Robert Malone is de uitvinder van de mRNA technologie.
When it comes to vaccines, Dr. Robert Malone is a true believer. His career has revolved around the research and
development of vaccines and vaccine technology.
As such, his knowledge of the extent of work it takes to bring a vaccine or new medical technology to market is unparalleled.
He possesses in-depth knowledge spanning from the ethics to the technicalities of these processes.
At what point does a man like Dr. Malone wave the red flag of warning and speak out against what he has worked on his
whole career?
Simply put, he feels compelled to do so when it is clear to him that his work is being improperly used. His deep commitment
to ethics and the Hippocratic Oath compel his actions, and he fears that a technology is being widely disseminated that is not
yet ready for prime time.
Dr. Malone’s story is best told in his own words. Be sure to catch the entirety of his compelling interview with Dr. Patrick
Gentempo in Covid Revealed.
Introduction
Who is Doctor Robert Malone?
Dr. Malone is the discoverer of in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection and the inventor of mRNA vaccines, while he was
at the Salk Institute in 1988. His research was continued at Vical in 1989, where the first in-vivo mammalian experiments
were designed door him. The mRNA, constructs, reagents were developed at the Salk institute and Vical door Dr. Malone. The initial patent disclosures were written door Dr. Malone in 1988-1989. Dr. Malone was also an inventor of DNA vaccines in 1988 and 1989. This work results in over 10 patents and numerous publications, yielding about 7000 citations for this work.
Dr. Malone has extensive research and development experience in the areas of pre-clinical discovery research,
clinical trials, vaccines, gene therapy, bio-defense, and immunology. He has over twenty years of management and
leadership experience in academia, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology industries, as well as in governmental and nongovernmental organizations.
Dr. Malone specializes in clinical research, medical affairs, regulatory affairs, project management, proposal management
(large grants and contracts), vaccines, and biodefense. This includes writing, developing, reviewing and managing vaccine,
bio-threat, and biologics clinical trials and clinical development strategies.
He has been involved in developing, designing, and providing oversight of approximately forty phase 1 clinical trials and
twenty phase 2 clinical trials, as well as five phase 3 clinical trials. He has served as medical director/medical monitor on
approximately forty phase 1 clinical trials, and on twenty phase 2 clinical trials, including those run at vaccine-focused Clinical
Research Organizations. His proposal development work has yielded clients billions of dollars.
Scientifically trained at UC Davis, UC San Diego, and at the Salk Institute’s Molecular Biology and Virology laboratories, Dr.
Malone is an internationally recognized scientist (virology, immunology, molecular biology) and is known as one of the
original inventors of mRNA vaccination and DNA Vaccination.
His discoveries in mRNA nonviral delivery systems are considered the key to the current COVID-19 vaccine strategies.
Dr. Malone holds numerous fundamental domestic and foreign patents in the fields of gene delivery, delivery formulations, and
vaccines.
He received his medical training at Northwestern University
(MD) and Harvard University (Clinical Research Post Graduate)
medical school, and in Pathology at UC Davis.
Dr. Malone has close to 100 peer-reviewed publications and
published abstracts and has over 11,477 citations of his peerreviewed
publications, as verified door Google Scholar. His
Google Scholar ranking is “outstanding” for impact factors. He
has been an invited speaker at over 50 conferences, has
chaired numerous conferences and he has sat on or served as
chairperson on numerous NIAID and DoD study sections.
Visit him at his website: https://www.rwmalonemd.com/
This Bio can be found online at:
https://www.rwmalonemd.com/about-us
His CV can be viewed on LinkdIn at:
https://www.rwmalonemd.com/s/RWM-CV-22-July-2021.pdf
The Interview
The following are highlights from Dr. Patrick Gentempo’s
riveting interview with Dr. Malone. Don’t miss COVID Revealed
to catch every fascinating minute.
Dr. Patrick Gentempo: since your voice is contrary to what
seems to be the agenda around this, they want to discredit you
and they’re trying to find ways to do it. And you mentioned
earlier that the Atlantic article… they published in the Atlantic
and they were struggling trying to discredit you. But in my
mind, I read it. I said, wow, they just very much validated his
position here.
