June 18, 2025 • 55 mins
In this episode, Dr. Robert Malone discusses his unique position in the vaccine discourse, the challenges he has faced, and the controversies surrounding mRNA technology. He reflects on the political dynamics of health policy, particularly in the context of populism, and addresses concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines, especially their impact on women's health. The Tudor Dixon Podcast is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network. For more visit TudorDixonPodcast.com
Follow Dr. Robert Malone on X
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon podcast. We have doctor Robert
Malone with us today. He is a physician, a scientist,
a biochemist, and he was just selected to be the
one of the on the CDC Vaccine Advisory Board for
Health and Human Services by Secretary RFK Junior. Welcome to
the program, doctor on Tutor. So, I've actually been wanting
(00:23):
to interview you for a long time because obviously your
story is somewhat unique in the fact that you are
one of the people who was really attacked over the
COVID vaccine and attacked in such a serious way that
people really tried to discredit your entire career. You were
removed from social media. What is it like now to
be in this position where you that has been restored,
(00:46):
your your research, everything has been restored, and you are
now in the position of getting to look at these
vaccines ahead of time.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Well, Tutor, just I think we may have scheduled this
before the ACIP announcement was made. I need to just
give the disclaimer. Number one, I'm not speaking on behalf
of the government in any way. Number two, I'm under
rather strict guidance from HHS to n CDC media management, people,
(01:22):
communications and press. Did not speak about ACIP and what's anticipated.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Okay, say that, okay.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
In terms of my career, I was I'm in the
middle of writing an essay right now for today's substack.
It looks like I'm going to put one out and
Jill's going to put one out today. But my essay
today is focusing on the deeper meaning of miss dis
and malinformation. And I try to avoid going to my
(01:53):
Wikipedia page because it's usually a little pressing.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
I'm in that same situation. Actually, I know what you mean,
but I.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Noticed that there's been yet another major rewrite. They still
cite the New York Times article by Davy Alba in
which she makes a series of assertions that hardly are flattering,
that I've overstated my contributions. And just to recap, Davy
(02:23):
Alba was terminated by the New York Times immediately after.
That article is the last one she wrote, and she
was closely aligned with the CIA. She appears to be
somebody who was working at the New York Times under
government funding and it has very strong operation mockingbird tones.
(02:44):
Joe Gay Stolberg, the main health reporter from the New
York Times who I've known for literally actively distances herself
from that essay and from davy Alba. And when I
mentioned to her, because I run into her all the
time that that article is still being cited, she basically dissembles,
(03:06):
and she doesn't apologize for The New York Times, but
she says that they terminated davy Alba and she doesn't
represent the paper. So but this is still cited all
the time and used, in the case of the media
as a kind of an ongoing attempt to delegitimize me.
(03:29):
So it's not over the Since the nomination, there's been
a huge surge of efforts once again to delegitimize me
into question and to label me as a spreader of
misinformation and to nitpick the literally over fourteen hundred essays
(03:54):
I've written on substack and the hundreds and hundreds of
podcasts that I've given, going over those and trying to
find some little knit that they can weaponize. The one
in Wikipedia that the press is grabbing is that long ago,
before I was banned from Twitter, I reposted a video
(04:16):
montage of athletes suddenly having art attacks or dying on
the field, and I just unthinkingly just reposted this because
at the time there was a lot of denialism about
the myocarditis and the effects of the myocarditis, and a
(04:38):
lot of disinformation coming from the government about that, as
you'll call CDC and MS. And unfortunately, one of the
clips in that reel, which I did not err and
I didn't take the time to get pick every single
clip on the reel to make sure that it was real,
(04:59):
was a young young man who passed away on the
field before the COVID crisis, and the parents of that
young man, because I was prominent, decided to send me
a seasoned assist letter, and I was horrified. I immediately
deleted my repost and publicly apologized and also directly personally
(05:24):
apologized to parents for this. But that's now being weaponized
against me, and there's there's at least fourteen media my
wife calls Jill calls it dead media stories that are
in progress or have been published that seek to question
(05:45):
the integrity and objectivity of every single of the newly
appointed individuals to the Advisory Committee on Iimanization practices. It's
kind of you to say that I have been somehow
politically rehabilitated, but the truth is that they have with
(06:10):
this appointment, there's been a concerted attempt to once again
delegitimize me, question my integrity, my objectivity. I mean the
narrative that because I was the author of the main
expert witness report on the krailing at all whistleblower study,
(06:34):
a whistleblower case against Murk Vaccines for the mumps product,
is somehow considered to be an indication of my conflict
of interest in some way neutralizing or legitimizing all of
the major financial conflicts of interests that have occurred over
(06:57):
the course of the ACIP over the last fifteen or
twenty years. So, somehow me spending two years pouring through
thousands and thousands of documents that were obtained during discovery
from Merk and from another major vaccine manufacturer, and then
writing an objective report about that. It was then used
(07:19):
as the basis for a subsequent expert witness report by
a former FDA commissioner who was less knowledgeable about vaccines. Somehow,
that's a conflict of interest. But having directly been paid
and worked or being sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry is
(07:42):
not a conflict. I think that's the logic.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
Well, you know, you're talking about something that everybody goes
through when they go into I think especially a Trump administration.
We saw in twenty sixteen with people who went into
the Trump administration. I don't remember this happening as severely
with any other Republican president, but there is a media
frenzy when anyone gets nominated to anything in this administration.
(08:07):
And it was certainly not the case when Joe Biden
was president. I mean, some of the people that were
at Health and Human Services and the one person had
to be fired because he was a thief, I mean,
and dressing as a woman and stealing women's.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Clothes widespread, barely competent. Yes, yeah, so, And by the way,
I'm I have the blessing of having support from many
influential conservatives, that many of whom live locally and then
(08:45):
have farms nearby, because this is how they escape DC
as they come down to this part of reg So,
and I had a really kind phone call yesterday. I'm
a very prominent conservative that has really been through the
(09:06):
ringer in the past, and I'm very aware that it's
likely that at some point in time I will be
subjected to lawfare. I don't mean to cast myself as
a victim, but I want it's I'm very aware that
(09:31):
by accepting this position, I'm signing up for years of
brief I'm doing it because, as I've said repeatedly, if
I'm asked to serve my country, I will do so
to the best of my ability. And it's not I
(09:53):
don't seek. As Sophia Carson's pointed out the other day
in her essay in The Brownstone also reposted our subs
dat I don't see this for power, or for money
or anything else. I'm doing it out of a sense
of public service and because my friend and colleague, Secretary Kennedy,
(10:17):
asked me to do so right.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
And I think we all see that. I think we
all appreciate that. I think the important thing that people
are seeing, which I hate that it has to happen
this way, but what you just said that you're expecting
law fair. You are in a kind of unique situation
because they did go after you so hard in twenty
twenty and you weren't in an administration at that time.
(10:42):
You were literally just talking about your research.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
One through twenty twenty five pretty much just never stopped
right exactly.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
I think we've watched what happened to Elon Musk when
he went in and people saw that and went, wait
a minute, this guy was a guy on the left,
and then he became the enemy the minute he got
in there, and I do think that contributed to this
rift between he and the President a few weeks ago,
because it's so much pressure. I don't think people understand
the amount of pressure when you have the propaganda machine
(11:13):
against you. It is massive.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
It's not just coming from the left. If you're active
on alternative media, let's call it, because calling it social
media is kind of too constraining as opposed to dead media,
which is what Jill likes to call the other side,
so as in dead men walking. So unfortunately, there are
(11:42):
many who have little sense of perspective who there's basically
if you well, what I'm getting at is that I'm
also getting attacked from people who I would have thought
(12:02):
would have been allies, or that we are on the
same side, as is Secretary Kennedy. A number of people
have called for his resignation. There are certain position influencers
that have built wide audiences by asserting that Secretary Kennedy
(12:24):
has broken his promises about immediately taking the MR and
a products off the market, which, by the way, I
did a deep analysis on what he said during the campaign.
He never made that promise. That's just more fake news.
But it's coming from people that assert that they're part
(12:45):
of the Maha base and they represent Moha moms and
you know, but meanwhile they're busy raising their social media profile.
So the much of this seems to be driven by envy.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
Oh my gosh, you are so right. I see it
on the state level, and I think in a certain situation,
having run for governor and having been attacked by people there,
there is this there's this movement to make social media
influencers or alternative media influencers push people in a certain
(13:27):
direction politically. And I think what you are saying is
such a valuable message. Right now. People get to a
point where they think that they have this power and
they start to eat their own and it happens on
both sides.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Yeah, yep, it so I you. I'm sure you don't
follow my sub stack religiously. But right after the election,
I've posted a couple of essays relating to populism and
the history of American populism and what the dangers were
(14:03):
and the lessons that we could learn from that The
history of American populism and populism in general has been
one of successive failures to implement actionable policy. And part
of the reason for this is that this kind of
division occurs. Another is because people that are involved in
(14:27):
populist movements are almost always outsiders, and so they don't
really understand the levers and gears and mechanics of governance.
