Note: the above link is not being allowed to be forwarded by T-mobile and probably other cell phone services. Evidently speaking about censorship and scientific fraud is considered too dangerous by our government.
The conversation begins with:
I’m Art Moore in Gig Harbor, Washington, here with Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Ryan Cole. And we’re here with parents and activists and lawmakers who are really concerned about this safety issue regarding the COVID vaccines. And we’ve talked about the CDC data that’s on the VAERS database and the fact that it is in spite of accusations that it’s not reliable.
It is giving us some alarming safety signals. But now we come to a blockbuster story. The New York Times has interviewed CDC officials who admit that they have data that goes beyond this VAERS data. They have granular data that is indicating how many people have been hospitalized deaths. Other data regarding the impact of these vaccines that they admit they’ve been hiding and hiding because they’re concerned about vaccine hesitancy.
Dr. Cole, what’s your reaction to that?
Well, as an ethical physician who took oaths to the human race, this is incredibly disturbing. These are the people that are entrusted to share with us the truth, to know that they’re withholding safety data signals all in the name of trying to prevent a hesitancy over something experimental that’s being used not only on adults, but trying to push this forward on children with no long term safety record.
We can’t advance the clock and know what the long term outcomes are. We now to know that they know that there are problems and they’re withholding it from the American people, that is scientific fraud.
I completely concur. So I’m just going to read the title and a couple of clips from this blockbuster New York Times piece. And by the way, what I find fascinating is The New York Times is trying to normalize what has been going on at the CDC. They’re trying to make it sound like it’s acceptable practice. And I strongly concur with Ryan.
Basically a non-governmental spokesperson for the official public health scientific community is throwing Rochelle Walensky, the CDC director, under the bus. What he is saying, if you read think through his words is that the governmental leadership of the CDC has stifled CDC scientists and preventing them from disclosing key information to the public about the risks of the vaccine.
That is stunning.
Dr. Alan, you’re well connected. I imagine, you know, many of these scientists, these scientists who are working with the CDC or advise or consult the CDC tell us just from your your experience and your standpoint what this really means Okay.
I’m going to speculate because that’s what you’re asking me to do is kind of give you a sense of what I infer. I mean, right now, nobody’s talking to me from inside the government for some reason -except my buddies at the DOD. And even that’s a little limited. The CDC staff is a bureaucracy; the physicians and medical scientists sit underneath a political operation.
And for them, you know, this is their paycheck. They are focused on security. Otherwise they wouldn’t work for the government at 80% of market rate. They often find themselves in positions where they’re not able to really say what they’re seeing and what they’re experiencing. They’re often very frustrated, in my experience, by having to operate underneath this political leadership organization.
And what we’ve got here is that they’re not having the courage, unlike what folks like Ryan and I are doing. We’re sticking our careers online. They haven’t had the courage to come out and say, “No. This is not right.”
What’s going on? So it appears that what they’re doing is using a surrogate at the Rockefeller Foundation, an NGO, non non-governmental organization, to speak what they are observing and what they don’t have the courage to speak about.
It’s time, in my opinion, for the scientists and physicians of the CDC to come clean. It’s way past time. But that’s what seems to be happening is they have been undercover, observing these things and haven’t had the courage to speak out about it. And as the narrative is crumbling, this a bunch of them apparently have gone to the press anonymously, because there’s nobody cited on record here.
Multiple scientists are being quoted as sources by the New York Times, but they’re all on background. You know what that means? None of them are having the courage to stick their necks out. And they’re using a surrogate at the Rockefeller Foundation to be their spokesperson.
And they got a problem because now they’re work, their records, their careers are on the line because it’s coming out that what we have is suppression of key public health information for political purpose and they may well have to confront legal consequences at some point in time.
I think I’ve been listening to you health care scientists over the last couple of days talk about what you’re seeing. And so Dr. Cole in your lab and Dr. Malone, you have a big picture view of really horrific signs that there are many people who not only are being severely injured in these vaccines, but dying. And so I wonder, Dr. Cole, just from the standpoint of a physician, you went into this profession because you wanted to help people, and it just seemed that something horrible a scenario is is emerging that that could be beyond comprehension.
What’s your sense of what’s happening now?
Thank you. And that is the moral and ethical responsibility in all of this. I went into medicine to be a healer, to take care of people. And when I started seeing these signals early on, I knew right away I have one thing and one thing only to do. And that’s to tell the truth, whether it’s convenient or inconvenient, you have to follow the truth where it goes.
So these players within the CDC, within government agencies, if they see that signal, instead of protecting their career or being worried about what’s going to happen to me if I say something, what about the human being that’s going to be harmed and damaged by you not saying something? So we as physicians and scientists have one responsibility only, and that’s the health and wellness of humanity, no matter the inconvenient cost of telling that truth.
