Transcript:

(00:05) [Music] all right guys welcome to the trial site news podcast we are here with dr robert malone for the second podcast that he’s doing thank you dr malone for joining pleasure um and the topic is censorship in the age of covid basically censorship of scientific dissent scientific debate and dr malone is kind of like a perfect case study uh when it comes to when it comes to censorship um unfortunately um there’s been several kind of times you’ve been censored so i guess maybe let’s go back to the first time you experienced censorship which was in

(00:55) february of think it was in like early april it was i think the fifth edition of the book so uh thanks for that lead in in that softball pitch aaron um uh so this the story starts with uh and and please understand fellow travelers that i’ve been through a bunch of outbreaks and i’ve never experienced anything like this before and i get that feedback from my scientific and medical colleagues left and right none of us have ever seen anything like what’s going on right now and i’m not sure why what what the emergent phenomena is that brett

(01:37) weinstein speaks of that’s leading us into this position but i can for sure give you a random walk through time of kavad and a bunch of kind of case studies of how i’ve seen it manifest so the first one this aaron let in goes back to a book that my wife primarily wrote i edited and helped with but she was the driver i was busy trying to do molecular docking and trying to figure out drugs that could be useful for covet the story the truth is i got a call from a let’s say colleague who was in wuhan an american citizen

(02:19) that was in wuhan in the fourth quarter of 2019 who was very aware of uh intelligence in that area and uh he called me and this is somebody that i’ve published with uh over the last 10 years multiple times he called me from wuhan in the first week and he said robert you got to get your team spun up because this virus is going to be a problem so time frame again reset this is the first week in january of 2020 and the gentleman’s been in country for a few months now at that point so i get this call and on the 10th the

(02:55) virus sequence gets published as the wuhan seafood market virus and i get going on drug docking molecular modeling and all that cool computer stuff trying to screen drug libraries for repurposing purposes jill my wife phd in biotechnology and public policy and you know my my co-worker through multiple pandemics says hey i know what i can do because we’re both scratching our heads what can we do to help the world and help our colleagues the people around us to get ready for this thing that they hardly even know exists and is you know

(03:33) you’re not you’re not hearing about it in the press yet now now just to reel back in time remember the documents show that the us government was well aware and remember this is a u.s government civil servant let’s say that called me from wuhan so the government was well aware of what was going on there at that point in time so jill and i jill gets going and she says well what i can do is i can use amazon self-publishing and i can quickly get out a paperback that can help people prepare for this and and you know get

(04:06) their affairs in order and understand what the virus represents and just make sense out of all this and so she writes a book that’s about a hundred pages long after we finish it that has all kinds of uh nitty gritties about the nature of the virus it’s its replication you know goes through the virology goes through what’s known about things like masks and what the data are and the studies on use of masks what was known about prior coronaviruses in the prior soros virus what we’re likely to be encountering what you would need to do to protect

(04:41) yourself how you would have to clean your house and even has chapters suggesting that you might want to start a garden and things like that the people ended up doing just naturally organically it was fascinating so she wrote a general book and she tried to strike a tone it’s like we live just some context we live on a 50-acre horse farm in a red county in a purple state here in virginia so we talk to folks from all walks of life and from all political persuasions we we don’t just selectively talk to people like us

(05:16) even if we’d wanted to we wouldn’t and the book was written with that in mind to be a vehicle to share information and and help protect our our fellow colleagues people you know in our in our lives in the supermarket at the at the feed store and places like that so that’s the tone that we struck but it was solidly researched and actually referenced all the proper reference managers and she got it up and published on amazon in the first week in february which is a heroic effort in less than a month from when we got

(05:53) the call from uh the colleague in wuhan to 100-page published book about how to protect yourself the virus didn’t even have a name then so we called it the novel coronavirus 2019. uh so she got the book out and uh we elected to amazon self-publishing will uh recommend to you pricing structures and and options that you have for self-publishing these paperbacks and they print them and then send them out and all that stuff so they get their their uh nickel on everything believe me uh so we just kind of clicked through

(06:33) and selected the lower pricing for an amazon self-published book and didn’t think twice about it and we got a couple checks you know 300 bucks here 500 bucks there and then all of a sudden and jill is jill’s thinking has been that she’s going to periodically update this thing that’s one of the nice things about self-publishing is she can quickly put out updated editions and so she ends up at about edition five and then suddenly she gets a notice from amazon that the book is being deleted and dropped off of their uh list

