mRNA Vaccine Tech Inventor: Individual Freedom Outweighs 'Greater Good' — Vax is Risky, Experimental

It's time to stop being brow-beaten by vax zealots unwilling to research anything beyond Buzzfeed or the Huff Post. The quotes in this post I have transcribed myself from this video.

"There has to be full, willing acceptance of the medical product voluntarily. No coercion. No incentives. No free ice cream. And pretty much all throughout the world now, we've already passed the coercion line ... If you deconstruct that, what we're saying is is that we're okay sacrificing the right of the individual for the right of the community."

- Dr. Robert Malone, creator of the mRNA technology used in the COVID-19 vaccines (emphasis mine)

"The youth have a very, very low risk of hospitalization and death, particularly the adolescent, child, and infant populations. Also young adults ... have a very low risk of hospitalization and death ... What we're doing by saying this 'one hammer' approach to everybody — everybody need to get the jab — what we're doing is we're putting our youth at higher risk for vaccine-related events. The ugly truth is our youth will have some degree of disease or death attributable to the vaccine in order to save the elderly."

"All we know is an emerging, hazy picture ... of what our more acute adverse events are. We have no idea about the long-term ones."

"The current data that we have available does not appear to support a favorable risk/benefit analysis in that [youth] age cohort."

"The spike proteins also open the blood-brain barrier so that relates to some of the central nervous system findings that some people experience, including the brain fog. So, those things would not be independent of age, typically, as findings. One of the things about the toxicity in the heart is we're able to see that in the data in adolescents in part because adolescents have such a low background event level of these kinds of heart problems. You almost never see them. So if you start seeing them, it's easy to see the signal. It's harder to see the signal in adults because we have heart problems, in general, and so there's a lot more noise to that signal. To that end there was a paper just out about these same kinds of heart problems in young adults and older adults in the U.S. military ... It was in a peer-reviewed journal. I think it was in the journal of American Medical Association. That's now out ... On our punch list we've got the blood clotting problems, which are not trivial — and all of these may be interrelated — we've got the blood clotting problems, we've got the platelet loss, we've got the cardio-toxicity. There are others that are within there, that aren't being brought out yet. And some of them relate to female reproductive health."

Are there any information about reproductive health and pregnancy-associated with these vaccines? ... The spontaneous abortion rate ... goes up to something north of 50% [analyzing pregancies in the first and second trimesters]"

"Is it safe to take vaccine during the first and second trimester? I would say, I would avoid that if I was you."

"I've been fact-checked by Reuters, but by the way, Reuters, a board chair also sits on the Pfizer board. So I've been fact-checked by Reuters always, and they've asserted that these statements about spike [proteins] being cytotoxic, having direct toxicity, are false. Now that was easy for me to refute. They replied on the sources of government officials and they kind of twisted the words of those government officials. They didn't directly address my point: spike is cytotoxic. The native spike is cytotoxic. That is in multiple peer-reviewed publications, they're not my publications, I'm just reporting what's out there. So many people have verified this using a variety of systems, so it's not 'fake news.'"

"It's Pfizer's job — not my job — to prove that their version of spike is not toxic. Okay? And I haven't seen those data. I don't know that they exist."

"Pfizer says explicitly in their clinical protocol that the reproductive toxicology has not been done."

"The thing that you're gonna inject, must be characterized rigorously for where it goes, and what it does. It's fundamental. Makes sense to me. In animal models ... These are standard, international norms for how these types of studies have to be done."

"The studies that were done were not done according to good laboratory standards. They were non-GLP (Good Laboratory Practices). Warning flag number one. Warning flag number two: the studies concerning how much protein and where ... they didn't actually look at spike antigen, they looked at RNA that was coding for a surrogate."

"Pfizer, for some reason, used this method, which is the least sensitive method to look at where the protein's being expressed. But not only did they not look for spike expression, they used a surrogate, luciferase, and then they used the least sensitive way to detect the luciferase, and they said 'Oh! Look! The protein is only expressed at the site of injection.' That's kind of cooking the books. Just a little bit...like, a lot."

"They also did a very sensitive assay for where the RNA goes, they put a radioactive tag on it. And in that case, they did do the right experiment and dissected out the tissues and analyzed them for the RNA signal. And it clearly shows that after injection, most of the RNA stays at the injection site, but a lot of it goes all over the body. Yes, some of it goes to the ovaries..."

