https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvJn5D0zknM&t=312s
Dr Robert Malone Comments on the Current Covid Crisis, July 17, 2021.html
Dr Robert Malone_on_Liberty_Forum_&_Discussion_On_mRNA_Technology_etc.html
RobertMaloneMD_MAIN_HOME_Page.html
"To sin by silence when they should protest -
makes cowards of men"
by Ella Wheeler Wilcox, (Nov. 5, 1850 - Oct. 30, 1919) 1914 from her poem, "The Protest"
Video of Dr Robert Malone - Steve Deace Show Interview
Here's the interview on the Steve Deace Show. Go to 48:43
Dr Robert Malone Discusses the mRNA Technology, Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) and the Possible Dangers it Poses to Everyone and His Concurrence with Dr. Geert Vaden Bossche and Dr. Peter McCullough On the High Risk to Vast Populations if ADE Results in Production of Mutant Viruses
Dr. Robert Malone (37:35) and that if we don't listen to
Gert and the warnings about escape mutants, we are at high-risk for generating super mutant viruses that will infect all of us, probably with very high titers in, in significant disease risk; because what's happening with vaccinating the whole world is that we're focusing all of our immune responses on one particular protein with natural infection, you generate immune responses against a broad range of proteins. And this is part of why we have the genetic diversity we have in our immune systems is that people that have this particular gene versus that particular gene, they may get taken out by a given pathogen.
Dr. Robert Malone (38:26):
This is, this is big population stuff. Okay. Remember, this is how come the native Americans got wiped out was infectious disease. A good case can be the reason why we beat the British was because they didn't have good immune responses against some of the native north American pathogens talking about the revolutionary war.
Dr. Robert Malone (38:45) So it is, it is absolutely a risk that we focus every everybody's immune response on one protein. And then the virus learns how to escape that specific immune response. And then it'll just rip through the population as opposed to only targeting those that have very high risk to protect them, protect our old people, for example and then making it so the rest of us have, you know, perhaps get natural infection, better, supported by drugs and develop a more broad-based immune response. That's diverse so that if, if a super pathogen does evolve, it doesn't take all of us out.
Dr. Robert Malone Interview with Blaze, TV, Radio, & Podcast. Discusses Consequences of Vaccines with Steve Deace Show, 2021-08-03 39m44sec Notepad++
Steve Deace (00:00):
To a lineup. Dr. Robert Malone is our guest here on blaze, TV, radio, and podcast. He was the original patenter of MRN, a vaccine technology and a Dr. Malone. My name is Steve dace. It is a pleasure to have you with us, sir. Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Thank you for having me, Steve, and for the opportunity to speak to your audience.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
You bet our, our audience is going to be pretty learned for considering a lot of other audiences. You're going to probably speak to because of how in depth we have covered this story over the last year and a half, but I want to begin with just kind of a refresher, Dr. Malone, what is MRNA vaccine technology and how is it different from a more traditional method of vaccinating?
