Best of the Program | Guests: Mark Brnovich & Dr. Robert Malone | 3/10/22

Hattoday presents in the red corner the undisputed, undefeated weed whacker guy,

champion of hurling grass and pollen everywhere.

And in the blue corner, the challenger, extra strength, Pattiday,

eye drops that work all day to prevent the release of histamines that cause itchy, allergy eyes.

And the winner by knockout is Pattiday.

Pattiday, bring it on.

Hey, great podcast for today.

Oh, Thursday.

Today on the show, my gosh, we talked about all the important things like Ukraine and

inflation.

And of course, who could forget

COVID?

And we have a very special guest or two, Mr.

Pickles.

All on today's podcast.

Man, you don't want to miss it.

I think we can run that every day.

You got to just feel it in like it.

You're listening to

the best of the Blenbeck program.

Let me go to Mark Bernovich.

He is the Arizona Attorney General.

He wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago.

ESG may be an antitrust violation.

I love this approach.

Welcome to the program, Mark.

Thank you, Glenn.

Thanks for having me on.

Thanks for all that you do.

Okay, so tell me how

you view ESG and what it means to the people of Arizona and the people of the world.

The people of the world, the people especially in this country, ESG, and I'm sure your listeners know,

stands for the Environmental, Social, and Governance Movement.

And basically, these are far-left, progressive, woke liberals that want to control your life and your livelihood.

And what they have been doing is they essentially have been organizing or, you know, the Wall Street banks and money managers, you know, people like Climate Action, 100 Plus, have more than 65 million trillion, two trillion with a T in assets.

And what they do is they put pressure on companies, pressures on banks to be very woke and very progressive.

And we've seen this manifest itself most recently in the energy sector because they want to be green, they want to be socialist.

So banks now and financial institutions are being pressured not to invest or not to provide any sort of funding for oil, gas, things that essentially make this energy independent.

And I think especially, Glenn, in light of the events that we've seen in the last couple of weeks, that even though these climate activists, the pointy-headed liberals, think they know the best, literally we see what's going on in the world, and it proves more than ever that the United States and our security depends on being energy independent and not woke.

And

it is, would you agree, it is going to trickle down to the average individual.

I mean, I won't be able to buy perhaps the car I want because my ESG score will be too low.

I can guarantee it will be.

Yeah, and this really, this is the woke neo-Marxist.

and we see part of this going on in China with the social scores on an individual basis.

But this impact that it's going to have on every single person listening, because what happens with the ESG movement, it's being pushed.

It's the far left, it's the fossil fuel haters, and they're literally using your 401k, your investment funds, you know, if you have any sort of retirement plan, and they're using that basically to drive their woke agenda.

And so everything from the price of energy, obviously, you know, when we're not drilling in ANWAR or we're not doing permits,

the oil companies or gas companies, coal companies can't get financing, that means higher energy costs.

And higher energy costs, as we all know, ends up being that we pay more for our groceries, we pay more for our milk.

And we know, and I know, that this isn't going to stop in the energy industry.

We're already seeing this with things like the firearms industries.

We're going to see it with religious liberties.

And so ultimately, this is the far left, that neo-Marxist goal of,

ironically, for the Marxists, they're going to control the financial institutions and the woke money managers, and they're going to use that, as Lennon said, the proverbial using our own rope to hang us with.

Okay, so why do you say this is an antitrust violation?

Well, I think, you know, once again,

I've been a tried and true principled conservative my entire life here in Arizona, and I think that very often the left comes up and is consistent in pushing their agenda, And our folks, us on the right, need to think sometimes a little outside of the box.

And so we know this is wrong, what they're doing.

We know that folks have identified this problem and issue.

And so now the issue, Glenn, is, well, what do we do about it?

And so I have certain tools in my toolbox as the Attorney General.

And I said, well, wait a minute.

Antitrust law said that you can have agreements between competitors to artificially restrict competition.

Are there third-party agreements that restrain

or result in collusion that harm consumers?

And so we have begun an investigation.