(07:06) and they have standard policies written policies about you know what happens what’s just like the community standard guidelines that we see with the other large internet related companies and uh so we read those policies and we’re scratching our heads we haven’t done anything wrong here you know we didn’t attack anybody or you know there’s no porn or anything unless you call it virus porn um so uh yeah right that’s pretty twisted um so there it is it’s all twisted uh and um so uh so we get we get deleted and uh so she writes to them

(07:51) multiple times and they have a policy that they will uh let you know what you’ve done wrong so that you have a chance to correct it but they won’t provide any information about what was done wrong and and so she asked them you know what have we done wrong do we have any appeal no that’s it there’s no appeal no explanation you’re out so that was the first one and you can appreciate that you know for jill she busted her camp for a month to get this out in an honest effort you know not seeking profit to get information out to our friends

(08:38) and colleagues and uh then it is summarily and you know dropped a month of her life working full time flat out to get this done and uh poof it’s gone no no recourse nothing so doctor that was episode number one episode number one um do you do either you or your wife have any idea to this day why that book was removed from amazon or seriously one can only speculate uh uh but um what she did was because she was a little bit aggravated as you might be if you’d put a a month of labor into this and then suddenly had it pulled

(09:24) and so she hunted down there was a meeting in the white house with amazon and others in which there was an agreement that the large uh internet companies were going to at the behest of the white house room this was the last potus at the behest of the white house they were going to censor information that they deemed as counter to the dominant narrative so this this logic of we’re not going to let information go into circulation that we perceive as counter to the dominant narrative that we want to put out at that particular
(10:00) time that became public policy in about april and she tracked it through some washington post articles that discussed this and discussed these meetings and she’s documented all that and we can send it to you aaron or to trial site news as a pdf if you want um so that that is kind of where that ended up is is that was apparently the genesis of this thread of internet-based censorship and tech based censorship that that traces back to about march april of 2020 and i think i only speculate you know and and there’ll be parts of

(10:47) this viewership that disagree with this but jill dove into the literature the peer-reviewed literature on mask use right and pulled out that literature because we’ve been you know biotech uh researchers for years run tissue culture rooms she used to work with non-human primates which have a nasty habit of sharing their own viruses with their keepers etc and uh mass use is just the norm in that environment if you want to keep viruses from entering your nose and infecting you in your mouth so she pulled the peer-reviewed

(11:23) literature cited it and she advised that the people reading the book should get in a 95 masks and should use them when they go out in public as part of their standard procedure in addition to hand washing and other things i think that we got pulled in that window of time where dr fauci decided that the proper messaging was to say don’t use masks if anything use a bandana you may recall that there was messaging that masks don’t work then and it the the washington post letters that were foyed have come out now saying

(12:01) that he knew at that time that that wasn’t true that maths in fact did work and he was putting out the messaging that they didn’t work because he was afraid of the hit on the supply chain for masks for public health providers and physicians and frontline personnel i think we may have gotten deleted because of that uh that’s pure speculation but if you read through the book most people that look at it go there’s this is a nothing burger yeah nothing here didn’t go through the book i was going through it like where is it where is the part where

(12:36) um um but yeah and i think that’s um i mean i work in public health and i think i know people feel strongly about mass but i think that’s part of um my biases against censorship i know people in public health think differently than me on that part but i think i’m pro-scientific debate getting stuff out there and pro-scientific dissent um and informing people so they can make their own health decisions that’s probably my own bias i know people disagree with me on that and that’s the same thing with masks i think it’s important for people to hear

(13:11) all sides of that debate as we know it became a very um hotly contentious issue yeah a little bit yeah a little and that’s and that’s where we were coming from was just to inform people yeah so they can be empowered and in this we knew that this was going to cause i mean we went through ebola together right we know we we we’ve been through a bunch of these outbreaks we know the kind of tending towards mass hysteria that can happen yeah we were just trying to help people right right information yeah just providing people

(13:46) information information that they may disagree with or not like but letting them ultimately be you know the decision makers of what you know what to do with with their own health choices i i can tell you in this in this red county uh back then there was a lot of derision you know almost snickers uh at us for for advocating masks and when we talked to our local southern states distributor and told them they ought to get a shipment of n95s in they were like what are you talking about are you crazy um and they they you know time passed but

