Robert W Malone MD on RFK Jr's Big Win, Tells Elon Where to Look at HHS
01:13:44 Share

Well, we have some big breaking news today. We just heard as of the recording of this here at 1 p.m. Eastern, Bobby Kennedy, RFK Jr., confirmed for the Secretary of Health and Human Services. So with that in mind, we already had our guest, our dear friend here, Dr. Robert Malone, already scheduled before this vote happened, but we're going to start off the discussion.

on his thoughts and his reaction to this big news. So first of all, how are you doing, sir? Doing fine. We've had another bout of snowfall the other day, about seven inches came down. And so here on the farm, that's always an issue.

Fortunately, we didn't have that long period of sub-freezing temperatures. And so today it's going to hit 50 and a lot of that is melting off. So that's something to celebrate. And the farm is doing well. My wife is doing well. We're about to have our 46th wedding anniversary next Monday. Wow. And I'm just back from the conservative partners event.

conservative partners Institute. So that's CPI located on independence Ave in DC and their big donor meeting down in Orlando. That was fascinating. And then I'll be at CPAC next weekend beginning, I think Wednesday night, there'll be some international events.

And then at the end of the month, I'll be at the Council for National Policy at the end of February. So a number of conservative meetings, and I'll be speaking at those on the same issues of what is Maha,

Where is it going to go? What do the appointments mean? What is the reorganization of HHS going to be? And the broader issue of really deconstructing and reconstructing and reimagining government under Trump and in the face of Doge. Yeah, that's what we were going to talk to you about today is your article at Malone.news.

where you posted deconstructing NIH, CDC, and FDA culture matters. And you talk about how the current NIH, CDC, and FDA leadership and scientific culture traces to Vietnam, draft dodging, socialism, and corporatism, and it's time for a change. And this points to a broader thing is that, you know, there's not very many political appointees that get put into these bureaucracies with every president.

And so, you know, most of these employees are probably going to have the mindset that you're reflecting in this article about corporatism and socialism and values that are far removed from where people seem to be really in the everyday America. But I do want to get your reaction. What's your hot take on the confirmation vote with Robert Kennedy first?

So it was 52-48 party lines with the exception of Mitch McConnell. Who's your guy, right? Mitch is your guy in the Senate, right? Yeah, right. Ron Johnson, yes. Mitch McConnell, not so much. Mitch isn't the first guy to pick up the phone and talk to you whenever he's got help? No, for some reason. When I was in the Senate back in the day when I was testifying, Mitch looked at me with a bit of a stink eye.

So I've never... He gives that to everybody nowadays. That's kind of his look. Yeah. That may not be personal. And remember that Mitch McConnell is a polio survivor. Yeah. So beyond all the other considerations of rhinos and compromise and conflicts of interest, I think that we need to extend a little bit of empathy to Mitch in that this childhood trauma...

polio and overcoming polio and post-polio paralysis colors his view of the vaccine enterprise and public health in general. And so I'm not surprised on many levels that he voted against the confirmation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for secretary of HHS. This is a historic moment.

Let's just step back for a minute. Bobby ran really an outsider's race against the Democrat Party. He tried to make the case that there was a group of, quote, Kennedy Democrats is what he called it. We could, in retrospect, say that he was trying to pitch his storyline to those that still endorsed a pre-Carter campaign.

New Deal Democrat consensus. And that is to a significant extent where Bobby comes from. He sees the politics of his father and uncle as very much his core in terms of his political framework. He may have

through the campaign matured. And we'll see that play out or we won't. He has absolutely been an advocate for kind of old school environmentalism. Back in the day in the 70s when we had the whole earth movement and coming out off of the world of hippies and communes, etc.,

in the Whole Earth Catalog and the Back to the Land movement. Remember, Bobby was raised in Northern Virginia, a child of privilege, certainly, but an avid falconer, an avid horseman, somebody that spent a lot of time outdoors, and he still does. He's an avid hiker. I don't think he could stand

You know, I don't know how he's going to adjust to life in D.C. because he's not going to be able to head up to the L.A. hills and go for a stroll whenever he needs to clear his head. You got to take a lot of methylene blue to get through it. Yeah, or something.

You see that big dropper full of it? He allegedly was squeezing into the airplane. They had a video of him and he got on a flight and he had a big giant dropper full of methylene blue. I said, I don't know if that's the recommended dose, but I guess it's getting the job done for him. Yeah, so he's bringing in this focus on health promotion rather than disease treatment. That is the unifying principle of Make America Healthy Again.

His campaign was rescued in many ways by Nicole Shannon. Who, to my view is turned out to be 1 of the most interesting new arrivals in the political scene. Consequent to this campaign, and she continues to move forward aligned with Bobby, but independent from Bobby and rumor is that she might even run as an independent in California governor's race coming up. So we'll see.

RFK has been very focused on getting through the confirmation process and it was absolutely not a done deal. And there was a lot of, uh, churn and circular firing squad activity going on, particularly focused on Kelly and Casey means, uh, and, uh, a case can be made that the, uh, Maha, uh, focus on promotion of health and, uh,

modification of diet and the role of the USDA and seed oils and those kinds of things have roots in the work of Cali and Casey means. So, and frankly, I, I will not be surprised if Cali means ends up inside the administration. He says he doesn't seek it, but, uh,

He's also gone very quiet lately, which is kind of a hallmark because all the people that are in the nomination process are basically told, if you want to stay in the nomination process, you better shut up. And so one of the telltale signs of people that are being vetted is that they will have been, in many cases, active on social media and then they'll suddenly disappear. And that's kind of a telltale that something's going on in terms of vetting.

