Vaccine Questions

Updated: Sep 8, 2021

Jan Jekielek | Epoch Times | With Dr. Robert Malone


“We need to confront the data [and] not try to cover stuff up or hide risks,” says mRNA vaccine pioneer Dr. Robert Malone.


What does the most recent research say about the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines? In this two-part episode, we sit down again with Dr. Malone for a comprehensive look at the vaccines, booster shots, repurposed drugs like ivermectin, and the ethics of vaccine mandates.


Jan Jekielek: Dr. Robert Malone, it’s such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders.

Dr. Robert Malone: Always my pleasure, Jan, and thank you for the chance to come back and visit.


Mr. Jekielek: I want to read you a few headlines that I’ve come across in the last few weeks since we did our recent interview, and give you a chance to speak to them. This is a drophead: “Robert Malone claims to have invented mRNA technology. Why is he trying so hard to undermine its use?” How do you react to this?

Dr. Malone: That’s the Atlantic hit piece. It was a very interesting article because it has a number of logic jumps and irregularities. Then it ends up contradicting itself in the last paragraph, and basically confirming that my assertions about having being the originator of the core technology are valid. I’m subjected to this meme that you didn’t really do the things that you did in the late 1980s almost continuously, usually from internet trolls.


So really what the young author was picking up on was some internet memes that have been wrapped around the prior press push that Katie Kariko and Drew Weissman were the ones that had originated the technology. Now that was clearly false, but it was very actively promoted by their university, which holds a key patent, and then advanced through Stat News, Boston Globe, CNN, and then finally the New York Times.


We challenged that, and in the case of the New York Times, they actually recut their interview and podcast with Katie Kariko to cut out the parts where she had claimed that she was the original inventor.


But how do I react to it, this kind of pejorative use of language to cast shade? It doesn’t really bother me. I know what the facts are, and I have this massive amount of documentation. When people come at me with those things, I just say, “Hey, look, here it’s on the website. Here are the documents, you can make your own assessment.”


The thing that bothers me about all of this, when they’re personalizing character assassination on me and character attacks, is that it distracts from the issues. And it’s not about me, this kind of chronic questioning of why would I be saying things about the ethics of what’s going on? Why would I be raising concerns about the safety signals? I must have some ulterior motive.


There’s an underlying theme to all this, that I must have some ulterior motive. This particular journalist asked me again, and again, and again, trying to get at, “What was my ulterior motive for trying to undermine these vaccines based on my technology?” It was so paradoxical, the push of a whole series of questions that he raised with me.


I don’t know what it says about journalism or what it says about our culture, that we always assume that someone must have an ulterior motive. It’s not sufficient to just be addressing an issue because it matters, because it is the ethically correct thing to do. There seems to be this assumption that everybody’s got an angle. It says more about the author than it says about me.


This kind of casting shade and aspersions on me personally as a way to avoid addressing the underlying issues, I just see it as a kind of noise and also a little bit sad. It’s almost an affirmation. If the strongest thing they can come up with is to try to attack and cast shade on whether or not I made a significant contribution that led to over nine patents during the late 1980s—if that’s the worst they can throw at me, I’m doing pretty good. So that’s how I see it.


Mr. Jekielek: So you’re not trying, “So hard to undermine the use of this vaccine technology.”

Dr. Malone: No. My concern here, as I said in our prior interview, is that there’s been a series of actions taken, policies taken, regulatory actions taken, that are at odds with how I’ve been trained with the norms as I’ve always understood them. The regulatory norms, the scientific norms—these things have been waived. For a lot of people, it doesn’t make sense.


And recall, reeling back, what triggered this was this amazing podcast with Bret Weinstein and Steve Kirsch, where I don’t think at that point in time the world had really heard anyone questioning the underlying safety data assumptions and ethics of what was being done. There was a widespread sense of unease about these mandates and efforts to force vaccinations, and expedite the licensure of this and deploy it globally on the basis of very abbreviated clinical trials. There was a widespread sense of uneasiness.


But people didn’t really have language to express it. When that podcast happened, for some reason, it catalyzed global interest in a way that I didn’t expect. I still have people writing me, “I just saw the Bret Weinstein DarkHorse Podcast.” Something happened there, where events came together. I expressed some things that I had just been observing that I felt were anomalous in how the government was managing the situation, in the nature of the vaccines, in the testing of the vaccines, and in the ethics of how they were being deployed and forced on children, plus other things in various countries, including the United States.


That triggered a whole cascade, but it wasn’t because I had concerns about the technology or was casting shade on the technology, I’ve repeatedly made it clear that, in my opinion, these vaccines have saved lives. I get challenged on that all the time, by the way. There’s a whole cohort that says, “Oh no, these aren’t worth anything. They shouldn’t be used at all. They’re not effective.”


In my opinion, they’ve saved a lot of lives and they’re very appropriate at this point in time. The risk benefit favors administration of these vaccines, even with all we’ve learned since in these last few months, it favors their administration to the elderly and the high-risk populations. So contrary to this thread of I’m trying to denigrate these and tear them down—no, I’m trying to say I’m all in favor, strongly in favor of ethical development and deployment of vaccines that are safe, pure, effective, and non-adulterated.


I’m really strongly dug in that we need to confront the data as it is, and not try to cover stuff up or hide risks or avoid confronting risks. In my opinion, the way that we get to good public policy in public health is we not only recognize those risks, but we also constantly take the position of looking forward, looking for leading indicators of risk, performing risk mitigation, and monitoring for black swans and unexpected events surrounding that.


