made at the Salk in 1987 or 88
and then a patent was filed from the Salk
and I never got a straight answer
when I left the Salk it was still pending
they had first determined that I was a sole inventor
and then they put my mentor on it
and then I left and went to Vaikal
and I asked the Salk a few years later
what happened to that patent because they're supposed to just
they're supposed to notify the inventors of any actions they take under
the Baidole Act in the United States
and they had unilaterally decided to abandon the patent
at the time when my mentor, Interverma,
had been a consultant to the company Vaikal
so the Salk patent would have interfered with the Vaikal patents
and it was dropped
Can I just ask the chat?
Did they flash to the second camera yet?
Is that why you're saying why did he put patents on the wall
or did they flash to a second camera yet?
Yes or no?
Anybody in the chat did because there's a second camera coming up soon
and then the Vaikal patents there was nine of them
that came out of their original filings
Watch your cover
kind of 1990-1991
He's going to trigger it himself
They issued
and then we had, Jill and I had a subsequent patent
actually multiple patents
you know that's
as shown behind me
Nice
and they cover the formulations
You see he's got a button he triggers it with
he's got to look down to see which button he pushes
on his little streamer thing
so he can get that patent wall side shot
That was brilliant
Okay, so one was
purchased by the army
use of various
candidate lipids
we were the first ones to put cholesterol into the formulations
we came up with solutions to the endotoxin problem
et cetera et cetera
but we were way ahead of our time
and Vaikal when I left
I had signed an employment agreement
that among other things
resulted in my getting compensated for the patents
with one US dollar
but I also
signed away any rights to work in that field
subsequently
and at one point I got a
cease and desist letter from the CEO of Vaikal
BJ Simone who used to be at Merck
that I should not do any research
as an academic
directly relating to what I had done
when I was at Vaikal
so
Vaikal was very aggressive about the intellectual property
they sold it to Merck
Merck tried to make DNA vaccines work
they thought RNA wasn't going to be
feasible to manufacture
they failed
they spent over two billion
they turned the IP back to
to Vaikal
and Vaikal burned about a billion
or a billion and a half
and they failed
but what they did do through that whole time
is very aggressively block anybody
that would work on DNA
or RNA vaccines
until the patents expired
and then after the patents expired
the market cap for Vaikal
basically crashed
and the company
was basically merged
for less than cash value
so it's
I don't think the patents
expired in 2001 though
and I think Mark has shown
that
the patent or rather the stock
of Vaikal crashed or ended
pretty much in September or October
of 2001 right?
isn't that right?
so that's weird
yeah the line glows
that's for sure
not where you then start
to speak about your work
because before that you
couldn't I really couldn't
yeah well no at that point
in all this work that we did
mostly at UC Davis
with the different positively charged
fats and the pharmacology
and biology and mechanism
of action work
we had done a lot of work
on trying to develop gene therapy
for cystic fibrosis
involving pulmonary
or intratricular inoculation
of these formulations in mice
and in monkeys in non-human
primates
and also the basics
of delivery and equipment
but he said that the patents
expired and Vaikal
prevented anybody from using the
mRNA technology until the
patents expired and then in the
patents expired
their stock crashed
but I don't think the patents
that he had would have expired in
2001 correct me if I'm wrong
someone in the chat
that's weird
putting jet injection and post-electural
field we were starting with some
in gold particle delivery
which is another technology in this mix
that is gone by the wayside
and with the
positively charged fat formulations
we could never overcome the toxicity
they're highly highly inflammatory
and so we moved on to other
delivery technologies that were more
efficient including post-electrical
fields that didn't have the
toxicity
and primarily focused on the DNA
delivery not the RNA although we
did get a very broad patent
on mucosal vaccines
that covered virtually any gene therapy
vector
but I couldn't get any of that funded
I got recruited to
Umariland
and we did the electroporation work
and I wrote what I think was
probably one of my best
personal proposals ever
and it went into
the NIH for review and it was
rejected based on
the fat. So he said this a
couple times and it's just dawned
on me
listen
any of that funded
you know
it covered virtually any
gene therapy very broad patent
just on the DNA delivery
not the RNA already did get
a very broad patent on mucosal
vaccines that covered virtually
any gene therapy vector
just on the DNA delivery
not the RNA although we did get a
very broad patent on
mucosal vaccines that covered
virtually any gene therapy
vector. I want you to think about
this video that I've seen on
the internet for a second
I've seen this video on the internet
about patent trolls
and patent trolls are these people
that have a patent
that seems to apply to a broad
you know like I don't know
one of the kinds of patent trolls
that I understand
that's out there is somebody
has a patent
on website
reviews,
website product reviews
on a website
and so they go around
suing medium to small sized
web based
businesses
that have reviews on their website
and sue them for
patent infringement
and this is called
patent trolling
and it only happens in certain
jurisdictions in America
but it's a real thing
now what Robert Malone just said
there
is
what he said there
is
that he had a broad patent
on mucosal genetic vaccines
can you imagine the possibility
that if this patent
exists right now
that he could potentially
patent troll
any company
that violates his patent
and especially now that he's
motivated by
this PTSD
that he got diagnosed with
as a result of
his interaction with this VICO company
and his terribly abusive
ender verma
whose career also seems to have
been kind of ruined by these patents
one of which was purchased by
the army. He casually
mentions the endotoxin problem
which is also a new
game piece on the board along with
the DNA
and the endotoxin problem was
especially just added
to the game board
by another than Josh
Getsko, a guy who's been
on my program before
and who was on John Campbell's
stream on YouTube a couple of days ago
talking about the DNA
contamination but also
the endotoxin, the cell wall
of the bacteria that's used
to generate the DNA that
generates the RNA
VICO sold patents to Merck,
sold them back to VICO,
then we have this incongruency between
when those patents expired and when
VICO's stock crashed in
2021 or
2001.
He mentions pulse electric
fields twice. He also talks about
gold particles. We've talked about all of
those as ways to
transfect and to transform
animals and tissues and cell
cultures and we've
stated over and over again that you
were depending on whether you use
mRNA or DNA you would call it
transfection or
transfection respectively.
