Ep 137 | The Doctor Who Nearly Got Joe Rogan Canceled | Dr. Robert Malone | The Glenn Beck Podcast

Did you know that at Chevron, you can fuel up on unbeatable mileage and savings?

With Chevron Rewards, you'll get 25 cents off per gallon on your next five visits.

All you have to do is download the Chevron app and join to start saving on fuel.

Then, you can keep fueling up on other things like adventure, memories, vacations, daycations, quality time, and so many other possibilities.

Head to your nearest Chevron station to fuel up and get rewarded today.

Terms apply.

See Chevron TexcoRewards.com for more details.

We're going to try to do something a little different today.

I want to open up the floor for the people who have been shut out of this incredibly important discussion.

You, the audience.

We're going to try to squeeze some calls in.

I've got tons of questions from social media.

I want you to be in the interview seat.

You can ask whatever you like, all the medical questions that were considered too dangerous for most medical professionals to answer.

The questions that the media and big tech have done everything in their power to keep you from asking or hearing a different line of thought.

I thought

long and hard about how to approach my discussion with today's guest, partly because he has been booted off most platforms, including Twitter.

As a result, people have a lot of questions for the man, but how do we do that interview?

Also, partly,

he's become incredibly controversial.

We have a lot of controversial guests on this project, on this podcast, but this one's exceptionally controversial.

You remember the manufactured outrage about Joe Rogan?

Well, the most recent outbreak of manufactured outrage about Joe Rogan was involving this guy when Neil Young threw a tantrum and gave an ultimatum to Spotify.

Take Joe Rogan off or you'll never be able to play one of my crappy songs again.

And then Joni Mitchell did it.

Oh my gosh, what would we do without those two?

Cause for the outrage centered on one particular episode of Joe Rogan's podcast, a three-hour interview with today's guest, a highly distinguished virologist.

In the wake of his appearance, just about every mainstream media outlet ran a blustery fact-check article about it.

PolitiFact, which is owned by the Poynter Institute,

Look that up.

Called him an anti-vaccine darling.

Really?

Because he got the vaccine.

The Guardian, Forbes, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, all rushed to attack.

You know, all those trusted names in news.

That, to me, is like a badge of honor.

That's usually a good indication that the elites feel threatened, so we should at least hear the guy out.

A letter signed by 270 doctors demanded Spotify remove

the episode because it spreads misinformation about the science.

You know, there's one thing about trusting science, but what is trusting the science?

Turns out most of those 270 were not really doctors

or

virologists at all, let alone scientists of the caliber of today's guest.

That's not an understatement.

He is

one of the big boys.

He was a fellow at Boston Children's Hospital, the chief architect of the mRNA vaccine technology.

Even now, his colleagues consider him brilliant.

I don't say it really out loud all the time.

When he was 28 years old, he invented the mRNA vaccine, an invention that has saved millions of lives and probably would have earned him a Nobel Prize if he would have just kept his mouth shut.

They have ways of making you not talk.

So why didn't he?

And the mRNA, the mRNA vaccine that we now have and everybody has had to take,

what do we know now two years later that maybe we should have known a little earlier?

Please welcome Dr.

Robert Malone.

Since Roe v.

Wade, over 63 million babies

have been aborted in the U.S.

alone, nearly one in four pregnancies.

In the midst of this evil tragedy, we can do something about it.

Technology actually helping here.

The Ministry of Pre-Born and Blaze Media have now partnered to help rescue babies from abortion in 2022.

Now,

pre-born is the direct competitor to Planned Parenthood.

They're trying to kill the babies.

Pre-born is trying to save them.

They do this by becoming the largest provider of free ultrasounds in the U.S.

What we have found is if a woman comes in, she's pregnant, and she actually hears the heartbeat, sees the baby on the ultrasound, she's 80% more likely to choose life for her baby.

That's why Planned Parenthood and all the people around Planned Parenthood just don't want.

No, you're gonna, well, that's that's horrible.

You're gonna force them to have an ultrasound?

No, just gonna just gonna provide one for them if they'd like.

Pre-born partners with the clinics in the highest abortion cities and the highest regions all across the country.

They provide the life-saving ultrasounds.

59.9% of the nation's highest number of abortion occur in only nine states.

Gee, I wonder which ones they are.

All ultrasounds given to women in Los Angeles, Chicago, the east coast of Florida are provided by Pre-Born.

The ultrasound allows mom to hear her baby's heartbeat and see the precious life that is inside of her.

Pre-born has a real passion for this and I hope you catch this passion too.

They have counseled over 340,000 women that were considering abortion and 169,000 of those moms chose life for their kids.

Can you help?

Donate.

Dial pound250.

Say the keyword baby.

That's pound250 keyword baby.

Or you can go to preborn.com slash Glenn.

Welcome.

Glad you're here.

Thanks, Glenn.

So, man, there are so many questions, and I have gotten so many people writing in their questions.

We have some people on the phone that also want to ask you some things.

But I want to start just on some basic stuff.

Explain, like a five-year-old, or not like a five-year-old, to a five-year-old,

mRNA technology.

So that's a great question, because as we've been looking more into the kind kind of the tools of media manipulation that go back to Goebbels and Levon we put out a sub stack about this one of the one of the key parameters is that when you have a complex idea or technology it has to be simplified down to the level that the masses can assimilate it that's a that's a core thesis a core parameter in in propaganda which is what we've all been subjected to and so the uh contrapositive the anti-propaganda is to help people to understand what it really is So let's let's dive into it a little bit.

This will take a moment.

I'll try not to make it too long.

Okay.

So the core idea that goes back to my little brainstorm when I was about 28 at the Salk Institute in the late 1980s was that gene therapy has all been built around the idea of permanent modification of the genetics of your cells.

And there's various splinter versions of that.

It's kind of a web of knowledge or ideas, you know, germline gene therapy versus somatic cell gene therapy, blah, blah, blah.

And the problem with any of those gene therapy ideas is that if you, no matter what you use, viruses, DNA, whatever, is if you do this modification to somebody's body, it goes into a lot of different cells all over your body.

And unlike

if you were to implant something into someone, you can't go and cut it out because the cells are all over the place and they're relatively infrequent because the truth is that despite the whole transhumanism idea, gene therapy didn't work very good.

We still are a long way from having a good solution.

So the problem is that if these genetic information goes into your cells and it starts producing a protein, And the protein is a problem, it causes toxicity in you for whatever reason, you can't go in and cut it out.

It's permanently in there.

And so the brainstorm was, as things were progressing and a cascade of events, that you could put this other nucleic acid molecule, this other genetic information molecule, RNA, that is fairly short-lived.

It's normally, it does its business in your cell, then it gets cut up and recycled and used to make other RNA.

That's kind of how RNA works.

And it typically only lasts for minutes to a couple hours.

And so the idea was, okay, if we could slip this into your cells instead of DNA or instead of viruses, it could produce the protein and then it would go away right away.

And so if there was a bad problem,

you wouldn't re-dose.

And if it worked and it was producing a good effect, you could administer more like you do with any pharmaceuticals.

So that was the core idea of mRNA as a drug.

And then the question is, what are you going to do with it?

What's the initial entry-level application?

That application, in my embodiment and my conception, was for vaccines.

Vaccines require very little protein being made.

And so the core idea of the tech is use this very labile, you know, easily, readily degraded molecule.

You put it into cells, and that was part of the magic that happened for me at the Salk Institute: how to do that.

And it doesn't stick around very long, it produces the protein, and you're done.

And so

that was what was advanced initially

at,

you know, the first development was at Salk and then the reduction to practice was at a little company across the street called Vical that I joined after I left the Salk.

And we showed that in mice you could inject RNA coding for the envelope glycoprotein that's kind of akin to the spike of the AIDS virus and produce an immune response in the mice.

And then that led to a huge focus on trying to develop an AIDS vaccine.

So that's the short version: is that you have a molecule, it's easily degraded, you use, you coat it with a fat that makes it slip into cells.

I'm super simplifying this.

Yes, I know.

And I appreciate it.

But that's the truth.

That's all the truth.

And then it produces a protein.

And in the case of an immune response, it's a protein that would be part of a virus or a bacteria, and it would make the cell look to your immune system like it's been infected by the virus, for instance, coronavirus in our case, without having the actual virus.

That was the idea.

Now, a lot of things have happened since then, and one of the key things that happened was the discovery about a decade later of these two folks, Carico and Weissman.

You know, they've been actively promoted for the Nobel Prize and blah, blah, blah.

And various people have claimed that they're the original inventors.

