Show Notes and Transcript
Robert Malone's Substack has become essential reading for many of us.
Every day nuggets of wisdom and insight, information and humour drop into inboxes all over the world.
One of the recent emails caught our eye. What is Woke?
It's a word that we have come familiar with but many of us would struggle to define it.
It is an intolerant ideology that is sowing seeds of confusion and division.
Robert returns once again to Hearts of Oak to discuss what sparked the article and we have a close look at 15 examples of wokeness that he has referenced before we touch on another of his Substacks about 'Adulteration', which is a topic that we hope to come back to in more detail soon.
Robert W Malone MD, MS
Inventor of mRNA & DNA vaccines, RNA as a drug. Scientist, physician, writer, podcaster, commentator and advocate. Believer in our fundamental freedom of free speech.
Connect with Dr Malone.....
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/rwmalonemd
X: https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD?s=20
WEBSITE: https://www.rwmalonemd.com/
https://maloneinstitute.org/
SUBSTACK: https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/
Interview recorded 26.10.23
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20
To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... https://heartsofoak.org/connect/
Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... https://heartsofoak.org/shop/
Transcript(Hearts of Oak)
Robert W. Malone, MD. It is wonderful to have you back.
Thanks so much for joining us today, Robert.
(Robert Malone MD)
Peter, thanks for your friendship. It's been a pleasure to host you on the farm a couple of times and all of our many podcasts.
I don't know how many we're up to right now, but I always enjoy talking to you and through your to your audience. So thanks for having me on again.
No, thank you. And if what you're doing doesn't work out, if everyone deserts you on Substack, then I think you do have another future, which is steaks.
I think that was the best steak I've had outside Texas. So I say, open up a steak restaurant, Robert.
Yeah, that might be my future if the powers that be have their way with me.
If you say too much, because that's just safer.
But just for the viewers, @rwmallonemd on Twitter, on GETTR, anywhere else, And of course, Substack, rwmalonemd.substack.com.
You just type in Substack, Robert Malone will come up. All the links are in the description.
And that is also a way to support what Robert does in the many places he travels, speaks, interviews, and all of that.
That is a one way of supporting him. or getting his book, which I had beside me, Lies My Government Told Me.
There it is, Lies My Government Told Me. Make sure if you haven't got a copy of that, get a copy, it's a great Christmas present.
About to come out in Norwegian for all of your Norwegian listeners and in Dutch.
I think we're gonna have the book launch in Norway in early December and the book launch in the Netherlands sometime in February.
So stay tuned for that. And then we have another book that is just nearing completion on Cy-War and Sovereignty, which is the big propaganda, you know, there in the UK, you're certainly familiar with nudge technology and the 77th Brigade and MI6 and all of their various nefarious activities through the COVID crisis.
Oh, yeah. I look forward to that coming out. The Norwegian languages, maybe I'll give it a miss.
So I'll wait for the new book.
We've got a great cover.
I look forward to it. Robert, I love your Substack.
There may be four different sub-stacks that I follow because you can have an avalanche of information and yours is one of those. And my favorite thing is you don't know what you're going to get.
Each day is different.
It could be on the farm, it could be travel, it could be latest scientific research coming out, it could be government agencies and how they work.
And I love that huge mix and that wide array. And one of the recent ones just days ago was, what is woke and intolerant and moralizing ideology?
And you had a little cartoon at the beginning and at the end, the definition was stuff I don't like, which I actually thought was a good definition.
But it's a term that I think we now use frequently and we kind of know how to describe things as woke, but we're not very sure what exactly that is.
If we see something, oh, that's woke, why?
The definition of pornography, I can't define it but I know it when I see it.
Same with woke. And yeah, so thanks. This was almost kind of a throwaway Substack, that Jill put together on the fly.
Basically, we tend to wake up in the morning or as we're going to sleep the night before.
This is our lives. Hey, welcome to our lives.
We lay in bed and talk between the two of us. Well, when are we gonna write tomorrow? I don't know.
Good heavens. And so, in this case, what transpired was we, when we like to turn off our brains, we turn to the, you know, streaming.
We never watch television per se, but we stream.
And they tend to fall into two categories, basically, science fiction and documentaries about history or travel.
That's kind of our lives. I know it's pretty exciting.
And so we were watching this new Netflix series called Bodies.
And it proceeds because it's a kind of a multi-timeline thing that is all wrapped around the UK and London is the setting for the series.