I'm not saying I'm for sure where it's going, but I do think that if your 401k or your pension plan or your retirement savings are being used to facilitate a political agenda by big banks and big money managers,

that very well could be a form of collusion that's harming consumers.

Well, I just think this is genius, quite honestly.

And I can't imagine you can't find it.

My book is is full of footnotes on all of the things they're doing.

And you can, I mean, the agreements that the banks have signed have said, we're getting out of

this kind of business.

We're no longer going to make

loans to these kinds of businesses.

Our standards on social justice are this.

And it is happening.

I mean,

it's like the mob, just a very buttoned-up mob, when

they just call each other and say, boy, you're really putting yourself at reputational risk, which means you're going to be put out of business if you don't get on this side.

Glenn, you hit the nail on the head, as always, and you're absolutely right.

And the key to this, from a legal perspective, from my perspective, we know that it's out there is that, well,

are there third-party agreements, either formal or informal, that are restraining competition?

And are they essentially inviting each other to collude to advance their far-left agenda?

And you know that incremental-wise, the left is very organized, and there's an assault on our rights.

And I know you talk about this with what's going on with critical race theory and the 1619 project and how they're trying to get young kids to hate in our country.

I know I've sued the universities over everything from giving tuition to people that don't have legal status to what they're doing with their sweetheart real estate deals.

And so we, we, people like you, people like me, need to help make sure our kids understand that what's going on is crony capitalism and you're getting these neo-Marxist socialist companies that are feeding the alligator and hoping that they eat them last.

And we all know, you know, your listeners know that every revolution will eventually eat itself because the left, these banks, these money managers playing footsies with the far left, they will never be far left enough for them.

There's always going to be something else we'll need to do.

And eventually they'll destroy this country.

And they're already on that path.

That's what I'm fighting.

So

when will you have an answer?

And what does this path, if it does come back, your research does come back and say, yeah, I think I can prove this.

What does that mean?

Well, hopefully we've actually started the process.

And a lot of it, quite frankly, is confidential by statute.

And no prosecutor with their salt is ever going to say what they're going to do before they get all the facts.

But I assure you that we take this seriously.

And we've already started to get some materials.

We're reviewing it, and that probably will lead to more subpoenas and more discussions.

And I'm sure they're going to probably object to some stuff, and then we'll probably end up in court somewhere fighting over what we can get or not get.

And, you know, we're hoping this moves quickly.

But, you know, unfortunately, the left has a phalanx of lawyers and lobbyists.

And, you know, they try to make it, you know, miserable for us.

And, you know, they've got the media on their side and everything else.

And so they kind of play for time sometimes.

So we're going to do everything we can, Glenn, to move quickly on this and get the other information.

And, you know, like I said, a lot of it's legally and ethically.

We can't.

Yeah, yeah, I understand that.

So, Mark, I appreciate when I saw your op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, I thought this is

a great angle to attack from.

We've got to hit them on all fronts, quite honestly.

And I think this one has a really good chance of

making a huge difference.

But I will tell you: do not dismiss the pushback from the right.

There are a lot of these rhino Republicans and honestly, a lot of

capitalists who think, I can't tell the free market what to do.

These are companies and they choose to do it.

This isn't the free market.

This is not the free market.

By design, this is to usher in a

stakeholder from shareholder capitalism to stakeholder capitalism.

So

be very wary of the Republicans as well.

They have been holding things up in some states as well.

Absolutely.

And I understand that.

And that's why I made that reference to crony capitalism.

And unfortunately, I think that a lot of times people see what's going on with the sweetheart real estate insider deals and what's going on public universities.

And so

we don't, unfortunately, have that free market.

You do have certain elites.

And like I said, we're seeing this with the the money managers and the bankers that actually have a lot of influence and kind of pick and choose, you know, who gets to run for what office and all this other stuff.

And look, look, Glenn, I am a public school kid.

I'm a first-generation American.

My family fled communism.

You know, I am playing with house money, living in the greatest country in the world.

So I don't back down from the fight.

And it's slow and steady wins the race.

And I'm going to keep fighting.

