At the start of the pandemic, Dr. Robert Malone had faith in the medical system he had worked within for decades.When vaccines were approved, he got double jabbed. To this day he is still trying to heal from the injuries he received as a consequence of that decision. Dr. Robert Malone has been courageously outspoken during these trying times, and as a result has been mercilessly attacked, slandered, and censored. This despite the fact that he is an internationally recognized scientist/physician and the original inventor of mRNA vaccination as a technology, DNA vaccination, and multiple non-viral DNA and RNA/mRNA platform delivery technologies with about 100 scientific publications and whose work has been cited over 12,000 times.On this podcast we discuss the latest data and talk about a wide range of topics, including; the mechanisms of toxicity, 5th generation warfare, and what it means to be a warrior in our time.Connect with Dr. Robert Malone:  Website |https://www.rwmalonemd.com/

Wikipedia |https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Malone

Check out his latest book:   Lies My Government Told Me: And the Better Future Coming (Children's Health Defense)

AUBREY: Robert, thanks for being here.
ROBERT: My pleasure. Thanks for taking the time.
AUBREY: Of course, of course. Yeah, so this is a very interesting moment, because it feels like there was a huge wave and a huge surge of pro-narrative kind of support that was really hard to stand out against it, because you just got a massive barrage. But my feeling is that it's softening. And somehow, conversations are starting to be a little bit more acceptable. The vehemence of the anti side, from my own perspective, seems to be they seem to be losing energy a little bit. It's almost like they're starting to get fatigued trying to fight a battle that ultimately is unwinnable. And you may be experiencing still the full force of empires, guns and cannons facing towards you.
ROBERT: Well put. My gut reaction is from your lips to God's ears.
AUBREY: Yeah, yeah.
ROBERT: Should it be so? I thought last spring that we were going to hit this moment. And so, it's almost a full year. And I've grown accustomed to being very cautious about underestimating our opponents. They are very well capitalized, they are very dug in. This is not a fly-by-night, spur of the moment action. And they have incredible resources.
AUBREY: Sure. This is, I mean, from the classic archetypal myth. This is the empire.
ROBERT: You're exactly right.
AUBREY: This is the empire, and then there's the resistance who are outgunned, outmanned, there's hardly any chance. And they need to fly the X-Wing into the Death star and find that direct hit that actually just unravels the whole thing. And I guess that leads me to the first question, which is, if you had to say, alright, what is the direct hit? What is that first inarguable lie? Now, of course, you wrote the book, "Lies My Government Told Me". What is the one thing that you could point to that people just can't argue with that could start to soften this idea that everything that the government saying is true, everything that pharma is doing this for our best interest?
ROBERT: Nobody's ever asked me that question. So, I have to kind of process it. And I'm sure whatever I say now, tomorrow morning, when I get in the shower, I'm going to say, "Oh, dummy, why don't you remember that thing?"
AUBREY: Sure.
ROBERT: Let me think. What could really turn the tide? I think that the upcoming drop from Twitter that has been delayed. People call it the Fauci files or whatever. We're now recording in February of 2023 just to put a timestamp in what is it? The second week is now in February. And many of us had anticipated that this drop might have occurred in January, or even in late December, and still we're sitting here waiting. And Musk has stated that the problem is that whoever he has authorized to process this information, hasn't been able to schedule their trip out to the West Coast. And he hasn't disclosed, is this Alex Berenson, who is this mystery person that has such an important schedule that they can't break off to go do this information drop that potentially is going to blow the world open? That could do it.
AUBREY: And so, in that, what you're surmising, it might prove even beyond what's already been shown collusion between the government and Twitter to silence dissident voices or it goes beyond that.
ROBERT: Specific topics that they're sensitive to. So, what are the topics, and this is just a hypothesis. I mean, there's a number of things that could drop. I'm about to travel to London to support a bunch of members of parliament that are now raising the question more actively about what's happened. It could pop in Great Britain before it pops from Silicon Valley. But the truth is coming. It's relentless.
AUBREY: Yeah. I mean, you look at something, like let's say we're showing, and this is, ultimately what we found. I think Bret Weinstein's focused on this when he's tried to isolate what he wanted to really hammer home is the suppression of vitamin D therapy and supplementation, right? He's like-
ROBERT: That's an old story.
AUBREY: It's an old story, but like, so for him his idea was like, "Look, if you just get this." It's absolutely absurd, there's no way that it couldn't help. And there's no way that it could hurt. So if you're suppressing it, you have to have an alternate motive.
ROBERT: But they've kept up the whole storyline that overdosing of Vitamin D is toxic. They've actively promoted that. And it is patently absurd. After all we've seen over the last three years, you cannot underestimate the absolute lack of any morality on the part of these people, that are promoting these false narratives. There are no boundaries, there are no guardrails. They will do or say anything in order to achieve their objective. This is one of the things that for me is most shocking. And it's got a direct socket into the side wars that we've all been experiencing without even knowing it. This fifth generation warfare. Everything that all the conspiracy theorists ever said about information wars, is all being validated in real time. We've all experienced it, and it absolutely has been deployed by the militaries of the Five Eyes Alliance in their respective nations against their own populace. Like Vitamin D is a great example, Ivermectin is another example where they will do anything. And then when legally confronted, they come up with these weasel excuses. Like the FDA did when finally they were legally confronted about the ivermectin story in that infamous tweet, using the term y'all which was clearly pejorative and targeted at Southerners, accusing them all of eating horse paste and didn't you know that Ivermectin is for horses. Which of course, it's intrinsically absurd. But there's no self-awareness, there's no apology, there are no boundaries. There's absolutely no guardrails, they will do or say anything in order to reinforce the narrative that they're told to reinforce.
AUBREY: Right. And what else do you think can actually like, because as you said, they're squirmy, there's no boundaries, they're willing to say, do anything. They'll be a chameleon, they'll fit in some way, they'll find a way to, if not argue the point they'll argue against ad hominem against the person who's making the point. And then misdirect.
ROBERT: They have a myriad of strategies.
AUBREY: A bunch of strategies, but if there's like other things where you feel like alright, I see you, you kind of ephemeral chameleon, mercurial ghost that's trying to elude me but I'm going to pin you down like "Ghostbusters" right here in this thing. Let me pin you on this thing.
ROBERT: Okay, you just used a metaphor that is absolutely appropriate. And you may or may not know the Fourth Army psyops division out of Fort Bragg is a derivative of the Ghost Army. Ghost. The ghost in the machine is absolutely a dominant narrative and metaphor in this fifth generation warfare psyops space. That's key. To do it effectively, it has been done very effectively on all of us for the last three years. You never know who the opponent is, you never know who the antagonist is. If you become aware of who that antagonist is, they've failed. That's the world we're in. And it is so challenging to operate in that environment because it destroys the very fabric of society, because you never know who you can trust. It's like, everybody surrounding you, there's no boundaries between military and civilian now. Absolutely none. Along these lines, I'm sure you're familiar with who Marshall McLuhan is. So Marshall McLuhan predicted this. He said the next World War, and the next world war was going to be an information war, and there would be no boundaries between military and civilians. Here we are. When you dive into that world and really try to process it, Michael Flynn has a new book. There's a great one on fifth generation warfare. People get confused, they think it's talking about cell towers. No, this is not that 5G, right? That you can get as an ebook. If you dive into the logic of this space, it is incredibly mind-bending and twisted. It's very, very hard to even process a world in which everything is potentially a weapon.
AUBREY: Yeah. And so in older forms, more primitive forms of warfare, I mean, empire has been at its business since the beginning of recorded time, right? The desire for power, the desire for hierarchy, the desire to make some people extremely powerful, other people basically a servant class to generate wealth for those people who are more powerful. This is by nature, the nature of empire, also the hubris and condescension to think that they know best for everybody else. All of these factors and qualities of empire without actually having to name the people who are participating. Because, actually, honestly, there's a little bit of empire in all of us, right? It's like a virus that's infected every individual to a certain degree. It's just some people are really actively hosts for this kind of parasitic mentality.
ROBERT: Interesting way to think about it as hosts and a parasite. Yeah, I agree with you that we all have it in our souls. We all have the risk of narcissism, malignant narcissism, which I think over the last few decades, we've glorified. He who dies with the most toys wins. That's like an embodiment of a malignant narcissist.
AUBREY: It's like the worst advice ever.
ROBERT: Yeah. In terms of the soul, of the spirit, it just is like battery acid. And on that spectrum of narcissism, we have those who learn to not have empathy, those would be defined as sociopaths. And we have those who intrinsically biologically from when they're born, lack empathy for others, and those would be psychopaths. And I think, in what we are living through in many ways, is the consequence of enabling a culture in which we define human value using the language of economics, and technology now increasingly. And so, we are perceived and treated as economic units. And we have in our organizational structures, glorified management styles that are intrinsically psychopathic. And this is what we get.
AUBREY: Yeah. Yeah, and then tactics to regress us to kind of the baser ideas of tribalism, where there's only empathy for your ingroup and absolute scapegoating and lack of empathy for everybody in the outgroup. The deplorables, whatever you want to call them, the domestic terrorists in other words. Like saying that basically, you're the good ones, they're the bad ones.
ROBERT: And the unvaxxed.
AUBREY: Yeah, exactly. And all of the ways that you do it. And, frankly, the other side also uses dehumanizing language. And so I think that's also something to become aware of, like the sheep. Well, if you're saying that dehumanizing is a problem, you literally can't call somebody an animal and not be dehumanizing them. It's the definition of dehumanizing.
ROBERT: Yeah, no, you're touching on. So this is another part of what makes this landscape so challenging. Is these normal human dynamics of us versus them, and this tendency to do exactly what you just said. But what I find both fascinating and disheartening, is that there are forces at play in this discussion, let's call it, this dynamic that's going on right now. That leads both sides towards the extremes. So, let's say we're talking about the group of individuals that are opposing the dominant narrative, okay? I'm trying to choose a neutral language, okay? Within that, there are those who assert that there is no virus. There are those that assert that this from the get-go was an intentional depopulation effort, and asserted quite forcefully. And if one does not buy into that, then you're defined as uncontrolled opposition for the other side. You're really nailing it in terms of, this is basic human behavior. I wrote an essay about this a number of months ago, in which I made a lot of references to the French Revolution, and the Jacobins, right? And there you had Madame Guillotine as the decider, right? And the trip wire was really, the bar was really low. If you were not sufficiently radical, it was off to Madame guillotine. And what was fascinating about that, I mean, there's a bunch of things that can be learned about these kinds of dynamics that we're encountering right now if you take a moment to go back and read about the French Revolution, and Robespierre and all that. That didn't last very long. It was so bloody.
AUBREY: And they kept pushing the bar tighter and tighter to more and more radical. And so this is the idea that these movements eat themselves, as you start to isolate yourself more and more into a corner.
