YOU CAN'T CENSOR SCIENCE - Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Peter McCullough


In this, my first article on "You Can't Censor Science," I decided to feature a video with Dr. Robert Malone of the same name, in an interview by American Thought Leaders, about his censorship on LinkedIn for simply asking questions that those in the mainstream, who are pushing a narrative, didn't like. I am also featuring a video of Dr. Peter McCullough, the top physician in his fields of study, in the entire world.

Dr. Robert Malone: mRNA Vaccine Inventor Speaks Out Against Big Tech Censorship| CLIP

American Thought Leaders - The Epoch Times on YouTube
July , 2021
19:45 minutes

"mRNA Vaccine Inventor Dr. Robert Malone, who was recently locked out by social media site LinkedIn for raising concerns about COVID-19 vaccines, explains how the censorship of discussion is not conducive to the search for scientific truth."

Here is the video interview transcript:

Dr. Malone:

Trial registry is one type of clinical trial, we talk about double blind, randomized, you know, controlled prospective trials, you can also do more data collection type trials. And ideally, you, you ask that people register at the time they received the agent. And then you implement a system, there's a lot of different ways it can be a call center, it can be electronic can be on your cell phone, a lot of different types of systems to follow up with those people and inquiry them about whether or not they're experiencing this or the other symptom, or are they experiencing any symptoms, those kinds of things. So that you get, instead of a purely voluntary offering, of, either..." I've experienced this or my patient has experienced that, or Aunt Mary said this or whatever," this, which is where we're at right now, you have something that's a lot more structured, where people are identified, they're put into some sort of a data collection tool. And then they're followed over time. That is possible that basically, that is what the Scandinavian countries do anyhow. Because of their, their structure of their socialized medicine. 

And often, in these kinds of situations, we end up with the best data coming from Finland, Norway, Scandinavia. Because of the rigor with which their socialized medicine system captures those data, we had hoped to have a rigorous data set from Israel. And the CDC and FDA had been a very comforted by what they thought was a rigorous data set from Israel, and the ability of the Israeli government related epidemiologic monitoring people to data mine that database and identify signals on the cardiac events in the adolescent population. 

These were actually first identified by a Oracle biostatistician working with people at the FDA, that were outside of all this, and was data mining the various publicly available database, he identified it, notified CDC, they identified it then, and tracked it, they notify the Israelis, and then the Israelis were able to verify that they saw that signal in their database, too. And how could this happen? 

These statistics of how you query these databases is not trivial, because you can't just ask everything under the sun, you know, has is anything related. Because you get you'll end up with so much statistical noise. If you set a 95% confidence interval 5% of all hits are going to happen are going to be false. And so you end up with this massive amount of false information, false linkages, and somehow you've got to pick the signal from the noise within that. 

So that's the problem, but getting reassurance that the Israelis, you know, were able to the fact that they hadn't detected something gave reassurance up until this case, and now we're in a different world. And we're relying on the Dutch and, and the Norwegians and others.

Jan Jekielek:

So there's a you know, you mentioned that Israeli data and Dutch data. And I think both of those Actually, I have to ask you about this because they intersect in this relatively new paper, right, that has come out, which I understand is actually being potentially being withdrawn. I, maybe I'll get you to comment on that. If you're but basically, this paper the safety of COVID-19 vaccinations, we should rethink the policy. And you know, in their abstract, essentially, they say, for three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination, and that the conclusion is to rethink policy. But Wow.

Dr. Malone:

Yeah, so we call it a risk benefit ratio. And what gets to the core of all of this is typically the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. And the truth is, the world is looking to the United States for all this stuff in a significant way, including the World Health Organization. 

Typically, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the CDC for a new vaccine would be evaluating risk benefit in a rigorous way using quality adjusted life years. This is a actuarial table tool that the insurance industry uses, you can understand why the insurance industry would want to do it right. Because they, you know, that's how they make their nickel. So that's been adapted for public health purposes and typically use that kind of a tool. To make a risk benefit, formal calculation for each population stratified special populations, those are adults, elderly, adolescents, children, infants, pregnancy and immunosuppressed typically, okay, and you would do this calculation for each of those groups. And then this, ACP would come out of it with a recommendation saying, this vaccine is good to be used in, say, the elderly. 

And that's pretty compelling, in this case with these vaccines that even though there's adverse events, their risk of COVID death are significant diseases pretty high. So that's an easy one to say, yes. adolescents, in contrast, have a very, very low probability of disease or death from COVID. And in some non trivial level of adverse events, and we were just talking about the cardiac and so that calculation doesn't come out looking so good. 

And the paper that you're referring to, that came out, and just to give you some history, we were talking about me being deleted from LinkedIn. Well, one of the things that's happened over the last week, is that the authors of those papers that paper sent it to me and said, Robert, what do you think about this? You know, can you can give some feedback on this? So I posted it without editorial comment on LinkedIn, and Twitter. And it generated a lot of discussion. And obviously, a lot of folks were pretty alarmed by that, that you just read. And it brought out some academics, who felt that they needed to react strongly against this paper and come out and say, No, this can't possibly be true. This must be a statistical over statement or mis-analysis.