And what they did was

they ran into the problem that I'd run into in my lab which is these complexes generate a really robust immune response an inflammatory response a nonspecific inflammation and so they found that if they put this chemical in place of one of the four components of RNA pseudouridine is what they put in if they put that into the molecule it would suppress the immune response generated by this complex when you inject it into somebody now they thought that was a good thing.

Now these days we see not so good.

And the other thing that the pseudouridine did is it kind of blew away the whole logic of short half-life.

Moderna has and Pfizer have been saying, asserting, that these molecules don't stick around very long.

But then there was a recent paper in Cell by a group from Stanford.

using biopsy of human lymph nodes, people's axillary lymph nodes that they had that were swollen.

and they biopsied those and they looked for up to 60 days about whether or not the RNA was still there, whether or not we were still having spike protein being made.

And what they found was the RNA doesn't degrade, it sticks around.

Uh-oh, that makes the whole logic upside down.

It makes it more like super DNA.

DNA, single-stranded DNA, doesn't even stick around in the cell very long.

That's been the problem with anti-sense.

So what we now learn is that this modification that was supposed to make the whole thing work and be seminal has probably led to a situation in which this is very far from what I'd originally envisioned.

And it is producing, it's causing your body to get a nucleic acid, a kind of a synthetic version of a nucleic acid that sticks around for a really long time and continues to produce this protein.

Okay, so everything I learned about CRISPR, I learned from the last James Spond movie.

But CRISPR would have been the opposite, what you were

trying to combat, because CRISPR, you change the DNA.

Precisely right.

Right?

And that stays, you can't get it out.

Precisely right.

Okay.

And but it's now more, this, the RNA.

So it's like you don't even need to use CRISPR because the thing about RNA, this gets a little bit techie.

A cell has, you can think of a cell as having a bag within a bag.

The inside bag, the inner bag, akin to the yellow part of a fried egg, is where the DNA resides.

And it's protected by a envelope, a bag.

And then there's the outer bag.

That's the cell membrane, cytoplasm membrane.

RNA only has to get through one of those two.

It only has to get through the first one.

It does its business in the cytoplasm.

A DNA-based construct or Cas9 CRISPR solution or a virus, retrovirus or adenovirus, whatever, has to get all the way into the nucleus.

So it's got to cross two membranes.

And that makes it,

those are both really important barriers for good reason.

Our cells kind of don't want to have parasitic DNA jumping into their genomes, right?

And so we have a lot of evolved things that keep DNA and RNA out.

But what we've got now is kind of an odd hybrid.

with these vaccines.

And we've just, what's shocking to me is that the FDA didn't force the pharmaceutical companies to characterize these things.

They just said, hey, let's just jab everybody all over the world.

Why not?

What could possibly go wrong?

Correct.

And now we've just learned about this fundamental thing that I've been whinging about the fact that we didn't have these data going back to that Brett Weinstein podcast that originally kind of set things going.

So now we have this information.

And frankly, I'm way more worried about this than integration into patocytes in cell culture, which is getting all the press right now.

If the last two years have taught us anything, is that you have to take control of your own health.

Who do you trust?

It's clear you can't trust the government,

big pharma, who doesn't love them.

Who's protecting your family?

Well, may I suggest that you just at least check out ZStack.

ZStack is a specially formulated immune-boosting supplement that has a bunch of stuff in it you need to boost your

immune system, especially if you're worried at all about COVID or Omicron.

It's formulated by Dr.

Vladimir Zelenko,

one of the world's most renowned doctors,

especially credited and cited for his successful early treatment, his protocol treatment.

with hydroxychloroquine.

Well, he's been studying this now for two years, and he's decided to put this together so you don't have to make a concoction yourself.

It's kosher.

It's GMP certified.

It's produced right here in the U.S.

I take it every day.

Mask mandates are being lifted.

Vaccine mandates are no longer enforced in several states.

Viruses are still out there.

And by taking Z-Stack, all you're doing is supercharging your immune system.

Z-Stack, it is formulated to help combat any and all variants, as well as the common cold and flu.

It's just letting your body do what your body is supposed to do.

Stay ahead of all of these things.

You could make you sick.

For you and your family, it's zstacklife.com/slash Beck.

Go there now.

Enter the promo code Beck.

Get a discount off your first order.

It's zstacklife.com/slash Beck.

Promo code Beck.

What does this mean?

Long-term consequence?

Do we have any idea what it means?

Well, we kind of do.

You know,

I'm of the school that what people can do in the laboratory is nice and interesting and leads to papers, but really what matters is what do you see in humans?

And that's why I love clinical research because

you can dial the knobs on clinical research to get different kinds of responses, but eventually the truth gets out.

And now we have this massive amount of data from all over the world that is coming back at us.

And most recently in the Pfizer, the latest Pfizer data drop with a three or six page or whatever it is list of adverse events.

Okay.

So you ask, what does it mean?

And, right.

And so we're all both aligned that we now know from the President's Day drop from the New York Times that the CDC has been withholding information from all of us, including physicians and health care providers and public health officers.

Have you ever seen anything like this?

No, this is shocking.

Right?

And it's shocking that,

I mean, you are a a world expert.

They say that you've blown your chance to get the Nobel Prize.

And I, by the way, on that topic, I don't think there's going to be a Nobel given out for RNA vaccines for some reason.

But

you're a very well-respected voice.

You have played in the highest of circles.

And to shut you down.

If you don't have a place at the table, there would be others that disagree with you, but if you don't have a place at the table, who does?

So thanks for saying that.

And that's a point that I tried to make on Joe Rogan.

You know,

if I'm not allowed to speak,

then who is legitimately allowed?

I may be one of the only ones that really understands the technology at a deep level, that doesn't have a financial conflict of interest.

But what this has revealed for all of us, and for you, you're a guy who's been

outside of the mainstream narrative and poking holes at it for your entire career.

It's kind of like your brand, right?

Sad, but true.

But for me, I was

merrily going along doing my thing,

trying to keep my head down so I didn't get shot in the world of D.C., working with the government, working with big pharma, working with small startup pharma, et cetera, and just kind of doing my thing, consulting and advising people and often advising C-suite people and coaching.

And then this whole juggernaut has hit me.

And

it has been a sharp shock for me to come to terms with what modern propaganda and media manipulation really means.

Yeah.

And

what's fascinating here, Glenn, is that the docs that I travel with all the time,

most of us were center-left,

including myself.

Actually, a turning point was the series of radio interviews that you and I had back so long ago.

Really?

Yeah, for me,

that was a pivotal moment because I realized that the world was more complicated than I thought it was.

And that happened for a bunch of us.

I have one colleague

who's now retired, who's a very senior

doc,

that said to me the other day, I can't read the New York Times anymore.

I don't know what to do.

I know.

It's like that.

Once you're red-pilled or clown-pilled or whatever,

it's really

for a while.

I mean, I worked at CNN and I thought, this is crazy.

This is 2006.

This is crazy the way this works.

Then I thought, oh, Fox will be better.

I went over there and I'm like, oh my gosh, this is just as crazy.

And you realize

nobody really is telling you the truth.

And it's not necessarily because they're, you know, at an evil plan or anything.

Most of the times they're just disinterested and they don't know how to do things that are complex and don't know how to tell the story and don't really care that much.

You know, so they just kind of go along.

So that's that's the kind of

banal evil version of what's going on.

Yes.

So you know, that was 2008.

That's not what's happening now.

Then there's those that were aware of Mockingbird

back in the 60s and what that haul meant with the infiltration of media by the CIA.

And that's well documented.

That's not a conspiracy theory.

That's flat out, and they enacted legislation to stop it.

And then we repealed that.

Yeah, and the other thing that we did was this quid pro quo weaponization with the UK intelligence community so that we have this reciprocal relationship where they do the bidding against the American citizens and we do the bidding against the British citizens.

It's uh we got a problem,

a big problem, a big problem, and we're all being herded like sheep.

I don't know a better way to put it.

I mean, we were we were talking before we started the podcast about Ukraine.

Something has felt wrong with that from the beginning, and it's clear what's going on.

This is great reset

on one half of the world and

nationalism on the other side.

I'm not going to play a part of that.

That's why, I think, I'm convinced that's why Donald Trump, they had to destroy him because he believed in America.

Oh, my point of view on Donald Trump has just flip-flopped.

That's crazy.

Red-pilled is the only metaphor that seems to work.

Thank God for the matrix and giving all of us a way to kind of framework for in words, language, right?

Language influences how we think.

It's scary a little bit to me that

sometimes people on the right are so desperate for anybody with credibility to go, hey, I see you guys.

You know what I mean?