And I don't want to go into the plot line, but basically, in episode three, suddenly we have the insertion of this gratuitous, let's say, gently man love, with a fairly explicit scenery associated with it.
And it was absolutely gratuitous, not necessary for the plot line.
It was clearly another woke agenda insertion, as we have come to expect from Netflix routinely.
And this one was so in your face that we just, both of us, looked at each other and flipped off the TV.
Okay, enough of that. Time to go to bed.
And then Jill, in the morning, woke up and she said, I've got to find some way to be able to pre-screen, these various streaming broadcasts for their woke content. I wonder if there's anything out there on the internet.
And so she started searching, and she found this delicious site that is mentioned in the article.
Notwokeshows.com, which I've delved into.
Yeah, so she finds notwokeshows.com, and she's like, hallelujah, this is a goldmine, because they have listed all these criteria that they apply to define whether or not a show is woke, and whether or not they're going to include it in their recommended broadcast that one who is, let's say, not enjoying the woke agenda can safely view.
I guess this is akin to the censorship board there that the BBC sponsors for you lucky members of the United Kingdom.
And so you're all so fortunate that the government looks out for you so carefully and maintains your mental health in alignment with their interests.
So in any case, she finds this website and it's such a rich repository of, you know, a little bit tongue in cheek, but on point.
Commentary about what constitutes woke from the perspective of some group that is seeking to delineate woke from non-woke, broadcasting and being able to to list, non-woke content, that she writes to the authors and they write back and because we've become quite sensitized to issues concerning copyright.
And so they write back and they say, yes, absolutely. You're free to use this.
We're so grateful and all happy, happy.
And so she takes basically their content and disambiguates or redacts it or restructures it so that it's not specifically about programming, but speaking more directly about what is WOKE and from the framework of these individuals that put together this website that previously has been relatively unknown and blasted out together with the crosslink to the source material, et cetera.
And that's what gives rise to this fun little throwaway essay, which was her basically, uh-oh, we've got to get something out this morning.
How about if we do this? while I happen to be writing an in-depth technical piece about adulteration and the RNA vaccines, which was going to take much longer. So we wanted to get something out to our Substack subscribers so they have it with their morning coffee. And that's the genesis of this particular essay.
And I will finish on adulteration, another word that we've come across only in the last few days. But I love this article simply because it's what people are facing, the people are, and what you described is exactly what millions and millions of people across any country face.
You look at something and you're not sure where to watch it and you're not sure what the plot line will be and often it...
I've watched different shows and they start off one way, being macho with a hero, like all 24 type.
And then by the end, it's something completely different.
They slipped it in.
They've really gotten quite clever about it in advancing this agenda of a particular way of looking at the world.
And of course, the UK has been one of the world leaders in advancing nudge technology, which is what this really is, that we're encountering in broadcast media, is applied nudge.
And, you know, this is another case of a slippery slope. Who's against reducing public tobacco consumption?
Oh, you know, we're all for that. We don't want passive smoke.
And well then, so then it's okay to use nudge to reduce that.
And then, well, who's not in favour of more tolerance against ethnic minorities?
Well, of course we all want that. Well, how are we gonna do it?
Well, we'll take this same nudge technology and apply it like a great big hammer to that one.
And so then we, I'm gonna, this is a sacred cow.
So then we have the infamous Dr. Who has suddenly become a femme, et cetera.
And that kind of went over like a lead balloon, as I recall.
But it doesn't matter. In pursuit of the social engineering agenda, profitability and audience uptake and acceptance are totally secondary to the broader mission of advancing social equity as defined by whomever they are that established all these agendas and try to propagate it globally.
Another one that I ran into recently was a CNN broadcast looking at travel and food in Italy.
Who isn't interested in Italian food and travel? I mean, that's a great topic.
And this is coming off of Anthony Bourdain's suicide and how successful his series was, because I think CNN is trying to pick up the ball.
And so they get another actor, a well-known Italian, I'm not gonna beat him up, that tours Italy.
And we're in about three episodes and suddenly we're getting propagandized about, in favour of basically Italian socialism, and the importance of accepting immigrants from North Africa and integrating them into Italian society and that these far right people, or go Giorgio Moloney, et cetera.
Because anybody who is against immigration is obviously far right by definition.
And Mussolini is just right there.
Don't like immigration, you're one step away from full-on Mussolini fascism.