Well, thank you very much, Mark.

I appreciate it.

Mark

Bernovich, he is the Attorney General from Arizona.

Please keep us up to speed.

We'll follow that story for you.

By the way, one more story, kind of on along these lines.

Facebook's parent company, Meta, has announced a new tool that will automatically delete posts containing misinformation before they are published.

Now, I'd like to know what that misinformation is.

Is it like a week ago

there are no weapons of mass destruction, no bio labs, etc., etc.

to

this week.

Yeah, it kind of looks like we are involved.

Is it that kind of misinformation that changes all the time?

Incoming posts, according to Facebook, incoming posts that contain content related, rated by a third-party fact-checker, uh-huh, as false are declined before they are even seen in the group.

The suspension ability is an upgrade from Facebook's mute function, which can permanently prevent users from commenting on a page.

Now, pages can temporarily suspend users for a set period of time.

Communities can only thrive as places to connect when they are safe.

These new tools will help administrators prevent the spread of misinformation and manage interactions in their group.

The other updates include the ability to suspend page members and automatically decline member requests from users via the admin assist page.

So they're working for you.

And I'm sure this is going to work, you know, for conservatives.

Well, they love us so much.

They might even work better for us than it does for those who support all the leftist causes.

That's why this always works for us.

Anytime.

There's this type of stuff going on.

It always affects us in such a positive way.

It does.

I can't think of any reason to stop them.

This is the best of the Glenbeck program.

I am surrounded by a new family of people who have their life back because of Relief Factor.

I'm one of them.

I was

in pain and got to the point to where I just I couldn't do it anymore.

Anybody else feel like, you know, I just I can't get up another day?

We have our life back because of Relief Factor.

It's not a television commercial.

It's a group of real people with real results that had real pain.

Try it yourself.

Relief Factor.

This guy when he started, completely bald.

Look at him now.

Doesn't do anything for your hair.

But it will help you.

Get out of pain.

Give it a shot.

Try the three-week quick start.

Doesn't work?

Move on.

But we're here to tell you, it works.

ReliefFactor.com.

Dr.

Robert Malone, who is my guest on the podcast, the Glenn Beck podcast, that is available tonight for Blaze TV subscribers and will be available on Saturday

for everybody who listens to the podcast wherever you get your podcast.

Dr.

Robert Malone, welcome to the program.

How are you, sir?

Hi, Glenn.

Glad to hear from you again and to be on the show.

Yeah, I really enjoyed our conversation the other day, and it was really wide-ranging.

We focused mainly on COVID and things like that,

but we did get into a little bit of bioweapons that are coming.

One thing we didn't talk about are the biological research facilities in Ukraine.

Can we spend some time on these bio-research facilities?

Yeah, of course, I haven't visited them.

I don't know exactly what's in there.

That's largely hidden.

But now we know that it's not just a conspiracy theory like PolitiFact has promoted, that

QAnon is just a bunch of crazies and there's no merit to this.

We now know that, in fact, these things existed and that we were funding them, and we have our fingers all over it.

And they are producing something that's sufficiently threatening that the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Victoria Newland,

is raising concerns that the Russians might release that which were developed there, apparently with U.S.

involvement in some way.

Okay.

Aren't you involved in some way with the Defense Department on trying to

neutralize or and there's something something I can't remember from our interview if there was something that you were doing

with Defense Department or USAI

something

I'm still yeah no I've never worked for USAID

just to be clear on that okay and of course the reason that you're mentioning USAID is that in the past it's been a front for let's say gently intelligence community activities that's right worldwide that's right that's right

so

no I I support and have supported in the past and work closely with Defense Threat Reduction Agency, but always as a subcontractor.

Okay.

And I continue to do so through

one of my subcontracts, but it's for clinical testing of repurposed drugs for treatment of COVID-19 disease.

All right.

Let me play a clip of

Senator Mark Rubio

and Under Secretary of State Victoria Newland.

Listen to this.

Well, I only have a minute left.

Let me ask you.

Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?

Ukraine has

biological research facilities, which, in fact, we are now quite concerned.

