The story of the man who claims to have made major MRNA discoveries, Dr. Robert Malone.

Dr. Malone’s version is here.

As always use discernment about credibility. Much is done to make the fakes look genuine and to make the real ones look fake. That alone is practically all you need to know about the self appointed “leaders”. At this point the show to watch is the coverup and the various strategies being employed. You can use me as a yardstick, I’m real and see what they do to me. Sometimes I even see them pretend to treat their shills like they treat me to help their assets blend in better with the honest.
I only got media exposure opportunities from their agents when they were working hard to pull me in as a “useful idiot” Trump shill.
Did Dr. Peter Duesberg get a lot of attention for his counter “official” narrative hypothesis?
Everyone real with influence gets their own personalized strategy. It is interesting watching this group of publicists ply their trade. Anyone who wants to lead is going to have to get very good at spotting plants.

Even Napoleon was fooled a lot. They knew his weaknesses: he liked pretty women. He was a bit over confident and he really, really wanted peace and children of his own.
They brought him down with this knowledge. We’re up against spies who have been perfecting their techniques cumulatively for centuries.

Back up of this video is here.

Robert W Malone, MD Linked In has provided a list of my thoughtcrimes. An amazing document. You can find it here.@RWMaloneMD ... the top thoughtcrime listed was outing the conflict of interest of the chairman of the board of Reuters (Jim Smith) who also sits on the board of Pfizer.

Robert W Malone, MD

Linked In has provided a list of my thoughtcrimes. An amazing document. You can find it here.

@RWMaloneMD ... the top thoughtcrime listed was outing the conflict of interest of the chairman of the board of Reuters (Jim Smith) who also sits on the board of Pfizer.

To: rwmalonemd@gmail.com Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 6:26 AM in Robert Malone Reference #210701-000665 Status: Closed You may reply to this case for up to 14 days Response (0701/2021 05-26 CST) Hi Robert, Your account was restricted due to multiple violations of Linkedin's User Agreement and Professional Community Policies against sharing content that contains misleading or inaccurate information: 1. Another example email (below)- As those who have been following my posts know 1) Native spike protein from SARS- brain-barrier in multiple models (multiple peer reviewed publications). 2) COVID vaccines have not been licensed, and remain experimental. They are all under EUA at present, that is a fact. 3) the FOIA documents from Japan clearly demonstrate that the reproductive toxicology package was not done at the time of submission of that common technical document. This is also so stated in the Pfizer protocol. They also demonstrate that the biodistribution studies in that package were non- GLP. oV-2 is directly cytotoxic, has shown to open blood- Furthermore, Reuters is a participant in the "Trusted News Initiative" and has a direct link to Pfizer. Please see attached. I would call that a conflict of interest. What do you think? Hi Robert, I sent you an email earlier today (Australian time) about Ivermectin etc. Doing further research on Covid vaccines in an attempt to find out the pros and cons, I found two Reuters Fact Checks that appear to directly contradict some of the claims made by yourself and others on the Darkhorse podcast some time ago: 1. that spike proteins were cytotoxic and did not remain localised, and 2. that Covid vaccines were experimental and that they had skipped animal testing. These contradictions would appear to be serious and fundamental, because either you and your fellows on the podcast are very wrong, or Reuters is. Which is it please? Does Reuters know something you don't, or is it the other way around? For a layperson like myself it is impossible to know, and this type of thing illustrates the difficulty of having a sensible and factual discussion on Covid vaccines. I would greatly appreciate it if you could find the time to give me your views on these Reuters fact checks, as I think it is really important for the credibility of the whole debate. Someone has got it seriously wrong, and I (and I'm sure many others) would like to know who! Kind regards Anon Content Creation Time: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 12:48:37 GMT 2. Well, Linkedin has finally censored me. I wondered when and where they would set the line. The post last night with the clip from the "Highwire" interview has been blocked. I am surprised that they took this one down and left up the "Vaccines" paper that has generated so much heat and controversy. It is still up on twitter though.

To: rwmalonemd@gmail.com

Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 6:26 AM in Robert Malone Reference #210701-000665

Status: Closed

You may reply to this case for up to 14 days Response (0701/2021 05-26 CST)

Hi Robert, Your account was restricted due to multiple violations of Linkedin's User Agreement and Professional Community Policies against sharing content that contains misleading or inaccurate information:

1. Another example email (below)- As those who have been following my posts know

1) Native spike protein from SARS- brain-barrier in multiple models (multiple peer reviewed publications).

2) COVID vaccines have not been licensed, and remain experimental. They are all under EUA at present, that is a fact. 3) the FOIA documents from Japan clearly demonstrate that the reproductive toxicology package was not done at the time of submission of that common technical document. This is also so stated in the Pfizer protocol. They also demonstrate that the biodistribution studies in that package were non- GLP. oV-2 is directly cytotoxic, has shown to open blood- Furthermore, Reuters is a participant in the "Trusted News Initiative" and has a direct link to Pfizer. Please see attached. I would call that a conflict of interest. What do you think?