And they do manage to get into positions of influence,
they tend to not be very effective. And I think
(14:48):
this is one of the remarkable things about Secretary Kennedy
is that how could anybody be prepared for running the
largest cabinet level organization in the United States government, which
makes it far bigger in terms of employees and budget
than most other governments. And Secretary Kennedy has had limited
(15:15):
experience in managing very large organizations. I would say essentially
no experience, as PhD is certainly not a very large
organization by comparison, and he was chairman of the board.
What he has is a long history as an attorney,
as a prosecuting attorney, taking on government and large businesses
(15:39):
in cases in particular involving environmental toxins and contaminants. And
what I see, because I do speak to him from
time to time, is somebody who has a very stued
sense of tactics and strategy, and he is growing, in
(16:05):
my opinion from what I'm observing, he's growing extremely rapidly
into this major leadership role. I mean, think about it,
you almost have two centers of power. There's a major one,
of course, with President Trump and his foreign policy actions.
But Secretary Kennedy is a major force in American politics
(16:32):
and policy right now in his own domain, in way
much more than JD. Vance, who I think is also
quite brilliant. But Secretary Kennedy seems to be growing extremely
rapidly into the kind of operational leader that ATS has
(16:58):
never had. I've never had anybody like this that is
willing and able to take on these big issues that
are captured in the Make America Healthy Again agenda, which
by the way, is an acronym MAHA and a nomenclature
(17:19):
America Healthy Again. Did Bobby create created himself? This was
part of his campaign. If anybody that says, well, I
represent Maha or I represent the Moha moms, and I'm
against Secretary Kennedy is a logic flaw.
Speaker 1 (17:34):
I've got more coming up with doctor Robert Malone, but
first I want to talk to you about my partners
at IFCJ. Folks, we are seeing something truly disturbing. Anti
Semitism is on the rise around the world, and sadly
you've seen it right here in the United States. Jewish
schools are being targeted, synagogues threatened, families are living in fear.
It's something we hoped we would never see again in
(17:57):
our lifetime. And let me tell you this, silent is
not an option. This is the moment to take a stand.
And this is why I want to tell you about
the International Fellowship of Christians in Jews or IFCJ. They
are on the front lines providing real help where it's
needed most. They're giving food and shelter to Jewish families
under threat, building bomb shelters for children, helping survivors of
(18:20):
hate rebuild their lives. And they don't just respond to crisis,
they work every day to prevent it. Your gift of
only forty five dollars will help support their life saving
work by helping to provide food, shelter, and so much more.
The Bible says, I will bless those who bless you.
Supporting IFCJ is a spiritual stand. It's showing up for
(18:40):
God's people when it counts. So please call eight eight
eight four eight eight IFCJ. That's eight eight eight four
eight eight four three two five, or go to IFCJ
dot org. Every dollar helps, don't wait, be the difference.
You see what's happening. These folks need it. If you
can help, make sure you visit IFCJ dot org or
(19:02):
call eight eight eight four eight eight IFCJ right now now,
stay tuned. We've got more after this. So I have
watched obviously what he's been doing. We in our own family,
we've experienced some of the things that he was talking about.
And I think that that's where moms across the country
(19:22):
started to say, yeah, I've seen I mean in our classrooms,
I've seen kids that are morbidly obese, and I think
this is not what I grew up just what forty
years ago with kids that were didn't look like this.
You know why is there has to be something else.
But even my sister, her daughter, she was struggling with ticks,
(19:47):
and they said, you know what, We're going to take
away food dies. Her life completely changed. She was a
totally healthy kid without food dies. And yet the medical
community wanted to say, well, we're going to put this
on her, We're going to put this medication in, We're
going to do this. My sister said, no, there's something
in her environment that's causing this. And that's when I
start I, as a mom, started to say how many
(20:09):
chronic illnesses are we dealing with because of what we
are ingesting unknowingly ingesting. So I think a lot of
people have gotten on this. The food movement, for sure,
they feel very confident in saying we want to have
healthy foods. We don't want the government putting.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
Winning bipartisan platform. I mean, just talking about raw politics.
It cuts across both parties, which is why it's soap
voting and why it may have played a key role
in swing states and why it's perceived as such a
political threat, particularly by the Democrat.
Speaker 1 (20:44):
Yeah. Absolutely, But vaccines, I think is a little bit different.
I think people don't know exactly where to land on vaccines.
I want to ask you about mRNA because I keep
seeing that there are vaccines coming out for cancers. I'm
a breast cancer survivor. mRNA is something they talk about
for breast cancer a lot. I don't know the breakdown
(21:05):
of what is safe and what's not safe, and if
I should be worried, if I shouldn't be worried. I
was wondering if you could just give us a loadown
of what is it? Are there any Is there a
positive to the mRNA vaccines in general.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
I'll come back to an interview I gave to a
German newspaper about a year and a half ago in
genevas I recall or. They asked a similar question. Their
question was could mRNA vaccines be made safe? And my
rather glib answer was, well, pigs could fly if theamily
had wings. We can speculate that this might be done,
(21:43):
or that might be done in order to mitigate the
risks that have become fairly clear. The issue with the
mRNA products that are on the market right now, which
are largely COVID products, is multifactorial. There are multiple sources
(22:06):
of toxicity and so to tease apart, could things be
made safe? And perhaps a better way to think about
it is not absolute safety, but relative safety compared to
the disease that is seemed treated. So to illustrate that
point in a very raw way. If I worked intimately
(22:33):
on the bolo vaccine, and this is something the media overlooks,
is that I actually brought the Public Health Agency Canada
slash new Link a bolo vaccine product to Mirk because
in my opinion at the time, I was a lead
consultant for new Link Genetics, which I had the rights they
(22:53):
bought it from Canada. That my opinion was that Merk
was in the best position to advance that product and
to get it to licensure and make it available. But
it is a nasty vaccine question. Post did a whole
essay early on, you know, multi page spread concerning somebody
(23:16):
that received the vaccine here domestically and they had all
kinds of joint pain and lammatory symptoms. It is it
is a recombinant vaccine based on the siculustmatitis virus, which
causes a lot of disease and humans when if they
get infected, and so it's it's a the slang in
(23:45):
the vaccine world, it's a hot vaccine. And if we
had in a bowla outbreak in the United States, I
guarantee people would be lined up around the block to
take that nasty piece of work, even though it would
make them very sick, because a bola is a absolute
(24:06):
horrid disease, and I can tell you in West Africa,
as the outbreak was developing, I was at the WHO
a number of times and listening to people public health
officials from the front lines describe the absolute madness that
a bola will cause in crowds and populations. It's a
(24:29):
scary disease, so nasty vaccine, lots of side effects. You
wouldn't take it if you weren't at risk, and if
you were at risk, you would gladly line up for it.
Similar to yellow fever. Yellow fever vaccine is a live
attenuated vaccine that is so closely related to the actual
(24:57):
yellow fever virus it's it's derived from that if you
take too many doses of the yellow fever vaccine, you
will get yellow fever and be at a high risk
of dying. So these things exist and they have their
use likewise in cancer. And I'm sorry to hear of
your story. I hope that you're remain negative, uh, thank you,
(25:21):
And I hope that you've got appropriate treatment and were overtreated.
But you know that you had a certain risk profile
based on your genetics and the presentation of your disease,
and you were informed of that, and you were told
(25:42):
that you have thusn't such a risk of surviving or death.
And if you took this whatever, and I don't want
to know. Whatever the treatment was that you took, it
had risks associated with also, and you were basically put
in a position of fully informed consent, I hope, I infer,
(26:06):
in which you were the risks associated with the treatment
were explained to you, including the long term risks if
there was chemotherapy to develop subsequent marrow cancers or other things.
And you chose to accept whatever the treatment was that
you selected, and we don't need to know about it's
your personal business because you thought the risk benefit was accepted.
(26:32):
So likewise, and this is the case with cancer, you
already have a disease, and the disease at the stage
that it's identified has some statistical parameters around it having
to do with your risk and life expectancy and outcomes.
(26:52):
So then it's easy to do a risk benefit calculation,
relatively speaking, when you have an existing disease. When somebody
is not yet disease but they are at potential risk
for acquiring a disease at some point in the future.
