Let us listen to Dr Robert Malone, dissenting expert, on the COVID-19 crisis

I found this paper interesting. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30512/w30512.pdf Ford Prefect

The US just reached the one million COVID deaths. Scamp

5 Hours of truth bombs about covid Lieutenant Commander Data

LCD, a serious set of issues. KF kairosfocus

:) The first problem : was(and still is) run a planetary experiment with people as lab rats and we find now and in the next year(s) the effect of those vaccines. The second problem is that big pharma and politicians don't want to be lynched so if vaccine is a lethal vaccine we will never find from them but only from adjacent areas like Life insurance companies or other methods. Lieutenant Commander Data

LCD, I want to see correlations with epidemic, vaccine campaigns and ban/use of repurposed drug treatments. Correlation is not cause but can allow us to shift likelihood estimates across alternative causal chain models. Uttar Pradesh is especially important and notice, no pouncing to object by the usual suspects. KF kairosfocus

Compared with pre covid period people start to die at an incredible rate. Life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people 18 - 64 Lieutenant Commander Data

LCD, I watched, it does raise questions and bureaucratic obstructionism is a well known phenomenon. I guess time will tell. Meanwhile for 1 1/2+ years an increasing array of credibly effective treatments has been sidelined, maligned and worse. But now the Uttar Pradesh, population result is on the table, what is interesting is how it is being sidestepped. That says something and it is not good. KF kairosfocus

Fauci didn't "predict" the pandemic in 2015 , he knew for sure because he funded gain of function research in Wuhan? Project Veritas exposes Fauci Lieutenant Commander Data

Harry, a very thoughtful essay, engaging key anticivilisational trends. I am going to headline it as a guest post, DV, the morrow so it does not get buried overnight. I only note for the moment that de facto there is actually a limit to what the new antitheistic and fellow traveller magisterium does: what they (after agit prop softening up and manipulation under colour of law backed up by raw force) can get away with or more exactly think they cannot get away with. Such is the lawless oligarchy I highlighted in the OP. Now, if you pardon, I will go back a bit to built in core law/governing morality of our responsible, rational freedom. You will doubtless have noted how often in recent years -- you are obviously unlurking! -- I have highlighted the Ciceronian first duties of reason; duties which even the objectors show to be branch on which we all sit inescapable . . . so, self-evident . . . first principles through inadvertently implying them in their arguments:

1st - to truth, 2nd - to right reason, 3rd - to prudence [including warrant], 4th - to sound conscience, 5th - to neighbour; so also, 6th - to fairness and 7th - to justice [ . . .] xth - etc.

These of course are an outline, and are about self evidence so objective, warranted, generally knowable first points -- epistemology, not the logic of being roots. We can know and acknowledge such, seeing them reflected in cases such as the sadly real world child kidnapped, bound, sexually tortured and murdered in bushes next to the aqueduct on the back side of the UWI Mona Campus in the mid 80's. (I give such details to underscore the horrific reality.) Historically, these principles shaped the emergence of modern liberty and Constitutional Democracy underwritten by the ethical theism in its charter, that piece of natural law reasoning known as the US DoI, July 4, 1776. The Constitution and first ten amendments of Sept 17, 1787, set out to fulfill, and indeed, in synch with what the British Empire would do, it set 1808 as sunset for the vile, kidnapping based slave trade. However, that surfaces a principle that is probably best summed up on Malachi 2:16, I hate Divorce. And yet, the basic law of the Commonwealth of Israel, tracing to Moses regulates divorce. Thus, we come to the natural law reasoning in Matt 19, where creation order thus our naturally evident built in nature involving complementary sexes etc, was appealed to to say what God joins which man ought not to cut asunder. But, FOR THE HARDNESS OF MEN'S HEARTS there had to be compromise, generally ameliorative regulations. We thus come to the issue of entrenched evils and reasonable regulation to prevent worst abuse, while retaining sufficient support for civil government to thrive. The American experiment with prohibition a century ago, shows the significance of the last part. That at a future point, hearts will have sufficiently softened -- frankly through gospel ethics and forces leading to democratisation that opens up reformation -- that reforms of prohibition can be effected. The current defeat in the struggle with marijuana speaks to this also. We are going in the wrong direction. Such obviously applies to historic chattel slavery and the current push to lawless ideological oligarchy. We live in sadly interesting times. KF kairosfocus

