Asking Robert Malone Some Uncomfortable Questions.

I ask Malone the questions we all want answers to.

Robert Malone, along with his buddy Steve Kirsch, has established a very lucrative income stream by presenting himself as an mRNA vaxxxine critic and health freedom advocate. If these guys were doing a bang-up job, I would applaud their success. However, the behavior of both entities raises more questions than answers.

Both are connected to highly questionable people and organizations.

Malone and Kirsch are members of the so-called Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, which appears to be doing no research whatsoever. Those who’ve asked founder Kirsch just what this foundation actually does, and how it spends the donations it receives, don’t get answers. Instead, their perfectly reasonable questions are declared to be ‘spam’ and promptly deleted by “Wayne” the moderator, who sounds and behaves suspiciously like Steve Kirsch.

Both Malone and Kirsch uphold the ‘pandemic’ narrative, which claims the world was afflicted with a deadly virus called Sars-Cov-2. Contrary to what Malone and Kirsch claim, this virus has never been isolated; the studies claiming otherwise are an absolute farce (see here and here).

Both maintain the best way to combat this ‘pandemic’ is not by exposing its fraudulent foundation, but by using pharmaceutical drugs. Kirsch recommends the use of a toxic SSRI antidepressant called fluvoxamine, which is notorious for causing everything from nausea to a markedly increased suicide risk. Malone, while criticizing the current crop of mRNA ‘vaccines,’ was simultaneously collaborating with an Indian company to produce a non-mRNA, aluminum-containing subunit vaxxx called RelCoVax.

Malone boasts of his US Military connections and has received a whopping $10 billion in US government grants - quite a sum for a guy constantly moaning how he’s been hard done by. Kirsch, a shameless liar who refuses to admit when he’s wrong, created a ‘research’ fund to find repurposed ‘COVID’ drugs; that fund was managed by the Rockefellers. Among the fund’s donors was multi-billionaire Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce, owner of Time magazine, a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader, and member of the WEF board of trustees.

Kirsch also created and maintains involvement with M10, an outfit helping central banks create centralized digital currencies, which will be to freedom what the Thailand burning season is to healthy lungs.

The VSRF website was promoting a “parallel economy convention” in Las Vegas, a curious choice of event for a foundation supposedly devoted to vaccine research.

The vague waffle permeating the VSRF website makes much ado about “raising awareness.” Is the VSRF a promotion vehicle for the likes of Kirsch and Malone, who charge exorbitant speaker fees? Is the VSRF yet another platform for these characters to enrich themselves while pushing the virus narrative and the digital economy agenda?

It is not unreasonable to conclude all is not as it seems with these two characters. It is also not unreasonable to ask these individuals to address anomalies like those listed above. Indeed, if they truly believe in skeptical inquiry and transparency, they should welcome the opportunity to set the record straight.

Kirsch, however, has firmly established himself as an evasive liar.

Malone, meanwhile, has already been contacted by a number of people with a series of questions and has roundly ignored them. Concerned UK couple Miriam Walton and Alan Goater, for example, sent Malone a set of highly pertinent questions in February 2022, which you can read here.

Malone never responded.

So, on behalf of all the people who wonder what Malone is really about, and who is really behind him, I thought I’d also ask Malone some hard questions. Along with several new lines of inquiry, I’ve repeated and expanded upon some of the questions asked by Miriam and Alan, because they’re important ones that demand answers.

The following was sent a few minutes ago to Robert Malone (via his publicly listed email addresses info@rwmalonemd.com and info@maloneinstitute.org). If and when I get a reply, I’ll share it with readers.

---

Dear Robert,

I am an independent researcher who was skeptical of the official ‘pandemic’ narrative from the very outset. I have been publicly highlighting the dangers of the COVID gene therapies (misleadingly referred to as ‘vaccines’) since January 2021, shortly after their initial release in mid-December 2020.

Like most people with a keen interest in this topic, I have inevitably come upon interviews featuring yourself, and a plethora of articles by you or about you.

Unfortunately, this content raises more questions than answers.

