Dr. Robert Malone is a leading expert in the field of mRNA vaccine technology, an immunologist and molecular biologist with more than 35 years of experience working to develop new vaccines. He is also an outspoken critic of the COVID-19 vaccine and its makers.
The COVID-19 vaccine makers “knew of many of these risks and adverse events … and yet never formally disclosed them to patients,” says mRNA vaccine pioneer Dr. Robert Malone. “I think there are many in the legal profession that are looking at this and raising questions about whether, in fact, this does meet the criteria of fraud in terms of withholding information.”
I sit down with Dr. Malone, co-founder of the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists, to discuss the Global COVID Summit’s recent declaration to “end the national emergency, restore scientific integrity, and address crimes against humanity.”
“There are many people now that have vaccine damage, and they are not able to get compensated. And there's no money being invested in trying to understand their disease and come up with ways to mitigate it,” says Dr. Malone.
At the same time, the majority of people hospitalized for COVID-19 now are vaccinated individuals, says Dr. Robert Malone. “The more doses of these products that you receive, the higher your risk for infection, disease, and death, compared to those that remain ‘unvaccinated,'” says Dr. Malone—with of course, the key caveat that most who are “unvaccinated” probably have natural immunity.
Jan Jekielek: Dr. Robert Malone such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders.
Dr. Robert Malone: Always my pleasure Jan, this is number four, I think.
Mr. Jekielek: You're fresh off the plane from Louisiana, where you were testifying against the implementation of a children’s vaccine mandate. This is unbelievable to hear at this time during the pandemic.
Dr. Malone: I agree, Jan. It is paradoxical. It seems almost anachronistic given all that we've learned about the adverse events in children, and also the fact that COVID, particularly Omicron, is not a significant health threat for children. Nevertheless, the current sitting Governor seems to have really dug in, wanting to have these mandated vaccines for children in Louisiana. This is something that I've been tracking and been engaged with. This is my second trip there. The first time I went with Bobby Kennedy last September. We testified in the House and that resulted in an overwhelming vote to block the mandates at that time.
Then the governor came back and overruled the House and required the vaccines. The attorney general then called that into question, based on the legality of activities by the Health Department of Louisiana. This is now coming to a head with this subcommittee vote. It is House Resolution 3 in the Senate in Louisiana. Unfortunately, there was a vote to not allow this bill to come out of subcommittee and be voted on the floor in the overall Louisiana Senate. The whips are suggesting it would readily pass in the General Assembly.
Mr. Jekielek: Very quickly, the bill, what exactly is it?
Dr. Malone: It is House Resolution 3, in short, a bill to block the mandates. It's important to get that in your mind. This is to stop the mandates that the Governor is insisting on, and they have to do it with a veto-proof majority. The whips are suggesting that there is a veto-proof majority in the overall Senate and Assembly, and that it would pass, But at this moment, the governor's colleagues and supporters have appeared to have bottled it up in committee with this recent vote. That was what we were there to testify about.
I was specifically requested by Attorney General Landry to come back and testify about the current state of the science. Then the Attorney General spoke at length about the constitutional and state law issues about having this appointed bureaucracy, the public health system of Louisiana, implementing these mandates, which is how it's playing out in that state. These are not legislatively approved. They're being mandated by the public health bureaucracy.
Mr. Jekielek: Fascinating. We’ll be watching closely to see what happens there. You mentioned you were testifying about the science. Just recently, you were in a video that expresses the fourth declaration of the Global COVID Summit, and you have some things to say about the science in the video. So please give us an overview.
Dr. Malone: I've got the declaration here and there are 10 bullet points. This is easy for your viewers to review for themselves, both the document itself, as well as the supporting information that is in this press conference video that we shot last Monday. So this last week, Jan, was wicked. We were shooting the press conference until one in the morning. Then I had a film shoot with Mikki Willis for the film End of Plandemic all day Tuesday. Then I had to be in Baton Rouge at 10:00 AM on Wednesday. Now, here we are on Thursday. So it's been a tough week. This declaration is from the now 17,000 plus members of the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists, who have this Global COVID Summit website. That has been our group name and our brand since we formed last fall.
This is a group that started off with just a small handful of docs. We were labeled as right-wing Nazis. That was the stereotype that was put out about us in the press. It’s an absurd presentation, but it's the type of branding and labeling that anyone that has objected to the official positions of this administration has been subjected to. Then we grew as a group, and presented the first declaration in Rome, as you know. Then we had a second declaration that expanded on that and specifically emphasized not vaccinating children and the importance of allowing physicians to treat patients, and allowing physicians to be physicians. Then we had a third declaration that we gave at the International COVID Summit in Massy, France, right outside of Paris. Then this is the fourth one.
We debated this for well over a month among our group, and these are the points that we have come up with. The data confirms that these experimental gene therapy should end. We know more and more and more about the adverse events, and in parallel have seen the rise of Omicron, which is much less infectious and deadly than the prior variants. When you do the calculations for risk-benefit ratio, and we see more and more about the toxicity, we see that the virus is less and less of a risk. The risk-benefit ratio does not support ongoing vaccinations. We declared that doctors should not be blocked from providing life saving medical treatment. This has been one of our core positions now, going back to the second declaration. We declare that the state of national emergency, which facilitates corruption and extends the pandemic should be terminated immediately.
This is pretty inflammatory language that we're using here. But it gets to our belief that this state of medical emergency that has been declared by the administration has been weaponized for political purposes. Functionally, we have a suspension of the Bill of Rights. They are justifying these coercive tactics of propaganda, censorship, and defamation that are being deployed both nationally and worldwide. This is all justified under the rubric of what's functionally a declaration of a state of war, only it's really a state of medical emergency. It is allowing the suspension of the core principles that this country was founded on. We object to this and we see no evidence that we are in a state of medical emergency. The hospitals aren't full, even Dr. Fauci acknowledged this. We declare medical privacy should never be violated again, and all travel and social restrictions must cease.
This is about the conditions that we have all experienced, and the demands that are being placed on us. We have these amazing stories coming out now in the news from a variety of sources and whistle blowers. We have literally had the CDC spying on us, as well as other agencies tracking us. There's been a number of violations of our medical privacy, not the least of which are the employer demands that we disclose whether or not we've received these treatments. This is a violation of HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.) It violates a fundamental principle of medical privacy. It has to be overturned. That information, in our opinion, should be expunged from databases. This is illegal according to HIPAA. We declare funding and research must be established for vaccination damage, death, and suffering. There are many people now that have vaccine damage and they are not able to get compensated. There is no money being invested in trying to understand their disease and come up with ways to mitigate it.
We have a national responsibility. We have forced many people to take these vaccines. A significant number of them have experienced vaccine-induced damage and they should be compensated and they should be treated. We should understand how to treat them, and we should understand how this has happened. We declare masks are not, and have never been, effective protection against airborne respiratory virus in the community setting. Fortunately, we had, as you know, this recent court case that overturned the mask policy. But the data is in, and it is abundantly clear. Yes, you could wear a respirator with filters, and that would be sufficient to allow you some degree of protection against the virus. But much of the infection, just a trivial example, occurs through the eyes. Yet, we're not forcing people to walk around with face shields. These paper masks do nothing.
We all know that the data is clear on this. It's hard to understand any medical justification for this, and yet the harm to society, and the harm to our children is clear and self-evident. We declare no opportunity should be denied, including education, career, military service, or medical treatment over unwillingness to take an injection. All of the products available in the United States remain experimental products. The pharmaceutical companies, even those that have had licensed vaccines, have refused to distribute and market those licensed vaccines because of the obligations that come with that. We are strongly of the opinion that individuals should not be mandated or forced or coerced to take these products at this point in time, particularly now that we have Omicron. We declare that first amendment violations and medical censorship by government technology and media companies should cease, and the Bill of Rights should be upheld.
This is fundamental. We believe in the Constitution. This isn't radical. If we are right-wing Nazis because we believe in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, then something is seriously wrong with how the press is positioning all this information. We declare that Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and their enablers withheld safety and effectiveness information from patients and physicians, and they should be indicted for this. Again, this is an incontrovertible fact. We have the GAO report from the government side. We have the forced disclosure of the Pfizer information package, which is still being released. It reveals that a lot of the propaganda and information that's been pushed on us about vaccine efficacy and safety is fraudulent. I don't know how else to say it. That is the legal word for saying things that are not true.