So in a scenario like this, yes, in the lab I started seeing the clotting damage. Yes. I started seeing upticks in autoimmune disease. Yes, I started seeing an uptick in cancers. Did I sound the alarm? You bet I did. And what did I hear from most of my colleagues? Crickets.
I'd like to amplify on that. We both come from a background of pathology. I taught pathology at the medical school level for well over a decade, and the historic role of pathologists in the medical profession is basically quality control. We’re the final arbiters of truth, and it may be one of the reasons why we’ve been comfortable speaking out is because that is the nature of our discipline.
That is the historic nature of the role of pathology in medicine is to be the final arbiters of truth. That’s what we do. That’s what pathologists are about.
Yeah, we don’t cause the disease. We’re the reporters at the scene of the crash. And when we see the crash, we report on the crash. And very often in medicine, the first person to observe there’s a difference in the pattern. And the signal here is the pathologist saying, I’m seeing something new. And then you sound the alarm and you get other colleagues to look at that same signal.
Are they seeing that signal as well?
“Yeah. So when I think back, what I remember is the rebuttal is, “well, you know, we don’t have the studies.” This is anecdotal.” bBut what you’re saying is there’s a process. You begin with anecdotal and then you move towards studies.
And I wouldn’t even say anecdotal, anecdotal as a pejorative.
I would say it’s the early signal.
Bingo. And when you hear about signal detection.
And worse, we detect that signal and then the signal is starting to amplify because now when we go to conferences and we talk to say, I talked to a surgical oncologist surgeon last night, he’s saying he has a young gastric cancer patient, who is a 28 year old, an esophageal cancer who is 31 year old. A radiologist called me yesterday from a multi-center unit, with another 31 year old person dead - within a couple of weeks of their shots. And so when you see these unusual signals and then it gets amplified every time you get another colleague saying thank you for speaking up. “I’m seeing the same signal.” “I’m seeing the same signal.” Now you have an overwhelming amount of evidence that you can call and draw on scientifically.
What happens a lot of times is the problem is pattern recognition.
Yes.
And pattern recognition is really tough when you’re at the tip of the spear because you have no preceding metaphor. And once somebody like Ryan speaks out and saying, says, things like, I’ve seen signs of these viral diseases cropping up. It’s sounds and looks like immunosuppression. I’m seeing signs of unusual cancers cropping up that fits with the immunosuppression” then we’re starting to build a pattern.
Okay. And then we say to our colleagues, we’re observing this pattern. Are you seeing it also? And when that starts coming back, from people like oncologists and surgeons, then, then then we’re starting to say this is looking a little alarming. And it’s time to really dig in. What happens that I’ve seen is once those those ideas, that initial pattern recognition is gone out there, then other people are often able to perceive things that before they might have noticed subconsciously, but they not might not have been aware of.
And that’s how medicine progresses.
Now, they may have had a subconscious blind spot, but when you realize that that pattern is clicking upward, they open their eyes and say, I am seeing that. And then the frustration is knowing that we have large data gather gathering agencies for the which we pay with our tax dollars, who say nothing. I pay, we all pay. And then public information coming out saying, oh, we’ve been seeing those patterns, but we feel like you don’t need the whole truth because we need to hide those things.
This has been what’s gone on all the way through. With Tony Fauci talking about, “well, I told them that you would be reach herd immunity at 70% vaccination because “I thought that’s what they could handle and then oh it’s 80%”. If you run the calculations, even with Delta it was 140% vaccine coverage to get to herd immunity.
In other words you can’t achieve herd immunity when you run the calculations. This is what what we’ve seen. And we saw this lying really early on - as “the noble lie.” That’s what we’ve been dealing with all the way through and this is just the latest embodiment of the government feeling like the way they need to manage us is with the noble lie of spoon feeding us what they think we can accept, not giving us truth.
The truth is that because they went all in on the vaccines, as if there’s no other way to treat this. And it’s just easy. One, fix the vaccines. Is that why they’re defending? And also, you know, why they’re not why they’re suppressing the trigger?
This gets into the the dangerous territory of thinking that we can get inside of Rochelle’s and Tony’s head.
It’s always hard to answer somebody else’s “why?” I can observe data and report data, and my job in medicine is always to follow that data, whether convenient or not, the data tells the truth. If you have the full data, so when full data is being withheld, then the data becomes a partial lie.
To Dr. Malone’s point saying, “well, you’re not prepared for the truth or we know better.” This is paternalistic and paternalistic. “You’re just little children” is really an improper way to treat patients. These agencies are saying “we let you know what truth you’re allowed to have or not.” And then you get policymakers, you get governors, you get school boards, saying, well, our policy will be this based on this.