And so that's how that particular series has gone.
As another example is that it's become a platform for advancing these same social theories, ostensibly under the guise of a travel show focused on Italian cuisine.
I mean, it pervades everything.
It does, and I know that you give 15 examples. You go through, of course, The one that stands out, which you've also known for the last three years is called COVID-19 virtue signalling.
Virtue signalling is a term that links with woke.
But that maybe took it to a new level of advisories, COVID advisories under videos, giving you the different side.
And Andrew Bridgen speaking in the House of Commons, whenever he was talking about vaccine injuries, at the bottom, it kept bringing up all these piece of information of why, what he was saying was rubbish.
But even on the COVID stuff, the mask, the double, the triple masking, or people getting a sticker to say they've had a jab, it was in your face, in public, I guess, in a way that we hadn't seen before.
And the social distancing, I mean, all these things had no, even though they were cloaked in scientism.
Which is, you know, we've got to be careful about using that term, Jill constantly reminds me, because it is actually formally defined as, the belief system around everything that is true and real can be directly perceived and detected.
So that's the essence of scientism. And in definition, it's in opposition to, let's say mysticism at one parameter and belief in theology and religion in another parameter, or we could talk about the ancient Celtic religions of paganism, for instance, all of that being in opposition to this belief that only things that we can measure and detect are true.
But the term scientism has been kind of transformed a little bit with Dr. Fauci being the poster child of scientific truth is that which is asserted by largely the government and government agents that their interpretation of scientific truth is the one and only truth and there shall be no debate.
And the BBC and the Trusted News Initiative have become the guarantors and the enforcers, of that logic that the only scientific truth, quote-unquote, in this post-truth, post-modern world is that which is advanced in the approved narrative endorsed by the government.
And you start off, right at the beginning, it is alphabetical, but the 15th, you talk about anti-religious bias, and I'm shocked at how we see that so prevalent, that those with a belief system, and often a belief system in Christianity, are hateful or certainly hypocritical or, I mean, the level of vitriol that is attached to someone who believes something and I guess the whole issue of belief of absolutes is completely alien to a woke agenda where anything goes and truth is subjective and that level of mocking and ridiculing is dangerous certainly in a country as in yours based on biblical foundations and Christian truths and yet now we are encouraged to attack the very foundations on which our societies were based on.
Right, and this is all rife with paradox. So you point out that Christianity, and in particular, traditional Christianity, and in most particular, this new insurgent movement within the Catholic Church in opposition to the Pope called Trad-Cath, those folks are in particular demonized for the sin of wanting to receive the liturgy in Latin.
You can't make this up.
It's so intrinsically absurd. And the bizarre paradox is that, in parallel, the prior religious orientation that was so heavily weaponized, that being radical Islam and Islam, you know, generalized Islam suddenly is aligned, in a paradoxical way with the woke slash progressive or approved agenda, in this enormous rift that has occurred in the context of, let's say gently, the IDF Gaza conflict.
And I absolutely don't want to go there because I find that
information landscape to be so heavily contaminated with very advanced Psy-War capabilities on both sides that once again this is absolutely a post-truth, post-modern battleground of two highly developed Psy-War capabilities going head-to-head on the world stage in which we could debate who are the victims and who are the perpetrators here, but I think truth is absolutely on the victim list.
It's become completely subjective, and that's what's happened throughout all of this, is, as I keep saying, this is postmodernism, in which truth is a subjective quality that is, not intrinsic, but rather is subjective and is the product of exertion of force and capabilities in the information landscape, and is defined by those who are able to dominate that information landscape.
Truth is entirely subjective and is a function of whoever is the dominant party in what I call this post-modern golden rule, those with the gold make the rules.
And it's now those with the gold define truth.
It's so true. We've just had today, there was Rishi Sunak, sadly, our Prime Minister here in the UK, little in substance, little in size, little in vision, but Rishi Sunak-
Well, now don't be staturist.
But Rishi Sunak, he was talking about a new AI Institute, which the UK is setting up, and it's going to be the world's first AI Safety Institute.
And he talked about, we want to have a AI consensus on what's good and bad, just like we have a climate change census.
Right, so AI has been sold to the public as a neutral arbiter of truth, but we know from the various AI applications and algorithms that are available now.
That AI and machine learning and deep learning are very much a consequence, a derivative, of the source information that is used to build those algorithms, that train them.