We declare governmental and medical agencies must be held accountable for their actions—the withholding of information, the manipulation of information, the propaganda, the horrible compounded policy, and the attacks on the originators of the Great Barrington Declaration. That’s one of the most egregious examples, and it’s well documented. This must be stopped, and these people must be held accountable. These are very simple points. They may sound quite inflammatory and radical, but we've been subjected to constant censorship, pressure, defamation and attacks.
Fortunately not by the Epoch Times. We're very grateful as a community for the role of the Epoch Times as a truth-teller in this situation. I know that you and your organization have been rigorous with your coverage, and in requesting and demanding information that is then published in your newspaper and through your TV outlets. And you've always pressured me to be very cautious in what I say when we interview, so that we can ensure that it is well documented. These 10 points, if you look at them individually, each one of them is well supported by existing data.
Mr. Jekielek: Let's talk about this. This is something I haven't had a chance to discuss yet with anyone on the show. So you've looked at some of these data dumps from Pfizer, right? And you're seeing things there that are highly problematic. What is the most egregious thing you have seen?
Dr. Malone: The table with the nine or eleven pages of adverse events, single line listing, concatenated, separated by semicolons. These aren't separate points line by line, they're concatenated. So, there are multiple adverse events on each line. That this was known is shocking, in and of itself. This is the work product of the Pfizer-BioNTech pharmacovigilance team. Pharmacovigilance is another one of these long technical terms. After a medical product is licensed, the international standards say that the company that's manufacturing and marketing that product has an obligation to set up a separate department.
It's one of these quality control things where a separate silo is set up for monitoring reports coming from patients and physicians saying that these things have occurred after we have received this product. They have an obligation by global standards, to follow up each one of those reports, which is akin to the CDC’s obligation with VAERS, but the CDC doesn't take it as seriously as the pharmaceutical industry has to take it.
So, this is the work product from their pharmacovigilant shop at Pfizer-BioNTech. Clearly, they did not want to disclose this information, because they fought hard, as did the FDA, to withhold this information. Most of this information in these disclosure documents was available to the FDA when they made their decision that these were safe and effective vaccine products, and they should be fully licensed. The table that lists these adverse events, in and of itself, is stunning. These are adverse events of special interest. They've redacted the information about their frequency.
There is some overall tabularization of frequency by organ category, which is the grossest, highest level summary. They're not giving us the data about the event rate for each specific category or diagnostic code, which is essentially what all these are, separate diagnostic codes. That's one that is shocking. You may or may not recall, it goes all the way back to our first interview when I was talking about this Japanese common technical document dossier that Byram Bridle had obtained. I spoke about that and we both got plenty of pushback from the “fact checkers” back then. None of us really recognized that whole ecosystem of what the fact checkers were, and what they have become. But back then, we all took it seriously and it seemed so unfair. They were attacking based on things that I had said, and Byram Bridle had said, when we both independently evaluated this Japanese common technical dossier.
Now, we find with the Pfizer releases that all that was true, and more. We couldn't read the whole document, because neither of us is fluent in Japanese. We could look at the tables and listings that were in English and draw conclusions based on that, and also the footers that were describing those tables. But we didn't have the whole body of the document, let alone have the body of the parallel document that had been submitted to the FDA. To reel back again in time, I specifically called Peter Marks, Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research, and had a conference call with him. This is before the vaccine licensure or anything else. I said I was really concerned about various things that I was seeing.
My concern was that the agency may not have had a full appreciation of some of the subtleties and nuances like I had, as somebody who had been involved in the creation of the original technology. He assured me, speaking on behalf of the agency and the government, “We now have a much more complete document set from Pfizer and there's nothing in this.” That was his statement. There was nothing in that worried him. Now, we get to see what he was actually talking about. In fact, everything that Byram and I had observed turns out to be true, and more. These were not rigorously characterized in terms of pharmacokinetics. That's another big long word. How long do the drugs stay in your body? Pharmaco-distribution; where does it go in your body? Genotoxicity; does it impact on your DNA?
Reproductive toxicology; is it a risk for reproductive health in animal models and subsequently in humans? Now we see from these documents that Pfizer knew that it was grossly overstating the efficacy. They knew that the all-cause mortality was higher in the treated groups than the untreated groups. They knew that all-cause mortality was associated with cardiotoxicity. They knew that many of the things that have subsequently come out had to trickle out. It's like pulling teeth out of the CDC to get this information, as you know, because they've been withholding things so aggressively. We've had to go to Israel and Great Britain and Sweden and Germany and UK and Scotland to pull this information together to correlate it and try to make sense out of it.