Thanks for that, KF. The outrageous corruption of the godless elite is finally coming into the light of day. It didn't reach such depths of depravity, such complete lack of respect for human life overnight. The diabolical nature of the present corruption developed into its current nightmarish form over decades, actually over centuries, since it was conceived in the militant atheism that arose with the so-called Enlightenment, and has now matured into a monster that dominates the institutions of what was once Christendom. We are now at two-billion innocent human lives taken by "legal" abortion worldwide. The greatest holocaust of innocent human life in the history of the world began only a few decades after the Nuremberg Trials established that the state has no authority whatsoever to legalize the murder of innocent humanity; its prosecutors treated "legal" abortion as a crime against humanity; defendants who demonstrated that they had done nothing illegal under Nazi law were hanged. Why? Because the state simply has no authority whatsoever to legalize the murder of innocent humanity. Murder is intrinsically illegal and can't be made legal. How did the world, so soon after defeating the Nazis by paying an unprecedented price in blood and tears, and so soon after condemning them at Nuremberg, resume the basic Nazi error? That error was, of course, to deify the state. Only a self-deified state that makes itself into a god claims the authority to "legalize" the murder of innocent humanity. After all, if there is no God then the state, for all practical purposes, is a god with no authority above its own. Such an atheocracy inevitably assumes that if there is no God managing the human herd, directing its evolution, then somebody has to ensure the survival of only the fittest. Self-appointed, godless social engineers in cooperation with the self-deified state must direct the culling of the herd. Understanding this puts the thwarting of effective treatments for Covid in perspective. One realizes that the godless elite has decided that two-billion lives taken by "legal" abortion isn't sufficient; they must further cull the human herd. The ideal human population, according to the population controllers, is around 1.5 to 2 billion people.(1) You, dear reader, are disposable surplus that is causing problems -- at least you are that according to the reigning atheocracy. Again, how was it that the basic Nazi error was so quickly put into practice again? In today's computerized world it is helpful if one thinks of the Nuremberg Trials as an official declaration that a database was indeed terribly corrupted; the data was corrected, but the root cause of its corruption was never corrected. So the database, of course, quickly became corrupted again. And what was the root cause of the corruption that was never dealt with? John Quincy Adams described the basic cause long ago. In his 1839 Jubilee of the Constitution discourse he repeatedly contrasts "the judgment of the sovereign constituent people, responsible only to God" and the "grossly immoral and dishonest doctrine of despotic state sovereignty, the exclusive judge of its own obligations, and responsible to no power on earth or in heaven for the violation of them." The latter is the case today under the reigning atheocracy, and profoundly so. Sovereignty rests in the people, not in a godless state. That is what made the American revolution different from all previous revolutions in history; the people didn't want a new king or a new ruler, they wanted public servants:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness -- it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The activities of public servants are constrained by the "consent of the governed." The activities of the currently reigning atheocracy is constrained by nothing whatsoever. Whatever they have the power to do they will do. Ultimately sovereignty rests in the people, "responsible only to God," as John Quincy Adams made clear. Americans must reassert this basic principle. Another point should be made for the sake of those who will dismiss the thinking of America's founding generation as hypocritical because the revolution didn't end slavery. Consider the thoughts of Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens shortly before the Civil War actually began:

The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day, (2)

Stephens was right about the founding generation believing that slavery was "in violation of the laws of Nature." The reason the American Constitution, quite temporarily in the eyes of the founders, "secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last," was that, as Stephens puts it, "It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with," and they were convinced it would soon be gone anyway, as Horace Greeley confirmed in 1856:

The old Articles of Confederation having proved inadequate to the creation and maintenance of a capable and efficient national or central authority, a Convention of Delegates from the several States was legally assembled in Philadelphia, in 1787 -- George Washington President; and the result of its labors was our present Federal Constitution ... It will be noted that the word "slave," or "slavery" does not appear therein. Mr. Madison, who was a leading and observant member of the Convention, and who took notes of its daily proceedings, affirms that this silence was designed -- the Convention being unwilling that the Constitution of the United States should recognize property in human beings. ... Contemporary history proves that it was the belief of at least a large portion of the delegates that Slavery could not long survive the final stoppage of the the slave-trade, which was expected to (and did) occur in 1808. (3)