Hi Robert, I sent you an email earlier today (Australian time) about Ivermectin etc. Doing further research on Covid vaccines in an attempt to find out the pros and cons, I found two Reuters Fact Checks that appear to directly contradict some of the claims made by yourself and others on the Darkhorse podcast some time ago:

1. that spike proteins were cytotoxic and did not remain localised, and

2. that Covid vaccines were experimental and that they had skipped animal testing. These contradictions would appear to be serious and fundamental, because either you and your fellows on the podcast are very wrong, or Reuters is. Which is it please? Does Reuters know something you don't, or is it the other way around? For a layperson like myself it is impossible to know, and this type of thing illustrates the difficulty of having a sensible and factual discussion on Covid vaccines. I would greatly appreciate it if you could find the time to give me your views on these Reuters fact checks, as I think it is really important for the credibility of the whole debate. Someone has got it seriously wrong, and I (and I'm sure many others) would like to know who!

Kind regards

Anon Content Creation Time: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 12:48:37 GMT

2. Well, Linkedin has finally censored me. I wondered when and where they would set the line. The post last night with the clip from the "Highwire" interview has been blocked. I am surprised that they took this one down and left up the "Vaccines" paper that has generated so much heat and controversy. It is still up on twitter though.

This is a clip of Del Bigtree ("The Highwire") and I discussing current issues relating to the history of how the underlying tech came about, the genetic COVID vaccines (MRNA and rAdV-based), Spike, censorship, databases, human rights and the government. A shortened version of the full show that I posted earlier. Personally, I think it is one of the better interviews I have done, and I really enjoyed the time spent with Del discussing these matters. Best wishes to all concerned robert Wall Street Journal - Today Op-Ed "Are COVID vaccines riskier than advertised" Authors- Dr Ladapo is Associate Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. Dr Risch is Professor of Epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health. "Vaers data for Covid-19 vaccines shows an interesting pattern. Among the 310 million Covid-19 vaccines administered, several adverse events are reported at high rates in the days immediately following vaccination, then drop sharply thereafter. Some of these adverse events could have happened anyway. This trend may be in part due to the tendency to report more events that occur soon after vaccination. The database cannot tell what would have happened in the absence of vaccination. Nonetheless, the large clustering of some adverse events immediately after vaccination is concerning, and the silence around these potential signals of harm reflects the policy surrounding Covid-19 vaccines. The stigma of such concerns is bad for scientific integrity and could harm patients. Four serious adverse events follow this arc, according to data directly from Vaers: low platelet count (thrombocytopenia); non-infectious myocarditis or inflammation of the heart, especially in those under 30; deep vein thrombosis; And the dead. Vaers records 321 cases of myocarditis within five days of vaccination, dropping to almost zero in 10 days. Previous research has shown that only a fraction of adverse events are reported, so the actual number of cases is almost certainly higher. This tendency to underreport is consistent with our clinical experience. Analyzes to confirm or refute these results should be done using large datasets from health insurance companies and healthcare organizations. The CDC and the FDA are surely aware of these data patterns, but neither agency has recognized the trend. The implication is that the risks of a Covid-19 vaccine may outweigh the benefits for some low-risk populations, such as children, young adults, and people who have recovered from Covid-19. This is especially true in areas where community spread is low, as the likelihood of disease depends on the risk of exposure." This is a link where someone has reposted the text, which is otherwise behind a paywall. Content Creation Time: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 12:39:37 GMT 5. Regarding #Censorship in the time of COVID. We are there now. Full stop. I believe that the USG has a hand in this. Free speech guardrails are down across the "free world"- USA, France, Canada. Are you OK with this? Did the Bret Weinstein video represent such a significant threat that it needed to be censored? What about our book on preparation and protection from the novel coronavirus? Pierre Kory's article concerning Ivermectin? The case series that my colleagues and I prepared concerning treating hospitalized COVID with famotidine + celecoxib, and which passed an extraordinary level of peer review and was still rejected by the editor in chief of Frontiers? How far is this going to go? Do you really think that we can rely on USG bureaucrats to objectively evaluate the (very imperfect) safety databases concerning COVID vaccines? I really try to avoid conspiracy theories, and stick to the data and fact-based reasoning. But all around me, people are coming to the same conclusion. There is something very wrong going on here. It is not right, it is not fair, and it is not proper. And it needs to stop. Now. And those that are propagating this need to be identified and held accountable. The Bret Weinstein video was taken down by Youtube, but is now available via Bitchute. Did Pfizer Fail to Perform industry Standard Animal Testing Prior to Initiation of mRNA Clinical Trials?