Pfizer knew all that. There are many in the legal profession that are looking into this and raising questions about whether, in fact, this does meet the criteria of fraud in terms of withholding information, and whether or not it would break the legal veil that is protecting the pharmaceutical industry. It appears that they knew of many of these risks and adverse events, and yet never formally disclosed them to patients.
As you recall, that gets to my original pea under the mattress, the thing that really aggravated me from the start. It was the breach of fundamental medical ethics having to do with informed consent and the importance of fully and completely disclosing to patients what the potential risks are. Now, we have clear documentation that those risks were known. They were extensive, and information about those risks was withheld. We have that knowledge through the Pfizer document dossier and the documents that are being disclosed, as well as through the GAO report, and the New York Times’ report on President's Day. It is becoming more and more clear, and yet the government continues to deny it.
Mr. Jekielek: The first point in this new declaration is that the universal vaccination should end. You phrase it differently, but I understand that is the point. So presumably, that's because of the understanding of the science among the doctors in your organization. Can you give me an overview of how you reached this conclusion?
Dr. Malone: This is not something we've said trivially or lightly in any way, shape or form. We recognize that this is going to subject us to all kinds of derision, pressure, censorship, and attacks. From our prior interviews, I have always been very reluctant to come to a position where I say these vaccines are not indicated for any cohort. Over time, we've learned more and more about the risks, the adverse events, and the all-cause mortality that is being revealed by insurance companies, and all kinds of data sources. There is this curious situation where the data is demonstrating a dose-dependent relationship between risk of infection, disease, and death, which is paradoxical. This is being seen in country, after country, after country, and is now being openly discussed in the press.
Mr. Jekielek: Please spell out what that means, exactly?
Dr. Malone: The shocking thing, and I don't know how else to say it, one had assumed and what we were being told and basically marketed by our governments was that these vaccines would protect us from infection, replication, and virus spread, at a minimum. As those pillars fell, the data became clear that the vaccines were not effective in any way. A traditional vaccine would be considered to be effective if it is preventing infection and spread. The fallback position of the government has always been that they protect you from severe disease and death. Now those pillars are falling.
The data from the U.S., from Europe, from Israel, and from the UK and Scotland until they stop sharing the data, demonstrates that the more genetic vaccines, particularly the RNA vaccines, that an individual patient receives—and I prefer not to use the booster language because technically even dose-one is a booster of your prior infection from circulating Coronaviruses, technically, so let's just call them doses, because that gets away with whether these are actually working as vaccines or are they really some prophylactic therapy, and the case can be made that's what it's come down to—the observation is the more doses of these products that you receive, the higher your risk for infection, disease, and death, compared to those that remain "unvaccinated."
Now the key caveat is, who is unvaccinated? Because functionally, most of us have already received an infection of some kind, especially with Omicron. 75 per cent of children in the United States now have antibodies, but only a fraction of those have been vaccinated. So, the control group that we're comparing to is not really unvaccinated, it's naturally immune for the most part. But compared to that unvaccinated control group, whatever it consists of, there is a growing clarity in the data from many, many different sources that the number of vaccine doses administered correlates with an increased risk, depending on the number of doses of infection, disease, and death.
What I'm hearing from frontline docs all over the world is the people that we're seeing now in the hospital are all vaccinated. You'll recall that what we were given as the talking point was this is a disease of the unvaccinated. Now that's now completely flipped on its head. The data no longer supports that talking point. In fact, the data supports the contrary talking point. So, it's no longer working as a vaccine. If anything, it's a short term immuno-enhancement. I don't know what to call it. It's not even very effective on that, which is acknowledged by the CEO of Pfizer.
We have Professor David Marks of CIBMTR (Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Center) acknowledging that multiple jabs aren't working. We have the chief immunologist for the Israeli government acknowledging that multiple boosts aren't working. Yet, we still have an official policy in the United States and in Louisiana, as we were just talking about, of continuing to vaccinate people. This is what we have observed, and this is what has driven us to this decision. It is not just the nuance of the underlying science about T-cell dysfunction and the role of pseudouridine, that you covered in American Thought Leaders when you interviewed Ryan Cole.
