"If a Fiberglass Tree Falls in a Forest… Bret Speaks with Dr. Robert Malone", DarkHorse Podcast (09 June 2022)
Admittedly, this is not an easy listen. It has quite a lot of technical explanations of a molecular biological kind, which, even with a determination on the part of both speakers to make the material accessible to the likes of me, still feels pretty opaque at times. But it's incredibly interesting nonetheless. What's more, it's really quite disturbing. These are two highly credible people—Weinstein a biologist and public intellectual, Malone the inventor of mRNA "vaccination"* technology—and if they have concerns about the technology that's been pushed around the globe in the name of fighting the "pandemic", I for one shall listen and take note. Not for the faint-hearted though.
(* Incidentally, I have no qualms about placing the word "vaccine" in inverted commas when it comes to these mRNA products. Even Weinsten and Malone agree that the word has become too imprecise. It's a matter of record that the definition of "vaccine" was changed in Merriam-Webster dictionary in January 2021. (I have screenshots from The Wayback Machine in case of a memoryholing event.) I'm not saying that they're not "vaccines". They are, but only because the definition has been changed. The bottom line is, some people see no issue with this; others of us see sleight of hand.)
- 18 January 2021 @ 19:47:13 hrs (https://web.archive.org/web/20210118194713/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine)
- 26 January 2021 @ 06:51:43 hrs (the next snapshot) (https://web.archive.org/web/20210126065143/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine)
On the other hand, maybe they are and are not vaccines. Or rather, maybe they are "vaccines" but not vaccines. I mean, calling these products vaccines in the first place was clearly a strategy to co-opt the trust that most people (rightly or wrongly) place in regular vaccines. (I guess they thought (rightly) that people wouldn't rush out to take them if they were called "genetic therapy injections".) But it seems to me that it would only be morally justified to do this if the covid shots ever proved themselves (beyond reasonable doubt) to be as "safe and effective" as regular vaccines (assuming they are). But we're nowhere near there yet, certainly weren't there when that decision was made, and it's not looking good for the future. So maybe I shouldn't call them vaccines. Maybe I should dissent from that language. In that case my definition of vaccine will be different from someone else's, and maybe that's the way it has to be.