So now here we are. And suddenly all these years go by,
nobody’s ever heard of mRNA vaccines before. And one
question I have around that incidentally is, cause there’s even
debate around whether this technically is a vaccine… you’re
saying, Hey, you’re injecting something that creates an immune
response. It helps you resist disease.
In that sense, it’s a vaccine, but is there a separate FDA
definition of vaccine that this would not meet, or in your mind,
is this a vaccine?
Dr. Robert Malone: this is a gene therapy product, applied for
the purpose of gene therapy technology, applied for the
purpose of vaccination. Both of these are ad vectored in the
mRNA. They are both fundamentally gene therapy technologies
applied. One of the applications for these gene therapy
technologies is for vaccination. Moderna and Pfizer’s SEC
reports explicitly acknowledged that these are gene therapy
products and that the FDA at the time of those reports
regulates them as gene therapy products.
So are they vaccines in my opinion? Yes, they are. They are
intentionally devised and formulated and licensed or not
licensed yet. There have been packages submitted for
requesting licensure for the purpose of vaccination,
prophylactic vaccination. Vaccination has got a lot of different
kinds of branches… we have cancer vaccines. We have
prophylactic vaccines that are preventative. We have
therapeutic vaccines that are meant to enhance your immune
response against something that you’ve already got as a
disease. And each of these has different regulatory
considerations that have to be dealt with.
In the United States, you’re seeking not only market
authorization, but interstate commerce authorization because
that’s the purview that the FDA has. So you have to say what
you want it to be used for. You have the latitude to define that
in a lot of different ways – in these cases, they appear to
primarily be prosecuting for disease and death as endpoints,
not prevention of infection. So that’s something that it’s a
nuance that you’re not going to hear in the main press where it
kind of matters.
Dr. Patrick Gentempo: It matters a great deal for two reasons.
Number one, I think like you said, for what regulatory structure
is applied to it. But number two, they don’t try to assert that
this vaccine that’s out right now prevents you from getting to
the disease or prevents you from spreading it necessarily.
Dr. Robert Malone: It’s important to understand that I didn’t
just parachute into this with SARS-Cov 2. I’ve been doing
multiple outbreaks. I was at the tip of the spear in bringing the
Ebola vaccine forward and getting Merck engaged, et cetera.
And in this case, I got a call from a CIA officer that was in
Wuhan in the fourth quarter of 2019, who alerted me on
January 4th, that I needed to get my team spun up and start
going because this virus looked like it was going to be a
problem.
And I made a threat assessment, which is my usual practice.
And I determined that based on what was known about
Coronavirus vaccines and the difficulties associated with
developing such, and the risk of antibody-dependent
enhancement, and the timeline that’s going to be required for
the development of a safe and effective vaccine.
The only option that we had in the short term was to identify
repurpose drugs and develop those for this indication where
they can repurpose drugs. Repurpose drugs are ivermectin,
hydroxychloroquine, famotidine, fluvoxamine, celecoxib.
Dexamethasone is a repurposed drug. It was not originally
licensed for this purpose.
And that’s a whole nother rabbit hole we can go down is how
we approach that and what we’ve been doing since, but I’ve
been working on the repurpose drug indication. In fact, just
last week, we finally got FDA clearance to proceed with our
large randomized clinical trials, outpatient and inpatient, for
testing the drug combination that I’ve been prosecuting and
leading the group on, which is the combination of high dose of
famotidine plus celecoxib. So I’ve been very sensitized and
aware of everything that’s going on, but not focusing on
vaccines intentionally.
I got kind of drawn into this whole controversy because
people were seeking answers. I didn’t seek out this role of
truth-teller or disambiguation wizard or whatever it is that I am
these days… We’ve been focusing on repurposed drugs.
So, the vaccine story. I had made the assessment that there
were too many risks and it was going to take too long and to
my great surprise OWS happened, Operation Warp Speed.