Pseudouridine is immunosuppressive. Pseudouridine incorporating RNA is having half-lives of 60 days or longer, which is totally unprecedented. This is not our natural RNA by any stretch of the imagination. It's not behaving as RNA. This fact is published in Cell Press, and observed by a strong group from Stanford University by lymph node biopsy. This is not by cell culture and Petri dish. This is found in human beings after being injected in their deltoid, and sampling by fine needle aspiration in their axilla. These RNAs are sticking around continuing to produce high levels of spike protein for 60 days or longer. They didn't test beyond 60 days. The levels of spike protein being produced are far in excess of the levels that are observed in your blood after you get a natural infection.
That now makes sense out of some of the adverse-event profiles. One of the things that's been confusing is why would you see more adverse events with the vaccine than you would see with the infection? Now, we have data showing the level of spike protein in your blood is much higher after the vaccination, compared to what you get after you get an infection. So we this increasing granularity of knowledge, acknowledgement of the broad spectrum of adverse events, and the clear lack of effectiveness, to prove that these vaccines are not stopping infection, replication and transmission. Someone at the Washington Post called me a liar when I said this on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Yet, here it is. It's widely acknowledged, just as I had observed back then. They are not acting like vaccines.
They're not providing durable protection. Increasingly, the data is demonstrating that these products are in a dose-dependent manner, which is key for scientists. If you want to have a causative relationship between a drug and an adverse event, you'll want to see that as you give more drug, you get more adverse events. This makes sense. We're observing that now. We're observing the cardiotoxicity. The cardiologists that are looking at this in a more and more granular way, never mind the anecdotal—all the high performing athletes and weightlifters, I'll say this gently, “spontaneously expiring” on the field in the middle of high performance sports activities at rates that seem to be unprecedented. Despite all that, we are now seeing more and more and more data that the cardiotoxicity, the myocarditis is actually quite prevalent—and that’s just relying on clinical myocarditis, which means it has caused so much damage that it put you in the hospital.
We call it a grade-four adverse event. That's a big deal in medicine. A drug caused you to go to the hospital. That's a big deal. Now what we are seeing is that cardiologists and others have become sensitized to this risk. There are tests that can be performed like troponin assays and certain types of MRI scans, functional tests. We're seeing evidence that it may actually be that a majority of young males that receive these vaccines are having cardiac damage. Furthermore, it's long been known that myocarditis, on average, before a vaccine,viral or otherwise, had something like a 15 to 20 per cent mortality rate at a five year horizon. As the data comes in, and remember it hasn't been that long, what the cardiologists are telling me is that they're observing morbidity and mortality, meaning disease and death, that is tracking along the same lines as would be observed with classical myocarditis.
As the CDC disclosed that myocarditis was a problem, which we discussed in our prior interviews, the story promoted in the press—how else do you say it, it’s propaganda in my opinion—the messaging that was promoted in the legacy media mainstream media was that this is mild myocarditis and in the children are recovering, and they're not going to have problems with it. That's not what the data is showing now. The data is showing that these young boys, also young girls, just at a lower incidence, there seems to be a testosterone co-factor in this, they're not recovering. As I've been saying all along, the heart muscle doesn't heal its scars. I fear that not only do we have this cancer risk, but we also have this long term heart damage risk.
I was also interviewed on Monday by Del Bigtree, together with Ryan Cole and Richard Urso. In their long-term prognosis they very much focused on the T-cell damage and the potential consequences of that. Del turned to me last, so I got to bat clean-up. I mentioned the cardiac problem. There is another one that's coming out now more and more, but it's still anecdotal. It's clear that obstetricians and pediatricians have been strongly encouraged to, let’s say, not report these things, but there is more and more data coming out. Not only do we see dysmenorrhea or menometrorrhagia, these alterations in menses, there is the observation that elderly postmenopausal women suddenly start having menses after taking the vaccine. That's a very odd finding. It suggests something with the ovary. We know these lipids go to the ovary, because the Pfizer documents. Now we're hearing these reports of spontaneous abortions, birth defects and paradoxical infant death shortly after delivery that seem to be tracking at significantly higher rates than is normally observed.
These are all things that can occur during pregnancy. They are known risks of pregnancy, but they have very well-characterized rates. This has been a worry. You'll recall that on the basis of very scanty data, there were strong statements by the CDC encouraging women to take these experimental products during pregnancy. Now, the data is coming out in multiple threads that suggest there is reproductive toxicology problems, which is something that I have also been warning about, as have many of my colleagues. So, you ask why such a controversial statement? “We should stop these injections.” I'll just read it again. “We declare, in the data confirmed, that the COVID-19 experimental genetic therapy injections must end.”