(14:17) so that was that was episode number one so that kind of establishes that this willingness to censor information goes back uh pretty early in this and and it was coordinated through the white house initially for sure um do you because i think the the do you want to talk a little bit about the frontiers article because i think that is also um an example i would say of censorship um if uh but it it was an article on um pepcid and celebrex is that right or maybe there was other drugs in there but before then it was the the i word right

(15:01) oh right right the word that shall not be said on youtube yeah um and i know the subscribers many of the subscribers feel very strongly about ivermectin but there was that article that was also pulled from frontiers so that was the one that kicked it off okay so i’ll i’ll share the story okay uh so i made the assessment on behalf of the group that i was working with which we were working under a dod contract for identifying repurposed drugs for uh counter measures for organophosphates that’s a fancy word for chemical warfare

(15:38) agents of the type used in world war one and they’re still around so we were we were looking for new drugs and repurposed drugs for organophosphates using all the latest cool tech and we kind of at this this hit the fan and and we all said hey this looks like a big one let’s get going and we just started working as volunteers and we had been assembled under a dod contract for another purpose so that’s how that got going and as we progress there’s uh you know the story of the discovery of famotadine is an interesting
(16:14) tangent we won’t go into and what happened after that and rick bright and all those things but um then it then it comes down to the point where we need to start publishing our work and the work started with the initial commodity discovery and some a big coalition that was by coastal top universities harvard duke uh ucsf you know a bunch of big shots uh uh about the mechanism of action of formating the generic term for commodity is pepsin and please understand viewers i am not here to pump the drugs that we have an open ind for

(16:56) and are about to bring into the clinic so that’s not my objective uh and i differ from some others in in my willingness to advocate for things uh early on in terms of repurposed drugs but i’ll mention the name so it was famotidine which is pepsi uh and this uh drug that people take for heartburn but it also happens to be a profoundly potent and active blocker of histamine h2 receptor and what we came to understand in those early days was that a key part of the hyperinflammatory response of carbon involves histamine as a as a messenger

(17:41) and activation of mast cells and other things so we did this large body of work wrote the paper and then just could not get it published to save our lives just rejection after rejection uh in in a way that this is a solid paper with top-tier researchers people that are in the national academy of sciences uh and and we can’t get it published and uh we get ridiculed on associated press uh for for our work as a team and you can look those articles up and ridiculed by barta for wanting to do clinical trials involving this

(18:22) and uh and we can’t get the work published we put it up on a preprint server and it kind of pegs the needle uh not as much as pierre corey’s review paper and ivermectin did but for the time frame it got a lot of attention in in a lot of scientists and positions took that as the starting point for what then was heresy and now is an accepted wisdom that that this disease is a hyperinflammatory disease that it involves mast cells and histamine signaling so couldn’t get the paper published well written paper you know from top tier

(19:02) people and this goes on and i get i’ve on a teleconference with some researchers in from europe spain france italy uh and others they’re talking about some of their non their their clinical data where they’ve tested out a histamine h1 receptor blocker so this is their four different histamine receptors femotidine hits h2 there’s others that hit h1 and they’re also talking about how wicked hard it is to get anything published involving repurposed drugs so we all agree one of them chimes up and says hey there’s this journal in

(19:45) switzerland called frontiers and i’ve worked with them before i’m actually an editor this is maria christini speaking from italy and she’s a full professor at a major italian medical school and she says why don’t we set up a special topic edition for repurposed drugs and frontiers of pharmacology and then we’ll have a natural home so we go through this whole process of of writing specifications and scope and it gets reviewed by frontiers editorial staff and they they bless it so they say okay we will publish this thank you very much

(20:25) you get to be the editors of this journal this particular volume and yes please solicit journal articles that involve repurposed drugs for coven and so we proceed to solicit articles from all over the world that we think make sense and move them through peer review and get them accepted into this journal which you have to pay for in order to get your paper published there because it’s open source so it has the advantage it’s open source anybody can read it it’s got a lot of good there um this all goes about its merry way