And it generated a whole lot of push back from from a subset of academics. And then people that were responding to that LinkedIn post decided that they would write these academics write directly to the journal and say this should be withdrawn. So that's, that's how that cascade happened. And the journal has now placed a note on the manuscript, that it's now being re-reviewed, even though it's already been through peer review once 

The essence of their concerns to my eye, and like I said, I'm not a full biostatistician. I know enough to talk to them. But the essence of their concerns seem to be this same issue of a database, where the relatedness between a reported event and the vaccine is not determined. In many cases, it's not determinable. But these conclusions in that paper, are drawn in such a way that those academics feel very strongly, they're inappropriate, because the database didn't establish a unequivocal linkage between the event and causation from the vaccine. 

This is always the case with these types of databases. And you have to word the findings carefully and say, we have deaths that are temporally associated or associated in some way, but not necessarily causative, because you can't determine causation very well, retrospectively, particularly if you can't review the patient's chart. So that is a great example, I like to call it the academic thought police. 

And this is the self appointed academic thought police this has become a major problem throughout the whole sector, is there are lots of of academics that feel it is their mission, to block publication of papers that might compromise in some way the vaccine mission. And I think this is part of why it's become so hard to publish anything about re-purpose drugs, because there's a perception. And I think it's probably valid. As you can watch people when they talk about Ivermectin, there's a cohort of people that would rather take a drug than take a vaccine, a prophylactic drug, and if a drug is available for outpatient use, that minimizes the risk of hospitalization, disease and death, then the risk benefit ratio calculations for the vaccines become even more tenuous. And so that I think is what's underlying a lot of this.

Jan Jekielek:

The paper we talked about titled "The safety of COVID-19 vaccinations, we should rethink the policy", has since been retracted. It had undergone the standard process of peer review. So, okay, this is it's pretty fascinating. I had a guest on recently, Victor Davis Hanson, he was talking about the platonic noble lie. This was one of our topics, okay. And it just and so this is almost like preemptive? Because the point is we don't know, in a lot of cases what the answer is, but there's certain types of information that you're just not allowed to go there.

Dr. Malone:

Yeah, right. Yeah. And I've never experienced this before. It's reinforced by the social media platforms. And it just to illustrate the point, one of the things that's a little bit heartbreaking, and I get these calls from patients that are just distraught, crying. 

If you are somebody who has experienced symptoms after receiving vaccine, I'm saying that carefully. I'm not saying they, those are related. Okay, not judging that. But imagine the mother who's had a cascade of symptoms, she's now debilitated. Perhaps she's worried about her ability to conceive now because she's had menstrual alterations and things like that. So she's had this cascade of events. And she's surrounded by friends, family, social contacts, that all believe that the vaccines are fully safe, and she must be crazy. It can't possibly be that there's any relationship between vaccine acceptance uptake, and her symptoms. So let's say this person goes on Facebook and joins the Facebook group that's been created for people that have had believe they've had symptoms that have been triggered by vaccines. So there's a group there, they build up to about 100 150,000 people, Facebook deletes them. Now, the the practical implication is, for this cohort of people that believe that they've had a vaccine post vaccination syndrome, whether or not they did, they're getting all kinds of social messaging from the top of the government on down, that these are perfectly safe vaccines they couldn't have had the symptoms that they're experiencing. They're getting that from all the people around them. They're not even able to communicate on social media with others, and they're all isolated, of course, to discuss what their symptoms are, as opposed to somebody else's symptoms. It is the ultimate gaslighting. And for these people, it is profoundly depressing. Can you appreciate what I'm saying? 

This is, I feel this is fundamentally wrong as a physician, this is we're compromising not only people's physical health, and we could argue whether their symptoms were related or not related. That's the essence of this complaint against this paper, is it can't be proven with this type of database. But these people, these patients have symptoms, they've experienced something, and they're not able to get any resolution. They're told that it's all in their head that they're crazy. That's not right. In this the consequences of what we're doing socially right now, in this context. 

And I think it's driven by fear, I think we were kind of driving ourselves a little bit mad with our fear over this pathogen. Now I've had COVID, I've had long COVID, it's changed my body, I don't have the exercise tolerance I used to have. But I didn't die. And I'm 61. I'm in a moderate risk group. But we're, we fear it almost like the Africans feared  Ebola in the West African outbreak and it's driving us, I think, to compromise some of our fundamentals, including with this censorship initiative. 

And I don't know what that looks like, on the other side, we're eventually going to get through this. But it's impacting on society in profound ways. And in this censorship of information, is those that are experiencing it, including myself, are profoundly disturbed by what we're seeing, and the long term meaning so that..