We just rush into a relationship and we, you know, just, we can be friends, we can talk, we can learn about about each other, but that doesn't mean that you're for everything I'm for.

We've lost nuance.

We used to be able to be friends with everybody, but that didn't mean we agreed with everything they said.

You know what I mean?

Well, this is the richness of life, right?

Isn't it?

Yes.

Complexity and granularity.

Yes.

But it's it, I guess, because it's not useful for those that are wanting to control the information landscape.

And that's really, for me,

the big reveal.

It started with

awareness of the Trusted News Initiative.

And I'm flattered that

the,

what do they call it, Wikispooks.

Wikispooks

credits me with having

blown open the story of the Trusted News Initiative.

I don't know that I really deserve that, but I'll take it.

But the TNI was, for me, the moment when I realized I was no longer in Kansas

and that clearly there was a global manipulation and management of information that I was encountering

and was encountering me.

Until it comes for you, you don't understand it.

Yeah.

But when it comes for you, all of a sudden you're like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

Wait,

this is, I think, the most amazing thing about the pushback on Joe Rogan

is I think Joe and Spotify were not ready for that.

And I think it caught them unawares.

Yeah.

And they really mismanaged it.

And

I think Joe is, you know, it hurt his brand in a major way.

He's still the top podcaster.

Yeah, he's going to be fine as long as he doesn't.

Look, you just have to.

A friend told me one time, asked me, is a rattlesnake a bad pet?

No, as long as you remember always it's a rattlesnake.

You know what I mean?

Don't treat it like a puppy dog.

Good metaphor.

Yeah, yeah.

Let me go back here on a couple of things.

First of all,

you know, the

things that we have seen that they have given to pilots, you know, that you have to take it.

Well, wait a minute.

Is that going to affect my heart?

Because I'm out if it does.

Some of these side effects that Pfizer, I mean, you cannot watch

a Viagra commercial without at least 20 seconds of get to a hospital if it doesn't stop.

You know what I mean?

And they tell us all, you could go blind.

You might lose all your hair.

But with this one, we weren't told anything what the side effects are.

With this now staying in your system,

what do you fear could be coming for people like you who took the vaccine?

So my friend Ryan Cole, who has been slandered at least as, or defamed at least as much as I have, and by the way, for those of you out here, we both have retained the same attorney who is very aggressive about defamation.

So

be on notice,

woke journalist advocates.

But Ryan has been observing these unusual cancers.

And as we've been traveling, and I travel with him fairly frequently to speak in various audiences,

Ryan Cole is a boarded pathologist.

He was trained by literally the premier skin pathologist in the world in the history of pathology.

He is deeply credentialed and has been mercilessly attacked for speaking what he's observing clinically.

He's observing, and now we're hearing oncologists and

cancer surgeons,

diagnostic radiologists, many others starting to chime in, saying they're seeing the same thing.

He's seeing very unusual cancers in terms of their onset and their aggressiveness.

And it's not in everybody.

I'm not telling everybody, you know, we're going to get cancer and die.

But he's been making these observations and speaking about them cautiously.

And what happens, people don't recognize that pathologists are kind of the quality control for the whole medical system.

And we're trained in pattern recognition.

That's what we do.

Why is Robert Malone out front saying, hey guys, something here is not right?

Because that's what my training is.

I taught pathology for over a decade.

And that's what we do, is we do pattern recognition and signal detection.

It's why you probably see things

like Ukraine.

That's why

I recognize patterns.

And I look, that dot and that dot are in the wrong place, you know, and that you can see what's happening.

So

that's the cancer story is that there are things there that aren't adding up that look like signal.

And

as we're traveling about, we're having other physicians in the allied disciplines like cancer surgery and oncology saying, yeah, actually now that you brought it up we're able to see this too and we're also concerned okay so that's one thing in terms of the long term

there's this

the word that's being bandied about is AIDS

and if you unpack that we're not talking about the AIDS virus being a part of the spike protein which some people have talked about

the issue there is that there seems to be a immunosuppressive syndrome that is associated with the vaccines.

And this immunosuppressive syndrome seems to be a function of the number of administrations that one receives and it seems to be more associated with the RNA vaccines.

And that fits, I mean, we're seeing all these little bits of data that are kind of coming around.

And one of them is the data that have come from many national governments that seem to be aligned with the more jabs you get, the more likely you get infected with Omicron or have COVID disease.

And those data are real.

They've been reproduced multiple times.

There was an Epoch Times article, because Epoch Times is the only one that published any of this stuff anymore, right?

That covered this.

And so it's now in this, if you call EPIC Times mainstream media, they're like number six in the world, so I guess they are.

It's out there.

I've been talking about it for quite a while.

Ryan's been talking about it.

There's multiple mechanisms of immunosuppression associated with these.

And as I mentioned, the incorporation of the pseudoridine is fundamentally one of them.

So let me ask you a question.

It seems to me that

the reason why this has all happened is because the government was involved and the government is supposed to say, no,

this is the standard and you just hit that and let people decide and let the experts argue back and forth.

The government paid for all of the a lot of this.

They then picked the winners and the losers and then told the pharmaceutical companies, you can't get sued.

We're going to tell everybody.

And you don't have to release all of those warnings.

Isn't the problem the government's woman?

And I've seen a recent op-ed piece out really building on this theme that you're laying out here in this case.

And I think there's a this logic has a lot of merit.

That

and it's Peter McCullough was the first one that really spoke out about

this kind of odd

insidious relationship that exists.

Technically, the FDA, because this is an emergency use authorized product, technically the FDA acts as the sponsor.

That's regulatory legal language for the people responsible for the product.

So the FDA is both the regulatory authority overseeing it and they're acting as the sponsor, which normally would be a role held by the pharmaceutical industry.

And so

in the scope of the world I live in and this kind of stuff and BARTA and all the big government contracts that I've been doing for like the last 30 years

What What we've got is that functionally pharma for these products that we have here in the in the U.S., because Tony has kept the other ones out.

Okay,

there's like 10 of them that are licensed now at WHO.

There's old-school vaccines that the rest of the world is using, but we can't use.

And Novavax is kind of sort of like an old-school vaccine, and we're not going to have access to that, even though it's U.S.

produced, with Bill and Melinda Gates funding.

So they've been kept out, and Pharma acts as the contractor to the government in in the case of Moderna and Pfizer BioNTech and J ⁇ J.

So they're government contractors, and they have all the rights and privileges of a government contractor.

And the government is really the one that owns the program.

And the government is the one that acts as pharma

in this transaction, this regulatory transaction, with the FDA.

And the government is the one that is overseeing the vaccine advocacy as well as the vaccine surveillance.

That's the job of the CDC, by the way.

This sounds like something Al Capone would have designed.

Really?

You couldn't, if

the, I don't even want to go down that rabbit hole.

No, but I mean, it's, you know, I've got one bookkeeper looking over the other bookkeeper, so we have our books straight, but they both work for Al Capone.

I mean, it's.

It's a good metaphor.

Yeah.

It is a good metaphor.

And what it's revealed is this deep underlying corruption that threads throughout our entire health and human services.

And then we have, as if that isn't enough, then we have these perverse subsidies that have been given to our

entire hospital system for administering remdisivir and putting people in the vent and calling people COVID when, in fact, they have some other diagnosis.

There's a fascinating analysis I saw recently looking at the Great Britain data, because that's starting to all crumble.

The narrative crumbling in Britain is occurring faster than it is here in the United States.

And it looks like the true COVID deaths

attributable to this virus are

extremely clustered in the elderly and high-risk groups.

And just like has the data manipulation that's been going on here, the vast majority of the cases that have been attributed to COVID are actually people that would have died of other causes.

I mean, we saw that.

You looked at the excess deaths, the excess death rate,

and it showed that less people were dying from natural causes.

And they're saying, well, what's happening?

How come people aren't dying?

Because you're reclassifying them.

Just,

right?

Yeah.

Where that breaks down a little bit, and Ed Dowd, I think, deserves a gold star for what he's done, this ex-BlackRock analyst, who, by the way, we've been tight with for a long time.

I kind of brought, helped Ed bring his message out to people.

He's the one that's been tracking and really amplifying all of these signals from the insurance industry.

And there is this odd surge in

I'm going to use techie talk, morbidity and mortality, death and sickness

and disability in the actuarial tables of the insurance industry internationally that seems to coincide with the onset of the mandated vaccine administration.

And the pushback is: well, that also coincides with the onset of Delta, and Delta was more pathogenic.

So that's got to sort itself out.

But the insurance industry, they don't mess around with data.

This is their livelihood.

Unlike the CDC and the yellow card system in the UK,

you can't spin actuarial data.