To accuse the founding generation of being fundamentally racist (which is done by critical race theory) because their revolution didn't end slavery is as ridiculous as it would be to accuse today's Christians of being pro-abortion because they don't see clearly how to end "legal" baby murder. We are working on it; and we will continue to work on it, although there is a lesson for us from American history and from Sacred Scripture. The lesson from American history The founding generation was right that the evil of slavery would be ended by God's Providence, although they weren't expecting that to happen through the unprecedented carnage of the Civil War. Lincoln described the situation as follows:

The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" [Mt 18:7] If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope -- fervently do we pray -- that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled up by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." [Ps 19:9] (4)

"two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil" cried out to God for justice:

Behold, the wages you withheld from the workers who harvested your fields are crying aloud, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. -- James 5:4

So does the innocent blood of two-billion innocent children:

What has thou done? The voice of thy brother's blood crieth to me from the earth. -- Genesis 4:10

In our case the question isn't "What hast thou done?" but "What hast thou done about it?" After all, God gave "both North and South, this terrible war." The North hadn't used their God-given freedom sufficiently to end slavery; apparently God wanted more Abolitionist fervor than he saw in the North as a whole. In the same way, if "legal" baby murder, "having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove" God may not restrict His chastisement to the godless elite. He asks each of us "What hast thou done?" as in "What have you done about it?" The lesson from Sacred Scripture Whether it was the Egyptians, or the Midianites or the Philistines who were oppressing/enslaving God's people, the reason God allowed it was that it was God's chastisement for idolatry. God would hand His people over to oppression or slavery by the nation whose false god they had worshiped. The reason Christianity is disintegrating throughout what was once Christendom is our failure to realistically resist the state's usurpation of authority over innocent human life that belongs only to God. The state has no authority whatsoever to "legalize" the murder of innocent humanity. To fail to unceasingly resist that usurpation is to render unto Caesar that which belongs only to God. That is idolatry, which, besides being the destruction of Christendom, brings down God's chastisement upon us. The Nazis didn't think they did anything illegal when they culled humanity of those deemed by them to be "unfit." Nor do contemporary abortionists think they have done anything illegal when they kill wiggling, kicking babies more viable than patients routinely cared for in modern neonatal intensive care units. Nor does the godless atheocracy when it suppresses effective Covid treatments. Yet murder is still intrinsically illegal. The Nazis couldn't have been more wrong. Contemporary abortionists couldn't be more wrong. The population controllers couldn't be more wrong. And contemporary Christianity couldn't be more wrong in failing to aggressively resist "legal" murder, which isn't just killing babies and those refused effective treatment for Covid, it is killing Christianity itself due to the idolatry inherent in signaling to Caesar our approval by our failure to realistically resist it. The future is up to you. In order to save Christianity God will have to chastise us. The question is will He hand us over to oppression by the tyrannical atheocracy for generations to get our attention? Or will He allow us to go on as a free people after a chastisement, like He did after the Civil War? Things are coming to a head because the peaceful means of changing government policy has been removed from us by election-rigging and massive voter fraud on the part of the atheocracy. How are we going to have a peaceful election in November when the majority of Americans believe the current regime assumed power fraudulently? And they don't plan relinquishing their power peacefully. Things are going to get chaotic. Make your mind up now to do the right thing no matter what happens, and do so with the fervor of a flaming Abolitionist, and God may yet have mercy on us, and on our children and grandchildren. (1) www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/26/world-population-resources-paul-ehrlich(Some estimates of the ideal world population are much lower, around a half-billion) (2) Cornerstone Speech; Savannah, Georgia; March 21, 1861 (3) A History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension or Restriction in the United States from the Declaration of Independence to the Present Day; Horace Greeley; New York: Dix, Edwards & Co., 221 Broadway; 1856 (4) Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, 1865. harry

SC, did you see my comment elsewhere on SETs etc? (I could approve your comment there, as thread owner.) KF

Yes, I saw it. Scamp

U/D: I just added a Dr John Campbell video that seems to have let the cat out of the bag on the IVM based kits and their impact, last September. KF kairosfocus

SC, did you see my comment elsewhere on SETs etc? (I could approve your comment there, as thread owner.) KF kairosfocus

