Dr. Robert Malone REVEALS The TRUTH: Big Pharma Lies, mRNA Danger, & CIA Manipulation

A brand new interview with Dr. Robert Malone was just posted and I really want you to see it.

Dr. Malone has been one of the few good guys we can trust in this whole COVID debacle, but the twisted irony here is that he was also the inventor of mRNA technology.

So to say he is in quite a unique spot in all of this is an understatement!

I have valued his input throughout this whole process, and I think this latest interview is perhaps his best he’s ever done.

Please enjoy (and I will put the full transcript down below if it’s easier for you to read instead of watch/listen):

FULL TRANSCRIPT:

do you have any guilt? I had nothing to do with these vaccines. Do you work for the CIA? They don’t realize that I took a lot of risk in disclosing these things that I know. The investment that the United States government made in biowarfare research is larger than the investment they made in thermonuclear weapon research. I mean, this is the basis for my work in psychological warfare.

I’m pretty convinced that I got used. These guys are really good at lying. You got to understand if you’re dealing with anybody in the intelligence community, that are operatives—they are trained liars, trained psychological manipulators. That’s what they do. This looked like it was an engineered pathogen.

These people are absolutely out there. I just assume you are C, and I was not going to just sit by and let these guys have their way with all of us. I have known that they want every adult lining up for vaccinations without question. If mRNA comes as a tidal wave, they can start vaccinating for every bacteria and virus on the planet. If they can convince you, get the government to mandate—there’s going to be a pandemic.

They’ve got to get all of you to believe you need a vaccine. It’s not about the kids—already vaccinating them—they want… [Music] You, Dr. Robert Malone, I want to thank you.

From Disease Centric To Health Promotion for joining the Maha podcast today—it’s my honor, Dell, and thank you for the invitation. Absolutely—I mean, you’re at the top of the list as soon as I decided I wanted to do this. You and I have had many private conversations about Maha—really, I mean even before there was M, there was a Maha; Maha was a Maha, or we were Maha. But in your mind, when someone asks you—because you’re getting asked this question a lot—you’ve been an adviser to Bobby on many levels, so what is Maha?

How do you divine it to someone that’s asking? Let’s start off with the acronym: Make America Healthy Again. And when I’m hit with that kind of question of, “What is Maha? What are the agenda? What do they hope to accomplish?” I, you know, I’m not part of Bobby’s inner circle, unlike yourself, so I can’t really represent what Maha is as it’s structured right now.

What that initiative represents—I can only look at the artifacts and things that people have said. So what I always start with is that it involves a focus on redefining, in the context of the federal government, the orientation of most of the HHS R&D and scientific enterprise activities from a disease-centric focus to a health promotion focus. And that seems like a trivial statement, but it’s profound, and it underscores one of the fundamental problems associated with how HHS R&D and other activities are structured. I’m talking about CDC, FDA, NIH primarily—not CMS, Medicare, etc.

I think it’s good that Bobby selected Dr. Oz, and he’s going to be able to have an experienced hand running that operation. I’m glad that Bobby isn’t going to have to focus on it so much, because that is a beast. But getting back to these more R&D and historically drug-focused operations—they’re siloed in the extreme, and it’s a major problem. This focus on drugs and treatment of diseases has led us down a path where all of these activities are parsed into increasingly fine divisions, led by people that operate within that division.

Notoriously, if you want to get funding for a project—let’s say, for instance, you want to develop better, safer ways to deliver RNA—just imagine that somebody might be interested in that. Someone might want to do that, and in order to do that you would have to pitch the research program that you want to engage in in the context of a specific disease, like cystic fibrosis, or a vaccine, or whatever the particular thing is. You can’t pitch it as a broad initiative that would enable a variety of different outcomes; it’s just not the way NIH is structured. And this has led to a kind of strange myopia.