DNA versus RNA decided
to stick with DNA
and pulse electric fields so that
he mentions again
remember this is key
that we were granted a broad
patent on mucosal genetic
vaccines and that's very
interesting because going
forward there's going to be a lot of
those because as I've
stated at the beginning we are
going to transition away from
vascular injection because we are going
to come to the realization in the coming
years I guarantee it
that rejecting
the American
way too early
way too aggressive
way too often
way too many targets
immunization schedule
was the right idea
and it could be that
20 years from now there are a couple
vaccines that are accepted as
as
a subcutaneous
vaccines that can work
there could be some that you take
orally but we're going to be getting
rid of most are all
intramuscular vaccines I am
sure of it because we are
we are just not augmenting the
immune system the way that we think we
are and it's curious if he's
positioning himself
as a patent troll just letting
everybody know
every time I go out on one of these
little podcasts I'm just going to drop
that there you know that whole wall
of patents back there some of them still
exist one of them
is for a very broad patent
on mucosal
genetic base back scenes
that's pretty impressive
but
I couldn't get any of that funded
I got recruited to
U Maryland
and we did the
electroporation work and I wrote
what I think was probably one of my
best personal proposals ever
and it went into
the NIH for review and it was
rejected based on
the fact
quote-unquote that Merck had already
solved the delivery problem which
of course they hadn't but
this is the way things are and when
you're a soft money
young investigator
you you don't have
too many times it back
that doesn't really sound like a
jiving story to me and I'm
going to tell you why
because I don't think
the NIH would
solve the delivery problem which
of course they hadn't
but this is the way things are
and when you're a soft money
young investigator
you don't have too many
questions about why because I don't
think the NIH would cite
Merck as a reason
why you would reject someone's
proposal
unless Merck published it in a
nature article or unless Merck
published it in a journal
like you wouldn't just say no
Merck's already solved that
that's not how grants get
rejected
and a pharmaceutical company would
be a very odd
use as a rejection
as a basis for rejection
and in fact I would think
it would be pretty easy to file
an appeal in that scenario
it smells
fishy to me
it's just another way of making
him seem like he's like the victim
and he's been
fighting big pharma for a long time
or something like that and I don't
think that at all
I think he's been trying to
catch on to the freight train
of money that is
the speeding
global pharmaceutical industry
and occasionally when you try to grab onto a moving
freight train you can get hurt
or it doesn't work out the way you think
or when you jump off
you know it's not perfect you land somewhere
you didn't mean to land but I mean come on
let's be real here
I guess cricket
would have to be the metaphor for you
for me it's baseball
but you know if you don't hit it out of the park
as a
soft money investigator
you're out
that's true
that's true I think that's true now too
I mean young investigators
especially
young white
male investigators
really really really need to
hit it out of the park
or you can be assured that
the last job you're going to have
in academic biology is going to be your postdoc
I mean there are
no positions for
for people
of unrepressed
backgrounds
it's just gotten out of control
the content of your work
the content of your character
your work ethic
it doesn't matter at all
it's all secondary to your
perceived station in the hierarchy
it's pretty scary
and I had a wife that
but I doubt he experienced that
when he was in academia
thank you very much
sorry if I was implying
that any of those current
issues
were in existence at the time
when he was hopping around from
retroviral lab to retroviral lab
where people were stealing
retroviruses from france
and bringing them back and
claiming that they had cured them
they were running around
this
writing grants about how
retroviruses were going to be curing cancer in 10 years
come on
a child
two children at that point in time
and
I really I couldn't tolerate
that
the environment
of modern academe for
a soft money funded
investigator
and this is why I
went to industry
again and then to government
contractor
so let me ask you then
so from a personal point of view
you had to almost
so he was forced to go work for
government contractors
he was forced to go work
for DITRA and DOD
because academia is just so
harsh
I mean he's not going to give
any credit to anybody that does make
it in academia you know like
J about a chariot or something like that
like those guys aren't great
or I admire everybody who made
tenure nothing like that
he got
the raw end of the deal he got
PTSD he was treated terribly
they stole his ideas he got the
short end of the stick
woke away from
your baby
I was
one of the lead
individuals speaking to the press
about what I knew concerning the
death of Jesse Gelsinger
at the hands of Jim Wilson
and you pen
from overdosing going off
protocol with
adenovirus.
and
I'm afraid that
I don't think he would have set a
dang word about this
had somebody not founded
already known about it. And we not already talked about it lots of times. I don't think
he would have said a word about this. Because I don't think his, I don't think his I say
it again. I do not think that his career was ruined. He claimed in an earlier interview
that he made the career of the New York Times reporter that covered this story and quoted
him. And again, if he's suffering, if he's losing his career, then what happened to him?
Did he go off to the farm? No. He went and got another job at a government funded health
university setting up a breast cancer institute and handing it off to a Nigerian couple who's
the woman of which was a postdoc of his. It doesn't sound like it really cramped his
style at all. He was just moved up the ladder.
I knew what basically what happened there was I was taking training in bioethics from
a prominent bioethicist. We heard this story before him and his wife were taking a bioethics
course and that he really admired this bioethicist. Mr. E. Maryland, as was my wife. And I went to
him and said, this has happened and I know these things about this. They're not being discussed.
They're not available in the press. And he told me he thought I had a moral obligation to go to
the press and share what I knew. And so I did it knowing that it would probably destroy my
academic career. And it did. But I was able to recover, survive. I got the appointment at the
Uniform Services University Health Sciences and was able to kind of rebuild a whole new career.
But yeah, I made a conscious choice there to speak out about things that I thought were unethical.
And you could also say that he said just enough to appease and quiet the intense ethical debate
around what happened with Jesse. You could say that he kind of, you know, basically again, what are
we talking about here? We're talking about a carefully controlled narrative where both sides
of the argument are actually on the same team. And I'm positing now, like I think other people
have posited earlier, that maybe he's not the, you know, the savior, the guy in the white horse
that we think he is, because he keeps kind of being this mediocre guy on a white horse an awful lot.
In fact, very curiously around the first time that they ever tried to use transformation to fix a
genetic disease. And look who's right there to, to again, just like he's doing right now, be that guy
who's got to bring the bad news. Just enough bad news, just enough. So that everybody keeps believing
the main story, which is that, you know, in this case, the denovirus is will work. It's just that
they tweaked the doses. And they didn't tell everybody that they were tweaking the dosage.
And so it seems as though he whistled blue on the fact that they changed the dosage without ever
reviewing the protocol again. And he would have never done that. So it's not questioning the
mythology. It's not questioning the intention. It's not it's questioning what? It's not questioning
the biology. It's not questioning the possibility of augmenting the perfect pattern integrity that
is a person. I hope you can see this, ladies and gentlemen, because we've got him now,
not like we can do anything about it. But we can see him for who he is. The sunlight is shining.
There's no shadows anymore. There's no doubt in my mind that we're being played. It's just a
question of who he's playing for. But he's not playing on the side of America. He's not playing
on the side of your family or mine. He's getting it while the getting's good, just like a lot of
these other people are getting it while the getting's good. And maybe it's because somebody
was going to get it no matter what. If Robert Malone didn't take this job, maybe they'd have
given it to carrot-funded bullshit. He would have moved over here to America and done it.