"12% of those lipids accumulate in the ovary, and they don't accumulate in the testes in the same way ... What it shows is that this untested lipid, not previously used in large numbers of humans, that's synthesized, does concentrate in the ovaries. Now, is that clinically significant? I have no idea. Because the reproductive toxicology studies haven't been done."

"The 800-pound gorilla in the room is: why didn't all the regulatory agencies see this when everybody else sees it as soon as they see the package. And why didn't they light up and say, 'mmm Pfizer! mmm... let's wait a little bit. Send me the GLP studies and then we'll talk. If I submitted that package for a drug that I had developed, that was outside of this, they would have said 'no, go back and do your homework.' So that's one of the oddities."

"In my experience, if you let big pharma have their way, they will have their way with you."

"That's a little bit of a sleight of hand, to say it that way, because you're applying the death rate to the whole population, but the deaths are only occurring in the elderly for the most part, or people with some severe or significant pre-existing conditions. So to apply that even across the whole population and then say on the basis of what's happening to the old, we need to do this to everybody — that actually is not aligned with normal vaccination practice. Normally, when we roll out a new vaccine, we do analysis for each of the key cohorts: elderly, infants, children, adolescents, healthy normal adults, immuno-suppressed, and pregnant women. Each of those are analyzed separately. And we're saying no, no, we're going to throw all that past practice out and we're just going to apply it to an aggregate. That's the first point ... The second point: the logic that we have to vaccinate the whole population in order to prevent this and get back to normal. Let's unpick that for a moment. What they're talking about is herd immunity."

"Herd immunity can be achieved by a large fraction of the population having been already infected. It can be achieved by vaccination if the vaccines are sterilizing or are blocking to a significant extent, transmissibility ... In order to calculate the percent uptake of vaccine required to achieve herd immunity we have to know the data on the impact of the vaccine on transmissibility ... we don't have those data."

"When we hear 90% efficacy — or whatever — what that means is it protects to a very significant degree, it protects you from getting hospitalized or dying when you might otherwise have been hospitalized or died. So those are disease endpoints. This disease is largely driven by your personal immune response against the virus. It's not the virus that kills you, it's your response to the virus. It's hyper-inflammatory syndrome. Not everybody gets it, okay? So when you measure disease and death, it's only an indirect relationship to effects on the virus and the virus spread."

"If you ever hear a public health official say we have to have 70% vaccine uptake in the whole population to protect us by achieving herd immunity, what you can immediately conclude is they don't have a fig of an understanding what they're talking about. Because the data don't exist. We can't make that calculation."

"I don't know [why there is such a push to vaccinate children], and you're asking me to get into the head of Pfizer. A cynic might mention the financial compensation that's at stake."

"This is my big message: number one that it's your choice and it's your body and you should not be coerced, because that goes back to the Nuremberg Code ...if we go back to what happened with the Nuremberg situation. The fundamentals there was the argument that the Nazi regime made that the benefits to the many outweighed the risks to the few. That it was justified to take conscripted individuals without their permission and subject them to cold treatment and other scientific investigations because the data were necessary to protect their troops in Moscow and Finland. That was the essence of that argument, was: the benefits to the many outweigh the risks to the few. And we as a culture all agreed, 'no.' We disagree with that, and furthermore we disagree with it so strongly that we're going to hang all of you guys. Which is what happened, to be blunt."

"In D.C. that is the standard way: you go to work for the FDA for half a dozen years, and then you get out and you join a [pharmaceutical] consulting firm and you rake the big bucks. It's just the way things are in D.C."

"We seem to be in a situation where there has been integration at the top between large media, and pharmaceutical industry, and government. All the way up to WHO ... You can look up the BBC press announcement from last fall — they're very proud of this — under BBC leadership, the trusted news initiative cooperative, which cuts across all of large tech — Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Yahoo, all that. This trusted news initiative ... they're all linked together into a consortium now, and they've all agreed that the only truths that will be allowed to be discussed on their platforms are those truths that can be tied back to key governmental agencies such as the CDC or the WHO. So the version of truth — of scientific truth — the only version that's allowed to be discussed, even, is those truths that have been endorsed by these large, bureaucratic public health agencies."