So I'm hopeful, and it's certainly better to have Bobby in than to have what might have been had he not prevailed, where there was apparently a good, robust queue of more traditional deep staters lined up to take that slot if Bobby did not get confirmed. He...

He is very aware that he's moving into hostile territory, from what I hear, and that he's going to encounter all kinds of resistance, just like we're seeing the resistance against Doge getting deployed by lawyers working the judiciary. And as Bobby attempts to shift the landscape at HHS,

He's going to find enormous resistance. Fortunately, Donald Trump did come through with the kind of updated version of Schedule F and the attempts to encourage people to transition out of the government, take early retirement, essentially, and backing that up also with changes to federal policy that might, again,

prevail and allow people to put the senior executive service that runs the government, the permanent bureaucracy, put them in a position of becoming at-will employees so they could be terminated if they get passive aggressive about implementing policy, kind of akin to what Musk and the Doge crew ran into when they tried to audit the Treasury.

uh where uh treasury officials wouldn't give them passwords et cetera I mean that's a very overt example but there's all kinds of ways of torpedoing efforts that change and slow walking things and leaking information like another another example of the deep state acting in nefarious ways has been apparently there have been leaks about ice raids

the immigration service that are attempting to apprehend illegal immigrants and have them repatriated to their home country in places like Chicago and L.A. And strangely, leaks come out describing that this is about to take place. And apparently those leaks are being traced back to the FBI currently.

So those are just really clear-cut examples of how the entrenched senior executive service and federal bureaucracy will act to resist any change that Bobby and his appointees seek to implement. There is a thread that has been discussed, I hear buzz about, from people that are more aligned with the bureaucracy that

Pharma and a lot of the bureaucracy deep staters are really happy with the second tier appointments that have come in under Bobby Bates.

Because they think that these are people that can be managed or manipulated, that don't have a lot of experience with the federal government and federal systems, how to get things done, or are aligned with pharma historically. And of course, that's the problem.

criticism of Cali means is that he used to be a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist. And so how can it be trusted? This is the classical dilemma. And of course I'm accused of the same things that. Yeah. There's always infighting with all this stuff, you know? Yeah. So, so I, I'm the guy that gets, I try to get along with everybody until proven innocent until proven guilty. Yeah. Well, good for you. So, so that's, that's what,

Bobby's walking into and from everything I hear, he is fully aware of the difficult terrain he's stepping into and the difficult challenge he's facing. But here's the thing about what you say in your own book, Cywar. At the end of the day, the cart before the horse. If we're focused on watching government lead us out of this morass, then we're showing our ass.

Because the cart is before the horse in that scenario. The culture and the media and the role you play on your website, the role I play, we're the horse, and we're going to pull...

Bobby and all these late, these lagging indicators along for the ride. That's how it's going to happen. Okay. Cause this is a Republic, not an authoritarian, you know, we got to reclaim our turf while we have it. I'm I'm I'm with you. And so I'm not heartbroken that I've been told now repeatedly that there won't be any place for me in the new administration. Yeah. I really didn't want to have to buy a condo in Rockville. Anyhow,

And, you know, they're not letting federal workers work from home anymore. So that couldn't help. That wouldn't have helped. That's true. Because I know your ideal scenario would be riding a horse, you know, and picking up the phone and saying, no, it's the seed oils. Get rid of it. Yeah. You're not far off. So, or zooming in to give that message. So that's, that's you know, that's the personal situation, but in terms of the broader issue, you know,

Another key thing to keep in mind is, as I mentioned, the focus is going to be on health promotion, not disease treatment. And the operational challenge here is how to reorganize a bureaucracy that is very siloed.

very focused and structured around diseases and has an internal consensus about the way things should be handled. And the pressing issue right now that is being heated, I think is the proper term, it is being intentionally heated in the media, is bird flu.

So example, we have Jerry Parker identified by CBS News consequent to two unnamed deep government sources as the new appointee to head the Office of Pandemic Preparedness within the White House. And I'm told that Jerry Parker is an excellent boss and manager, but Jerry Parker is a vet.

that his current position at Texas A&M is he's Associate Dean of One Health. The One Health initiative has been very much promoted by the AVMA, the Veterinary Medicine Association, and it puts animal health and environmental health on par with human health.

and the rights of animals to have healthy lives on par with the rights of humans to have healthy lives. And it kind of reorganizes that. It's been used to, for example, the storyline that COVID came from a zoonotic source, that SARS-CoV-2 jumped into humans from bats

was actively weaponized by the proponents of One Health to demonstrate and enforce the logic that we have to actively do surveillance

on pathogens in other species all over the world because that's the risk for crossover into humans and bird flu fits exactly into that narrative that we have you're saying these guys it's not enough for them to surveil all humans in the world they want to surveil all animals animals uh and

all other species, and this has a climate change component to it. And this is who Trump picked to be the head of the pandemic response, you're saying? Correct. Wow. So if you were talking to Elon... Jerry Parker is absolutely not on board with the vaccine, the genetic vaccines for COVID being anything other than safe and effective.