That's a different question and a different answer.

Do they have bioweapons?

And the answer, very carefully thought out, was they have biological research facilities.

Tell me what happens, generally speaking, in a biological research facility.

So

what appears to be going on, well,

a biological research facility is the generic term that can apply to virtually any high-level university at any medical school in the United States.

It's like motherhood in apple pie.

That's a phrase that means nothing.

Okay, so we know these are biological weapons

the third level, right?

Level three, biological

research facilities?

Yeah, biologic safety level three, I think, is what you're talking about.

And what happens

in those?

I don't know whether there's any BSL three or BSL four facilities.

I would assume there's at least BSL 3 and I infer it's likely there's BSL 4 facilities.

BSL 3 is a BSL 2 is basically stuff that you can do on your bench in a normal open environment that's, you know, undergraduates might work there.

BSL3

level containment facilities have typically pass-through

ante-rooms.

They have reverse pressure so that

any nasties that happen to be in there aren't likely to be pushed out into the environment.

They have high containment

HEPA filtered hoods that you work within.

And you have trained personnel that

are

sufficiently educated so that they are less likely to cause contamination.

Any material that comes out of there has to be subjected to high heat and steam, which we call autoclaving.

So it's a series of physical, mechanical, and process barriers together with education that allow, at a BSL-3 level, procedures to be done that would involve agents and potential risk.

to the general population.

You can have BSL-3 that's just working in cell culture.

It could be

recombinant molecules and viruses.

And

you can include in BSL3 containment working with various animal species, including non-human primates as well as molecules.

So

is the nasty war stuff kept in one of those?

In a three, level three?

Three is

generally it would be four

for the nasty agents that are potentially lethal or

being weaponized for some reason would be a BSL-4.

Three is high containment research and development, but typically it's smaller scale.

And was Wuhan, that was a level two, wasn't it?

I'm sure they had level two there, but it's at least level three for a lot of that.

Any of these laboratory complexes will have a combination of level two, level three, and in some cases, level four.

Okay.

So can you tell me, because I think some of these scientists, I mean, look, I have no problem with scientists at all.

Science is fantastic.

It gave us the life that we all live today.

But sometimes we should just say no.

And I know we had this discussion on the podcast of, you know, well, yeah, but the other guy's going to do it.

And China is doing these nasty things.

But I always thought we were on the good side.

And I have a feeling that we're doing biological stuff and genetic stuff

that isn't quite so good.

And it also disturbs me that we seem to be messing around in biological labs all over the world.

And maybe for the wrong reasons.

Do I have that right?

So the reason that I'm worried about this, and as you know, I sent you a copy.

We put out a sub stack yesterday about this,

is that

it appears that there's a pattern of outsourcing our higher-risk research and development to client states or outside facilities.

We certainly appear to have outsourced the EcoHealth Alliance work, in my opinion, that was involved in engineering the precursor.

to this virus that we've been dealing with for the last two years, SARS-CoV-2.

I'm convinced that that's a laboratory research product.

It's not a natural transfer, interspecies transfer from the animal host.

So now we have, I had no idea.

Apparently, it goes back under Obama.

You remember, Obama said, set the policy that we weren't supposed to be doing gain of function research, but from what I'm reading in the press, I have no direct experience or knowledge, no first-hand knowledge, but it appears that this

policy of supporting

these biologic research laboratories in Ukraine was initiated under Barack Obama, the same person that said we're not going to be doing gain of function research

apparently in the United States.

I mean, I think at some point we're going to have to get to the bottom of what the authorization chain has been, and it's probably classified fairly highly.

But

I'm increasingly suspecting that

the

public face that we were not going to be performing gain of function research was just that, and it was a public statement that was inconsistent with policies and behaviors.

I think there's a reasonable chance that Dr.

Fauci and the Ditcher support for EcoHealth Alliance was not

that

that was not the consequence of rogue actors within the government authorizing that, but that it probably reflected some policy position that involved the intelligence community.

I have to tell you, I don't know who to believe.