Sev, the issue is not oh can we discredit Malone, though they have tried; and that speaks for itself for if they cannot respect someone like that they are anti-civilisational misanthropes who will sling mud at anyone. Anyway, the decisive case is Uttar Pradesh in India. 240+ million, high urban concentration, a poor state, low vax rates, with I think it was Delta running wild. In desperation, they used Zelenko derived, IVM based kits and home isolation. Bang, stopped cold. What's the reaction, extorting silence then discrediting as rumours. But, as a scroll up will show, you can marginalise the facts but when every phone is a camera you cannot utterly silence such. Again, actions pointing to anti civilisational jacobin misanthropy. The reality is endless train of high risk, high adverse event non sterilising vaxxes vs you're an anti vaxxer conspiracy theorist is a fallacious false dilemma. There is a valid third option that is being marginalised and suppressed by denial of abundant adequate evidence, early treatment with protocols that make a difference. KF PS, Malone was multiply vaxxed and has had CV-19 twice, the first time before vaxxes were available. I think he may have had a problem with vaccine adverse reaction too. As for Rogan, I only know of him from a few interviews, my interest is to hear what we would not otherwise hear, from a serious source. One on the inside -- see the early part of the transcript. PPS, interest in IVM is about a decade old, on noticing antiviral effects. kairosfocus

Sev@11, I agree. I find Rogan to be very good at getting people to open up. And, more so than many other bloggers, he often presents both sides of an argument. Scamp

Leftists just help Rogan to increase the number of people that will follow him on spotify or any other platform. Rogan does not depend on spotify. Lieutenant Commander Data

Fauci is in it for the money. Fauci is to blame for all of the covid deaths since the first reports of zinc and vitamin D deficiencies were linked to them. ET

Here is one of the sources for the organized attacks on Rogan.

Who y’all think is behind this attack on Rogan?

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1490220423270699009.html The interesting thing is that if they are successful, people like this will become expendable. The Montagnards always attack the Girondists. And even Robespierre went to the guillotine. Essentially this happens for ideologies that generate high emotions but very little evidence and logic. They always have to use force to establish their beliefs which are never justified. jerry

offer the same opportunity to someone like Dr Fauci

Fauci lied about HCQ. Rogan probably doesn’t know this. But if he was prepared, he would have Fauci up for crimes against humanity. jerry

News/6

For what it is worth, there is an active campaign by aging Virtuous progressive artists to deplatform Joe Rogan… If they are allowed to do so, well, Americans needn’t expect to hear this from Dr. Fauci

I've listened to a range of Joe Rogan's podcasts and enjoyed them. He has a wide range of people on and he has knack for drawing them out. He's certainly had people on I don't agree with but that is no reason to "deplatform" him. The only thing I would hope is that, having given his platform to Dr Malone, he would offer the same opportunity to someone like Dr Fauci so listeners could hear another side to the story. That seems only fair. Seversky

Seversky Is he? Or has he become just another antivax crank?

:lol: Malone IS vaccinated. PS: Notice the irony, atheist Seversky protest God but agree with "government" when plays God. After all we all are religious and we need an moral authority but "government" is the last moral authority to be mentioned. Lieutenant Commander Data

Did Malone mention the flimsy basis for assuming hydrochloroquine might be effective against COVID-19?

There is no flimsy basis. By pretending there is no basis, one is warped and advocating that people should die for political purposes. Recent article about Dr Zelenko and 3000 patients. https://www.theepochtimes.com/ny-doctor-proved-everyone-wrong-about-hydroxychloroquine_4256887.html Then there is

Overcoming the COVID-19 Darkness: How Two Doctors Successfully Treated 7000 Patients

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09PVNF24K?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2_dt_b_product_details 10,000 patients with C19 and less than a handful died. jerry

Kairosfocus/5

Remember, Malone is a pretty wired in expert.

Is he? Or has he become just another antivax crank?

Dr. Robert Malone goes full antivaccine conspiracist

Did Malone mention the flimsy basis for assuming hydrochloroquine might be effective against COVID-19?