(21:04) until i catch wind of ivermectin and the potential efficacy of ivermectin and this comes i don’t remember aaron you might have even been involved in some uh in connecting me uh in this uh or it was a journalist i think it was a journalist not sure uh helen yeah i was a journalist at vanity fair that said hey robert have you heard about this ivermectin story that i was supporting her on another article and uh and so she uh said katherine even um she said hey let me put you in touch with the pediatrician that i know that knows all

(21:42) about this since you haven’t heard about it that pediatrician opens the door for me into the whole ivermectin community including pierre cory and uh andy hill back in leeds in the uk he’s doing the metanalysis together with tess lori and and i’m leading this big team of drug repurposing people working for the department of defense and i open a dialogue with these folks and they send me their information and i look at it i say you know what this is a viable candidate it has in it was one ivermectin was one that we’d identified for zika

(22:20) and for yellow fever as a candidate in when i had started a company doing repurposing for zika and ivermectin is an interesting drug it’s very safe it has this amazing safety record 40 years of use and uh and the molecular modeling suggested in yellow fever that it would dock to a key protein and in this case but i knew that ivermectin had a fundamental problem with all of these antiviral indications which is that the in order to measure inhibition of virus replication in cell culture you have to have a level of vibramectin

(23:06) that’s so high that it’s it’s it’s kind of beyond the toxic range for human administration and so even though it works it works at a level that’s too high for safe administration of humans but and this is the problem with ivermecton conceptually with coven but pierre and andy showed me these data coming out that looked to me pretty compelling something was going on here it didn’t make sense but it seemed to be working clinically so i i advocated that peter would take this crude review that he’d written that was out on the web and tune it up
(23:44) and submit it for this journal and uh so he did and i i knew at that point that there was some pushback starting about ivermectin and it was increasingly controversial and so i collected four highly qualified reviewers one was a senior safety officer who was working for the dod who used to work for astrazeneca as a drug safety officer you know near the end of his career highly qualified guy another one was a frontline emergency physician working at montefiore in in the bronx right so this is albert einstein uh so he he would provide i thought he

(24:30) could provide a good clinical perspective from the review two of them were senior people from the fda one is one of the most fda’s most senior reviewers the other is a senior scientist she’s an md so four highly qualified reviewers i get it through peer review pierre gets raked over the coals has to rewrite it three or four times and then it gets accepted and the abstract gets posted on frontiers in pharmacology as an upcoming paper and that’s when the problem starts within a couple of days it hits a stupidly high number of hits

(25:12) people are hitting on this thing pierre is pub has notified people through the flccc that this thing is coming it’s accepted it’s getting an amazing number of hits i don’t remember how many hit it was you know like within a day it was well over a hundred thousand and uh and then i get a call from the editor-in-chief of frontiers and basically i get called on the carpet as the editor who is handling this thing and uh he tells me that he has had a call from a biostatistician who objects to this paper that’s not well written

(25:55) this is exactly the same story as the vaccine paper that just got rejected by the way uh and one of the people that wrote that paper just lost his job uh so yeah i didn’t know about that yeah this is the paper this is the paper that had the punch line uh you have uh two die from vaccination for every three protected this is based on dutch and okay i remember that yeah yeah that was then retracted after a group of academic biostatisticians attacked it directly with the journal after the past peer review in that case a good case we made that

(26:34) the peer review was not adequate in this case the peer review is bomb proof uh it was four highly qualified individuals and uh but a by but the i get called on the carpet with the editor in chief who uh tells me that it has too many authors the authors have never published before they’re not qualified uh it has statistically uh incorrect uh conclusions what’s odd about that is the abstract didn’t have any statistics in it so whoever was making this conclusion that the the anonymous biostatistician there wasn’t any biostats in the abstract that they

(27:18) were criticizing because the paper was not yet and uh and so too many authors not qualified as authors uh biostats are wrong um uh pierre inserted the flccc treatment protocol in the discussion part of the paper and so there was an objection that he was trying to uh somehow back door that in as a peer-reviewed protocol and uh and furthermore he didn’t like pierre’s tone when he had talked pierre is a pretty uh florid new york uh guy uh with and they can get a little hot in the collar and he doesn’t deny that and he had been frustrated with how long

(28:01) it was taking the journal to get it published at this point he’s already paid for the publication it’s already formatted okay he’s paid it’s formatted it’s passed peer review and somebody calls the editor-in-chief the editor-in-chief calls me to the carpet and i say to him fred why don’t you just let pierre revise it if you’ve got these objections uh and you think that he’s overselling it in the abstract and he’s put this protocol in the end and you think you think some of these authors don’t belong there then why