ROBERT: So this part of what makes this so torturous. I mean, the terrain here in fifth generation warfare is really, really twisted and complicated. So, now enter the disruptors, the chaos agents, okay? So, these are from one side of the other, operating as if they are from the opposite side. So, they are true infiltrators, that are busy promoting narratives that often that one of the characteristics is, they will mix truth with crazy. And then people will assimilate that package. And then they get attacked as illegitimate because they believe in Sasquatch, or UFOs, or whatever the thing is, right? And so it's a strategy to deflect, sow confusion, and enable groups or individuals within that to be de-legitimized, and to turn the members of those groups against each other. They sow so much confusion, that people are never sure what's real and what isn't real. The average person that isn't deeply grounded in a fact based assessment is left in a landscape where there's no solid ground. There's no way for them to readily discern what is true and what is false, in a landscape where everything is controversial. And so they're left questioning everything. And I am not going to share the name, but a very prominent person that is legitimately an anti-vaxxer. That term has been so weaponized, but a very prominent individual made the point to me that the proper way for Joe Public, I don't want to say the average person because that has implications. Just the normal folks, to operate when they touch on this space, is they should assume that as a default that someone is controlled by opposition until they can discern otherwise. And the problem with that logic, okay? This is not my logic, okay? The problem with that logic is in my experience, and I suspect yours from the little bit I know about you, is my experience has been that I can never receive trust unless I give trust. And so, every encounter that I make with another colleague, I'm constantly mistrusting them and questioning their legitimacy. I can never form a trust, a bond with them. It completely destroys the community.
AUBREY: The idea that everyone is controlled opposition is the most effective controlled opposition.
ROBERT: Precisely.
AUBREY: So these concepts, they're complicated, and the psychodynamics are particularly complicated. Especially, you start thinking about internal dynamics, like the sunk cost fallacy, you have this high proportion of the population that's already gotten vaccinated, vaccinated their children. So, the desire to believe that they did the right thing is extremely high. Plus, they've already shit on all of their other neighbors and everybody who didn't.
ROBERT: Which is particularly true with physicians.
AUBREY: Right, because then their onus, and also all of those gentle nudges from these authorities, whether they're hospitals, or whether it's the medical board in their own selfishness--
ROBERT: Sometimes not so gentle.
AUBREY: Sometimes not so gentle. Maybe that moment where they had the opportunity to step forward with courage, as you yourself had done and say, like, "No, something's not right here." Or the opportunity to go, alright, alright, I'll kind of follow it. And they have to look at themselves, and acknowledge whether they flinched in the moment of truth. And so there's all kinds of complicated things that people have to deal with. And I think that's also one of these threads, that's kind of moving through here is people are having to come to a reckoning with themselves. And some people are not quite ready for that yet. The most courageous are. Someone like Ed Dowd, who I recently had on a podcast. Got the first vaccine shot, and then had his moment of being like, something's wrong here. And then pulled back, acknowledged it. And I know, several people like that, that are like, alright, I bought in at this point. At this point, it seemed like the cost benefit was right, the information I had available is here. Then I switched.
ROBERT: So now, by definition in that extreme cohort, none of those people can be trusted, right? Including me.
AUBREY: Yeah.
ROBERT: Because I got two jabs, Moderna, and I was significantly damaged. I still am trying to manage my hypertension, and some of the other side effects I got. And this is thrown at me almost on a daily basis. One of the things that kind of, this is my morning thought waking up this morning, is how much hate there is. We've somehow developed a culture where it is cool and trendy to hate.
AUBREY: Yeah.
ROBERT: So, I'm cruising down the Boulevard here to get to Miami, and Bob Marley is going on. And I'm saying to myself, could Bob Marley even exist? Could he come to pass in the culture that we have right now with the messaging that he had? I don't know that he could. I don't know that Bob Marley could become a major cultural figure in this world that is so driven by hate and animosity that we're surrounded by right now?
AUBREY: Well, there's been such a radical debasement of our intrinsic self-worth and self-value. So we've been isolated to our separate self, the separate self which only knows itself in comparison with other people. And so, those people who you can make lower than you and however low you make them is relatively, however high you can be on your own scale. Because we've forgotten our intrinsic worth, us as carriers of a divine spark.
ROBERT: Thank you.
AUBREY: And when you realize that, then the need to hate anybody else just evaporates.
ROBERT: Thank you. Now you're touching on the part the book says, and the better future is coming. This is not being pollyannish. I truly believe that humanity has untapped potential. And that we can't get there. We are obstructed from fulfilling that potential by some of these social organizational norms that we've come to accept, and that the possible better future that we might strive for, is one in which we have that vision of what is the potential of humanity. How could it be fulfilled? What would be required to enable the full synergy of the human species? And I think that the potential better future is if we can come through this, all of the trauma that we've experienced and somehow get to a point where we say, "No, I'm not going to buy into that anymore." It's a very optimistic, I hope, not pollyannish approach, but--
AUBREY: Yeah, I mean, it's like the boils are coming to the surface, and this is the opportunity that all of us have to actually see the, it's given us a glimpse into empire. Empire which has always been under the surface. And of course, you find the refutations of this but there's files released showing the collusion with the CIA and Oswald in the JFK assassination.
ROBERT: Right, Tucker's recent bomb.
AUBREY: The classic conspiracy theory. You start to see that empire most likely has been working under the surface the whole time, whether it's MLK or JFK, or whoever else.
ROBERT: My whole life, for me, that Tucker revealed, Carlson, regarding the Warren Commission files on JFK was a bombshell because it's one of my first memories as a young child, is the assassination. I was three or four. You don't remember much. But that one was a big one.
AUBREY: Yeah, and so, that's empire presumably at work, which has always been at work. It's been at work since the days of the caesars, and then the caesars became the popes because the caesars couldn't conquer the known world anymore, but the pope certainly could. And that's a whole other different thread that it goes on, but the way I see it is, empire has always been under the surface, but so cleverly masking itself under the guise of moral purity, under the guise of we're here for you, we're doing the right thing, we're the loving mother, papa, whatever else that is. But now, in this moment, it's like, oh, well played on some part, but also overplayed as well, because you've exposed yourself too much. You've gone too far. And there's too much awareness, there's too many other alternative media outlets, like this small one and Joe's big one, and all of the other ones in between that are actually starting to get information.
ROBERT: We are breaking through. But you're framing this as an empire. Another one of the parts of my journey over the last few years has been being taken into various Christian communities, which for some reason, have been particularly resistant to Mattias Desmet's mass formation process or hypnosis process. And I think it has a lot to do with there being communities that have maintained integrity, but it has to do with other things. If I could speak for those communities, they would be saying, no, we're not seeing the face of empire, we're seeing the face of evil, and it has a name, the devil. You can say that the devil is a metaphor, or you can say that the devil is an actual thing. But I think that many would say, this is more than just empire. This is true evil that we're encountering. And it's hard. Mattias came out to our farm and hung out with some buddies of mine, and we did a roundtable thing. Unfortunately, the audio was horrible. And so, we could never broadcast it. But Matias went deep into a lot of his thinking about spiritualism. And he makes the point that almost everybody he's encountered has become more spiritual. For those of us that are let's say, awake for want of a better word, that have taken this journey and been aware, or become aware of the manipulations and other things, many of us have become more spiritual during that process. And I count myself and my wife as among those. It's really hard. For a long time, I wouldn't talk about the WEF. I just thought that was crazy talk until I read the book, "The Great Reset". And I wouldn't talk about things spiritual because they weren't within my domain of expertise. It was kind of outside of, supposed to be in this little molecular virology track. As Bennon likes to say, "Stay in your lane." But it's hard not to really encounter and process and run down all these rabbit holes, and not come away saying, "There's something really dark here."
AUBREY: Yeah, I mean, I think we're talking about... So okay, so how do you define empire from an archetypal standpoint? Does it go all the way to what some would call the Archons? Or some would call the devil? There's lots of many names for dark forces that exist within and also without, as above so below, inside of us, but I like the name empire because it doesn't put a lot of other things into it.
ROBERT: Yeah, I've never heard of that construct before. I think it's nice because it's a little more neutral.
AUBREY: Yeah, yeah. I got it from a Mahayana Buddhist named John Churchill who likes this terminology and tracks empire, like the history of empire all the way through. And it's been really valuable for me to see the way that it works and see how in my mind, empire is like a parasite and we're like the host. And this parasitic virus gets in, and it infects people, and they don't even know that they're infected. And the beauty of that is just like in any movie, where there is an alien force, or an evil force, or call it a dark sorcerer or an alien, and they infect some of your friends and your group. And those friends start doing horrible, deplorable things. They're eating somebody's face over there. And then all of a sudden, the hero strikes and hits the heart of empire, and the spell is broken. Even if you have blood on your face from eating somebody else, and the spell is broken, there's an instant forgiveness. It's like, hey, I know that you are under the spell of this parasitic force, and like, welcome back. Like, we'll welcome you back home, we're not going to judge you forever, we're not going to give you the guillotine.
ROBERT: Can I riff off of that? Because I think you're touching on something that is right adjacent to something I've really been trying to promote. Whether or not, let's say, our opponents, those that are trying so hard to reinforce this narrative, or sell vaccines or whatever it is that floats their boat, hard to say who is the puppet masters? By the very nature of fifth generation warfare, we don't know who the damn puppet master is, right? By definition. So, we may never know. But we absolutely seem to be moving into a cultural moment globally where as you said in the opening, people are beginning to grapple with what has happened here, what has been done. I forget who it was, the Hollywood guy that came out and spoke to Russell Brand about it, basically seeking forgiveness or absolution. We're hearing more and more of this. And again, alluding to that kind of, arm of the opposition to the narrative, that wants to be more extreme. Seems to repeatedly say these people should never be forgiven, see what they've said, see what they've done to us, see what they've done to my children. And they seem to want to hate, there's so much anger. And there's so much hate, as we were discussing. Which is, by the way, one of the reasons why I found the mass formation thesis so powerful is, it was a pathway towards enabling people to come to terms internally and externally, with what they were happening and the damage to their families and their worker networks, and colleagues and other things. One of the things I really try to say repeatedly now in whatever speech, podcast, whatever I give, is the idea that we have all been subjected to the most powerful, coordinated, globally harmonized military grade propaganda campaign in the history of the Western world. And it's been going on for three years. And there's a fraction of the population that has either kind of become aware of what is happening, or they had some psychological characteristic that made it so that they were impervious. But by definition, these are highly refined psychological warfare tools that were deployed on the entire population. And a large fraction of the population has succumbed to them. Should we hate them? Or are they the victims?
AUBREY: Right.
ROBERT: And those of us that are awake now or were awake originally and never succumbed, those became awake or were originally resistant to the effects, should we hate those that were compromised by these weapons of war that were deployed on them? I argue no. Which the pushback is--
AUBREY: Definitely no.
ROBERT: Yeah.
AUBREY: They're our brothers and sisters.
ROBERT: Absolutely.
AUBREY: They're our brothers and sisters.
ROBERT: And furthermore, it serves the interests of the opponent, let's call it empire, going with your language, to exploit that and keep us divided. You're just playing right into their battle plan. And that is absolutely not to say that we should forgive those who are the true perps, the ones that have really propagated this knowingly on all of us. There's some boundaries here.