…based on the observation of 80 patients full of confirmation bias, Chinese doctors in Wuhan noted that no patients with lupus erythematosis became ill with COVID-19 and hypothesized that the chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine that they were taking might be the reason. (These drugs are also mildly immunosuppressive, hence their use to treat autoimmune diseases.) Of course, during a pandemic, it is people who are immunosuppressed are the very people who most rigorously obey orders to practice social distancing and self-quarantine and thereby protect themselves from infection. Be that as it may, the Chinese doctors started using the antimalarial drugs, and anecdotal evidence of success was reported, leading to randomized clinical trials that were announced by the Chinese government to have been “promising.” None of this stopped China from incorporating these drugs into its recommended regimen. The World Health Organization followed suit, as did several countries, and thus was born a new de facto standard of care for COVID-19 based on, in essence, no evidence other than some in vitro evidence that the drugs inhibit replication of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, anecdotes, and incredibly weak clinical trial evidence.

As for ivermectin, did he mention the following?

The interest in ivermectin appears to have originated in an Australian study published early in the pandemic that showed that high concentrations of ivermectin in vitro demonstrated antiviral activities. I’m not going to rehash that study in detail, as Scott has already discussed it, other than to repeat and emphasize that the concentrations used in the experiments published were not concentrations that were achievable in the plasma using standard dosages and to cite a short article from June 2020 that pointed out that pharmacokinetic considerations made ivermectin a poor candidate as an antiviral drug, regardless of how much antiviral activity it might have exhibited at high concentrations in vitro. Basically, the article pointed out that it is likely not possible to achieve the same concentrations of the drug in the plasma, because the drug itself is tightly bound to blood proteins and that even 8.5X the FDA-approved dose (1,700 ?g/kg) resulted in blood concentrations far below the dose identified for antiviral effects. I’ll also point out that Scott nicely summarized earlier studies that failed to find a significant impact on the clinical course of COVID-19.

People who get their medical information from podcasts or reliance on one "expert" who touts conspiracy theories which they find appealing for whatever reason have only themselves to blame for any adverse outcomes. Seversky

More about HCQ from Joe Rogan with Dr. Peter McCullough interview +transcript

Do you know the second largest producer of hydroxychloroquine was a plant mysteriously burned down outside of Taipei? It was extraordinary what was going on. Doctors from Africa were telling us that there were some type of mercenary people rating the pharmacies at night and burning the hydroxychloroquine.

-there was a satanic championship( invented by cdc) between hospitals : who have more covid pacients get more money and out there were only few whistleblowers (imagine the percent of compromised doctors today ) -there was a "sudden stupidity" of medical schools , "we have 300 medical schools. Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic. Not a single hospital has their own unique protocol to treat Covid 19. They don’t have a single original idea. Do you know that none of those organizations, Joe, have ever treated a COVID patient to prevent hospitalization and death? All the measures were focused on the only end game : VACCINES. Actually is not vaccines is the CONTROL of the sheeps with trillions $ gain from vaccines. Of course they firstly had to "invest" trillions to bribe media and hospitals . All people bribed in this period of 2 years are not free anymore because who bribed them can blackmail them anytime. Lieutenant Commander Data

For what it is worth, there is an active campaign by aging Virtuous progressive artists to deplatform Joe Rogan... If they are allowed to do so, well, Americans needn't expect to hear this from Dr. Fauci. News

F/N: Let's go just above, to the credibility kill on HCQ, HydroxyChloroquine:

Joe Rogan 29:30 Why do you think that is? What do you think is going on with the pushback on Ivermectin? Dr. Robert Malone 29:36 So it’s not just Ivermectin, it’s hydroxychloroquin. And just to put a marker on that, there’s good modeling studies that probably half a million excess deaths have happened in the United States through the intentional blockade of early treatment by the US government. That is familiar, half a million. That is a well documented number. And it’s a combination of hydroxychloroquin. And I remember Mechan now when you ask me why you’re asking me to get into somebody’s head, what I can say as a scientist is what I observe, the behaviors, the actions, the correspondence, these bizarre things like, don’t you know it’s a horse drug, Y’all, which is amazingly pejorative. I live in Virginia. Okay, I can tell you the people around me, I live in a rural county, and I raise horses. That was deeply offensive to use that language in that way. But there’s clearly been an intentional push. And Zeb Zelenko, who’s a buddy, the guy that came out with the original protocols Lanko protocol, and was the one, by the way, that wrote the letter to Trump advocating for hydroxychloroquin. One kind of important to put that together. He’s put together a great little video clip in which he clearly documents the conspiracy between Janet Woodcock and Rick Bright to make it so that physicians could not administer hydroxychloroquin outside of the hospital. [--> why delay early treatment?] Joe Rogan 31:10 And who is Janet Woodcock? And who’s Rick Bright? Dr. Robert Malone 31:13 Rick Bright was the head of BARDA, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development, which is the group that, for instance, funded the JNJ vaccine and Operation Warp Speed et Cetera. So they’re the big ticket funder in Health and Human Service of by defense products. Joe Rogan 31:29 And who is she? Dr. Robert Malone 31:30 Janet Woodcock was head of Operation Warp Speed for Drugs, and until very recently, head of the FDA. She is known as the person who kind of gets the credit, let’s say, for the opioid crisis, for her role at the FDA. Joe Rogan 31:48 So between the two of them, there was some sort of a concerted effort to suppress the use of hydroxychloroquin. Dr. Robert Malone 31:55 Rick Bright, in videotaped testimony, has explicitly spoken about how they conspired to Cook a strategy, using emergency use authorization to make it so that hydroxychloroquin could only be administered in the hospital, which, by the way, is too late for when hydroxy should be used. Joe Rogan 32:16 And why do they do that? Dr. Robert Malone 32:18 That is what is the unknown. And there’s so many Why’s and How’s behind this? I like to say there’s a stack of stuff that doesn’t make sense. It’s about this high. Now I can’t prove I can’t get into Rick’s head. I know Rick quite well. I don’t know what he’s currently working for the Rockefeller. He did a whistleblower case, and then he left the government. But all I know is they did this. And Rick admits on videotape that he did it. And he States that the reason was that he believed there was no evidence of hydroxychloroquin being useful for this virus. Now that’s false. hydroxychloroquin was known to be effective against SARS-1. Joe Rogan 33:09 Wasn’t that regular chloroquin? Dr. Robert Malone 33:14 Hydroxy and chloroquine are closely related molecules. Hydroxy is slightly less toxic, by the way, one of the nice things we had actually filed during Zika, I did a lot of drug repurposing, and I filed patents on the use of hydroxy in Zika. One of the reasons is because hydroxy is one of the few molecules that have antiviral activity that are safe in pregnancy. And you remember Zika was a pregnancy issue. Joe Rogan 33:38 Yeah. Dr. Robert Malone 33:39 So Hydroxy has been out there for a long time is having antiviral effects. And the other part of Rick’s story, that kind of doesn’t make sense, that there was no data on efficacy, is that I was the guy that first acquired because I had Chinese connections, the Chinese protocol for treating this virus. I got it in late February, and I sent it into my buddies at the CIA, at the ASPR, at the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. So the government had those documents when Rick Bright made those determinations. So the assertion that there was no data on hydroxychloroquine at the time when this decision was made, it’s just patently false. It’s there. So what is the motivation? You’re right. None of this makes sense. This is a journalist problem. And, you know, the classic guidance is follow the money. Joe Rogan 34:38 Yea. Dr. Robert Malone 34:38 And it is bizarre that Merck would come out with these explicit statements about the safety of Ivermectin. Both Ivermectin and Hydroxy are on the WHO list of essential medicines. They have been administered for millions and millions of doses. They’re among the safest medicines we know when administered within this acceptable window. Pharmaceutical window. Ivor mechanism is even safer than hydroxy. So Merck coming out out of the blue and saying Ivermectin isn’t safe is really inexplicable now. Another thing is that I sit on the Active Committee for Drugs as an observer. What is the Active Committee? This is the NIH committee that’s guiding the clinical trials for these various repurposed and novel drugs. I saw listened to heard witnessed the representative of Merck that’s on the committee because the committee is full of pharmaceutical representatives, even though it’s an NIH public committee explicitly attack the decision for the federal government to test Ivermectin. She said, there’s no reason to do this. Now. What’s happened since then is Active Sticks is still testing Ivermectin, and they’ve had to go to a higher dose because as we pointed out, essentially, their initial trial design was designed to fail. It was a short course with an adequate levels of drug. And so now they’ve upped it to. I think it’s five days and 600 mg per kg. That’s the current dosing in active six. But there is clearly a concerted effort on the part of multiple players in the pharmaceutical industry in accordance with the federal government to kill Ivermectin as a potential alternative early treatment strategy. Joe Rogan 36:42 And if you’re going to follow the money, the problem is, there’s not a lot in Ivermectin because it is a generic drug and any compound pharmacy can make it and it’s fairly cheap. Dr. Robert Malone 36:52 It’s fairly cheap because it’s easy to make. You can get Ivermectin in bulk at less than a penny of dose. Joe Rogan 37:03 Wow. So the original SARS? Is it 90% similar to SARS-CoV-2? Dr. Robert Malone 37:11 Two those terms 90 or 96 or 98. Those are really not irrelevant. You can have something that’s 99.9% similar, and the difference is all the difference. Joe Rogan 37:31 But if Chloroquine worked on the original SARS or it showed efficacy and original SARS, is it safe to assume without adequate tests that hydroxychloroquin would work on… Dr. Robert Malone 37:43 It’s the decision that was made by the Chinese government. Dr. Robert Malone 37:45 Okay, that’s my point. I got the original Chinese protocols. This is what they were using. [--> By Feb-March 2020] Joe Rogan 37:49 And they were using it effectively? Dr. Robert Malone 37:51 Yeah.