Now, if you were talking to Elon and his Doge team, what would you tell them to look at? Where would you tell them to, which rocks would you tell them to start looking under in the deep state of health around this pandemic response and everything? Where would you tell them to go look? So this relates to, you know, if you took the time to read that essay that I put out about culture and culture matters and the culture of HHS, basically deriving from

a certain elite group from the 60s. You know, these are, we are still living under the boomers. That's the truth. Donald Trump is a boomer. The boomers still control the government. They still control much of industry. They don't control the tech sector. And in the case of HHS, they have,

created a network of like-minded individuals that have similar perspectives that have come to dominate science and industry and the pharmaceutical sector and academia and government. So it's no surprise that you see these networks of affiliations that are often associated with

A disease area or a therapeutic area. It's natural. This occurs in industry too. You have among senior executives in industry, you have networks of people that are basically the cool kids club that all are associated with that industry and the way they think.

becomes the dominant metaphor in that industry. The difference is that in government, there's no correction, there's no free market correction activity. So for instance, if all the executives that form the leadership for the big three in Detroit all decide that the American people in the world need this kind of car,

at this size and weight factor and driven by choose your technology, whether it's electric power and batteries or it's the combustion engine. And the market shifts

Those executives lose their jobs. Those companies decrease in power in Toyota and Kia and Hyundai and the Chinese, the new Chinese electric vehicle companies come in or what's happening in Germany right now. The automobile industry is a great example where they had this core competence around combustion engines. And for political reasons, they shifted more into green energy.

And then the Chinese are just eating their lunch because the Chinese can produce EVs at a lot lower cost because they own the lithium and they own the batteries, which is the essential cost factor in that. So there's always in industry, there's this market correction that happens. In government, that doesn't exist. Government just goes on and there's never any impetus for change.

And so these networks, affiliation networks, power networks that get structured like they do in any industry are able to persist. They never get challenged. They never get checked by any external force like Mr. Market. So what Doge has an opportunity to do with this algorithmic and you know, I wrote another piece that I put out Sunday afternoon.

in which I referenced three excellent video clips having to do with the Doge initiative and how it's working. And a lot of people found that really helpful to kind of make sense of what's going on. But basically, we appear to have the implementation of something akin to web crawler technology deployed within the government

with enabled to cut through firewalls, whether it's because it's got password access or whatever, that is crawling through, in the case of Treasury, the federal budget, and is tracking and identifying relationships, network relationships, ties, and previously concealed payouts, allocations.

And apparently Treasury has had a history of certain key payments not being logged into various otherwise accessible databases. And so those transactions are hidden. Of course, we know about the black budget associated with the intelligence community, but apparently it's much larger than that. And so Doge has been able to basically deploy

this kind of bot-like capability to move through all of the listings algorithmically within treasury for the various accounts and distributions and to basically do a algorithmic audit and not only do an audit, but also to identify

related financial transactions, so networks of financial transactions. The same thing needs to be done within HHS because there absolutely are affiliate networks. And I've observed some of those, you know, just through the random walk of my life in academia and in grants and contracts and over on the DOD side and sitting on study sections. These networks of relationships exist.

And they are structured in a way, you know, Tony, I mentioned in the yellow beret piece, uh, Tony Fauci. Fauci is one notable example of many of very powerful high-level senior scientists that have created mafia-like organizations that, uh, have, uh,

essentially almost genetic lineages. The guy that just won the Nobel Prize for the development of the RNA vaccines was a Tony Fauci postdoc. So there's these lineages. There was some famous lineages at the Salk Institute where I was there, where you can trace back four Nobel Prizes. This person mentored, that person mentored, that person mentored, that person. That's how big science gets done.

It's how things are structured. And so within those networks, there's both networks of information having to do with peer review process and papers, manuscripts, publications, et cetera, that are exploited for data mining, information mining, but also to enable people

this person to get their paper published or published sooner than that person. And this is the kind of stuff that academics fight over. And it all relates to power and academic advancement. But that's why you have to have a why, a big picture guy. That's why I'm glad I connected Ron Paul to Elon. I don't know what's going to happen fully with that. Although it's less this past week, all the rumblings and Elon and Charlie Kirk and Senator Mike Lee saying he should, uh,

head up the audit of the Federal Reserve for the Doge project. Yeah, that was fascinating. And, you know, that was three days that came out three days after I did my latest piece at the American Conservative, where I called for a bigger role for Ron Paul at Doge. But Ron brings with a philosophy of why, which is, does government have the right to use imposed coercion and violence ultimately for this matter?