So ultimately, you’re going to have a million studies for a million different things that mRNA could do. Or just, staying with that example, if you want to get capital, you want to get funding—because that’s really what it’s all about in modern biomedical research—you have to pitch your insight, or your opportunity, or your thrust into the context of a specific disease, cardiovascular disease, or kidney disease, or whatever. You can’t—this is what we’re going to cure, right? Precisely.

So it’s this disease-centric focus, and that also—in parallel—you have the CDC that’s largely structured again around disease-centric initiatives. People aren’t generally aware that the CDC has a very strong R&D component that overlaps significantly with the NIH. There’s a lot of mission creep in all three of these key agencies: FDA, CDC, and NIH. And that overlap results in bureaucratic fighting, and of course the FDA is siloed on exactly that kind of structure.

So there’s a cardiovascular division, there’s a pulmonary division, etc., and each of those operates like its own little feom, which is a major gripe for small- to mid-size pharmaceutical developers. They don’t necessarily know what they’re going to encounter. So the point is—I’ve kind of gone off into the weeds. Yeah, the point, the point is that what is Bobby up against is, what you’re talking about, that’s a bigger—

We’ll get into that a bigger question. Let me leave you on track here. So what I’m trying to express is that I’m trying to help the listener understand that while this may seem like a subtle distinction—a focus transition from a focus on disease and disease silos to a focus on health promotion—is a profound change. Because health promotion involves identification of things which can act in a broad sense to advance general health. So when we talk about chronic inflammatory disease, chronic inflammatory disease and obesity are two of the major problems that Bobby is explicitly going to be taking on, specifically also within pediatrics, children’s health.

If you look at the president’s executive order in establishing the Maha commission—Maha commission had that order—it has very specific items not mentioned in there as the mandate that Bobby has to show a demonstrable improvement in measurable metrics for citizens’ health within 12 to 18 months. Is that possible? Absolutely—it depends on what the metric is. And I have been making the argument that he’s inheriting a situation that, you know, it’s a mixed message, but it is already going to bias him toward success.

That’s the use of these GLP-1 inhibitors, like AIC, which is having an impact on the obesity epidemic that we have in those cohorts that are able to access that drug. It’s very expensive, and I think that there will be measurable improvements. You know, there’s a lot of controversy about Ozempic and the related drugs. I mean, you’re stepping right on what I would say—behind closed doors, really, is—I don’t know if it’s a third rail—it’s the complication, it’s the open wire that everyone’s grabbing.

A lot of people are telling Bobby, Bobby, and, you know, first of all, Cali means has really come out against OIC, especially this idea of having, like, everybody in the Medicare-Medicaid system—let’s throw them loose, lose that weight. And there are a lot of people very close to Bobby—I will say, and I’m just, you know, I won’t name names, so I think I’m safe to say it—but saying that Bobby, if you really want to show a marked difference, you’ve got to embrace these GLP-1s because they’re going to reduce it, you know, and there’s lots of arguments. Let’s just look at the extreme cases of obesity—bringing them down. I mean, you know, that’s going to—and what people need to realize is that the sicker the person is that you reverse, the more effect they’re going to have on your overall stats.

You know, getting you and me to lose three or four pounds—which, you know, I probably need it—you’re looking pretty good, but it’s not going to do a whole lot. I’ve dropped 50—I’ve dropped 50 pounds over the last two years. Did you use a GLP-1? I do. I haven’t disclosed that previously—interesting—but also a major dietary change, lifestyle change.

We’ve really cut the carbs out. My wife and I were, like, three-decade vegetarians, but increasingly had come to rely on these ultra-processed, soy-based products. Yeah, and I had a pro-inflammatory syndrome—absolutely, I had all the classic markers. The whole situation with the COVID crisis, in which I had long COVID from getting infected in February of 2020 with the original strain, and then I took two doses of the vaccine—unfortunately, U mRNA—and the second dose, I got one of the bad batches.

