7 Key Facts About the COVID-19 Vaccines | FALLOUT

[FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW] Despite overwhelming evidence of adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines and exaggerated claims of their effectiveness, the CDC is recommending elderly Americans get yet another shot.

In this FALLOUT episode, Jan Jekielek and Robert Malone break down the litany of problems found with the COVID-19 vaccines, encapsulated in a recent landmark hearing on Capitol Hill hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).

And then they take a look at different vaccine: the flu vaccine. To watch their previous, related discussion about the Spanish flu, check out our previous episode here, timestamp 14:44. 

Views expressed in this video are opinions of the hosts, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Jan Jekielek:
Welcome to Fallout with Dr. Robert Malone and myself, Jan Jekielek.
Senator Ron Johnson held quite an important hearing just a few weeks ago. It was an overview of where we are at with Covid, with Covid response, and with media malfeasance.

Robert Malone:
This came to pass in an organic way. I wrote to Ron saying there would be an International Covid Summit concurrent with CPAC [Conservative Political Action Conference]. I asked if he would be open to having a hearing at the same time since all these people are coming internationally. Ron’s criteria was that each of the people testifying had to conclude their testimonies within five minutes. People have been asking me for a summary of where we’re at right now. Ron’s hearing definitely embodied that.

Mr. Jekielek:
One of the journalists there, Rodney Palmer, made an interesting observation that the media has been poisoned. We’re fighting over what is basic reality, as opposed to figuring out how to deal with things in a reasonable way.

Mr. Malone:
When the news is poisoned, so is democracy, because we’ve stopped debating about what is right. Instead, we waste our time arguing about what is true.

Mr. Jekielek:
Dr. Jessica Rose was one of the first people to testify, and she said that we know for a fact the Covid vaccines cause harm, not just correlational harm.

Dr. Jessica Rose:
Today, I speak for the people injured by the Covid-19 injectable products through VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System] data.
Analysis of the various pharmacovigilance database in the context of the Covid-19 injectable products has revealed strong emergent safety signals from myocarditis to death that are not being acknowledged by the owners of the data.This goes against standard operating procedures and begs the question, “Why are the injured being hidden?”

Fact: The Bradford Hill criteria are used to assess causality in epidemiological data, such as the various pharmacovigilance systems.

Fact: The proportional reporting ratio is used to assess whether or not a particular adverse event is more commonly reported in the context of a particular drug. If the PRR [proportional reporting ratio] is greater than one, a causal effect is indicated.

Fact: The PRR calculation for death from VAERS in the context of the Covid-19 shots using current VAERS data is 3.6.

Fact: The underreported number of deaths successfully filed to VAERS by January 20, 2021 was 634. Based on historical guidelines, this was sufficient as a signal, not only to prompt an investigation, but to shut down the rollout of the Covid-19 shots.

Fact: In 1999, a rotavirus vaccine designed to prevent rotavirus gastroenteritis was pulled from the market due to an intussusception signal emanating from VAERS, which comprised 584 cases.

Question: If 584 cases of intussusception were enough to prompt product removal, then why weren’t 634 cases of death not enough to prompt Covid-19 product removal?

Fact: The early death count was hidden.

Fact: Currently 1,615,998 reports of adverse events have been successfully filed to VAERS in the context of the Covid-19 injectable products, with a staggering 1,013,442 reports filed in 2021 alone, when considering both the foreign and domestic data sets. The number of adverse events reported to the domestic VAERS data set for all vaccines combined has been on average 39,000 per year and has been very slowly and steadily increasing in direct proportion to the increasing number of vaccine products on the market. See slide one. In 2021, however, a 1,417 percent increase in reporting occurred, whereby 93 percent of these reports were in the context of the Covid-19 products.

Fact: Age is not deterministic for adverse event reporting. Since administration of the Covid-19 products to the zero to four age group commenced, the rate of adverse event reporting has been increasing faster than for any other age group.

Fact: The argument that this spike in reporting is due to increased shot administration is false. Slide two shows the comparison of the number of adverse events per million doses in the context of influenza vaccines and the Covid-19 injectable products in 2019 and the number of adverse events per million doses in the context of influenza vaccines. On the left are the total adverse events, on the right are the deaths. The Covid-19 injectable products are associated with a 26 and a 100-fold increase in total adverse events and deaths respectively when compared per million doses with influenza vaccines in the same time frame.