AUBREY: Of course. People have to deal with the consequences of their actions and their decisions, but ultimately, you can do both. You can have people that have to reckon with the consequences of their actions, and also be in forgiveness. It's like you can send someone to jail and forgive them at the same time. It doesn't have to be one or the other. And I think that's again, blending spirituality with modern justice system et cetera.
ROBERT: And I see it as consistent with the mission of being a physician. I'm in this to heal. If I wanted to spend my life making weapons of war, I could have done that. It's what my father did. If I wanted to spend my life doing intelligence and psyops, I could have followed the path of my father-in-law. I chose not to. And I see it as a unique opportunity, this weird situation I find myself in that absolutely not asked for, not expected. But here it is, in this position of having a voice in all of this, that it provides a unique opportunity for somebody in their early 60s at the end of their career, to do something that's healing and therapeutic on a massive scale. How cool is that?
AUBREY: Some would say that's why some of us are here, to be able to make a difference, to make a stand. I mean, how beautiful is it to actually know that you're fighting for something that's meaningful, and fighting for something that comes from the authority of love itself? Like, there's something really, really beautiful about that, that transcends the fear of attacks and getting canceled and all of the different weapons, because in fifth generational warfare, the guillotine and the bullets are not readily used. I'm not saying that they're never used, they can't be used, but actually we can speak and what's going to be thrown at us mostly is pixels. Pixels on a screen, pixels in a print, pixels on a fucking whatever, coming through with voice on a TV, whatever, but it's not the guns and the jackboots and the black hoods that made people disappear that empire has used for so many years. And that's the encouraging part is yes, the sophistication of empire and fifth generational warfare is intense. However, we all got a place on the battlefield now. We've got a chessboard right here, this wasn't planned. But we all have pieces on the board now, and they can't just wipe them off.
ROBERT: So that's, I think, the other really important empowering message in this, that I also thank you for bringing that out, I find so useful. Let me take a step back. There's a cohort of people the vaccine injured, and by extension, the vaccine dead. Wherever you are in this spectrum, it's hard to deny that there are people that have died from this product. You had--
AUBREY: Although some will, some will try.
ROBERT: Yeah, but I think for the rational actor that's subjective, it's hard to deny it. So, the vaccine injured in particular have had this amazing gaslighting, this complete denialism. Here they are subjected to the damages associated with this product, and they are surrounded by friends, family, physicians, society, that are all messaging to them, you are mentally ill, what you believe you've experienced we deny that you've experienced, and furthermore we infer that you are mentally ill because you are even raising these issues.
AUBREY: Right.
ROBERT: Those people are in a way, I believe, a metaphor for the damage to all of us, the truly, I'm going to say this carefully. They are victims. There's no question they're victims as are we all. And yet we can choose to not define ourselves as victims, we can choose to not define ourselves as having been victimized. In a battlescape of fifth generation warfare, we can choose to be warriors, to be empowered. And that's the power that I wanted to pull out moving off of your comment just a moment ago, that I think is so key, is that if people can assimilate the logic, strategy and tactics of this new battlefield landscape, they can become empowered. But they have to set aside all of these things that we so cherish. The idea that there's right and wrong, and there is intrinsically right and wrong, but in this battlescape those, those concepts of justice, and right and wrong, and boundaries, and even traditionally in any warfare, kinetic warfare, there are rules of engagement. In this battlefield, there are no rules of engagement. There's no division between military and civilian. It is all open season, it is complete warfare, information warfare, and everything goes. They will do or say anything. And I think one of the challenges, so that's an opportunity for people to be empowered.
AUBREY: Because also, that means if there's no differentiation between military and civilian, that means that all civilians can also be militarized in a way as well. We all get to stand on the battlefield.
ROBERT: I kind of blew some circuits, I think, when I gave the fifth fen warfare talk in Stockholm a couple of weeks ago. And they didn't want me to use the term warfare. The Swedish are apparently very sensitive to language, who would have known. The Viking days are gone, I can tell you that. And they didn't want me to use the term warfare in the talk, for the title of the talk. And it's like, that's what it's called. S that was kind of the baseline attitude. And I hit them hard with the messaging. I follow Aseem Malhotra who kind of gave us a good look at what he's experienced. And then I came in and hit them hard with what we've all been subjected to and experienced. And then gave this message that they can all be warriors, and I use the example. This fourth psyops division out of Fort Bragg has 800 soldiers. And I said, there's 1,300 people in this audience. If every one of you decide you want to be warriors instead of victims, you outnumber those soldiers.
AUBREY: Yeah, we referenced it with my friend and my tech here, Derek. We were talking about Carlos Castaneda, and he was for all of his potential faults as a human being, there was a quote that came from Don Juan and said, we all have one fundamental choice to be ordinary or to be a warrior. And the warrior, as was translated in the Toltec language was, that one who stands for the true, the just, the beautiful, the right, both within internally first and externally. It's not the toxic aspects of war, which is death and the boots and the guns and all of that. It's about an internal stance that you take.
ROBERT: So were you aware of how important Carlos Castaneda was in my early formation of my sense of the world?
AUBREY: No, me too. That was my first teaching was the teachings of Don Juan, that kind of Toltec framework that actually imprinted early.
ROBERT: I don't know what podcasts you listened to when I talk about luminous beings and consulting your death. I'm directly referencing--
AUBREY: Right on, right on.
ROBERT: And one of the things... So, this is a bizarre world. I mean, sometimes you just have to step back and say, "That can't have been a coincidence." So, we have a buddy who lives on Maui and also has a place in Fiji that has been traveling this path with us. I'll just leave it at that. He prefers to remain anonymous. It's a good friend of Ed Dowd's. And his best friend is a guy named Bruce Wagner. They both went to Hollywood High together. Bruce was one of Carlos Castaneda's last disciples. So, I've had a chance to, we spent a lot of time on a boat in the Med last summer together, and I had a chance to really kind of test with him, did I understand things correctly? And, it was just an absolute joy to get feedback from someone that had spent a lot of time with Castaneda. And then out of the blue, in the early fall, I get this brown paper package. And it's one of Castaneda's last books sent directly from his publisher, leather bound edition and signed from Bruce. What a gift. So, amazing that we would come together and have that common link.
AUBREY: Yeah, interesting, in our formative psychological framework.
ROBERT: It is absolutely the logic that guides how I approach science. I actually talked about it in the book, I don't know if it made it into the final version. But this idea of dividing the world into the known, the unknown knowable, and the unknown unknown, is absolutely key to how I approach science and really everything.
AUBREY: So speaking of this, this is something that I wanted to touch on, and we touched on it earlier. And again, I don't need to go into names. There's been one of the strongest anti-vax advocates, that he was deplatformed time and time and time and time again. And then he got, in my mind, more radicalized to believe that there is no such thing as a virus in any category under any circumstances. Viruses are just fiction from the very beginning. And the whole thing is a sham, all the way from the very start. And as soon as he started promoting that, his platforms have no longer been deplatformed, which has been like, really interesting for me to just look at, and I'm not saying, I'm not trying to make too many judgements of that.
ROBERT: I'm not inferring just for the audience. I'm not inferring who this person is based on what you've said. So, I have no preconceived notions of who the gentleman is, or gentlewoman. But in the abstract, I also observe these anomalies. Another one that's readily observed; the Wikipedia, very aggressive Wikipedia editing. The site Wikispooks, which was down for a long time and is back up again, did a lot of tracking of who was doing a lot of that editing, including my own. So that's why I had the self-interest in it. But up here, Cory, anything having to do with ivermectin, pretty much all the docs that have spoken out about this but not all, have been really aggressively edited, to cast shade on all of us. And almost all of that trafficking, editing trafficking tracks back to a very senior Wikipedia editor that appears to work 24/7 seven days a week, has a huge number of edits attributed to them, which in the Wikipedia ranking gives you more and more power to supersede any other edits, and appears to be linked directly to MI-5. We are in an environment where all of this stuff, all information is heavily manipulated, but you can, I find it intriguing that there are those who show some signs of being chaos agents, disruptors, and have put out written material being ambiguous intentionally, so that it can't be interpreted who I'm talking about. But I put out written material and have, it's quite strong in its language, but nonspecific, and there have been absolutely no edits. We have a friend, Nick Hudson, I'll name the name, who was one of the founders of Panda. He's a little bit like Ed Dowd, he's a numbers guy, investor, out of South Africa that really has been one of the key forces in that Panda group, that Pandemic Data Analysis group out of South Africa that's done a fantastic job. And he speaks about one of the ways that you can discern their activities, the opponent, the Empire's surrogates or however we want to frame is, you can find topic areas that are sensitive. They're sensitive to those people that you can identify them because it's metaphorically akin to having an electric fence around that topic. And anytime you get close to that electric fence, you get a shock. The shock will come in the form of something printed in the New York Times or The Washington Post or The Atlantic, or Rolling Stone. Or it'll come in the form of other edits or pejoratives. Or it can come in the form like with the recent Project Veritas drops regarding Pfizer. There was a sudden burst of trolls and bots. They just swarmed. And now they're kind of gone away. And there are certain topics that trigger them. And when you see that, that's your tell. And many people talk about this. You know you're over the target if the flat gets really heavy is another metaphor for that as opposed to the electric fence, right? We're in this weird world, and maybe it's one of the things that has been helpful for me is I've dealt with true intelligence community people, CIA folk for a very long time, because they're all through the biodefense community. And I've been formally introduced to them and introduced to their handlers. And so, I'm not of that community, never have been, not been through that training. But I've been told what that training, they're all trained liars, okay? They're really adroit at lying, they're very intelligent people that are very good at lying. And often they have these characteristics of lacking empathy, because it's hard to tell a good lie unless you have that characteristic, right? And so, in this kind of space, you can't assume anything. You have to be extremely sensitive to the strategies that they use, like the limited hangout, where they'll acknowledge this is true. And then they'll add some other things that might be true, but will distract you from the thing over here that they really don't want you to ask about or look at. You have to be aware of all of these different ways of manipulations, psychological manipulation with information and language and everything else if you're to somehow triangulate what is reality? I mean, it is a bizarre landscape. I don't, in any way, pretend to have mastered it. But I'm learning. I'm learning fast.
AUBREY: And I think that's what we're all getting, we're all getting real experience with what this is. So take us through, you're someone who did take, and I apologize for not knowing this aspect of your biography, must have missed it in some, but you did take two of these vaccines. So, you understood the technology probably better than anybody else at this point. And from your awareness at that point, you thought, alright, this is a reasonable idea that could potentially work and yield benefit. And then realized like, oh, shit, it's actually not a reasonable idea. And something, and you've experienced
ROBERT: And I got damaged.
AUBREY: You got damaged, so what was your original thinking? And then what actually happened? Because I had Ed Dowd talking about all of the different claims from life insurance and the deaths of unknown cause. And then the attribution to sudden adult death syndrome, all of this.
ROBERT: Did he disclose that I'm the one that sucked him into this whole thing in the first place?
AUBREY: He didn't, no.
