Dr. Robert W. Malone, Nov. 2021

Dr. Robert W. Malone
Sneak Peek #1 with Dr. Malone 11 Nov 2021 Vaccines Revealed channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLzI4NzFCI4 (This will probably be censored off when YT finds it…)

Unofficial Transcript. There will be errors!
The interview seems to start in the middle, and there’s a promise for more later in the month.
Dr. Robert W. Malone: …so what happened was that Vical and then Merck buys it
has this enormously broad patent of state that covers the whole domain in terms of the applications and the concepts and the fundamental formulation and everything, and they sell it to Merck. Merck spends something like a billion dollars to try to develop a product but they make it strategic decision, and Vical did also.
When I left basically i don’t think there was anybody that was very good at making RNA. I think I think that’s what happened.
but DNA is easy to make dead easy to make, and so they thought okay RNA DNA, we can do this with DNA . DNA vaccination works really good in mice, so why not? So Vicals made the decision to just focus on the DNA not on the RNA,
and then Merck mirrored that decision when they bought the rights, and they only focused on the DNA. They ended up going up to a milligram in injection, and they never could get it to work, and this is true with many others. They chased the the DNA for years.
But what Vicals and Merck also did was they very aggressively kept anybody else from developing anything that was covered in any of those patents —typical pharmaceutical industry behavior— including sending me as a young academic (by that point, after I finished my medical school and gone back and starteda lab) sending me cease & desist letters, saying that I should not work on anything that I was working on before,
because that was the terms and conditions of my employment.
People are sometimes…, people say, well, did, you get rich from this? No, I got one Susan B. Anthony dollar for the patents. So no, I didn’t get any money out of this. Still don’t.
Interviewer: A lot of people I think would assert, oh well, it’s just sour grapes. That’s why you’re talking about this
Here’s what I’m taking away from all this. Your experience in the realm is vast. You were in the heart of it all when the stuff was going on. You’ve got publication and the publication is cited. It’s really the earliest, except for the other thing that you’ve mentioned that really has a technology that doesn’t work with the liposome. You’ve got patents. So your trail is observable through all of this.

RB: Then there’s all the primary data!

Interviewer: Yes, that too. So we have all of this and and why is that important? Because, you know when somebody steps forward, why do they have a right to speak to what’s going on today —meaning what are the policies being made and
how are they being applied and the vaccine and its safety and all that kind of stuff.
Why do you have a right to speak about this? We need to establish that right because, since your voice is contrary to what
seems to be the agenda around this, they want to discredit you, and they’re trying to find ways to do it. You mentioned earlier that article published in Atlantic which I reviewed. They were struggling trying to discredit you but in my mind I read it & said wow, they just very much validated yo his position here.
So, now here we are and suddenly all these years go by, nobody’s ever heard of mRNA vaccines before. And one question I have around that
incidentally, because there’s even debate around whether this technically is a vaccine. I know that generically you’re injecting something that creates immune response that helps you resist disease. In that sense it’s a vaccine, but is there a separate FDA definition of vaccine that thiswould not meet? Or, in your mind, is this a vaccine?

RM: So, going back to the story of the origin. Remember,it kind of comes from this Dan St Louis
study that didn’t yield the results intended, and the brainstorm was, oh, gene therapy can be used for vaccine purposes. So genetic vaccination, and by the way, Jill and I, my wife have got subsequent patents on gene vaccines and mucosal gene vaccines, So, when I first started speaking about this
on brett’s [brad’s?] podcast and otherwise, I asserted that this is a gene therapy product, applied for the purpose of gene therapy technology applied for the purpose of vaccination.
Both of these are, the ad vector and the mRNA, they are both fundamentally applied gene therapy technologies. One of the applications for these gene therapy technologies is for vaccination, okay?
Modern and Pfizer’s SEC reports
explicitly acknowledge that these are gene therapy products, and that the FDA at the time of those reports regulates them as gene therapy products. This is in the list of potential risks in the SEC.
So they are gene therapies. I was criticized at the time for saying so. I was told that they can’t be called gene therapies. I think in German law it’s even been declared that they are vaccines not gene therapies. I think that was explicitly stated, as I recall. That’s an untruth. Why does it matter? Because the regulatory agencies in their quest for harmonization have developed checklists, and products of this category shall have these tests performed, and products of that category shall have those tests performed. So it’s very much in the interest of
the pharmaceutical industry…, and apparently the FDA was willing to concur that these products be only regulated and assessed as vaccine products.
It’s been my assertion all the way through this that they are both vaccine products, and gene therapy products, and that the checklists for vaccines and for a gene therapy need to be applied. BOTH.
So, are they vaccines? In my opinion, yes.
They are intentionally devised and formulated and licensed, or not licensed yet, that there have been
packages submitted for requesting licensure for the purpose of vaccination, prophylactic vaccination.
Vaccination has got a lot of different kind of branches. It’s tomato, tomæto on steroids We have cancer vaccines, we have prophylactic vaccines that are
preventative. We have therapeutic vaccines that are meant to enhance your immune response against something that you’ve already got as a disease.
Each of these have different regulatory considerations that have to be dealt with.
In this case, we have products that are advanced as prophylactics to prevent
—and it’s important to understand the way they’ve prosecuted these, they have…
Let me take a
step back. When you’re developing a portfolio for a given product for regulatory consideration for market authorization, which is what you’re seeking, right?
In the United States, you’re seeking not only market authorization, but interstate commerce authorization because that’s the purview that the FDA has. So, you have to say what you want it to be used for, intended uses, okay? You have the latitude to define that in a lot of different ways.
In these cases they appear primarily to be prosecuting for disease and death as endpoints, not prevention of infection.
So that’s something. It’s a nuance that you’re not going to hear in the main press. Well it kind of matters.