Maybe they'd have found somebody else. I don't know.
What the bottom line is, is that the novel virus faith is intact. If you listen to Robert Malone,
argue about who should have gotten the Nobel Prize. The faith of the novel virus is intact.
If you listen to people talk about whether the lipid nanoparticle should have been more positive
or negative, or we listen to people talking about misfolding proteins leading to amyloidosis
or pre-odd disease. Without any mechanistic explanations, without any thorough science,
just in vitro garbage to try and tell you more stories about the ghosts out there,
more stories about whose masks should be taken off, and more stories about what villains we
should be chasing. The only mystery to solve is, is how in the world are all these people
connected like this? Why is he streaming with this person? Are you telling me that he can't get on
Tucker Carlson? Or are we being governed? And if we're being governed, then it's not time for Robert
Malone to be on Tucker Carlson anymore, because there's too many people that are awake.
And we don't dare want to wake any of those TV watchers up anymore. We don't dare want to
wake any of those TV watchers up anymore. Those people are the last trapped people.
And so his job now is to talk to you and me and all the people that are already awake and know
something's wrong and are never going to take another shot and make sure that they don't question
the novel virus narrative. They don't question the gain of function narrative. They don't question
anything going forward because their next one, they're going to bring out another one of these
shots and say it's better. And so you got to accept a novel virus and you got to accept
the contamination and you got to accept the quality control narrative so that the next one
can be better. Maybe they'll use electricity and DNA and again, and Novio will get a contract
and then you'll be taking the vaccine from trusted Robert Malone, the most interesting man in the
world, to save you from Marburg virus. We're being played, ladies and gentlemen, by somebody who calls
himself a molecular biologist, virologist, pathologist, immunologist, bioethicist,
and horse trader had to live with the consequences. But what I learned from that was that
if you maintain good friendships and good relations with colleagues, you can survive a blow like that.
They'll help you. I use the metaphor of a rock and roller throwing himself onto a mosh pit.
You know the image that I'm talking about and finding that people would catch me and hold me
and allow me to carry on. And with that comes a huge sense of security that you can act
in accordance with your morals even though it will often have major consequences
and still survive. But the thing about it is that you come through that and you still own your soul.
I think we're worth it. So here's an important piece of the puzzle that I'm trying to unveil,
and it's to do the fact that you would not have been able to get through that period
without the support of Jill. And secondly, I know that Jill was a primary factor in you speaking
out about your work with mRNA because you could have kept silent. You could have just let it ride.
Why did Jill insist that? Listen, you need to share this. You need to talk about this. Why was
because there was a no bell rise at so remember that when I left the salt, I left with a diagnosis
of PTSD because they were saying that people were being saved by the millions and they weren't
given any credit to my husband. That's why Jill urged him to speak up. It certainly wasn't to save
people. It certainly wasn't to tell everybody not to take it. They were advocating for every
old person to get this shot. Apparently, he took it himself after he had COVID as if that makes any
sense to an immunologist, a molecular biologist, virologist, not a very smart one of those.
And that's not a trivial thing. I don't just say that. I was a hot mess. And that's something that
doesn't go away throughout much of my professional life to find myself in highly competitive environments
where the same kinds of behaviors are common. And I had also since those early discoveries
really had a heck of a lot of gaslighting and ridicule from people who benefited by positioning
themselves as more important than they were in the story and building companies off of that,
and so I had learned a survival strategy of basically staying quiet and laying low
being not readily visible. I certainly would speak at conferences but didn't make much of.
I basically set aside that early trauma and the events associated with it and just went on with
my life and built other skill sets and other research focus. And so when this started to heat
up and frankly, particularly, I was triggered by a comedian in Canada who posts videos under the
pseudonym What's Her Face that did a video that really went through and dissected what happened
to my Wikipedia page after I was on the Dark Horse podcast and all the wicked editing that
happened with that to write me out of history. And at the time, there was a clear marketing
campaign to get Currico and Weisman the Nobel. This is two and a half years ago now. And my wife
who has lived through all of this experience at first hand, Dr. Jill Glasspool Malone.
Dr. Jill Glasspool Malone, it's a little shitty because certain doctorate is not in
something like biology or molecular biology or virology or pathology or anything related to
medicine except it's psychology. So, you know, doctor, it's just lame. I don't ever call myself
Dr. Jonathan Cooley because I think it's kind of lame. If you're not a medical doctor, you should
say Mr. Mrs. And you can say PhD if you want, you know, but I just don't see the point of saying
Dr. Jill Malone, unless you're really, you know, you mean something with it. Like, and here,
you can only mean to mislead people. And it's annoying. I find it really annoying. Just when
you say Dr. Paul control, you know, you say Dr. Kevin McCann. Everybody introduces me as JJ.
And then everybody says, yeah, but that's all diminutive and everything. What it is is humble.
Because I understand that I'm just a reader. I understand that I have a lot of bench experience
with a very limited aspect of molecular biology, a very limited aspect of neurobiology, a very
limited aspect of animal behavior, a very limited aspect of small animal surgery, a very limited
aspect of of animal breeding, and an absolute mountain of expertise on electrophysiology and
brain slices. And with that, extremely weird, but varied background in biology that includes
an enthusiasm of birds since I was a kid, collecting reptiles since I was a kid, a love of all kinds
of animals since I was a child. I come at this with a firm and beautiful respect for nature
and how complex it is. And a real firm understanding that the real appreciation that you need to have
as a biologist is that there's so much that we're never going to be able to figure out because it is
this complex interaction of complex interactions with complex interactions
with pattern integrities.
I just don't feel the sacred here. We're being sold down the river by people who've already
given up on the sacred who already believe all of the keys are in our hands. They believe that
it's just a matter of time before all these mysteries are going to be solved and all these
nuts are going to be cracked. Robert Malone is exactly one of these people
who probably thinks there's too many people on the planet and certainly too many mouth breathers
and that we need to use the medical data that we can to make this go forward because otherwise
it will never go forward. And I think he's positioning himself for whatever changes are to come,
just like a lot of these people are, just like I am and just like you should be.
Said no, Robert, this time I insist you have to stand up and fight what's being done to you.
And I really, you know, I'd partitioned all of that in my mind and set it aside and
really didn't look at it, didn't try not to think about it as a defense mechanism.