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Oh, thank you for starting with that question. I always get the please establish your legitimacy question by telling us your entire history of your CV in five minutes or less, please. So I'm very glad to have this one. So this is so a more sophisticated audience. The central dogma of biology is that DNA makes RNA and RNA makes protein. So you need to start with that to make sense out of all this. And if you think about it, your DNA in your genome is kind of like your hard drive on your laptop. And the part of your cells that manufacture proteins are like little bio robots. And there has to get a message, a signal that comes from your hard drive out to those bio robots to tell them what to make. Cause they can make a lot of different things and they make it basically, if you could think of like it's a ticker tape that gets transferred from this, this nucleus of the cell, the central part of yourself, out into the cytoplasm, the peripheral part of the cell, it's like the white of the egg versus the yellow of the egg.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
If you can think about it that way.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
And that ticker tape is a physical thing that gets sent out from the nucleus out to these ribosomes. Those are the little protein manufacturing robots that are near cytoplasm and that tells them what to make. Okay. So the idea behind the RNA vaccine technology is basically applying a gene therapy method delivery of MRN, a M marinade is the message. It's the ticker tape, by the way, there's other kinds of RNA. So that's why we say messenger RNA or MRN a as opposed to say ribosomal, RNA or ribozymes or other forms of RNA that exist. So this MRI and a ticker normally goes from the nucleus out to these small bio robots that we call ribosomes and they make proteins. In the case of an MRN based vaccine, we use a synthetic gene transfer method. Polynucleotide transfer Mr. RNA, no objectors. The I'm sure the trolls are going to come out and say, no, no, no. RNA is not a gene. Well, in fact, it is the gene that the genome of this virus that we're talking about, SARS, cov two is made of RNA. So you can have DNA based.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Wait a minute. I want you to, could you reiterate that for me, the genome of this virus has made of what RNA. All right. I want to come back to that later in this conversation. Cause I have a theory and I want, and I'm hoping you're going to tell me I'm nuts. Okay. But we'll get to that later. Okay. Go ahead.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Lot of theories. And that's okay. I'm good with that. I'll, I'll go down whatever rabbit hole you want. Okay. and it's all good. But in terms of the core idea of technology there one can use specialized fats that self-assembled there. It's not actually a liposome, it's a liquid nanoparticles. So it's kind of like a fake virus that transfers just the synthetic RNA, which is the ticker tape in the metaphor into your cells and causes those little bio robots called ribosomes to start manufacturing a antigen, a protein that normally would be produced from the viruses genome when it infects the cell. But instead you're just producing, you know, in that in a number of other proteins would be made by the virus all at the same time. But in this case, you're just causing yourselves to make one of those proteins, which kind of mimics as if the cell is infected by the virus, without having all the other virus proteins that manipulate the cell in the surrounding environment to make it so that your immune system ha has a harder time targeting that cell.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
That's making viruses and killing it. So you kind of mimic natural virus infection, but you're only expressing one of the proteins. You're not expressing the other ones that manipulate your immune system quite as much. That's the core idea. And when you do that, it produces a much more natural immune response, but it's still, you know, in that it has both antibodies and T effector cells. So the cytotoxic T lymphocytes, but you're still not getting the breadth of immune response that you would get say with natural infection. So that's the trade off is that you're, you're not expressing the viral proteins that would manipulate the immune response. You're not producing live virus, you're producing just one small subset. And that's kind of important as we look forward to what the big picture is. If we get to that part in the thinking of Gert, thunder, OSH, and issues about escape mutants and all that kind of stuff. So keep that in mind. But I hope that helps your audience to kind of demystify, you know, what is RNA wounds kind of sound spooky? And it sounds very different and a little bit threatening with just using fats to make a synthetic virus that only puts in one RNA coding in this case, one gene product from the virus. And it doesn't make the whole virus. When you
Speaker 1 (06:55):
Patented this technology, what did you hope it would do? Vis-A-Vis the traditional benign inert sample of a virus method of vaccination? What benefits did you foresee
Speaker 2 (07:08):
For this? Yeah, so I've tried to cover that in what I just said. So maybe I wasn't clear enough a traditional vaccine typically and there just please, everybody needs to understand there are no perfectly safe vaccines. Haven't seen one ever. And I'm by the way, I'm not an anti-vaxxer as opposed to what some people are asserting on Wikipedia. I've spent my entire career developing vaccines and vaccine technology. I'm the exact opposite of an anti-vaxxer. I'm basically a true believer. This is what I do for a living, but I, eh, I'm pretty focused on making sure that whatever I do is ethical. It meets ethical standards and to the extent possible it's safe. So no vaccines are safe, perfectly all vaccines and all drugs have issues, even flu vaccines, right? That we all take every year. We don't or all the classic pediatric vaccines, they all have issues in the case of a classic vaccine where you take a virus for example, and you manufacture it, let's use the example of an influenza vaccine. You can take a virus, flu virus, you typically grow it in eggs. You can make it in cells, but most the lowest cost is to grow it in eggs, chicken, eggs. And then you harvest the viruses that are produced by the, basically the chicken embryo.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
And you purify those, you treat them with something that kills them. There's various agents that can use you may or may not purify them as whole viruses or blow them apart, detergents and purify the, the subunit proteins of the virus. And then you formulate this, you mix it with a, we call excipients. Those are things that, that surrounded based, stabilize it, the L the fluid component of the vaccine. And then you typically add something called an adjuvant. What is an adjutant? It's a fancy word for something that makes, you know make sure body respond more aggressively in terms of the immune response. And they typically add events, typically cause inflammation. They, they cause a little focus in your body where the injection goes in, often hurts a little bit. Often it gets a little red or sore, get a bump. That's, that's a combination of the agiment activity. And the protein itself, the proteins kind of surround the cells in the area that they get injected. They're not designed to go into those cells or be made by those cells. So this is the typical vaccine strategy. And the problem with it is that it produces typically more of an antibody response and not so much of a T-cell response,
Speaker 1 (10:13):
Which is why you need boosters, right?
