Robert Malone: Who Was Really Pulling the Strings in Wuhan? | FALLOUT

[FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW]Back in 2018, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) received a grant proposal called Project DEFUSE, which proposed high-risk coronavirus research to prevent emerging pathogenic threats.

The DEFUSE proposal was submitted by EcoHealth Alliance, working with scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and talked about looking for and inserting furin cleavage sites, which make viruses more infectious. We know this from documents obtained by DRASTIC, a group of independent researchers that have been investigating the lab leak theory, and Emily Kopp, an investigative reporter with U.S. Right to Know.

Emails and documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know detail how the proposal authors tried to downplay the research that would be done in China and conceal the role of Chinese researchers.

The proposal was ultimately rejected by DARPA, but provides key information in understanding what really happened in Wuhan.

In this episode, we dive into this proposal, break down what its implications are, and we explore who was really ultimately responsible for what happened in Wuhan.

We also take a look back at history—and a key lie we’ve been told for years that has been used to justify much of our biodefense complex.

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

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Robert Malone:
This is Robert Malone with yet another episode of FALLOUT with my friend and colleague, Jan Jekielek.
Today we’re going to follow up on our prior discussions concerning the proposal called DEFUSE, that was submitted by EcoHealth Alliance and how that relates to what happened in Wuhan and the origin of the coronavirus.

Jan Jekielek:
We also promised our viewers last time we would talk about a series of phone calls from a mysterious figure to alert you that there was a novel coronavirus in China, and that there might be a team needed to deal with it.

Mr. Malone:
I have been working in biodefense for years and years and you have contact with people in the intelligence community, one of whom was Dr. Michael Callahan.

Michael is an interesting character. He has deep ties with DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] and apparently with the CIA. To the best of my understanding he’s a retired CIA officer. I had collaborated with him on issues such as Zika and the Ebola vaccine development during the West African outbreak. He knew me as somebody who was skilled at pulling together teams to respond to government requirements, particularly in the biodefense area.

Out of the blue, I got a call from him on January 4th, 2020 saying there was a novel coronavirus afoot in Wuhan and told me that I should spin up a team to address the potential risks associated with this pathogen that might well go worldwide.

Mr. Jekielek:
His subsequent calls have direct relevance to this particular proposal we’re talking about. You’re the one who got the call, but he denied this, and he said that his people didn’t believe this was a lab origin.

Mr. Malone:
Yes, the story broke that this wasn’t an origin from a natural source like a pangolin or a bat. It wasn’t coming out of the live animal market at Wuhan, but rather it was coming from this institute that I had never heard of before, the Wuhan Institute of Virology [WIV] and it was an engineered pathogen. I asked Michael directly, “What about all this news that’s coming out about this actually being an engineered pathogen?”

Michael told me that he wasn’t sure what that meant. His people had gone over the sequence carefully and there was absolutely no evidence that it was engineered. Now, in retrospect, that appears to be some of the propaganda that was being deployed at the time, as we now know from Sharri Markson’s reporting.

Sharri Markson:
Major revelations today on the origins of Covid-19 and exactly what happened inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Mr. Malone:
There was a concerted effort to deny and redirect the world community away from the thesis that this was a laboratory origin virus.

Mr. Jekielek:
Back in April of 2020, the Epoch Times produced a documentary investigating the origin of the Coronavirus. It was very clear at the time that a lab origin was extremely likely. Right at the Wuhan Institute of Virology we had Shi Zhengli, known as the “batwoman,” working on bat coronaviruses, which looked very similar to the Coronavirus. We knew this at the time.
Here’s the thing that we didn’t know, and this is what has been revealed in the U.S. Right to Know reporting. EcoHealth Alliance’s top virologists, Ralph Baric and Peter Daszak, had this very close relationship with Shi Zhengli.

