Partial Transcript of Dr. Robert Malone with Jimmy Dore on Mass mRNA Vaccination

Partial Transcript of Dr. Robert Malone with Jimmy Dore on Mass mRNA Vaccination

Reading Time: 5 minutes

SPEECH TRANSCRIPTION

I strongly object to mandatory vaccination for multiple reasons…it’s not good medical practice from the standpoint of a virologist and vaccinologist. What we’re doing by excessively using vaccine inappropriately for people who don’t really need it, is we’re driving the virus to be able to escape through evolutionary selection the benefits of the vaccine. We all understand how this works intuitively, because most of us are aware that the agricultural practice in feed lots and other places, of medicating (animals) indiscriminately with antibiotics, leads to antibiotic-resistant superbugs. It’s the same basic logic. Overuse of vaccines will drive the development of viruses that are able to evade vaccination.

Now who cares, because we know that natural infection provides broader, longer-lasting, up to 20-fold more effective immune response, in terms of preventing re-infection, than vaccine does. So if the vaccine is no longer effective, why should I care? Because I’ll just get natural infection, and that’ll be better in the end anyhow.

The answer is that we do have people in our population that are high risk. The risk if you catch this virus and you’re elderly, and have significant other comorbidities, like pre-existing heart conditions, obesity…your risk is quite high. It can range up to 50% probability of death, depending on your pre-existing conditions, and the people who will suffer from this…naive, inappropriate policy, of global, universal, forced-vaccination, when the potent virus escape mutants develop, is going to be those people who are at high risk, who most need vaccine.

So what we risk doing is destroying the one really effective weapon that we have. It’s already happening. The effectiveness of the vaccine is dropping quite rapidly, because of the evolution of the virus to escape. This is one of the lessons coming out of Israel and the UK: high levels of vaccination are associated with escape mutants. Those escape mutants are able to affect even the vaccinated. The vaccinated are able to shed the virus and replicate virus at least that of those that are unvaccinated, and maybe higher, they still do get disease, although maybe less disease, and in some ways that might be worse, because that means that the vaccinated that o have breakthrough infections, are walking around feeling relatively healthy, and yet producing and shedding just as much virus as the people who have received vaccine. We have a word for that: superspreaders.

The whole policy is poorly thought out. So poorly thought out, that you’re left wondering, “Are these people just not very aware and experienced? Is this incompetence? Or is this the consequence of the pressure of the pharmaceutical industry on the people making decisions?” […] There are a lot of signs that we’re seeing regulatory capture. Let’s say undue influence of the pharmaceutical industry, on the entire public health enterprise decision making process, because you are either left saying that these people are grossly incompetent, or their decisions are being inappropriately influenced.

[…]

In an outbreak, when there is very active spread of high levels of virus, you can’t vaccinate your way out of the risk of that virus, during that outbreak, with an imperfect, leaky vaccine. That’s what we have: a vaccine that currently, various estimates, coming from Israel and other places, suggests that its ability to prevent infection, is something in the range of 40-60%. So let’s just take the middle point there: that means that if you kiss your spouse and she’s got an active virus infection, in general, your probability of being protected…is about half. You will be producing the same or higher levels of virus…where you can shed it. The same levels or higher than someone had been previously infected. Now what that means, functionally, is that with these now, further-evolved virus strains…we’re in a situation where the virus is increasingly infectious, increasingly able to transmit from one person to another person, and when you do the math, even if we all had perfect practice and N95 masks all the time, the best we can do is slow these viruses down: they will spread through the population.

We need to come to grips with that. These are leaky vaccines. This policy of universal vaccination isn’t going to get us to being able to get back to normal. Furthermore, what we now know, as if that isn’t bad enough, to the extent that they do provide protection, the protection seems to peter out after about half a year after vaccination. So then we’re in a position where, well maybe we can re-vaccinate, and we’ve heard the Biden Administration talking about taking the jab again, so a third jab.

The problem with that is that they made those decisions without actually having any data to support that. It’s been a problem all the way through this: we should do this, or do that, or the other thing. They’re flying by the seat of their pants, substituting opinion for data. That would be ok if we were doing animal experiments, or if we had a few monkeys that we were going to be testing out a hypothesis with, but it’s not ok when we’re going to implement authoritarian measures across the country…in which we mandate that everybody takes this or that intervention. You’d darn well better have rock-solid data that says that’s a good idea. …

To the extent that the vaccine provides benefit, it’s only good for about 6 months. Are we all going to take re-vaccination every six months? Could there be a problem with that? Well actually, there is. […] Those of us who have grey hair and have been around a little while in the vaccine world, know and understand immunology, know that there’s a thing called hizone tolerance. Vaccines are not linear. Dose response is not linear. The immune system is really complicated and more is not always better. Sometimes more can turn off the immune system; can shut it down. We can’t just assume that a third jab, or fourth, or fifth, will be better. It might make the immune response worse, not only in those who have the vaccine, but also in those who have natural infection. It’s bad science. It’s bad policy. It’s bad ethics.


IMPORTANT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION


At this link is a very important explanation of vaccine science, why our current policies are authoritarian, and how we can do better. If you prefer to listen to this information in podcast form, you can do so here: The Tom Woods Show.

And here is something better than a picture of a vaccine card:

Share your comments, critiques, criticism, or spam (no login required):

%d bloggers like this: