Podcast Summary
Disagreements over scientific theories and Nobel Prize recognition lead to controversy for Dr. Robert Malone: Dr. Robert Malone, a key figure in mRNA technology, faces controversy due to disagreements over theories and Nobel Prize recognition. He emphasizes the importance of open debate and allowing audiences to make their own decisions.
Dr. Robert Malone, a prominent figure in the mRNA technology field, believes he's been subjected to efforts to silence him due to disagreements over scientific theories and Nobel Prize recognition. Malone discussed his concerns about mass formation psychology and the campaign to promote other scientists for the Nobel Prize. He also addressed allegations that he claims inventorship of mRNA technology, which has led to criticism online. Malone admitted that others have made significant contributions to the field but emphasized the importance of open debate and allowing audiences to make their own decisions. The interview touched on various topics, including YouTube's role in hosting contentious debates and the impact of mass media on scientific recognition. Malone's interview on the Joe Rogan podcast, despite controversy surrounding some shortcuts, has gained massive popularity, highlighting the ongoing debate and public interest in these scientific discussions.
The history of mRNA technology and vaccines is contested: The development of mRNA technology and vaccines is a complex process with multiple contributors, and attribution can be a contentious issue in the competitive field of science
The history of the development of mRNA technology and vaccines, as presented in a recent article, has been contested. Dr. Robert Malone, a researcher who claims to have made significant contributions to this field in the late 1980s, has accused the article of omitting his role and downplaying his contributions. He has provided evidence of his patents and interactions with other researchers, but his claims have been disputed by some. Two researchers, Drew Weissman and Katalin Kariko, have been credited with the development of the mRNA technology used in COVID-19 vaccines, but their backgrounds have also raised questions. Weissman is a former postdoc of Anthony Fauci, and Kariko is a former Hungarian spy. Malone argues that science is a competitive field and that under-citing or mis-citing can occur. The competitive nature of science and the complexity of attribution make it important to consider multiple sources and perspectives when evaluating scientific discoveries and their attribution.
The Controversy Surrounding Robert Malone's Role in Power Flight Technology: Despite significant contributions to power flight technology, Robert Malone's exclusion from history may be due to his confident personality and the competitive nature of the scientific community and financial industry.
The perception of who invented a groundbreaking technology or discovery can be a contentious issue, even when there are clear records and contributions from multiple individuals. The speaker in this conversation, Robert Malone, shared his experience of being written out of history despite his significant role in the development of power flight technology. He believes this may be due to his confident and unyielding personality, which may have rubbed some people the wrong way. Malone's wife was particularly upset about this, as she lived through the stressful period when he was being written out of history. The conversation also touched upon the competitive nature of the scientific community and the financial industry, where power and money play a significant role. The speaker mentioned his mentor, Inder Verma, who was allegedly involved in inappropriate behavior towards a woman, and this may have contributed to Malone's exclusion from the history of power flight technology. The conversation underscores the importance of acknowledging the contributions of all individuals involved in scientific discoveries and innovations.
The Role of Pseudouridine in mRNA Vaccines is Overhyped: Despite claims, pseudouridine in mRNA backbones is not the sole factor for vaccine success, as demonstrated by CureVac's vaccine without pseudouridine.
The invention of the mRNA vaccine technology is a complex issue with various improvements and contributions from different researchers and companies. The use of pseudouridine in the RNA backbone, which is a key claim in some reports, is not the only enabling factor for the success of the vaccines. In fact, a separate company, CureVac, developed a vaccine without pseudouridine and still achieved significant immunogenicity. The inventorship of the mRNA vaccine technology is a matter that is ultimately determined by the US Patent and Trademark Office, not journalists or fact-checkers. For those interested in the details, the primary information and supporting documents can be found on Dr. Malone's website.
Powerful Scientist's Abusive Behavior Overlooked Due to Financial Benefits: Powerful scientists with a history of abuse and unethical behavior can go unchecked due to the financial benefits they bring to their institutions, making it challenging for individuals to challenge them in the scientific community.