In early interviews, you claimed you had received two (2) injections of the Moderna mRNA 'vaccine.' In light of your extensive experience with the highly problematic mRNA technology, your claim to have received two injections containing this failed technology beggars belief.

Interestingly, you have quietly stopped making this claim.

Can you please confirm: Did you, or did you not, receive 2 injections of the Moderna 'vaccine' as you originally claimed?

You told journalists you received the Moderna product in order to treat your pre-existing 'long COVID'. That would be a truly unprecedented use for a vaccine.

How is it that after 40 years as a “highly trained” vaccine developer, you remain unaware a vaccine is not a restorative therapy, but a preventive therapy?

If you beg to differ on this, could you please provide examples in the literature of a vaccine being effectively used to treat pre-existing ailments in patients?

You describe yourself as “a physician and scientist, highly trained in developing vaccines and other medicines.”

As a pioneer mRNA researcher, you are well aware mRNA technology has a thirty-plus-year track record of failure. In that time, not a single mRNA drug progressed into Phase 3 testing, because the technology was too problematic. You cannot claim to be unaware of this, because you and your wife have publicly stated you knew all along the technology was not yet fit for purpose (see here and here).

In light of this, why did you take a drug based on a technology you knew full well was not fit for human use?

I am told you took the Moderna vaccine because a 'good friend' told you it was safe and effective. This media article, meanwhile, seems to suggest you took the drug based on ‘anecdote.’

Are either of these claims true?

If so, I note your colleague Steve Kirsch also says he often relies on ‘friends’ for information on scientific topics, such as viral isolation. Ironically, he cites you as one of these ‘friends.’

Is ignoring clinical research and instead relying on the unsubstantiated opinions of 'friends' and/or unverifiable anecdote a standard practice in the upper echelons of the 'health freedom' movement?

There was no need to rely on ‘friends’ or anecdote. The Moderna clinical trial results were published early on and were freely available to anyone with an internet connection.

Phase 1 trial results for Moderna’s mRNA-1273 ‘vaccine’ appeared on the New England Journal of Medicine site on July 14, 2020 - long before the product was released. The New England Journal of Medicine is one of the world’s best-known medical journals.

The initial Phase 1 results revealed 100% of the 45 healthy and young participants experienced local and systemic side effects. Three participants in the 250-μg dose group "reported one or more severe adverse events."

Moderna and NIAID then expanded the Phase 1 research to include 40 folks over 55. Attempting to avoid a repeat of the earlier problems, they eliminated the 250-μg dose. But even at the 100-μg dose, the majority of participants still experienced side effects.

Based on these concerning results, it was inexplicably decided no Phase 2 trials were necessary.

The ‘interim results’ of the first Phase 3 trial of mRNA-1273 were published at the New England Journal of Medicine site on December 30, 2020. This is around a year before you claim to have received your two Moderna doses.

The trial was an abomination. The aggressively entrepreneurial Moderna was not only responsible for the overall trial design, but also the data analysis!

The trial was promoted as a double-blind endeavor, but it wasn’t really: "Designated team members within Moderna have unblinded access to the data, to facilitate interface with the regulatory agencies and the data and safety monitoring board." (From the December 30, 2020 paper; bold emphasis added)

The trial also had “input” from Fauci’s NIAID, which co-developed the drug and now derives lucrative royalties as a result.

The trial was originally intended to extend for over 2 years, but an EUA was granted for the drug based on a median follow-up duration of only 2 months after completion of the two-dose regimen.

Among the 28,000 heavily-curated participants, the financially-vested researchers allegedly detected 11 symptomatic cases of COVID-19 in the mRNA-1273 group, compared to 185 in the placebo group.

Data for asymptomatic cases was not presented.

This means, even in the untreated placebo group, the absolute incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 was a mere 1.3%.

The researchers claimed a greater incidence of ‘severe’ COVID cases in the placebo group, but the only standout difference between 'severe' and non-severe COVID cases was a significantly higher incidence of oxygen saturation readings at or below 93% in the former group. This in itself means little and is not an actual diagnosis of anything.