And I've always known, when it comes to defense and things like that, there are things that we do that don't have to become public as long as there's oversight.

I'm not convinced there's sufficient oversight on any of this stuff.

I think our senators and congressmen that do have oversight, I think they're being lied to at times as well.

Do you have any confidence that

we're being told the truth?

And where do you draw that line

in a free culture that has a right to know,

at least the representatives do, and

what needs to be held in secret?

I'm not quite sure how to answer that.

Do I have confidence that we're being told truthful information about

biologic weapon research or let's call it dual function research?

Yeah.

Because

that's the politically acceptable term for we're doing stuff that could be used for weaponization, but ostensibly we're doing it for

protection or for the purpose of identifying ways that the bad guys could make bad things.

And so we're making those bad things

so that we know how the bad guys could make the bad things.

It's a very convoluted logic.

For those of you old enough, and you may or may, I think you might be Glenn, and you might remember Mad Magazine, which is why I put that clip in my sub stack of the series Spy versus Spy.

I do believe that we're in this spooky world

where it's hard to discern truth.

Truth is absolutely not provided to the general public and

only limited versions of truth are provided to congressional oversight.

I did find it fascinating though the clip that you were just playing goes on and Glenn Grenwald has done a great job dissecting that and dissecting all of the,

quote, fact-checker propaganda that was put out around it.

And he makes the point that Rubio, quickly, if you were to play that clip longer,

interrupts the Under Secretary abruptly and tries to get her to change the topic as he's beginning to realize that she's spilling the beans.

So this implies that Mr.

Rubio had awareness of the situation and

did not anticipate that the Undersecretary would be honest in her sworn testimony, let's say.

Jr.: So, when the president says

we're worried that maybe Russia might release some of these biological weapons,

what would they release?

And what would be in these labs that would be an effective weapon that wouldn't just

destroy Russia as well?

That's a good question.

So,

the statements coming out of Jensaki,

by reference to Biden,

regarding the risk of Russia releasing bioweapons produced in Ukrainian labs that we have helped fund and train.

That's

unpacking that.

That's what that statement reveals is there's an awareness apparently.

It implies there's an awareness that within these labs that we've been involved with enabling in various ways, there are pathogenic agents that could be potentially released.

Now, that would imply that they're highly infectious.

There's kind of two core strategies with biologic weapons.

Those that are infectious and can spread readily, so you can have a small focus of release.

And, you know, if SARS-CoV-2 is a bioweapon, that would be a great example of that.

And then there's the bioweapons like anthrax spores or ricin toxin or

the binary weapon that I think you and I discussed the other day, but I haven't disclosed what

I have something.

I have something on that bioweapon, that binary bioweapon

that Russia, the Soviet Union was

apparently developing.

We're working on them too.

Yeah, so those are things that these

toxin preparations of various types,

those are things that have to be manufactured at scale and then they're deployed and they don't replicate in humans and spread.

So there's kind of those two categories.

That's what I wanted to say.

And

the statement implies that there's awareness of the infectious type that exists within these laboratories.

That's how I would pull that apart.

Back with Dr.

Robert Malone.

He's one of the guys that worked on the Ebola vaccine when Ebola came here and got that actually approved and on the right track.

You're listening to the best of the Glendeck program.

The Senate Intel Committee is having a hearing right now on Capitol Hill and

Senator Cotton just said, you know, what was up with the canceling of those planes to Poland?

Yeah, that seems really weird.

Something happened there.

I don't know what it is.

But, you know, I don't know where to get the truth on any of this.

I don't believe our government.

I want to, but I don't.

I don't believe the Russians.

You know,

this is the time when things, when the chips are down, you need someone to tell you, here, we have, to the best of of our ability looked at all sides, and we think this is what's coming on.

These people say this, these people say that, you decide.

But that's journalism, and that's long dead.

This thing with the weapons lab.

Well,

let me go to a guy who actually knows.

Let me give you his resume quickly.

Robert Malone,

U.S.-based physician scientist who operates a consultant practice specializing in advanced development of medical countermeasures for infectious diseases, vaccines, and drugs.