ROBERT: Yeah, so we did a protest on Maui, long ago, that was one of the biggest ones we've done at the docks. It was like a third of the population, the whole bloody island was there. Which is when I met Ed at a dinner associated with that. And he had written this thing, the Malone doctrine, with a couple of other people from the island. And it was all about integrity. And I said, I was amazed at it. I was like, "Why did you call it the Malone doctrine?" And the response was, it's all the things that were in the spaces between the lines of everything you've said and written. I was like, "Whoa, that's pretty heavy." But it was actually Ed and his buddies that came up with all of that logic. And then Ed got into this world of the actuarial data. And I was like, "Ed, you know, we gotta get you out in front of the camera."
AUBREY: Right.
ROBERT: And so, I got him on Bannon, and then he's just blossomed. It's really been a wonderful thing to see. So my journey, I started off from the stance of number one, fundamentally believing based on decades of experience, that there are certain rules about how you develop drugs and vaccines. And those could not be violated. That to violate those rules would put me, if I did that as a clinical researcher which is my niche, clinical and regulatory and project management and that whole toolkit, and writing federal contracts. I'm really good at all that stuff. Learned it over decades. And I've always believed that there are rules and guardrails, and if I cross those, and get a 43 warning letter, something, other action item from the FDA, I would lose my ability to practice my profession. I would essentially be blacklisted, which is what happens, happens to pharmaceutical companies. And that anytime, I, professionally, had a client or was engaged in some sort of business relationship with a company that was crossing lines, I would complain, disclose, and if it couldn't be corrected, I would get out. I would fire the client, leave the company, whatever. And I've kept a totally clean record in terms of any FDA activity. So that's where I was coming from, was believing that there's actually rules and they're actually enforced, and that the FDA was mostly guilty of bungling, fairly frequently in a certain degree of incompetence, and chronically compromised by the fact that they don't pay enough. And so, they don't get the best of the best. And a lot of their hires lately have been foreign medical graduates for which English may not be their first language, and all of that stuff. That's kind of my mental image of the FDA going into this.
AUBREY: Which abides by the Hanlon's Razor principle, which does not ascribe malice to that which can be explained by ignorance. And yet nothing to believe that there was more than, some ignorance in certain places, bungling as you say.
ROBERT: So, that's kind of my working model going into this. And there was a cascade of events. Remember that I've been through multiple prior outbreaks, and this is not bragging. But folks in the DoD know they can rely on me or used to know that they could rely on me to serve as an interface socket between industry and government. And I was really good at managing that interface. So they could tell me things. "You know, Robert, we really need this kind of capability." And they're not allowed to go out and tell contractors that they need that kind of capability. But they could communicate it to me and I could assemble teams and bring it back to them and say, "Okay, here's what this team can do. Here's their capabilities, does this scratch your itch?" basically. And they'd say yes or no, or it needs to be tweaked this way. And I'd write a contract with the team, and the government would get what it needed. And this was all coming from a place of having seen for years and years that there's a small number of very, very large contractors that win these bids again, and again, and again, and rarely do they have the best technology. And so, my building that consulting business was coming from a place of frustration, seeing the government which by extension is us, buying subpar tech, basically, from contractors that were really good at building proposals and knowing how to turn all the proper knobs with the guppies. But not actually knowing the science that well and knowing the technology that well, so the guppies were continually getting subpar solutions for their literally billions and billions of dollars that they’re spending in this space. So that's kind of where my mind was at going into this. And I got this call, and getting back to it, just to establish legitimacy, so the DoD had asked me to intervene with a company called NewLink Genetics that had purchased for $150,000, this product candidate from Canada, from Public Health Agency, Canada, which was a novel vectored, so recombinant virus based vaccine for Ebola. And it turned out to be the one that was further along in any development. This little tiny Ames Iowa company that had had a bio defense capability but could never get it funded, they called the project Free Bola because everybody wanted them to do stuff for free. That ended up, I brought Merck in, Merck bought the product, that's the licensed Ebola vaccine, okay? So, I've been through this multiple times, flu multiple times. Zika. When I got this call from Callahan, I guess now formally ex-CIA, who I'd understood was in Wuhan on January 4 when he called me, that's now in dispute. But that was my understanding at the time, saying that there's this novel virus, this novel Coronavirus that represents a threat and that I ought to get one of my team spun up again around this. I did a threat assessment, made a decision that once again like with Zika, there was no way to develop a vaccine in time to really mitigate the risk. And I needed to focus on drug repurposing, and that's what I did. And focused on. And that's the whole story that's not told. It's in the literature, it's in preprints that we can never get published. There's a whole backstory with Pierre Quarry and ivermectin, and starting a special journal volume in Frontiers for repurposed drugs that then got shut down. It's a whole, none of that's ever been really discussed in podcasts. Everybody always wants to focus on the jabs. I got infected in March of 2020, actually in the end of February, when I was at an MIT Computational Drug Discovery conference. And I was actually staying right across the street from the biotech company where the Boston outbreak happened. And I came home sick as a dog, thinking that I got influenza B probably. Because there was no PR that at the time that there was any virus on the East Coast, certainly not in Boston. And then I'm lying in bed, burning lungs, just feeling like dog breath. And my wife says, "It's just on the news, this company right across the street from where you're staying, has had this massive outbreak. And that's probably what you have." And at that point, I'd spent so much time.. I'm trained in pathology, I taught pathology to medical students for years, and working with other pathologists and people right at the, we were all just obsessed with trying to make sense out of this virus, and the disease. I thought, "Okay, I'm going to die. It's just a question of how soon." And out of desperation, and I was very embarrassed at the time, I did what is really considered a moral transgression in clinical research. I treated myself with some of the drugs that we'd identified through our computer screen. I personally got relief from this Pepcid famotidine drug, and that starts that whole Pepcid story. And we'd already identified it with the computational programs. But that was kind of my track, until a number of things, like a cascade of events. We talk about it some in the book in the chapter about my being red-pilled.
AUBREY: Sure.
ROBERT: When we got that call from Callahan in the beginning of January 2020, I got going with the team and doing the cool mathematical, computer modeling, docking, that kind of stuff. And my wife said, "Well, I know what I can do, I can write a book, basically, for our neighbors and average folk, and warn them about this risk," because it wasn't in the press or anything. And talk about things they could do. And it ran from, she talked about using alcohol wipes when you get in the airplane, she talked about the good bad, the ugly of masking, N95s and just has to be properly fitting. She talked about victory gardens, she talked about supply chain problems. She talked about cleaning in the bathroom, all that kind of stuff. And did as a Kindle in March. She put her heart and soul into it. I wrote a couple of chapters and helped edit it, but she busted her can. Got it out in the first week of February, with the idea that she could update it because it was a Kindle book. And round comes March with the third update, and suddenly Amazon won't let it be updated. And we start calling in, what's going on? And I can't get an answer from anybody. Everybody's confused. I don't know, but there's a block on it. And their policy has always been that they'll tell you, there's porn or whatever the thing is, right? That's forbidden. And finally, finally we got this notice, we violated community standards. And that's all they'll tell us. And there's no appeal. It's to be taken down and that's that. And that was the first kind of, you're not in Kansas anymore moment. And then there was a series of others. This Canadian physician that I spoke with, that Steve Kirsch brokered, that has since had his office has been kind of stormed by Canadian police. They've trashed his computer. He's gone to ground. He doesn't want me to even say his name. But he shared with me up until late one Saturday night what was going on in Canada, and how they were deleting any references to any adverse events that he would enter. And he talked about the use of ice cream to entice children that was going on. And these kinds of things. And he was pleading with me to somehow intervene with the regulatory authorities in Canada. And it's like, I don't know these guys. If it was the FDA, I know who I could call but I don't know in Canada. I can't really help you.
AUBREY: So they were enticing children to get vaccinated based on ice cream.
ROBERT: Yeah, exactly. This is way early.
AUBREY: But the vaccines weren't deployed till the 2021 first quarter.
ROBERT: Yeah, this is right after I deployed, okay? So, wake up the next morning, and I'm like, I know what I can do. And I wrote up an essay that went in TrialSite News about the ethics, the bioethics of what was being done, and the lack of informed consent, et cetera. I think that was one of the first articles kind of pushing that storyline. And that was my limited hangout. I could be safe knowing how torturous this landscape was. I could be safe talking about the bioethics, because that was something I had expertise in. It was clearly wrong, what was going on.
AUBREY: But at the same time, you hadn't come to the conclusion yet that the vaccines were ineffective?
ROBERT: There was no data about that, I mean, at this time. Remember, Pfizer had done all kinds of stuff to obscure the data and the conclusions. And we weren't even being given access to the data, we were being told to just accept whatever we were being told. And I had early on, because I've been in this community now pretty much my entire professional life. I called some people that were involved in for instance, the University of British Columbia Group that made a lot of the true enabling advances with the positively charged lipids and their formulations, and talked to the lead guy about what was the nature of the formulations, why were there including the polyethylene glycol, et cetera, et cetera? And my impression at that point was that there had truly and I read the literature, tried to catch up on it, since I'd left it, my impression was that there truly had been some major advances. And that they had empirically, through trial and error, discovered that there were certain structures in these positively charged vats that would cause them to target certain organs. And the party line was, among my old peer group, that some of these when injected into the deltoid, sorry about that mic bump, would home just to the draining lymph nodes and stay there. And so, this was the belief system. And I was part of that community. And I accepted that my colleagues had, in fact, advanced the technology beyond the obstacle that had caused me and my wife to drop it and get out of it, because it was too toxic. They had made some significant advances. And now it was working, because otherwise, how could possibly, they've been moving this stuff forward?
AUBREY: So you were aware of the general potential risk of doing something in this field, but the supposition was that oh, well, this passed through the rigorous tests that this whole field was built upon.
ROBERT: They must have done all those things I was schooled in that you have to do, and it must have passed, and they must be acting in good faith. They're good people. I've known these people, they've been peers, they're academic competitors, but they're not evil intrinsically, to the best of my knowledge. And they're saying that this is all on the up and up. And then the next big bomb was this Canadian PhD vaccinologist.
AUBREY: So, just for the timeline, then you get vaccinated in that period?
ROBERT: And I'm suffering from lung COVID. And I have to--
AUBREY: From your very first infection, the one that came in early 2020. A year later.
ROBERT: I'm still dogging it. I'm just have no energy. And my belief system is that I'm probably developing pulmonary interstitial fibrosis. Because that was early on, what we believed was going to be the endpoint here, is that basically those of us that had had these infections and recovered would develop a lung fibrosis that would compromise our air exchange, kind of like emphysema. And that eventually that would kill us. And remember, when I went into this, I've been a small farmer for most of my life. My wife and I are on our fifth small farm, we literally homesteaded it from our land. And I've kind of always prided myself, I can outwork 20 something, because a lot of it's coming from within.
AUBREY: Sure.
ROBERT: I'm not buff like you are, but I can work pretty hard. And that was just gone. My stamina was shot. And I couldn't hike, I've always been a hiker. And fast forwarding, eventually I got put on ivermectin by another colleague that doesn't want to be named, because she lost her license for it. And within two days, I happened to be out in Monterey, California, with our younger son and his wife hiking along the Big Sur. And two days after starting ivermectin, suddenly, I was like at the front. "Hey, guys, let's go." It had been a long time. So, the logic was being promoted that if you took the jab, you get this extra dose of antigen, and it would kick your immune system into high gear, it would clear whatever the problem was.
AUBREY: So, clear the former problem, and offer new protection. You are aware of the natural immunity properties as well. So you knew that you had some immunity, but you're like, look, let's just supercharge this again. I got my ass kicked by COVID once, ivermectin helped out but let me just--
ROBERT: No, I hadn't taken ivermectin at that point, okay?
AUBREY: Oh, yeah. Okay.
ROBERT: So, that plus the fact I was already scheduled to give a talk in France on vaccines. And I knew I was going to have to travel a fair amount. It turned out I had no idea how much I was going to have to travel. I mean, last year, it was 400,000 miles on commercial air alone. I mean, my travel has just been insane. But that was the logic. I was going to have to travel internationally, there's no way I could travel unless I took the jab. I had lung COVID. In theory, I could convince myself that there was some logic, that that could potentially do something. At the time, there was profound denialism that lung COVID even existed. The people claiming to have lung COVID were gaslit, just like the vaccine damage were. And I believed that the problems had been solved. My peers had reassured me that this was all on the up and up, and I believed that the FDA was acting in good faith. Now, all that came crashing down, when Byram Bridle obtained the Pfizer, the technical term is non-clinical dossier, or common technical document that had been submitted in Japan. Most of it was in Japanese, but the tables and figures weren't. This was the document that Steve Kirsch displayed, some of the data that he displayed on the Bret Weinstein podcast. And for many people, I think it's the first time they ever encountered it. And as I reviewed that, Byram reviewed it in Canada. And then, because I'd written this article in TrialSite News, he was aware of me. He contacted TrialSite News' owner, and said, "Can you get Malone to look at this thing?" And I've spoken to Byram since, and he had fear and loathing that this Malone guy was just going to shred his analysis with all of his expertise. And I reviewed the document. And I was so stunned that I was like, this can't possibly be what I think it is. And I sent it to a more senior regulatory affairs professional that I've worked with for decades. And I had him assess it. And he said, "Yeah, Robert, everything that you said is true. All those deficiencies are valid, and plus you missed this one and that one," and I said, "Okay, I have to write this up now, you want to have your name on it too, because you've contributed." He's like, "Hell no. I don't want anything to deal with this."
AUBREY: Right. Right. Right.
ROBERT: And so, that was the next big bombshell mic drop moment.
AUBREY: And at that point, were you experiencing, you'd already been vaccinated at that point, had you started to experience your own negative effects of the vaccine yet?
ROBERT: So, my wife, Dr. Jill Glasspool looked into this because of course, I have the record in my vaccine card. I have to carry my bloody vaccine card all over the place. And the timing of jab two, which is the one that she tracked down, the one where I had this hypertension and these other adverse events; tinnitus, narcolepsy, pots, restless legs. She found out about this, How Bad is Your Batch site and tracked that down. And it turned out that I did get one of the known really bad batches.

AUBREY: One of the hot batches.
ROBERT: Pardon?
AUBREY: Like the hot batches, I've heard them called.
ROBERT: Yeah, whatever you want to call it. One of the ones that are associated with death and disease at a higher risk than the average ones.
AUBREY: One of the explanations for this and I just wanted to check in with you, see what you thought is, Dr. Aditi Bhargava, I had her on my podcast. She says that basically, that's just the vaccine that was actually properly stored cold the whole way, and was actually functioning to the level that it was originally designed to function. And that created what's called a hot batch, because it was actually effective.
ROBERT: Okay, so there's another thesis that gets floated that there was an intentional release of controlled batches that didn't have active material, that I can't buy. But that thesis is precisely the one that I favor. Because I know this tech, and it is really susceptible to aggregation, and a bunch of other phenomena. Like for instance, the crystals that so many people have strong inference about what material they are. But some very sophisticated Raman spectroscopy was done in Germany, Brian Cole was involved in that. Those crystals appeared to be cholesterol crystals. And there's absolutely cholesterol in the formulation. Matter of fact, I think I published the first paper about using cholesterol in these kinds of formulations. And so, it appears that the cholesterol was partitioning out of some of these particles and forming crystals. And that's kind of ongoing research happening in Germany right now about whether or not that can explain some of the adverse events. But absolutely these things, if they're not stored properly, aggregate. They won't have activity, but they will have more toxicity if that happens. It is that thesis, that hypothesis you just floated is aligned with my, let's say leading hypothesis, but I live in a world of multiple working hypotheses. So, I wouldn't say that's what happened. But I think it's a reasonable--
AUBREY: It's possible.
ROBERT: It fits what I know without inferring that there was some nefarious bad acting behavior going on, which I can't rule out.
AUBREY: Sure.
ROBERT: So, the timeline, I haven't hunted down the timeline of Byram's reveal, and my injury, and Jill's reveal of the bad batch. I know that I had... So Byram's... I took the jab before that drop, that document. I had the damage before that document. And all through this, I had ongoing dialogue with three very senior people at the FDA that were outside of the review branch. They were in the Office of the Chief Scientist and the Office of the Director. And we were all, every week we were having Zoom calls or Skype calls, going over what the latest things were and what do we think about what's going on, and what the heck is going on in the review branch. And is Peter Marks a decent guy that we can trust or not, all that kind of insider guppy stuff. And, I was operating under the assumption that Peter Marks was a white hat. The guy at FDA responsible for vaccine oversight, for the review branch. And when I encountered this common technical document, and I saw what had been done, my inference was I'm still wrapped up in the mindset that the FDA is goofy, incompetent, but not nefarious. And even though I knew that there's this whole revolving door problem, etc, that's just--
AUBREY: Which is pharma executive coming from the FDA and back--
ROBERT: Scott Gottlieb is the poster child, right? Former FDA commissioner takes a two-month vacation and becomes the director at Pfizer. And then actively manipulates Twitter to suppress information that's contrary to the interests of Pfizer, including from the guy who used to be his boss's boss, at Health and Human Services. I mean, you can't make up the stuff that's happened in the last three years. It's amazing. But so that's my model, is FDA is goofy, probably doesn't really know what they're dealing with, doesn't really know the tech. They're encountering this new tech, and Pfizer has managed to pull the wool over their eyes. So, in good faith, I do two things right around the same time. Through a friend, I set up a teleconference with Nancy Pelosi and her team. Her leading health care economist is directly on the phone, so is her leading aide, and I'm told she's off camera. In which I say, "Guys, can you please get the CDC to analyze both the virus risk and the vaccine risk in an age stratified way? They're not doing this, we always do this. What the heck is going on? This has to be done to make sense out of that." Of course, we know they still haven't done it to the present day. And I was given reassurances, "Oh, yeah, I'll look into it." Blah blah blah. Nada. In parallel, so you're asking about, this is me sharing my red pill, it's not a moment, it's a gradient.
AUBREY: Yeah, yeah.
ROBERT: And I also write to Peter Marks, and I have the status, etc. to get his attention. And I say, "Hey, Peter, I'd really like to talk to you about what I've seen in this Japanese common technical document, and share with you my insights from that." And so he agrees, we do a Zoom. I have it in my calendar still. And I'm expecting it's going to be kind of scientist to scientist, and we're going to get wonky. And instead, it's him and someone from FDA's Public Relations Division, sitting in on the call. So, it's a three-way Skype or Zoom, I forget which. And it's a little strained. And I say, "Peter, these are the things I've seen. For instance, the use of luciferase." I pioneered that, okay? I know that tech is cold. I pioneered the whole animal imaging, which they use, which is the least sensitive way to detect expression. And I say this, "What's been done here is not right. It's absolutely not right. It's not giving you the answer that you assert it's giving you," et cetera. So, he listens to me, and he says, "Robert," I'm paraphrasing. "We've received additional documents from Pfizer since then. And I've reviewed those, and I see nothing in those documents to cause me any concern. And I ask you, basically, as a professional favor--"
AUBREY: "Stand down."
ROBERT: "To not make a big issue out of this, and give me time to disclose what we now know." And instead, what happens, we know, is all that gets buried and Pfizer and the FDA do everything they can to keep it from ever coming into the public sphere for at least 70 years, until the court forces them to reveal it. And then we have this treasure trove of Pfizer documents that blows the whole thing open in terms of the adverse event. But basically, I got lied to again.
AUBREY: And in that treasure trove of documents, we see that, and Ed Dowd talks about this, that there were more deaths in the control group. I mean, there's more deaths in the treatment group than the control group, and some cardinal rules about what would actually cause you to pause, some kind of treatment have been violated.
ROBERT: This slow trickle like Maddie de Garay, and the whistleblower that talks about the clinical site that has been manipulating the Pfizer data, which in my experience, if I had been involved in a clinical trial in a management position, and had something like that happen, I would expect to lose the ability to ever run another clinical trial, or at least lose the ability for 5 or 10 years. And yet, there are no consequences. So, you ask about the red pilling. And for me, I came at this assuming good faith. Assuming that, yeah, the government is goofy, frequently incompetent, staffed by people that are paid at 80% of market rate. And my business is basically finding ways to make it work despite their incompetence. It's kind of my business. And I'm kind of a fixer, it's what I've been doing for a couple of decades at that point in this space, with a deep understanding of the whole tech landscape. In part because I've been brought in repeatedly by NIH to serve as study section chair, chairperson for the groups that are making technical evaluations of proposals for novel vaccines and other bio defense products in the range of $80-250 million. I've got a track record of having won for my clients, not for me. I'd get my standard flat rate on these things, of billions of dollars’ worth of contracts. I know this space. And I've always assumed that basically the guppies need a helping hand, and I'm there to provide it in good faith, with the assumption that kind of the working hypothesis is, the working model is, they don't like you to be visible. And then there's the whole DC mantra, if you don't want to be shot, don't let them see you. So I'd kind of been years and years and years of staying below the radar, getting my work done, being quiet, let other people take the credit for it. And get the money so I can feed my horses, sailing into retirement. And then this shitshow starts. And then I got this call from Steve Kirsch who I'd helped out, because he'd been so frustrated that he couldn't get any traction on fluvoxamine. Somebody had told him, Malone was a guy who understands the system, and you can call Malone and Malone will set up the meetings and you can get stuff done. So I just did as a favor to Steve, trying to solve that. And then we both encountered the intransigence of the whole apparatus about repurposed drugs. And there's more to that story.
AUBREY: Sure.
ROBERT: But then out of the blue, I get a call from Steve that he wants me to go on a podcast. What's a podcast? With this guy, Bret Weinstein. And I look up Brett, and he's like this high-powered, ex-full professor, evolutionary biologist. I look at a couple of clips, and I'm like, "Okay, this is going to be interesting. This is going to be the typical academic hardass that I'm going to have to go in and do a little fencing with." And Steve says, "You got to go out there and talk to him." And so, these three old men sit around this table, and talk for, what was it? Two hours. And afterwards, the view ticker is just going crazy. And I'm like, I've never seen anything like this my life. I never even knew what a podcast was. And I'm getting calls from vaccine-injured people. As we went into that, Bret turned to Steve and myself, and he said, "Okay, are you still sure you want to do this, guys? Because our lives will never be the same if we do this." And he was dead right. And since then...