Among 28,000 participants, a mere 5 people died, confirming that ‘deadly’ COVID was not so deadly after all. Three people died in the placebo group, and two in the mRNA-1273 group. None of these deaths were from ‘COVID.’

There was a far higher rate of serious side effects with the Moderna drug when compared to placebo.

The VAERS database is also freely available to anyone with an internet connection. The alarming COVID ‘vaccine’ data it contained quickly became a hot topic among skeptics and reality-denying fact-checkers alike.

As of January 29, 2021, there were already 2,654 adverse events reported on the VAERS database for the Moderna ‘vaccine’ in the US and its territories. This includes 205 deaths and 62 events resulting in permanent disability. In years gone by, such an immediate and strong safety signal would have prompted calls for the drug’s withdrawal.

So to recap: You are claiming you took a drug that showed no ability to save lives and no ability to treat 'long COVID' - indeed, that wasn't even studied. You are claiming you took a drug whose EUA was based on only two months of interim data, a drug that even in that short time established a far higher rate of serious adverse events than placebo.

You are further claiming you took that drug despite a striking rate of adverse events and deaths reported to VAERS within weeks of the drug’s release.

For a “highly trained” vaccine developer intimately familiar with this technology, this is incomprehensible.

Did you even read the freely available clinical research and VAERS data?

If yes, why did you take a drug based on such flimsy research, riddled as it was with conflicts of interest, and with such a poor safety profile?

If you did not read the clinical research or VAERS data, why not?

If you did not read the clinical research or check the VAERS data, what do you believe this says about your scientific aptitude and your suitability for the role of health ‘expert’?

You are listed as one of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation’s “experts,” along with other supporters of the Sars-Cov-2 narrative such as Steve Kirsch and Peter McCullough. The VSRF solicits donations from the public, but no details are provided on how this money will be used and its website does not provide a clear description of what exactly the foundation does.

Can you detail exactly what “research” the VSRF is conducting? Can you detail how the foundation’s funds are being deployed for this research, and whatever other activities the foundation is engaged in?

Does the VSRF attract, solicit or arrange paid speaking engagements for you and/or its other “experts”?

On February 12, 2020, you and your wife Jill Malone published a book titled Novel Coronavirus: A Practical Guide for Preparation and Protection. The book has been withdrawn from sale, but this synopsis captured at the Powells website says the book contains information on “how to prepare for the coming epidemic.”

This is very curious timing. It was not until February 11, 2020 - the day before your book’s publication - that the WHO named the alleged new ailment COVID-19, short for “coronavirus disease 2019.”

It was not until March 11, 2020, that the WHO declared this ‘novel coronavirus’ to be a global pandemic.

As of February 11, 2020 - the day before your book’s publication - the WHO reported a mere 1,018 deaths from this ‘novel’ condition (whose symptoms were identical to cold, flu and pneumonia). Only one of those deaths occurred outside China. Hardly a predictor of an impending global epidemic, given that during the 2019-2020 flu season - which the CDC describes as "moderate severity" - there were 22,000 flu deaths in the US alone.

Influenza season strikes every year, all around the world, and businesses carry on as usual. However, the synopsis says your withdrawn book “has concrete suggestions on how to mitigate risks associated with businesses and the workplace. This includes risk management and continuity planning for businesses.”

How did you know a month ahead of time this ‘novel coronavirus’ was going to become an “epidemic”, and how did you know this epidemic would be of such severity that businesses and workplaces in English-speaking countries would require “risk management and continuity planning” to deal with it?

Did your “colleagues” in the US military - the real driver of the shambolic Operation Warp Speed - tip you off to this “coming epidemic”?

Given your apparent unwillingness or inability to read freely available clinical research on proposed COVID treatments, what qualifies you to write a book giving advice on how to deal with a “coming epidemic”?

When was the book withdrawn from sale, and why?