Speaker 2 (10:16):
No boosters for a lot of reasons, you need boosters because memory cells poop out after a certain time, whether they're B or T memory cells. Okay. But so this is why you need to add givens among other things. But you don't get the T-cell response typically with traditional vaccines, except with certain agiment. So that, that makes it so that your body only has two out of the three main legs on the stool of your immune response. You typically have antibodies or B cell responses, cytotoxic, T lymphocytes, and other aspects of the T-cell response and innate immunity. Those are the three things that protect you and they all interact with traditional vaccines. You get something that's more predominantly two of the three. You get a Nate that's, that's your ancient, you know, lizard brain immune responses. And these more sophisticated, modern B cell responses that produce antibodies, but you don't get cytotoxic T lymphocytes that cruise around and look for infected cells and kill those cells.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
These are the same types of responses that protect you from cancer, by the way. So that that's the downside with traditional vaccines is they tend to be more antibody driven and the potential advantage of these genetic vaccines, the examples we have here on the table today here in the United States, there's two general types, both the adeno virus, vectored vaccines. That's a DNA cold virus. That's engineered to produce spike protein or the marinade vaccines. There's two here in the market here. They're not actually marketed. These are all still experimental products. And those use a different technology as I've explained, but they also put the genes into yourself. So right now we don't have any traditional vaccines for COVID available in the United States. We only have these genetic vaccines. Now. I hope that made sense.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
So your intent just to make it as simple as I can for all of us, your intent with this, with this technology was to, was to provide that third leg of the three-legged stool of immunity. That's what you intended to do, that we would show longer lasting immunity from taking these injections than we do from a traditional vaccine,
Speaker 2 (12:45):
Longer lasting and broader, right. In terms of the complexity and, and nature of the immune response. So that it's like what you get with a natural infection without having to actually be exposed to the virus. So we're almost
Speaker 1 (12:59):
Eight months into one of the largest, if not the largest vaccination movements in the history of this planet. Okay. Yeah. Is what is, is what you're seeing the data you're seeing in real time. Does it show that the tech you originally patented is providing that, which you had hoped from the beginning, it would, as it pertains to COVID-19.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
So the, let's see how to formulate the answer to that question. I am surprised in many are that the durability, that's another vaccinologist term. Let me define how that is used in vaccinology. The durability is the length of time that a vaccine provides protection against the, the pathogen or the disease. What's a little surprised more than a little surprising. What's what I'm surprised in many others are, is the unexpected finding that the durability, at least in the case of Pfizer is, is remarkably short, only six months. That was such a surprise that at first Tony denied it. I noticed you have a book there on your shelf about good Dr. Fowchee. and we probably share a similar point of view about Dr. Couch. but and I'm fortunate that I worked for the department of defense and not for health and human services.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
I worked directly in support of the department of defense. I'm not in direct employee just to correct that. But so, so we seem to see this remarkably short durability Dr. Fowchee originally was very reprimanded Pfizer for disclosing this. And then flip-flopped and now we have a public acknowledgement from HHS that the Pfizer durability is about six months. And then we had this CDC leaked slide deck that was posted by the Washington post that has further information about this problem and about Delta. And which also asserts that the durability of natural infection is about 180 days. So half a year, that's a little controversial, there are other papers that suggest the durability and breadth from natural infection is longer and broader than that, but that's, that's the CDCs current position. So the duration 180