Fact: The Bradford Hill criteria reversibility is satisfied. When a drug is withdrawn, the side effects disappear. A strong correlation of R equals 0.8 and a high covariance exists between shot rollout data and myocarditis reports filed according to Our World in Data, new vaccination data and VAERS data respectively. As shot demand wanes, so do the myocarditis reports. See slide 3A.

Fact: The Bradford Hill criteria specificity is satisfied. A very specific population at a specific site and disease is reported with no other likely explanation. Those two are associated with a four-fold increase in reporting and a five-fold increase in reporting of myocarditis in 15-year-old boys. This indicates specificity with regard to age and gender. See slide 3B.

Fact: The Bradford Hill criterion dose response is satisfied. Greater exposure leads to greater incidence of the effect. Following dose two,
an increase in signal occurs. See slide 3B.

Fact: Myocarditis is not transient or mild. A new paper published by Rose et al. in the journal Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety, shows that myocarditis is associated with hospitalization in 76 percent of reports. There are seven more Bradford Hill criteria that are satisfiable. That’s a 10 out of 10. Bingo.

Conclusion: Standard operating procedures for analysis of safety signals
emergent from VAERS when utilized reveal causal links between the Covid-19 injectable products and the adverse events investigated. Standard operating procedures for analysis of safety measures are not being followed by the owners of the data, namely CDC, HHS, and FDA. This equates to hiding the millions of people reporting not only adverse events, but injuries in the context of the Covid-19 injectable products.

Mr. Malone:
Jessica’s presentation was key and Ron specifically wanted her to be there. He had wanted her to participate in the earlier hearings, but she wasn’t able to attend. She has done a lot of hard work all through the Covid crisis, but it’s really matured with her analysis of the vaccine adverse event reporting system of the CDC. The stunning thing is this was all information the CDC has known about and has intentionally hidden, as documented in prior Epoch Times news reports.

Mr. Jekielek:
There is another other researcher, Raphael Lataster, who has just completed the fourth of a series of papers looking at how the data that exists have been used to exaggerate the safety and effectiveness of the jabs.

Mr. Malone:
Raphael has been one of the unsung heroes here. He’s done a lot of this publication together with Peter Doshi, the editor for BMJ, who’s based at University of Maryland. Raphael has driven a lot of that and he has a fascinating story.

He was subjected to pressure in Australia over his employment because he wouldn’t take the jab. He put together a dossier of information in his own defense, saying, “This is why I’m not willing to take the jab.” One of the lovely things about Raphael is that he’s so modest. Absolutely, that was one of the things I noted.

These are some of the most understated, incredibly hard-hitting testimony studies, with varying definitions of fully vaccinated and unvaccinated. Generally, what we find with the term fully vaccinated is that they are ignoring Covid infections in the partially vaccinated. This could be where after a few months someone who has received the injections has a Covid infection, possibly because of the injection, as we’ve heard from other speakers today, with immunosuppression.

Yet, it’s not counted and it’s completely ignored. That effect was found to be up to 48 percent. Now, adverse effects in the observation studies relating to safety are overlooked due to very narrow counting windows, including starting too late. Again, they are not counting what is happening with the partially vaccinated and ending too early, usually after just a few months, when we know there are long-term effects such as myocarditis. Yes, he’s a great guy and somebody that really ought to be recognized for his contributions.

Mr. Jekielek:
There is a reference study that has been out for a while, referenced by Del BigTree, which had a 99 million sample size. This is a CDC study, by the way. The conclusions being drawn from this study by the legacy media, including Fox News, are completely different from the conclusions that you pointed out to me.

Mr. Malone:
Yes, different from the way that I read it. This is an electronic publication in the journal Vaccine, which came out a few weeks ago. The paper version will be coming out in a future issue, but they thought it was so important they published it electronically. It’s a survey of 99 million drawn from government databases associated with vaccine administration and the adverse events associated with that administration.

The authors of this article sponsored by the CDC received a $10 million grant to do this. Many of the authors have CDC affiliations, so this is pretty close to an official publication in a major peer reviewed journal, Vaccine.
But in the discussion, the authors acknowledged that all of these databases that they accessed were biased to under-report adverse events. Now, that’s an easy thing to say, but when you unpack that the average person may not recognize what it really means.