Mr. Malone:
That’s what is fascinating about this report that was pulled off of the DARPA servers long ago. Remember, DARPA used to be where Michael Callahan worked. The Right to Know group was able to pull this information out. It reveals more granularity concerning this proposal called DEFUSE, which specifically proposed the incorporation of a furin cleavage site into the spike protein of a SARS-like virus. It had proposed a series of experiments that logically would have led to the creation of this virus that we now call SARS-CoV-2.

With this new freedom of information act disclosure, in the data that has been provided, we now get to look underneath the covers of the proposal development process, and the correspondence between Baric and Daszak and Shi Zhengli as they build this proposal they will submit to DARPA.

Mr. Jekielek:
To highlight what we’re seeing here, DARPA is the Pentagon and the U.S. military, correct?

Mr. Malone:
At a minimum.

Mr. Jekielek:
Baric and Daszak, according to these emails, are trying to downplay the role of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in this grant. They’re applying for a grant from the U.S. military for research, which clearly has a military application. They’re essentially trying to hide the fact that they’re going to do this research under the auspices of the People’s Liberation Army [PLA]. They’re hiding from DARPA who would be the beneficiary of their research.

Mr. Malone:
Absolutely. But are they themselves aware of this? That’s a key question. Is EcoHealth Alliance just naive about the role of the PLA in all scientific research of this type within China, or are they intentionally obscuring it as they prepare this proposal to DARPA?

As I revealed two-plus years ago, there has been a position within the U.S. military that they wanted to push funds to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in order to somehow co-opt the researchers there like Shi Zhengli, to not do research which would potentially be weaponized, which is in and of itself naive.

They thought by funding this and assisting in technology transfer from University of North Carolina through EcoHealth Alliance to WIV, that this would allow the intelligence community in the United States to at least have some eyes on what’s going on with biowarfare research in China.

Mr. Jekielek:
In 2012, the CIA lost a number of agents in China due a massive security breach. They were trying to get eyes on things like bioweapons research.

One of the theories from certain sources is that this was an opportunity. Everybody actually knows what’s going on. They show up bearing technology not available to the Chinese researchers at that time and it’s too good for them to pass up. At the same time, they realized, “This has to be a U.S. operation. They wouldn’t just casually give us this technology.”

Mr. Malone:
It seems to have been a quid pro quo, and I’ve had this verified by four separate sources, so it’s not just your intuition. I’m positive that there was some sort of a transaction where there was a transfer of biological materials into Wuhan Institute of Virology from a number of NATO partners.

There was a transfer of humanized mice through EcoHealth Alliance to the WIV that was apparently funded by NIAID [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases] for what’s called serial passage experiments that further humanized these viruses. Reporting personnel technology and all kinds of information exchanged back and forth under this naive notion that we could somehow manipulate or modify the activities going on in biowarfare research within the CCP.

That was at the core of what transpired here. With this new revelation from these Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] requests, we have explicit documentation of the internal communication of Baric and Daszak gaming the proposal system. They manipulated the language in the proposal to avoid the risk of U.S. oversight. It is clear that U.S. oversight would have detected their plans to have this research outsourced and done at Wuhan Institute of Virology under what’s called Biosafety Level 2 [BSL 2] conditions.

These are conditions where it’s almost just open bench research. I used to routinely work at BSL 2 as an undergraduate at UC Davis, and this requires no specific training. This kind of work really should be done at BSL 4 containment. These are the pressurized moon suits, because this is a respiratory virus. Apparently Ralph Baric pushed back and said, “Mice don’t sneeze, and there’s very little chance that this virus is going to get out.”

Baric and Daszak, in order to reduce the cost of the proposal, are intentionally hiding the level of containment that this research needs to be performed at, which is BSL 4. They want to perform it at BSL 2 to save money.

In this transaction within EcoHealth Alliance, you can see this ethic which exists across the entire bioresearch community, which is that their people are entitled to do this kind of stuff and that the risks are minimal. It’s okay to skirt the rules and to minimize those risks in order to get the money and proceed with the work that they feel entitled to do.

Mr. Jekielek:
These American researchers view themselves as being on the same team as the CCP. They don’t grasp that the CCP doesn’t have partners in crime.