And she hauled out, we had carried the old data to the extent that we were able to extract it from
by Cal and the salt. We carried it with us in a great big box through all the moves and academic
appointments and everything. And she hauled it out and went through it and pulled out key documents
and assembled them and wrote an essay in which she described from her point of view what had
transpired. You see, and that essay is something that Mark has captured images of and she had
posted this essay on Facebook. So even though that essay doesn't really exist anymore on the
internet, it's still there in some places. I think you can still have a, there's still a link and
included the receipts, the documents and the patent disclosures, etc. And, and sent that off
to UC San Diego, faculty and leadership, Salk Institute, people at Moderna, an old colleague
that had invited us to the Carolinska years and years ago, that was-
So she sent a letter to Moderna, the Salk Institute, the University of San
San Diego, or wherever that was. She sent that letter to all those places. That's pretty bold.
A letter about PTSD, a letter about his, his, his ideas getting stolen from him,
idea about how millions of people's lives are being saved by his technology and nobody's giving
him any credit for it. She sent that letter to Moderna and the Salk Institute.
Volved in RNA delivery and became a collaborator and was often asked to the Carolinska years and
years ago, that was involved in Canada, Salk Institute, people at Moderna, an old colleague
that had invited us to the Carolinska years and years ago, that was involved in RNA delivery
and became a collaborator and was on the Nobel selection committee a couple years ago.
And, and basically said, no, this is what's happened. And, so that's, that kind of set that
all in motion, the process of objecting to being written out of history and having my
own contributions overlooked. And, of course, there was massive backlash from corporate media,
notably a very ugly piece, poorly written in the Atlantic Monthly. It has a graphic with two
syringes crossing over my face like skull and crossbones with my image in red. It's very striking.
Somebody wrote the other day that it was basically an invitation for assassination as far as they
were concerned. But I took a lot of arrows over that. And, you know, the Atlantic Monthly,
the Washington Post, the New York Times, Business Insider, Forbes Magazine, all of these entities,
as well as my haters in academia, particularly at the Scripps Institute of Research.
There's one that I don't want to amplify. They all focused just on the published manuscripts.
None of them will acknowledge the patents. So, because I was at, at a company, all of that stuff
had to go into patents, not into papers. And so, it's weaponized that, well, I didn't really do
what I did because I don't have the peer-reviewed publications. Seriously, I had a whole girl,
poor Robert, written out of history. Only have a few. They happen to be among the most highly
cited in this area. But that's all whitewashed over as if that... I want to understand, Robert.
Now, this is an interesting question. As you were talking, I thought about it.
Just imagine that you had stayed silent as you had typically done. You said nothing.
And what happened still happened? How would you have felt? Would you have felt the same? Better?
Worse? What do you think? I think it's good in... It's been particularly therapeutic starting with
your broadcast, but so many others where I've been asked to tell the story of what transpired
at the soul and at Vycal. And there's a school of thought that when you have a traumatic event,
you need to talk about it many times before you can heal from that event.
And I'm a much better person, even though it's been rough. I'm certainly healthier
psychologically because I have gone through this process of sharing and expressing
what I've experienced. And I've had feedback from so many people, particularly graduate students
that have in postdocs that have had to live in this really rather twisted modern academic environment
express to me, you know, I so much appreciate what you said. I had similar experiences.
These are what happened to me. And I think the whole thing, not to sound too touchy-feely,
has been very therapeutic. I know when he tells the story of his PTSD that he experienced with his
patent dispute with Vycal and the Salk Institute, I think to myself, man, I just want to call
and tell Robert Malone how happy I am that somebody's finally speaking out about the way
that us postdocs suffer. Just for me, but for a whole cohort of people that have also experienced
these types of rather average behavior from high profile academics. I'm going to share
something here now. So this is the Nobel Prize. This is the second of October. So this is the
PDF from the Nobel Institute. And they have here, Catalina, Kariko, and Drew Weisman.
I want you because you knew this was coming. And I want to understand because I'm thinking
about it from a scientific point of view. When you've done work and you've created ideas
and then not be credited for it, it does hurt. Did this hurt? Even though you knew it was coming.
Did it hurt? To reel back, when Steve Kirsch and I went on the Brett Weinstein Dark Horse podcast,
three of us sat around for about 20 minutes before we started the broadcast and discussed
the potential consequences of what we were about to do. Oh my gosh, the consequences could be
drastic. Brett, you could lose the Google payouts that you get from YouTube and the ads that run
on your extraordinary podcast. Robert Malone could lose all of his illustrious career as a
vaccine broker and horse salesman. And Steve Kirsch, he's got his own company. So he'll be fine. Oh no,
wait a minute. He was asked to step down from his company.
So they took the risk anyway, and they titled the podcast three easy steps to end the pandemic.
And then in the first 10 minutes of the podcast, Brett proceeded to tell everybody how they were
an example of how strangers could hang out without masks, because infection and injection on the
right, double injection on the left, and master of prophylactic ivermectin in the middle.
We haven't forgotten he would like us to have forgotten that he never came out against anything.
And you could call it speaking against the narrative of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines.
And we thought at the time, Steve was the one that was most bomb proof because he had his own company.
It caused him to lose his company. His board of directors basically asked for his resignation.
And Brett, certainly he got demonetized. That was a huge impact for him. My understanding is he was
quite depressed for a while. And as you would well imagine, if that's your main source of income,
getting demonetized from YouTube. And for me, the discussion was that the Nobel was in play
at that time, and that this would jinx my ability to prevail in that or be included in it. And so
it was a conscious decision that that was a risk, consciously taken, but that it was the right thing
to speak at that time. And so when this dropped, I was in one sense surprised, in another sense,
not surprised. I was surprised in that my colleague from the Carolinska that I mentioned, who's a
full professor and works on RNA delivery and self-replicating RNAs, had assured me that the
committee two years ago had reviewed the contributions of Currico and Weismann and had determined that
they were not sufficiently meritorious to warrant the price. And the committee at the time apparently
was surprised because they had not been aware that I had done that original work. And as apparently
Moderna and Pfizer were not aware because they didn't cite the patents, and that's another story
right now. They're busy in a patent battle. And now Pfizer paradoxically is citing those old patents
in their attacks against Mert, I mean, against Moderna. So I had been told that the committee had
reviewed this and found that it was not sufficiently meritorious. And my expectation was that the
committee was just going to stay away from this topic, you know, certainly for many years until it
had declared itself, let's say, in terms of what were the real issues with this product,
these mRNA vaccines for COVID and the technology platform, et cetera. But clearly,
they decided not to. They decided to take it up and they voted to grant this in a very odd way.
It is, it is, and you've got it highlighted there. Basically, they did a carve out
just for this to make this award. And the wording is crucial there, as is the press release that
corresponds to this. The, it's the carve out is restricted to just mRNA vaccines against COVID-19.