AUBREY: It was one fundamental choice, to be a warrior or to be ordinary. And that's the moment.
ROBERT: Yeah, that was the moment. And at the time, there was still chatter about the Nobel Prize. I never thought that I have a buddy who sits on the committee at the Karolinska, who knew exactly what I did, when I did it. And I visited the Karolinska in the early 90s and talked to him. So, this whole jibber jabber about that I was making stuff up, and I didn't do what I really did is they were trying to write me out of history. He was like, "No, Robert, the committee knows. They called me, don't worry about it." I called him and I said, "Do I need to somehow manage to mount a press campaign like clearly is being mounted for these other two characters that are trying to get the Nobel?" And he said, "No, they've already been evaluated. Don't worry about it. We know what you did. What they did doesn't rise to the level. And no, the committee is not swayed by these press campaigns. Just chill out." So I did. But I knew that going into that, Bret made a big deal, and other people were making a big deal about the prize. And I was like, I didn't think the probability was that high and furthermore, I was absolutely not going to self-censor because of that probability, or possibility.
AUBREY: Yeah, you can't feed your Nobel Prize to your horses anyways.
ROBERT: And it's not food for your soul. One of the blessings, twisted blessings of my early life as a scientist, young scientist, in being at the Salk was seeing all the Nobel laureates that were there. Outside of Francis Crick, I can't think of a single one that was happy. I went through this process, I had a nervous breakdown, I left the Salk and was diagnosed with PTSD, and I really still have it. There are things that will trigger me. But I saw what I interpreted, the way I processed what I experienced and what I saw, is there are people with holes in their soul. And no matter how much achievement and outside validation they get, they can never fill that hole.
AUBREY: Right. Yeah, because they were born with that thing that has a completely full heart and soul. And so when you're trying, by the very process of trying to fill it, you're reifying the fact that you have a hole. Like, you're already full. So by saying like, I need to fill it, you're just making real the aspect that you're not full. And that's the psychodynamic there.
ROBERT: And so, with all of the pain for me, psychological pain of that in my early youth, having had that awareness early allowed me to opt out of a lot of the things that academia does to people and to opt in to family, and father, and all those things. And my wife and I have always been kind of old souls in a weird way. I think part of it was because she was the last child and was of older parents that were immigrants from the UK. Her father was a captain in the RAF, Royal Air Force during World War II. But we've always kind of been aware that there's a lot more than the present, that you kind of have to keep in mind if you're going to be around here for a while.
AUBREY: Yeah, your life stories got to include your death, and that's a very important thing to keep in mind.
ROBERT: Yeah. So, I think that awareness that this quest for fame can just destroy people. And it's just not worth it.
AUBREY: So, if you were to explain to a lay person, let's say you've watched my podcast with Ed Dowd, you're aware that there's a host of vaccine injuries, some, many seem to be affecting the heart, many seem to be affecting the brain. What is actually from the easiest layperson understanding of like, what is actually causing these issues that people are experiencing? And then what is the gamut of other issues people might be experiencing that maybe they're not quite to the level of myocarditis or a stroke?
ROBERT: So, buried within that question is, is there any hope for me if I'm experiencing vaccine damage? And then another layer within that is, all of these layers is the metaphor. It all comes back to Shrek, right? A great philosopher. The ogre philosopher. So, the layers. There's the buyer's remorse. I have a spike in my body, what can I do about it even if I'm not experiencing symptoms?
AUBREY: So, spike protein is what's--
ROBERT: It's one of the things, okay? There is no short answer, I'm warning you. There's no short answer to the question you just asked. There are multiple lines of data that demonstrate that almost all of the components here have toxicities, none of which were characterized, okay? The obscenity underlying all of this is the absolute failure of the regulatory agencies worldwide, but most particularly, the FDA because frankly, the rest of the world follows the FDA to perform their duties. There's a failure to perform their duties here that underlies all of this, because the fundamental driver of the pharmaceutical industry is you do not ever do anything that the FDA doesn't force you to do. Because you could get a bad outcome and compromise your product. And so, if you're the director of widgets, or whatever the thing is, the director of mice - I'm being facetious -but anywhere in the pharma food chain, if you're the guy that did the study that tanks the billion-dollar product, you're out on the street, and good luck getting another job.
AUBREY: Right.
ROBERT: Okay? So, it's the opposite of the revolving door. And so, everybody does anything they can to stay away from anything that could cause controversy, or could compromise the product. The consequence of all that as a vector sum is an absolutely atrocious process. And the only gatekeeper there is the regulatory authorities, and their willingness to say, "No, you have to do this, even though you don't want to do this and all of your organizational prerogatives, drive towards your not doing this. I don't care, you're going to have to do it." And all that goes out the door with the revolving relationship here, where the regulators now pull their punches, because they want to get a job. And they know that even if they trash, if they do the thing that causes Merck's product to flame out, because they've said you have to do this study, then Pfizer will never hire them, let alone Merck, okay? So, the whole system is compromised by this belief that we don't ever do anything that could potentially compromise a product on its way to being jabbed into your arm or in your mouth, right? And that is the true deep underlying evil sin that has caused all of this. But what's happened here is that none of these fundamental tests that should have been performed like genotoxicity, reproductive toxicology, and biodistribution, the pharmacodynamics of how much, where protein gets made. None of that stuff got done. And one of the things that's supposed to happen is that you verify that each of the separate components are not contributing to a toxic effect, and are contributing to the overall benefit of the pharmaceutical indication, the therapeutic benefit. None of that stuff was done. It was all rushed, okay? It was all like, no, no, we're going to throw all that stuff away, everything that we've learned over decades and decades, we're going to throw it right straight in the trash can, because this virus is such an enormous threat based on Neil Ferguson's bogus modeling data at Imperial College in the UK, okay? But the storyline is this thing is such an enormous threat that we have to throw out everything that we know in order to assure patient safety, and drive forward. So you ask, what's going on? The easy one to knock off is spike is absolutely toxic. It's one of the more toxic proteins known. The level of Spike protein produced with these gene therapy based products, I'm parsing, there are many vaccines out there, we're just only allowed to have a small number here in the States, and most of those are genetic ones. And frankly, Tony only wanted the RNA ones. He didn't even want the adenovirus ones. So, that's that part of it. But the data, a key, paper and I think is her name, Stanford University, March, beginning of March, last year. Cell is the journal. It's a top lab, top university, top journal, it doesn't get any better. Humans, fine needle aspiration from lymph nodes and bloods, post jab, both RNA vaccines. The level of spike protein being produced is substantially higher than the levels that you observe after natural infection. Okay, so spike is a toxin, then suddenly, oh, that makes sense. Why would you see more toxicity with the jabs than you would see with a natural infection? Because you have more spikes, okay? Simple stuff. And furthermore--
AUBREY: What does the spike do?
ROBERT: Spike has a number, it opens blood brain barriers, it binds to ACE II which is a key regulatory pathway in the body that controls a whole bunch of aspects of homeostasis. And unexpectedly, I think given the benefit of the doubt, it triggers coagulation in a very odd way. It triggers blood clotting. And it can be observed. You can take platelets and put them on a glass slide or any kind of analytic setting and expose them to spike protein, and they degranulate. They do stuff that's weird. Platelets being these key non-nucleated components of your blood that regulate blood clotting, among other things.
AUBREY: Yeah, so you get a cut, your blood clots in that area and it stops the blood.
ROBERT: It's these polymer fibers, you can think of it as like fiberglass, that is self-assembling. Self-assembling fiberglass fibers come together, block the cut. And then because you don't want to have these things sticking around in your body all the time, because eventually we just sludge to death, right? They get degraded, okay, by proteins that degrade them. But those proteins are set up for fibrin cross links that are of a certain density and form. And in the presence of spike, something is causing fibrin to aggregate and form these clot-like structures, both micro and macro, ergo, teeny tiny. And the big stringy, rubbery clots that Ryan Cole tells me feels like a rubber band that are kind of gray, that form in humans that are still living if you get to them soon enough, and they can be surgically removed, and also being observed in cadavers. Now, there's this film, "Died Suddenly" that has somebody I'm not going to talk about, but who has no experience in autopsies, is not a pathologist and interprets regular clotting as these kinds of clots, okay? But these kinds of clots are very different. They have this gray rubber band-like characteristic, and when they're examined under the microscope, and there's no small number of pathologists that are doing this, they have a spike protein in them. And they appear to be highly crosslinked, and they can't be degraded, and they're also forming, you're an athlete. We're now moving right out of the cutting edge of one school of thought about what's going on here, okay? Is think about your blood flow, it's coming from your heart, under high pressure, through the arteries, down to the smaller branching arterioles. Then it goes into the capillary bed, these really small tubes, which is where all the gas is exchanged, and the exchange of toxic metabolites, the things that give you the burn, right? And then those move out into the venules. Back the veins, and through the body and back to the heart, okay? So that's kind of the big picture. It appears that you're getting microaggregates on the arterial side of these highly crosslinked fibrin gobs, very small, don't degrade. And so, the classic finding with people that are really suffering a lot of this is the high-performance athlete, who at rest is sitting there with a blood oxygen saturation of 98%. They've got a good color. They used to run a slightly over four-minute mile. And now you put them on the track and they cannot pull a 440, and they're hurt, okay? Their exercise tolerance is shot, okay? And yet, at rest, they have normal oxygenation, okay? These are people that have constrictive afferent flow into the muscles, into the body tissues, because of these small clots. And what's going on, what's right at the front edge right now, this is by way of hope. And I happen to be on one of these drugs. I'm currently completing the FLCC recovery protocol, together with a neural protease. And I'm not advising anybody to take it, but it's an oral protease that's known to act on some of these clots. It's called nattokinase.
AUBREY: And this is going to degrade just like the body would degrade, normal clotting process?
ROBERT: What I can tell you is that personally, this is an n of one, so don't take it to mean anything, okay? I have more stamina now than I've had for quite a while.
AUBREY: So, this is a very important message for people who are like, maybe I fucked myself for life. And you're saying, "Alright, there's a way to undo potentially, theoretically."
ROBERT: And I thought I had fucked myself for life, okay? I thought I was going to die of pulmonary interstitial fibrosis. I finally went and got a pulmonary function test. And while it's not 100%, I'm still well within normal range, yay. Okay? And I was still dogging it. And I went to a local doc that I trust that's kind of with us in my area, and he did the workup and he said, "I'm going to put you on Pierre Corey’s and Paul Merck’s protocol with these other agents. And let's see how it goes."
AUBREY: So, if I'm getting this correctly, so your lung COVID was actually also potentially the natural body's production of these spike proteins, which was slowing you down. The vaccine then created an additional load of these spike proteins which slowed you down even further and caused even more, almost...
ROBERT: And so, these odd clots which can exist, like I said, the big form, these kind of small local forms that are chronic because they can't be degraded, also appear to be forming in the brain and in the heart, either from a distant site and then getting blown into that, okay? So, that's obstructive--
AUBREY: Because the spikes potentially even open the blood brain barrier to let the clots in.