(28:35) don’t you just let him revise it and we can publish it and and everything will be fine no can’t do that because pierre has offended uh fred’s sensibilities by the total voice that he used for his staff and so that’s what gets it kicked out uh and delayed for another month and a half to get published so that then triggered the frontiers to do an audit of the entire volume and everything that was okay and that includes my paper on commodity and celicoxen okay it’s been reviewed by an independent person uh and um and so at that point that independent

(29:24) editor it’s now passed your peer review it’s actually passed through peer review twice uh and the independent editor just writes some crazy stuff about why it should be rejected well the patients were treated with vitamin c and we can’t rule out that the vitamin c was what made it so that none of them died in the hospital after they had hospitalized comet instead of the commodity and encelacoxy it was just totally specious arguments but the and and he was an italian and the other italians and there were co-editors

(29:58) um wrote to him etc etc but he was just dug in there was no way that he was going to let this thing get published and in the end and they they raised objections about other papers that were perfectly normal yeah and uh so the editors the group that had created this thing just decided to resign in protest right and uh we were immediately deleted from any ability to ever serve as editors again uh so there was a retaliation component and uh and um and yeah don’t come back don’t let the door hit you on the way out um uh yeah uh and

(30:45) um you know and your mother too uh and uh so so it goes and i i then what i’ve experienced with that same paper that now has been through actually peer review three times been accepted except by the senior editor with six different reviewers um then i submitted to a journal that had previously said yeah we would love to have that submitted and what comes back is well this seems to be the new way to say no without saying no it’s not within the scope of our journal now previously the editor-in-chief had said it’s absolutely within the scope of

(31:34) the journal and please send it in um and uh then this is uh with the this uh springer i think it is has a system now where if you get rejected from one journal they will advise you on the other journal to submit and so we get this letter from springer saying well you got they thought it wasn’t appropriate for their journal but here’s others on our list that we think is appropriate absolutely and so we submit to the most the best of those and uh a month goes by now you know each of these things takes a month two months

(32:09) and a month goes by and we get a letter saying well we’ve decided that it’s outside of scope and we can’t accept it for a review which was explicitly what the interlocutor had said was well these journals are all within scope and you can submit it here and then we get back no it’s it’s outside of scope and we can’t even consider it so that that now that particular paper we then submitted to another journal and it’s been in review now it’s remember it’s been peer reviewed three times and it’s sat within uh the journal of

(32:48) pharmacology and their pulmonary pharmacology and therapeutics and it’s been there over three months in review with nothing so that’s what all of us are encountering see the thing is this isn’t a story just of us uh and remember this isn’t a bunch of whack job crazies this is the u.s department of defense that has sponsored all this work right um and uh you know we have in the footer all the proper labels for it well that was another thing i got kicked for was i had properly disclosed conflict of interest so i had to write this huge

(33:23) long conflict of interest statement which basically says i have no conflict of interest and that’s another one of the new things that everybody’s doing in these journals so it still remains unpublished fortunately it’s up on a pre-print server and people can look at it and it’s uh that the parent one for that repeatedly wins top ten publications on the ssri server but we cannot get it in a journal i just want to say like i wanted to let you like take a lot of time to explain that whole story because i i think it’s so

(34:01) important for people to understand the details and what is going on um you’re kind yeah and i so i know sometimes people are like oh hurry up like they’re taking too long but i think like to me if this is such a big problem um and the pro the other problem i have with this in um is the complacency you know with this type of censorship and i think people need to to at least be aware of it and to to so if i can say to your to your ivormectin fans uh here’s a here’s something for you to take home with uh the subscribers there’s a lot of i’ve

(34:36) ever met in facebook with with with the objections that the data are not peer-reviewed and published for ibrah medton problem with that argument is that it is almost impossible to get anything involving repurposed drugs let alone anything that has the i word published through peer review and so to criticize the fact that these studies in whether it’s test lorry or um andy hill’s meta-analysis aren’t published and peer-reviewed that’s a circular argument because in this day and age for some crazy reason you cannot get repurposed drugs