So this is a Nobel award for enabling the rapid development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19,
not for the development of the core technology platform or anything else. So as Jill and I were
pondering this and, you know, mRNA just read it there through their groundbreaking findings,
which have fundamentally changed our understanding of how mRNA interacts with our immune system.
That's the key. So by chemically altering the mRNA, we have learned a little bit more about how
mRNA interacts with our immune system or interacts with the intracellular machinery,
which processes mRNA and foreign mRNA in particular. We've learned a little bit more
enough to use it as an excuse that contributed to the unprecedented rate of vaccine development.
So during one of the greatest threats to human health in modern times. So
what's important to see here in my, from my perspective, is that Robert is now still having
a debate about what role he played in the development of the mRNA technology
and what things are going to contribute ultimately to the enablement of these development,
the development of the COVID-19 vaccine. So what part of this is he not going to challenge?
He's not going to challenge that this was one of the greatest threats to human health in modern
times. If he was trying to free us like like Jessica Hockett and Nick Hudson and Thomas Binder
and Peter McCullough and Bobby and a lot of other people, I think, are trying to free us.
Excuse me. We've really got to get it into our heads that one of the things that we needed to
spell is this mythology that it was one of the greatest threats to human health in modern times.
Bobby's not there yet. Peter McCullough is not there yet, but we're trying.
And you saw that Peter McCullough had the first time at a sparkle in his eye about this idea
when he was talking to Daddy Rancour. So we're going to get there, but we've got to keep pushing
and we can't let people put it on the screen and then not talk about it. Distract us with
you know, the precise wording of enabled the development of or no, we are now
putting into the Nobel Prize record that they saved us from one of the greatest threats in
modern history. So the lie is not the biology of the mRNA vaccine. The lie is that.
That's the lie. That's what makes it okay for it to have been rushed. That's what makes it okay
for it to have contaminants and still get the award because otherwise it wouldn't get a reward,
right? It wouldn't get an award if it hadn't saved anybody's lives. Then it would have been
a rushed product that hurt a lot of people. I hope you can see how important it is
that that's in there, that they're saying it, that it is the justification for awarding them
the prize and talking about the biology of that is accepting the fact that the greatest threat
to human health in modern times just passed us by.
Or anything else. So as Jill and I were pondering this and you know, how do we process this and deal
with it? Her point immediately was, well, actually this is kind of indicating because the committee
has not, has explicitly not made the award for the invention of the technology, which was what was
being advanced in the press in stat news in Boston and others, CNN originally, before I started
objecting, was that Kariko and Weissman were the ones that had created this technology. When in
fact, they came, they didn't even start doing any of this stuff until 15 years after what I did.
So, so in a way, it was okay. Now, the assertions that are made by the committee
are largely false and fairly transparently false. The assertion that Kariko and Weissman
produced these four papers that involved the use of a a pseudo-uridine modified base
incorporated into synthetic RNA, reducing inflammatory responses relative to non-modified RNA.
They hold the patent on that from you, Penn. And that patent is fascinating because it says nothing
about vaccines. And Kariko and Weissman originally did not intend to work on vaccines, but rather
were focused on cancer when they did these discoveries. So, there it's absolutely true
as the committee asserts that Kariko and Weissman made these discoveries and they made them after I
had left. And I've congratulated them on that achievement of the Nobel Prize for their discovery.
The next statement that's made there in that clause that justifies the product and in the
press releases, they talk about effective vaccines. That's highly debatable. And they also assert
in the press release, the vaccines have saved millions of lives and greatly reduced disease.
That's also really in flux right now, that that thesis. But you notice they speak of effective,
they don't say safe and effective, which has become the mantra. So, they dropped a safe part.
And then in their press release, they talked about that what was really important here was that
the pseudo-uridine invention was what was enabling for the rapid development of these products. And
that's also a false statement. The discovery phase and development of the, let's say, composition
of matter, that's technical patent talk for a vaccine is usually, and in this case also, a very
small fraction of the overall, the discovery phase and development of the, let's say, composition
of matter, that's technical patent talk for a vaccine is usually in, in this technical
in development of the, let's say, composition of matter, that's technical patent talk for a vaccine
is usually in, and in this case also, a very small fraction of the overall time necessary for
development. The reason why these vaccines were developed so quickly had nothing to do with mRNA,
but largely had to do with dropping the normal processes for assessing pharmacology, toxicology,
biodeistribution. No, there is not wrong. It's really interesting to say that their,
that their new idea of chemically altering uracils was an enabling technology that allowed
these vaccines to develop so quickly. But in reality, the only thing that needed to be done was
we needed to shorten and get rid of all this regulatory procedure and declare an emergency under the
prep act, which is really what he should say here, right? Which is really what he should say here.
He should say it explicitly declaring an emergency under the prep act is what allowed this to happen.
He should say that explicitly. If he was trying to save us, will he say it?
Pharmacokinetics in phase one, two, three clinical trials, pharmacosis for assessing
pharmacology, toxicology, biodeistribution, pharmacokinetics, in phase one, two, three clinical trials.
That was a pretty stupid, complicated way of saying that they declared an emergency under the prep act
and then that meant they didn't have to do anything. You could keep it real simple, but instead,
it's often stupid, complicated. And you don't say what needs to be said. That's how the narrative
is being controlled. Ladies and gentlemen, that's why we have to listen to Robert Malone, because
then we can hear the barriers. We can hear the boundaries. We can hear the boundaries of the
debate on this side when we listen to Robert Malone. We can hear the boundaries of the debate on the
other side when we watch PBS NewsHour. And once we can see where the boundaries of the debate are,
we can start pushing there. Because otherwise, we're pushing on their practice dummies.
And we're running in their little wheels. So we got to listen carefully. We got to find out
where the edge of this narrative is and that we need to push hard on it. And so some of the
places he's pushing are real. It didn't save millions of lives. It didn't enable the technology.
The prep act enabled it. But then as he says it correctly, he stops short of giving you the truth.
And that's exactly the magic. That's exactly the enchantment.
He should have done said the prep act and emergency here. And he should have done
said that we need to stop the government from being able to declare an emergency again. And then
all this goes away. But he's not saying it. Including dose escalation. And not to mention the
nonclinical and clinical toxicology. So it was it was the dropping of the regulatory norms that
resulted in this being done so quickly. It wasn't really anything to do with pseudoridine.
Well, it raises a good point because I was asking about this as I was doing my research.