ROBERT: Well, I'm talking about getting into the small vessels of the brain, okay? That's a stroke. That's an obstructive stroke, as opposed to a hemorrhagic stroke. And these people that have, the cardiologists call them stemmies. These ST elevation, this is on the EKG, myocardial infarctions that are suddenly happening to people in their 30s, people that shouldn't, that don't have a history of cardiac plaque, okay? Cardiac vessel disease, big cholesterol deposits, kind of stuff that people like me get, right? They're suddenly coming down with MIs that show the signs of being an obstructive vascular driven MI.
AUBREY: So myocardial infarction, like a heart attack.

ROBERT: Exactly, yeah. So, from some blockage of the vessel. And what the interventional cardiologists are reporting, this is anecdotal. There's no published study, okay? This is just what's bubbling up anecdotally, because that's the first sign where these things happen is, an interventional cardiologist is the guy that takes the big long tube that has a little balloon at the end, and kind of a sort of a pointy end, and working together with a radiologist threads it down into your heart vessels. And can find - it's quite sophisticated, amazing stuff - can find the vessel where the blockage is by using contrast material, and poke that little end through that, and then blow up the balloon that will push the plaque to the edge of the arterial wall, and then they can put a stent in or do other things. And then suddenly you don't have to have open heart surgery. So that's modern interventional cardiology in a minute. Unfortunately, they're finding with some of these little clots now, they can't poke the tip through. They're too hard. They're too highly crosslinked. There's something weird going on. So, that's that compartment.
AUBREY: So, I get the image of like, Spider-Man throws this fucking little web up and it blocks some other thing in there. So it's like--
ROBERT: It's actually a good metaphor, what you're talking about, okay? There are actually neutrophil nets, is one of the problems that exists is that some of the white cells when they blow up, when they're responding to infections and damage, they actually do create a Spider-Man net. So what you're touching on intuitively, is maybe it's the universe channeling through you. But it has some merit. So, that's one of the processes, slightly different from what I'm talking about, but absolutely that also appears to be ongoing. So, there's a bunch of things that have to do with blood clotting and blocking and obstructing blood flow. And the thing about that is it can affect any part of your body. So, for instance, they talk about COVID toe, okay? You can have blockage in the vessels for your toe, you could have blockage of the vessels of your ear. You could have blockage in the vessels of your nose, you could have the blockage of vessels in your kidney.
AUBREY: Is that potentially what was causing your tinnitus? Some kind of blockage in the ear drum?
ROBERT: Unknown what's driving the tinnitus. The tinnitus is one of the very common adverse events. And it's hypothesized to be an inflammatory process. That's like saying--
AUBREY: Tinnitus seems like it's not very well known anyways. The treatments for that are limited.
ROBERT: Well, gently put. So yeah, they're anti-inflammatories. So, there's that stuff. There's the lipids themselves, the nano lipid plaques, are inflammatory like I said. And you can pull that out of the data.

AUBREY: And this is different than the spike proteins? Now we're on to a different vector of--
ROBERT: So, the spike protein is a thing that gets made, okay? Then to back up in the process, the mRNA that they're delivering is not real mRNA. It's a modified molecule. They call it mRNA, and they told everybody that it would degrade within a couple of hours. That was all lies, okay? It's a highly modified molecule that has pseudouridine. This is the Kariko Weissman patent that they were hoping to get the Nobel Prize for. This pseudouridine, which is a natural molecule that's placed in mRNA very carefully, because it modifies RNA function. But what they do with their process is they put it in every place instead of the regular U, the regular uridine. So, when you do this with, we're still learning what pseudouridine does in RNA. What's being manufactured is not a real natural RNA, not what I had originally envisioned. And this modification makes it so that the RNA-like molecule, among other things, is immunosuppressive, which is one of the reasons they did it in the first place. They were trying to overcome the inflammatory response. So, they stuck something in there to shut down the inflammatory response. But this is like a sword that cuts in both ways, right? It shuts down the inflammatory response due to the drug product, but it also nonspecifically shuts down other forms of immune response. So, the highly pseudo uridine modified mRNAs are intrinsically immunosuppressive. Uh-oh, that's a problem, okay? And it confers really long half-life, which is another thing that that study that I was telling you about, when they did the lymph node biopsy, pharma and the government had told everybody, and the docs, that the RNA just stuck around for a couple hours. It doesn't. In that study, they showed that they could still detect the intact "RNA," in people's lymph nodes, 60 days, which is the longest they tested after injection. So boom, that's another mic drop moment, because that means that it's potentially still producing spike protein during that time, which means that the thesis, that the adverse events that Ed and Naomi Wolf, and everybody else all over the world that's hunting this are tracking, because that's what the CDC will release. They're looking at adverse events within a fairly short window, like a couple of weeks, and saying if it's beyond that, it's not vaccine related. It's just random noise. But if the drug product is still there, and potentially still biologically active for up to 60 days later, you got to open that window way up. So, that means that all the data we have on the adverse events and the deaths that are coming from official sources is bunk. It's garbage. Because it's based on a false assumption. So, there's the RNA, sticks around a long time, doesn't get degraded like they say. It's intrinsically immunosuppressive. Then, there is the complex when you wrap it with these positively charged fats that kind of self-assembles and condenses. That has toxicity. How do we know that that's toxic? Well, Moderna, for instance, in their board of directors reports, or in their stockholder reports, revealed data on their phase one studies of their influenza vaccine using the same exact technology. And it has a remarkably high level of adverse events, like grade three adverse events when dosed at the level that they're dosing these vaccines. Something like 30 to 40% of people. That's a lot. So, flu vaccine is not making a spike. So whatever is going on there is causing problems that have nothing to do with spike. So, the bottom line is that each one of these layers in this thing that have never been characterized, appear to have their own intrinsic toxicology. And so, each of those have these things like Ryan Cole, and now many pathologists and surgical oncologists and general oncologists, medical oncologists are observing anecdotally still. These cancers that are recurring, that they thought were cured after the jab, or they're unusually aggressive, they have very high division rates, that's mitotic rate, this kind of stuff. So, there's that problem. And that's one of the ones that's kind of a, it's like a short term toxicity. Like, I go into shock from the polyethylene glycol and I drop dead, or not. Then there's this kind of intermediate toxicity. The myocarditis, the more severe myocarditis falls into that, some of the strokes and clotting problems fit into that. And then there's this kind of longer term delayed wave that we're still just beginning to figure out.
AUBREY: So, what you've effectively done here I think, is expand in kind of a technical term, the Overton window of what's possible.
ROBERT: Oh, absolutely.
AUBREY: What's possible from all of the different toxic elements of this.
ROBERT: I'm acutely aware of what the Overton Window is.
AUBREY: Yeah, I learned about it from your book. So it's a fresh word for me to understand, but it's just opening the realm of possibility of what all of these different toxic elements--
ROBERT: Which in good science is what you have to do, right? If you're really trying to be objective about it and not be a propagandist.
AUBREY: Not be practicing scientism. Yeah, exactly.
ROBERT: Yeah. So, there's a bunch of these things. And then the bombshell that dropped last week, which is, we've known that there is this problem of reproductive age women, and also postmenopausal women that suddenly start having menses after the jab, and reproductive age women that have delayed menses, or prolonged menses, or irregular menses after they take the jab. And this was something that was noted very early on by the Orthodox rabbis in New York and New Jersey. And they hold a series of testimonies, which I was grateful to participate in - ambient noise here in Miami - after which they determined that based on what they had heard, and what they were observing, because they so closely track menstruation in their parish, what everyone calls it, that children and reproductive age women in particular should not take this product, and they really discouraged it. It was actually in their declaration, illegal. They determined that it would be illegal to take this. And for the general population, they discouraged anyone taking these products. Then we had the FDA and the pharma, etcetera, denying that women were having this. And now last week, we got this bombshell from this young physician, just a few years out of medical school that has a very senior role at Pfizer. He's a director, worldwide director of mRNA strategies, I think is the technical term. So he's like third down from the CEO Bourla. And he reveals, admittedly he's entrapped by Project Veritas to disclose things casually in the context of thinking he's having a date. In which he says that Pfizer fully acknowledges that these female reproductive consequences are occurring, and that their leading explanation for that is that these products are causing damage to the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal gonadal axis, which is to say, your endocrine system.
AUBREY: Right.
ROBERT: And that's something that a lot of the docs that are questioning the narrative have speculated might be the case, but to have a senior executive from Pfizer directly acknowledging that that appears to be their leading hypothesis is a huge bombshell. Because that then amplifies into, your endocrine system controls your state of mind, your mental state as to whether or not you're depressed, it controls your immune function, it controls your sex drive, it controls your digestion, it controls cardiovascular function. Your endocrine system is crucial to your health. And this casual acknowledgement by the senior executive at Pfizer that these products may be damaging that, and they'll eventually get around to looking into it as if it's some small thing that's only limited to impacting on women's menstrual cycle is, stunning is an understatement.
AUBREY: Well, I want to be respectful of your time. And there's two things that I want to cover before you have to get off to the grand adventures that you have here in Miami. So, the two things I want to cover, I think we've covered kind of the safety, kind of the spectrum of what's happening from a safety perspective. You could argue that if the vaccines were incredibly effective, and that COVID was as deadly as it was originally thought to be, that you could say, look, this is just the cost of this incredibly--
ROBERT: Yeah, if it was Ebola, people would be lining up around the block.
AUBREY: Like, alright, look, there's a lot of bad shit that can happen but it's very effective at dealing with COVID. And so, the efficacy warrants all of these side effects. So, if you could just touch briefly on the efficacy, which many of us know that people who've been vaccinated are still getting COVID, quite regularly.
ROBERT: Yeah, and it's worse than that. And I don't know what Ed covered. So, just citing, as my friend Peter Mercola likes to do, citing the specific literature, there's a recent article out from the Cleveland Clinic. It's a very large study group, it's basically all their employees that they tracked. The incidence of the disease COVID is a function of the number of inoculations. I'm choosing not to call them vaccinations because they don't function to protect you from infection. And what that study showed in a very large population, was the more of these inoculations you take, the more likely you are to develop the disease. We also have data--
AUBREY: So that's showing that it's not only not effective, it's anti-effective.
ROBERT: Yeah, we call it negative efficacy is the technical term. Or negative effectiveness, this is how we parse words in vaccinology. Effectiveness is what happens in the community. And efficacy is what we measure in a clinical trial. So in this case, it would be efficacy that's being measured, but the truth is, the effectiveness goes negative about two months after you take the jab, which is why at one point, there was this chatter that we shall get boosters every two months.
AUBREY: Which then increases the toxicity, increases the amount of spike proteins.
ROBERT: Because it's additive or multiplicative, we don't know. Precisely. So, there's absolutely solid data, that the more inoculations you take the higher the probability that you'll develop the disease. That's one thing. There's data from all over the world even in the face of all the data manipulation that's happened, and it's an increasing trend as we get further out, that the majority of individuals that are being hospitalized are the vaccinated. They are no longer the unvaccinated. The truth is that we currently have, if we're going to call it an epidemic, an epidemic of the vaccinated in terms of the hospitalized disease. And you see this from nation after nation after nation.