They know how to disambiguate spin.

That's what they do for a living.

And the signal is coming out all over the place, and then you're having these fascinating things like the guy who is kind of the whistleblower with the German insurance data getting fired just before he's supposed to be talking about what he's found.

I mean,

the manipulation, media manipulation, information manipulation that has gone on here is profound.

Have you had your license threatened?

I have.

That's unbelievable.

The woman who found Omicron in

South America, or I mean, South Africa,

she's spoken about how she was pressured not to say anything.

I mean, it takes real bravery to stand up now.

I mean, I have...

I have a very brave doctor who, you know, hydroxychloroquine, all of this stuff, and he'll consult, but he's like I can't I can't write certain prescriptions because they will come down on us like a bag of bricks you know and it's I just I've never seen anything no there's never been anything like this nothing nothing this is this is corporate control and management of the practice of healthcare so

let me

let me flip it here how

how many people didn't have to I've never seen it where people,

you know, you go to the hospital and you're really sick and they say, you know what?

Can't do anything right now.

Come back when you're really, really sick, when you can barely breathe.

Then maybe we can do something about it.

There's, I don't believe there's no treatment.

I've never heard of anything like that.

We don't say, oh, you're really, really sick.

It's leprosy.

Take a couple of aspirin and if your arm falls off, you come back.

I mean, it doesn't happen that way.

How many things that could have been used could have treated it early?

It's that first week if you can treat it.

How many people didn't have to die?

But because we stopped all other treatment, they did.

So that's

so as you know, Richard Urso,

Peter McCullough,

Pierre Corey,

so many people have been at the forefront.

And even in a small way, myself and and the crew that I've been working with with Defense Hurt Reduction Agency

have pioneered various early treatment options using repurposed drugs.

And even, you know, when I went to the Vatican and I met with Cardinal Turkson, he told me about a remedy that comes from

rural Africa that he believed was effective.

This was all said in confidence, and I don't want to go deeper into that.

But what I said to him was, yeah, pretty much any anti-inflammatory strategy applied early seems to be able to shut this thing down.

So, yes, the question about the excess mortality.

There are estimates that the excess mortality due to the suppression of early treatment is

in the range, it is big numbers.

Percentage?

Yeah, like

something like 70% of the excess deaths could have been avoided with early treatment.

Oh my gosh.

Here's the rub is that

if we

can't,

the observation that the true deaths are overinflated

and

those calculations

that lead to conclusions about hundreds of thousands to millions of excess deaths

can't live in the same space.

So

I think that we have to dial back a little bit and say, well, now that we're starting to get to what the true death rate was as opposed to the hyperinflated death rate, then we have to apply the 70%, because that's about what it is, about 70% of those deaths are probably avoidable with early intervention.

It gets complicated

trying to figure out who's on first

because of all of the data manipulation and ambiguity that's been generated because basically the CDC hasn't done its job.

And so that's I'm trying to

skate around giving you a straight-up answer because

all that's important to me is we could have saved lives.

And I don't care what the number is.

I don't think we could ever really figure that out

too much.

But

we can say we shouldn't do this again.

Let me take a phone call from Dan.

He's in New York.

Hi, Dan.

Hi, Glenn.

How are you?

Very good.

Great.

Hey, Dr.

Mullen, thank you for everything you've done.

You've really helped everybody see some of the fog here in the science.

My question is about the phase one trial of Moderna.

When the CEO came out on CNBC that morning, talked about dose-dependent response.

It was eight out of eight patients showed neutralizing antibodies.

I think that was out of only out of only 45 patients.

And they said the antibodies were similar to or higher than those who've recovered from COVID.

Now what we know, looking back with the VERES data and everything you've talked about with leaky vaccine, was that really a great starting point to launch everything from and say, we've got it.

You know, this is perfect.

We're going forward.

Even if they have the EAU, you know, most people probably don't know that most phase one and phase two trials fail before they ever get to phase three and get approval.

But what are your thoughts of that phase one trial and how the CEO came out and just said, this is awesome and this is great and

this is going to be the best vaccine ever?

Yes, so normally if I was to do that, I would be in trouble with the FDA if that was my clinical trial.

My objection at the time when that was happening is that there was no clear indication that antibody titer or neutralizing antibody levels were we technically, the word we use is they are not an established correlative protection.

So

what he was speaking of was scientifically gibberish

because he was asserting with those statements that neutralizing antibodies were an indicator of protection and

that has not been verified and we now know much more about that.

The neutralizing antibody assay that was being used there is really skewed and a lot of that response that was being detected was actually what we call a recall immune response.

for antibodies that were generated against prior circulating cold coronaviruses called beta coronaviruses.

So that was a gross misrepresentation and interpretation of the data, but that is just one of a huge bucket of

data misrepresentations that have gone on all the way through this.

I hope that answers your question.

Let me ask you this.

There was a story about,

was it Moderna?

Just making a human error.

And, gosh, that sequence from a patented

story about Okay, so

and paradoxically, the CEO of Moderna gave it legs when he gave his, I think it was CNBC interview.

When I saw that as somebody, I don't do the kind of nuanced data sequence analysis comparison stuff routinely, but I do it from time to time.

And it's readily done using available tools that you can get

online and look at the databases that the National Center for Biocomputing Information, Biotechnology Information has available.

And you can basically turn the knobs of those programs in terms of their sensitivity for alignment and base pairing to get almost any answer you want.

So when I first heard that, when I first heard that, I thought, ah, this is somebody jumping, you know, they've managed to get a lot of publicity for a pretty marginal

finding on a very short stretch of nucleic acid that

shows significant alignment.

But, you know, if you chose a small enough section, you can get alignments between virtually anything.

And yeah, if you're on the calculations, it would be a highly statistically improbable event that you would see this.

And so I thought, this just

of all the things to get excited about, this is not getting me excited.

And as opposed to the cell paper that I talked about about the long-lived RNA, which has been totally disregarded by the press.

That seems like a pretty big deal.

Yeah, but that nobody talks about it.

And I've heard from docs that Moderna and Pfizer reps have told them exactly the opposite, that these RNAs just stick around for a short period of time.

But in any case, on that particular topic of that sequence alignment, I thought it just sounded like noise

and highly improbable.

And then the interview on CNBC, where the CEO just did everything he could to not answer the question,

just raised

my concern levels quite a bit more.

Here's the thing about this that does matter if you cut through all that noise of who did what and when and how.

And just for the record, after the Project Veritas disclosures of

both the proposal review and the proposal itself and the associated documentation from DARPA having to do with the EcoHealth Alliance bid that was submitted.

And then speaking directly to the EcoHealth Alliance whistleblower that's and that was an interview on Trial Site News.

I'm convinced that this thing was engineered at the Wuhan lab.

I'm just there.

Okay, that's me.

Is that new for you?

I've always been suspicious.

Right.

But there was some holes that I had to fill in that just didn't make sense.

Why would they be engineering this thing?

And the explanations that, oh, this is the People's Republic and the CCP just doing their evil thing.

That was just too simplistic.

But now we have the reveal of the logic underneath it that they were trying to engineer a bat.

infectious virus for vaccine purposes that they were going to blow into the caves of it is you're old enough you remember the name Rube Goldberg.

Many people that listen to this podcast won't.

Refresh my memory.

Oh, this Rube Goldberg was an artist.

You remember that Mousetrap when we were kids?

The game mousetrap?

Okay, mousetrap basically was embodying these sketches that this

satirist used to write.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay, so this is totally an act, and the character in the Rube Goldberg sketches was a professor, was an academic.

It was all about spoofing academic culture and their tendency to overengineer everything.

And so

when I read this, I'm like, this is Rube Goldberg does biotechnology and biowarfare.

So that was when I kind of tipped over and said, okay, now all the pieces fit for me.

But in terms of what,

getting back to your point about this sequence that may or may not have been patented by Moderna and may or or may not be in the sequence of the virus.

There are,

I'm convinced that there are multiple sequence events in the spike protein as expressed by the original SARS-CoV-2 virus that was put up as the Wuhan Seafood Market virus.

And subsequently, which sequence was taken directly and used as the vaccine antigen.

Okay, so this is what's key about this: that the geniuses at the Vaccine Research Center and at BioINTEC grabbed those sequences, they introduced the two-proline mutations in the stem region to make it so that it would be more immunogenic.

But they left all the other engineered stuff that was in there because they didn't really know it was engineered.

When people make the point, like Stephen Hafeld, my friend, and Peter Navarro loves to pound the table about this, that if the PRC had only come clean early on, we could have engineered a better vaccine.