Inder Verma, a prominent scientist in the field of biology and the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology according to his LinkedIn profile, was a powerful figure in science with a long history of abuse and unethical behavior. Despite his influential positions, including being the editor of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and the editor-in-chief of a major oncology journal, he resigned after an investigation into his actions. Inder's power extended beyond his own research, as his work generated significant revenue for the institutions he was affiliated with. The structure of funding in modern academia, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), supports universities through indirect costs, making faculty members significant revenue sources. Inder's behavior was often overlooked due to the indirect financial benefits he brought to his institutions. Despite the importance of scientific debate and discourse, the power dynamics in the scientific community can make it challenging for individuals to challenge those in positions of authority.
Lab culture of idea theft and sexual harassment: Unethical lab practices, including idea theft from confidential grant applications and sexual harassment, can negatively impact researchers' mental health and hinder scientific progress.
In some research environments, competition and idea sharing may be encouraged to a questionable extent. The speaker shares an experience from their time in a lab where they were encouraged by their mentor to read and take ideas from other researchers' confidential grant applications. This practice is considered grossly unethical and illegal in the scientific community, and could potentially lead to serious consequences such as post-traumatic stress disorder. The speaker also mentions a history of sexual harassment in the lab and a culture of requiring women to sign disclaimers if they wanted to work there. The speaker's mentor, Inder, was part of a powerful network in the scientific community, and there was a falling out between them that led the speaker to leave the lab and pursue a master's degree instead of a PhD. This incident took place during a period of intense intellectual foment in molecular virology, and the technology developed during that time eventually led to the creation of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
A young researcher's journey to patent mRNA vaccine technology: Despite intellectual property complexities and power dynamics, a young researcher successfully patented and published on mRNA vaccine technology through collaboration and perseverance.
The inventor's experience at the Salk Institute involved a complex web of events leading to the discovery and patenting of mRNA vaccine technology. The inventor, who was a young researcher at the time, had filed invention disclosures with the Salk Institute and had set up a collaboration with Syntex to access their new lipid technology. However, this collaboration was seen as an intellectual property entanglement with the for-profit company, and the inventor's supervisor, Inder, was being scrutinized for his role in the collaboration. Despite the inventor's good faith intentions, Inder denied any knowledge of the collaboration, leading to a contentious situation. The inventor eventually worked with the Salk lawyers to write a patent and publish a series of papers on the potential applications of the technology. A pivotal moment came when the inventor successfully used the technology for in vivo non-viral delivery in whole animals, which was a fundamental change in the field and drew widespread attention. The University of California eventually played a role in the patenting and commercialization of the technology. Overall, this experience showcased the complexities and power dynamics involved in scientific research and intellectual property.
Competition and Power Struggles in Scientific Discovery: Competition and power struggles in scientific discovery can lead to complex legal battles and ethical dilemmas, potentially overshadowing the true spirit of innovation and collaboration.
The world of scientific discovery and innovation can be fraught with disputes and power struggles, as seen in the story of Kai's experience with the development of RNA vaccines. Young researchers often find themselves in the midst of intense competition, with more established figures in the field vying for credit and ownership of groundbreaking discoveries. This can lead to complex legal battles and ethical dilemmas. In Kai's case, he encountered resistance from those who wanted to claim co-inventorship of the RNA vaccine technology, despite his central role in its development. The situation became further complicated when the Salk Institute, where some of the early work was done, dropped its patent application without notifying him, potentially violating the Bayh-Dole Act. Despite these challenges, Kai persevered and made significant progress in the field, ultimately leading to the licensing of the technology and the filing of numerous patents. The history of scientific discovery is filled with similar stories, where the race for recognition and financial gain can overshadow the true spirit of innovation and collaboration.
Twitter Bans User for Sharing Pfizer Vaccine Misinformation: Twitter banned a user for tweeting content questioning Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy, while similar content from high-profile individuals goes unchecked.