ít’s important to understand for your listenership, that
Moderna was to a significant extent a failing company prior
to this that had been launched largely with DARPA money.
Dr. Patrick Gentempo: DARPA is military…
Dr. Robert Malone: it’s really kind of a branch of our
intelligence service. DARPA are the people that actually did
develop the internet … and many other things. Their role is to
be out on the edge, coming up with new tech. So DARPA in
the United States had funded Moderna.
The German government had funded BioNTech, which is kind
of interesting. Historically, if you remember, there was a time
when the Trump administration was trying to buy out the
German company, BioNTech. BioNTech then licensed its
product and technology to Pfizer. So really the Pfizer vaccine
is the BioNTech vaccine and Pfizer and BioNTech made a
conscious decision not to participate in accepting
government dollars. And they didn’t participate in OWS. It was
Moderna.
So we have these, gene therapy products, and they were
rushed and we were told that they weren’t going to cut any
corners, but they did.
I mean, you can’t take, what’s normally a decade-long process
for developing a product, and ensuring its safety and efficacy,
and compressing it into six to nine months and not cut some
corners. That’s just absurd. But yet that’s what we were told
they were doing.
Dr. Patrick Gentempo: So they’re pre-authorized under
emergency use… so there’s an emergency. We’re going to
basically throw out the rule book… So you had safety
concerns. What were the safety concerns you had?
Dr. Robert Malone: it goes back and I mentioned this, this is
the first thing that I got fact-checked on door Reuters… I had an
ongoing dialogue every other week with three other senior
scientists at the FDA that are outside of the review branch.
It’s how DC works. We had kind of an ongoing dialogue of
what’s going on and what’s going on with drug repurposing.
And what do you think about ivermectin? And last fall as they
were rushing these spike-based vaccines forward, I contacted
them.
I was sensitized to the fact
that spike was not biologically
inert… Literature clearly
demonstrated that there are
two proteins in the SARS-1
virus, which directly activate
the Cox-2 promoter to produce
Cox-2. And then the
arachidonic acid metabolites
that are at the basis of some of the inflammatory cascade
that happens that kind of kicks off, lights the fire. It’s kind of
the match that lights the fire that results in biologic response.
Again, I forgot to get back to a comment you made earlier –
the virus doesn’t cause the disease, it’s your body’s immune
response against the virus.
So it’s kind of an important thing to segregate is we have the
prodrome, which is the viremia prodrome, and then we have
the hyperinflammatory response that happens in a subset of
patients. And that’s the one that really puts you in the hospital
and kills you.
The good news is there’s a bunch of anti-inflammatory drugs
that can be used for that second phase. And we’ve just gone
over that list in part, right?
So I was aware that there are two proteins in one of those,
two proteins that turn on Cox-2, which lights the fire in this
whole thing. This is the spike protein on the outside of the
virus. So with any of these viruses, they’re under incredible
evolutionary pressure to pack as much functionality in each
of their proteins as they can.
Add a subheading
Protein is among those that have multiple functions. And
one of these functions seems to be NF-kappa B mediated
signaling. That turns on Cox-2.
So I notified my colleagues at the FDA. I said, guys, you
know, no one seems to be paying attention that spike has
other activities. It’s not biologically inert. It’s not just a
receptor-binding protein that binds ACE-2.
That alone would be enough because ACE-2 is an incredibly
important protein for regulating all kinds of biological
effects, not the least of which is blood pressure. So I let
them know some of the papers, and what came back was,
well, we sent these over to the review department and they
really don’t think that they’re significant enough to cause any
concerns and any hesitation in proceeding with the
development of these strategies.
I can’t get into the brains of what goes on in the regulatory
branch… Then the data came out more and more and more
about spike and spike cytotoxicity. And so door the time that
Bret Weinstein podcast rolls around, there was already the
disclosure from the Salk Institute, for instance, that spike
was directly cytotoxic – spike as produced door the virus.
So I made this statement, and Reuters fact-checked me and
said, no, no, you’re wrong. Spike is not cytotoxic. The spike
produced from the virus is cytotoxic, but not the spike
produced from the vaccines.
A lot of these factcheckers
do this little game
where they’ll take what you
say and they’ll twist it
slightly, create a straw man,
and then they’ll refute the
straw man. This has all
been a big learning
experience. I’ve never had this kind
of interaction, you know, being factchecked
and attacked.
In fact, now there’s more and more data that have flooded
out that, that the spike protein does open the blood-brain
barrier. It is directly cytotoxic. It does affect vascular
endothelium spike.
And then there was a series of statements made that, well,
they knew this and they engineered the spike that they put
into the vaccine so that it would be safe. This came out in
the mainstream media as their reaction logic to what I had
floated.
That’s got an intrinsic flaw. I like to talk about the time
machine. Okay, for them to have engineered spike back
then when they were rushing this thing through in early
2020 would have required that they had foreshadowing of
all of these spikes cytotoxicities that weren’t discovered
until almost a year later. A series of events happen in terms
of molecular realignment in the structure of these proteins
that injects the genome of the virus into the cell, infects the
cell, that’s how that cascade happens…
So they engineered spike to stay open, so the pocket would
be available. And that’s not even what you really want
antibodies against in the first place, if you want to get a good
immune response against it, but that’s what they did, but it
had nothing to do with making it less toxic.
The rules are, and it’s
the job of the
pharmaceutical
company or the NIH
since they engineered
the modern vaccine,
or whomever in your
regulatory portfolio,
before you ever go
into humans, you got
to prove that things
aren’t toxic.
I’ve never seen the documentation that shows that the
engineered spike has been demonstrated to not have the
known toxic biologic activities of the native spike to argue as
the press does, and even the Salk Institute then kind of
partially retracted and modified their statement. And they
said, well, what we’ve claimed about direct cytotoxicity
associated with spike applies to the native spike, but it doesn’t
necessarily apply to the vaccine spike, but they don’t actually
do any studies to show that it doesn’t apply.
And I try to live in the world of, do we have data, right? We
shouldn’t make assertions about is something safe or not
safe. Well, unless we can demonstrate it, I mean, this is what
you’re supposed to do before you take it to market. You’re
supposed to before you even put it into humans.
Dr. Patrick Gentempo: I mean, this is what you’re supposed to
do before you take it to market.
Dr. Robert Malone: You’re supposed to, before you even put it
into humans.
Dr. Robert Malone: It binds to ACE 2. And ACE two is
everywhere. It’s in your vascular endothelial cells. It’s all over
the place.
Dr. Patrick Gentempo: Is this why myocarditis, pericarditis?
And these other…
Dr. Robert Malone: That
seems to be more of a
coagulopathy. I think that’s
another problem. But yes,
spike goes all over. And the
amount that you detect as
free protein is probably just
a tiny fraction because it’s in
equilibrium with bound to
ACE 2 protein, which is going
to be a big sink.
And that’s in equilibrium with a spike that hasn’t been cut off
of cells yet. No one’s ever measured all this stuff, which gets
into another one of the huge bear traps here in terms of what
the FDA did.
If you could take the Pfizer dossier… from the Japanese
government as face value for what they knew at the time
when they moved this into humans in a big way, they didn’t
actually test the final drug product.
Dr. Robert Malone: They didn’t actually use the final
formulation you’re supposed to use. Everything I’ve always
been taught and what I’ve always thought we had to do – you
have to use a near GMP or GMP manufactured, final product
to do the pivotal toxicology tests of biodistribution, duration
of expression, cell location, all this kind of stuff. They did
none of that, but the governments just let them get away with
comp.
It appears taking data off the shelf that they had developed
for other purposes and kind of slammed it all together. And,
you know, to bless it and off we go. As a consequence of that
strategy and not insisting that the gene therapy checklist be
applied, we have no real information about how much protein
is being made, where it’s being made, and for how long.
Dr. Patrick Gentempo: So we’re flying blind in essence.
Maybe it’s the idea that we’re going to just put it out in the
world and then collect our data after we do it. I mean, it
seems irresponsible.