AUBREY: Yeah, Ed has a lot of those different graphs of the point of mass adoption of the "inoculation".
ROBERT: Right, and then there's that correlation.
AUBREY: And then the amount of deaths and the amount of hospitalizations.

ROBERT: So, there's a physician scientist that we interact with from the Netherlands, named Shooters that has done a fascinating study, where he's dug into the data. In that region, Belgium and the Netherlands, they tend to do vaccination campaigns, and particularly for the elderly, which are considered to be the high risk group. The truth is that the average age of death with COVID is higher than the average age of death, just to put a stake in that. We're subjected to an enormous amount of fear porn around all of this. Just a huge cloud of propaganda. But he's dug into looking at the data on the vaccine campaigns in the elderly, 61 or 62 and above is what they do. Because they go through the nursing homes and other things. And then from a separate government database, getting mortality in the elderly, and lining up these two datasets. And like what Ed is showing with the insurance actuarial data, he shows that repeatedly, you'll see a spike in the vaccine campaigns. And then following that by a couple of weeks, you'll see a spike in all cause mortality in that same cohort. So, there's just data set after data set after data set, I'm going to get wonky, all the vectors are pointing in the same direction. This is bad, okay? It's not random. If it was random noise, some things would be pointing this direction, some things would be pointing that direction. And you'd have to cherry pick the data to make your point if you wanted to make anything. But when you see this excess all cause mortality data, all driving in the same direction, all with this correlation having to do with onset of inoculation, any sane person, any sane regulator that wasn't compromised by mass formation or hypnosis or whatever we want to call it, or Dineiro's would say, "Hey, we got to stop this until we've figured this out, right? Because people's lives are at stake." Buddy, none of that happening. And except for in some European nations, and that's why I mentioned early in our talk that there's some hope that the UK may wake up. But not the US right now. Although the White House is saying they're going to stop the emergency declaration, I think it's May 11. Just put out an essay about that yesterday. So, we absolutely see this pattern. And the other one that's buried within this; the FDA had long warned before the licensor even was granted or the EUA, about antibody dependent enhancement. And there's some evidence that there's some of that going on. It's very hard to pull that out of the data to tease it out, that phenomena, because it's very technical. It's hard to do those studies to demonstrate antibody dependent enhancement. If it's happening, it's not classical, like you see in dengue.
AUBREY: I don't necessarily understand what--
ROBERT: Antibody dependent enhancement. So, in the world of vaccinology, there's a cluster of things that we would call vaccine enhanced diseases that are the vaccinologists nightmare. And the worst example, the one that everybody cites is the studies done in the 1960s with respiratory syncytial virus, which by the way, all evidence suggest it was a lab leak. We didn't used to have RSV in the population, probably jumped out of a primate colony near Bethesda, one leading hypothesis. Just to put a stake in that one. RSV didn't used to exist, then it did. It kills preemies and newborns. so they wanted to come up with a vaccine that they could give. And, they used classical vaccine technology where they purified the virus and inactivated it with formalin and then gave it back to the kids. And lo and behold, when they did the clinical trial, more kids died that got the vaccine when they got infected with RSV than the ones that didn't get the vaccine. Bad news. Your product, Dr. Smith, killed children. That is like, you don't want that on your CV, for sure.
AUBREY: Sure, sure, sure.
ROBERT: But that's what happens. So it's like the nightmare is vaccine enhanced disease. One form of vaccine enhanced disease is antibody dependent enhancement, where you generate antibodies from the vaccine, and they don't completely prevent the infection. They're not good enough for whatever reason, there's a number of reasons. But they can grab the virus, and because an antibody is kind of like a fork, it's got tines, that's the part that binds the thing that it binds to. And then it's got a kind of a tail, like the handle of the fork. And that tail has functions. And one of them is that it binds to white blood cells called macrophages that have receptors for that back end of the fork. And that can cause those cells to get infected with a virus, because it's bringing it close to them, that otherwise couldn't infect that type of cell. And then if that type of cell, the macrophage, will support that replication, suddenly, you've gone from having the normal range of things the virus can infect to that plus white cells that happen to migrate all over your body. Bad news. You get vaccine enhanced disease. And this was historically the big problem with Coronavirus vaccines. They never built a Coronavirus vaccine for humans ever before that worked for a tinker's dam, and only a couple for veterinary. And there's a lot of coronaviruses out there. Because of this problem. It's one of the reasons why in my initial assessment, I said, "Are you kidding? Develop a vaccine for this thing with a history of that? No, let's focus on repurposed drugs." But that's not what Tony wanted to do, and that's not what the government did.
AUBREY: Tony being Anthony Fauci.
ROBERT: And that gets us to the present. So, there's a number of these types of vaccine enhanced disease phenomena. And the one in this case that's really well documented, multiple studies, top labs all over the world, studies going back to that one that I just referred to, from Stanford and many others, is something called immune imprinting, which by the way is a problem with influenza vaccines also. And the short version of that is that your immune system remembers the last battle, really good. And if it now encounters the Blitzkrieg, and all it remembers is Flanders Fields, following the metaphor? It gets overwhelmed. It can't cope with the Panzers and the Luftwaffe. When you first get exposed to a Coronavirus, and when you first get jabbed with this spike protein from an ancient, from the Wuhan strain that no longer is in circulation anywhere in the world, okay?
AUBREY: Which is another big problem with efficacy. And I don't want to open that bracket because we're running out of time but basically--
ROBERT: So, your immune system gets taught to respond to something, doesn't even exist anymore. And then when the new pathogen, the evolved immune escaping virus comes in, your immune system reacts as if it's the old virus. That's called immune imprinting. That is clearly happening. And the data from multiple laboratories showed last summer that if you took a strategy like what they've taken with the boosters, what you're mostly going to do is make that immune imprinting problem worse. And lo and behold, people are starting to say, "Oh, look, what's happening? We're having immune imprinting problems."
AUBREY: And then, so take someone who's never gotten vaccinated. I've had COVID twice. The first time I got it was pretty early on. And it was bad. It wasn't as bad as yours or anything, but it was a fucking nightmare for a couple of days. Not enough to scare me, but it was like, wow, this is something really bad. And then subsequently--
ROBERT: When was your second hit? This fall?
AUBREY: The second one was probably 2022 first quarter, maybe March 2022.
ROBERT: That was probably Omicron.
AUBREY: And that was the Omicron time, right?
ROBERT: You got lucky. You missed Delta. Delta was a stinker.
AUBREY: Yeah, so I think I got the original one. And then I got the Omicron--
ROBERT: Yeah, Wuhan I with a booster of Omicron. So, you're probably about as good as you're going to get at this point, my friend. You probably have, unless you have some immunodeficiency, a very broad based integrated immune response, that is to multiple antigens, not just a spike. And has basically been boosted by your Omicron hit. And will be a complex mix of both T-cell antibody and learned innate immunity, because now we're learning that what we thought innate immunity was, this ancient immune system actually also has some learning and memory that can happen with it. So, you're probably sitting in the catbird seat right now. And absolutely should not take the jab in my opinion.
AUBREY: It was not even a thought, because fundamentally, what I saw was alright, the first one was bad. The second one was just mildly uncomfortable. And so, the arc for me in my journey was, and it seemed like Omicron actually, by the time you get there, if you haven't had this kind of disease acceleration process, like it's actually going to get easier. It's going to get easier ultimately to handle except if you've done some intervention.
ROBERT: Not to crow, but I will. This is what I said two Christmases ago, on the Laura Ingraham show. I mean, I have taken some risks through this, where I said, I think this is going to happen. Like I gave a sworn testimony in the Texas Senate, that immune imprinting was going to be a problem, and that these boosters were an absolute bad idea. I mean, there's a stake in the sand. I said that. And I also said on Ingram, two Christmases ago that Omicron looked to me and based on the data coming out of South Africa, that it's going to act like a natural live attenuated vaccine. It's the closest thing to a Christmas present we could have right now, which shocked a bunch of people. Shocked Laura, apparently. But that's how it's played out. And the thing about all of that, I'm not saying I'm a genius, or some sort of sage prophet. All of this stuff could be easily figured out by anybody objectively looking at the data.
AUBREY: A scientist, not a devotee of scientism.
ROBERT: Right. We didn't have to have this. This is the thing that I find so potent about just Malone sitting here, observing the world and others; Gert and so many others, okay, sitting here observing the data coming in saying, "Hey, guys, better watch out for this." I saw a great meme the other day, three robots going down the stream. And there's a guy standing on the edge of the stream and he's saying, "There's a fall over there." And one of them is saying, "Where's your tinfoil hat?" The other one says, "What a conspiracy theorists." And the other one's saying, "Show me the data. What's the citation?" as he's going over the falls. I kind of feel like that guy on the edge of the river. What a weird world.
AUBREY: So, and again, pressed for time, want to let you go here. A message of hope for people who have taken the vaccine, for people who might be even more in fear actually having listened to this, which unfortunately is part of the process. You have to go from the pre-tragic the government's looking out for us, Pfizer's looking out for us, this is going to help, this is the pre-tragic state. Then you enter, this podcast may have pushed people into accepting the tragic state, which is like, fuck, this thing is fucked, what are we going to do? And then there's a move to go from the tragic to the post-tragic of like, alright, how do we accept this? How do we move on? And how do we mitigate the damage as best we can from here forward? So, a message of hope to anybody who's taken the vaccine.
ROBERT: My friends, I'm traveling that journey too. I've been damaged. So many people have. There's a small number globally, a small number of physicians and scientists working to try to understand what's happened to so many of us. And there seems to be progress. My own experience is that I'm feeling better. I had to change a number of things. I went on a keto diet. I'm having to modify lifestyle, lose weight for sure. I'm already on all the supplements; vitamin D, zinc, magnesium, all that stuff. I think that it's absolutely in everyone's interest to get their vitamin D levels checked. If your physician says, "No, I'm not going to do that test," find another doc. Because that happens. And don't lose hope. It's so easy to feel helpless and be a victim. And you don't have to. I refuse to be a victim. And God knows they've thrown enough fecal matter at me, but I'm still standing, right? There's a whole bunch of us that have just been gaslit and harassed and treated like dirt, and some have chosen to hide. But most of us are still standing. And there's some of us that have actually gotten stronger for the experience. And, to loop back to an earlier part of our conversation, you can choose to be a warrior.
AUBREY: Yeah. Well, it's an honor to stand with you, my warrior brother.
ROBERT: Thank you.
AUBREY: We talk about all this, and there's a way that you can suppress the emotion of like, the gravity of it. And then sometimes it just fucking hits me.
ROBERT: Yeah, blows you open.
AUBREY: It just blows me open. So just, I'm here to the end. This is what I'm here for, it's what I'm built for. It's what I came for, and I know you have the same--
ROBERT: It's a battle worth fighting.
AUBREY: It is, it is. And so here we are.
ROBERT: And COVID is just the edge. It's way bigger.
AUBREY: No doubt, no doubt. Well, thank you, brother. I appreciate you so much. Thanks for all your work.
ROBERT: Thanks for spending time with me.
AUBREY: Absolutely. And thanks, everybody for tuning in and listening. Much love.