You get medical licensing boards.
Coming after people like you and I.
Who (medical licensing boards) are often appointed by politicos coming after us, trying to take our license because we’ve been speaking truth. Because as pathologists, we are trained folk who are able to pick out signal from noise. And we’ve done it earlier and we haven’t been constrained in speaking the truth that we see. The problem is then a lot of the other docs that aren’t trained in this kind of signal detection world and only hear the messaging from the government.
Pathologists apply information in science to medicine daily. We’re the folks that have to give that truth to them (other doctors). So they know how to manage things clinically. But what’s happened is that everybody has assumed that the CDC and the NIH are speaking truth, and as a consequence, they felt justified in attacking us for observing these signals giving these warnings.
And we’ve had to bear the brunt. And as opposed to our esteemed colleagues inside the government at the CDC, who have failed to disclose what they’re observing, we’ve been the ones at the tip of the spear, taking it from the press, from our licensing boards. And now we find out that, in fact, we’re being validated that what we have observed is been hidden from the regular the general community.
And that’s the the key point that it bothers me here is that the CDC has a responsibility to communicate accurate information. It represents that it’s doing so, and it’s communicating both to the general public and to the medical community. And they are now admitting through this New York Times article, multiple sources, that they’ve been lying to the medical community and that is scientific fraud.
That is the definition, withholding data, scientific data, medical data - that is fraud.
So it sounds essentially like what the government is saying to us non-scientists is you can’t handle the truth. Correct?
Precisely. It couldn’t be any more overt.
And with an article like this coming out, coming out now, we should invite our colleagues who aren’t seeing what they’ve been told to stand up and say it. They should wake up.
They must.
Say it. It is an ethical responsibility to humanity to do so.
And you’ve been doing that for some time, trying to to wake up and encourage your colleagues from all across this nation.
In the world.
And we’ve heard numbers like there are maybe 500 physicians in America who are awake and nobody can know for sure, but that’s a handful or I just a small portion of the physicians here. Tell me, though.
I think that was a Pierre Kory quote, and that was four months ago. Okay. But the numbers have been building.
Yeah. What are you seeing?
I’m getting calls all the time. You’re getting calls. People are coming out of the woodwork. They’re hearing this messaging. It is not about us. We are really adamant this is not about us. It’s about you and the community and our fellow physicians. But remember, that we’re not just two. We represent an organization, the global COVID Summit Group that is over 17,000 physicians and medical scientists from all over the world.
We have all been speaking. But the problem is that there’s a concerted effort to censor us and prevent us from speaking. You know, I’ve been de-platformed on LinkedIn and Twitter. There’s all the blowback over the Joe Rogan podcast, a concerted effort in mainstream media. We’re so grateful for the at least the conservative media has been willing to talk to us.
But on there has been a concerted effort to keep key information from physicians, scientists and the general public. And now it’s out in the open.
And it really begins to make a lot more sense when you look at this New York Times article and just the admission of the direct connection between information and worrying that people will get the vaccine, that seems pretty simple. Yeah. Now, this is going to be a huge issue that I know you two will be talking about in the days to come.
But if we could just briefly move to another issue so back in December, Dr. Malone, you were talking about the Omicron variant. That this wave will have a silver lining. That Omicron itself could act kind of like a natural vaccine. And now just in the last few days, we hear Bill Gates is on video saying, sadly, it seems that Omicron is acting like a natural vaccine.
Bill Gates has bragged about how much money he’s made off of this outbreak. He made strategic investments based on his situational awareness and somehow had foreshadowing that something like this was coming and placed his financial bets. He’s made a lot of money on this.
So there’s this odd use of language I think is kind of a Freudian slip. It’s us seeing into his mind. And, you know, what it reveals is that this gentleman has purported to be an advocate for humanity, the champion of global health, is working another agenda. Why else would he say, “sadly”, that this natural phenomena of Omnicom is acting as a natural vaccine and has virtually vaccinated the entire world to generate mucosal immunity. Exactly what I predicted. If anybody wants to fact check me, they all I got to do is look up the Laura Ingram clips from before Christmas.
Frankly I went out line on that prediction. I was a little worried that I was going a little too far. But the thing about being a professional and doing this for a living for decades is it gives you a certain amount of confidence in reading the data and as a virologist and a vaccinologist, I knew when I heard the data coming out of South Africa that this looked like it could play out in a good way. When I looked at how the virus had evolved to infect upper airways. So I said that this looked like a Christmas present.
And now we’ve got Bill Gates confirming it, in his own interesting way, which which reveals his own personal agenda. But I again, I really don’t like to get into people’s heads. I’m not a psychiatrist. Yeah, but it’s a fascinating statement.