Remember, Malone is a pretty wired in expert. We need to ask pretty pointed questions and insist on straight answers. KF kairosfocus

PS: I have added what reasonably are pictures of some of the kits in use in Uttar Pradesh, as just noted. It's a bit stronger than rumours now. Notice, IVM, doxycycline [a substitute for Azithromycin], vitamin D, vitamin C, Zn. This is developed from the early Zelenko type protocol. kairosfocus

LCD, Thanks, the Uttar Pradesh [Pop 240+ mn] case is revealing on what works and the attitude of officialdom to it. Remember the following when you hear how lives are being saved and you anti vaxxers are so irresponsible etc:

Joe Rogan 37:52 So were they [= China, v. early in the pandemic, in its protocols] using Ivermectin as well? No. But other countries have, like Japan and India. Dr. Robert Malone 38:00 Uttar Pradesh, as you know, has crushed COVID. Joe Rogan 38:05 Can you explain what they did to do that? Because it’s kind of fascinating. Dr. Robert Malone 38:08 It’s not clear. What are the drugs. So what they did do what we do know. And there’s some backstory to this that we could go into if you want to. But the observation is there was a decision made. The virus was just ripping through Uttar Pradesh. It has almost the same population as the United States. It’s huge. Okay. Dense, urban, poor, all the characteristics of the stereotypes of the Indian countryside. And the virus is just ripping through there and causing all kinds of death and disease. And the decision was made out of desperation in that province to deploy early treatments as packages widely throughout the province, and it included a number of agents. The composition has not been formally disclosed. It was done in coordination with WHO and whatever was in those packages was rumored to include Ivermectin. But there was a specific visit of Biden to Modi, and a decision was made in the Indian government not to disclose the contents of those packages that were being deployed in Uttar Pradesh, which they’re still there. And Uttar Pradesh is flatlined right now. The rest of the world is yelling about Omicron and hospitalizations. Well, South Africa isn’t, but UDA Pradesh is still flatlined in terms of deaths. Joe Rogan 39:41 So they were visited by someone in the Biden administration, is that what you’re saying? Dr. Robert Malone 39:44 I just know there’s a meeting between Joe Biden and Modi. Joe Rogan 39:48 And you believe that out of that meeting? Dr. Robert Malone 39:51 I don’t know what they said. I wasn’t invited. All I know is that immediately afterwards there was a decision not to disclose the contents of what was being deployed in Uttar Pradesh. Joe Rogan 40:01 It’s so crazy to imagine that in the middle of a pandemic, there’s one place, one area of India that’s extremely successful in combating the virus, and they’re not going to say how they did it. That’s nuts. Dr. Robert Malone 40:16 That’s where my stance in all of this is to say, here are the facts. Here are the verifiable data draw your own conclusion.

There are photos of the UP kits and I will try to dig one up, IVM, of course, is in it. In an age of agit prop and marginalisation, that can readily be discredited in a lot of minds, regardless of actual warrant. We need to ask some pretty pointed questions, folks. KF kairosfocus

Transcript Joe Rogan Robert Malone Lieutenant Commander Data

Let us listen to Dr Robert Malone, dissenting expert, on the COVID-19 crisis kairosfocus