(35:18) published relating to carbon you can get other stuff through but not repurpose drugs so that’s example number two um then we come to the present right yeah let’s come to the present but let’s first mention um because this ties into how we’re going to talk about linkedin because you were censored you were you were kicked off of the linkedin platform and then you were reinstated with um the help of someone and i think that’s important to point out because not everybody has connections to linkedin like there’s no way

(35:51) right so so i was i was deleted and ghosted from a linkedin account that i built over 15 years that’s crucial for me running my consulting business right because that’s what people use and uh yeah that’s what it’s there for professional network right uh and and it has basically all my bona fides of prior outbreaks and pictures from the who and everything else so gone no warning um just deleted flushed and i start getting phone calls from my professional contacts from all over the world saying robert what the heck

(36:23) happened right uh um so that’s kind of weird and um so what did happen and and what resolved it you’re exactly right there’s no way that the average person right you know i’m now sitting average scientist last i checked yeah i’m now sitting with 94 000 twitter followers i’m not bragging it’s just the truth and in this world of new media then your your twitter subscriber account is almost like bitcoin currency it it conveys all kinds of things right and uh media companies respect what that means and podcasters do

(37:05) so i get deleted i put notice out on twitter uh there’s this huge groundswell of protest people start cancelling their linkedin accounts right they’re writing to linkedin complaining about it and it goes all the way to one of the mainstream publications so i guess it’s akin to like the la times in italy publishes an extensive article about uh this censorship and my little account getting cut off of linkedin with all of my 6000 linkedin followers and for some reason this makes the major splash in the italian press because it’s

(37:44) emblematic of what’s going on and because i have the cv and credibility of having had a role in the invention you know at the very earliest days arguably being the original inventor of rna vaccine technology so i have the credibility the cv all this and all of this action going on from the twitter followers and also steve kirsch uh silicon valley entrepreneur uh with a 20-year history of philanthropic work in uh medical affairs uh happens to know the vice president of linkedin and when i first got deleted he calls him up and he says what’s going on

(38:26) with malone i don’t get it in the end i get a very nice uh apology letter i didn’t think i was going to get that from linkedin but it didn’t come from linkedin it came from the vice president personally again that would never happen but along the way what was bizarre what was the inciting event what was the trigger that made them decide that they needed to you know off with his head and all i can say is a temporal association we’re all any of us thinking about carbon and data are all of hyper-aware just because there’s a association in

(39:06) time it doesn’t mean causation right this is the bears database problem uh but the day before i get kicked off my wife pulls up this i’m getting i’m getting uh fact-checked by reuters and politifact and smeared basically they take my words twist them set up a strawman and prove that the strawman’s wrong and then then suddenly the trolls and everybody else starts attacking me for lying yeah and we’re going to touch on that too because i think that’s important to because that’s what linkedin used as one of their um

(39:40) two two writers yeah the top my top offense was that i outed the chairman of reuters uh board for conflict of interest jim smith and i did it actually gently because he also sits on the pfizer board right and and then my other offenses were basically that i had quoted from the wall street journal editorial that raised questions about the safety of the vaccines uh so i guess we can’t we can’t quote the wall street journal and uh and that was written by speaking about censorship that was written by uh a epidemiologist right out of

(40:20) and a senior physician and it’s ranked well-respected right you know academics right they were qualified uh so uh in the wall street journal what i mean no matter what you think of wall street journal it is one of the major papers of record in the entire united states right uh so so those were my sins uh wall street journal outing uh the director of reuters for conflict of interest and uh complaining about censorship so i got censored first for complaining about censorship and and uh the most bizarre thing about was that

(40:56) the header in the uh summary of of uh my my transgressions was misspelled so it wasn’t like a template or something you know it was somebody custom put this thing together and and sent it over to me and uh didn’t even run it through the spell checker so the whole thing was bizarre and fascinating and telling i thought what was interesting too and this is um a point that i like bring up a lot in the work i do in public health you know um where linkedin when they which is great that they sent you an apology letter because a lot of organizations

(41:32) don’t own own that they don’t and i know youtube yeah youtube and that’s that but i mean but like i said you had steve’s help and like the average person doesn’t have that so there might be people out there who have been deleted for expressing scientific descent right and then the fact that you were deleted and then that deters other people who might have concerns or want to challenge certain parts of a narrative from doing so because they don’t want to um they don’t want to use lose their profiles or worse yet get you know right