Yeah. Just one thing really quickly to add, I think to that a Dr. Cole, you’ve been talking about natural immunity and its superiority. The studies show us over vaccine immunity. So when we talk about Omicron being like a natural vaccine, that’s pretty good news.
There is one nuance in the current data that that is a little worrisome. And I’m not comfortable that it is fully verified yet. But the signal is there and it’s very worrisome to many of us.
There is data from all over the world coming direct from government databases suggesting that the risk of the current infection and disease is higher in people that have been previously vaccinated. And it’s a function of the number of doses. So this gets to a whole issue of whether it makes a lot of sense to keep boosting people, because this is it.
The risk of enhanced disease and infection is still here. That is something the FDA worried about in their very first emergency use authorization documents. They told the pharmaceutical industry that they had to follow this issue and analyze whether or not it was happening. Pharma decided not to do that, even though the FDA recommended it. And the FDA didn’t force them to do it.
And now we’re seeing the signal. So that’s the thing that I think got both of us a little bit worried is these signs exist and the concern is that we may see future variants. We have to be very vigilant right now. But this knee jerk reaction to just do more vaccination has significant risk for making things worse rather than better.
And we knew this historically with the trials of prior coronavirus vaccines, which all failed for pathologic and immunologic reasons. And we know the history of this family of viruses. So kind of to your original question, was a vaccine strategy the prudent thing to do well, in retrospect and to Dr. Malone’s point that we know that more doses doesn’t seem to be helping, it rather seems to be having a detrimental effect on those who have had more doses in terms of acquisition of future variants and adverse outcomes with those variants.
So our concern is from a pattern point of view that and that the CDC is hiding the data. They know that this is an issue and the point of this conversation.
Well, and then there’s then there’s this chief immunologist in Israel, which is ground zero for rolling out the Pfizer vaccine with the extra booster. You talked about that.
This is key. Dr. Cohen, the chief immunologist of Israel, who created their vaccine roll out program. Not they have given shot after shot and booster with another booster. Dr. Cohen now says, “look we’ve made mistakes. We thought this was going to be better than it was with these shots. That there would be no more passports, no more boosters. It is not working.”
If you want to see where diseases going off the charts, look at where they’ve received a third and a fourth booster that’s Israel.
So their chief immunologist is saying “stop, we have to stop.” Of course the media attacked him for saying it but he has the data and the science saying this is prudent time to stop.
And if I can’t know there’s another buried lead in that bill Gates interview. He acknowledges that they blew it by suppressing early treatment and drug alternatives and just focusing on the vaccines. It’s a fascinating interview. And that’s another message that our group has been putting out through Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Dr. Zelenko and so many other doctors - that early treatment saves lives.
And now we got Bill Gates, the champion of vaccines, acknowledging that the public health community worldwide blew it by suppressing early treatment. And by the way, one of the ways they’ve suppressed it is through this propaganda campaign in the press that we’ve seen both on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin early treatment, They have blocked papers about early treatment in the scientific literature, and most scientific journals requiring that there be these little statements genuflecting to the efficacy of the vaccine if you want to publish anything.
But now the data is coming out anyway.
Is that in line with this whole idea of the vaccines or the way to do this? And if you have alternative treatments, I understand you can’t get emergency use authorization because that’s one of the criteria.
There is that. The problem with that argument is that I tested that directly with the CDC and asked them to get back to me. And they did. And basically, they said yeah, that’s the way the law reads. But they said to me directly, they don’t care they’re going to do whatever they want to do. They disregarded the actual language of the emergency use authorization.
So they didn’t really see that as an obstacle. That gets to this whole point of what is functionally under this emergency declaration that has just been reactivated by the Biden administration. They’re able to suspend law. At least they believe that they are. They believe that they’re able to circumvent the Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress, including the bioethics statutes that we call the common rule.
That has been one of the things that’s upset me the most all the way through this is the government is acting in a lawless fashion, and they believe they have the right to do it because of this emergency declaration, which in our opinion is no longer valid. There is no medical emergency here. So if there’s any emergency, it’s that the truckers are rolling on DC that’s what’s got them really worried.
There is no medical emergency now that Omicron is here, acting as a blessing for humanity. We know we have early treatments. We know how to stop the disease and treat the disease. So to declare that there’s a medical emergency is pure governmental fraud. We as physicians and tens of thousands of physicians know that this no that that declaration of emergency is fraudulent.
So they are violating constitutional principles and the law. We know the CDC is lying to us. Now, who else was lying to us? This is the frustration in all of this, is that we are the scientists. We see the disease. We know what’s happening. The truth needs to be told that there is no emergency. The emergency powers need to end yesterday.
And we support those who use their constitutional rights to protest for freedom. We are all truckers now.
Well put.
