Neil Oliver + Robert Malone, GB News. 16Dec23

Update on mod-mRNA COVID "vaccines"

Neil Oliver + Robert Malone, GB News. 16Dec23 Update on mod-mRNA COVID "vaccines"; Efficacy, Safety, DNA contamination, Frameshifting.

I spoke slowly and carefully so that the UK censorship board could clearly hear every word.

---

Neil Oliver:

Welcome back. My first guest this evening is Dr. Robert Malone, who has been part of the longer conversation about vaccines, about the COVID-19 pandemic, really from the beginning. We've had conversations on here more than once, and it's my pleasure to introduce Dr. Malone again this evening. Hello, Dr. Malone. Thank you for being with us.

Dr. Robert Malone:

Hi, Neil. That was quite a speech. It reminded me of The Second Coming by Yeats. It had overtones of that famous poem.

Neil Oliver:

It's a difficult time to sum up and to comment on, Dr. Malone. The safe and effective dogma relating to these vaccine products seems to be on increasingly shaky grounds. How do you assess the situation, having been so closely involved in the story for such a long time?

Dr. Robert Malone:

So in my opinion, safe and effective has been repeated as basically a psychological manipulation tool, because it's stated again and again as that pair of words, without any qualification. Let's examine whether or not the two products in particular, the mRNA products, are effective. It's indisputable that they do not prevent infection. They do not prevent replication. They do not prevent spread. They do not prevent disease, and they do not prevent death. Therefore, I assert they are not effective. Pfizer has now come down in this response to the Paxton study that the products have some effect in reducing disease and death risk. That's actually a controversial statement. There are data that say otherwise. And so I assert that by any normal standard for vaccine, these products are not effective.

Are they safe? You just mentioned the excess all-cause mortality, and there are significant signals in a variety of international databases, including in the U.K., Scotland, in Canada, in the United States, and of course in New Zealand and Australia, that there appear to be a unusual number of deaths associated with the products within a short period of time. That's setting aside the longer-term risks. There's no question that we have a myocarditis signal. That's now widely accepted. And that myocarditis signal is not trivial. It's predominantly in younger people, more skewed towards men, but in both genders. And there are many, many other adverse events. And the way this is being handled in corporate media and through governments is to describe these as rare without qualifying what rare consists of, so this is also disputed. Whether these are rare or not is subjective, just like the statement safe and effective is subjective. So I assert that they are neither safe nor effective by any normal standard such as those that have been applied for other medical products historically.

Neil Oliver:

You've spoken also, I've read also your consideration of contamination within the products. Could you elaborate upon that and explain what it is that you make of the suggestion of contamination within the production process?

Dr. Robert Malone:

So in particular, there's a scientist in the United States, Kevin McKernan, who deserves a shout-out for this work. There are genomic specialists in the United States and Canada now across the world that have analyzed the contents of the vaccines in terms of their genetic component and found that they have a significant level of DNA fragments in addition to the modified mRNA. And this has now been acknowledged by the European Medicines Agency, Health Canada, and the FDA, so this is not subject to debate. What we're down to is discussing whether or not that level of contamination... I say contamination because it was not previously disclosed, it's not on the label. And the regulatory agencies act as if they were unaware in many ways that this contamination existed. And as I said, we're down to arguing whether the level of contamination meets criteria for this formal term adulteration, which in the United States would trigger a required withdrawal of the product.

And also, whether the level of contamination with these DNA fragments that come from the manufacturing process, whether they are a safe level in the sense that it's well-known and documented and has been a concern of the FDA historically for well over a decade. That contamination with DNA in vaccine products can lead to a problem called insertional mutagenesis, which is to say that that DNA inserts itself into the genome of patients who will receive the product. So this is a known risk, it's associated with cancer. It's specifically flagged by the FDA historically in multiple documents. It's also identified by Moderna in their own patents, in multiple patents, as a potential risk of DNA in vaccine products or other genetic therapy products. And basically, what's happened is that the FDA, Health Canada, and the European Medicines Agency are stonewalling on this issue, asserting that, well, they've done tests to demonstrate that these are safe levels.

Now, what recently happened was that that was challenged in a formal letter from Joe Ladapo, MD, PhD, doctor and Surgeon General for the state of Florida. And Joe wrote a formal letter on the 6th to the FDA, asking them specifically for information to demonstrate that these contaminations... We'll give them the benefit of the doubt, not call it adulteration. These contaminations are in fact at safe levels and they will not impact on things like reproductive health. And what came back just yesterday from the FDA was a letter that basically obfuscates the issue, doesn't answer Dr. Ladapo's questions, and offers misrepresentations, mis-citations, and seems to indicate a willful ignorance towards the problem and a denialism of any significant testing. It appears that the regulatory agencies of the world either were not aware of this problem or disregarded it, and didn't require the normal testing that's been accepted for decades for assessing the risk of this type of contamination.

In addition to the DNA contamination, we have another problem that's come up recently that had not been assessed or recognized by the pharmaceutical industry, Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, and that is a little more subtle. It's frame-shifting. And that problem, which is driven by the pseudouridine, which the Nobel Prize was just awarded, results in proteins being produced in the cells of recipients that are not the intended spike protein. They're not characterized. We don't know what those proteins really are. We can predict them, as you were saying, from computer modeling. We know that they're occurring based on a recent publication, peer-reviewed, and I believe in Nature or one of the baby Natures. And once again, the regulators are turning a blind eye to this or denying that this represents a significant problem. Experienced pharmaceutical developers of biologics like this, many disagree with this position that this type of an artifact or complication is of no consequence, so that's where we stand right now.

Neil Oliver:

Dr. Malone, I've run out of time, just regrettably. It is a distressing and fascinating litany that you offer there. Thank you so much once again. And I'm grateful for the albeit limited time that I've been able to share with you this evening. Thank you so much for that. We're on another break. Tonya, I don't know how you-

Tonya:

It's mind-blowing, isn't it? It's mind-blowing they didn't do the proper tests and now we're having to deal with other things as well. It's mind-blowing.

Neil Oliver:

It's that, and the tone of what we were listening to there, I find so distressing.

---