(42:08) and so and so somebody now that i’m getting all this data feed from people all over the world somebody writes to me about the trusted news initiative and uh suddenly everything kind of clicks and uh then we learn that linkedin is tied in with youtube and um with twitter and reuters and associated press and afp and france and the canadian broadcasting corporation the british broadcasting corporation etc within this structure that was set up this coalition of western media and big tech google facebook um that is set up to

(42:49) originally set up to uh counter disinformation political disinformation around elections keep uh interference from foreign countries in domestic elections that was the whole purpose and a new leader came into the bbc last fall and decided that it was going to be his thing his contribution to humanity that he was going to provide leadership and they were going to turn the ship on this whole thing and focus it on disinformation relating to the vaccines and they define this information as anything not aligned with whatever is the official statements

(43:33) coming from world health organizations cdc nih ema local authorities or the world health organization and so you’re you are within the scope of that includes washington post i wouldn’t even agree with that definition but yeah because disinformation and misinformation are two there’s two uh totally different they’re different right right yeah but but that’s if if you if you say words that are not aligned with the narrative coming from world health organization or these other things then you are you are by definition uh

(44:12) uh spreading false information right and you will be censored deleted throttled uh not able i don’t know if any of you on facebook have found that if you if you type in ivermecton and coven yeah whatever you post number one you’ll immediately get plagued number two that post will not be shared with anyone else right and that’s happened to me on my like just um trying to just share an article to get to hear what people think about it it just you can’t do it but i think what’s interesting too about the person i think it was someone from

(44:47) linkedin’s member safety committee and they they said well either you’re right or routers is right i don’t know which one is right and when all it almost sounded like frustration and then i looked at the router’s fact check because i wanted to see how they were doing that and and just to so the where was it um oh where they said vaccines were vaccines are not cytotoxic that you know they were saying that they were not but then they were identifying you and i thought it was so strange not only did they not ask you for your

(45:21) opinion but they didn’t identify you as a doctor or anything they just identified you as one of three individuals um sitting on this podcast and i said to myself yeah that’s so strange because if i was fact checking i’d want to know who this person was and what their history was and what their credentials were and for something for someone like routers which is a huge organization to not do that and then call that a factory so we so we ran that to ground yeah and routers uses two different organizations um one is at mcgill university

(45:56) in canada and the other one is based in the uk the uk one is the parent group they’re run by a social scientist who’s got a bachelor’s degree in in i forget sociology or something like that no technical background so what we’ve got is as you pointed out aaron you should tell this story you’re the one that smoked it out um tell us about what you found out about rudder’s uh fact checking process and and who’s running who’s running the shop well okay i didn’t ex i don’t know the specifics but i did find um a woman her

(46:30) name hazel baker and she lives she was in charge of um this new fact-checking thing and she’s supposedly very good at it and she might very well be i don’t know much about her but i went to her twitter feed and she obviously was very involved in kind of controlling misinformation and disinformation around cobit 19 and um i said well this might be a good person for dr malone to know about or contact because um i i don’t think you were contacted to comment at all on that fact check is that right so i would if i was

(47:01) fact-checking you i probably would have said hey well let me just call this guy and get his at least get his opinion yeah seriously it’s not like people have trouble calling me these days um but then and i was uh and i said and then you reached out to this person which i thought was a really um nice thing to do when somebody is you know like does something that may discredit you’re trying to discredit you um and then you got sort of like a standard response back um like a form response like you have to write this generic ad

(47:33) this generic email address and i said wow i you know and i i would be willing to like have her on the show or anybody that does that fact checking just to understand what they’re thinking and doing because i think that you were very much wronged in that process um well thank you yeah i’m i’m a big boy and i’m used to the internet so uh in the in the scope of nasty things that get said to me by trolls what reuters said was um oh no i know but i think like when people go there like traditional institutions go there and rely on them

(48:07) as you know or like the mainstream are they or they rely on wikipedia and that’s the other part of the story that that is that’s another podcast yeah um uh there there is some serious that there’s there’s a phrase used in europe called historical negationism that sounds very intellectual doesn’t it it’s writing people out of history and and a good case could be made that have been well and truly written out yeah um and we can talk about who who’s driving that and and uh it’s hard to trace it but you’re working on that