And if you cannot morally answer that question, then the whole thing needs to be stopped. And so, you know, chasing the endless spider web of human depravity and cliques is just a house of mirrors, endless...

whack-a-mole unless you have an executive at the top like trump or kennedy buying into somewhat of a ron paul message of government does not have a right to get itself in this position it must stop at the top you know right and that philosophical i'm i'm 110 with you and what we're talking about is fundamentally the logic of anarcho-capitalism and robert

which is kind of the root from whence Rand Paul's thinking springs in me. And Ron, yeah. I said Rand. I apologize. I meant Ron. That was a mistake on my part. They're very different. So the same, you know, no surprise, the same type of networking exists within HHS. But unlike an industry where it also exists,

You don't have any structural check mechanism on the growth of government and the growth of these networks, as you say, unless it comes down from the executive. And that requires that you have an executive that is sufficiently sophisticated and aware to understand

have the sense that these things exist. They're not right. As you say that, that has somebody who brings in a philosophical framework that this is what is right and proper for government. And these are things that are not proper for government. And what, you know, it's not this, this relationship between pharma, for instance, in NIH is two way street. The, the,

The siloing of NIH into disease sectors mirrors the siloing of the pharmaceutical industry into disease.

And that's how most pharma is structured. It is structured around this is our swim lane and we have a division for pulmonary health, a division for infectious disease, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay. And so it's medicine is structured that way now. Pharma is structured that way. Academia is structured that way. And NIH is structured that way. The whole thing gets gravitationally warped.

by the impetus of this coercion and this mafia-like imposition of violence. And that distorts the money, it distorts the information, the science, the reward incentives, the protection of the game. It kills innovation. It absolutely kills innovation. And you can measure that within NIH, for example, by tracking the very simple metric

How old are people when they get their first major NIH grant or segregate size of amount of funding at any one time based on seniority? And what you see is that the money over time has shifted to seniority.

larger and larger laboratories run by older and older functionally senior executives, principal investigators. And this, so who cares? Maybe that's a good thing, right? Because they're more experienced. Well, the history of innovation in science is that most of the, you know, in physics, if you're considered pretty well past your prime when you're 30, right?

The case can be made is the same is true in many of the sciences, particularly the harder sciences, that the innovation is not coming from these older senior scientists that are well endowed in a financial sense and an academic sense. It's coming from

what are functionally indentured servants of postdocs and graduate students that fill the laboratories of these people? Those are the ones that are generating the ideas and coming up with the innovations. And what, you know, there's a saying in many sectors of government, and really it applies, I think, across the board in a lot of American corporate life, but it particularly happens in HHS,

Change happens one retirement at a time. But what you get in government is people work up the chain in the government service classification to a senior position, at which point they have a lot of power and a lot of people reporting to them.

and they have certain ideas about the way things need to be handled and the nature of the world and what their job entails and how it should be, these policies should be implemented. So they come up, they develop over time their own biases. And then when they get into these senior positions, they are really resistant to change.

They know how things are, the way things should be. They can cite all kinds of reasons why things go wrong if you don't do it their way. And they dig in. They get entrenched. And you can't blast them out. And they will exist at choke points.

And so you think that you're going to be able to get some new change implemented or some new policy, et cetera. But you can't do it until basically you get these people to retire out, which is, you know, and these people are entrenched now in the form of the senior executive service that was really put on steroids during Obama. It goes back to Obama.

It's kind of akin to Supreme Court packing. He basically radically enlarged the size of the senior executive service and then staffed those new positions with DEI hires. And these are people that can't be fired. So you saw that the person, I think, that was such an obstacle in Treasury was an Obama appointee. That's kind of typical. That's what Bobby's going to encounter.

But if we have a reassertion of the, you know, and this is a complicated matter, but, you know, a lot of these agencies have no constitutional basis to exist. I mean, there's no, the founders would be ashamed of us for putting up with the food and drug administration. Amen. So I, and particularly notably, the CDC was never congressionally chartered.

So the CDC, like USAID, is hanging it out in the wind right now. And there's all kinds of racket about how important the CDC is because I think a lot of people know, the insiders know, CDC is vulnerable to just carte blanche being deleted, you know, a fortnight.

like Javier Millie, toss it. I would say if the president of the United States can determine through a proper investigation that our country is under attack by a coordinated foreign-supported conspiracy to sabotage and destroy the health and safety of the American people, then he is within his right to declare an emergency and shut these foreign agents down.

He has that right to protect. Well, he has. So that's it. So what you're touching on is a sensitive, but central issue and let's broaden it out. We are now running into this, uh, judicial intransigence weapon. It's more, it's more weaponization of the judiciary. Like, you know, the, what's been happening to Donald Trump now nonstop and everybody around him for the last four years. Uh, and so, uh,

The Democrats are going to the judiciary to try to stop these efforts at reform and downsizing the government. And as Marjorie Taylor Greene pointed out the other day in the Doge hearings, it is amazing to watch because they are basically arguing against increasing efficiency and eliminating bureaucratic waste in the government.

I don't see how that becomes a winning proposition in the midterm. But they're functionally doing that in large part by weaponizing the judiciary. Meanwhile, they are screaming to the rafters that Trump is a fascist totalitarian dictator in waiting, right? That's the narrative. And

Yet what they're doing is they are paradoxically, you know, for Democrats, they're trying to shrink the power of the executive. That's what that's what all these things are doing. They're trying to say, no, executive branch leadership, you do not have the right to control the administrative state. That is the subtext. OK. And yet we are facing a crisis.

a tipping point a uh um a nexus a uh event horizon having to do with federal debt so if you just step away from it for a moment and i wish i could help the public understand this i wish i could help the democrats understand this um we kind of are out of options we will either cut the size of the federal government or the federal government will go broke and if they go broke

the consequences of that the ripple effect through the global economy and through the american economy will be profound the disruption will be like way worse than any disruption that's associated with elon musk using his bots to ferret out corruption and double billing right um but they are basically building a logic

that Donald Trump has no right, Donald Trump and his associates in the case of Milan, he has no right to make radical adjustments in the federal budget. And so he now is faced with a problem that we're going to have a catastrophic financial event, which absolutely I guarantee he does not want to have on his watch. You know, that's his whole thing. He's the art of the deal. He can make the finances work.

