Welcome to The Inspirational Blog

Your go to place for inspirational and motivational
quotes, memes and articles.

Dr. Robert W. Malone’s presentation to
the British Parliament Dec. 4th 2023

Please note: due to censorship, no official recording or transcripts were made available. We have made this transcript as well as we could from mobile phone recordings that were not always very clear.

So I'm Robert W. Malone, physician, scientist, and I need to acknowledge that my middle name, Wallace, and Andrew has assured me that I will not be drawn and quartered for what I’m about to say.

First off, I wish to speak extemporaneously, rather than use slides. There is an unmet need for rapid response capability to allow a global capacity to mitigate the risks of emerging infectious disease and engineered pathogens. That is a valid concern.

The technology has developed to the state where almost anyone with an undergraduate degree in biology can weaponize pathogens. We know in the United States that somebody with security clearance in the biodefence industrial complex, for the DOD, that's the binary weapons that were developed by US military, for deployment, potentially, as a countermeasure against the Russian tank threat, can be readily reproduced by virtually any biologist in their garage currently.

Okay, so there is a valid threat. There is an unmet need. Ostensibly, this technology was advanced, this mRNA or modified messenger ribonucleic acid based gene therapy, vaccination technology, was advanced on short notice, because there is an unmet need for a platform technology that would allow a rapid response capability.

That's the justification. Furthermore, the justification was that we had any pathogen, based on modelling here in the UK at Imperial College, 3.4% case fatality rate, and we would potentially be seeing mass graves, people dying in the streets, vans full of bodies outside of hospitals, etc.

That was a lie. We knew that was a lie very early on, but the people that spoke the truth that actually gathered the data, such as happened at Stanford, they demonstrated that we had a case fatality rate of about 0.02% okay, not 3.4%

Despite having that knowledge, it having it available in the first quarter, early in the first quarter of 2020, there was a concerted effort to justify the imposition of this technology in a rapid fashion, on the basis of the thesis that there's a 3.4% case fatality rate associated with this virus.

What transpired in that rush was a fundamental breach of both ethics and regulatory norms, that have been developed over decades. We're all familiar with this, we're all familiar with the policies have been put in place since World War ll in Nuremberg, and that humans, human beings, have the right to informed consent.

And what was done here in a haphazard way, under the justification, ostensibly, that we have to, we had to essentially reject, throw into the rubbish, norms that had been developed over decades, both for ensuring vaccine safety, and for assuring informed consent in patients, was all, all had to be jettisoned on short notice, because of the threat of a 3.4% case fatality rate, and the need to move a potential countermeasure forward, without the due process that normally would take place. That's what transpired. And I can tell you, you know, I'm labelled as far right, and all the pejoratives that we're also familiar with, including being a conspiracy theorist, but all I am is a physician and scientists who happened to have had a role in the genesis of this technology, when I was a young man back in 1987 to 99.

I am very, very familiar with the technology, worked as an academic to try to advance it until I determined that I could not overcome the toxicity associated with it and abandoned it for other technology platforms, which I also developed.

But in this case, well, what I have objected to is that as a physician, and scientist who was well trained in clinical research and regulatory affairs, we have decimated my, my discipline.

We have rejected the knowledge that myself has been contributed to, and all of my peers and colleagues over decades, about how one should do this, how one should act, what steps one should take in order to ensure that we have safe and effective products for humans.

It's that simple. And furthermore, that we have rejected the norms that have been developed since World War 11 to respect human dignity, to ensure that human beings are treated as as humans, they are, their autonomy, their sovereignty, is respected, that they are provided with informed consent.

Instead of informed consent about the truth of these products and their developmental state, their immature developmental state, we were given a series a lies. Those lies included that these products were safe and effective, of course, without actually qualifying what's safe and effective was.

You'll recall safe and effective was repeated again and again and again, without stating what that meant. Okay. That's Neurolinguistic Programming. That's psychological operations. That's propaganda.

We also received the propaganda that these products would remain at the site of injection, and the draining lymph nodes. That was known to be a falsehood, before these products were ever deployed to humans.

Furthermore, and that's revealed by the non-clinical data packages from Japan, and from Australia, that have now been disclosed, okay, so we knew that these products deployed all through the body, we knew that they didn't stay where they were injected.

We were also told the falsehood that these products had a molecule, a modifying ribonucleic acid, which will only last in your body for a short period of time. We now know that these products remain in your body and remain biologically active for the undetermined period of time, of at least weeks and probably months. Another lie.

We were also told that these products, were it was necessary that none of us would be safe until we were all safe. This was part of the propaganda campaign to insist that we all accept these products. And that was done, and by the way, in violation of long established norms. That involved coercion, compulsion, and incitement. Ice creams for children to take your jab, or hamburgers, or whatever the enticement was, that is illegal. That that is not something that is allowed of under well established bioethics.

Okay, so this this series of lies was used to justify the deployment of these experimental products, truly, with great profit margins, no doubt, which were intended to demonstrate safety and effectiveness of a vaccine platform technology, that then according to a hearing of the WHO in 2020, as I recall, headed up by Margaret Liu in 2021, was, were established that this would become a platform, and all that would be necessary in the future would be to swap in a new RNA sequence. Okay?

Now, what we need to resolve the controversy regarding the toxicities associated with this, because we now clearly know that these are neither safe nor effective. We knew at the time, Pfizer knew at the time, these products would not prevent infection, they would not prevent a replication and spread of the virus.

Now the data is suggesting they don't even augment, they certainly don't protect against death, or prevent against death and disease. We all know that. But that was what was asserted at the time. And what we need to resolve all the controversy that swirls around these products, and whatever the latest data disclosure it is, is for governments to just be open and transparent.

That's my core message. All I'm asking for is that we be allowed to access in an open and transparent fashion, the data which NHS and the health care agencies of the world have acquired, so that those data can be analysed. So we no longer have to wrasstle over whether this data is good, or that data has this flaw, etc.,etc.

Let us all disclose in an open and transparent way so that the world’s scientists can evaluate that data and put to rest this controversy about whether or not these products are safe and effective.

Now I'm running out of time.

On the current data, somewhere between 700 and 1000 peer reviewed studies regarding the safety or lack thereof of these products, clearly demonstrate a series of adverse events. I'm just going to list them: myocarditis, including tachycardia, reproductive health damage, women all over the world know about the damage to their menstrual cycles. That there is now, these are all things that are widely acknowledged, peer reviewed, multiple hundreds of studies, reproductive health coagulopathy including stroke, that means blood clotting, abnormal blood clotting, damage to a peripheral ocular and central nervous systems, including stroke, and immunologic and oncologic harms which Dr. Cole is going to be speaking about, and the biggest adverse event of all, death.

So in conclusion, what we’ve had here is a rushed product, a rushed technology, a failure to provide respect for humans in not allowing them to have informed consent. And furthermore, actively deploying the most massive propaganda campaign in the history of the modern world, to suppress the ability of the public to gain access, merely to have knowledge of what the adverse event risks are.

And I come to you with one request, open the books, let's see the data, and let’s allow those data to be examined, so we no longer have to have this, you know, these little fights over these little details.

We can actually get to the bottom of one of the most important questions the world is facing right now. Where these products actually safe? Thank you.

Lies My Gov't Told Me:
And the Better Future Coming (Children’s Health Defense)
Robert W. Malone