IMPORTANT - Dr. Robert Malone's address to the Members of UK Parliament (4th December 2023)

I am is a physician and scientist who happened to have had a role in the genesis of this technology ... that I could not overcome the toxicity associated with it

No transcript...


Thank you, Pierre, and now I call on Dr. Robert Malone to give his evidence.

So I'm Robert Malone. I'm a physician and scientist, and I need to acknowledge that my middle name is Wallace, and Andrew has assured me that I will not be drawn and quartered for what I'm about to say.

First off, I wish to speak extemporaneously to you rather than slides. There is an unmet need for a rapid response capability to allow a global capacity to mitigate the risks of emerging infectious disease and engineered pathogens. That is a valid concern. The technology has developed to a state where almost anyone with an undergraduate degree in biology can weaponize pathogens. We know, here in the United States, as somebody with security clearance in the biodefense industrial complex for the DOD, that the binary weapons that were developed by the U.S. military for deployment, potentially as a countermeasure against the Russian tank threat, can be readily reproduced by virtually any biologist in their garage currently. So there is a valid threat. There is an unmet need.

Ostensibly, this technology has advanced this mRNA or modified messenger ribonucleic acid based gene therapy vaccination technology was advanced on short notice because there is an unmet need for a platform technology that would allow a rapid response capability. That's the justification.

Furthermore, the justification was that we had a pathogen based on modeling here in the U.K. at Imperial College that had a 3.4% case fatality rate. And we would potentially be seeing mass graves, people dying in the streets, vans full of bodies outside of hospitals, et cetera.

That was all a lie. We knew that was a lie very early on, but the people that spoke the truth that actually gathered the data, such as happened at Stanford, that demonstrated that we had a case fatality rate of about 0.02%, okay? Not 3.4%. Despite having that knowledge, having it available in the first quarter, early in the first quarter of 2020, there was a concerted effort to justify the imposition of this technology in a rapid fashion on the basis of the thesis that there's a 3.4% case fatality rate associated with this virus.

What transpired in that rush was a fundamental breach of both ethics and regulatory norms that have been developed over decades. We're all familiar with this. We're all familiar with the policies that have been put in place since World War II in Nuremberg, that humans, human beings, have the right to informed consent. And what was done here in a haphazard way under the justification ostensibly that we had to, we had to essentially reject, throw into the rubbish norms that had been developed over decades, both for assuring vaccine safety and for assuring informed consent in patients, was all, all had to be jettisoned on short notice because of the threat of a 3.4% case fatality rate and the need to move a potential countermeasure forward without the due process that normally would take place.

That's what transpired. And I can tell you, you know, I'm labeled as far right in all the pejoratives that we're all so familiar with, including being a conspiracy theorist, but all I am is a physician and scientist who happened to have had a role in the genesis of this technology when I was a young man back in 1987 to 1990. I'm very, very familiar with the technology, worked as an academic to try to advance it until I determined that I could not overcome the toxicity associated with it and abandoned it for other technology platforms, which I also developed.

But in this case, what, what I have objected to is that as a physician and scientist who is well-trained in clinical research and regulatory affairs, that we have decimated my, my discipline. We have rejected the knowledge that myself has, have contributed to and all of my peers and colleagues over decades about how one should do this, how one should act, what steps one should take in order to ensure that we have safe and effective products for humans.

It's that simple. And furthermore, that we have rejected the norms that have been developed since World War II to respect human dignity, to ensure that human beings are treated as, as humans. They are, their, their autonomy, their sovereignty is respected, that they are provided with informed consent. Instead of informed consent about the truth of these products and their developmental state, their immature developmental state, we were given a series of lies.

Those lies included that these products were safe and effective, of course, without actually qualifying what safe and effective was. You'll recall safe and effective was repeated again and again and again without stating what that meant, okay? That's neuro-linguistic programming. That's psychological operations. That's propaganda. We also received the propaganda that these products would remain at the site of injection and the draining lymph nodes.

That was known to be a falsehood before these products were ever deployed into humans. Furthermore, and that's revealed by the, the non-clinical data packages from Japan and from Australia that have now been disclosed, okay? So we knew that these products deployed all through the body. We knew that they didn't stay where they were injected. We were also told the falsehood that these products in, had a molecule, this modified ribonucleic acid, which would only last in your body for a short period of time. We now know that these products remain in your body, remain biologically active for an undetermined period of time of at least weeks and probably months, another lie.

We were also told that these products were, it was necessary that none of us would be safe until we were all safe. This was part of a propaganda campaign to insist that we all accept these products. And that was done, by the way, in violation of well-established norms. That involved coercion, compulsion, and enticement. Ice creams for children to take your jab, or hamburgers, or whatever the enticement was, that is illegal. That is not something that is allowed under standard, well-established bioethics, okay? So this, this series of lies was used to justify deployment of these experimental products, truly with great profit margins, no doubt, which were intended to demonstrate safety and effectiveness of a vaccine platform technology that then, according to a hearing of the WHO in 2020, as I recall, headed up by Margaret Liu, 2019? 21. 2021, thank you, Jill, was, were established that this would become a platform and all that would be necessary in the future would be to swap in a new RNA sequence, okay?

Now, what we need to resolve the controversy regarding the toxicities associated with this, because we now clearly know that these are neither safe nor effective. We knew at the time, Pfizer knew at the time, these products would not prevent infection. They would not prevent replication and spread of the virus. Now the data is suggesting they don't even augment, they certainly don't protect against death or prevent against death and disease. We all know that. But that was what was asserted at the time and what we need to resolve all the controversy that swirls around these products and whatever the latest data disclosure is, is for governments to just be open and transparent.

That's my core message. All I'm asking for is that we be allowed to access, in an open and transparent fashion, the data which NHS and the healthcare agencies of the world have acquired, so that those data can be analyzed. So we no longer have to wrassle over whether this data is good or that data is good. has this flaw etc etc let's all disclose in an open transparent way so that the world's scientists can evaluate that data and put to rest this controversy about whether or not these products are safe and effective. On the current data of somewhere between 700 and 1000 peer-reviewed studies regarding the safety or lack thereof of these products clearly demonstrate a series of adverse events I'm just gonna list them myocarditis including tachycardia, reproductive health damage women all over the world know about the damage to their menstrual cycles that's now these are all things that are widely acknowledged peer-reviewed multiple hundreds of studies reproductive health coagulopathy including stroke that means blood clotting, abnormal blood clotting, damage to peripheral ocular and central nervous systems including stroke, immunologic and oncologic harms which cold is going to be speaking about and the biggest adverse event of all, death so in conclusion what we've had here is a rushed product a rushed technology a failure to provide respect for humans in not allowing them to have informed consent and furthermore actively deploying the most massive propaganda campaign in the history of the modern world to suppress the ability of the public to gain access merely to have the knowledge of what the adverse event risks are and I come to you with one request open the books let's see the data and let's allow those data to be examined so we no longer have to have this you know these little fights over these little details we can actually get to the bottom of one of the most important questions the world is facing right now where these products actually safe and effective?

Thank you for your time!

PharmaFiles by Aussie17 is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Thank you for reading PharmaFiles by Aussie17. This post is public so feel free to share it.