This was really before we knew what we know now about the full spectrum of adverse events, and I had a lot of those classic events, including cardiac damage, and, uh, POT syndrome, restless leg, and a number of other adverse events. Yeah, and so the consequence of that was, between the two things—the long COVID and the vaccine damage—I really couldn’t work the farm in the same way that I could before; I just didn’t have the stamina. So I’m sitting around more, writing all the time, doing podcasts a lot more, sedentary in a high-stress situation, traveling all the time. And my wife and I just put on weight and got less and less healthy.

And fortunately, we hooked up with a non-traditional physician, a primary care physician that lives nearby to us, Brook Miller, who happens to also be an Angus rancher. And Brook was adamant: “You guys—you know, I went to him and I said, ‘Okay, Brook, everything’s on the table. I’m not doing well. Tell me what I need to do.'” And he did the blood draws, looked at my inflammatory markers, etc., and concluded, “Robert, you’ve got to change your diet.” And I really strongly recommend that you start eating beef and cut out the carbs—it worked.

So you did, after years of being a vegetarian—total flipped over to eating beef. Was it hard? Was it a hard transition? Was there—let me ask you this—’cause I was a vegetarian for years and years, and ultimately I recognized I was a junk attarian—I’m eating a lot of pizza, I’m eating, precisely, totally addicted to Italian food. Yeah, and so, you know, what good is that really doing?

But were you a vegetarian for ethical reasons? Like, did you have a real issue with eating animals, or was it just more a health decision? No, originally. So Jill and I are both longstanding people committed to ethical choices, and also Jill was a zookeeper at both the San Diego Zoo Wild Animal Park and the Brookfield Zoo in Chicago, so we’ve always been around animals. And so we take that—you know, we’re people who believe in ethical treatment of animals and humans, and so the logic of eating lower on the food chain, combined with the logic of not eating animals, not preying on animals—I like to say, “If mice have a place in heaven, I toast; I’m going straight to hell,” because of all of the animal research work that we did for many years, which we don’t do anymore.

And so it was that kind of mixture of things—the ethics of eating lower on the food chain, having less impact on the world, and respecting life—it really comes down to that. Yeah, but I guess time passes, you get older, and when you’re facing the issue of whether you’re going to be able to be healthy or continue along this path that was clearly not healthy, then I think the decision we made under Brook’s guidance was to go ahead, but to do everything we can to assure that those meat products that we’re consuming are ethically sourced. Yeah, so we do eat a lot of eggs. I have a bunch of the roosters that Jill and I killed in process that came off of our own egg hatching last year—still in the freezer—and, uh, just because, like, Henry and June and Chuckles—you can’t name them—so they’re stuck in the freezer.

Can’t eat them yet, or we don’t name our chickens. We do not name our chickens—that’s a rule. We name our horses, but we don’t eat our horses. So, yeah, and then we get locally—we’re fortunate in Virginia to have good access to locally produced, grass-fed beef, and we like to buy direct from farmers to the extent possible.

Because that way we can be assured that we can see and know the people that are caring for the animals. We know that they take care of them, that they are managing their herds ethically. You know, it’s a lot harder when you start talking about poultry if you’re buying poultry in the supermarket.

Yeah, we have our own eggs, etc., so that’s where we’re trying to move even more in that direction.

Jill has plans—it turns out that many Jerseys—we’ve had many Jerseys before, many Jersey cows. Many Jerseys are actually a practical thing for a breeder. We’ve been breeding animals for a long time, and horses primarily, also dogs, and we used to have many Jerseys, but we just ended up with way too much milk and we were getting fat. But we’re going to go back to that and try to get some cows.

How big is a mini Jersey? Is it—you mean, you know, is… Raw Milk & Bovine Tuberculosis—they’re kind of hip-high, really. Yeah, they’re smaller, and you can get them A2 A2 now, so that’s the more digestible milk. Yeah, the backstory is that the island of Jersey is kind of rough, windy, stormy, and the cows that came off of that—milk cows that they kept—were stunted just because of the genetic selection in that harsher environment.