And so by selecting the information, so for instance, it's just like Wikipedia.
Wikipedia defines truth as basically the work product of corporate media, which is to say the Trusted News Initiative. So if it's endorsed by TNI, then it must be true.
And that is what comes out in those. So it's not even, it's beyond scientific papers.
It's whatever large corporate media puts out with their spin becomes the only allowed input vector for Wikipedia.
And this is done, you know, when we now know that Wikipedia is being edited in real time algorithmically by our intelligence community, including your lovely MI6.
And so it, you know, people still perceive wiki as a source of basically akin to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but it's absolutely not.
Now, I haven't dove into how badly Encyclopaedia Britannica is being manipulated.
I don't know the answer to that now.
But the AI-based engines
have absolutely been shown to have political biases that are, you know, apparently derived from their training source material.
And so, for instance, the other day, Steve Kirsch gave an inquiry to one of them, that I was not familiar with previously and asked if anybody, that had been a anti-vaxxer had turned to being in favour of the vaccines.
And he was very comforted by the fact that he was not so identified.
But myself and Jessica Rose, and there was another person, were identified as having previously been anti-vaxxers.
I'm the vaccine developer anti-vaxxer who invented RNA vaccine technology.
That, you know, you have to, this is for, you know, park your cognitive dissonance is irrelevant.
But then had now strongly endorsed the COVID vaccines, and indicated that everybody should get them. Absolute lie, absolute propaganda, none of that true that was listed, but that's what spat out in response to that question.
And with Jessica Rose, it asserted that she was a former beauty queen.
I've never heard her talk about that before. I got to ask her about whether or not she was once a beauty queen. And also went into the same kind of a flip-flop, which I know has not happened.
So it's, those of us, and this is another part of my background that most people are unaware.
For the first two years of my undergraduate, I was a computer science student and actually took top honours for that time. I just didn't wanna spend the rest of my life in a basement looking at a CRT tube.
I was taught early on, garbage in, garbage out. With any program-based algorithm that abstracts from data, your source data will determine the product.
You can have the most sophisticated deep learning algorithm, but if it is employing a biased data set, it will give you a biased answer.
And that's absolutely what's happening, but it's being pitched to the public as if this is a godlike, neutral arbiter of truth, and it is so easily manipulated.
The question is, is Rishi in the cohort of...
I don't really understand the technology, but it seems awfully cool.
And this tension always exists between nefarious intent and incompetence.
And is he merely an incompetent or is he aware of how readily artificial intelligence algorithms can be manipulated?
I don't know the answer to that.
The dangerous thing is, I think he is aware, because I think his wife's family made the money off tech industry, partially through tech, so he should be aware of it.
Exactly. He should be a sophisticated user, and then the derivative of that would be, this is not a guy that can be trusted because he's misrepresenting truth to the British public.
I know that you would probably be shocked and we will probably be de-platformed and severely, maybe I better be careful because I want to fly back into London to help out Andrew on December 4th, so I don't want to get arrested when I land at Heathrow.
Well, we'll see how that happens. You may just stay in the UK for a while and that will keep you.
Government hospitality.
You started by talking about that Netflix series, the slipping in of man love, as you said, and I've been watching another BBC programme and three series in, oh, suddenly now there's the other side, woman love and that slipped in, doesn't fit with the story, doesn't add to it at all. But in your article, you talk about bad masculinity and where male behaviour is inherently toxic and negative.
But then again, the fun side, because you have to sit back and with a smile and begin to mock the chaos and confusion and people trying to jump through hoops and put these together.
You've got the whole infinite genders and how that works. And I was sitting watching GB News yesterday and they had someone on who I think was, I'm not sure whether male or female, a strange hybrid.
They were talking about-
What's wrong with you? It's irrelevant.
I no longer know what it means a trans woman.
A trans woman, I think, okay, just go back to basics. How did the person start?
That's where I need to start with.
But this confusion, if male psychic or identification is toxic, then what happens if a woman then decides she's a man, is that then still toxic or is that now acceptable? And this chaos and confusion.
Yes. Oh, like I said, the cognitive dissonance associated with this, which has no well-structured underlying logic, is profound.
And so you have, like with any cognitive dissonance, you have to just park that, don't confront it, because it will drive you mad. It's, cognitive dissonance is one of the major sources of psychological pain, and, but only if you confront it. And so for your mental health, you should, Peter, you should really need to stop thinking about things like that. And, go back and and reread 1984, but consider it to be a guidance document rather than a warning document, and it will all be fine.