It's generally agreed upon that the ethics of that are
(27:14):
such that the intervention, because you're intervening to a patient
that doesn't have disease, okay, in the prospect that they
may or may not get the disease at some point
in time. That means that in some cases, maybe the
majority of cases, you're going to subject that patient to risk.
Because all drugs have risk, all vac risk, water has
(27:36):
risk in sufficient doses. Okay, So you're going to subject
that patient to risk at a point in time when
they don't actually have any direct benefit. They're not at
risk for a disease. They haven't developed a disease, I
should say, and so they're not at risk for the
outcomes of that disease, and yet you're going to give
them something. Is why vaccines traditionally have had to be
(27:59):
meeting a much higher safety criteria, or at least they should.
That's the logic. So let me ask you about back
RNA vaccines.
Speaker 1 (28:07):
So let me ask you about the COVID vaccine because
I well, I have a specific question about it because
the people that I know, the women that I know
who took it had immediate and immediate impact on their.
Speaker 2 (28:20):
Menstrual, psychoacilarities of nothing else. It was.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
It was not good. And I have four daughters. I
said no. Every time I take them to the pediatrician,
they say they're due for their COVID vaccine, and every
time I have to say, they're not getting it.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
You're lucky you still have a pediatrician.
Speaker 1 (28:39):
Why is that not a thing.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
Anywhere pediatricians have been firing patients that don't Oh.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
Yes, I know. That's actually what I have been afraid
of is that they're going to kick us out. And
in Western Michigan there's not that many doctors. I mean,
our healthcare system took such a hit after what they
did with COVID and shutting everything down, and we do.
We go in there and every time they say, I mean,
it's so bizarre. Let me tell you what.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
I'll see a classic example of someone that I specifically
talk about with deep empathy that the and I'll consider
you a young parent. You have three daughters currently in
pediatric age range. I'm an old parent. My kids are
(29:32):
married and Lloyd and so we're in a different time
of our life. But you're still in that position where
you're faced with this dilemma, which is even more severe
for the new parents. They're the ones that I particularly,
my heart goes out to because they're now in a
position where, if they have their eyes open, they often
(29:58):
feel they can no longer rely on on the government
to uh be a purveyor of truth. And yet they
are not medically educated, and so they have this this
fundamental dilemma, which is you either if you if you UH,
(30:21):
you can accept the government's recommendation that's the a c
I P recommendations childhood, theatric schedule that has become a
standard of care because of the a CIP all across
the nation, and UH you can accept that and UH,
if your eyes are open, you if your child uh.
(30:46):
You know, there's a clear correlation from what I'm seeing
AH in sudden different death syndrome in the short period
of time after receiving pediatric vaccines in this young infant.
And there is some I don't know how much, but
(31:09):
because we don't really have the data very clearly, there's
some risk that your child may develop a post vaccination
syndrome that might include central nervous system information or go
brain swelling and damage. So if you accept the government
(31:31):
recommendations and your child develops one of these syndromes, then
you're at risk for destroying your marriage in your family
because of the psychological And yet if you decide to
go independent and create your own vaccine schedule, delay early vaccination,
(31:53):
choose as a Chinese menu, I'm going to not do
tetanus or appetitist, whatever the things are. Our human papillomavirus
is often.
Speaker 1 (32:05):
We have also about out of that one, and that
one was one I got last week that they're due
for this right now. Your twins are due for this
right now. I'm like, they're not getting that.
Speaker 2 (32:13):
Yeah. So then if your child were to develop cervical
cancer or in males, cancer the throat in particular that's
associated with human papillomavirus, then you hate yourself for that.
So you're you're in this logic trap where at some frequency,
(32:37):
no matter what you choose, you're at risk or heavy
personal psychological burden that you have failed as a parent.
And it's just it's almost intolerable. It's it's heartbreaking that
when I get these calls from young parents, and then
(32:59):
there's the reproductive tract issues associated with women in particular,
and I think the male impact may be relatively silent
because men don't bleed, but men also have a lot
(33:19):
of highly vascular tissue in their reproductive organs, choosing my words,
so that is also at risk. And certainly the placenta
and the uterine placenta junction and the role of the
placenta in oxygen and nutrient transfer. When you have an
(33:45):
agent that triggers coagulopathy is a problem. So unpack the RNA.
RNA the covid products has take to call them vaccines
are expressing a protein called spike, and that protein is
highly toxic. Now there's another thing that Wikipedia tacks me
(34:06):
for for spreading misinformation, But the data are quite clear
that the spike protein of stars Kobe two, and particularly
the engineered spike protein that's in the vaccines because it's
not even the natural is associated with not only mildcarditis,
(34:29):
but coagulopathy, which is a fancy way of saying blood
clots and strokes and infarcs in your brain. That's where
blood vessels clot off or a clot gets thrown into
your brain and blocks of blood vests and All of
these things are life threatening and it's also associated with
(34:55):
microvascular coagulation, and that's what gets these highly vascular organs
like the uterus was sent up. Oh, spike protein is
a toxin. I'm sorry, Wikipedia, but data are overwhelming of
that it causes toxicity. Therefore, it is a toxic and
(35:17):
it is produced up to seven hundred days after inoculation.
According to a recent Diversity student, it stays in your
body long time and part of that may be long
term production. And that's the lead into the next key issue.
These are not natural RNAs. Not only are they g therapy.
(35:38):
And I think that I as the person that wrote
the first invention disclosures about this and realized that RNA
can be used as a drug and its leadingation would
be as a vaccine before anybody else did whatever you
want to say. Yes, there were many people that added
things afterwards, but I would the first and kind of
(36:02):
broke this concept. But I was focused on using as
natural an RNA as possible because RNA gets degraded very rapidly,
and so the logic was with this type of a
gene therapy approach as opposed to addicialance. If there was
(36:22):
a toxicity another, like with any drug, the product, the
drug product mRNA would degrade very rapidly and then the
position or treating person could decide not to redose it.
That all got thrown out the door when Kurrico and Weissman,
(36:44):
a decade after I did my work, came in and
used the new emerging science of pseudouridine to generate synthetic
RNAs that were very different from natural rn persist in
your body for very time, and they're very hard to degrade,
and they suppress immune response. That's why they included it pseudourdine.
(37:10):
And now we don't use the in the products. The
pseudouridine that's in there is not even natural pseudo urine,
which wouldn't be present in place of all the use
in an RNA molecule anyhow, but it is a synthetic
one that makes those issues even stronger, more prominent. So
the pseudouridine UH makes this kind of a sorry loaded
(37:34):
words Frankenstein model. It's not arn It's a synthetic chemical
product that can be used to produce protein, but it
is not a messengers made body. So there's the pseudouridine.
There's a bunch of baggage. Way, then there's the lipids
that are used to deliver the rony is that the
(37:55):
only way to deliver RNA. No, there are other ways
that you can deliver, but that happens to be the
one that is currently used in all these products. And
those back complexes that include these RNA and by the way,
DNA fragments which are highly recomogenic that are a product
(38:16):
of crappy clarification process process number two that involves plasmids
and plasmiation, which is essentially the original process that I developed,
but they didn't get the purification I had to be
obsessive about theation back then. So those complexes also have
(38:41):
direct toxicity. They cross the blood burned barrier, they trigger information,
extremely grow inflammatory. This is why I abandoned the technology
in the nineties and moved onto other delivery systems. So
can these be made non toxic? Well, there are ways
that one might use a for instance, a more natural
(39:04):
RNA that didn't have the suit of. You don't need
the suit of it's just a convenient patent in some ways.
The company called CureVac that was competing for these vaccines
that was funded by a gentleman you've heard of before,
and Elon Musk demonstrated with their clinical trials that dose
(39:26):
for dose, they actually got an equivalent immune response to
what you got with the pseudore But the difference was
that Madernauz and Biointech used a much higher dose than
their initial clinical trials, and so they got more antibodies.