I think there's merit to that

because

these introduced sequences, which appear to include a superantigen sequence,

And that's kind of important for some of the newest data that's coming out.

That's an inside baseball thing.

What's it mean?

Superantigens are short protein sequences which can broadly activate either B or T cells.

Which means that they flip them on and they start doing their business without having been well instructed in what they do.

So one of the things that we are observing now,

so and this gets back to the

AIDS diagnosis thing,

is what's being observed is a lot of antibody-based tests

for infectious disease are giving false positives.

Okay, why does that happen?

Okay, it happens because of nonspecific activation of antibody production.

Okay, and so that can raise the overall levels of antibodies against a bunch of different things.

This can happen with a lot of different inflammatory states, but superantigens are really good.

at tweaking both B and T cells.

And they can lead to immune energy.

That's immunosuppression.

That's another word for immunosuppression.

And they can lead to nonspecific activation of cells to produce antibodies and other things, which seems to be consistent with this false positive signal that pathologists are picking up now in a lot of the antibody diagnostic tests.

So

Hatfield is the one that has made the case that there's this SEB antigen engineered into this thing.

And I could imagine that that would have been done because it's not far-fetched to think that somebody engineering a virus to become more pathogenic would have included a superantigen into the part of the virus that's displayed on its surface.

That's the way these kind of folks that do gain of function research think.

I've worked with them.

Okay, so I don't think it's far-fetched.

And then we have the furin cleavage site and these other things.

But what is fascinating to me in retrospect is that we just kind of blithely took those sequences, we introduced two proline mutations to make them more imaginic, and that became the vaccine that we injected into everybody.

And we didn't really do, because the FDA didn't insist on it, the rigorous

analysis in non-clinical studies of, you know, what's the effects, how long, where is it expressed,

you know,

where does this go when you inject it?

All that stuff was short-circuited under operation warp speed.

And

now,

you can run, but you can't hide.

The data are coming out, and they are going to come out.

So that's

in terms of this little point about a Moderna sequence that may be existing within the spike protein coding sequence.

I think it's,

I still am in the box that I don't see that this is directly clinically relevant, but I think that we have multiple signs that what was injected into all of us that took the jab is directly derived from an engineered sequence that was intended to produce a

more severe pathology in humans as a step towards engineering a bat vaccine to make it so the bats would not be able to evolve a virus that would be more pathogenic in humans.

Like I said, it's a Rib Goldberg.

It's all crazy.

So help me out because you were friends with all these guys.

You knew all these guys.

You have connections at the Wuhan lab.

I would say Tony Fauci.

I would say frenemies is a better way to put it.

I've lived in this operational space for a long time,

and I'm well familiar with the practices that happen in this operational space.

My primary interactions with the NIAD now for decades have been, once upon a time, I received a NIAD training grant, okay, from me, training me.

I never completed it.

I went to work for Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and they screwed up the contract.

So that's the history.

I just want to be clear and disclosure to your audience.

Other than that, I really have not had any NIH contracts or grants.

What I have had is over $8 billion of awards or management of contracts that largely come from either BARDA or the Department of Defense.

I've long worked very closely with the Department of Defense, going back to my very first contract in 1991 to develop a DNA vaccine for AIDS with the U.S.

Navy.

So I, you know, for me, The warfighter is my customer, and in addition to the other, you know, things that I can sold for but in terms of government work I've long been very DOD centric one of the reasons is because I really like working with the DOD world

because they they have to deliver products you know they're not about publishing in the New England Journal or you know becoming high-profile academic thought leaders they're about getting the damn product into the soldier and helping the soldier and the war fighter to do their business and so I just feel more comfortable with people that are more focused on making something work as opposed to building their career.

It's funny because you make me think of the scene in, do you remember the first Ghostbusters?

Did you ever see Ghostbusters?

Yeah.

And when Dan Aykroyd looks at Bill Murray and Bill Murray says, This is great.

We'll go out.

We'll start a business.

We'll make a ton of cash.

And Dan Aykroyd looks at him and says, you've never been outside of the academic world.

In the real world, they expect results.

Just so,

you know,

the scary thing to me is we still don't have any answers.

I don't know if we're ever going to get real answers.

I think the Kennedy assassination is a metaphor.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And

yet with the Kennedy assassination, well.

Maybe.

You know, we weren't just continuing to kill presidents.

This time, Fauci is still getting money for a gain of function.

We're still seemingly producing.

Wuhan Lab, so I've run this to ground.

And partially,

I have a, there's a gentleman that I've been mentoring within DITRA now for a couple of years.

And it's been my pleasure to do so.

And I warned him that he better make sure his fingerprints were nowhere near all of this mess.

And then I was contacted by by this whistleblower from EcoHealth Alliance, and he shared a bunch of grants and contract numbers

that tied EcoHealth together with Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

Lots of money.

So

I ran this to ground

and

I did activate my network within DOD to say, hey guys, because DITRA is who I work for.

There's different branches of DITRA.

There's Threat Reduction Group, et cetera.

And I work for Kimbayo mostly.

That's who I'm more aligned with, Kimbayo Defense.

And so I used my network, though, to run this to ground.

And

Defense Threat Reduction Agency is still funding the Wuhan Lab, for sure, in a significant way.

And the logic seems to be wrapped around the idea that was advanced during the fall of the former Soviet Union when there were all those loose nukes.

And this is what gave rise to DITRA.

This is kind of DITRA's big achievement in the world: they went around and bought up those loose nukes and they started funneling money to Russian nuclear scientists so they wouldn't

become Iranian nuclear scientists, right?

Basically, that was the game.

And so they're still playing that game, and they still believe that by funneling capital to the Wuhan lab and their scientists, that's allowing them ostensibly.

The logic is:

okay, so

this is where, you know, there's the storyline, and then there's what one might infer.

The storyline is that this allows them to de-incentivize these people for to go and make nasty stuff.

I think that it's far deeper than that.

And

we have to keep in mind that

Often in the scientific community,

there is a tendency to think think of the Chinese scientist as not being an innovator, not being at the forefront of their technology, not being sophisticated.

But

it's now out in the press that we've trained the Wuhan lab over

years.

We've had teams going in from Galveston, from our BSL-4 containment and BSL-3 containment laboratories, going in and training them.

And we have had these prohibitions on certain types of gain of function research and experimentation.

I think what we really have, personally, my hypothesis, is we've got a two-way street there.

We're gaining information by being able to have a footprint there in their laboratory and not only just observe what they're doing from an intelligence standpoint, but learn from what they're doing and what their findings are.

Just the same as the game was played with

the German Rocketeers.

Yeah.

And so this,

we're, you know, what we're told is very much a whitewashed story of what our relationship has been with that laboratory.

That I'm positive.

Do you know who, I think his name was Ken Albeck?

Albeck, of course, I've met him.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

Great guy, right?

Interesting character.

Yeah, yeah.

You should say it that way.

A great story.

Yeah, a great

story.

And a great lesson to learn.

He was the head for a while of

the biological weapons department in the Soviet Union.

And his story is crazy bad.

Crazy bad.

It scared the bejesus out of

the Defense Report Reduction Agency.

Yeah.

So

he said that he was glad when the Soviet Union collapsed and he could get over here because we were, this is what he told me, because we were the good guys and we were looking for vaccines.

We were looking for a cure while they were looking for things that would just kill.

If

there was a cure for it, it was no good.

Okay, so that is a that is a very spun version of reality by Ken Alabek.

Okay.

I got to be careful here because I have clearance.

Yes.

I think there's been a disclosure.

My understanding is this is now public domain.

Okay.

So I operate in good faith.

I believe this is public domain.

The United States government invested, I'm told, more in biowarfare than they invested in thermonuclear weapon research.

Basically, the entire infrastructure of modern biology as we know it, what I was trained in, comes out of a massive, massive investment in biowarfare.

And

on our side, we identified, we developed a binary, highly lethal weapon that in my world, the belief system is that this played a major role in the collapse of the former Soviet Union and

in the era of Reagan and the wall, because the problem that we faced strategically was the tank commanders of Blitzkrieg, basically, Russian blitzkrieg scenario.

And remember, in geopolitical affairs,

you don't have to necessarily do something.

You just have to have the big stick.

Yeah.

Right?

Okay.

And a little bit of a twitchy eye where the other side goes, he might just do it.

Yeah, just so.

And we're facing that right now with the ramping up of the dialogue about thermonuclear weapons again.

So

the threat scenario was that the Soviet tank commanders could reach the English Channel before we could stop them.

And that was the mission, was to figure out a solution to that.

And

so we had the neutron bomb kind of stuff.

A lot of that, what was developed, the tank commanders could still live long enough to get to the channel.

So that wasn't good enough.

And we had to come up with something better.

And we came up with a binary weapon that I won't disclose because you can make it in your garage now.

You can order the parts off of eBay and make it in your garage.

We came up with a binary weapon and we field tested it.

And it was extremely lethal and extremely rapid onset.

And we tried to develop vaccines against the components.

We still don't have those vaccines, unfortunately.

Holy cow.

And that was lethal enough

and fast acting enough.

that it could neutralize the threat.

It did neutralize the threat of the blade.

We told them that we had this?

yeah, and they knew that we had it.

This is one of these, they knew that we knew that they knew

that it goes around and around.

But the bottom line was we had it, and the whole blitzkrieg strategy was no longer viable.

And that triggered, as I understand, the thinking for, you know, and of course, people that are in my world always want to make, everybody wants to make themselves the hero.

But that's that version of the story.

So, this logic that Ken put out that we're the good guys and they're the bad guys.

Not so much.

I can't get behind that.

I've spoken about this before, so I'll say it again.

There's a huge hole in the biowarfare treaty.

The biowarfare treaty is all about lethal agents.

And in my world, we know darn well that

non-lethal agents,

what's called in my world incapacitating agents, are not covered in the bio warfare treaty.

Okay?

So that's, you know, we're, you've got to understand the modern landscape of warfare.

You probably do.

I don't want to cast shade on you.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So the modern landscape of warfare is all about SOCON, special ops,

and these small strike forces and drones.

I mean, that's the, it's all shifted now.

Yeah, yeah.

And

so in that battlefield arena,

you have the need for special forces to be able to go in

in a strike capacity over the short term and intervene in some environment that may be contaminated with biologic agents.

It may be to neutralize a potential laboratory that might be engineering biowarfare agents such as apparently existed along the Russian-Ukrainian border.

Just to give one small example that's kind of topical.

And so

these,

you know,

in an environment in which the technology, you mentioned Cas9,

Christopher Cas9, the technology is so powerful that

bad stuff can be engineered and cooked in a garage using stuff you got off eBay.

Yeah.

then

one needs to be able to have small forces go in and intervene in that environment, and you want to have them them protected biologically and so you need to have some ability to produce a rapidly produce a vaccine or an antibody as one of the preferred monoclonal antibodies because you know from the point of view of SOCOM

the ideal is an agent that you can give to the warfighter

has you know like a month or two activity they can go doing their business by the time they get back to wife it's gone they actually don't like vaccines that much because of all this long tail they have.

So that's this

Ken Alabek kind of storyline.

We're good guys, they're bad guys.

It's not,

they're all spooks.

It's all spooky, and this is all happening all the time on both sides.

That's the truth of it.

I've got to get to some of these questions.

We'll do a rapid answer, question-and-answer thing here in a second, but I want to ask you one last question about China.

China is deeply, from what I understand, deeply involved in CRISPR for almost kind of like spooky Marvel comics super soldiers, people that can...

So to that point, we put out a substack.

There's a report from, a joint report from the government of the UK and Germany about transhumanism.

And as you know, this is one of the agendas of the World Economic Forum.

That's not hidden.

It's not a conspiracy, transhumanism.

And they talk about the RNA vaccines as an entry point,

kind of opening that space

ethically and otherwise.

So that's part of the push for why these particular products is it relates to that transhumanism agenda.

And the leadership.

Explain for anybody who doesn't know transhumanism.

Explain it, break it down.

So transhumanism is the belief, is the technology suite, I think is the best way to put it, around the idea of both mechanical and biological modification of humans for improved longevity and performance, I think, in general.

And could be improved cognition also.

Doesn't this strike anyone as maybe territory we shouldn't go into?

So that's the fascinating thing about this government report from Germany and the UK.

Like I said, we covered in our sub stack.

It's readily available.

It's in circulation.

And they say basically we have to do it because the other guy's doing it.

And they they acknowledge that there are ethical barriers that have to be breached.

And they basically say outright, we don't have any choice.

We have to do it because the other guys are doing it.

And of course, the other guys,

by inference, is the People's Republic of China.

And for sure, the PRC has no barriers to doing anything.

None.

But it's

in a total warfare environment.

Do I have it right to say we are now messing with things that Mengele and others were trying to mess with?

They just didn't have the technology, and they may have been quacks.

But

we're trying now to do the same thing with technology that may actually make it work.

Yeah, so I'm a little, as somebody who's a 30-year veteran of the gene therapy business, I'm a little skeptical about the making it work part.

Yeah, that's a good news.

Good.

But,

you know, mechanical augmentation for sure,

we can look forward to that.

And we can look forward to the robotic products that have been developed with DARPA.

So I don't have a problem.

You're talking about prosthetic arms and legs and things like that.

No, we're talking about battle suits in the way that we've seen play out in science fiction with augmented performance and embedded in all kinds of embedded transducers for,

you know, instead of this, it's part of us, right?

And augmentation in

brain performance and all kinds of things.

So that is where

the world

is no clear question.

World Economic Forum is all in on this.

The lovely thing about the World Economic Forum is they don't hide their stuff.

They just say it.

I know, right?

And then they leave the paper trail that shows they're doing it.

But you you mentioned the People's Republic, and that seems to be the logic that's being floated right now, is they're already doing it.

And if we don't want to be left behind, we have to do it too.

And the ethics be damned because it's a matter of national security.

That's what I read.

Well, I had dinner last night with a billionaire high-tech guy who's on our side.

And I said, so when we're talking quantum computing or AI,

how close are we?

How close do you think, you know, where are we with China?

And he said, you know, nobody can prove either way, he said, but I think we're probably way behind.

Yeah, with,

so quanting, so one of the things that DARPA is worried about is the quantum communication.

So it's not just quantum computing.

What's quantum communication?

So this is the whole quantum logic has to do with spin and electrons and flipping spin and and the the

you know kind of the uncertainty principle and

Schrodinger's cat right

right it's all it's all around

this odd phenomena where you have aligned electrons spin at two different locations and then this one can change and you have action at a distance

or this one can change okay so what that means you can change I could be here you could be in New York, right?

And you could, I mean, theoretically.

More importantly, the satellite can be up there, okay?

And the information can be spun, right?

The bits, really, which are encoded as these quantum events,

can change and suddenly at a distance in a way that cannot be blocked.

Okay, that's the thing, is you can't interfere with quantum communication.

It tunnels right through anything.

And that for sure is being developed by People's Republic.

And we're, of course, we're running as fast as we can to do that too.

Give me a practical use.

Military communications, for sure.

This means unjammable

encoded information that can be simultaneously broadcast anywhere.

And you can't stop it.

So

with that kind of communication capability, as that gets developed, that has to do with everything right in a in an environment in which warfare is about drones and robots that's all about signal management and and

the ability to

restrict the you know to restrict the battlefield landscape means to restrict the communications landscape in the modern battlefield environment, right?

And so that's the quantum communication has got

all of us a a little bit spooked, and they're all over it.

Okay, so let's, because I got a bunch of questions, let's see if we can go rapid fire as much as we can.

That's probably one of the bigger questions that we saw over and over and over again.

Vaccine shredding.

What is it?

Conspiracy?

Shredding.

Oh, shedding.

Shedding.

Yeah, conspiracy theory or reality.

You love to tell stories.

I'm sorry, Ken, they're deeper.

That's all right.

I got called from the UK by a group of men, young men, once, about having sexual intercourse with women that had been vaccinated, and they were worried about the shedding story.

And back then, I was like, guys, you've got a bigger problem than to worry about this.

Okay?

And you're in the spectrum of things to worry about.

And then...

What is it?

So the logic is the concern is that the spike antigen can be transmitted through body fluids or through aerosols

to third parties.

So you had this observation of women with their menstrual periods where they seem to be being altered when some of them have received vaccination in a group.

The synchronization of menstruation in women is a fascinating thing, and it absolutely happens.

But

so

I was of the opinion that this was not likely to be clinically significant.

And

the logic was that some of this could be aerosolized by exosomes, which are absolutely secreted in your lung.

And so that was what people were talking about.

There are these really odd observations of breastfeeding babies in adverse events.

And so I thought all of this was just noise.

And then this cell paper came out showing this high level of spike protein expression.

And now I've had to revise my position.

so where I'm at right now is that it is technically possible and in a variety of body body fluids and we don't need to go down that list

on a G-rated show right I think we got it

but

the studies must be done now that's my opinion and and they are are technically possible to be done and it's on the on this long list of stuff that ought to be being done and isn't what is your thought on pediatric vaccines?