I realized that actually they even modified the pseudoridine even further by creating an N1
methyl serodeuridine, which is what they've used in the vaccines, which is quite remarkable. I guess
what they're saying is just the concept of create using this pseudoridine is the innovation. It
doesn't matter how you then subsequently adjust it. Yeah, that that could be the logic. It's it's
I'm not aware. And remember what I said, the salt, I think there was six or eight Nobel laureates
there, including Francis Crick. I'm not aware in the history of the Nobel Prize for medicine
or physiology, that those that originated the technology were not included in the final
award. That's very unusual. And the the point that all of these, let's say irregularities or
untruths that are used to justify this award, really, in my mind, speak of a
the logic underneath this, not really being grounded in rigorous science and medicine.
I think it has more to do with politics. That's a controversial statement on it. Really don't
want to come across as sour grapes or or denying in any way, or casting shade or disparaging the
achievement of this, or or to second guess the Nobel Committee, it made their decision.
But I do note that Pfizer is a major donor to the Carolinska Institute. So whatever happened
here, it happened. I was surprised you asked about my emotions. I was surprised. What what
was more hurtful for me than the actual award was the rekindling of the box trolls and social
media scientists attacks on me, asserting that this demonstrated that I didn't actually do what I did.
That's that's just hurtful. And it's not it's not based in in fact,
and it's, you know, it's, it's, you know, what's hurtful is when doctors are told they have to
follow a protocol and then those doctors follow the protocol and then lie to the patients about
following the protocol and the fact that it's going to help them. You know what sucks is when
people are lied to about why they have to stay away from their grandmother while she's dying.
You know, it sucks is when people are lied to about why they're being treated the way they're
treated or how they're being treated or what they're being given. I don't know if he suffered
that much during the pandemic. I don't know if he's really in a position to whine about just him all
the time. When lots of other people lost their businesses, lost their jobs, lost their livelihoods,
lost family members, lost children, lost parents, lost use of their hands.
I just think it's a little disingenuous for him to be singing for an hour and 15 minutes about
how much pain he suffered as the hurtful internet. The hurtful, unwritten history that is his
when he just wants to be a humble horse farmer, famous for saving the world, I guess.
Tearing off the the scab over the psychological pain, frankly, I don't want to sound like a
whiner. Do psychological scars have scabs? Of what was deployed against me by corporate media
two years ago, two and a half years ago, but that's the modern ecosystem in social media is this kind
of really rather wicked behavior. The way that they brought out the truth was somewhat very similar
to how they brought it out all the other times in the Scooby-Doo. Robert Malone got to be on Tucker
Carlson. Robert Malone was on Rogan. Robert Malone was on every podcast.
And while he was out there, he was telling the story of viruses, telling the story of his technology
being stolen from him. Telling a broken story about it might be working, it might not be working,
it should be working. We don't know if it's working. Controlling the narrative, being the star of the
show, touring the world, touring the world. He's just a humble horse farmer. But in order to save
the world, he's definitely willing to do a week long cruise off of the coast of Turkey with a bunch
of dissidents. He's definitely willing to go to the EU three times a year. Sometimes he's doing nine
hits a day, nine podcasts a day. Sometimes he puts out 21 single space pages of text every day.
And he's got horses and emus. Ladies and gentlemen, something is incongruent here.
Something is very, very incongruent here. And if we follow this to the end, I think we're
going to figure out what's going on. I think you're going to see the Scooby Doo for what it is. I
think we can expose these people because they're all connected. There's no possible way that George
Webb, Paul Catrell, Robert Malone, Charles Ricksey, Kevin McCann, Dr. Philip McMillan,
a carrot fund in Bosch, and Dr. Paul Catrell, if I didn't say that already, are not all connected.
There's just no way. They're definitely all connected. They seem to be all part of the same
sideshow, pushing the worst case scenario, pushing rumors of the worst case scenario of the shot,
the worst case scenario of all the different ways the transfection went wrong.
Instead of all the ways the transfection is wrong. See the difference? All these people are pushing
the ways the transfection went wrong instead of the ways the transfection is wrong. And they're
all related. They've all been on each other's shows. Robert Malone has been on this guy's show
in the same month that he was on Bret Weinstein a month before he went on Joe Rogan and broke the internet.
And Robert Malone is streamed with Kevin or with Paul Catrell while at the same time talking
out of the other side of his mouth about how one of his arch nemesis is on the internet is
none other than George Webb, who says the biggest hero in the medical community speaking out since
2020 is Paul Catrell, fake doctor, bus rider MD,
who supposedly his arch em is in arch one of his arch and nemesis in 2020 was none other than
Kevin McCarid, who convinced me that I should fight with him against the silver salesman.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is breaking very fast. The illusion is breaking because all of these
people have underestimated our ability to look back on the internet itself and see the videos
that they did and see a pattern that's incongruent. But it's very incongruent when you're liars
and you have to keep track of all the lies that you told it's really hard.
Especially when there's videos of all the previous lies that you told and anyone can go look at
them and if they spend enough time, if they waste enough time on the drama, then all kinds of stuff
seems to fall out. Of people that just want to hate and there's nothing to be done about it.
You just kind of have to suck it up. Snowflake and deal with it.
That was the one that was more hurtful than the decision by the committee. I could have used the
money. But Kariko and Weisman have already scooped up the Lasker award, the similar award from the
Israeli government. When they got the Lasker award, they wore masks for the photo.
Her award from the Spanish government. There was clearly a big push here and this is big science
and that's just the way big science goes. If you don't, one of the things early in my career
at the Salk, one of the competitors to ender verma was Tony Hunter, who also ran Nobel Laureate.
I guess I'm now an also ran. For some of his key work, Brilliant Man. Mine like a trap.
And he once said to me, if you think this is the last major discovery you're ever going to make,
then you should get out of science right now. This is basically a bucket up
and don't line. And this is just the way things are. Science is a hard ball game.
And so, and the other thing about this, you're asking about the emotional state.
My entire professional career, I've had to deal psychologically with the gaslighting and
denialism and all of this wire line. And this is just the way things are. Science is going to make,
then you should to me and for some of his key work, Brilliant Man. It's all one of the competitors
to ender verma was Tony Hunter, who was also ran Nobel Laureate. I guess I'm now an also ran.
And for some of his key work, Brilliant Man. Mine like a trap.
And he once said to me, if you think this is the last major discovery you're ever going to make,
then you should get out of science right now. This is basically a bucket up
and don't line. And this is just the way things are. Science is a hard ball game.
And so, and the other thing about this, you're asking about the emotional state.
My entire professional career, I've had to deal psychologically with the gaslighting and
denialism and all of this. And so, I kind of almost had a lot of that, that emotional
baggage burned out of me.