They also got more toxicity. But the press totally zoomed
in on more antibodies, more antibodies, not you know, there's
(39:48):
no proof that those antibodies are therapeutic or proplectic. But
that's what happened, was basically a propaganda campaign. And because
Urevack did science the right way, uh and was doing
a more measured dose response approach to define what the
right dose was as opposed to and I have this
(40:11):
on good authority, you know kind of guys, let's have
a committee meeting and decide what dose we should use
and that and they split the difference between a large
part of the government people involved in that committee wanted
a much higher dose, some wanted a lower dose. They
split the difference and that was the dose that was
(40:31):
used in Maderna. So that's not good science, but that
they did. So you don't need to have sidu yerdine,
you don't need to have cat and eclipids uh, and you
certainly don't need to use the intact toxic spike protein,
which is why the new maderna what do they call it,
(40:53):
next spike or something like that, has a subunit fragment
of the spike but not the hollow protein. It's basically
a tacit admission that they screwed up in using the
total spike protein. So those things can all be addressed,
and so in a cancer vaccine, which, by the way,
(41:14):
cancer vaccines I've seen come and go entire career even
before them. My mentor, Murray Gardner, he founded the USC
Cancer Center, and Murray used to tell the story that
at the USC Cancer Center they would make custom vaccines
(41:36):
using Prouin's or modified Frouin's adjuvants, which is what you
use for animal experimentation, superinflammatory, and they had a I'm
going to say some things that might offend some people,
so I'm ready there there is a cohort. The USC
(41:57):
Cancer Center would serve support of Hollywood actors, in particular
at the time the sixties and early seventies that would
develop rectal cancer. And one of the things that Murray
(42:19):
would do as the founder of that cancer center is
he would take biopsy samples of those cancers, formulate him
with adjuvate, reinject him into those guys, and in some
fraction of those people they would have a regression of
that lesion. So the point is cancer vaccines have been
(42:45):
around for a very very long time, and in general,
just like Murray observed, some people respond in most people don't,
and so it depends on the tech. It's gotten a
little bit better. But this idea that was floated on
day two of the Trump presidency that we're going to
(43:07):
create this massive artificial intelligence machine and it's going to
enable customized cancer mRNA vaccines is just a sales job
that the science isn't there. It was resoundingly criticized by
everybody virtually in the cancer vaccine space. And let's hope
(43:29):
that they can solve the problems of cancer vaccines. But
the truth is that by the you know, we're all
having cancer develop on a regular basis. I was trained
in taught mythology for many years, and one of the
clinical saws was if males live long enough, they will
die with prostate cancer. That doesn't mean the prostate cancer
(43:52):
will kill them. But if you do an autopsy and
you section the prostate, you will find cancer there. And
the point is that cancer is constantly being resisted by
our immune system. So a case can be made that
in your case or others. I don't know about your
(44:12):
specific case, and I don't want to personalize it, but
just using in your case, there was a failure of
the ability of your immune system to clear those cancer
cells early on, and that means that the cancer cells
are able to evolve under the pressure of your immune
(44:34):
system to escape your immune system. Once they do that,
then the opportunity to tweak your immune system to recognize
and kill those cancer cells, which is part of its
normal job, is less and less feasible, and so the thinking. Frankly, this,
(44:58):
in my opinion, this gets to one of the core
you call it naivete or you can call it arrogance,
that we as physicians and scientists believe that we're gonna
we're so brilliant to all our new tech and genomic sequencing,
(45:18):
that we can best the natural evolved system of community
by just you know, turning up the style and turning
down that nile is name, and time has proven that
to be the case, unfortunately, and so I if if
(45:47):
AI is to be used in this space, I think
that the logic that, oh, we can just sequence somebody's
genome or their cancer cells and figure out the special
tweak that we have to do, and then administer that
special tweak as an RNA vaccine is grossly naive. Taking
(46:07):
artificial intelligence and applying it to the bigger problems of
this very complex interplay between cancer evolution and the adaptive
immune system, particularly the cellular immune system, that I think
has a lot of merit. And if the announcement had
been that we're going to take this new fantastic artificial
(46:30):
intelligence supercomputer capability and apply it to trying to discern
how these forces interact in a very complex way, I
would have said, imen, that's great. But the idea that
we're going to have customized mRNA vaccines for cancer after
(46:54):
decades of failure using more traditional vaccine technology, I'll love
believe it when I see it.
Speaker 1 (47:02):
Okay, so don't get my hopes up for that. I
got it. Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue
next on the Tutor Dixon podcast. One thing that I
do want to end on. You mentioned that these COVID vaccines,
some of these spike proteins can be in your system
for over seven hundred days. I think that's the.
Speaker 2 (47:24):
Yale University pyramids, So I'm not that's not misinformation.
Speaker 1 (47:28):
So I'm asked quite often what do I do if
I took it? How do I cleanse my system? How
do I get the toxins out? Is your system doing
that after seven hundred days or do we need to
do something else?
Speaker 2 (47:40):
So great question. And I have certain peers that lead
companies that taut that they have a solution, and that
that company in particular is grossing on hold by one
of the major stockholders seven million a month plus I'm
(48:06):
selling kits and spike a theoretical SPIKEE therapies and that
are not clinically proven, and that company will eventually be
held to account. It's already been held to account because
(48:26):
it was trying to market a GLP one that was
in fringship on that in the state of very large
from So so I wish that I could tell you
this that other thing. The I was perhaps one of
(48:48):
the first to popularize the idea that Nato Kaines, which
has been shown in the test to two break down
protein and also break down some of these highly resistant
thoughts may have value. And natokinase is derived from the
(49:12):
other day I I a couple of months ago, I
went to Tokyo or a rallies protesting and self replicating Urna baccy,
and I got to encounter nato. I've never seen them before.
Nato is a nasty fermentation product. It smells horrid and
the Chinese eat for breakfast, bless their hearts. And nato
(49:38):
kinase is derived from NATO, so it's a natural product
and it is poorly bioavailable. That's a fancy way of saying.
You can take a pill and it will actually get
into your body, and it can You can achieve levels
of nato kinase in your body by taking these pills
(49:59):
that are effective in breaking down spike protein. And some
of these cloths these very resistant claus so it's a
reasonable assumption that they may be Natokinase may be therapeust
peutically effective, and natokinase being a natural product, is falls
(50:24):
under a different regulatory category in FDA. So so long
as you don't make a claim that it's going to
do this that I sell natokinase, and I used to
take it all the time. You can buy it from
Amazon as natokinase. They don't make any claims about what
it's good for. They just say this is, you know,
(50:44):
USB grade pharmaceutically, you're in natokinase, and buyer beware. So
that the problem with natokinase has been learned is that
in particular, if you are on bloods and you take natokiness,
it's basically also a blood then and so you can
(51:09):
find yourself having wet strokes as opposed to dry strokes,
conclusion or spotting. You can have vascular leakage and hemorrhage
and in a variety of ways including the lisa which
is I don't want bile accident. So and you can
(51:29):
have a reference spleen cetera. Soap you if you're going
to use nato kindness as a supplement, really, if you
are somebody who is using blood dinners or at risk
of a bleeding, you really need to inform your doc
(51:52):
and suggested. There are other things that people are talking about.
And problem with it is the risk to the buyer,
to the average person, even to me, is that you
read about this fantastic claim. Often the person making the
(52:15):
claim has some sort of a conflict of interest. They're
either marketing the product or they're trying to elevate their
social media positions so they get more flicks like swallows,
and that's monetized, etcetera. So you have to be cautious
about these things. And that is technically why the FDA
(52:37):
was created, was to ensure initially that products were pure
and had the activity that they were being marketed as having. Originally,
the FDA didn't provide assurance that products were effective. That
(53:01):
was outside that was added here. Initially, it was just
about purity and identity. And so there are organizations that
test these nutraceuticals that you know, whether you're buying vitamin
C or vitamin D or natokinase or or whatever the
latest thing is. And I take a handful twice a
(53:24):
day from my wife, but you do need to ensure
that they're pure. So that's what I can say about
the clearance of the spike. Now, in theory, the antibodies
that you raise should be resulting in these things being
cleared in spleen in particular and in liver. But if
(53:46):
the spike protein is glommed onto by antibodies, it can't
really be filtered out of the kidney, so you're not
going to pass it urine. And if it's resistant to degradation,
but it's coded with antibodies, it doesn't get you where
you need to go. You know. It's if it's resistant
(54:08):
to cleavage, it can't be broken down and then you
can't excrete the subunits and hence the concern that Yale
is detecting it seven hundred days after struction.
Speaker 1 (54:22):
Interesting. Well, this has been fascinating. Like I said, I've
been wanting to talk to you for a very long time,
and I appreciate you coming on the program today, Doctor
Robert Malone. Thank you.
Speaker 2 (54:33):
Yeah. Thanks. I hope what I've said has been.
Speaker 1 (54:35):
Helpful, very helpful, and we will be praying that you
don't experience law fair. I'm hoping that we can start
to push back on some of this and people will
see but as you said, I don't have any hopes
that that's the case because I know how this goes
with people. But I appreciate the fact that I really
like what you said about if you called to serve
(54:56):
you will I appreciate that.
Speaker 2 (54:57):
Yes, ma'am, thank you, thank you, and.