On September 21, 2021, you gave a presentation on RelCoVax, a “2ndGen multivalent SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate” on which you were collaborating. At this point in time, the ‘pandemic’ was officially 18 months old. The average historical duration of a ‘pandemic’ is two years or less. In this case, however, the WHO did not declare an end to COVID-19 as “a global health emergency” until May 5, 2023. Furthermore, we are now being told “the COVID-19 pandemic isn’t going anywhere” and agencies like the CDC are still telling us to “Stay Up to Date with COVID-19 Vaccines.”

Given that drug development is a time-consuming and expensive process, why were you involved in the development of a vaccine for a ‘pandemic’ that, statistically, had almost run its course?

Were you privy to knowledge that COVID-19 was going to be the ‘pandemic’ equivalent of the ‘War on Terror’ i.e. a protracted long-term endeavor?

If so, how did you become privy to this knowledge?

In addition to your vaccine endeavors, you have recently positioned yourself as an expert on psychosocial matters. You concocted a diagnosis called “Mass Formation Psychosis,” which has been heavily criticized by those with credentials in psychiatry.

More recently, you posted an article titled "On-Line Narcissistic Self-Victimization," in which you pontificate about victim-mentality narcissists and express concern with the negative impact these narcissists are having on “modern culture and the current state of mankind."

That article includes a set of criteria for identifying a victim-mentality narcissist, and what is remarkable about that list is how neatly you yourself meet all the criteria.

Comments made by you to journalists, and a number of letters and articles bearing the name of your wife, leave no doubt you believe you have been victimized and exploited by numerous research figures. It is clear you are intensely aggrieved by this.

When journalists press you for evidence of this victimization and exploitation, however, it is lacking.

It is clear you believe you have received insufficient credit for your role in mRNA technology, even though you are routinely credited in both the published literature, mainstream media and alt media as a pioneer mRNA researcher.

You have sent menacing messages and emails to people you believe have wronged you.

You showed an extremely low tolerance for disagreement last year when you tried to sue Peter and Ginger Breggin for 25 million dollars for alleged 'defamation' after they posted civil and non-defamatory criticism of your scientifically unsupported "Mass Formation Psychosis" theory. Your defamation claim was so absurd the presiding judge threw it out of court, just like he did with your suits against the Washington Post and Dr Jane Ruby.

On January 23, 2022, you told a large gathering of people in Washington DC that you had arrived “at an awareness that peace and happiness flows like a fountain, from a commitment to kindness, good works, and striving to help others.”

Do you earnestly believe threatening people via email and social media (as you did to Katalin Karikó and Michael Patmas), falsely accusing people like Matt Crawford of being part of a “hate cult” against you, and trying to destroy an innocent couple via a vexatious lawsuit (as you attempted against the Breggins) are “good works” that express “a commitment to kindness” and a “striving to help others”?

In light of your behavior - which evinces self-perceived victimization, self-entitlement, grandiosity, vindictiveness, aggression and low self-awareness - would you please explain how you could possibly be fit to pontificate to others on the topic of victim-mentality narcissism?

As noted, your lawsuit claiming defamation by the Breggins was so absurd it was dismissed by the presiding judge. You effectively attempted to bankrupt an elderly couple for no other reason than they disagreed with you. As a qualified psychiatrist and medico-legal expert, it is not unreasonable for Peter Breggin to proffer criticism of your self-concocted “Mass Formation Psychosis” theory when he believes it lacks scientific backing. If you disagree with his criticism, your job as a “highly trained” scientist is to field a logical, fact-based rebuttal. This is how science progresses - through the systematic hashing out of disagreements and criticisms, not via the launching of vexatious lawsuits.

What was the true purpose of this lawsuit? Are you really of the mindset that civil disagreement constitutes ‘defamation’ and must be squashed with financially crippling lawsuits, or was there an ulterior motive behind the suit?

Given its highly irrational premise, your lawsuit seemed destined to fail. The presiding judge even warned you to drop it, yet you ignored his warning.

Is this because the lawsuit was not issued in good faith, but intended primarily as a tool of aggression and intimidation against the Breggins?