Dr. Robert Malone: I concur. That’s why I had made the
threat assessment that we should focus on repurposed
drugs because to do it right, is going to take a long time. And
furthermore, to establish safety when there’s this history of
antibody-dependent enhancement.
And this history of autoimmune disease, and with vaccines in
general, which often manifests over time, usually you need at
least a year’s data, usually two years data after you’ve
administered to a very large number of patients, willingly
accepting that participation in those clinical trials, not forced
or enticed, and you have to follow them rigorously to make
sure that they don’t develop long-term adverse events like
autoimmunity. So they just flushed all that.
In this case, the FDA basically gave the pharmaceutical
companies a complete pass, and they said, we’re not going to
ask you to do anything in terms of safety follow-up… even
though they said in their emergency authorization that
antibody-dependent enhancement was a risk… It remains
unresolved…they did nothing.
Dr. Patrick Gentempo: What is antibody-dependent
enhancement?
Dr. Robert Malone: it’s one of a spectrum of processes
wheredoor a vaccine causes enhanced disease.
The hallmark of antibody-dependent enhancement in the
context of this particular virus, when you think about it, is
going to be increased levels of virus replication, that’s the
measurable thing. That’s the answer. It’s not the disease
enhancement, it’s the virus replication.
And what are we seeing with Delta? We’re seeing levels of
viral replication… But the studies are coming in even more
now, the levels of virus being produced in the previously
vaccinated with Delta in the infected subjects. So the
breakthrough infections are at least as great as those that
have not been vaccinated. And in some cases, there’s
evidence that they’re higher.
Dr. Patrick Gentempo: So the reality is there’s some evidence
that maybe ADE is happening, and there’s really not enough
research to say that it wouldn’t happen. You have to
disqualify it saying that’s a concern, right?
Dr. Robert Malone: the truth is in the FDA’s own documents.
And then in this recent correspondence that I saw from Janet
Woodcock, the acting director when the FDA granted
emergency use authorization to Pfizer in their summary
document, they specifically said that antibody-dependent
enhancement was a risk and known risk, and that it could not
be evaluated based on the data that they had provided.
And they encouraged that such studies be performed in
clinical studies, but they did not mandate those studies. I
think that was another one of the major regulatory oversights
of basically giving a major vaccine manufacturer pass. Why
did they do that is speculation.
Dr. Patrick Gentempo: Let’s talk about agenda. There’s an,
there was an agenda, an obvious agenda, an overt agenda to
get these vaccines out.
Dr. Robert Malone: It was not subtle… it was stated
government policy. There was a lot of messaging in the
media that no shortcuts were taken, but it’s self-evident that
a process that normally takes a decade, do it in a matter of
months, there will be shortcuts taken. What’s rolled out over
time is the depth and breadth of those shortcuts is profound.
Standard norms that would be implemented for any other
vaccine in any other context that I’ve ever known were
overlooked. And they had to do with safety. I haven’t been
into the data as deep as some people have in the clinical
trials, but I hear again and again about oddities in those
clinical trials and their interpretations, they were very
abbreviated trials.
All the evidence is that
we’re getting recall immune
responses against prior
coronavirus infection. What
does that mean? So what it
means is – so we’ve all
had… the common cold,
these circulating
Coronaviruses, and there’s
enough overlap in terms of
the immune response that’s
generated against those
with SARS-Cov2 that
antibodies against those
viruses and cellular immune
SARS-Cov2 that antibodies
against those viruses, and cellular immune response against
those viruses are provoked when you get infected or
vaccinated with the COVID vaccines or infected door SARSCov2.
This is called a recall immune response. One of the practical
consequences of this that really hasn’t been adequately
addressed right now… we heard all of this talk about
neutralizing antibodies, neutralizing antibodies are not a
correlate of protection. They haven’t been proven to relate to
anything relating to whether or not a vaccine will protect you.
I don’t know if you recall all of that buzz that was happening
about a year ago now, where we were hearing that this
neutralizing titer was higher with this vaccine versus that
vaccine… those neutralizing antibody responses were already
known to be provoked as recall responses after infection, it’s
recalling a prior infection.