Mr. Jekielek: What I'm hearing is that there's a lot that's unknown. Clearly, there are all these signals that need to be studied at length. At the same time, there's this other piece, which is that COVD is actually treatable.
Dr. Malone: Precisely, and preventable with vitamin D. That's the other shocking thing. There are virtually no deaths from this disease in people who have vitamin D levels in their plasma, in their blood above 50 nanograms/ml.
Mr. Jekielek: How could you know that? That is an astounding thing to say. I understand that vitamin D is very important.
Dr. Malone: There are actually many studies out now, including double blind randomized placebo control trials. It turns out this is a thread that goes back to 2006 with influenza. You may or may not recall the day that I went and spoke to the truckers in Hagerstown, Maryland. Paradoxically, on that same afternoon I gave that speech, out of the blue I got a call from a physician. He has intelligence community ties, and this researcher was part of a team that had undertaken a study in which they mined data. They looked at the data records from the Department of Defense Health System for soldiers, and looked at the morbidity and mortality for influenza. Because when soldiers get influenza, they're not ready for battle, and that matters. He was given the task of analyzing this data and try to figure out what the co-factors were, the differentiate between the ones that were taken out by influenza and incapacitated, versus the ones that were just shrugging it off and staying functional.
What he discovered was clear, statistically rigorous proof that vitamin D levels explained those differences. The story he tells me is that he was assigned to go visit Dr. Fauci, thinking this is important information. “We're going to invest all kinds of money and promote vitamin D based on your exceptional work and findings of your team.” Instead, what he was told, per his relating the story to me, was the phrase, "We don't use drugs to treat influenza. We treat influenza with vaccines only.” And with that, it died." The point is, this policy that we've seen roll out here with this particular RNA respiratory virus, and its role with vitamin D, goes way back to the mid-2000s when the same leadership at the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease made a clear and unequivocal decision to not pursue the importance of vitamin D in preventing respiratory disease.
The data is indisputable. Sufficient levels of vitamin D are necessary to support your health, particularly your T-cell population. What a surprise. We keep coming back to that same thing, and it costs pennies. The thing that I find most astounding is the reports that I hear again and again from patients that went to their doctor and wanted their vitamin-D level tested. It is a simple, inexpensive test, and their doctor refused to do it.
It is such a simple thing. It would cost pennies. It would quench this outbreak. If we're really worried about resurgence next fall, if we're really worried about Geert Vanden Bossche’s troubling predictions, we would do as Bill Gates has now endorsed. I hate citing Bill Gates with anything having to do with public health. The man never even graduated from college, let alone go to medical school or get a PhD, but he is considered to be such an important voice in public health by the legacy media and by governments all over the world. He's the major funder, as I understand it, of the World Health Organization. Then he comes out with the statement, I’m paraphrasing here, “We blew it by focusing only on vaccines. For the next outbreak, the next pandemic, we have to be ready with drugs.”
I find that fascinating, because that has been my position since January 4th, 2020, when I got that infamous phone call. That's why I focused on repurposed drugs. In my opinion, as a vaccinologist, vaccines are good for some things, but they're not good for everything. I always use the phrase, “Give a three-year-old a hammer and everything becomes a nail.” For some reason, the NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) and our entire public health infrastructure has elected to focus just on vaccines, and in particular, promoting new vaccines. It hasn't allowed alternative approaches, including approaches that just have to do with good health, and that can have a huge impact on your risk from this disease. You know that diabetes and obesity, in addition to extreme age, are our biggest risk-factors, and those are lifestyle-preventable diseases.
Even in the face of diabetes and morbid obesity, which by the way interferes with vitamin D availability, those are interacting variables, we can have a huge impact on the risk by strengthening people's immune systems. We can do that by not just giving them enough vitamin D to prevent them from getting rickets, which is an obvious baseline thing, but enough vitamin D to keep their immune systems functioning. This is particularly important for African Americans and individuals of color, operating in Northern climates and working in an office space and places like that.