Twitter has banned a user for sharing content deemed as misinformation, specifically regarding Pfizer's COVID-19 inoculations. The user's only tweet, which linked to a video and a slide deck from the Canadian COVID Care Alliance, was labeled and hidden from public view. The user had previously interacted with Robert Malone MD, a virologist and immunologist, who has been involved in COVID-19 research and has expressed opinions considered controversial by some. The user's account was banned without explanation, and attempts to contact Twitter for clarification have been unsuccessful. The user believes that this tweet was the final straw leading to the ban, as it contained information that questioned the safety and efficacy of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine. The user also noted that Twitter's response to similar content from high-profile individuals, such as Jack Dorsey, has been different in the past. The user's experience highlights the ongoing debate about the role of social media platforms in regulating and fact-checking content related to health and science.
Misinterpretations and Manipulation of Vaccine-Related Terms: Logical fallacies and industry integration can distort vaccine discussions, limiting access to diverse information and leading to uninformed decisions about experimental products, potentially overriding the need for informed consent
There is a concern over the shifting definitions and manipulation of terms related to vaccines, toxins, and anti-vaxxers, which can lead to disease and debate misinterpretations. The use of logical fallacies, such as straw man arguments and no true Scotsman, can further distort discussions. The integration of tech, media, and pharma industries can limit access to diverse information, keeping the public from making informed decisions about experimental products, which are not yet licensed or approved. The fundamental bioethics argument is that these assertions of licensing override the need for full informed consent, which is not accurate. The suppression of information is a significant issue, and it's essential to be aware of these tactics to maintain an open, honest, and informed dialogue.
Suppression of information about vaccine alternatives and risks: The Trusted News Initiative's actions limit individuals' ability to make informed decisions about vaccines by suppressing information about alternative treatments and potential risks, which goes against the principles of informed consent.
The Trusted News Initiative, which includes tech, pharma, and media companies, has created an environment where people are not able to access the full spectrum of information to make informed decisions about vaccines. This is problematic because informed consent, a fundamental principle of medical practice, requires individuals to be made aware of alternative treatments and the risks and benefits before receiving a medical procedure, including a vaccine, especially if it's experimental. By suppressing information about early treatment options and potential adverse events, individuals may not be able to make fully informed decisions about their health. This raises ethical concerns and goes against the principles of informed consent established after the Nuremberg trials. It's important to note that this discussion is not about advocating for punishment, but rather emphasizing the importance of transparency and informed consent in medical practices. Additionally, claims made without evidence, such as long COVID and post-vaccine symptoms being indistinguishable, should be addressed directly with factual evidence rather than dismissing them with broad statements.
The Complexity of Natural Immunity vs Vaccination for COVID-19: Natural immunity may offer some protection, but vaccines provide stronger and more consistent protection against COVID-19 and its variants.
The debate between natural immunity and vaccination in protecting against COVID-19 is complex and multifaceted. While natural immunity may provide some level of protection against developing the disease, it does not necessarily include the amplified and prolonged antibody levels that come with getting vaccinated. Moreover, the efficacy of natural immunity against new variants like Omicron is currently uncertain. On the other hand, vaccines, particularly mRNA vaccines, have been shown to provide strong protection against the virus and its variants. However, the availability and accessibility of different vaccines vary globally, with some countries having access to vaccines that have shown better efficacy against certain variants. It's important to note that the immune response to COVID-19 involves both antibodies and T cells, and the focus on antibodies alone can be misleading. Additionally, some people who have had COVID-19 can still get reinfected, highlighting the importance of vaccination for full protection. In summary, while natural immunity may provide some level of protection, vaccination remains the most effective way to prevent COVID-19 and its variants.
Prior COVID-19 vaccination may increase Omicron infection risk: Despite potential confounding factors, data shows increased Omicron infection risk with each vaccine dose. PCR tests' accuracy and rapid antigen tests are debated, and the risk-benefit ratio of vaccination should be considered.
Prior COVID-19 vaccination may increase the risk of infection with the Omicron variant. This is based on data from heavily tested countries where rigorous testing allows for a reasonable baseline for incidence rates. The risk increases with each subsequent dose, but it's important to note that there are potential confounding variables, such as changes in behavior due to a false sense of security, that could influence these findings. Additionally, there are concerns about the accuracy and reliability of PCR tests for detecting Omicron specifically, and some argue that rapid antigen tests are a better option. It's also important to remember that the risk-benefit ratio of vaccination is not being adequately addressed in these discussions. The mass formation psychosis phenomenon, while not a diagnosed psychiatric illness, is a historical human behavior pattern that could be influencing the response to the pandemic. It's crucial to approach these discussions with a critical and informed perspective.
Mass formation: The psychology of groupthink: Mass formation is a deep psychological process leading to extreme beliefs and consensus, driven by mass media and financial incentives in modern society.
Mass formation is a deep psychological process where a crowd or group of society becomes hypnotized and develops a common sense of identity around a single point or event. This process, which has become more pronounced in the modern age due to the rise of mass media, can lead to the formation of extreme beliefs and consensus, going beyond conspiracy theories. It's important to understand that mass formation is a formal process and requires a thorough examination of the literature and insights from experts, rather than relying on sensationalized headlines and superficial analysis. Additionally, the COVID-19 mortality rate is a contaminated statistic due to the financial incentives for hospitals to label any death as a COVID-19 death if the deceased person had a positive PCR test, leading to an overestimation of the true incidence of the disease.
Unprecedented surge in deaths among working-age Americans: Working-age Americans (18-64) have seen a 40% increase in deaths compared to pre-pandemic levels, not all from COVID-19, indicating potentially underreported pandemic deaths.
The death rate among working-age people (18-64) in the United States has seen an unprecedented surge of over 40% compared to pre-pandemic levels, according to Scott Davidson, the CEO of a large insurance company, One America. This increase is not solely due to COVID-19 deaths, as most claims are not classified as such. This data suggests that the actual death losses among working-age people from the pandemic may be greatly underreported. This is a significant finding, as this age group has a low mortality rate from COVID-19. The cause of this surge remains unclear, but it serves as a leading indicator of something beyond what the government is currently sharing with the public.
Increase in Mortality: 600,000 more deaths in two years: The cause of the increase in mortality is under debate, but COVID-19 and its variants are believed to be contributing factors. Further research is needed to determine the exact cause and potential impact of certain treatments.
There has been a significant increase in deaths in the last two years, with estimates suggesting that around 600,000 more people have died than would typically be expected. The cause of this increase is still under debate, but it is believed that COVID-19 may be a contributing factor, particularly with the emergence of more infectious variants like Omicron. It's important to note that the data on this topic is still evolving, and further research is needed to determine the exact cause of the increase in mortality. Additionally, there have been discussions about the potential role of certain treatments, such as Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, in reducing COVID-related deaths. However, more data is needed to determine their safety and efficacy. Overall, it's crucial to continue monitoring the situation closely and to rely on credible sources of information, such as insurance companies and actuaries, for unbiased data and insights.
Concerns over COVID-19 treatment information accuracy: Despite concerns over ivermectin toxicity and vaccine deaths, there's a lack of concrete data on hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, and vaccine fatalities due to underfunding of vaccine safety and industry influence. The CDC, FDA, and NIH, who have dual roles, have been criticized for prioritizing profits over public health.
The accuracy of information regarding COVID-19 treatments and deaths has been a significant concern. False reports of ivermectin toxicity in hospitals and deaths from Omicron have been debunked. However, there is a lack of concrete data on how many people have died from taking hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, or the vaccine. This is due in part to the denialism about the risks and the prioritization of vaccine promotion over safety monitoring. The CDC, FDA, and NIH, which have dual roles of promoting and regulating industries, have been criticized for underfunding vaccine safety and being influenced by big pharma. The pharmaceutical industry's ability to charge high prices for drugs in the US and use profits to fund elections is a contributing factor to this situation. Ultimately, the blame lies with the political process that allows for this influence and prioritization of profits over public health.
CDC's Vaccines for Children program offers unique incentives for vaccine manufacturers: The CDC's Vaccines for Children program provides indemnification and a guaranteed market for vaccines, giving significant power to individuals like Dr. Fauci who advise on public health crises, but the question of accountability remains open.
While the FDA, NIH, and CDC each have distinct roles in promoting health and safety in the United States, the CDC's Vaccines for Children program offers unique incentives for vaccine manufacturers. This program, which is funded through the federal budget without direct congressional authorization, provides indemnification and a guaranteed market for vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Each of these organizations was established with good intentions, but the challenge lies in ensuring that those in charge are properly incentivized. The current structure places significant power in the hands of individuals like Dr. Anthony Fauci, who advises the president and leads the response to public health crises. The question of who has the authority to hold these individuals accountable remains an open one.
The power to dismiss Dr. Fauci and his role during the AIDS crisis: Historical context and power dynamics are crucial when evaluating public figures' actions and impact, as seen in the debates surrounding Dr. Fauci's handling of the AIDS crisis and his current role during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The power to dismiss Dr. Anthony Fauci, who holds dual roles as White House advisor and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), lies primarily with the president. However, the discussion delved deeper into Dr. Fauci's background and the context of his influence, specifically during the AIDS crisis in the late 1980s. Larry Kramer, a prominent activist and playwright, wrote an open letter criticizing Dr. Fauci's handling of the crisis. This letter gained significant attention and serves as a significant piece of context in understanding the ongoing debates surrounding Dr. Fauci's role and effectiveness, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ultimately, the conversation underscores the importance of understanding the historical context and power dynamics at play when evaluating the actions and impact of public figures.
Criticisms of Dr. Fauci's handling of AIDS research funding and drug trials in the late 1980s: In the late 1980s, Rep. Waxman accused Dr. Fauci of incompetence and delay in AIDS drug trials, echoing recent criticisms during the COVID-19 pandemic.
During a hearing in 1987, Representative Henry Waxman accused Dr. Anthony Fauci, then the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), of being an "incompetent idiot" due to his handling of AIDS research funding and drug trials. Waxman criticized Fauci for the delays in testing potential drugs, some of which had already been identified as promising but were not yet in trials. He also accused Fauci of passing down decisions from higher-ups without testing the drugs himself. This accusation echoes recent criticisms of Fauci's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, with some arguing that he has been too cautious in approving new treatments and vaccines. The parallels between Fauci's strategies then and now are striking, and the consequences of these delays have been fatal for many people affected by these diseases. It's important to note that these criticisms are not new, and have been raised for decades. It's also worth mentioning that the scientific community is complex, and there are many factors at play in the development and testing of new treatments and vaccines. However, the accusations of incompetence and delay are significant, and highlight the importance of transparency and urgency in medical research, especially during public health crises.
Allegations of conspiracy between government officials and pharma companies during COVID-19 pandemic: Government officials and pharma companies were accused of limiting access to certain drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin while pushing for vaccine development. Some officials conspired to limit hydroxychloroquine use, citing lack of data, while it's on WHO's essential medicines list and has antiviral properties.
During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, there were allegations of a conspiracy between government officials and pharmaceutical companies to limit access to certain drugs, like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, while pushing for the development and distribution of vaccines. According to the discussion, Viscount Tony was accused of using similar pump and dump schemes as vaccine companies. During congressional hearings, Tony promised rapid vaccine production in exchange for large sums of money. However, prior to the vaccine's availability, there was resistance to using hydroxychloroquine as a treatment. Dr. Zev Zelenko, an advocate for hydroxychloroquine, wrote a letter to President Trump urging its use. Trump and his team attempted to make hydroxychloroquine widely available, but Janet Woodcock, head of Operation Warp Speed for drugs at the FDA, and Rick Bright, head of BARDA, conspired to limit its use, citing lack of data and potential harm. Despite this, hydroxychloroquine is on the WHO list of essential medicines and has broad-spectrum antiviral activity. The reasons behind this conspiracy remain unclear, but it resulted in the FDA marketing ivermectin as a horse drug and Merck releasing a PR piece claiming it was toxic. The speaker encourages the audience to speculate on the motivations behind these actions.
Politicians Use Fear to Manipulate and Create Division: Politicians can use fear to manipulate public, create division, and lead to mass formation. Truthfulness and transparency are crucial to prevent unnecessary fear and harm to communities. Media and influential figures also play a significant role in shaping public opinion.
Politicians and public figures can use fear to manipulate the public and create division, as seen in the historical example of Gerald Ford and the swine flu vaccine, as well as more recent instances involving Trump, Biden, and the COVID-19 vaccine. This can lead to mass formation, where people develop a sense of community based on a shared fear or belief, and can result in targeting specific groups, such as the unvaccinated or anti-vaxxers. It's important for leaders to be truthful and transparent to prevent unnecessary fear and potential harm to communities. Additionally, the power of media and influential figures, like Joe Rogan, in shaping public opinion and providing alternative perspectives cannot be underestimated.
Criticizing Fauci's Leadership and Calling for New Leaders: The speaker critiques Fauci's leadership for hindering progress and stifling innovation by eliminating potential successors. He advocates for informed consent, diversity of thought, and a younger, more innovative leadership cohort.
Effective leadership involves preparing the next generation to take over, but Anthony Fauci has systematically eliminated potential successors, hindering progress and stifling innovation. The speaker, who has a background in leadership and bioethics, emphasizes the importance of informed consent and allowing individuals to make their own conclusions. He also criticizes Fauci for being too old to lead effectively and calls for a younger, more innovative cohort to take charge. The speaker encourages listeners to be optimistic about the future and to seek out diverse sources of information to make informed decisions. He believes that the right people will eventually come together to challenge the status quo and bring about positive change.
Mass Formation: The Critical Point: We must continue speaking out against mass formation, a global phenomenon, in a nonviolent way, despite potential risks and challenges, to reduce its depth.
We are currently living in a time of mass formation, a global phenomenon driven by mass media, pharma bucks, and tech gods, which has led to a significant divide in societal beliefs and actions. Dr. McCullough, Peter, and others, including the speaker, have a responsibility to continue speaking out against this trend in a nonviolent and nonconfrontational way, despite the potential risks and challenges. The mass formation is believed to be at a critical point, and the horse has allegedly left the barn. This means that we are already deeply entrenched in this phenomenon, and it will require ongoing efforts to reduce its depth. The upcoming rally on January 23rd in DC, "Defeat the Mandates DC," is an example of the need for nonviolent resistance. The use of language matters, and avoiding terms that could provoke a fight response from the opposition is crucial. The speakers, including Bobby, Peter, and Pierre Kory, plan to attend the rally despite the potential dangers. The ongoing censorship experienced today is a significant concern, but it's essential to remember that there have always been forms of censorship throughout history. The current situation presents a unique set of challenges, and it's crucial to continue speaking out in a responsible and peaceful manner.
Restoring integrity, human dignity, and community: Focus on restoring integrity, recognizing human dignity, and fostering community to heal societal divisions and move forward. Take action by staying informed, engaging in meaningful conversations, and building connections.
Restoring integrity, human dignity, and building community are essential for overcoming the current societal challenges. According to Dr. Robert Malone, these three elements are crucial in various aspects of our lives, including public service, corporations, and personal relationships. He emphasized that the loss of connectedness among individuals and communities has contributed to the current state of mass formation and fragmentation. Dr. Malone believes that by focusing on restoring integrity, recognizing human dignity, and fostering community, we can begin to heal the divisions and move forward. He encourages individuals to take action by staying informed, engaging in meaningful conversations, and building connections with others. In essence, Dr. Malone's message is a call to action for all of us to take responsibility for our communities and work together to create a more connected and compassionate world.