If he has a core competency, it's that it's not artificial intelligence or mRNA vaccines. And so they're putting him in a box where his only option will be to declare a financial emergency. It is a enormous threat.

to American interests, national defense, et cetera, the budget deficit and the potential consequences. So if they don't allow Doge to do things in a way that is at least based on logic and data,

And they block the ability of Trump to act to bring the federal debt into control and hopefully move towards a not only a balanced budget, but eliminating the federal debt like Jackson did, the only president ever to eliminate the federal debt. Then they will force him into a position where he has no other option other than to declare a state of emergency.

and become exactly the thing that they say he is, which is functionally Caesar. I mean, they are forcing him into a position where he has to become Caesar. If America is to survive as the United States is to survive as an independent nation state. But if, you know, he's sworn to protect the Republic from enemies foreign and domestic. And if there is, if you can identify a coordinated relationship

of hostile actors using and gamifying the rogue administrative state to actively sabotage the American people, cripple them from being able to own a home. Then he has an obligation to act. That's right. He has an obligation to act. And the mechanism of how he can act if he is constrained by the judiciary is going to be to become much more...

authoritarian and unilateral in his actions. He's going to have to go down the state of emergency plan. But if he has, if he has a balance and this is just this wild card, if he has a balance, because he is doing libertarian type things. If you use decisive executive action in the name of liberty, then,

and you are morally guided along that path by voices like Ron Paul or others that can kind of, I mean, to whatever degree that can penetrate the decision-making process,

it makes you wonder what really is the right choice. You know what I mean? Like there, there are, I, so I'm so with you, David. Um, this is a damned if you do and damned if you don't. Bob Murphy, the economist, the Austrian economist with the Mises Institute, he made a point, uh, where he said, you know, people are getting mad at these kinds of executive actions. Oh, you don't have the right to touch this agency. But he said, you know, if the president discovers criminal fraud, uh,

Does he not have a moral duty under his oath of office to make sure that he's- Exactly. And so they're arguing that he should not be given the opportunity to have that discovery. Yeah. That's the essence of the argument. And it's clearly not sustainable. Remember, the same strategies and tactics occurred in opposition to Javier Millet down in Argentina.

And he was able to overcome them, but it takes time. And that's part of what's going on here is a game to try to kick the can down the field yet again until the midterms, where the Democrats hope that they can have some change in the Congress. And then they aren't going to have to have the programs that have been their pet cash cows.

challenged and examined. I've read pieces and there's chatter on the internet that we are approaching a constitutional crisis. Those are big words. But if you step back and look at the trends that are going on right now, I don't see how you can square the circle on what's going on at this point in time.

And it's it's so, you know, getting back to Bobby and HHS in the scope of of Maha and making America healthy by changing its diet and trying to get on top of USDA corruption. And it's how we have any way. How we have any stroke with USDA when that's Brooke Rawlins. That that's I think that's a bit of a wash, isn't it? But that was the original thesis. Remember what what Trump offered?

initially to Bobby was a czar position that would include FDA, CDC, NIH, and USDA reforms. And Bobby basically said, no, I don't want a czar position. I want to go for the big kahuna, HHS, what's the second largest department, right? I want the big one.

uh, because I brought all these, you know, essentially it's, it's a quid, you know, it's quid pro quo. I brought all these voters to you. I pushed you over the edge and now it's my turn. It's, it's Bobby's position is kind of that of a, uh, minority party in, uh,

a European multi-party state that forms a coalition and then demands certain concessions as a consequence. That's basically where Maha is right now. But what about the USDA? With Brooke Rollins and the things she's signaling, it doesn't seem to indicate anything about Joel Saladin doing regenerative agriculture at the USDA. No, no. That's a lost cause, I guess, at this time.

I there's so this gets back to the thesis that Bobby is already ring fenced in a lot of ways and that this second tier appointments and some of the others, like, for instance, Surgeon General are are not aligned with his agenda and the Maha agenda.

And that was he involved in picking those picks under the HHS or was that I'm ignorant. I mean, you know, I've not been down to Mar-a-Lago. I'm not in the inner circle. I don't know how all of that. I was told that the surgeon general pick was a quid pro quo with a senator who wanted her in there. But that's you know, I don't know what the get was for that deal.

Maybe it was a vote on Bobby's confirmation. I speculate, but I have no idea. But it seems like it's going to be business as usual at the USDA. There's nothing going to happen there. Concur. I completely concur. Soil's still going to be... So Big Ag won that round. Yeah. And there's a school of thought that Big Pharma won the round with Bobby's chief of staff. That's one of the narratives going around. Who's his chief of staff?