Speaker 1 (15:28):
Days more Robert than they ever mentioned publicly in any media appearance ever. It's like, it's like natural immunity doesn't exist when you watch them appear in our media, let alone for six months minimum.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
Yeah. Yeah. So there's a lot of very selective data reporting and a fair amount of what to my eyes looks like data manipulation. And if, if the same rigor of fact checking was applied to the public pronouncements that are applied to some of us like myself and, and McCullough and others, I think that the, the new push is to rescind physicians licenses, if they make statements that are not consistent with the facts. But I would think that that a number of health and human services officials would be looking at losing their medical licenses, if that same standard was applied. But so getting back on point though, what's, what's a little odd here is the durability seems to be remarkably short. The in addition, these vaccines are appear to be providing significant protection against death and disease, but closer assessment of that raises some issues about whether or not that level of protection is being accurately reported.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
I don't dispute that there is an impact, a good, a positive impact on death and disease in the high risk groups. I'm not saying don't take this vaccine, these vaccines, if you are elderly or in the high risk group, I think that's appropriate public policy. But the durability is remarkably poor. There is evidence that re dosing every six months is going to drive the cumulative adverse events up quite high. And this and they, although they do seem to be protective in, in some groups against death and disease, they are not particularly effective in protection against infection
Speaker 1 (17:49):
Or transmission, right. And transmissibility
Speaker 2 (17:52):
And replication, and the, the, the kind of the bombshell, the huge bombshell that you know, if you, I don't know if you saw the Erin Burnett clip that's been circulating where she basically has a meltdown on CNN over, over confronting the fact that she's been lied to about the, you know, we've, we remember the original rollout. Tony said that these were a hundred percent effective and a hundred percent safe. And I'm sure you can find that clip for your audience if you want to, but that's clearly no longer defensible. That was a lie. And it was a, a noble lie, a strategic lie, but it was a lie. And now the government is having to confront the fact that the data are clearly showing that the protection against infection from Delta is, is modest at best. So these are what we call leaky vaccines. They don't absolutely protect you from infection, replication, and spread. And in fact, the replication that's observed seems of the virus once you're infected, if you get infected, if you've already been vaccinated, seems to be at about the same level as if you were infected and hadn't been vaccinated. The worry is that those people that were vaccinated over six months ago, whether or not they actually have more replication. And if that's the case, that would be the smoking gun for what we call antibody dependent enhancement or vaccine enhanced replication. That's
Speaker 1 (19:27):
What I was going to ask you about next. So there's a term that has been floating around. I've seen you use it ADE, I'm just becoming familiar with it. So I've not talked about it with our audience very much yet, because I don't feel like I'm, well-versed enough to bring it up in casual analysis. So that's one of the main reasons I wanted to talk to you today. What is ADE and why does our audience need to be made aware of this?
Speaker 2 (19:55):
So let's set the stage first. This is not our first dust-up with coronaviruses, it's not our first dust up with this particular subclass of coronavirus or Benco viruses. The prior ones that made the press, and we were all familiar with us. I'm talking about the human species and dust up. I mean infectious outbreak encounters. So the middle Eastern virus MDRs has, is associated with significant morbidity and mortality actually higher than SARS cov two. Fortunately it doesn't seem to spread as efficiently, and it seems to be crossing over from various animal hosts, and isn't quite as adapted as this one is. And that's a whole nother can of worms. How come this one was so well adapted to humans and the fear in Cleveland site. And all of that story that leads back to laboratory origin questions but it is what it is.