You know, I'm going to say something now, and I had responded to a few comments on social
media as well. And I, as I wrote something, I reflected on it. And my feeling is that the
technology has some limitations. But my honest instinct is that they did it with the wrong disease
at too big a scale. Meaning that if they had done what the intention was, which was to focus on the
high risk cohort and try to protect them with the technology, I think the risk or the potential
exposure of the technology would have been significantly lower. But the exposure of the
technology would have been significantly lower. Exactly. You would not have been able to see
that the technology sucked because it would have just killed old and vulnerable people with
comorbidities. That's what they should have done. If they were really just intending to get rid of
the get rid of as much chaff as they could. And he just said it right there. The technology
would not have been as exposed if they had just used it on the weak and vulnerable.
But they used it on all kinds of healthy people. And now we've got a problem. Did you hear it?
The technology for your scale, meaning that if they had done what the intention was, which was
to focus on the high risk cohort and try to protect them with the technology, I think the
risk or the potential exposure of the technology would have been significantly lower. And I said
something here. I'll finish with this statement. I said that no matter what the political situation
is, the people who have been hurt in one way or the other by the technology will never
be silent. And that's in effect the thing that is unstoppable. And so the platform, even though
it could have more modifications, more benefits, could be destroyed at this altar. Any thoughts on
that? So I had warned about this, and not just the platform, but the entire vaccine enterprise
has been compromised. And public faith in public health, the reputation of the CDC,
the reputation of the FDA, I speak about this from time to time. I was speaking to a Portuguese
audience about a year and a half or two years ago. And an older woman asked me a question and
prefaced it with a preamble. And she made the point that throughout Europe, the FDA had always
been believed to be the gold standard for integrity and rigor in regulation of drugs and
biological products. And that she had come to now understand that the FDA was corrupt
and could not be relied on. And when she said that, I had not allowed that thought to come
into my mind up until that point, he didn't think the FDA was corrupt, even though he was
involved in getting $10 billion worth of grant money from the United States government. And it
involved in bringing lots of different technologies to market via the FDA. In fact, what did he say?
Holy shit. He said he worked for a regulatory affairs sweatshop, which had to do with FDA
regulations. He didn't know that the FDA was not to be trusted until then, even though he was
in the business for 20 years of taking advantage of gaming that system.
I mean, can you believe it? Can you believe that he's even got the gall to talk these words,
to speak these words in this order? But of course he is. He's woozy on with right now. He's on with
somebody who's on his team. And it was not and rigor in regulation of drugs and biological
products. And that she had come to now understand that the FDA was corrupt and could not be relied
on. And when she said that, I had not allowed that thought to come into my mind up until that
point. And it literally hit me like a brick to the head. That's absurd. That's as absurd as his
story that he didn't know what the w w w w w w e f or seppy and all these other things people
were up to before he was told about it at the start of the pandemic. That's the story. That's
the story that we are told that Robert Malone didn't know about the w f until someone else told
him during the pandemic. He just woke up. He didn't even know that the FDA was corrupt until someone
in Portugal told him. Um, in this rush, this Operation Warp Speed, and all of the profit rush
Operation Warp Speed. Uh oh, I wonder who he's who he's thrown under the bus here. Again, uh,
in Miss wouldn't that be convenient? Just in time. Coming to the rescue of the blue side.
Information and disinformation that was propagated by the government and the withholding of
information about adverse events, for instance, myocarditis in particular. Uh, what we had done
as a United States health and human services and, uh,
by defense infrastructure and and really biomedical pharmaceutical complex is we had destroyed or
severely damaged our competitive position in the world as the preeminent, uh, developer and
manufacturer of these types of products. And my prediction had been then, and I think we're seeing
it accelerate that what would be the logical consequence would be that the United States would
continue to lose its its dominant position in biopharmaceuticals to India and China, one of which
is considered a hostile nation. And the other one is at best a frenemy, uh, certainly a strong
competitor. And that's, that's what's happened. The United States now has to import not only final
drug product, but, uh, drug precursors, if they're going to do that. And the reputation of the FDA
is trashed globally and, uh, within the States. I, the damage that's been done here, uh, through,
uh, the logic of emergency use authorization of, uh, products that are proven to be neither safe nor
effective. Uh, in response to what was, uh, basically marketed or propagandized as a highly lethal
respiratory virus with a 3.4% case fatality rate. When it based on Ferguson's modeling largely,
uh, in Imperial college and his group, uh, and has proven to be paradoxically, Mr. Trump got this
right. Early on, he, there's multiple video clips of him saying that the fatality rate here, I think
he calls it mortality rate is well less than 1%. That turns out to be the case. Uh, and the whole
logic that did, and so why won't he explain that they did something in New York City, which Jessica
Hockett has identified as like a bomb going off and then using those numbers out of context
and spreading that out throughout the United States in certain places where the protocols could
be enacted, they were able to create a brief pulse of increase in all cause mortality that they then
extrapolated from. It's not just the models. It's the models plus this little tiny start blip
that was required so that everybody could say, but do you see it? It's right here. It's starting.
It's about to go to a billion people dead. And then of course, as Jessica Hockett showed,
it just went up. And three weeks later, it went down and it never went up again for the rest of the
year. And so is he going to point that out? Is he going to explain that it wasn't just the
exaggeration of the danger of the virus, but it was actually the inversion of the protocols,
the imposition of the protocols, the complete reduction of the use of antibiotics to treat
secondary pneumonia? And do you know that a lot of these EUA PCR tests, when those results came back,
they said under the results that this PCR test cannot rule out effects from secondary
pneumonia and secondary bacterial infection. Almost all of them say that. Look it up.
Interpreting these results positive cannot rule out the effects of secondary bacterial infection.
This was a highly lethal virus that would overwhelm our hospitals, cause us to need to have mass
graves and pre-servants full of dead bodies and et cetera, et cetera. That's all turned out to be
false propaganda. But that is what has been used to justify these breaches of what are really
international norms of ethics and product development that have been developed over decades. And so
we're now left. I discredited Fauci hotels and Collins since 2020. Collins and his
immunomethology was in my stream for the first year and a half of my work. Those children have
been dismissed a long time ago. So I'm sorry you missed it, but I won't go backwards to them. Those
guys are stooges. Francis Collins is not a genius. Even Tony Fauci is not a genius. These are stooges.
I could tell you my colleagues in the
clinical development and earlier phase pharmaceutical development space
are perplexed now. What's happened in the states with regulatory affairs in the FDA
is that what had previously been a fairly rigorous and highly structured process.
We all knew the rules. We knew what the process was. We could project how much it costs. We could
project the timelines and grind away for a decade to get the product developed and safe and effective.
And now it's kind of anything goes if they want it to go. And if they want to hold you to
higher standards, they will and you can't predict what it's going to be. People are left with,
well, who do I have to pay off? What do I have to do? The whole system is now compromised.