It is an acknowledgement that these public databases are biased because physicians were unwilling to report adverse events. They were all kinds of disincentives. In many cases, the physician reports like what happened in Canada would be deleted by the National Health Service as for any reason they could think of, saying that they were not accurate or valid.

Despite all of that bias in the data, these authors with this rigorous 99 million analysis concluded that there was very strong statistical correlation between administration of the jab and three key types of adverse events. This was after a 45-day follow up. They were cardiac damage, sinus thrombosis, which is blood clots in the brain, and Guillain-Barre syndrome, an autoimmune-associated paralysis.

Those were the three adverse events that had really strong correlations despite the under-reporting bias in the data. But the authors acknowledged there were a number of other adverse effects that looked significant, but they didn’t meet their rigorous criteria for highly significant correlation. They did say these should all be followed up and examined more carefully.

The press looked at the discussion section that had been written. The discussion section can talk about whatever they want, and cite whatever papers they want. It is a kind of selective reporting and it cited a number of papers suggesting that these adverse effects were relatively infrequent or rare.

Rare is in the eye of the beholder. If you’re the person that has developed Guillain-Barré syndrome, it may not seem very rare to you. Rare is subjective. But the authors in this discussion section talked about other papers that had studied these things and had said that they were rare, and the press picked up on that. They said, “This study is acknowledging that these adverse events actually are happening, but they are still rare.”

But that wasn’t actually what the paper concluded. The paper concluded that they were highly correlated and that further analysis was necessary. It said that this high correlation was detected despite the fact that these data were skewed and biased.

Mr. Jekielek:
I had Kevin McKernan on the show on American Thought Leaders saying that he had found DNA fragments in the jabs that shouldn’t be there.

Mr. Malone:
Kevin took the actual vaccine material with its DNA contamination
and put it onto cultured cells, basically to quiet down the fact checkers that said, “This hasn’t been shown with these vaccines.” He took the actual vaccine product, put it on cells and showed that he could get integration. Not only could he get transfection, the delivery of those DNA fragments into those cells with high frequency, but he could also detect integration.

Kevin McKernan:
What I want to talk to you today is about the DNA contamination that our team at Medicinal Genomics discovered in the mRNA vaccines. We’re specifically speaking about Pfizer and Moderna in this case. This work has been replicated by many labs around the world, and now the FDA, the EMA [European Medicines Agency], and even Health Canada have admitted to this. The regulatory agents have admitted that Pfizer also omitted the SV40 sequences that are in the DNA. We’re going to discuss some of the things that the FDA has been able to do in their vaccine.

DNA contamination can lead to insertional mutagenesis. This is actually declared in Moderna’s own patents regarding mRNA vaccines. This is U.S. Patent 10,898,574. This is also supported by Lim et al., which speaks to the rate of spontaneous integration in the genome during transfection. We are using transfection after all with LNPs. The SV40 DNA is in fact functional. It is published as a potent gene therapy tool and a nuclear targeting sequence, as described by David Dean et al.

The SV40 promoter DNA is also known to bind to the tumor suppressor gene, known as p53. We’ve applied these vaccine system cancer cell lines and have evidence that it enters the cell and can survive several cell divisions. We have preliminary evidence, although this requires replication in other labs, that this DNA can integrate into the genome. We found two spike sequence integration events in ovarian cancer cell lines of CAR3 into chromosome 12 and 19 very recently.

Mr. Malone:
Kevin, in this wonderful, concise segment, basically says, in order to address the fact checkers, “I’ve done these things, and they were wrong about this, and they were wrong about that.” He says that they denied that the DNA was there, and now the agencies are all acknowledging that it is there. They denied that it could be delivered, and he demonstrated that it could be delivered. They said it couldn’t possibly integrate, because that’s what Peter Marks said, and in fact, he has demonstrated that it integrates, so all of that stuff is now moot. God bless him.

Mr. Jekielek:
It is astonishing that this lipid nanoparticle technology would be specifically used. It’s known to cause integration in the first place.

Mr. Malone:
It’s not perplexing to me. I spent 15 to 20 years developing this.

Mr. Jekielek:
But what are the implications?

Mr. Malone:
That’s why I was so shocked. I first heard about Kevin’s findings with the DNA fragments and the SV40 sequence fragment that’s present and the nuclear localization sequence from Drew Weissman. He said, “There’s this data, Robert, what do you think about this?” I said, “He better be sure that this is the true plasmid map and that it actually has these SV40 sequences in there. Because if he’s right, the implications are profound.”

Then three months later, it has now been replicated by multiple laboratories all over the world and has confronted the FDA and has confronted Health Canada. They have all concurred that the DNA fragments are there. The implications have been right out front from the very beginning.

Mr. Jekielek:
Why are the implications so profound?

Mr. Malone:
Because this tech is specifically used to deliver polynucleotides. It’s agnostic. It doesn’t care if it’s RNA or DNA. There was this discussion early on because of a Rudy Jaenisch paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Rudy is one of the core molecular virologists at MIT.

He had said that in the presence of reverse transcriptase, this RNA could be turned into DNA and it would integrate and essentially disrupt the genome. He said that the DNA is in the form of a certain type of liver cell, HEPG2, a very artificial cell system.

I had always thought that was a very contrived system that probably isn’t happening very often in humans after administering this. Then along comes Kevin’s data that there is DNA there. That’s a slam dunk, as far as I’m concerned, as somebody who gave rise to this technology and is a bona fide expert in it.

This technology was originally developed for delivering DNA into cells in order to create cell lines or enable short-term expression of proteins off of that DNA. That’s why it was created. It’s also used for the CRISPR-Cas9 system. This is exactly what the tech was developed for, and it’s no surprise that it would have this effect when injected into humans.

Mr. Jekielek:
The CRISPR-Cas9 system is the gene editing system.

Mr. Malone:
When Kevin did that sequencing, identified those fragments, and then reassembled a plasmid map based on his core competency in genomic sequencing using the available tools that he routinely uses, it changed everything, as far as I was concerned, about the risk profile.
Yet, what was amazing was the response from the official community,
the FDA, and the academic supporters that the press often go to.
It was a full-on denialism that this could possibly result in integration.

Any undergraduate doing cell culture work and using DNA to manipulate those cells, knows that’s exactly what this tech is designed for. Worldwide, it must be done at least a million times a year. We developed these cationic lipid compounds and sold them to the likes of ProMega as reagents.

Mr. Jekielek:
A million times a year, but not in vivo in human cells.

Mr. Malone:
It’s in human cells, but not in whole animals. For me, it has been an Alice in Wonderland situation through the looking glass—to know that this technology is specifically used for this, was designed for this, and is marketed for this. I’ve developed marketing compounds for the research industry that we had patents on. We sold this to research reagent companies to do this. Then to have the FDA denying decades of experience that this is the property of this technology was a bizarre moment in time. Since Kevin’s data have come out it’s almost self-evident.

Mr. Jekielek:
Let’s do a quick accounting of the issues as we finish this segment. In these gene therapy products, we’ve used a very toxic protein as the antigen, which is a question mark.

Mr. Malone:
It’s the spike protein, and it’s an engineered antigen.

Mr. Jekielek:
There is pseudouridine in it, which causes ribosomal frameshifting with 8 percent of the proteins being the wrong thing with possibly some kind of immunological activity in itself. We’ve got this DNA contamination. We’ve got endotoxin, which is the cell wall contamination from that same process. We’ve got a lot of variation in production, with the quality control being very poor.

Mr. Malone:
Governments are blocked from actually verifying the purity, potency, and identity of the products they contract with Pfizer and Moderna.
Ron Johnson really wanted to have somebody make a punch list of specific issues and ask the question, “Where do we stand with the vaccine science and the effects?” After the dust settled and everybody else was organized, he asked me to roll out my punch list of the key things that we’ve learned about the vaccine adverse events and other characteristics, much as you’re doing, and I came up with this little list.

The modified mRNA and adenovectored products are not traditional vaccines. They employ cutting edge gene delivery or gene therapy technologies and should be regulated as gene therapy products. That is still considered controversial, by the way. There are still fact checkers that are denying that this is gene therapy technology, despite the fact that we had Bayer Pharmaceuticals come out the other day and explicitly refer to these as gene therapy products. They were basically celebrating that the populace is now accepting gene therapy products and the field can advance.

Speaker A:
We’re really taking that leap at Bayer in selling gene therapy which to me is one of these examples where really we’re going to hopefully make a difference moving forward. Ultimately, the mRNA vaccines are an example for that cell and gene therapy. If we had surveyed the public two years ago and asked, “Would you be willing to take a gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body,” we probably would have had a 95 percent refusal rate.

Mr. Malone:
There is no denying that these leaky products are unsuccessful in preventing infection, replication, and spread of the virus. We had recent testimony from the CDC representative on Capitol Hill that finally acknowledged after persistent questioning that these products don’t prevent infection. At the very outset of this, I did a deep dive into the history of coronavirus vaccines, which many other people did too. The truth is there has never been a successful human coronavirus vaccine.

Mr. Jekielek:
Because the things mutate so much, it doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Mr. Malone:
There are a whole lot of reasons. They’re able to evade immune responses. They mutate really rapidly to escape them. There has never been a successful coronavirus vaccine. I argue that there still has not been a successful coronavirus vaccine in terms of preventing infection, replication, or spread.

We’re down to arguing the nuances. We’re down to arguing the nuance of whether or not there’s a short-term benefit in terms of hospitalization or death. We know there’s not a long-term benefit after receiving these products because of the negative effectiveness. After two to three months post-vaccination, you actually become more likely to have significant Covid disease or death.

Point three. In contrast to official HHS communications, these products are distributed throughout the body. This was another lie. They go all over your body. They don’t just stay in the shoulder after you’re injected.

Mr. Jekielek:
The lipid nanoparticles are designed to go everywhere.

Mr. Malone:
Your body handles them like other lipids. It distributes them all over your body. So, who cares? Actually, not only is the lipid nanoparticle toxic, that toxicity goes with it wherever it goes in your body. But then when it produces these proteins, both the frame-shifted proteins and the engineered spike protein, those are seen as foreign and your body’s immune system will attack those cells wherever they are in your body, because they’re producing a foreign protein. That’s a problem.

The viral spike protein which these products cause a patient’s body to manufacture is a genetically engineered toxin. That is now well established. The lipid nanoparticle used to deliver the mRNA has intrinsic toxicity in humans. That is now an established fact. These products do not deliver natural messenger RNA, but rather a synthetic, chemically modified form.

This is the pseudouridine with the bizarre characteristic of suppressing inflammation. It also causes these products to last a really long time. Remember early on we were told, “The RNA goes into your arm and to the draining lymph nodes. It doesn’t go anywhere else. It’s gone in a couple hours, so don’t worry about it.” All of that was wrong.

Mr. Jekielek:
Except that the pseudouridine was put in specifically to allow the technology to work in the first place. Because otherwise, if it’s gone in an hour, then it actually can’t work.

Mr. Malone:
The justification that Kariko and Weissman used in their early paper was that it would suppress the inflammatory response to the RNA itself.
When they made that discovery, the whole science of pseudouridine was still in its infancy. All of these other effects that we now know more about were unknown.

They were out on the edge and said, “Let’s take a lark. Let’s try this thing. We’re trying to find some way to make this thing work.” They did it because they knew that the inflammatory response, triggered by the RNA itself, was a major problem.

Mr. Jekielek:
The side effect was longer lasting.

Mr. Malone:
These products are contaminated with previously undisclosed short DNA fragments. We just talked about that. This is from Kevin McKernan et al. Many others have contributed this, but Kevin certainly deserves the gold star for being the leader and pioneering this. Analysis of public databases clearly demonstrates a causal relationship between administration of these products and a variety of toxicities, including cardiac damage, central and peripheral nervous system damage, and damage associated with abnormal blood clotting and death. This was covered so well by Dr. Jessica Rose.

Public health data from a wide variety of Western government sources demonstrate that repeated administration of these products are associated with this problem of negative efficacy. We also had testimony about that. In particular, the elevation of IG4, which is also kind of inside baseball. What is IG4? It’s a variety of immunoglobulin. It’s a category of immunoglobulin.

There are many different kinds of immunoglobulins, and IG4 is typically up-regulated conditions that involve allergic responses. It’s associated with down-regulating adaptive inflammatory responses. The problem with elevated IG4, particularly after a repeat administration, is this general problem of immune imprinting, original antigenic sin, and down-regulating immune response.

If your child has an allergy and you go to an allergist, what do they do? They give them allergy shots. They basically expose them to an allergy that they don’t even know about, like ragweed pollen, for example, through intradermal injections. Your child eventually develops a tolerance for ragweed pollen.

Functionally, what this IG4 data shows is that a similar thing is happening with the Covid jabs. Strangely, what the CDC recommendations are doing is driving people that are fully compliant to have a response akin to what your allergist might have your child do with ragweed pollen, where it’s actually pushing down the ability of your body to respond to Covid. These are the key things of where we’re at with these products right now.

While the CDC is once again recommending that the elderly take their next dose, to my eye, the data show that the elderly have more adverse events than do some of the younger cohorts. They both have more risk from the virus, but they also have more risk from the vaccine. The CDC also is now normalizing Covid, saying that we no longer have to have this five-day quarantine period. We can treat Covid more like any other respiratory virus.

They’re trying to get all of their guidance for respiratory viruses aligned, so that basically we have one guidance, whether it’s for flu, RSV, or Covid. It seems that we’re in this bizarre through-the-looking-glass world where the data are completely misaligned with the public policy positions.

Mr. Jekielek:
We’ve covered the state-of-the-jab part of the hearing pretty well, but the entire hearing deserves watching. There are highlight reels on Senator Johnson’s Twitter feed, and on his Rumble channel.

Mr. Malone:
I completely agree. Some of the highlights are stunning, like Lara Logan’s talking about the media and what has happened. We had some testimony from a Canadian journalist and also a Canadian politician. We had data from Romania showing that there was very low uptake, and resistance to their vaccine green card, and yet they have the best outcome in Europe in terms of all-cause mortality. Just as you and I might expect, less jabs mean a better outcome. It’s a paradox.

Mr. Jekielek:
There’s room for observational study in Sweden and Romania, and to compare that to countries that had both heavy lockdowns and heavy jabs.

Mr. Malone:
I’m hearing from people that this hearing feels like a turning point, because it was broader, international, and more aimed at the questions that real people have.

Mr. Jekielek:
Actually that’s what I heard as well. I want to recommend this hearing to all our viewers. Check out the highlight reel, and learn a bit more. It’s packed full of amazing information. Let’s shift gears and look at the flu vaccine and its background.

Mr. Malone:
I really like using the flu vaccine as a starting point, an entry-level way to talk about vaccines, because it covers so much of the whole vaccine technology space. A couple of segments ago we talked about the history of the 1918 H1N1 pandemic. The myth around that pandemic is really what underlies not only the entire vaccine enterprise, but also the influenza enterprise. Because the government has taken as a policy position that it’s their responsibility to prevent a 1918 H1N1 pandemic from ever happening again. Today, we think there might have been factors other than the actual influenza virus that caused it. Those are the data that come from Walter Reed Hospital, looking at old army autopsy samples.

Mr. Jekielek:
We’ll get our folks to check out that episode if they’re not familiar with this.

Mr. Malone:
The whole influenza strategy is built on a myth that we now know isn’t really true. But it has a life of its own, like many bureaucratic things. In the case of flu, the reason why we all get pushed to take an annual influenza vaccine here in the United States, as opposed to Brazil or many other countries that don’t mandate and don’t promote annual influenza vaccines, is because there’s a need to maintain, and here’s the key word, worm-based manufacturing.

The government believes that should a 1918-like event happen again, we will need to make enough influenza vaccine for everybody. But you can’t just develop an influenza vaccine manufacturing facility and then mothball it. You have to keep it in production, because otherwise you really can’t turn it back on again.

Mr. Jekielek:
And you need eggs, which a lot of people don’t know.

Mr. Malone:
Yes. Most influenza vaccines are manufactured in eggs because flu will grow in chick embryos. Flu grows like crazy in wild birds. All the migratory geese and ducks and everything else carry a lot of influenza with them. They poop enormous amounts of influenza into the water, by the way. The whole idea that we could somehow vaccinate all the chickens in the United States and stop bird flu is false.

The thesis is that we have to have this massive ability to rapidly manufacture enough flu vaccine to inoculate the entire population of the United States and preferably the rest of the world to prevent some horrible outcome that might occur, like 1918. How can you do that if the elderly, the children that are immunocompromised, and the people that are really at risk for influenza are the only ones getting the vaccine?