Mr. Malone:
This is really all part of a bigger question, “Who is really behind this work that was done at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?” Of course, the popular press and various books have proposed that it’s Tony Fauci, and that Tony Fauci is the puppet master. But a good case can be made that Tony Fauci was almost just roadkill in the middle of this and he was just playing a role. He certainly was central in the coverup, but was he really the driver behind the whole logic of the gain-of-function research?

But as this information is coming out more and more, it really looks like it’s Peter Daszak, the head of EcoHealth Alliance. If anyone was the puppet master in the development of this virus, he was the one guiding it. He has contact with Gates, and he has his international contacts. He seems to be the kingpin in the origin of the virus.

Mr. Jekielek:
Who is ultimately gaining these lethal technology skills? There might be another puppet master here.

Mr. Malone:
You are asking if Daszak is aware of the fact that he’s being used by the People’s Liberation Army and the CCP. That’s something that we have to discover. The backstory behind all of this is the very active communication from Bob Kadlec right now, who seems to be very busy putting out the storyline that he’s sorry for his role in the coverup of the origins of the virus. But that actually seems to be pointing to Equal Health Alliance and Peter Daszak as the real actors here.This pushes the responsibility away from the government.

Essentially, the storyline that is evolving is that you had EcoHealth Alliance, Baric and Daszak, manipulating the government and not being open and transparent. The government is just going along with this and thinking these high profile, highly skilled researchers are to be depended upon and believed. It is convenient for the administrative state to take the position, “We were duped.” That seems to be the way this is playing out.

Mr. Jekielek:
There will be new disclosures around the origin of the virus, which we will keep covering here on the show. Next, let’s look at virus history, something relevant to the recent Covid pandemic.

Mr. Malone:
Let’s talk about the background and justification for the influenza and pandemic preparedness capability that the U.S. government and the WHO [World Health Organization] has developed.

Mr. Jekielek:
This has to do with the 1918 influenza pandemic. How many millions of people died at that time?

Mr. Malone:
I don’t remember the number, but it was a major event and killed more young people than it did old people. We’ve been told a false narrative that in 1918, as the soldiers came back from World War I, they brought a highly pathogenic influenza virus back from the trenches in Europe.

The way the story was told is that the first outbreaks were in Spain, and so it was called the Spanish flu, which was very convenient. They were able to say it was those people in Spain that were responsible. It turns out that the story of a highly pathogenic flu virus was false.

In fact, there was an influenza virus. It appears to have originated in the Midwest and was brought by American recruits to the trenches of World War I and Flanders Fields. It was amplified there and then brought back both to the States and other countries after the Armistice of 1918 when the soldiers returned to their respective nations. Then there was this huge outbreak of an infectious disease of some kind that caused a massive death toll all across the world.

But the thing that killed people wasn’t influenza and it wasn’t H1N1. That story that we’ve all been told was false. This is really relevant to the current situation, because that false narrative has been used to justify annual influenza vaccination. It has been responsible for the entire infrastructure development for flu vaccines that’s been put in place by the U.S. government to the tune of billions of dollars. It has been used to justify the entire biodefense complex both in the United States and worldwide with the WHO.

Mr. Jekielek:
How do we know that it was false? There have been other theories as to what caused the death toll, but how do we know that it wasn’t a virus?

Mr. Malone:
A study was done at NIH [National Institutes of Health] by one of their top influenza researchers, who is also a pathologist. He went back and was able to get pathology specimens from the Walter Reed Institute of Research, which is very much focused on infectious disease. They had these old pathology sections embedded in paraffin that they were able to dig up and look at. These were lung samples from soldiers that had died at that time, that were recut and reexamined. These samples revealed the signs of damage to the upper airway in these soldiers, consistent with a viral pneumonia, and then a secondary bacterial pneumonia with its associated damage.

This is what really triggered the deaths. These soldiers had damaged lung tissue that enabled the bacteria to colonize and spread throughout the lungs, and that’s what ended up killing many of them. This was revealed through a retrospective analysis of these old pathology specimens.