Dr. Patrick Gentempo: That’s why they call it recall response,
right?
Dr. Robert Malone: you’re amplifying the reactive cells, B and
T cells that were previously educated during the prior
infection. And you’re causing those to expand… when your
immune system is primed to respond in a certain way to a
prior closely related infection, and it receives a signal from a
new pathogen that’s closely related, the immune response
will be dominated door the reactive memory cells that were
educated from the prior infection. And they will partially block
the ability to develop new responses against the new
pathogen.
And then these neutralization assays are the ability to block
either a pseudovirus or a live virus in cell culture with a
defined cultured cell line. That really is a long way away from
whether or not it has anything to do with your body in the real
state, in which you’ve got all of the things going on that are
going on in your body. And the honest truth is the
vaccinologists like to tell ourselves that we’re so
sophisticated and we’ve got all these great assays, a lot of
them developed during the AIDS years. And if we take a good
hard look at ourselves in the mirror, the truth is that we’re
deceiving ourselves about a lot of that stuff. It’s been more of
the core problems is we’ve assumed that the assays that
we’ve developed are measuring something that really
matters.
And that’s part of what
prompted this monoclonal
antibody excursion that I
talked about, that did the
mapping, was the discovery
with Ebola, that a lot of the
antibodies that are
neutralizing don’t work for
beans.
They don’t protect, and other antibodies that are nonneutralizing
turned out to work really great. So it turns out
that we were fooling ourselves and throwing away the baby
with the bathwater probably for years and years and years
because we convinced ourselves that we had an assay that
related to protection. That’s kind of what we had going on in
the early days with this one.
Dr. Patrick Gentempo: Well, is it true now that also, maybe if
I’m interpreting correctly, just because you have antibodies in
the blood or so-called humoral immunity, that does not
translate directly into cellular immunity.
Dr. Robert Malone: That’s true… this is the T effector cells
versus B cell antibody-driven responses… We always
assumed that innate immune responses are innate immunity,
This is our lizard brain version of the immunity, right?
Now we have what are called PAMPs and DAMPS, so
pathogen-associated molecular patterns and dangerassociated
molecular patterns, that we have detectors for.
But we also have natural killer cells. And it turns out to my
surprise and many others that in fact, the innate immune
response is also adaptive.
So when we get a vaccination
or you get an infection, you’re
not just tweaking the B-cell
compartment, that’s the
antibody driven group or the Tcell
compartment, which door the
way, interacts with the B cell
compartment, but is famously
associated with cytotoxic T
lymphocytes.
Whereas the antibodies mostly are about binding neutralizing
antibodies, or there’s some antibody-dependent cytotoxicity…
so now this third arm that we thought was kind of passive
and there has got an adaptive component. Now, when we talk
about the problems with universal vaccination, remember
what I just said to you.
Dr. Patrick Gentempo: One of the things that I think we can
conclude from what you’re saying… you’re asserting that
there’s a possibility that there could be long-term chronic
effects of this vaccine, that it hasn’t been out there long
enough to even know if we have that yet or not.
Dr. Robert Malone: Well, it’s not just me fantasizing it. We
now know that Guillain-Barre syndrome is a problem. That’s
an autoimmune disease… I was saying that cardiomyopathy
was there. It was discovered door a biostatistician from Oracle,
not paid door the FDA… that first found the signal of the
cardiomyopathy and cardiotoxicity, they then notified the
CDC.
So in the case of finding the cardiotoxicity signals in the
adolescents – adolescents have almost no background
cardiac events. And so it was easy to discern those data in
the background, in the setting of no background signal. Does
that mean that they aren’t occurring in the adults? Talk to
cardiologists, pathologists that looking at this. Of course they
do, but they’re not detecting the signal officially.
And yet, because of the decision door the FDA to not require
prospective rigorous capture of adverse events, as well as
other safety and efficacy signals during this emergency use
authorization period, we’re left arguing again and again,
unprovable things about whether or not a given adverse
event is occurring because the data are so horrible.