Their skin coloration is designed for latitudes where they're exposed to a lot more sun, and that's no longer happening. It doesn't happen here in the Northern hemisphere, and they are highly susceptible to very low levels of vitamin D. There's other genetic risk factors that have been identified that are curiously aligned with this virus. But in particular, there's a good chance that if the government would just do some simple public health messaging saying, “Go get your blood levels drawn and get your vitamin D levels up above 50 nanograms/ml.” That would make a huge difference, and that would cost pennies. It is important to get your blood levels tested.
A lot of people will ask me, "Oh, can I just take more vitamin D?" Well, the answer is maybe. You can get toxicity from too much vitamin D, and different people absorb vitamin D at different levels. As I mentioned, your body mass index, your obesity and things like that, will modulate your free vitamin D, which is what matters. The test is cheap, so get the test and get some guidance. It's simple counseling to say, "Hey, you should take this much vitamin D."
I had low vitamin D levels, when I got infected and had severe disease in February. My vitamin D levels were down in single digits. I should have been taken more vitamin D, I'm not perfect. None of us are, we've learned all these things over time. You ask, is the data there? Yes, it is. I am not aware, neither are the docs like Peter McCullough and Ryan Cole, of any cases of COVID-associated death, where the death is clearly attributable to COVID, that had vitamin D levels above or equal to 50 ng/mL.
In other words, 50 ng/mL seems to be the threshold where there's a big change in mortality. There may be a case of somebody with cystic fibrosis who had adequate vitamin D levels and still expired after they got infected. I have no knowledge of that. I'm not aware of that case being reported in the literature, that hypothetical case. The preponderance of evidence is very clear, 50 ng/mL is not an optimal level.
It's the point of inflection in the curve. So higher levels can be even more beneficial. This is something that really deserves a discussion between the patient and the physician supported by a blood test. There can be problems with high zone vitamin D toxicity, but that's at much higher levels and 50 seems to be the cutoff where the curve goes from one to another. When you get above that, it appears that there is virtually no mortality from COVID 19 in individuals that are at 50 nanograms or above.
Mr. Jekielek: That's an incredible reality to be faced with and a very obvious public health direction to be explored. Dr. Malone, any final thoughts as we finish up?
Dr. Malone: Yes, Jan. As you know, I always like to end on a positive note. One of the things that I'm hearing a lot about from patients in general public is the thread that the entire medical profession is corrupt. That is what they have observed, those that have been tracking these events and these, let's say it gently, misstatements that have come out from the government. They've interpreted that as evidence that the entire medical and healthcare system is corrupt in some way. I just want to close with, if you don't mind, that is not what I'm observing. We have 17,000 physicians and medical scientists that are speaking up. As I travel, I have people, physicians, nurses, physicians assistants coming up to me and saying, “Thank you, I felt so alone. When you and your colleagues spoke out, I realized I wasn't alone.”
There are so many strong disincentives, financially and otherwise, and careers are compromised. You can't pay your mortgage. You can't get your kids into school if you speak out. There has been so much intimidation and defamation and pressure on healthcare providers to not speak out about their observations. I ask the public, please don't interpret that as everybody is corrupt. It's easy to get dark and black in these times after what we've seen. We do have some major systemic problems and it's going to be hard to fix them. I have seen, and I hope your audience has seen that my actions and behaviors demonstrate that there are still many physicians and medical care providers that are committed to the Hippocratic oath and to the fundamentals of patient consent in medical ethics in general. Don't lose hope. We'll get there, but we got some things to fix. If we all pull together, we can fix what we have to fix.
Mr. Jekielek: Dr. Robert Malone, it's such a pleasure to have you on again.
Dr. Malone: Thanks Jan.
Dr. Malone and Covid Booster ShotsA COVID booster is a dose or doses of vaccine given after the protection provided by earlier shots has begun to wear off.
Dr. Malone does not use the term "booster" because it is unclear whether booster shots actually work as vaccines or act only to prolong immunity by other means.
Moderna and Pfizer Booster ShotsPeople aged 18 or older who have been previously vaccinated with their first dose of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent, should receive a second boost after at least two months. People 12 years of age or older are eligible for a booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent if it has been at least two months since they have completed primary vaccination with any COVID-19 vaccine—or received the most recent boost.
Subscribe to the American Thought Leaders newsletter so you never miss an episode.
* Click the "Save" button below the video to access it later on "My List."
Follow EpochTV on social media: