Dr. Robert Malone easily ranks among the most vilified physicians in the history of modern medicine. Malone has repeatedly been smeared as the godfather of Covid vaccine “misinformation” and he’s been trashed in leading mainstream publications, including this January 2022 Washington Post story and this April 2022 story in the New York Times. Even the journalism peanut gallery has fired shots at Malone, including this Vice story posted earlier today.

Bragging rights for being at the forefront of the Malone smear movement goes to Tom Bartlett of The Atlantic, whose August 23, 2021, story was headlined, “The Vaccine Scientist Spreading Vaccine Misinformation.” Although Bartlett likely didn’t write the headline, his story didn’t support it. Nevertheless, a steady parade of mainstream journalists jumped on Bartlett’s bandwagon.

Bartlett’s story hasn’t aged well. In dismissing Malone’s concerns about Covid vaccines, Bartlett made this declaration: “The (Covid) vaccines have repeatedly been shown to help prevent symptomatic coronavirus infections (my emphasis) and reduce their severity.” It’s true that vaccines have been shown to reduce the severity of Covid’s initial strains, but they don’t prevent infections, President Biden’s false claim notwithstanding. By August of last year, the majority of people in America dying of Covid were vaccinated, as reported by the Washington Post.

Much of Bartlett’s takedown focused on debunking Malone’s claim that he was the “inventor” of the mRNA technology used for Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines. Bartlett made a convincing case that Malone was responsible only for the discovery of the technology, but myriad scientists were responsible for its development. Still, Bartlett quoted Stan Gromkowski, who he identified as a cellular immunologist who did work on mRNA vaccines in the early 1990s and viewed Malone as an “underappreciated pioneer” as saying, “(Malone’s) fucking up his chances for a Nobel Prize.”

YouTube screen shot

Gromkowski viewing Malone as an “underappreciated pioneer” who was forgoing a chance at a Nobel Prize to warn about vaccines utilizing a technology he discovered made it difficult for me to summarily dismiss Malone as a quack scientist. If Malone played an undeniable role in the discovery of what led to mRNA technology, he presumably had a solid understanding about how it worked. Bartlett’s Malone takedown didn’t ring right, particularly as he made unequivocal declarations about the safety and effectiveness of Covid vaccines, which at the time his story was published only had the FDA’s emergency use approval.

Recent developments prompted me to reread Bartlett’s takedown of Malone. I was taken aback by Malone’s prescience and the mounting evidence that supports his early warnings.

Malone, who holds an MD degree from Northwestern University and did postdoctoral studies and Harvard Medical School, was judicious in his concerns about Covid vaccines. Here’s Bartlett’s verbatim phrasing describing Malone’s issues:

Malone may keep company with vaccine skeptics, but he insists he is not one himself. His objections to the Pfizer and Moderna shots have to do mostly with their expedited approval process and with the government’s system for tracking adverse reactions. Speaking as a doctor, he would probably recommend their use only for those at the highest risk from COVID-19. Everyone else should be wary, he told me, and those under 18 should be excluded entirely. (A June 23 statement from more than a dozen public-health organizations and agencies strongly encouraged all eligible people 12 and older to get vaccinated, because the benefits “far outweigh any harm.”) Malone is also frustrated that, as he sees it, complaints about side effects are being ignored or censored in the nationwide push to increase vaccination rates.”

Let’s start with Malone’s claims of side effects being ignored or censored. Thanks to Elon Musk allowing Matt Taibbi and other independent journalists access to the correspondence and other documents relating to Twitter’s censorship operation, it’s been revealed that government officials played an instrumental role in removing or suppressing information critical of vaccine safety and effectiveness. A triple board-certified cardiologist I followed was banned on LinkedIn for repeatedly citing government safety data he found alarming.