You can’t sustain the manufacturing if you don’t have the market. They’ve created a market through the annual influenza vaccine campaigns,
in order to sustain the worm-based manufacturing in case someday we have a 1918. That’s the chain that is happening. Over time they have changed the goalposts. They used to focus on whether or not the vaccine would protect against infection and that was called efficacy. Now, they’ve changed efficacy to mean whether or not it protects against severe disease.

Mr. Jekielek:
That reminds me of another vaccine.

Mr. Malone:
It sounds familiar, doesn’t it? It is just like Covid, it’s the same game. That is no surprise, because that’s how the CDC grew up their whole vaccine enterprise.

Mr. Jekielek:
There is also this idea of immune tolerance, sometimes called a negative vaccine efficacy.

Mr. Malone:
Immune imprinting is yet another word, and there are other fancier words that are inside baseball for immunologists and vaccinologists. I’ve lost two key clients in the past by even talking about this. This was a third rail in influenza vaccines for years and years. You weren’t supposed to talk about this problem of negative efficacy or of immune tolerance. But it’s in the influenza literature.

What is shown again and again is that when you have these annual boosters, when you’re repeatedly vaccinating somebody against influenza, they actually become less responsive to a new influenza infection. Their bodies get trained to respond to the last influenza or the one that had the biggest impact on their immune system, perhaps their first one.

If you keep boosting them, a lot of times you end up boosting antibodies and immune response from an antiquated strain. Then your body isn’t able to adapt and respond rapidly to a new strain that is different.

This annual influenza vaccine strategy, while it may be great for maintaining worm-based manufacturing, isn’t so great for the patient. They actually become more likely to become infected with the latest influenza strain. If you keep giving an antigen, and you keep giving an influenza shot again and again, you train somebody’s immune system to not react to influenza.

Mr. Jekielek:
I’ve heard that you can actually get influenza from getting a shot.

Mr. Malone:
That is complicated to answer. It turns out that one of the influenza vaccines is the intranasal live attenuated flu mist product. It’s restricted to people ages 4 to 49. It can’t be used in pregnancy. It can’t be used in immunocompromised because it is a live influenza virus.

The word attenuated means it’s a weakened one. It goes into your nose, but it can cause disease in some people. The answer is yes. In the case of flu mist, you absolutely can get influenza if you are somebody who has basically a weak immune system.

Mr. Jekielek:
Should people be getting this vaccine?

Mr. Malone:
That’s a good question. You’re basically putting me on the spot to go against CDC guidance and lose my medical license and God only knows what else these days. But I’ll say it this way. I don’t take an annual influenza vaccine. Many countries throughout the world do not recommend annual influenza vaccination.

If you’re an elderly person with a history of upper respiratory infections or immunocompromised, it may make sense for you. But for the average person, it’s just like with Covid. If you get a periodic influenza infection, it’s going to generate a robust immunity that is complex. It’s cellular and humoral.

It’s going to be against all the different influenza antigens and that’s some of the best immune response you can get to not be afraid of the annually circulating influenza. There’s another one where we’re surrounded by fear messaging that says, “You must get your influenza vaccine. Influenza kills people.”

The truth is, the people that are at high risk for death from upper respiratory viral infections like influenza, RSV, Covid, beta-coronaviruses, and other respiratory viruses are people that are already not well. They are elderly people that already have compromised immune systems.

In some cases, it’s the thing that tips the balance because you were already on the edge in terms of your health. Then you get pneumonia and that knocks you out. You can also have that from an ascending urinary tract infection. That’s a common way that old people die.

Mr. Jekielek:
You can protect yourself by strengthening your immune system, like with vitamin D.

Mr. Malone:
Absolutely. Vitamin D plus zinc, healthy living, getting outside, getting sunshine, maintaining your health in every dimension is the best protection you have.

Mr. Jekielek:
That’s a wrap. Next week, we will be talking about this paper that Dr. Jessica Rose and Dr. Peter McCullough and a few others published. It is the first paper calling for the withdrawal of the Covid-19 genetic vaccines. It went through extensive peer review, was published, and then mysteriously retracted. We’re going to look into the peer review process, one of your areas of expertise.

Mr. Malone:
Absolutely. For our viewers out there, can you do us a favor? The next time you see an outrageous headline or something that just seems to be upside down, please put it in the social media, tag it as Fallout, and also put it in the comments below here so that we can pull those things together for our segment next week.

Mr. Jekielek:
We’ll see you next week on Fallout.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.