Speaker 1 (55:00):
Thank you all for listening to the Tutor Dixon podcast
for this episode and others. You can go to the
Tutordison podcast dot com, iHeartRadio, app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
you get your podcasts, and you can check out the
full video on Rumble on YouTube at Tutor Dixon. Join
us next time and have a blessed day.
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon podcast. We have doctor Robert
Malone with us today. He is a physician, a scientist,
a biochemist, and he was just selected to be the
one of the on the CDC Vaccine Advisory Board for
Health and Human Services by Secretary RFK Junior. Welcome to
the program, doctor on Tutor. So, I've actually been wanting
(00:23):
to interview you for a long time because obviously your
story is somewhat unique in the fact that you are
one of the people who was really attacked over the
COVID vaccine and attacked in such a serious way that
people really tried to discredit your entire career. You were
removed from social media. What is it like now to
be in this position where you that has been restored,
(00:46):
your your research, everything has been restored, and you are
now in the position of getting to look at these
vaccines ahead of time.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Well, Tutor, just I think we may have scheduled this
before the ACIP announcement was made. I need to just
give the disclaimer. Number one, I'm not speaking on behalf
of the government in any way. Number two, I'm under
rather strict guidance from HHS to n CDC media management, people,
(01:22):
communications and press. Did not speak about ACIP and what's anticipated.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Okay, say that, okay.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
In terms of my career, I was I'm in the
middle of writing an essay right now for today's substack.
It looks like I'm going to put one out and
Jill's going to put one out today. But my essay
today is focusing on the deeper meaning of miss dis
and malinformation. And I try to avoid going to my
(01:53):
Wikipedia page because it's usually a little pressing.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
I'm in that same situation. Actually, I know what you mean,
but I.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Noticed that there's been yet another major rewrite. They still
cite the New York Times article by Davy Alba in
which she makes a series of assertions that hardly are flattering,
that I've overstated my contributions. And just to recap, Davy
(02:23):
Alba was terminated by the New York Times immediately after.
That article is the last one she wrote, and she
was closely aligned with the CIA. She appears to be
somebody who was working at the New York Times under
government funding and it has very strong operation mockingbird tones.
(02:44):
Joe Gay Stolberg, the main health reporter from the New
York Times who I've known for literally actively distances herself
from that essay and from davy Alba. And when I
mentioned to her, because I run into her all the
time that that article is still being cited, she basically dissembles,
(03:06):
and she doesn't apologize for The New York Times, but
she says that they terminated davy Alba and she doesn't
represent the paper. So but this is still cited all
the time and used, in the case of the media
as a kind of an ongoing attempt to delegitimize me.
(03:29):
So it's not over the Since the nomination, there's been
a huge surge of efforts once again to delegitimize me
into question and to label me as a spreader of
misinformation and to nitpick the literally over fourteen hundred essays
(03:54):
I've written on substack and the hundreds and hundreds of
podcasts that I've given, going over those and trying to
find some little knit that they can weaponize. The one
in Wikipedia that the press is grabbing is that long ago,
before I was banned from Twitter, I reposted a video
(04:16):
montage of athletes suddenly having art attacks or dying on
the field, and I just unthinkingly just reposted this because
at the time there was a lot of denialism about
the myocarditis and the effects of the myocarditis, and a
(04:38):
lot of disinformation coming from the government about that, as
you'll call CDC and MS. And unfortunately, one of the
clips in that reel, which I did not err and
I didn't take the time to get pick every single
clip on the reel to make sure that it was real,
(04:59):
was a young young man who passed away on the
field before the COVID crisis, and the parents of that
young man, because I was prominent, decided to send me
a seasoned assist letter, and I was horrified. I immediately
deleted my repost and publicly apologized and also directly personally
(05:24):
apologized to parents for this. But that's now being weaponized
against me, and there's there's at least fourteen media my
wife calls Jill calls it dead media stories that are
in progress or have been published that seek to question
(05:45):
the integrity and objectivity of every single of the newly
appointed individuals to the Advisory Committee on Iimanization practices. It's
kind of you to say that I have been somehow
politically rehabilitated, but the truth is that they have with
(06:10):
this appointment, there's been a concerted attempt to once again
delegitimize me, question my integrity, my objectivity. I mean the
narrative that because I was the author of the main
expert witness report on the krailing at all whistleblower study,
(06:34):
a whistleblower case against Murk Vaccines for the mumps product,
is somehow considered to be an indication of my conflict
of interest in some way neutralizing or legitimizing all of
the major financial conflicts of interests that have occurred over
(06:57):
the course of the ACIP over the last fifteen or
twenty years. So, somehow me spending two years pouring through
thousands and thousands of documents that were obtained during discovery
from Merk and from another major vaccine manufacturer, and then
writing an objective report about that. It was then used
(07:19):
as the basis for a subsequent expert witness report by
a former FDA commissioner who was less knowledgeable about vaccines. Somehow,
that's a conflict of interest. But having directly been paid
and worked or being sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry is
(07:42):
not a conflict. I think that's the logic.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
Well, you know, you're talking about something that everybody goes
through when they go into I think especially a Trump administration.
We saw in twenty sixteen with people who went into
the Trump administration. I don't remember this happening as severely
with any other Republican president, but there is a media
frenzy when anyone gets nominated to anything in this administration.
(08:07):
And it was certainly not the case when Joe Biden
was president. I mean, some of the people that were
at Health and Human Services and the one person had
to be fired because he was a thief, I mean,
and dressing as a woman and stealing women's.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Clothes widespread, barely competent. Yes, yeah, so, And by the way,
I'm I have the blessing of having support from many
influential conservatives, that many of whom live locally and then
(08:45):
have farms nearby, because this is how they escape DC
as they come down to this part of reg So,
and I had a really kind phone call yesterday. I'm
a very prominent conservative that has really been through the
(09:06):
ringer in the past, and I'm very aware that it's
likely that at some point in time I will be
subjected to lawfare. I don't mean to cast myself as
a victim, but I want it's I'm very aware that
(09:31):
by accepting this position, I'm signing up for years of
brief I'm doing it because, as I've said repeatedly, if
I'm asked to serve my country, I will do so
to the best of my ability. And it's not I
(09:53):
don't seek. As Sophia Carson's pointed out the other day
in her essay in The Brownstone also reposted our subs
dat I don't see this for power, or for money
or anything else. I'm doing it out of a sense
of public service and because my friend and colleague, Secretary Kennedy,
(10:17):
asked me to do so right.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
And I think we all see that. I think we
all appreciate that. I think the important thing that people
are seeing, which I hate that it has to happen
this way, but what you just said that you're expecting
law fair. You are in a kind of unique situation
because they did go after you so hard in twenty
twenty and you weren't in an administration at that time.
(10:42):
You were literally just talking about your research.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
One through twenty twenty five pretty much just never stopped
right exactly.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
I think we've watched what happened to Elon Musk when
he went in and people saw that and went, wait
a minute, this guy was a guy on the left,
and then he became the enemy the minute he got
in there, and I do think that contributed to this
rift between he and the President a few weeks ago,
because it's so much pressure. I don't think people understand
the amount of pressure when you have the propaganda machine
(11:13):
against you. It is massive.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
It's not just coming from the left. If you're active
on alternative media, let's call it, because calling it social
media is kind of too constraining as opposed to dead media,
which is what Jill likes to call the other side,
so as in dead men walking. So unfortunately, there are
(11:42):
many who have little sense of perspective who there's basically
if you well, what I'm getting at is that I'm
also getting attacked from people who I would have thought
(12:02):
would have been allies, or that we are on the
same side, as is Secretary Kennedy. A number of people
have called for his resignation. There are certain position influencers
that have built wide audiences by asserting that Secretary Kennedy
(12:24):
has broken his promises about immediately taking the MR and
a products off the market, which, by the way, I
did a deep analysis on what he said during the campaign.
He never made that promise. That's just more fake news.
But it's coming from people that assert that they're part
(12:45):
of the Maha base and they represent Moha moms and
you know, but meanwhile they're busy raising their social media profile.
So the much of this seems to be driven by envy.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
Oh my gosh, you are so right. I see it
on the state level, and I think in a certain situation,
having run for governor and having been attacked by people there,
there is this there's this movement to make social media
influencers or alternative media influencers push people in a certain
(13:27):
direction politically. And I think what you are saying is
such a valuable message. Right now. People get to a
point where they think that they have this power and
they start to eat their own and it happens on
both sides.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Yeah, yep, it so I you. I'm sure you don't
follow my sub stack religiously. But right after the election,
I've posted a couple of essays relating to populism and
the history of American populism and what the dangers were
(14:03):
and the lessons that we could learn from that The
history of American populism and populism in general has been
one of successive failures to implement actionable policy. And part
of the reason for this is that this kind of
division occurs. Another is because people that are involved in
(14:27):
populist movements are almost always outsiders, and so they don't
really understand the levers and gears and mechanics of governance.