Mr. Jekielek:
Why is this particularly significant? How does this break the narrative about how we’re supposed to deal with pandemics?

Mr. Malone:
We’ve been told again and again that we have to be very fearful of these novel viruses that come out, particularly novel respiratory viruses. Of course, we have RSV and SARS-CoV-2. Now, there is this great fear about the white lung pathogen that is currently circulating in China. The logic has been that there are highly mutating respiratory viruses that are circulating, particularly the flu, between poultry and pigs and humans, and that this is just a fermentation chamber for creation of new risks.

What really happened was that an opportunistic bacterial pneumonia took off because we didn’t have antibiotics. If we had the antibiotics then that we have now, this never would have happened. There never would have been this major tragedy. The whole storyline that has been promoted that we have to be very fearful of these respiratory viruses that are going to cause a massive death toll like what happened in 1918 is a false narrative that has been promoted. It really wasn’t grounded in science—it was grounded in fear.

Mr. Jekielek:
There was this hashtag on Twitter for people that are treated with azithromycin and zinc. This could have actually stopped the pandemic because there was a bacterial pneumonia that followed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Is that correct?

Mr. Malone:
Yes. That goes back to work at the Institute of Virology in Marseille, France. Early on, Didier Raoult promoted this idea of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, which has the synergistic effect of shutting down the risk of severe disease and death associated with this. Now, that relates to the other fascinating aspect of the story of 1918.

In 1918, there was a hot new drug that had just recently come onto the market that was very effective at suppressing fever. There was very little known about this new drug in terms of how to dose it, but it seemed to be the new miracle drug for stopping fever. Fever, of course, was associated with this combined viral and bacterial pneumonia.

As often happens at a time of great stress and tragedy, physicians began using this hot new drug because it seemed to have some benefit, and they started dosing to effect. In other words, they would give some of this new drug and it would reduce the fever in some patients. But for other patients where it wasn’t reducing the fever, they would give them a higher dosage.

The problem with this is that drugs always have a therapeutic window. There is a point at which they become toxic and they can only be effective up to that point. Some drugs have a more open therapeutic window, where there’s a wide range of safe dosing. Some have a very narrow therapeutic window where you have to be very precise with how you give the drug.

It turns out that aspirin, which is the numerical drug circa 1918, has that problem. If you give too much aspirin, you can kill people. It is now well-documented that a significant fraction of those deaths were associated with physicians overdosing patients with aspirin. How is that relevant to the current outbreak?

Early on in northern Italy, there was awareness that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were being used by the Chinese physicians to treat SARS-CoV-2 and to keep people from dying. They got this information about the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and started dosing some quite elderly northern Italian patients with this drug and they got some effect. But for those patients that weren’t responding well, they kept upping the dose.

In fact, just like the physicians during 1918, they exceeded the therapeutic window for hydroxychloroquine and started causing hydroxychloroquine toxicity, which is absolutely a problem, and much more so than ivermectin, by the way. Ivermectin has a very large therapeutic window, but with hydroxychloroquine it is not so large.

Just like what happened in 1918, the idea that some is good and more is better contributed to the excess mortality that we observed throughout the West, but particularly early on in northern Italy, when physicians were still learning the proper way to treat SARS-CoV-2. In the heat of the moment, without thinking too much, they set up a dosing protocol that was too high.

It’s hard to separate malfeasance or ill intent from incompetence. In the heat of battle, like in the early stages of an outbreak, you have the fog of war and it’s hard to think clearly. There is so much stress, and there’s so much excitement and adrenaline and fear all mixed together, that it’s really easy to make mistakes.

It underscores the need for calm, experienced minds to provide oversight in these early phases of an outbreak and to serve as a check and provide an independent assessment of whether the steps being taken are appropriate. They need to determine whether physicians and other medical care providers and researchers need to step back for a moment and really look at the history of what they’re working with and whether they are doing the right things.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.