Oh, well, that's been a bedrock position of mine all the way along, which is no.

The risk-benefit ratio is completely upside down, particularly for mandated.

There is the possible exception of those children that are at very high risk for death.

And they're basically, as my friend Hatfield put it rather bluntly the other day,

these are kids that are going to die anyhow.

So, you know, advanced cancers, advanced cystic fibrosis, things like that.

So

for healthy children, there is no justification for these genetic vaccines.

And

the logs on that fire are getting more and more, and it's going higher and higher.

What does that mean?

It's becoming

the data supporting that position are becoming stronger almost by the day, is what I'm trying to say with that metaphor.

And

I am completely comfortable unequivocally saying no jabs for kids.

The myocarditis

at least up to 18, and it's really extends, the myocarditis extends up to young adults.

They are not at significant risk for this virus.

And with Omicron, that makes it even more the case.

And I serve as the, so I'm not, this isn't a punch, but I serve as the chief medical officer and regulatory officer for the Unity Project, which is exclusively focused on stopping the mandates coming out of Gavin Newsom's California and now all across the country and the world.

That is a core position.

Why didn't we

look at

natural immunity?

Why was that never?

So the problem with that, the way you phrase that question, is I said it again and again.

I can't get into Tony Fauci's head and I don't want to try.

Yeah.

Or Rochelle Walinski's.

So the why questions of the bizarre decisions that our government has made.

Okay, so then let me flip it.

Tell me the facts on

over 140 public studies that demonstrate that natural immunity is far superior to the vaccine-induced immunity and it makes total sense as a vaccinologist and an immunologist because you're provoking an immune response against all of the proteins virtually of the virus as opposed to just the spike protein.

That means that you're much less likely to allow the virus to evolve, to escape that surveillance.

And,

you know, to pat myself on the back,

I really stuck my neck out on Laura Ingram right before Christmas, and I said, Omicron looks like it's going to be a vaccine for all of us and now we've got Dr.

William Gates

MD PhD

saying sadly

the Omicron is acting as a vaccine

and just as predicted and it is let us hope

that we're not going to have further escape mutant evolve And

people are worried about an Omicron Plus popping up that may be be circulating in Asia.

It doesn't usually go that way, does it?

It usually gets weaker.

So that's the

With natural immunity, the virus, a virus that is crossed over into a new species tends to evolve to becoming less pathogenic.

And there's fundamental evolutionary biology behind that.

Gert von den Bosch's point is

that

there is this veterinary example of Merrick's disease, which is a cancer in chickens that's virus-caused, that vaccination can drive the development of more pathogenic, more infectious virus.

And so it is, in the world of vaccinology, it's one of those things that we worry about.

It could happen.

And

Gert makes the point that,

and I think there's merit, that

the JAB, you know, this spike,

mismatched spike vaccine, because it's designed for the original Wuhan strain, not for what's circulating now, right?

It's like using an old influenza vaccine.

Yet I just heard the president just the other day talk about you got to get, and I, and I looked at my wife and I said, why would you do that?

That was engineered for another.

All I can say about Mr.

Biden,

you know,

let's say gently, he's not a biologist.

And he's, he, by the way, Francis Collins, remember Francis left the NIH?

He was appointed to be the president's advisor, just like Tony is.

So Tony and Francis Collins are still driving the bus.

And you know how it is with the presidency.

You're in there and you're in a bubble and you don't know what's really going on in the world.

You only know what people tell you is going on in the world.

So

that's my only explanation for the

misinformation and disinformation disinformation that I believe is coming out of the White House.

Maybe a little malinformation once in a while.

You say a third of the population is being hypnotized.

Do you want to explain that?

So that's Matias Desmet's mass formation hypothesis, and I'd love to go into that.

So I spent a week with Matias in Andalusia, Spain, and that documentary is about to come out.

He is a brilliant academic, full stop.

He's moved on and he's working with a mathematician to build detailed mathematical models that look at the mass formation process.

And you'll recall that there was when I

forgive the joke.

So I said these three words on Rogan and Silicon Valley lost bladder control universally all at the same time, right?

It was fascinating to watch how triggered they were, right?

Because they're doing it.

Exactly.

Okay.

And then the tell was that the press then cited AP and others,

they cited these often assistant professors or associate professors, in other words, junior academics.

Matthias is a full professor, saying, oh, no, no, this is not a legitimate academic, you know, these are not the droids you're looking for.

Right.

And the one that was quoted by the Associated Press has actually lectured on and written papers on nudging.

Right?

Which Sunstein.

Yeah.

I mean, it's crazy.

This has been happening forever.

It was really kind of institutionalized with, what was his name, Bernays,

back around the Woodrow Wilson time, coming up with advertising, which he called at the time propaganda.

And we've been doing behavioral science ever since.

Now we just have all the data and the systems to do it.

Yeah, and mass and big data now.

Yeah, yeah, that's what I mean.

So dead on, so

this is Matthias, so this book,

The Psychological Basis of Totalitarianism,

is the volume, and it's now on pre-print,

you could pre-purchase on Amazon.

It's written in Dutch, and it's now being translated into English.

So Matthias's insight that builds on

Hanna Arndt and Le Bon

and basically the truth.

And we put out a sub stack about this, about Le Bon and Goebbels.

And, you know, Goebbels was a master of this.

Oh, yeah.

And

I'm seeing his kind of

work everywhere.

Yeah.

Everywhere.

I mean,

we pulled up for our sub stack, we pulled up

academic work on examining the propaganda techniques of Hitler and listed those.

And, you know, we don't have to go, is this, I'm not telling, I'm not saying that everybody's a Nazi.

No.

Everybody says I'm a Nazi.

Yeah, I know strange isn't it

but welcome to the club we call it projection

so but in any case

Matias's thesis is that

about a third of the population

typically when these events happen and they've happened repeatedly over history that they've been accelerating in frequency and depth

with the advent of mass media.

He believes firmly that what we're observing is a consequence of mass media and information and messaging control.

I agree.

And

we're seeing it with Ukraine.

You cannot get another side.

And it's strange.

People you thought were reasonable all of a sudden are staking out places where there is no nuance and we've got to do it this way.

Sean Hannity just went overboard, right?

Yeah.

And

yeah, so Tucker got caught by being on the wrong side of the official narrative.

And then

recently he had to basically

put out a broadcast in which he basically had to walk that back

or lose his career.

And

fascinating.

Matthias' thesis is that about a third of the population tends to fall into this

hypnosis event.

He prefers using hypnosis rather than psychosis.

And

one of the core things that matters to folks like you and me

is that he believes that the only thing that will keep the society from falling even deeper into this mass formation phenomena is for those dissidents that exist, which is maybe another third, maybe it's 20% of the population that seem to be resistant to the hypnosis.

We have a moral obligation to calmly,

non-violently continue to offer truth.

But what is it going to take to do

wake-up?

Right.

So you're right.

That is wake-up is what happens, apparently.

And I've seen it happen as things get worse.

Some people are getting more entrenched, but others are like, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.

Okay.

So this gets to the like 40% that's in the middle that it's kind of wishy-washy.

They haven't really been paying attention.

They got to, you know, take care of their family and they just go along.

I think a great example of

dissidents

helping

alert.

that middle block to underlying truths is the Canadian truckers.

I think the most important thing the Canadian truckers did with their self-sacrifice and, you know, they sacrificed their rigs.

Truly.

Those are not cheap toys.

No.

Was they caused this middle block, at least in Canada, to say, oh, there's something going on here that I didn't know about, and I need to pay attention to it and learn about it.

But it requires Martin Luther King kind of action.

If there would have been any violence, if they weren't good, kind people, it would have worked the opposite way.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, and they tried to provoke it.

I did, I know.

That's what the fear is right now as the truckers are hurtling towards the GC metro area is we've ⁇ so I got a call the other day from secondhand from someone deep in State Department saying they're anticipating locking up, they have capacity now with the National Guard coming in to lock up 50,000 people, and they are actively planning provocateur and false flag operations.

Whether that's true or not,

there is a long history of that kind of activity, and

that

plays into media themes.

And I hope that this is why I've been pushing this on Getter and other channels:

don't go into DC.

Don't be a fool.

Yes, like they said on Star Wars, it's a trap.

Yes.

And don't go there.

Right.

You know, and the truckers aren't going to go into D.C., I guarantee you that.

And

I hope not.

Well, that's I think some, I think some are, but I, I, I hear the same stories, and that gets to

false flag and embedded.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's complicated.

Yeah.

One last question.

Um

are the

is the medical and science community

are they

afraid,

hypnotized, bought off?

Bought off.

Is it a collection of all of them?

I think

people, you just said it, okay?

And that's, people have this tendency to be binary in their thinking.

It's either this or that.

Okay.

And they rarely say, oh, it could be all of the above.

Yeah.

And

what has, what I can say for sh, you you know, I'm not ⁇ like, once again, I can't get into everybody's head.

What's happened is really twisted.

It's destroyed health care.

We've destroyed, you know, I was worried that we would destroy public confidence in the public health system and the vaccine enterprise.

Oh, my God.

We way past that.

Oh, the next.

Let's just say Ebola, you know, rears its ugly head in Cincinnati.

You will want to see the actual blood coming out of their eyes before you believe the people people in

the West African outbreak that they've repurposed.

Exactly right.

There's no credibility left.

Yeah.

So, so, and

clearly these perverse financial incentives have driven the hospital systems throughout the United States to do stuff that is going to has destroyed people's faith in hospitals.

So bad.

They've destroyed

the faith in academic medicine is shot.

The faith in health and human services.

Here's just to illustrate this point a little bit.

I was in Portugal

for horse shows, because that's what we do.

We breed this Portuguese horse, but I got picked up by the intellectual community or kind of the

contrary, intellectual community of Lisbon.

and brought to a couple meetings while I was there.

I ended up hardly going to the horse show.

And this is a bunch of Portuguese thought leaders, judges, journalists, academics, et cetera.

And one of them, we did a roundtable Q ⁇ A with a journalist

and had translator in my ear.

And this older mother sitting in the front row talks to me and she says, we have all believed, we speaking as Portuguese and Europeans, have always believed that the U.S., FDA, and CDC

were the world leaders and the arbiters of truth.

And, you know, this was the group with integrity.

And we've now come to learn that they are deeply corrupt.

And that was the first time I had heard that used, that term, and it hit me like a brick.

And yet,

what other term do we have now?

The drop of the New York Times about the CDC?

I mean, it's corruption, okay?

And what does that mean?

Okay, we have two major economic adversaries that want to own the pharmaceutical business, which is insanely productive and lucrative.

They're China and India.

And we have now, through our actions, talk about blowback.

We've destroyed the legitimacy of the American pharmaceutical industry worldwide and its integrity and the view that our government were neutral arbiters of truth in this.

And we've just like taken our,

I can't see how this isn't going to happen.

We've basically given our pharmaceutical industry and our vaccines enterprise to India and China.

Good heavens.

The economic impact of this stupidness is profound.

The ability to remain a nation

is profound.

Well, that's the deep thing that we're into right now is we're doing a deep dive of necessity.

I mean, I've had to become a journalist, which is like weird.

Yeah, I know it's weird.

And we're diving deep into, you know, using the Wayback Machine.

We've got European collaborators documenting all these young leaders and young influencers out of the World Economic Forum and where are they, you know, and all the offices they've been put in.

And Klaus says it.

Yeah.

He says he's proud, Justin Trudeau, and we've got people knee-deep in

Gavin Newsom

infiltrates.

Yeah.

And when you look across the spectrum of the folks that have been most authoritarian in implementing these mandates and everything else,

every single one of them seems to be WEF.

And so

this is, you know, another, so I've come out now and said, number one,

what was done by the CDC withholding epidemiologic data and pushing out this information and acting as a propaganda arm, basically, a political arm of the White House, that is scientific fraud.

It meets the criteria of scientific fraud.

If I did that, that, I would lose an academic position.

I would be barred from ever getting a grant.

My papers would have to be pulled.

It meets the criteria of academic fraud.

Okay.

Another big statement, we are becoming a client state of the World Economic Forum.

And as are most of the other Western democracies.

They are acting like client states.

We have been infiltrated.

And as you point out, Klaus is very proud of it.

Very proud.

People think this is a conspiracy.

It explains everything.

And it is outdocumented, out in the open.

So for me, for my journey over the last two years, which has just been like, okay, the world is upside down.

I bet it is.

But

I have to follow the data.

And there are these big why and big how questions

that

I have been wrestling with ever Eversett Sprett pointed about on the Dark Horse podcast.

And it's been a gradual rolling reveal.

And people early on came to me and said, Oh, it was all about the World Economic Forum and the Great Reset.

And I was like, No, that is crazy talk.

That is weird, conspiracy, crazy stuff.

And yet, over time, as I've looked at the information, I've looked at their communication, I've looked at the practices, I've looked at the alignment across Australia, New Zealand, Toronto, you know,

Canada, United States,

macron in France.

It's the behaviors are all consistent with statements that have come out of the WEF.

And

I don't see how

you can,

you know, the data are the data.

Yeah, I know.

And it seems to be the only hypothesis that fits it.

I know.

I know.

It's crazy.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for taking a stand.

Thanks for speaking out.

Thanks for not being...

I shouldn't say this.

Because I bet there's been times that you have, you know, been afraid for your career and everything else.

So I don't want to thank you for not being afraid.

Thank you for pushing past that and having the courage to stand up.

Thanks.

And thank you for your role in it, too.

I mean, you, those...

That series of conversations we had was a turning point for me.

It was crazy.

It was a moment where I was.

Was I kind of like the boogeyman in the past to you?

Like, I would never, like, he's crazy.

So, Glenn Beck, in my old world,

was one notch above Alex Jones.

Wow.

And right in there with Steve Bannon, who's like a best friend for me now, right?

We go on the show all the time.

And

we had that conversation over, was it three broadcasts or something?

And

and you and you said at the end I've really enjoyed this because we haven't you've kept politics out of it and and for some reason that triggered an awareness of our common

ground that's what every

that's what people all over the world are looking for That's what they're saying to the elites.

You're making everything about politics.

You're telling us that we're the problem.

You guys have been running the joint.

We're the problem.

We're the racists.

We're this.

We're that.

It's all coming from you.

Just leave us alone.

Just leave us alone.

Let us live our lives.

Yeah.

I mean, I have faith that our pharmaceutical companies and our research labs can come up with all kinds of things.

But

when you are saying, and you all, your doctor that you trusted, your hospital, even the experts who we've been holding up for a long time, if they're not saying what we're saying, shut up and sit down.

No, it's not going to work.

It's just not going to work.

No, but how do we get from here to there?

And that's increasingly what I'm focused on:

how do we rebuild?

You know, what is the public policy implications?

So,

my mother was a drug addict, alcoholic.

She committed suicide when I was a teenager.

And I'm an alcoholic recovering.

That's brave.

And

So you and Bobby Kennedy have a

common.

So

the thing

is some people's bottom is death.

They just never reach their bottom.

Thank God I wasn't one of them.

I wonder if the United States of America and the Western world is...

if our bottom is too low to be able to recover.

I hope not.

But

you can't shake an alcoholic awake.

You can't preach to them they have to decide they have to feel the pain i believe in

so so here's i thanks for giving me an opportunity to close on a positive note yeah

um

so i we spent this week in andalusia shooting this uh documentary spain and what i came away from that with was the

you know people said to me directly We believe in America.

We believe in the American experiment.

We need America to lead.

The world still believes in us.

There is an American exceptionalism.

That's not just jingoism.

There is this constitution thing that these guys that lived around where my farm is right now and

were involved in

being tied to the real world.

There's this whole discussion thread that what we really have is the tension between the laptop class and the people that live in the real world.

And I believe firmly that the people that live in the real world

can save us, including pissed off moms and African Americans.

It will be, though.

It will not come from an elite.

The solution will not come from a country.

It is going to come from the populace.

And

it's going to be.

We lost our unum.

And our unum, you know, e pluribus unum, our unum is the Bill of Rights.

And you want to talk about any issue that's happening today?

I can trace it right back to the violation of the Bill of Rights.

We,

I think, most of us still agree on the Bill of Rights.

If we can just.

Maybe not most of California.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I mean, there are those pockets that don't anymore, but that makes them the radical, not me.

Yeah.

That makes you wanting to change things, not me.

I agree.

So, thank you, Doc.

Yeah, my pleasure.

Appreciate it.

Just a reminder: I'd love you to rate and subscribe to the podcast and pass this on to a friend so it can be discovered by other people.

At Montera Credit Union, we're committed to empowering our members to reach their goals.

Starting with a very powerful offer, get a $150 cash bonus just for opening a premium checking account with no monthly maintenance while earning up to 3.50% APY.

It's a checking account that truly rewards.

Open an account daily at montera.org/slash checking150 and start banking with a credit union that's invested in you.

Montera Credit Union, federally insured by NCUA, equal opportunity lender.

conditions and restrictions may apply.