Jan Jekielek:

You know, one of the things that really strikes me when I think about this stuff is when you kind of shut off areas of inquiry or the opportunity to have an open discussion about exactly this question that you mentioned, that actually breeds creation of all sorts of conspiracy theories, right? from wherever, for whatever political side from wherever, because people just don't know. They know that what they're seeing doesn't look right. Right. There's only one, there's only one of their friends on there.

Dr. Malone:

They've experienced something, their friends have experienced something, and yet they're told they couldn't have. And I agree. So I posted something on my old LinkedIn account that's now deleted. That went viral for LinkedIn. It had done a lot 25,000 likes or whatever, which for LinkedIn was a big deal. I mean, I got to almost 6000 people, but usually I've been like it 2000 people on my on my LinkedIn feed. So this went viral 

And in all it was was I posed the question, "what will happen if to public trust in in the public health system?" If it turns out that Ivermectin is safe, and has therapeutic benefit, and the vaccines turn out to not be perfectly safe, and it generated a blizzard of responses. 

Now, I elected not to add the third leg of that stool, which is the controversy about the lab leak hypothesis, which is another example that was shut down very hard and censored, and now has come to fore that there is some merit to that. And, and as, as demonstrated by the current president, seeking clear investigation on that, if that was if any two or three of those come to pass, and I think there's a chance all three, will, in my opinion, that's just my opinion. Um, where do we go from there in terms of public trust in the world public health system? 

And I don't know the answer. And what I got back from people with this open ended question was a lot of folks saying, we can't trust the government anymore. We can't trust the World Health Organization. 

The fear that I've had from the get go with warp speed in the vaccine development enterprise, as a vaccinologist, right, I'd spent my whole career in vaccines, I literally invented mRNA vaccine technology when I was 28. Okay. And before that I was involved in AIDS vaccine development at UC Davis. That's my whole life since 1983, has been focused on vaccines. My fear has been in rushing this through that we would end up with problems. It's kind of, how can you not end up with problems if you cut corners and rush these things, particularly the safety issues? What would happen to the entire vaccine enterprise and pediatric vaccines, the fundamental bedrocks of public health if we basically validate the criticisms of those that have been labeled anti-vaxxers? 

And that's kind of a pejorative oversimplification to that term. You know, we're labeling and excluding a whole block of debate and discussion by labeling it that way. But what if what we do, in doing this validates what they're saying about pharma, and the FDA, and the government playing fast and loose with lives with vaccines. I'm having people write me saying, I'm not going to vaccinate my kids anymore. I can't believe in this, this whole enterprise. 

There was an interesting statistic I heard the other day on the Highwire when I was introduced, interviewed there, that the baseline self identified anti-vaxxer, historically has been about 3% of the population. And according to them in the latest survey, it's bumped up to 40% of the population is self identifying as anti-vaxxer. Where does that go? 

And, you know how, by shutting down as you point out this information in this discussion, I mean, to lock me out of LinkedIn, because I have been carefully responsibly raising concerns and questions and trying to engage in discussion about those. I'm a bonafide, I mean, you can't say that I'm not an expert. Maybe some say I am the expert, but to block my ability to communicate, let alone all the others that have contacted me saying, Hey, I can't even say the things that you've been saying. So speak for me. They now don't even have me as a voice. I think that's profoundly disturbing. We can't get to scientific truth. If we can't discuss things.

What happens when you politicize science? People die. A lot of people died. The governments are responsible for mass murder. They actually suppressed treatment protocols and they are still doing it. Here is another highly qualified doctor, the top specialist in his particular fields in the world. This is evil. It is criminal psychopathy. It's a crime against humanity. What more can I say?

Peter McCullough, MD testifies to Texas Senate HHS Committee

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons on YouTube
March 11, 2021
19:32 minutes


Fourteen doctors, who are experts in their own fields, discuss the potential effects of the mass vaccination campaigns by governments worldwide.


In addition to enjoying some of the best news and commentary on the internet, membership in our patriot community is growing rapidly. Free Membership gives you immediate access to your MyRR Timeline, Pages and Groups. Simply posting content here exactly like you would on FB and Twitt, secures it from censorship.

As you establish your presence, you'll start noticing your RRM content is drawing many times more hits than you are seeing on deepstate-controlled social media. We designed RRM to be your most potent tool for reaching out and touching the world.

One of our authors has an RRM article that popped past 80k hits, while we were still testing the site. Seeing your FB or Twitt posts languishing as usual at one or two dozen engagements, watching the same posts on RRM pulling thousands of hits, you'll get quite clearly why we built this.

No doubt Twitt, FB etc are where the war is, your MyRR Profile and Timeline, Pages and Groups are your Arsenal, where you store the ammo securely, out of reach of the rampant censorship war being waged against the people and against decency and truth.

Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.

Be the first to comment.

You must login to post a comment.

By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to