And they do manage to get into positions of influence,
they tend to not be very effective. And I think
(14:48):
this is one of the remarkable things about Secretary Kennedy
is that how could anybody be prepared for running the
largest cabinet level organization in the United States government, which
makes it far bigger in terms of employees and budget
than most other governments. And Secretary Kennedy has had limited
(15:15):
experience in managing very large organizations. I would say essentially
no experience, as PhD is certainly not a very large
organization by comparison, and he was chairman of the board.
What he has is a long history as an attorney,
as a prosecuting attorney, taking on government and large businesses
(15:39):
in cases in particular involving environmental toxins and contaminants. And
what I see, because I do speak to him from
time to time, is somebody who has a very stued
sense of tactics and strategy, and he is growing, in
(16:05):
my opinion from what I'm observing, he's growing extremely rapidly
into this major leadership role. I mean, think about it,
you almost have two centers of power. There's a major one,
of course, with President Trump and his foreign policy actions.
But Secretary Kennedy is a major force in American politics
(16:32):
and policy right now in his own domain, in way
much more than JD. Vance, who I think is also
quite brilliant. But Secretary Kennedy seems to be growing extremely
rapidly into the kind of operational leader that ATS has
(16:58):
never had. I've never had anybody like this that is
willing and able to take on these big issues that
are captured in the Make America Healthy Again agenda, which
by the way, is an acronym MAHA and a nomenclature
(17:19):
America Healthy Again. Did Bobby create created himself? This was
part of his campaign. If anybody that says, well, I
represent Maha or I represent the Moha moms, and I'm
against Secretary Kennedy is a logic flaw.
Speaker 1 (17:34):
I've got more coming up with doctor Robert Malone, but
first I want to talk to you about my partners
at IFCJ. Folks, we are seeing something truly disturbing. Anti
Semitism is on the rise around the world, and sadly
you've seen it right here in the United States. Jewish
schools are being targeted, synagogues threatened, families are living in fear.
It's something we hoped we would never see again in
(17:57):
our lifetime. And let me tell you this, silent is
not an option. This is the moment to take a stand.
And this is why I want to tell you about
the International Fellowship of Christians in Jews or IFCJ. They
are on the front lines providing real help where it's
needed most. They're giving food and shelter to Jewish families
under threat, building bomb shelters for children, helping survivors of
(18:20):
hate rebuild their lives. And they don't just respond to crisis,
they work every day to prevent it. Your gift of
only forty five dollars will help support their life saving
work by helping to provide food, shelter, and so much more.
The Bible says, I will bless those who bless you.
Supporting IFCJ is a spiritual stand. It's showing up for
(18:40):
God's people when it counts. So please call eight eight
eight four eight eight IFCJ. That's eight eight eight four
eight eight four three two five, or go to IFCJ
dot org. Every dollar helps, don't wait, be the difference.
You see what's happening. These folks need it. If you
can help, make sure you visit IFCJ dot org or
(19:02):
call eight eight eight four eight eight IFCJ right now now,
stay tuned. We've got more after this. So I have
watched obviously what he's been doing. We in our own family,
we've experienced some of the things that he was talking about.
And I think that that's where moms across the country
(19:22):
started to say, yeah, I've seen I mean in our classrooms,
I've seen kids that are morbidly obese, and I think
this is not what I grew up just what forty
years ago with kids that were didn't look like this.
You know why is there has to be something else.
But even my sister, her daughter, she was struggling with ticks,
(19:47):
and they said, you know what, We're going to take
away food dies. Her life completely changed. She was a
totally healthy kid without food dies. And yet the medical
community wanted to say, well, we're going to put this
on her, We're going to put this medication in, We're
going to do this. My sister said, no, there's something
in her environment that's causing this. And that's when I
start I, as a mom, started to say how many
(20:09):
chronic illnesses are we dealing with because of what we
are ingesting unknowingly ingesting. So I think a lot of
people have gotten on this. The food movement, for sure,
they feel very confident in saying we want to have
healthy foods. We don't want the government putting.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
Winning bipartisan platform. I mean, just talking about raw politics.
It cuts across both parties, which is why it's soap
voting and why it may have played a key role
in swing states and why it's perceived as such a
political threat, particularly by the Democrat.
Speaker 1 (20:44):
Yeah. Absolutely, But vaccines, I think is a little bit different.
I think people don't know exactly where to land on vaccines.
I want to ask you about mRNA because I keep
seeing that there are vaccines coming out for cancers. I'm
a breast cancer survivor. mRNA is something they talk about
for breast cancer a lot. I don't know the breakdown
(21:05):
of what is safe and what's not safe, and if
I should be worried, if I shouldn't be worried. I
was wondering if you could just give us a loadown
of what is it? Are there any Is there a
positive to the mRNA vaccines in general.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
I'll come back to an interview I gave to a
German newspaper about a year and a half ago in
genevas I recall or. They asked a similar question. Their
question was could mRNA vaccines be made safe? And my
rather glib answer was, well, pigs could fly if theamily
had wings. We can speculate that this might be done,
(21:43):
or that might be done in order to mitigate the
risks that have become fairly clear. The issue with the
mRNA products that are on the market right now, which
are largely COVID products, is multifactorial. There are multiple sources
(22:06):
of toxicity and so to tease apart, could things be
made safe? And perhaps a better way to think about
it is not absolute safety, but relative safety compared to
the disease that is seemed treated. So to illustrate that
point in a very raw way. If I worked intimately
(22:33):
on the bolo vaccine, and this is something the media overlooks,
is that I actually brought the Public Health Agency Canada
slash new Link a bolo vaccine product to Mirk because
in my opinion at the time, I was a lead
consultant for new Link Genetics, which I had the rights they
(22:53):
bought it from Canada. That my opinion was that Merk
was in the best position to advance that product and
to get it to licensure and make it available. But
it is a nasty vaccine question. Post did a whole
essay early on, you know, multi page spread concerning somebody
(23:16):
that received the vaccine here domestically and they had all
kinds of joint pain and lammatory symptoms. It is it
is a recombinant vaccine based on the siculustmatitis virus, which
causes a lot of disease and humans when if they
get infected, and so it's it's a the slang in
(23:45):
the vaccine world, it's a hot vaccine. And if we
had in a bowla outbreak in the United States, I
guarantee people would be lined up around the block to
take that nasty piece of work, even though it would
make them very sick, because a bola is a absolute
(24:06):
horrid disease, and I can tell you in West Africa,
as the outbreak was developing, I was at the WHO
a number of times and listening to people public health
officials from the front lines describe the absolute madness that
a bola will cause in crowds and populations. It's a
(24:29):
scary disease, so nasty vaccine, lots of side effects. You
wouldn't take it if you weren't at risk, and if
you were at risk, you would gladly line up for it.
Similar to yellow fever. Yellow fever vaccine is a live
attenuated vaccine that is so closely related to the actual
(24:57):
yellow fever virus it's it's derived from that if you
take too many doses of the yellow fever vaccine, you
will get yellow fever and be at a high risk
of dying. So these things exist and they have their
use likewise in cancer. And I'm sorry to hear of
your story. I hope that you're remain negative, uh, thank you,
(25:21):
And I hope that you've got appropriate treatment and were overtreated.
But you know that you had a certain risk profile
based on your genetics and the presentation of your disease,
and you were informed of that, and you were told
(25:42):
that you have thusn't such a risk of surviving or death.
And if you took this whatever, and I don't want
to know. Whatever the treatment was that you took, it
had risks associated with also, and you were basically put
in a position of fully informed consent, I hope, I infer,
(26:06):
in which you were the risks associated with the treatment
were explained to you, including the long term risks if
there was chemotherapy to develop subsequent marrow cancers or other things.
And you chose to accept whatever the treatment was that
you selected, and we don't need to know about it's
your personal business because you thought the risk benefit was accepted.
(26:32):
So likewise, and this is the case with cancer, you
already have a disease, and the disease at the stage
that it's identified has some statistical parameters around it having
to do with your risk and life expectancy and outcomes.
(26:52):
So then it's easy to do a risk benefit calculation,
relatively speaking, when you have an existing disease. When somebody
is not yet disease but they are at potential risk
for acquiring a disease at some point in the future.
It's generally agreed upon that the ethics of that are
(27:14):
such that the intervention, because you're intervening to a patient
that doesn't have disease, okay, in the prospect that they
may or may not get the disease at some point
in time. That means that in some cases, maybe the
majority of cases, you're going to subject that patient to risk.