Speaker 2 (21:08):
We've got to deal with it. It, it doesn't affect, but with, with the MERS and with the prior SARS outbreak, which also seemed to be much more pathogenic initially, but did not establish a worldwide dominance in the way that this one has. There were many attempts to develop vaccines for those, and also many attempts. There are many other Corona viruses that cause veterinary disease. So the veterinarians actually have a longer history than the human. Vaccinologist in working with this kind of virus and virtually every prior effort to develop a coronavirus vaccine has encountered this problem of antibody dependent enhancement it's been overcome sort of in a couple of the veterinary vaccines, but in the prior human vaccine experience, they all, all those programs terminated either for lack of money or because specifically they encountered antibody dependent enhancement. What is that?
Speaker 2 (22:25):
So this is it is basically the vaccinologist worst nightmare that the vaccine that you would develop would actually make the disease worse or make the infection more robust happen more aggressively. How could that possibly happen? Well viruses, this, this arms race that exists between viruses and our immune system has been going on for, you know, millions of years. And we, there, there is a process that comes out of this mutual dance wherein in some cases, the antibodies in particular raised against a virus, if they're not perfectly matched, can cause the virus to be able to infect cells or cause damage that it wouldn't otherwise be able to do. And so you can in the case of most classic, his respiratory syncytial virus, there was a development program for RSV, which kills young children, horns, and the development of a vaccine in the sixties to treat protect against this horrible disease that causes loss of life.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
And and they deployed that vaccine and, and the worst outcome happened. More kids died after they got infected when they'd been vaccinated than if they hadn't been vaccinated. Another classic example is dinghy in dinghy fever, dinghy, hemorrhagic fever. And the dang vaccine vaccine is is been cited as another example of where a vaccine can actually make things worse. So this is always out there in the risk profile and specifically for Corona viruses, it's out there. And you mentioned that your listenership, this may be their first encounter. It's not the first encounter that the FDA has on this. They specifically wrote in the EUA authorization emergency use authorization letter for Pfizer, they specifically noted that the clinical trials that had been done did not provide information about the risk of antibody dependent enhancement, and that additional trials should be performed to specifically address that they didn't actually say, should they, they suggested they, they were really kind of wishy-washy about it. They said, well, we think it's probably worth doing, but we're not going to make you do it, which Pfizer's response was well, okay, I'm not going to do it. Why would I do that? It would just hurt my profit, I guess. So they didn't, but, but this, this risk wherein a vaccine causes worse, you know, enhanced replication, potentially worse disease has long been known to be a coronavirus characteristic
Speaker 1 (25:31):
Of the worst Corona viruses are uniquely stubborn against our vaccination efforts and responding this way. Is that what I hear you? I would say
Speaker 2 (25:36):
Uniquely, but absolutely prone to this kind
Speaker 1 (25:39):
Of a problem. All right. Robert, I have to get to a mandatory break, but I definitely have a couple other things I want to ask you. Can you stay on during the break and come back for another segment? Do you mind?
Speaker 2 (25:50):
Well, of course, I'm glad to. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
So we're, we're talking with Dr. Robert Malone he was the original patenter of MRN, a vaccination vaccine technology. If you want to follow him on Twitter and I am, and I would highly urge you to do it. And there's a lot of good information on there about this ADA. We're going to talk more about this. When we come back, I'll look for at RW Malone MD on Twitter, again at RW Malone, just like Malone sounds at RW Malone MD on Twitter. Robert, when we left off, we were discussing ADE. Okay. And, and that there's that is a type of reaction. Your body may have to a vaccination attempt. That is the opposite of the reaction we want it to have. Can you describe for us what that reaction is and how it differs from when your body has the proper reaction to a vaccination attempt?
Speaker 2 (26:49):
Let's see. So what are the you're asking? What are the signs and symptoms of antibody dependent enhancement? Often it is thought it is the focus is on viruses. In most cases, a viral infection is directly associated with the disease. So the disease and the virus infection are one of the same thing. One of the things that's a little bit odd about this virus is that it creates a viral syndrome that we're familiar with. It's more of a flu like syndrome. It happens over the span of five to seven days, and then your body in some people, the high risk people has a tendency to develop a hyper immune response against that hyper inflammatory response. And we call this cytokine storm and, you know, we call it a variety of things having to do with the lung pathology, et cetera. So we often confuse the fact that the infection is not the disease.