Along those lines, I strongly, in terms of content to consider in streaming, often overlooked is this lovely little sci-fi piece with Uma Thurman, as I recall, called Gattaca.
And I strongly recommend, GATTAGA is actually intended to be a DNA sequence in this particular sci-fi piece, which is very well-produced, way ahead of its time, and absolutely predicts the almost as prescient as 1984 was, absolutely predicts this new reality, postmodern reality, that we're walking into, where your genetics define, who you are and what you're allowed to be on behalf of government industry and everything else.
So that absolutely should be on everybody's watch list if you haven't already seen Gattaca.
But this logic that you're talking about, toxic masculinity of course, is what Jordan Peterson, has been so reviled for speaking against. And of course we all know that Jordan Peterson is now, subject to re-education by edict of his local health authority, I think in Toronto, as I recall.
And they are also subjecting other physicians to what re-education processes that have had, you know, sinned by prescribing ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine for early treatment and written statements recommending that individuals should not, they should not necessarily be required to take the mRNA vaccine products or other genetic vaccine products, which the government so heavily advocates.
And in those re-education processes, which the individuals are required to pay for, by the way, the state doesn't pay for that re-education. it's like three to 5,000 bucks.
And at the end of which you have to write a letter demonstrating that you have successfully incorporated the teaching of the re-education process and that you are sufficiently contrite for your past sins.
And if you do not show sufficient contrition in this letter, I mean, this is full on Soviet, right?
If you don't show sufficient contrition, Then you will have to pay for another round of re-education ad nauseum until the overseers believe, they become convinced, that you have provided the necessary written, signed documentation that demonstrates that you are requesting humbly forgiveness for your sins, and that you have indicated clearly in this public document that you will not sin again.
And so anybody that asserts that this is not actually a false religion isn't paying attention, because that's what we have, this, whatever you want to call it, wokeism or whatever, this new censorship, industrial complex, propaganda infrastructure that so much of it traces back to UK social science, I'm sorry to say, is now enforcing itself on the population using the classic totalitarian methodology.
And I'm reminded, someone pointed out to me the other day when I was at Shannon Joy's event in Rochester, that Mattias Desmet, when he speaks of totalitarianism, he's not, a key differentiator between authoritarianism and totalitarianism is that authoritarianism under a dictatorship or other structure is a minority imposing its will on the population.
Totalitarianism, it is the totality of society that is acting in this way. It is a social consensus, in this case a manufactured one, but it is a social consensus that this is the way we shall be. And one of the key factors in when totalitarianism emerges in a society and basically integrates itself into the entire system
is that you can turn over the leadership, ergo Rishi and the prior prime minister that you guys, that brief stint that you all experienced.
Forty-five days.
You can replace the leadership, and it will not change the process until the entire population wakes up from what's happening.
Because there will be new leaders emerge organically from the society to fill that role of dear leader.
Because this is absolutely a function of a deep psychological process that is consumed the society.
So we can all in our little bubble of resistance cell, Is it 20% of people?
Is it 5%? We can go back and forth.
We can all laugh at the sheep and what's going on and point out their logical inconsistencies.
It's irrelevant until such point as people literally wake up and recognize that this is, at a minimum, not meeting their needs.
You know, this is the classic question, are you better off than you were earlier on under this, I guess it's conservative government that you have that is not acting very conservative?
Yeah. are you better off now than you were then? And at some point the culture says, no, we need a change.
And they collectively wake up, but when that's gonna be, is it gonna be next year?
Is it gonna be next decade? Or is it gonna be 100 years from now?
There's no way to predict.
Yeah, I'm just imagining, sorry, I'm just imagining Jordan Peterson writing a letter of apology to the Canadian government saying how wrong he was. I think this actually could be a series, you could have different, I'm sure you would love to do one program, you know, many people, a whole 45-minute fly on the wall, high-profile individuals writing I'm so sorry letters, sounds perfect.
Yeah, I think Babylon Bee needs to take this up immediately.
Hey, there's one more.
Russell Brand ought to do this. This is absolutely made for Russell Brand.
I think you need to patent this idea immediately.
Russell Brand's an intriguing character. I'm not going to go there.
One other thing I'd pull out, distorted racism, and this pitting people against others.