And what we have now is a
situation in which docs can’t
talk about it. Patients can’t
disclose it on Facebook, right?
There was the whole Facebook
group that was set up for
people who believed they had
experienced adverse events,
post-vaccination, that was
deleted door Facebook.
So think about these poor souls. They’re surrounded door their
friends and neighbors and family members that all tell them
that they’re crazy, right? They couldn’t possibly be
experiencing this. And they go on their favorite social media
site. And these days, if you say I experienced this adverse
event, you’re immediately blocked door Facebook. It goes no
further. And back then there was a Facebook user group of
many hundreds of people sharing their adverse events. And
they all got deleted. This is like the ultimate gaslighting.
You’re told that you are crazy.
Dr. Robert Malone: I pulled up multiple peer-reviewed
publications that say flat out that the method that the CDC is
using to report risk right now is obsolete and inaccurate and
not sensitive. And it’s not the preferred method in the world
of epidemiology, why’d they do that? It’s one of these oddities
that is sprinkled throughout this, where you just have to say it
sure looks like somebody is attempting to minimize the
signal here.
Dr. Patrick Gentempo: Well, the way they’re reporting, it does
enhance the sense that this is safe or how much protection it
provides. So, because basically, they’re saying that… it’s 95%
effective. They don’t describe what effective is. And you
know, what does that mean?
Dr. Robert Malone: Yeah. So they have defining effectiveness
in those papers. That’s another one of this nuance that I said,
what they seem to be prosecuting is death and disease, not
infectivity and transmissibility. And yet out of the other side
of their mouth, and there’s a quote from Gates directly that
he believes that a vaccine that’s 60% to 70% effective, will be
sufficient for containing the outbreak. So this has been the
party line. You have not been able to go against that party
line.
So the reproductive coefficient for this vaccine has been
such that you would have to have basically full saturation to
get even close to herd immunity at a 70% protective vaccine.
And then the bomb dropped. And the bomb was the CDC
slide deck that was released to the Washington Post, was
leaked.
It’s marked as confidential. So it was a ton of stuff. Just a ton
of bombshell mic drop moments. One of them was that the
reproduction coefficient for Delta is about the same as
chickenpox door their own words and texts. That’s an R0 of
eight. And that for the alpha strain, it was 2.5. So it’s about
threefold more infectious. And in this is something that just
blew the whole narrative apart.
We cannot stop the spread of
Delta in the United States,
even if we had a hundred
percent vaccine uptake and
full compliance with excellent
mask use, you know, N-95,
it’s sealed all the way around
every time you go out, and
everybody else. That’s even if
we did all that, we could still
not stop the spread of this.
Dr. Patrick Gentempo: So this is internal per the CDC, and
they don’t want anybody to know, but it leaked.
Dr. Robert Malone: But it leaked. And the press hasn’t really
examined it. Even the Washington Post in their one article
about it, had an interesting statement that now the CDC is
going to have to pivot from its messaging previously in full
view of the public.
And they basically have disregarded it. They’re not, you know.
Is your, is your viewership aware of what I just said? Instead
what we’ve heard is that the infections are all occurring in the
unvaccinated, right? Yeah. That’s a lie. I’m sorry. It’s just a
flat-out lie.
Joe public in good faith has accepted the vaccine and they
bought the storyline that this vaccine is going to protect
them. Now they’re now out of the woods, they’ve taken risks.
Most of them know there’s some risk associated. At least
now they know that there are some risks with vaccines, but
they’ve accepted that risk.
If you get infected, the levels of virus may be at least as high,
if not higher, from what you would have had if you were not
ever vaccinated. And if you are infected, it’s not going to
protect you from infecting your children or your grandmother
or whomever else might be around you.
So it’s not providing full protection from infection. It’s not
protecting you from virus replication. If you do get infected
and it’s not protecting you from infecting others.
They’ve done their good thing
for their community because
that’s what they’ve been told
to do. And they assumed that
they were going to be
protected. And now, boom,
here comes the CDC slide
deck. And it says, no, I’m sorry.