I don't remember her name, but that's one version of that narrative. We'll see. You know, people rise above. Jerry Parker may rise above One Health and his historic positions on the genetic vaccines. I have no idea. Time will tell. But all we can do right now is look from the sidelines and say, well, what has the track record been?

And what we don't see coming in for the most part are people who have been free thinkers, let's say. We're not looking at, we're looking, you know, I've mentioned culture. So for the most part, we're looking at people who are a part of the academic industrial government, you know,

You know, Ron Paul would be a notable example. Otherwise, Elon Musk certainly has government contracting experience, but he's he's kind of above and beyond all of that, in part consequent to his being so wealthy that I think the phrase is a few money. He can take risk like he took risks with Twitter and sustain the backlash of

that has come at him. And so that's given him a certain gravitas and, and ability and willingness to take on big battles that most of these folks, I just, I don't see signs that they're going to be able to really push through major change. Wow. Well, yeah, it's, it's not surprising to me. I have sub-zero expectations from anything from the government, but it goes back to what I'm trying to,

get at here is that I use politics for its cultural power. You know, most of our neighbors are not Ron Paul. They still really admire whatever the government says. And when someone like a Kennedy who's going to be in charge of the HHS, if he continues to say the right things like tallow is healthier than vegetable oils, there is a cultural power

A benefit, right? An advantage and momentum. So you're kind of speaking to the bully pulpit. Right. And there's a lot of merit to that. And I think that's that the bully pulpit is Bobby's core. One of his core competencies. Another one is the he clearly has a spine.

He is willing to take on large vested interests and has done so pretty much his entire professional life as an attorney, whether it's the Monsanto Roundup case or water keepers and fisheries or children's health defense and questioning the narrative about safe and effective vaccines, childhood vaccines and the childhood vaccine schedule.

He's been willing to take on those hard hot topics and he's been effective in generating public support. To just take a note from Ron Johnson's playbook, people have come to Ron and said basically, Ron, you need to introduce this new legislation. Yeah.

about whatever, you know, Operation Warp Speed or whatever the thing is. And hopefully not, I'm paraphrasing Ron in a way that he would agree with. What I've heard him say repeatedly is legislation cannot precede public sentiment. Legislation has to follow public sentiment. In other words, legislation has to follow culture.

Culture has to be the leader in change and legislation has to follow the culture. And so what you need to do is to have hearings, document disclosures, leaders that are able to shift public sentiment. And then you can capitalize on that for legislative change, which is what we really need because executive orders will only last as long as we have this executive order.

And I think that, you know, the weakest link in all of this is the Congress, you know, the House. Absolutely. That's the weakest link. Yeah, there's no question about it. And not to borrow trouble from the future or to be self-defeating, but the reality is we have to look at the midterm as a significant risk.

And it may well be that whatever change is going to be possible under a second Trump term is going to be limited to between now and the next congressional election. No. But again, I want to keep emphasizing this because that's, I don't, I don't, if we're Americans in the proper sense of it, we don't look to government to dictate things.

You know, these things happen. You and I don't. You and I are aligned on that. But this, again, gets back to culture. We have developed a series of generations that believe that the government's role is to mitigate their risk, to ensure safety,

their own personal financial stability. These are people, I mean, it's like finding hen's teeth to find a young person that is interested in being entrepreneurial.

The other day, Jill put out a tweet under my name to the effect that, well, you know, what we can do is encourage all these government employees that are going to be laid off or take these early get out packages, encourage them to become small business people and become entrepreneurial. But I guarantee from everything I've ever seen,

It's almost like you're either born or something happens in your early development to give rise to somebody being entrepreneurial. And often it's the experience of having had to work for wages at a young age. And those people see the world entirely differently. Most folks now see the government as a guarantor

of stability, of a certain lifestyle, of a certain income, a certain level of health care. At the same time, the youth vote is the highest support for Trump right now, and it's doge impacted. Well said, and also thank you, Charlie Kirk.

for your role in that and Turning Point USA. But it's the same story, by the way, in Europe. Just a few weeks ago, I came back from Brussels and testifying in the European Parliament for the second Make Europe Great Again conference. And the European populist movements that are being very aggressively resisted by the establishment in Europe

are fueled by the enthusiasm of youth, uh, notably in particular, the Alliance for Deutschland in Germany, uh, which is, uh, really surging right now and is essentially, uh, very actively delegitimized. Uh, they've threatened jail time, uh, for, uh, AFD people. Uh, they've tried to block their ability to raise funds, all the dirty tricks and more that we've seen deployed against Trump and the, um,

Make America Great Again movement is being deployed in Europe against the European populace. And now, of course, we've learned that a lot of that has been fueled by USAID money. Mm-hmm.

And I want to give a caution to a lot of the online right to say, well, let's take these USAID things and let's repurpose them for our values. And I'm like, no, that's the wrong lesson. The 21st century is going to eliminate this type of hive mind, old school, top down Soviet rip off mentality. It's going to eviscerate it. You know, the future...

The future, however hard it takes to get there, however rubble and nuclear waste we have to get through, the future will be more decentralized than what we have today. From your lips to God's ears, Dave. I tell you what, think about this. And I know this sounds maybe pie in the sky, but just imagine if like 70 million people in the podcast sphere found out that there really was a demonstrable solution for metastatic cancer.