Living in London, being in a very mixed culture, coming from Northern Ireland, being in a mono culture, and enjoying that mix and all that brings, and then this push to, no, you must see racism behind everything.
That on top of everything else, it is, the tension that is developing in society is frightening.
The people are encouraged to pit themselves against someone else instead of agreeing to disagree, not allowed to agree to disagree. And if you don't agree, you're wrong, you must be hated, you must be mocked, you must be attacked.
You see as well in the States that that tension is bubbling under the surface.
And it's just, I mean, we're laughing at our Canadian colleagues, but we know that they have been at the tip of the spear in advancing a lot of these agendas, most notably the de-banking, is the most egregious example. And Nigel can, there in the UK, can speak eloquently at length about the debanking agenda and its intended linkage with social credit system.
Yeah, so the question is, I think for all of us, again, this grappling with the tension between incompetence and nefarious intent, which is so hard to disambiguate unless we're mind readers or we are able to get through Freedom of Information Act, the smoking gun documents that establish nefarious intent.
But this division of society, again and again and again, repeated division into subgroups on top of subgroups on top of subgroups, absolutely has the appearance of serving the interests of large financial and power interests, which may be transnational, multinational, or globalist.
We have these euphemisms that are all used. Just as the hypothetical, not saying necessarily this is what's happening, but if you had, let's say, traditional monarchists or large banking conglomerates.
Or we can go down the list of potential actors that were interested in further enhancing their power and financial base at the expense of what ostensibly is a self-governing populace, then I hesitate to use the term democracy.
And I would get attacked if I used the term democracy in the United States, because we don't technically have a democracy, just like technically you don't have a constitution.
But it certainly has appeared to be in the interests of these very large concentrated power blocks that are led by a very small number of individuals who happen to be, have accumulated, you know, calling it wealth is kind of almost a misnomer, assets in power that they have, they and their families or progenitors or associates have historically exploited to further concentrate and exert their influence over world affairs.
That's my attempt to be politically correct and wrap things with words that the average person would just say, well, they're all corrupt and they want to run the world.
And as I get, again, I cite back the postmodern golden rule, those of us of a certain age recall when the golden rule was due unto others as you would have them do unto you.
And in the postmodern world, the golden rule is those with the gold make the rules.
Maybe it's always been that way.
I don't know. Maybe I was just naïve back then when I was listening to my pastor speak on the lectern in the Episcopalian church that my parents used to go to.
And that's another thing that I find fascinating When you think about it, we all, many people used to...
I'll say, make fun of the Church of England in its leadership in advancing what we now recognize as a woke agenda.
But it is increasingly normalized across much of the Christian theologic space, notably including the Catholic Church, the current pope.
So maybe we got it all wrong. Maybe the Episcopalians were actually the tip of the spear in advancing the new world order. I don't know.
But it kind of increasingly looks that way. One would never imagine the Episcopalian clergy as, I don't think any stereotype would label them as the avant garde cutting edge of social change.
And yet, so it would seem.
Yeah, that fight for truth in the church, whenever it's there in black and white in the Bible.
Can we finish on, word of the week, adulteration, this, I guess,
Great memes circulating, with, I guess the Sermon on the Mount with the stone tablets, with the 10 commandments and the statement, thou shalt not commit adulteration. And no, it's not adultery.
Yeah, so this is a scientific technical term and a regulatory term.
It's actually entrenched in American federal law and throughout the world in regulatory statutes, and policies that have largely been enforced and structured, through the International Committee on Harmonization, throwing out some buzzwords there for all of you wokes, which is kind of the international body that has harmonized it.
You know, that's another good woke term, very important in European politics.
We all want to be harmonized and aligned.
But harmonized regulatory policies globally, so that Mr. Pharma doesn't have the inconvenience of having to restructure their regulatory documents for each nation state that they submitted to.
So harmonization is important, and a key term throughout all of this is adulteration, which is in its simplest form.
It is the incorporation of adulterants or impure material into, in the original American statute, food, devices, or drugs.
Remember, we have the Food and Drug Administration that's responsible for this.
And it goes back to the time of the scandals that Upton Sinclair revealed in his classic works, literary works, concerning the Chicago slaughterhouse environment and contamination of food with rat faeces and other materials. So rat faeces or other awful, you know, excrement from animal species contaminating foodstuffs is absolutely considered to be an adulterant.