Then they were imported into the United States, and American cow breeders heaved them up to get the big Jerseys with huge milk production. Yeah, that’s the Jersey that everybody thinks about—real high butterfat, etc.—but those old Jerseys back from the source have given rise to this breed that has really gotten popular among homesteaders like ourselves and small farmers, hobby farmers as they call them. But increasingly, these are people that are, like, us—committed to a lifestyle in which they’re more self-sufficient. Yeah, so where are you at with the raw milk thing? I mean, it’s shockingly controversial, I find.

I mean, like, the medium makes a big deal out there, right? And the data is in on fluoride, right? Okay, so we’ve done multiple deep dives into the raw milk thing, and we’re personally absolutely okay with raw milk. And we were consuming raw milk straight from our own cows that we were milking on a daily basis for a while when we were in North Georgia.

And I’m sure if we get back in the M—my wife tells me she’s put a deposit down now—so we are going to have some Jerseys, whether I like it or not, it’s going to happen. So the historic story was that the justification was that there was a risk associated with bovine tuberculosis, and that the bovine version of tuberculosis was contributing significantly to human tuberculosis. This is another one of these zoonotic infection stories. Okay, like, I’ve never heard this—like what was told to us for the origins of SARS-CoV-2 that turned out to be fraudulent, I think we can call it now.

Yeah, and also that’s the justification for all the fear around the bird flu. It’s not that bird flu is killing off hundreds and hundreds of dairy workers that are getting it from milking cows, you know, or… Right, right—there’s no sustained human-to-human transmission; there’s no significant disease or death associated with H5N1. But still, the fear is just constantly pushed by corporate media.

And if you unpack all of that, the fear that they’re promoting is that, well, this might at some point jump from birds into humans. And if so, in the few cases where humans have been infected and they’ve come to the attention of the WHO, Bob Redfield cited the source—the statistics of a 50% case fatality rate for bird flu according to the WHO—that’s false. That’s a data artifact, because for a case to be reported to the WHO it’s got to be a serious case, and so WHO has an intrinsic selection bias that leads to that 50% number. But you can see the reality: if you look at the data from the United States, there are over 600 people that have been infected with bird flu—they mostly get conjunctivitis, in other words, red eye—and they rarely go to the hospital.

There are two cases now that are asserted to have died with bird flu. Remember that story with Co? Yes, of course—the old… so two cases: one was a car accident that had nothing to do with it, or the gunshot wound, and, for instance, the guy down in Louisiana—they made so much of it—an older gentleman, heavy exposure to carcasses, and infected, and significant pre-existing conditions, where we heard that story before, right? So that’s… so, getting back to the cows and unpasteurized milk: the logic was that bovine tuberculosis—which absolutely exists—was a risk factor for human tuberculosis.

But it turns out that Mycobacterium tuberculosis in humans is a different species; it’s related, but the line tuberculosis rarely infects humans. So it’s another one of these stories—like the Spanish Flu—that is spread around like a boogeyman, used to scare us into compliance with our annual flu vaccine that most countries don’t require. Yeah, but the same was done with bovine tuberculosis, and at the time we can say that it was out of ignorance, and it was a reasonable hypothesis. But as we’ve seen happen with the science again and again—hypotheses in the hands of bureaucrats often transform themselves into edicts and into a religion.

That’s exactly the religion of scientism. Yeah, and so the same thing happened with bovine tuberculosis, and then once it’s established as the storyline in public health, it gets propagated forever.

And it’s very hard to point out the irony, because, you know, I’m not a scientist, but I’ve interviewed enough of you guys now, and, you know, when you think of Edward Jenner—there’s an irony here—because Edward Jenner made this conclusion, the father of the smallpox vaccine, “Hey, look, the milkmaids aren’t getting smallpox—maybe it’s because they’re coming in contact with cowpox.” So I find it interesting that nobody came… like, you could have easily had a hypothesis that drinking bovine, you know, tuberculosis—maybe could that create an immunity that would be protective to, you know, human TB?