He has served as an assistant and associate professor of pathology and surgery at UC Davis, University of Maryland, and the Armed Forces University of Health Sciences.

Core competencies include clinical development, regulatory affairs, project management, contract development.

His medical degree is from Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine.

He completed his HMS, GCS art, whatever that is,

and scientifically trained at UC Davis.

He then was at the Salk Institute of Molecular Biology and Virology.

In the laboratories, he is internationally recognized as

the kind of the guy who was behind the MRA vaccine.

He's the original inventor.

Also, the DNA vaccination and multiple nonviral DNA and RNA and mRNA delivery technologies.

Yada, yada, yada, yada.

12,000 citations of his peer-reviewed publications and 100 peer-reviewed publications.

So, I mean,

the guy's a big player.

And

we have a podcast that I did last week with him on COVID.

And it's a fascinating conversation.

But the one thing we didn't get into, because last week it was a QAnon conspiracy theory.

And honestly, I never touched it because I thought, I don't know.

And I, you know, I'm going to go with, I'm going to go with the government on this.

Well, now we find out we know about those biological laboratories.

And

most likely we are involved in some way or another.

So we just asked Dr.

Malone what could be there.

Anthrax, ricin, I mean, that kind of stuff hasn't been used since World War I.

And that doesn't sound like the kind of stuff that

we would use or they would use.

What are you afraid of that might be there that is more of

a COVID-19 kind of thing, except with real teeth?

So, obviously, a lot of us are worried about hemorrhagic fever viruses.

Marlburg and Ebola are two examples.

Those are so hot, they're so lethal, that letting those things loose on a population is a a bit suicidal because you can't know how you're going to control it.

And there's a, you know, at this point, I think all bets are off about what could be sitting in those environments.

I know the things that people have been working on and what has been the focus of the USDOD, many of those relate to what we would call incapacitating agents, things that make you so sick that you can't fight.

But what might be unleashed on a population,

there's a wealth of potential opportunities.

And of course, now we're in a new era where we have to.

I can tell you that there's a lot of discussion about weaponizing pathogens so that they're specific for different ethnic groups based on their genetic background.

And that's being done by China with CRISPR, right?

With or without CRISPR,

that is speculated to to be a focus of Chinese research.

But in this environment,

the way that this works is if we believe the Chinese are doing it, then we're going to want to do it to see how viable it is.

Like I said, this is spy versus spy.

I don't think there's any black or white hats here.

I think there's a whole lot of gray.

And just because we're saying those bad guys over there are doing it doesn't mean that we're not doing it.

In many cases, it means that we are likely to be,

let's say, mitigating our risk by assessing the threat.

Can we do a couple of things like stop doing them in unstable countries or bad countries?

Is it possible that we could do that?

Well, if you go to a, quote, good country, tell me which one that is.

I don't know.

Yeah, right.

I mean, but yeah, so this.

Or at least, how about this?

At least a country that we know the refrigeration is going to be kept on for a while and probably not have an overthrow of their system.

Yeah, so what is a country that is stable like that?

Well, is it the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?

Where is there a situation now where we can have complete confidence in political stability and not have to navigate the

statutory requirements not to do this kind of stuff, the treaty requirements.

So I think what is often going on with the intelligence community is that they are

moving into these unstable political environments because it offers opportunity.

And that certainly seems to fit the Ukrainian situation.

So then could we do,

but could we take this step?

Whoever's there, give one of them a phosphorus grenade just as they're getting everyone out the door.

Last one out, pull the pin.

Yeah, I,

the, the, yeah, so this, this, it does appear to be a clown show

to have these facilities in which, you know, ostensibly nobody's doing bioweapons research, but now that they're under Russian hands, we're afraid that they might have been doing bioweapons research.

Why would we even be saying that?

We're either saying it for PR reasons, for more propaganda, along the lines of making Putin a boogeyman, or we know that there's something there.

And that's something we would know that because we've had our fingers in the pie messing around with it.

I just don't know what to say.

We're in an environment where

people

feel that it's okay.

to do high-risk research and development justified on the basis that, well, the other guy's doing it, so we have to do it too.