But technically in the drug space, adulteration consists of inclusion of materials in a final drug product, that are not specifically disclosed in the label.
Remember the label also includes that little package insert that goes in the box that says all those things that nobody ever reads in the very fine print.
But basically, as one is allowed to market a drug product, typically that requires the final drug product, I'll say this way, is defined as the sum total of everything that goes into making it.
So the manufacturing process, the testing and release, the regulatory documentation, the documentation about the clinical trials, all of that, it's not just the stuff that's in the pill or in the syringe, but it's all that stuff, that documentation and information that surrounds it, that cloud of information.
And so technically, if a regulatory authority together with a manufacturer disclose that, well, In fact, in our product, there is a certain fraction of rat feces, but we have a test for rat feces, and those rat feces cannot exceed 0.001% or whatever the thing is.
That type of thing makes that not an adulterant. If it is disclosed and you have some parameters around it, then that's acceptable.
What's happened here with these RNA genetic products is that two things have not been disclosed. And basically, they have been detected, by two different laboratory groups, one in the United States and one in the University of Guelph.
You'll remember University of Guelph being the home of Byron Bridle.
And so now we have another Guelph dissenter, solid, rock-solid scientist in his group that does DNA sequencing that these two groups have acquired at great difficulty because, of course, this is forbidden in most nation states to be able to analyze the vials that Pfizer or Moderna give us.
We're told to just accept them that they are as they are asserted to be, which has never been the case with other drugs.
Always a national authority like Paul Ehrlich or the European Union will independently verify that what is in the vial by random sampling is in fact what pharma says is in the vial.
And it's within those limitation parameters that are predefined in the regulatory package.
But it turns out that they were asleep at the switch or wilfully ignorant or we can extend that out, and hopefully someday we'll have the documentation to allow us to discern how the heck this happened.
But we are hearing now more and more a cascade of mea culpa statements, from European Medicines Agency, Health Canada, Australian regulatory authorities, yet to hear this from the FDA for some reason, that in fact, we're guilty.
We weren't aware. Mr. Pharma misled us.
Pfizer, Moderna, whomever, misled us. And in fact, there is quite a bit of these small linear DNA fragments contaminating the final drug product.
And by the way, the DNA source, a circular piece of DNA that was used to manufacture the RNA, it was grown in bacteria.
And that leads to another whole can of worms is the endotoxin contamination.
And whether it's been adequately monitored.
Endotoxin being something that's known to cause shock in humans when injected, humans turn out to be exquisitely sensitive to injected endotoxin compared to many other species.
And that may have something to do with some of the anaphylactic reactions that patients develop within the first 24 to 48 hours.
Certainly that is consistent with endotoxin contamination. but also that we have this DNA contamination.
And so, because it wasn't disclosed.
And furthermore, the composition sequence of the plasmid from which these short DNA fragments are derived was not disclosed.
And in particular, the existence of some sequences derived from simian virus 40 were not disclosed.
And a lot of then this constitutes an indulgent.
And the EMA and some of these other health agencies are now basically saying, not our fault, Pfizer didn't tell us about it. And Pfizer is coming out with statements saying, well, we didn't tell you about it because we didn't think it was important. I'm paraphrasing, but that's the essence of the argument. And it turns out this is not okay, because short linear DNA fragments that are produced by degrading these plasmids are among the most highly active DNA molecules if you want to mutate a genome, let's say, of a cell line or an experimental animal.
And normally, that level of DNA contamination would be below the threshold that has historically been imposed for vaccines.
So it's a chronic problem, DNA contamination in vaccines. Basically, it was a major reason why the Solvay program that I was on got killed, because they couldn't get rid of all the DNA they needed to from the cell lines that were growing the flu.
That's a tangent. But it's a known problem in biologics manufacturing.
And so technically, the threshold level of DNA fragments that are there are below the historic allowed DNA contamination.
But it's kind of apples and oranges because with an injectable, let's say, a flu vaccine, it's not designed to be a polynucleotide delivery system.
Okay, but what we have here with these RNA products, thanks to the enabling technology created at the University of British Columbia by Peter Cullis and his colleagues after decades of work, by the way, they were the ones, if anybody's going to get the Nobel Prize for the enabling technology advance, it was those guys, not the pseudouridine people, but that's another tangent. So shout out to Peter Cullis, I guess, for enabling this technology in vivo. But that tech is agnostic about whether it's DNA or RNA. And so you have the most potent non-viral delivery system ever devised by man being formulated with not only RNA, in RNA that isn't really natural RNA, it has a very, very long half-life and it's immunosuppressive if that was by design, but also with these short DNA fragments, which are known to be highly mutagenic.