The CDC recently acknowledged that it had identified a possible safety issue with the bivalent Covid-19 vaccine made by Pfizer and BioNTech but the agency insisted that it’s likely a statistical quirk and nothing to worry about. Indications are the CDC only disclosed the safety issue because a professor named Josh Guetzkow at Israel’s prestigious Hebrew University had made public critical vaccine safety information he obtained filing a FOIA request.

Josh Guetzkow/Substack photo

Guetzkow’s account of the CDC’s ever changing claims about the information he requested was alarming. Even more alarming were the CDC’s vaccine safety monitoring analyses, which Guetzkow posted on his Substack page.

According to Guetzkow, the CDC analysis revealed that the number of serious adverse events reported in less than two years for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is 5.5 times larger than all serious reports for vaccines given to adults in the US since 2009 (~73,000 vs. ~13,000). Twice as many mRNA COVID-19 vaccine reports were classified as serious compared to all other vaccines given to adults (11% vs. 5.5%). Guetzkow said this met the CDC definition of a safety signal.

Guetzkow’s FOIA data showed the CDC identified 96 safety signals for 12-17 year-olds, which include: myocarditis, pericarditis, Bell’s Palsy, genital ulcerations, high blood pressure and heartrate, menstrual irregularities, cardiac valve incompetencies, pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrhythmias, thromboses, pericardial and pleural effusion, appendicitis and perforated appendix, immune thrombocytopenia, chest pain, increased troponin levels, being in intensive care, and having anticoagulant therapy.

I’m not qualified to analyze the CDC’s safety data, but one would expect the agency to issue a statement or put forward an expert or two to provide some context and interpretation of what on the surface seems like pretty damaging data. The CDC and FDA aren’t held accountable because the mainstream media quickly closes ranks and discredits anyone who questions vaccine safety and effectiveness. Guetzkow’s FOIA findings have so far found a very limited audience.

Guetzkow’s FOIA data isn’t the only information that seemingly validated Malone’s initial concerns. A Cleveland Clinic study made public last month found evidence that those who received higher numbers of prior vaccine doses had an increased risk of contracting Covid-19.

“We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19 vaccination, and in addition to a vaccine’s effectiveness it is important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed,” the authors concluded.

The mainstream media has ignored the Cleveland Clinic study, and if they reported on it, they’d likely dismiss it because it wasn’t “peer reviewed.” However, in addition to being one of the top healthcare facilities in the world, Cleveland Clinic was one of the rare U.S. hospitals that refused to impose vaccine mandates on its employees.

Since Malone spoke with The Atlantic, he’s become more strident and provided the media with lots of opportunities to discredit him. By all accounts, Malone is a hot head who has alienated a huge swath of scientists over the years, many of whom have made themselves readily available to publicly criticize him. Malone’s media relations expertise strikes me as inversely proportionate to his mRNA knowledge.

What alarms me is the increasing disparity of vaccine knowledge and information in America. Readers of conservative publications are routinely fed information that disputes the Biden Administration’s and mainstream media narratives, while readers of the New York Times, the Washington Post and other mainstream publications are assured that vaccines have no meaningful risks.

The information gap significantly widened this week with Project Veritas making public an interview it secretly recorded with Jordon Trishton Walker, who was identified as Pfizer’s Director of Research and Developments – Strategic Operations and mRNA Scientific Planning. Walker made some very alarming allegations, including that Pfizer is mutating the COVID virus for R&D purposes.

Project Veritas Video Screenshot

I disapprove of Project Veritas’ Candid Camera journalism, but the video has been circulating for some 48 hours and I’ve been patiently awaiting for Pfizer or a mainstream publication to address and hopefully convincingly discredit Walker’s disturbing allegations. Watching the video, I was reluctant to believe that Walker is supposedly only two executive levels below Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, particularly given his violent behavior after discovering his comments were recorded and would be made public.

Here’s a link to the Project Veritas video. And here’s a link to Malone discussing the video with Tucker Carlson, one of the few journalists to pick up the story.

If Walker really is a top Pfizer vaccine executive, there’s cause for great alarm.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.