Because all drugs have risk, all vac risk, water has
(27:36):
risk in sufficient doses. Okay, So you're going to subject
that patient to risk at a point in time when
they don't actually have any direct benefit. They're not at
risk for a disease. They haven't developed a disease, I
should say, and so they're not at risk for the
outcomes of that disease, and yet you're going to give
them something. Is why vaccines traditionally have had to be
(27:59):
meeting a much higher safety criteria, or at least they should.
That's the logic. So let me ask you about back
RNA vaccines.
Speaker 1 (28:07):
So let me ask you about the COVID vaccine because
I well, I have a specific question about it because
the people that I know, the women that I know
who took it had immediate and immediate impact on their.
Speaker 2 (28:20):
Menstrual, psychoacilarities of nothing else. It was.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
It was not good. And I have four daughters. I
said no. Every time I take them to the pediatrician,
they say they're due for their COVID vaccine, and every
time I have to say, they're not getting it.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
You're lucky you still have a pediatrician.
Speaker 1 (28:39):
Why is that not a thing.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
Anywhere pediatricians have been firing patients that don't Oh.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
Yes, I know. That's actually what I have been afraid
of is that they're going to kick us out. And
in Western Michigan there's not that many doctors. I mean,
our healthcare system took such a hit after what they
did with COVID and shutting everything down, and we do.
We go in there and every time they say, I mean,
it's so bizarre. Let me tell you what.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
I'll see a classic example of someone that I specifically
talk about with deep empathy that the and I'll consider
you a young parent. You have three daughters currently in
pediatric age range. I'm an old parent. My kids are
(29:32):
married and Lloyd and so we're in a different time
of our life. But you're still in that position where
you're faced with this dilemma, which is even more severe
for the new parents. They're the ones that I particularly,
my heart goes out to because they're now in a
position where, if they have their eyes open, they often
(29:58):
feel they can no longer rely on on the government
to uh be a purveyor of truth. And yet they
are not medically educated, and so they have this this
fundamental dilemma, which is you either if you if you UH,
(30:21):
you can accept the government's recommendation that's the a c
I P recommendations childhood, theatric schedule that has become a
standard of care because of the a CIP all across
the nation, and UH you can accept that and UH,
if your eyes are open, you if your child uh.
(30:46):
You know, there's a clear correlation from what I'm seeing
AH in sudden different death syndrome in the short period
of time after receiving pediatric vaccines in this young infant.
And there is some I don't know how much, but
(31:09):
because we don't really have the data very clearly, there's
some risk that your child may develop a post vaccination
syndrome that might include central nervous system information or go
brain swelling and damage. So if you accept the government
(31:31):
recommendations and your child develops one of these syndromes, then
you're at risk for destroying your marriage in your family
because of the psychological And yet if you decide to
go independent and create your own vaccine schedule, delay early vaccination,
(31:53):
choose as a Chinese menu, I'm going to not do
tetanus or appetitist, whatever the things are. Our human papillomavirus
is often.
Speaker 1 (32:05):
We have also about out of that one, and that
one was one I got last week that they're due
for this right now. Your twins are due for this
right now. I'm like, they're not getting that.
Speaker 2 (32:13):
Yeah. So then if your child were to develop cervical
cancer or in males, cancer the throat in particular that's
associated with human papillomavirus, then you hate yourself for that.
So you're you're in this logic trap where at some frequency,
(32:37):
no matter what you choose, you're at risk or heavy
personal psychological burden that you have failed as a parent.
And it's just it's almost intolerable. It's it's heartbreaking that
when I get these calls from young parents, and then
(32:59):
there's the reproductive tract issues associated with women in particular,
and I think the male impact may be relatively silent
because men don't bleed, but men also have a lot
(33:19):
of highly vascular tissue in their reproductive organs, choosing my words,
so that is also at risk. And certainly the placenta
and the uterine placenta junction and the role of the
placenta in oxygen and nutrient transfer. When you have an
(33:45):
agent that triggers coagulopathy is a problem. So unpack the RNA.
RNA the covid products has take to call them vaccines
are expressing a protein called spike, and that protein is
highly toxic. Now there's another thing that Wikipedia tacks me
(34:06):
for for spreading misinformation, But the data are quite clear
that the spike protein of stars Kobe two, and particularly
the engineered spike protein that's in the vaccines because it's
not even the natural is associated with not only mildcarditis,
(34:29):
but coagulopathy, which is a fancy way of saying blood
clots and strokes and infarcs in your brain. That's where
blood vessels clot off or a clot gets thrown into
your brain and blocks of blood vests and All of
these things are life threatening and it's also associated with
(34:55):
microvascular coagulation, and that's what gets these highly vascular organs
like the uterus was sent up. Oh, spike protein is
a toxin. I'm sorry, Wikipedia, but data are overwhelming of
that it causes toxicity. Therefore, it is a toxic and
(35:17):
it is produced up to seven hundred days after inoculation.
According to a recent Diversity student, it stays in your
body long time and part of that may be long
term production. And that's the lead into the next key issue.
These are not natural RNAs. Not only are they g therapy.
(35:38):
And I think that I as the person that wrote
the first invention disclosures about this and realized that RNA
can be used as a drug and its leadingation would
be as a vaccine before anybody else did whatever you
want to say. Yes, there were many people that added
things afterwards, but I would the first and kind of
(36:02):
broke this concept. But I was focused on using as
natural an RNA as possible because RNA gets degraded very rapidly,
and so the logic was with this type of a
gene therapy approach as opposed to addicialance. If there was
(36:22):
a toxicity another, like with any drug, the product, the
drug product mRNA would degrade very rapidly and then the
position or treating person could decide not to redose it.
That all got thrown out the door when Kurrico and Weissman,
(36:44):
a decade after I did my work, came in and
used the new emerging science of pseudouridine to generate synthetic
RNAs that were very different from natural rn persist in
your body for very time, and they're very hard to degrade,
and they suppress immune response. That's why they included it pseudourdine.
(37:10):
And now we don't use the in the products. The
pseudouridine that's in there is not even natural pseudo urine,
which wouldn't be present in place of all the use
in an RNA molecule anyhow, but it is a synthetic
one that makes those issues even stronger, more prominent. So
the pseudouridine UH makes this kind of a sorry loaded
(37:34):
words Frankenstein model. It's not arn It's a synthetic chemical
product that can be used to produce protein, but it
is not a messengers made body. So there's the pseudouridine.
There's a bunch of baggage. Way, then there's the lipids
that are used to deliver the rony is that the
(37:55):
only way to deliver RNA. No, there are other ways
that you can deliver, but that happens to be the
one that is currently used in all these products. And
those back complexes that include these RNA and by the way,
DNA fragments which are highly recomogenic that are a product
(38:16):
of crappy clarification process process number two that involves plasmids
and plasmiation, which is essentially the original process that I developed,
but they didn't get the purification I had to be
obsessive about theation back then. So those complexes also have
(38:41):
direct toxicity. They cross the blood burned barrier, they trigger information,
extremely grow inflammatory. This is why I abandoned the technology
in the nineties and moved onto other delivery systems. So
can these be made non toxic? Well, there are ways
that one might use a for instance, a more natural
(39:04):
RNA that didn't have the suit of. You don't need
the suit of it's just a convenient patent in some ways.
The company called CureVac that was competing for these vaccines
that was funded by a gentleman you've heard of before,
and Elon Musk demonstrated with their clinical trials that dose
(39:26):
for dose, they actually got an equivalent immune response to
what you got with the pseudore But the difference was
that Madernauz and Biointech used a much higher dose than
their initial clinical trials, and so they got more antibodies.