This is going to be the death of all of us.

I mean, this is so out of control, so sloppy.

You know,

every government, every time there is a, somebody, you know, takes over a city or a country, they always burn the documents and they burn the top secret stuff.

We didn't do that in Afghanistan, and we left them stuff.

This administration has known for weeks, they say they have, that Putin was was going in.

If we knew about these labs, shouldn't we

have some sort of responsibility to go in and destroy those things?

We were alerted that there was going to be war in Ukraine in the second week in January of this year.

I'm talking about me personally.

I think we got into that a little bit on the podcast.

Do we have a responsibility to go in?

Because I think

that's the cover story of why we went in.

We wanted to make sure everything was safe.

Don't we have a responsibility if we know that and we're there to go in and destroy this stuff?

That term responsibility seems to be

irrelevant here.

We're in an environment in which ethics and norms and what normal people would think is right and wrong are irrelevant.

They're completely irrelevant.

It's an environment of if things can be done, they will be done, because if we don't do it, the other guy will.

That seems to be the logic.

And so the norms that you or I might agree on, the norms that are embodied in the biowarfare treaty,

we seem to be in an environment in which both the Chinese government and the Western governments don't feel constrained by those treaties anymore.

Okay.

Just two last questions.

I've got about 90 seconds here.

Two last questions.

One, are we going to find out that we

that's a double sword there?

I mean, if we don't have any journalists to do it, are we going to find out what are the odds that we are deeply involved in something in Ukraine that the American people,

you know,

should know about.

If you use the metric that

they try to hide and

do this kind of propaganda campaign that we've seen where they're labeling people as extremists or conspiracy theorists as their first limited hangout,

that seems to be an indicator of guilt, frankly, when you see that behavior.

And so if you're asking me to look into the crystal ball and speculate, I would say the probability is fairly high that there has been illicit activity ongoing in Ukraine in those weapon labs and the U.S.

government has in some way been party to it.

So

I have

thought biological weapons and nuclear weapons, I thought the world had learned their lesson that those were insane.

You just don't win.

And biological weapons, especially with something very contagious, that's just insane.

But we live in an insane world.

What do you think?

If you now have technology where those weapons can be targeted based on genetic links which exist in different populations, then

that constraint is removed.

Do you believe we have those

now?

All I know is that people that I know that are in this world have been talking about that scenario now for a number of years.

And in the case of this virus that we're dealing with, SARS-CoV-2, there's good evidence that there are certain gene clusters that are

different between, say,

Western Caucasian groups and

certain Asian ethnic groups that are influencing the pattern of disease associated with SARS-CoV-2.

So, whether or not it was intended, we have kind of a real-world example that seems to make the case that

these differences could be exploited.

And if they can be exploited, they will be exploited.

Let me ask you the impossible $20,000 question, and that is:

how do you think this ends?

Do you see somebody using this?

Any of these?

I think

the honest truth is the probability is reasonably high.

And

that's one reason why we

are in this box where we have to come up with better technologies to mitigate this threat, these types of threats.

There's no question about it.

Well, I honestly think mRNA as that solution

has taken a setback.

A lot of these folks thought that it was that solution.

Well, I just have to tell you,

my feeling is it's not the technology that is posing a problem.

It is the people that are in charge that are posing the problem.

Thank you so much for talking to us.

Dr.

Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology.

You can find him at rwmalonemd.com.

He's been suspended from Twitter, but you can hear his entire podcast with me, different than what we just did, tonight on Blaze TV.

Portions of it will be up on YouTube, but it has been highly edited because of cancellations.

But you can watch all of it on edited on Blaze TV, and you can get it on your podcast this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.

Take the next 30 seconds to invest in yourself with Vanguard.

Breathe in, center your mind, recognize the power you have to direct your financial future.

Feel the freedom that comes with reaching your goals and building a life you love.

Vanguard brings you this meditation because we invest where it matters most.

In you.

Visit vanguard.com/slash investinginyou to learn more.

All investing is subject to risk.