That’s where I come from, strongly believing that the norms that have been developed over the last 30 to 40 years in vaccinology should be maintained. We shouldn’t jettison them just because we’re having a crisis.


Mr. Jekielek: Why don’t we do a review? There’s been a number of very significant papers in the last week or two that have come out with very robust data sets telling us, to my less educated eye, some very valuable information. If you agree, maybe you can review some of these for us. I know you’ve been studying every one of these in some detail.

Dr. Malone: The emergence of the Delta variant, whether originally in India and then subsequently in the UK and then in Israel, has really thrown back the public health enterprise globally and in these countries, because there were assumptions made about the effectiveness of the current vaccines and their ability to contain the outbreak. There was almost a social contract set up between the vaccine recipients and the governments and public health authorities.


That social contract was, “Despite what you may have heard about the risks of some of these products and the fact that we admittedly did rush them, we’re protecting your health. If you take these products, you will be safe.” That’s the social contract. “Despite all these other concerns, you will be safe, and you won’t have to retake them. You’ll be protected.” People believed they had a shield if they bought in and did this.


And then the Delta variant came along, and suddenly that was no longer valid. The assumption that had been made, the social contract, was somehow broken. First we found out, if you’ll recall this cascade of events—we had Pfizer disclose that the durability, the length of time that the vaccine would provide protection was not as expected. It was something like six months. This came out of the Israeli data.


Mr. Jekielek: Just to be clear, are we talking about protection from infection or protection from disease?

Dr. Malone: That’s a whole other rabbit hole. It really was protection from infection and spread that was the main parameter of concern with the six month data. You may recall that announcement was made unilaterally by Pfizer based on the Israeli data, and then immediately contradicted by Dr. Fauci saying that this wasn’t true and Pfizer had no right to make these statements, and they hadn’t discussed it with him. Pfizer then apologized and backed down.


And a week later, the U.S. government announced, that in fact, we were going to need to have boosters. Then there was the announcement that the government had contracted to buy the boosters that were going to be deployed at eight months. Then more data came out. Now most recently the government is saying, “We may have to have boosters at five months.” There was emergency use authorization that this third dose would be deployed to elderly and immunocompromised. And now we’re talking about everybody needing it.


So this was the logic, “Take the dose, take the two shots or the one-shot for J&J and you’ll be protected. We’ll get out of this because we’ll reach herd immunity. The whole problem is that we just don’t have enough people that are being compliant with this.” Remember, this goes back to July 4th.


July 4th was the goal when we were going to have 70 per cent vaccine uptake. We didn’t meet that. And there was a lot of discomfort with the Israeli data. Then all of this new information is rolled out, the Israeli data in particular, having to do with the increasing number of infections and hospitalizations.


At first the position was that this was only occurring in the unvaccinated cohort. Then that became increasingly untenable and it became clear that it was occurring in the vaccinated cohort. The same became true with the UK data set, which is stronger than the American monitoring system. They do a lot more sequence analysis.


So now we had this paradox that those that had been vaccinated, while the data still suggested that they’re largely protected from disease and death and more protected than the unvaccinated from disease and death, they’re no longer protected from infection. It became clear within the data, and through multiple sources, that the levels of virus replication in the individuals, even who had been vaccinated previously, was the same or higher as the levels of virus replication in those that had been un-vaccinated. And also that those that had been vaccinated and had breakthrough infections, which is what we’re talking about, were also shedding virus and able to spread virus.


So that raised the prospect that they were kind of the new super spreaders, because they would have less apparent disease and yet still be shedding high levels of virus. Then we started to see some signs suggesting that there may be some differences in the nature or onset or titers of disease in those that had been infected beyond six months after their vaccination point. This is the waning phase.


That set up a situation where a lot of folks were on edge. There were still a lot of media pushing that this was a pandemic of the unvaccinated, but that became increasingly untenable as the data rolled in.


You’ve referred to this paper that came out. There were actually three in a row that came out almost immediately after the license was issued for the BioNTech product.


There was a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine that had an odd structure in which they related adverse events associated with the virus infection and a much more comprehensive assessment of adverse events associated with the vaccines. By juxtaposing these two data sets in the same manuscript, the case was made that, “Yes, we have this significantly enhanced spectrum of adverse events associated with the vaccine beyond what had been previously disclosed. We were all focused on the cardio-toxicity.”


But now, additional adverse events, and things that we discussed when we had our last chat as parent adverse events, these are now fairly well-documented in this New England Journal article, things like viral reactivation. So this is the shingles, for instance.


The paper attempts to make the case that, “The vaccines have a lot of adverse events, but the disease has a lot of adverse events also, and the disease is worse. Also there’s a lot of overlap between these adverse events associated with the disease and the vaccine.” But the messaging was focused in that manuscript that it was far worse to get the disease than to have the adverse events associated with the vaccine.


That’s a little bit of a false analogy, because the vaccine ostensibly would be deployed to 80 or 90 per cent of the population. And in terms of this wave of Delta, we might see something like 20 or 30 per cent of the population infected if we’re lucky. Then there’s an imbalance of who’s at risk with the vaccine versus who’s at risk for the infection, but that was the construct.


Mr. Jekielek: And just to be clear, what do you mean by 20 to 30 per cent, if we’re lucky? Where do those numbers come from?

Dr. Malone: I’ve seen data suggesting that the total population right now that’s been infected in the United States is something like about 20 per cent of the total population. We don’t have that widespread of an uptake of infection in the U.S. or in the UK. UK data also shows those kinds of numbers. They’re reflected in a cohort that have had a natural infection and recovered from that, and then acquired the immune response associated with that.