Its integrity is compromised. And he just figured it out recently because some
woman at a talk that he was giving in Portugal pointed it out to him. Before that, he didn't
realize that the FDA was corrupt. All kinds of implications.
I want to ask you a part of the question because another piece of the puzzle, even though we speak
of mRNA, the delivery system with regards to lipid nanoparticles. And I heard you speaking about
this recently. And I also had a recent conference and someone, Christy Grace, had made some very
important comments about this. And I just brought up here one of the paper that shows major delivery
systems for these mRNA. Those graphics are grossly naive. Oh, are they? Yes. So all I want to know
is that when you see the different strategies for delivering the mRNA, have we ever at this scale
used the LNP in this kind of way? Are there any risks with that? Separate apart from the mRNA?
Yes, is the answer. And we know this because of data that was shared by Moderna about their phase
one dose escalation trials with their influenza vaccine candidate was shared to their
sock holders. It wasn't made public, which shows that at the 100 mic level with the flu expression
vectors, RNA, they had an enormously high adverse event rate. Something like 30 or 40 percent of
the patients enrolled at 100 mics had developed serious adverse events over a fairly short period
of time. So only because a lot of this work is not being done rigorously and by basically treaty
based on a meeting that was held chaired by Margaret Liu at the World Health Organization
little over a year ago, the decision has been made within Western regulatory authorities
that the candidate lipid formulation that you were just referring to that, by the way,
if somebody in my opinion, if you're going to give the Nobel for the enabling technology.
The people that should have got it was Peter Collas at University of British Columbia and his
colleagues because that is the enabling technology. And that technology is licensed to
a company that I think Justin Trudeau's family owns a lot of, but I could be wrong.
Is that the lipids in formulation structure in the East of Pegg that is used by all
Keraback Moderna and Biointech, Pfizer, that's who really made the breakthroughs
after decades and decades of hard work. And I've known Peter Collas throughout my career as one of
the top lipid formulation specialists in the world. And if I can just thanks for joining Janet
horse a little further, there were three companies in the running originally. The third one was
called Keraback and he was they were funded by an obscure investor that you've never heard of
before called Elon Musk. And they ran a more conservative phase one trial with antibody
titers as endpoints in humans in which they used a significantly lower dose than even Pfizer did.
Member of Moderna's three times Pfizer. Are you hearing that Elon Musk's RNA company used
a similar mRNA but without pseudo-uridine and they still got a robust response? Not as robust
as the high dosage of Moderna or of the pseudo-uridine treated high dosage of Pfizer,
but they got a good reaction. They got of antibody response and they didn't have to use pseudo-uridine.
Is Keraback the company of Elon Musk being set up as the next best mRNA production line?
Interesting. And Keraback was a fraction of the Pfizer dose but Keraback did not use pseudo-uridine
and it got a robust body response but not as high as those that had used the higher doses.
And they couldn't get funding to carry forward with the product development and it was dropped.
But those data demonstrate that you don't have to have the pseudo-uridine. It works just fine
without it. And Moderna didn't use to use the pseudo-uridine. It made a decision kind of the
last minute to license the enzyme. But the cationic lipid formulations are intrinsically toxic.
The mRNA and its immunosuppressive characteristics because this isn't really mRNA. This is a chemically
synthesized molecule that has pseudo-uridine of whichever form throughout its backbone. That's
not a normal characteristic of RNA. The placement of pseudo-uridine in normal RNA is very strategic
and specific in where it's placed, not all the way through the molecule.
And it is absolutely immunosuppressive. That was the intention but that's a double-edged sword,
especially when you do them with immune responses. And then there's the spike protein.
And if we compare, for instance, by the FDA and CDC's own admission,
the Novavax product, which is caterpillar cell produced and caterpillar virus produced spike
protein, the adenoviral-vectored products, one of which the J&J had been sold in the United States
until recently. And the two RNA products that also express the spike, they all have the common
feature of cardiotoxicity, the myocarditis and pericarditis, and yet their core platforms
when used for other purposes do not show that characteristic. So major problems with myocarditis
and pericarditis in coagulopathy were not problems with prior adenovctored vaccine candidates.
They haven't been problems with prior Novavax technology candidates. So I think it's reasonable
to conclude, you're a scientist, that this is basic Sesame Street stuff. We have these different
products, they have one common characteristic, they cause this spike protein to be present in
the body at very high levels in a very abrupt kinetic, very different from the natural infection.
And systemically, rather than mucosally, so very different, again, from natural infection,
and they all have this common feature of cardiotoxicity and coagulopathy and stroke and everything.
And so my thesis is that we have a cluster of toxicities that are attributable to the formulation
itself in the presence of a polynucleotide, because you can't make these particles, the
peter colus particles in the absence of a polynucleotide. They have to have a polymer,
an anionic polymer to self-assemble, you know, based on ionic interactions.
So the lipid particle is toxic, the mRNA is immunosuppressive, that's a toxicity,
and the spike protein is toxic. Those toxicities overlap, and the vector sum of those are particles
in a process that has been very, is very complex from a pharmaceutical standpoint,
and involves multiple active new chemical entities.
So I want to ask you a question, Robert, and I wanted to think about from a scientific perspective
as a scientist. I am baffled why the scientific community as a whole, you know, the public seems
to have clued in a lot of the public that something isn't quite right. Why is there this almost
ideological perspective? It's because the narrative has been curated. It's because the
narrative has been curated by people like Robert Malone, being on streams with Dr. Philip McMillan,
curating a narrative about an investigational vaccine and about a novel virus that we needed
to do something for. That's the reason why we're here. That's the answer. There's about 30 or 40
more minutes of this interview, but like Kim Traveler, I'm also getting tired. I think I'm
going to cut it short right here. I hope you don't mind. Watch the rest of this and see if
there's anything interesting for me to pull out a drop in the next couple of streams. Someone dropped
a little thread in here about data sciences and Vivek and Kushner, and it's interesting,
so they didn't check it out. Click on it. Thanks very much for joining me, guys. This has been
Giga Home Biological, a high resistance low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
Don't forget the Ninja Mouse Killer injection of any combination of substances with the
intent of augmenting the immune system. It's dumb, and if that's too complicated for you,
just say the Transfections for non-immunizations and stop them. Stop them and everybody.
They're trying to eliminate the control you're planning means necessary. This has been Giga Home
Biological. Don't forget about the broken science movement, the initiative, a great place to find
interesting videos to share with your friends. Also a great place to talk about the big
lards of science that are broken. It's been Giga Home Biological. Thank you very much.