In August 2021, the Breggins released a book called Covid-19 and the Global Predators, which stated what so few in the so-called ‘health freedom’ movement are prepared to acknowledge: The Sars-Cov-2 'pandemic' was years in the making by globalist predators, a malevolent plan to reorganize the world under the guise of public health.

The Breggins have also posted articles stating the true driving force behind Operation Warp Speed was the Department of Defense, with whom you have enjoyed a long and very profitable relationship with.

Were any of these actions by the Breggins the real motivation for your ill-fated lawsuit?

During your January 23, 2022 speech in DC, you told the gathered crowd that the mRNA ‘vaccines’ were “not completely safe” (see 4:30 of this video). Given the overwhelming evidence of harm established for these drugs by then, this was a most curious choice of words. It was akin to saying Russian Roulette with a loaded gun was “not completely safe.”

Why did you describe these dangerous drugs in such a manner? Was it to impress upon the crowd these drugs were ‘mostly safe,’ in order to ensure a future for the mRNA and DNA technology you have devoted much of your career to?

In that same speech, you stated “Now we have Omicron. These vaccines were designed for the Original Wuhan strain, a different virus” (see 4:35 of the video).

“Omicron” was declared by the WHO as a “variant of concern” of the never-isolated Sars-Cov-2. On what basis did you declare it a different “virus”?

You followed this up with another bizarre statement about the mRNA drugs: “Whether they made sense for protecting our elderly and frail from the original virus is irrelevant. So let’s stop arguing about that. We must look forward” (see 4:46 of the video).

On what basis do you deem it “irrelevant” to give drugs based on a repeatedly-failed technology to the elderly and frail, a demographic who were excluded from the clinical trials? Why should we just forget about this abhorrent act and instead “look forward”? Whose interests, exactly, does that serve?

You then tell the crowd, “These vaccines do not prevent omicron infection, viral replication or spread to others” (see 5:00 of the video).

The reality is these ‘vaccines’ do not prevent infection, replication or spread of the original Sars-Cov-2 or any of its alleged variants, because they are all a fabrication.

Sars-Cov-2 has never been isolated by anything remotely resembling a valid scientific method (to claim that spinning a wad of phlegm around at high speed, then adding external sources of RNA and DNA to it is “viral isolation” is utterly absurd. Ditto for feeding small nucleotide sequences from adulterated phlegm into a computer, and letting it create a ‘virus genome’).

Sars-Cov-2 is a pre-orchestrated fraud. The entire COVID charade was planned years in advance. Evidence for this has been presented to you, Kirsch and other so-called ‘health freedom heroes’ and you all repeatedly ignore it.

In 2009, one doctor privy to inside knowledge publicly forewarned of what has since transpired.

The following year, the Rockefeller Foundation published its Lockstep document that read like a screenplay for what transpired in 2020.

On October 18, 2019 – not long before COVID-19 mysteriously appeared out of nowhere - an invitation-only pandemic simulation exercise dubbed Event 201 was held at The Pierre hotel in New York. Hosted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum, and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the simulation involved "an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms."

Lo and behold, shortly after this, an alleged SARS bat virus began causing people to collapse in Wuhan streets. Except that they weren’t really collapsing, they were crisis actors.

Which brings me to my final questions for today:

Why do you continue to promote this untenable narrative of a ‘Sars-Cov-2 virus’ that requires dedicated pharmaceutical drugs?

Do you act alone in perpetuating this myth, or are you acting under instruction from other entities?

What other drug projects are you currently involved in, or have possible/planned involvement in the foreseeable future?

I eagerly await your response. Please note I am not interested in abuse, aggrieved rants, thinly-veiled projections designed to dismiss me and other critics as victim-mentality narcissists, or legal threats. I am simply seeking straight answers to the above questions.

I am aware others have asked similar questions of you, and you have ignored them. It is clear from the number of lucrative speaking engagements you enjoy, and your Substack newsletter’s top-50 earner status, that you are profiting handsomely from the health freedom movement. You owe people in that movement the courtesy of transparency and answers to their questions.

Kind regards,

Anthony Colpo.

---