Speaker 2 (27:53):
The disease is the body's reaction to the infection. In most cases, the, the infection and the direct damage are the disease that are the driver of the disease. And so in most cases, what you see is the disease gets worse, or your risk of death becomes higher in the, in the case of this enhanced viral replication. In this case, what we absolutely would see in the, the risk to watch is we would see increased viral replication, increased viral loads. That's the first sign. And so antibody dependent enhancement, or other mechanisms of enhanced replication after vaccination would show a higher titers. And probably a number of your viewers are really attuned to the issue of PCR cycle number, because that's a hot issue. And so you would detect your virus load your nucleic acid load, using a much lower number of viral replications. If you have much higher viral replication happening I'm sorry, you would see a lower number of PCR cycles.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
That would be an indicator of much higher levels of viral replication. Does that make sense? So in the case of antibody dependent enhancement for this syndrome, one of the first signs would be that you would see higher titers in vaccine recipients or hot or lower PCR cycle numbers for detection compared to unvaccinated. And in theory, you should see if this is to take place you in. It happens in the waning phase. That's the time when there's the greatest risk. So after six months, when the, when the immune response is tapering off after the durability is expiring, that's when ADE would most likely show up, not on the climbing phase, which is quite steep, but on the declining phase, which is slow. And so you would see it at the time when your antibody in other immune responses dropped below a level that's protective, but they're still present in your body and they can still interact with the virus and enable it to infect cells that it might not otherwise infect or replicate. Is this
Speaker 1 (30:19):
The difference between the binding and the blocking? I've read on some of this stuff, I've read on
Speaker 2 (30:23):
This. Okay. So
Speaker 1 (30:25):
Your, your body's vaccination response goes from blocking the virus to binding it or something along those lines,
Speaker 2 (30:32):
Right. It's binding it without blocking it. It can help the virus do it infect other cells or do damage. So, so the, the signal that we're watching for right now, and there's evidence that it may be starting to pop up, like in this Railey data. And some of, you know, we heard all these announcements from our good friend, Dr. Fowchee and others saying, oh, no, we're having similar levels of replication in the unvaccinated and the vaccinated population. Well, if we tease apart that vaccinated population, it may be that we find that those that are on the waning phase as the vaccine protection is declining, may actually be having higher titers. And when you look at the scatter plots, that's the raw data with these two situations, people that are got infections with Delta versus those that are showing what we call breakthrough infections in previously vaccinated, it's suggests that some of the scatter is at the higher end, and that would be a signal of antibody dependent, enhancement, or other a replication enhancement.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
So there's ghosts in the data right now, suggesting this might be a possibility. It is not proven yet. So don't get that in your brain that, oh, no, the world is going to come to an end. We're all going to die because of antibody dependent enhancement. We're not there yet. But we do need to carefully monitor in there. Some signs suggesting that this unfortunate situation where the vaccine durability is petering out, that there may be some signs that, that there is some enhancement of replication and that would be a bad thing. And if that's whether or not that's, what's going on, what we absolutely have is a situation in which people that have been vaccinated are replicating virus at very high levels, similar to those that have not been now. They don't seem right now, the early data suggests they're not getting in the hospital or dying as much, but that's not for sure. That's also got some ghosts in the machine right now that we have to watch carefully, but the numbers are still small. Okay. So that's, that's it. I hope that helps.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
Yeah, absolutely. It does. You hit that helps immensely. So let me, let me, let me conclude this with my theory, because there's like 50 other questions we could ask you that I just don't have the time for. So we probably need to have you back here at some point soon, but, and, and you really triggered it when you mentioned the, the RNA a rigid, or what was it, the MRN, a genome of this virus or this virus emanates from an and a genome, correct? Yes. Okay. I have a theory. See, we're all focused on this gain of function research, is it? And I understand why because of the it's, you know, scientists all over the world all over the country have previously condemned it as dangerous. The Obama administration ordered NIH to stop doing it. So I get it. But to me, there's a difference between I'm, I'm, I'm splitting an atom to create a weapon of mass destruction to, I am doing it for another purpose. It's not just for me, that gain of function in and of itself is dangerous. Dr. Malone, it's the fact that they were specifically trying to gauge spillover potential with it, according to their own notes, they were specifically attempting to figure out what would cause these viruses to spill over from an animal to a human. I have a, that's what they say. And it's what they say in their own notes is that they were measuring that you don't agree with me. Yeah. That's
Speaker 2 (34:20):
The only, the, the fly in the ointment. Remember I work closely with the department of defense threat reduction agency. Okay. And what a gain of function research is classified as dual function research. What that means is number one, close to it gets classified number two it means that yes, there's a kind of a civilian protective side for this. So there's a, both a defensive and a potentially aggressive side. And there is a hole in the bio warfare treaty that you could drive a truck through that basically says that we're not going to use lethal agents, but we're not prohibited from using what are called incapacitating agents, which is things that make you so sick that you're not able to fight a war. Right. so just, just, you know, keep that in mind that this is dual function research.