They also got more toxicity. But the press totally zoomed
in on more antibodies, more antibodies, not you know, there's
(39:48):
no proof that those antibodies are therapeutic or proplectic. But
that's what happened, was basically a propaganda campaign. And because
Urevack did science the right way, uh and was doing
a more measured dose response approach to define what the
right dose was as opposed to and I have this
(40:11):
on good authority, you know kind of guys, let's have
a committee meeting and decide what dose we should use
and that and they split the difference between a large
part of the government people involved in that committee wanted
a much higher dose, some wanted a lower dose. They
split the difference and that was the dose that was
(40:31):
used in Maderna. So that's not good science, but that
they did. So you don't need to have sidu yerdine,
you don't need to have cat and eclipids uh, and you
certainly don't need to use the intact toxic spike protein,
which is why the new maderna what do they call it,
(40:53):
next spike or something like that, has a subunit fragment
of the spike but not the hollow protein. It's basically
a tacit admission that they screwed up in using the
total spike protein. So those things can all be addressed,
and so in a cancer vaccine, which, by the way,
(41:14):
cancer vaccines I've seen come and go entire career even
before them. My mentor, Murray Gardner, he founded the USC
Cancer Center, and Murray used to tell the story that
at the USC Cancer Center they would make custom vaccines
(41:36):
using Prouin's or modified Frouin's adjuvants, which is what you
use for animal experimentation, superinflammatory, and they had a I'm
going to say some things that might offend some people,
so I'm ready there there is a cohort. The USC
(41:57):
Cancer Center would serve support of Hollywood actors, in particular
at the time the sixties and early seventies that would
develop rectal cancer. And one of the things that Murray
(42:19):
would do as the founder of that cancer center is
he would take biopsy samples of those cancers, formulate him
with adjuvate, reinject him into those guys, and in some
fraction of those people they would have a regression of
that lesion. So the point is cancer vaccines have been
(42:45):
around for a very very long time, and in general,
just like Murray observed, some people respond in most people don't,
and so it depends on the tech. It's gotten a
little bit better. But this idea that was floated on
day two of the Trump presidency that we're going to
(43:07):
create this massive artificial intelligence machine and it's going to
enable customized cancer mRNA vaccines is just a sales job
that the science isn't there. It was resoundingly criticized by
everybody virtually in the cancer vaccine space. And let's hope
(43:29):
that they can solve the problems of cancer vaccines. But
the truth is that by the you know, we're all
having cancer develop on a regular basis. I was trained
in taught mythology for many years, and one of the
clinical saws was if males live long enough, they will
die with prostate cancer. That doesn't mean the prostate cancer
(43:52):
will kill them. But if you do an autopsy and
you section the prostate, you will find cancer there. And
the point is that cancer is constantly being resisted by
our immune system. So a case can be made that
in your case or others. I don't know about your
(44:12):
specific case, and I don't want to personalize it, but
just using in your case, there was a failure of
the ability of your immune system to clear those cancer
cells early on, and that means that the cancer cells
are able to evolve under the pressure of your immune
(44:34):
system to escape your immune system. Once they do that,
then the opportunity to tweak your immune system to recognize
and kill those cancer cells, which is part of its
normal job, is less and less feasible, and so the thinking. Frankly, this,
(44:58):
in my opinion, this gets to one of the core
you call it naivete or you can call it arrogance,
that we as physicians and scientists believe that we're gonna
we're so brilliant to all our new tech and genomic sequencing,
(45:18):
that we can best the natural evolved system of community
by just you know, turning up the style and turning
down that nile is name, and time has proven that
to be the case, unfortunately, and so I if if
(45:47):
AI is to be used in this space, I think
that the logic that, oh, we can just sequence somebody's
genome or their cancer cells and figure out the special
tweak that we have to do, and then administer that
special tweak as an RNA vaccine is grossly naive. Taking
(46:07):
artificial intelligence and applying it to the bigger problems of
this very complex interplay between cancer evolution and the adaptive
immune system, particularly the cellular immune system, that I think
has a lot of merit. And if the announcement had
been that we're going to take this new fantastic artificial
(46:30):
intelligence supercomputer capability and apply it to trying to discern
how these forces interact in a very complex way, I
would have said, imen, that's great. But the idea that
we're going to have customized mRNA vaccines for cancer after
(46:54):
decades of failure using more traditional vaccine technology, I'll love
believe it when I see it.
Speaker 1 (47:02):
Okay, so don't get my hopes up for that. I
got it. Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue
next on the Tutor Dixon podcast. One thing that I
do want to end on. You mentioned that these COVID vaccines,
some of these spike proteins can be in your system
for over seven hundred days. I think that's the.
Speaker 2 (47:24):
Yale University pyramids, So I'm not that's not misinformation.
Speaker 1 (47:28):
So I'm asked quite often what do I do if
I took it? How do I cleanse my system? How
do I get the toxins out? Is your system doing
that after seven hundred days or do we need to
do something else?
Speaker 2 (47:40):
So great question. And I have certain peers that lead
companies that taut that they have a solution, and that
that company in particular is grossing on hold by one
of the major stockholders seven million a month plus I'm
(48:06):
selling kits and spike a theoretical SPIKEE therapies and that
are not clinically proven, and that company will eventually be
held to account. It's already been held to account because
(48:26):
it was trying to market a GLP one that was
in fringship on that in the state of very large
from So so I wish that I could tell you
this that other thing. The I was perhaps one of
(48:48):
the first to popularize the idea that Nato Kaines, which
has been shown in the test to two break down
protein and also break down some of these highly resistant
thoughts may have value. And natokinase is derived from the
(49:12):
other day I I a couple of months ago, I
went to Tokyo or a rallies protesting and self replicating Urna baccy,
and I got to encounter nato. I've never seen them before.
Nato is a nasty fermentation product. It smells horrid and
the Chinese eat for breakfast, bless their hearts. And nato
(49:38):
kinase is derived from NATO, so it's a natural product
and it is poorly bioavailable. That's a fancy way of saying.
You can take a pill and it will actually get
into your body, and it can You can achieve levels
of nato kinase in your body by taking these pills
(49:59):
that are effective in breaking down spike protein. And some
of these cloths these very resistant claus so it's a
reasonable assumption that they may be Natokinase may be therapeust
peutically effective, and natokinase being a natural product, is falls
(50:24):
under a different regulatory category in FDA. So so long
as you don't make a claim that it's going to
do this that I sell natokinase, and I used to
take it all the time. You can buy it from
Amazon as natokinase. They don't make any claims about what
it's good for. They just say this is, you know,
(50:44):
USB grade pharmaceutically, you're in natokinase, and buyer beware. So
that the problem with natokinase has been learned is that
in particular, if you are on bloods and you take natokiness,
it's basically also a blood then and so you can
(51:09):
find yourself having wet strokes as opposed to dry strokes,
conclusion or spotting. You can have vascular leakage and hemorrhage
and in a variety of ways including the lisa which
is I don't want bile accident. So and you can
(51:29):
have a reference spleen cetera. Soap you if you're going
to use nato kindness as a supplement, really, if you
are somebody who is using blood dinners or at risk
of a bleeding, you really need to inform your doc
(51:52):
and suggested. There are other things that people are talking about.
And problem with it is the risk to the buyer,
to the average person, even to me, is that you
read about this fantastic claim. Often the person making the
(52:15):
claim has some sort of a conflict of interest. They're
either marketing the product or they're trying to elevate their
social media positions so they get more flicks like swallows,
and that's monetized, etcetera. So you have to be cautious
about these things. And that is technically why the FDA
(52:37):
was created, was to ensure initially that products were pure
and had the activity that they were being marketed as having. Originally,
the FDA didn't provide assurance that products were effective. That
(53:01):
was outside that was added here. Initially, it was just
about purity and identity. And so there are organizations that
test these nutraceuticals that you know, whether you're buying vitamin
C or vitamin D or natokinase or or whatever the
latest thing is. And I take a handful twice a
(53:24):
day from my wife, but you do need to ensure
that they're pure. So that's what I can say about
the clearance of the spike. Now, in theory, the antibodies
that you raise should be resulting in these things being
cleared in spleen in particular and in liver. But if
(53:46):
the spike protein is glommed onto by antibodies, it can't
really be filtered out of the kidney, so you're not
going to pass it urine. And if it's resistant to degradation,
but it's coded with antibodies, it doesn't get you where
you need to go. You know. It's if it's resistant
(54:08):
to cleavage, it can't be broken down and then you
can't excrete the subunits and hence the concern that Yale
is detecting it seven hundred days after struction.
Speaker 1 (54:22):
Interesting. Well, this has been fascinating. Like I said, I've
been wanting to talk to you for a very long time,
and I appreciate you coming on the program today, Doctor
Robert Malone. Thank you.
Speaker 2 (54:33):
Yeah. Thanks. I hope what I've said has been.
Speaker 1 (54:35):
Helpful, very helpful, and we will be praying that you
don't experience law fair. I'm hoping that we can start
to push back on some of this and people will
see but as you said, I don't have any hopes
that that's the case because I know how this goes
with people. But I appreciate the fact that I really
like what you said about if you called to serve
(54:56):
you will I appreciate that.
Speaker 2 (54:57):
Yes, ma'am, thank you, thank you, and.
Speaker 1 (55:00):
Thank you all for listening to the Tutor Dixon podcast
for this episode and others. You can go to the
Tutordison podcast dot com, iHeartRadio, app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
you get your podcasts, and you can check out the
full video on Rumble on YouTube at Tutor Dixon. Join
us next time and have a blessed day.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.