That was so in the books, rock solid, provable by repeated science outside of the rarefied halls of corrupt government science over and over and over again, repeatably demonstrated by

rock solid, not needing a patent to take it. These are natural things. If 70 million people become very, very accustomed to that information, who gives a damn about the FDA or any of these motherfuckers? I mean, at some point, these people are going to be eliminated like the dinosaurs in

in history. They're just not relevant at some point, at some point, you just move on, you know? Yeah. Yeah. So if you have public sentiment that gets back to Ron Johnson's point, that, that is essentially, and, and the, the, the brilliance of, of this simple statement, you now are the media. And by the way, with that comes responsibility guys. But again,

I'm referring to Elon Musk's rebel cry. But we, I think that is our main task right now is to wake up America and to make the case that this logic that we've all been spoon fed through our schools is

that is fundamentally socialist and fundamentally Marxist. I mean, it is woven into our society when you start

to pull at the threads, it's everywhere. It's like the water you drink and the air you breathe. It is just everywhere. And everybody takes it for granted as these are fundamental truths. Yeah, like even the conservatives' love affair with Pledge of Allegiance, they don't understand that was given to them by a socialist, you know, to get them to be more collectivist. Francis Bellamy wrote the American Pledge of Allegiance and

To this day, conservatives are very quick to, I pledge allegiance. I didn't know that, David. So you're a fountain of knowledge. Francis Bellamy wrote it, and he wanted it to be a way. It was written, he developed it in the 50s, and it was a way to try to get America to be more collectivist like the Soviets. So well done. Good job. Yeah. So in my mind, this comes back to the tension between

between innovation and utilitarianism. The logic of utilitarianism and Malthusianism, or the neo-Malthusianism of the tragedy of the commons, the idea that we must have some sort of superstructure to mediate the weaknesses of humans. And basically, this is what underpins transhumanism.

That whole basket of philosophy is intrinsically anti-humanist. And looping it back, this is where the One Health Initiative comes from. That's that logic. That's what we're dealing with. And it's deeply entrenched. And all of these philosophies

get weaponized by people with just a ton of different agendas that are often non-transparent. But when you go to a decentralized solution, then it becomes a lot harder because it's not centralized to weaponize things. It's a lot harder for very large interests to capture so long as they don't control information.

Because people have a tendency to make their own autonomous decisions. I argue in health care, David, this is radical. You ready? I argue against public health. I think that the public health enterprise is intrinsically important.

Utilitarian, the, you know, maximize the greatest good for the greatest number. That is where public health comes from. And furthermore, it's socialist because it is all driven towards generating a

kind of an average outcome. It's focused on outcomes. And I'm sure it wasn't, there may be somebody in the history of public health that was a communist or socialist and thought about public health in this way. But things can happen organically. They don't necessarily have to be

manipulated by some nefarious Klaus Schwab actor in the background, you know, behind the screen. But the logic of equality of health care outcomes is intrinsically socialist. And that is where we're at, as opposed to having equality of health care opportunities. I argue that our responsibility should be making information available to people.

so that they can make informed decisions. And if they elect to smoke tobacco in their own environments and eat seed oils and live off of Coke and McDonald's, you know. You're talking about Donald Trump, a little too on the nose there. Yeah, yeah. Except for the tobacco. If that's how they choose to live, then that's their right to live that way.

We shouldn't be implementing forces on top of them. But as soon as you walk down that path, then the idea of socialized medicine falls apart because under socialized medicine, we all bear the burden for everybody else's decisions. And so then we have the right to walk in and tell you how to live your life and what to eat and what to smoke or not smoke, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. If we're really going to commit to a decentralized libertarian philosophy,

It has to be one in the context of healthcare.

that provides quality of opportunity and does not drive as one of its key endpoints towards quality of outcomes. Right, but I want to show you how the innovation factor is going to give you just that because right now, I'm going to take the big daddy cancer one. That's the big scary one. Everybody's afraid to say it and all that. I don't care. But you get all these expensive things

You know, chemo, radiation, surgery, these are things you cannot pay for with cash. You have to have insurance or government. One of those two have to help you. Furthermore, you've built an infrastructure of the anointed priesthood, we call them oncologists, that have a vested financial interest in that system. And so they won't even tolerate a patient, just like the pediatrician that will...

reject their pediatric patient because they won't take the jabs. They won't take the schedule. That's common now. You get fired if little Joey isn't up on his vaccine schedule because the pediatrician is getting a financial incentive to have a certain fraction of all the children in their practice fully vaccinated. And if they don't meet that basically deliverable requirement,

of having that, meeting that requirement, that fraction of their pediatric population fully jabbed, then they don't get their portion, right? And the same happens with oncologists. Yeah. And I think what we have to do culturally, this is just my theory, is when you've got a schoolyard full of bullies and bully enablers,

You've got to take out the biggest bully on the yard, right? Or if it's a prison yard, whichever metaphor you want to use.

You go right up to the biggest bully and you punch it right in the face. The biggest bully, in my opinion, for everybody is cancer industry. It's this big, scary, rarefied, like you said, the health space, the high priest. Right. And so if you go right behind cancer is infectious disease. Right. And if you go right up to that biggest bully and you knock them out with a Steve Jobs or a Nikola Tesla style innovative disruption in the market that says, Hey, actually it's 50 bucks and this treatment works.

and you demonstrate it, and you get past the threshold of all the snake oil, because we know...