(48:45) you get um you get labeled so to just follow the thread so writers comes out with their thing politifact comes out with their thing they’re clearly wrong i mean it takes me three clicks to pull up the peer-reviewed literature and um uh but immediately some journalist in training takes those and writes a smear piece and uh posts it and uh jill my wife you know google’s my name from time to time just to keep up her finger on what’s going on in the internet and what my haters are saying and uh up pops this thing way high in the

(49:26) google search written by this uh you know journalist in training uh is working for a website but it’s being promoted uh and um and she then writes to the website that has paid this young man and says basically you know what the heck is going on here but meanwhile it’s getting cited all over uh as as evidence that i’m fraud and i don’t know what i’m talking about and blah blah blah goes on and on um eventually i contact the young man and i say and and jill contacts his employer and says this isn’t right and it immediately gets pulled down and

(50:06) the young man is quite indignant uh but i explained to him that there is a larger context and as a journalism student he may wish to think about understanding the context of these fact checkers and not just take them at face value and maybe go and look for the primary sources but i guess that’s the new journalism is everybody wants things pre-canned and they don’t take the time to go back and do the primary work anymore that’s what i’m hearing is the new norm in mainstream media um that we’re all kind well yeah i mean and like i said i’d be

(50:42) happy to hear somebody’s side of their story from mainstream media too just to hear because that’s the that’s why i um i like this outlet because i think it allows for people with different views to share whether you agree or you don’t agree you can always respectfully present your side of of a story of the topic um but that’s not really happening but anyways dr mullen did you want to i mean it’s almost there’s like three minutes left in this hour so is there anything else you’d like to add so how to do a wrap-up

(51:18) uh that i i can tell you i i i can tell you for sure so one example uh i the the europeans have been contacting me like crazy i mentioned this italian article they’re really worried about what’s happening and i’m getting examples of physicians in canada losing their job scientists losing their job french physicians are not allowed to they can’t use iberomectin uh that’s a that’s basically a crime and uh today i unverified i got the report that in spain physicians that run counter to the narrative raise questions about

(52:07) vaccine safety or wish to use alternative strategies like ivermectin are being put in mental institutions they’re not just losing their ability to practice what yeah where you can you can be spain you can be determined to be crazy uh if if you don’t comport with the narrative oh my goodness yeah so in europe and and there is there is a piece out there now that i posted on twitter and whatever that’s official from the european union the the censorship in europe is going to get more stringent this is this is not we’re not

(52:51) to the endpoint yet i don’t wow that is that is really scary that is that is like i don’t that’s insane i mean that is insane that is insane those people are not insane that policy is insane i um wow i did not i did not know that but i think people need to wake up like i said i’m i’m biased i’m very against censorship um and i don’t think that i i just don’t think that’s what we’re about and it’s it’s anti-science to like not allow debate and dissent to me like because dissent you know right like things science has been tweaked over the

(53:25) years because people ask questions and make comments so it’s just it’s weird i don’t know what’s behind this but um wow but it’s it’s got it’s got some bad juju doesn’t it so there’s my closing um i guess you’re lucky if you’ve only got it if you’ve only gotten deleted from linkedin and not yeah to some institution so that’s yeah that’s that’s the stick said thing is i’m lucky i’m basically privileged that’s the truth of it because of my cv and because of the history with rna i’m being allowed to say things on the edge

(54:02) but i’ve been notified that i could once again lose my linkedin account at any moment but i’m i’m able to say some things that other people are immediately getting deleted for yeah and it’s only because i have friends in high places and i have a certain degree of status and a big twitter following but yeah with everything like that i feel like the queen of hearts it’s like has taken over like off with his head it’s crazy uh through the looking glass is one of the metaphors that that people are using a lot how interesting

(54:40) that’s really interesting through the looking glass huh yeah you you went there when you when you said queen of hearts i did yeah i mean i i louis carroll i was subconscious yes it was and i know there’s another there’s um lewis carroll his mother might have had borderline personality disorder and all the different character female characters interesting yeah there’s a book on it i think but anyways that was a random tangent um thank you dr malone that was um eye opening and i’m glad that you’re able to to share that i think it’s really

(55:11) important that people hear it thanks thanks aaron thanks for the chat i look forward to our next one absolutely okay take care bye-bye bye yeah you too