Speaker 1 (35:14):
Okay. Is it possible that the true origin of the virus came out of their attempts to preemptively create a vaccine for the next SARS or MERS event that it is in and of itself a variant of their own vaccination attempts. And it is therefore causing variants and mutations attempts vaccinate it so active so rapidly are, are causing more rapid and further variants and mutations. Is that possible?
Speaker 2 (35:49):
So now you are jumping straight into the swimming pool of Gert Vandenbosch Vanderbosch. And can you answer that in two minutes, by the way more than it's more than possible, it's highly plausible in my opinion, number one the, the regarding the lab leak hypothesis versus intentional release of an engineered pathogen versus a crossover from another species. I, the, the fearing Cleveland site in some other hallmarks plus the, the funding record associated with Ghana function on these pathogens is pretty clear. And in my opinion, there is quite a, a plausible ex hypothesis that this originally represented a human engineered pathogen. However, it got into the population in terms of Gertz concept this is, this is high science to get into it. But a, and I made a strong case about this, sorry, I'm going to plug Bannon's war room with Peter Navarro last Saturday, that we really are being more than a little bit stupid or naive in this mass vaccination campaign.
Speaker 2 (37:08):
We will drive the development of a vaccine escape, Nunes. I can't see any other outcome, and we absolutely, in my opinion, need to stop it. We need to only focus on vaccinating the high risk individuals and aggressively advance early treatment strategies, drug strategies,
(37:35) and that if we don't listen to Gert and the warnings about escape mutants, we are at high-risk for generating super mutant viruses that will infect all of us, probably with very high titers in, in significant disease risk; because what's happening with vaccinating the whole world is that we're focusing all of our immune responses on one particular protein with natural infection, you generate immune responses against a broad range of proteins. And this is part of why we have the genetic diversity we have in our immune systems is that people that have this particular gene versus that particular gene, they may get taken out by a given pathogen.
Speaker 2 (38:26):
This is, this is big population stuff. Okay. Remember, this is how come the native Americans got wiped out was infectious disease. A good case can be the reason why we beat the British was because they didn't have good immune responses against some of the native north American pathogens talking about the revolutionary war. So it is, it is absolutely a risk that we focus every everybody's immune response on one protein. And then the virus learns how to escape that specific immune response. And then it'll just rip through the population as opposed to only targeting those that have very high risk to protect them, protect our old people, for example and then making it so the rest of us have, you know, perhaps get natural infection, better, supported by drugs and develop a more broad-based immune response. That's diverse so that if, if a super pathogen does evolve, it doesn't take all of us out.
Speaker 1 (39:30):
Robert, we need to do this again. I hate to leave it there, but I must, it's been a pleasure talking to you and thank you for enlightening us, and we will certainly request to have you back here soon. All right. Thank you, sir. Thanks Steve. You bet. That's Dr. Robert Malone. This seems like a good time, by the way.
Goto Dr Peter McCullough, M.D., Interview with Attorney Dr. Reiner Fuellmich
Transcript in progress addressing similar issues.