There's been a hundred years of snake oil claims about it, but that's the nature of a monopoly is that when you have a distorted government monopoly about what is science in a particular field, it sucks up all the oxygen. And then what's left is all this kind of free for all chaos where there's fraudsters and legitimate people all mixed in. So whoever comes out of that gauntlet, it's like a gladiator movie. Whoever gets out of that gauntlet to take on the king, the emperor, uh,

and knock them out in front of the public, it's going to be a game shift. It's going to be a paradigm shift for all the other specialist fields of knowledge because they're going to say, dear God, if we were held back for 100 years in the dark ages for cancer, then de facto, we know every last one of those other paradigms that they've been telling us, do not touch. We've got it. It's always going to be a new patented drug. The whole house of cards collapses. It starts to culturally just become a revolution. Yeah.

I think that's what's going to happen. So I if I will be glad to write a million sub stacks in support of that, if we get to that point. And, you know, I was just with Paul. I'm I'm blanking Paul Merrick at Conservative Partnership Institute and down in Orlando last weekend.

Paul has written a lengthy book on alternative cancer treatments. Yeah. And he is with you that he doesn't think as remember, Paul Merrick is, I think, the historically the most highly published intensive care specialist in the world.

And he has been totally delegitimized because he supported the use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine in early treatment for COVID. But before that, he had developed another radical treatment that shook the world, the medical world, and still isn't really being widely implemented. Another one of the big 800-pound gorillas in medicine is sepsis. Mm-hmm.

And Paul came up with high dose IV therapy of vitamin C for sepsis. And it works. It can bring, you know, it can revive the dead practically. And he was vilified for it. And it's still not widely accepted, but it works. And now he's taken his disillusionment with corporate and academic medicine

And, uh, use that to fuel a deep dive into alternative treatments for cancer. So it's a book to look for. Amazon actually, uh, censored the book and wouldn't sell it anymore. And, uh, there was such an outcry that, uh, Amazon put it back on again, but, you know, so again, reinforcing your, your thesis, uh,

I, you know, again, from your lips to God's ears, David, I hope that this might happen and it could happen in a number of different sectors. And the history of medicine has been one in which you have these heretics like Paul, perhaps like myself, like the physician who insisted that you should wash your hands between the autopsy and delivering babies.

Right. And, and he ended up penniless, broke, uh, and did he commit suicide? He, he, he died in a horrible way. Um, you still got your horses, so you're okay. Yeah, that's right. Uh, I still got a sub stack. Um, but, uh,

Um, he was right. Uh, and he was vindicated, but that vindication came, uh, like a generation or two after his death. Uh, and that, that has, I used to collect David. I used to collect old medical textbooks and you might say, why would you do that? They're all outdated. Um, in particular, I had one about treating tuberculosis that I loved. It was published in like the twenties or the thirties. Uh,

And when you read those old medical books, they use the same language. They are just as adamant about the effectiveness of the treatments that they are promoting. They were just as adamant about the treatment of literally blowing tobacco smoke up your rectum.

That was a real treatment. That was how you treated people who had suffered drowning. Is that where they got that saying? You're blowing smoke up your... My ass. That is exactly where it comes from. That was considered a bona fide treatment. And there was a whole special apparatus for how you would insert this funnel into the appropriate orifice and...

Put the tobacco smoke up. Okay. And that was the medical bar gone bad, you know? Yeah. Right.

And medicine is full of these stories of treatments that were, well, another one, the Nobel Prize for ice pick frontal lobotomies. Right. That was that was accepted science. That was the cutting edge of science. There's just this long history of bullshit.

that gets accepted by the medical establishment and becomes reinforced to the point where there is no oxygen for any dissenters at all. And anybody who dissents against those heresies are with heresies are drummed out of the profession, just like they are busy trying to take Ryan Cole's license right now in multiple states.

That is the medical culture and has been. It is a guild. All of these things function like guilds. And the Oncology Treatment Guild...

is incredibly powerful, incredibly well capitalized. And that's what you're talking about. But again, these guilds depended on the monopoly and cartelization of information distribution. Precisely. And they've lost that. And so the writing's on the wall of their demise because...

As long as you can have Theo Vaughn and Rogan and your work and my stuff and all these people, thousands and thousands of podcasts. If you've got a thousand podcasts that are small or medium-sized distributing information about a breakthrough solution that's not in the cartel's hands,

You've surpassed and bypassed the whole dying NBC, CBS, CNN, and all that. You've bypassed it. But that death is not going to be like the Hindenburg. It's going to be slow? They are very entrenched. Well, that's what they're saying. Greater love hath no man than he that lays down his life for his friends. That's what it takes to do true science sometimes in a world of barbarians. Yeah.

Thanks for your time, Dr. Malone. I always appreciate you. And please go to malone.news to check out his thoughts further and check out his book, Psywar. It's always great having you on. Thank you. Thanks for the chat, David. That was a lot of fun. And I always enjoy exploring ideas based on them. ♪♪♪

Bye.