You’re not going to be
protected from infection.
Dr. Patrick Gentempo: Well, you know, for the people who
said, I’m taking one for the team, you know, we’ll help. That’s
a whole other conversation. They actually may be super
spreaders.
Dr. Robert Malone: Yeah. Well put. Because they have less
disease. So that’s another one of the big lies now that’s being
chalked up.
Dr. Patrick Gentempo: So traditionally, with other infectious
diseases, I mean, mumps, measles, what have you, you get
the disease, you’re going to have immunity for life, and then
suddenly that’s no longer true, or maybe it’s not true, but we
start to see that these lies are being propagated, or it’s
misinformation. Yet they’re accusing everybody of what they
do, which is the misinformation.
Is it absurd based on risk that we should be vaccinating kids
right now and have the agenda to get all kids vaccinated?
To my reading of the data, and I disagree with the evaluation
of the advisory committee that the CDC is relying on. To my
eyes and that of many physicians and data scientists all over
the world, the risk-benefit ratio, even if you only take into
account the cardiomyopathy and pericarditis, is upside down.
The total deaths in the United States in infants through 18 is
less than 400 since the beginning of the outbreak. And again,
a Nature article has dived into those data and checked the
pre-existing conditions for every one of those reports…
We’re talking about infection-related deaths is less than 400
in that age cohort. And the number of children adversely
affected according to VAERS with these cardiac damage
events is in that same number or greater.
We know that VAERS grossly underreports adverse events,
and that’s only one of the many adverse events that occur,
right? So that’s just taking one tiny slice.
And when I look at those ratios, they’re both small numbers,
small numbers of kids that die and small numbers of kids
that get these cardiac events. Now, I’ve spoken to pediatric
cardiologists that suggest the numbers are far higher.
Likewise, pathologists reporting about adults in Germany and
the United States, even if we take that to face value, the risk
in children is extremely low for hospitalization and death.
And the risk from vaccine is not trivial.
Dr. Patrick Gentempo: Have you ever in your life and career
seen this type of censorship where qualified experts are
speaking about their view of things, giving expert opinion
based on what’s happening, and it’s completely shut down?
And people are applauding the fact that the censorship is
happening because they don’t want to scare people or spook
people away from getting the vaccine… That’s the only thing
that matters is that people get this vaccine.
Dr. Robert Malone: And that we get universal vaccination.
No, it’s unprecedented. I’ve never seen it. My peers have
never seen it. There is in the federal register, honest to God,
1984.
There is a section that, speaking about polio vaccines, in
which the federal government asserts that any information,
whether true or not, which would cause a vaccine hesitancy
is to be suppressed. So this is out there. It’s documented, it’s
in US policy.
I assert that what we’ve got is 20th-century thinking about
communication and information management, coupled with
amazingly powerful 21st-century technology fueled door this
cross horizontal integration of the pharmaceutical industry
and the tech industry.
And media is able to enforce a narrative and they’re doing it
in a way that’s never been possible before. So that’s where
we’re at right now. There’s a lot of scare going on and it
drives people to want to accept authority.
I received phone calls asserting that I’m killing people by
speaking out… So right now we have unlicensed products
being provided under emergency use authorization. So
therefore it is medical experimentation. I’m sorry. That’s what
it is. They’re not approved products.
Censorship… informed consent… criticizing Dr. Fauci… taking
on Big Pharma… Dr. Malone is ready to tackle all of these
subjects and more. This book is only a taste of what he
shared in his extensive interview, and we encourage you to
watch every fascinating minute of it.
In recent years, people have tossed around references to
Orwell’s 1984, perhaps a little too loosely. Because now that
we are facing forced mass vaccination with dubious research
to back it up, at the cost of our safety and livelihoods, it
appears that 1984 has truly arrived.
But try to speak out about it and Big Brother is quick to
censor you. Revealed Films continues to battle that
censorship to bring this information to you, and we promise
to keep up the fight.
The time to watch Covid Revealed – and share it with your
friends – is now. Join us in sounding the alarm, before it’s too
late.