It hasn't been proven in these formulations, but the literature is explicit on that and abundant, that short linear DNA fragments will drive mutations in your cells in your body, if it's injected through your body.
And then perhaps most worrisome, we know that these formulations, based on the Pfizer common technical document that was submitted, that's the non-clinical package to get authorization to proceed.
That was kind of the last shot at doing the real toxicology, revealed that these particles have a surprisingly high affinity for ovarian tissue.
Which is where germ cells reside in the form of eggs, ova, and not tested was whether or not these ova take up these particles, but certainly the ovarian tissue in general does.
And then of course, we also have the recommendation that pregnant women should be receiving these products.
And we know from the literature that these products cross the placenta.
So they are getting into baby, and baby is in first trimester in a highly, rapidly developing embryonic environment.
And so my determination is this is a true risk.
It is one that will manifest in the form of somatic cell cancers, particularly lymphomas and leukaemia's, which by the way, we do happen to be seeing a surgeon inexplicably.
But if you wanted to, in an experimental model, drive the development of leukaemia's and lymphomas, you could use retroviral gene therapy vectors.
That's why it basically killed retroviral gene therapy was because of these side effects of leukaemia's and lymphomas because of insertional immunogenesis.
And you could do it experimentally if you wanted to discover oncogenes or tumour suppressor genes, because that's how this technology was used.
You could deliver, using these cool new formulations from Cullis et al, short DNA fragments, and they would absolutely disrupt the genome.
And so there's the cancer risk, and there's obviously a germline foetal development mutagenesis risk.
And I'm confident enough, because this was the area of molecular biology that I literally cut my teeth on originally.
Mouse memory tumour virus, intentional mutagenesis, and searchable mutagenesis in order to search for oncogenes and tumour suppressor genes, under the mentorship of MD, PhD pathologist, one of the first molecular pathologists who had just finished a sabbatical with Bishop Envarmus, who got the Nobel prize for discovering oncogenes.
Okay, so I know this area, the literature is clear and explicit, and I'm so confident about these observations that I'm willing to put my reputation on the line and say, this is happening at some frequency.
We just don't know what the frequency is right now.
Well, it's a huge topic and it's a perfect end. And I know another reason to get your Substack is you've just put an article up on this, republished a trial site news piece on this and people can delve into that.
But Robert, I always appreciate your time for coming on and congratulations on having a speaker in the house.
Now the Republicans can continue to use their majority for to do nothing. So well done.
Oh what a bizarre world we live in. So yes, all true. I'm from Louisiana and we now have a Republican governor in Louisiana who I've known and worked with. It's been my pleasure.
And the new speaker talks the talk, so let's see if he'll be able to walk the walk about all these various issues.
And time will tell on that, but they are under a pretty short deadline to fund the government.
And are we going to continue to see basically kick the can down the road, continuing resolution, or are we going to see the Republican marginal Republican majority in the House that ostensibly is the ones that are supposed to create the budget actually do what they have been saying they're going to do and take up all these independent budgets for funding the various public agencies, including Department of Defense Homeland Security with CISA, the intelligence community and their black budget, and all of these other weird and wonderful agencies that we have developed here in the United States that are bleeding us all dry and driving...
The other day, I was reading Doug Casey's International Man, and he used the metaphor that the American government is like Wile E. Coyote in the Roadrunner series.
It's already run off the edge of the cliff and it just isn't aware that it's about to plummet down to the bottom and get crushed.
We are way past the danger zone in terms of our indebtedness.
I don't know what's gonna happen.
100%. For the viewers and for listeners, make sure and follow Robert if you don't already on his Twitter or on GETTR, on the Substack, and lies my government told me, is a perfect Christmas present gift.
So do look out for that.
Do get a...
Oh yeah, please.
A copy. And pass out, but-
I've heard it referred to as an important historic document.
Oh, it is. Oh, it is.
Because it was written in real time.
And that could never be written today because many of the references have been getting scrubbed from the internet.
Yeah. Yeah, we've seen that. Absolutely. Robert, thanks so much for coming on, sharing your latest Substack and a number of other thoughts. So thank you.
Thanks, Peter. Anytime.
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free