Couldn’t you? I mean, you could, like, think of a theory—why is that, or hypothesis—why is it not in there? Whether you actually are aware or not, you’ve now blundered into a domain that’s really interesting, because the tuberculosis vaccine that’s used globally—BCG, or BCG—what does BCG stand for? You know, “Bovine Calmette-Guérin.” Okay, so it’s an attenuated bovine TB, and it is administered as a vaccine in many places in the world.

And there are some really odd things about BCG vaccination: is it really protective against human tuberculosis? It turns out—I worked for the AYS Global TB Vaccine Foundation back in the day, which is one of the first nonprofits funded by Bill and Melinda Gates—so that’s where I learned about the nature of BCG. And furthermore, the founder of AYS kind of trained the Gates Foundation on the way that MC does business, because he’d come from MC—and that has, that’s a whole other threat. This could be a 15-hour interview, so we’ll try—and…

So the fascinating thing about BCG is that people that are vaccinated with BCG, or potentially treated with BCG—because it’s now being used as treatment—it’s effective for bladder cancer, and it seems to have a protective effect against breast cancer. That is a little paradoxical, and it seems to be associated with a kind of chronic, low-level infection state, which of course is what TB does. But you know, the pathologic cascade ends up chewing up your lungs, but in BCG it doesn’t. And it’s one cluster of hypotheses: that the BCG is eliciting a selective pro-inflammatory state that is shifting the immune response profile of your baseline immune system set points, in ways that are making your immune system better able to control a variety of cancers.

And that’s a core concept: that cancer is really—if you unpack it in many ways—it’s an immunologic disease, because it’s our immune system that’s keeping cancer at bay. Cancer is happening all the time in all of us, right? But it’s our immune system that’s keeping it down. So, well—let me jump in here, ’cause I actually have a little background on BCG also, and you’re probably aware of this.

I did a show about a scientist—doctor in Boston—I’m probably going to mess up her name now because it’s been several years—but I want to say Diane Bman or something like that. Diane, wherever you’re out there, if I got your last name wrong—but it was a fascinating story. She was doing trials using the BCG vaccine—two shots inside of one month—with type 1 diabetes, and three years later, the diabetes goes away. Yeah, and what’s so fascinating about this story, typical to the things we talk about all the time, and that drew my attention to it, was that the FDA was trying to shut the trials down.

Then suddenly the manufacturer of the BCG vaccine she was using shut down—they stopped making BCG vaccine, I think in the country but certainly in the area she was living in. So she ramped up her own manufacturing plant for BCG, so she could continue her trials. And I, you know, I’m considered an antivaxxer—which is a pejorative—and I have, you know, more death, but I decided I would challenge my audience. So the show—I said, “You know, the promo for the show was, ‘Did Dell just find a vaccine he likes?'”

And I brought her on the show—luckily she agreed to come on—and I, you know, you should have seen the hate that she was talking about this BCG vaccine, using it. And first of all, it was lost on a lot of my audience that technically, it was being used as a treatment, so it’s not really even a vaccine. But that’s a different story.

I was trying to get to the question I had for her, and I let her explain how these trials she was on—she was on the fifth or sixth version of trial, more and more—and she’s having nearly 100% success.

I mean, like, really, really high rates of success—so much so that I’ve run into people with kids with type 1 diabetes and said, “See, if you get into one of these trials…” I think it’s really fascinating. Now, I don’t know what the long-term effects are going to be, and maybe has some other thing, but what I said to her is, “All right, after you’d explained the whole thing, I said, ‘If this works and you’re giving the shots of BCG, and then three years later suddenly type 1 diabetes disappears—which is, I mean, that shortens your lifespan—we’re talking about serious stuff.'” And I thought to myself, “If I had a diabetic child, I’d be thinking about it.”

Load More