This is a clip of Del Bigtree ("The Highwire") and I discussing current issues relating to the history of how the underlying tech came about, the genetic COVID vaccines (MRNA and rAdV-based), Spike, censorship, databases, human rights and the government. A shortened version of the full show that I posted earlier. Personally, I think it is one of the better interviews I have done, and I really enjoyed the time spent with Del discussing these matters. Best wishes to all concerned robert

Wall Street Journal - Today Op-Ed "Are COVID vaccines riskier than advertised"

Authors- Dr Ladapo is Associate Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. Dr Risch is Professor of Epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health. "Vaers data for Covid-19 vaccines shows an interesting pattern. Among the 310 million Covid-19 vaccines administered, several adverse events are reported at high rates in the days immediately following vaccination, then drop sharply thereafter. Some of these adverse events could have happened anyway. This trend may be in part due to the tendency to report more events that occur soon after vaccination. The database cannot tell what would have happened in the absence of vaccination. Nonetheless, the large clustering of some adverse events immediately after vaccination is concerning, and the silence around these potential signals of harm reflects the policy surrounding Covid-19 vaccines. The stigma of such concerns is bad for scientific integrity and could harm patients. Four serious adverse events follow this arc, according to data directly from Vaers: low platelet count (thrombocytopenia); non-infectious myocarditis or inflammation of the heart, especially in those under 30; deep vein thrombosis; And the dead. Vaers records 321 cases of myocarditis within five days of vaccination, dropping to almost zero in 10 days. Previous research has shown that only a fraction of adverse events are reported, so the actual number of cases is almost certainly higher. This tendency to underreport is consistent with our clinical experience. Analyzes to confirm or refute these results should be done using large datasets from health insurance companies and healthcare organizations. The CDC and the FDA are surely aware of these data patterns, but neither agency has recognized the trend. The implication is that the risks of a Covid-19 vaccine may outweigh the benefits for some low-risk populations, such as children, young adults, and people who have recovered from Covid-19. This is especially true in areas where community spread is low, as the likelihood of disease depends on the risk of exposure."

This is a link where someone has reposted the text, which is otherwise behind a paywall.
Content Creation Time: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 12:39:37 GMT 5. Regarding #Censorship in the time of COVID.
We are there now. Full stop. I believe that the USG has a hand in this. Free speech guardrails are down across the "free world"-

USA, France, Canada. Are you OK with this? Did the Bret Weinstein video represent such a significant threat that it needed to be censored? What about our book on preparation and protection from the novel coronavirus? Pierre Kory's article concerning Ivermectin? The case series that my colleagues and I prepared concerning treating hospitalized COVID with famotidine + celecoxib, and which passed an extraordinary level of peer review and was still rejected by the editor in chief of Frontiers? How far is this going to go? Do you really think that we can rely on USG bureaucrats to objectively evaluate the (very imperfect) safety databases concerning COVID vaccines? I really try to avoid conspiracy theories, and stick to the data and fact-based reasoning. But all around me, people are coming to the same conclusion. There is something very wrong going on here. It is not right, it is not fair, and it is not proper. And it needs to stop. Now. And those that are propagating this need to be identified and held accountable. The Bret Weinstein video was taken down by Youtube, but is now available via Bitchute.

Did Pfizer Fail to Perform industry Standard Animal Testing Prior to Initiation of mRNA Clinical Trials?

Any additional violation of our terms can result in the permanent restriction of your account. We have these policies in place to help keep Linkedin a safe, trusted and professional network for everyone. You may appeal the restriction by responding to this email with your agreement and intent to comply with our User Agreement and our Professional Community Policies. • User Agreement: policies If you have any questions regarding your appeal you can reply to this email. Thank you for being part of the Linkedin community. Regards, Raphael Member Safety and Recovery Consultant. Privacy Policy. | User Agreement | Copyright Policy. This is a support email in response to your request submitted on Linkedin. This email was intended for Robert Malone. Learn why we include this. Linked in © 2020 LinkedIn Corporation. 1000 West Maude Avenue, Sunnyvale. CA 94085.

Any additional violation of our terms can result in the permanent restriction of your account. We have these policies in place to help keep Linkedin a safe, trusted and professional network for everyone. You may appeal the restriction by responding to this email with your agreement and intent to comply with our User Agreement and our Professional Community Policies.

• User Agreement: policies If you have any questions regarding your appeal you can reply to this email. Thank you for being part of the Linkedin community. Regards, Raphael Member Safety and Recovery Consultant. Privacy Policy. | User Agreement | Copyright Policy. This is a support email in response to your request submitted on Linkedin. This email was intended for Robert Malone. Learn why we include this. Linked in © 2020 LinkedIn Corporation. 1000 West Maude Avenue, Sunnyvale. CA 94085.

The intention may be to establish credibility as a critic of something or someone by engaging in criticism of them while in fact covering up for them by omitting many details; to distance oneself publicly from something using innocuous or vague criticism even when ones own sympathies are privately with them; or to divert public attention away from a more heinous act by leaking information about something less heinous.

The intention may be to establish credibility as a critic of something or someone by engaging in criticism of them while in fact covering up for them by omitting many details; to distance oneself publicly from something using innocuous or vague criticism even when ones own sympathies are privately with them; or to divert public attention away from a more heinous act by leaking information about something less heinous.

This right here seems to be the big issue that’s being covered up and the plants will generally sing the same song on this point.The video associated with these comments is here.

This right here seems to be the big issue that’s being covered up and the plants will generally sing the same song on this point.

The video associated with these comments is here.

They mix the real and fake together to demoralize and confuse the public.

They mix the real and fake together to demoralize and confuse the public.