COVID-19 Smut Clyde

How Dr Robert Malone invented Antivaxxery

"People who feel deprived of the credit that they think they deserve will gravitate to new friends who do at least pretend to respect them sufficiently." -Smut Clyde

Robert Malone says he is the real inventor of mRNA vaccines and this is why you must trust him when he warns those vaccines are deadly. Instead, to protect yourself against COVID-19 you should take ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, fluvoxamine, Vitamin D and of course the hurt-burn drug famotidine. In a bucket, probably.

It’s not just antivaxxery of course, Dr Malone goes for the full deal of covidiocy and rejects everything, except of quack cures of course.

Here a conference Malone organised in Italy:

“The International Covid Summit in Rome took place in the Italian Senate and was hosted by Roberta Ferrero, an Italian senator. It concentrated on the question of early treatment protocols for COVID, some of which include Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. The conference opened with a video message from Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, whom Dr. Malone then called a hero who deserves the Nobel Prize for his heroic and effective way of saving the lives of many COVID-19 patients throughout this coronacrisis.”

So this is Smut Clyde‘s and mine contribution to the Nobel Prize week.

With Dr Malone eagerly going to bed with quacks, antivaxxers and far-right white supremacists (like Steve Bannon), it is a bit reminiscent of the paranoid conspiracy theorist and COVID-19-denialist Judy Mikovits, who by being a former virologist is the proper scientific authority whom these people will accept. Incidentally also an article by Smut Clyde!


Not just the narrator of a novel-length soliloquuy by Sam Beckett

By Smut Clyde

Vaccinations make COVID-19 infections worse, because ADE. No, really.

ADE, or ‘Antibody-dependent enhancement’, is the idea that vaccines or a previous infection with X results in the second infection with X becoming worse. This doesn’t happen with COVID-19. Malone doesn’t bother to explain what ADE is supposed to be, because his audience only want Worship Words and acronyms so they know it’s Science.

As CBS reported:

“One particularly damaging tweet that gained a massive response came from Robert Malone, an infectious-disease researcher and accused spreader of anti-vaccination misinformation who calls himself the “inventor” of mRNA vaccines despite evidence to the contrary.”

This Robert W. Malone – “a prolific social media poster who raises a rare breed of Portuguese horses on a farm in Virginia” – is the most recent addition to the antivaccine Pantheon of Leading World Authorities. His tweets churn through social media to become a leading vehicle for the dissemination of crappy Vaccines’R’Bad papers (before their inevitable retraction). He has been profiled in articles in Nature and The Atlantic. His antivax admirers hail him as the Inventor of mRNA Vaccines – a description which is backed by the authority of the website of one Robert W. Malone. Before June 2021, though, none of them had heard of him.

In fact Malone himself only realised recently that he had invented mRNA vaccines. The assertion of intellectual parentage does not appear in a 2019 archived copy of his site.

It seems that this paternity claim only occurred to him when Katalin Karikó and her colleagues developed the BioNTech / Pfizer mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 and licensed the same methods to Moderna, confounding the skeptics (including myself [and myself, I must admit!- LS]) who’d doubted that this new technology – previously only applied to cattle – would work against a respiratory virus.

The Atlantic article documents Malone’s harassment of Karikó.

“Karikó shared with me an email that Malone sent her in June, accusing her of feeding reporters bogus information and inflating her own accomplishments. “This is not going to end well,” Malone’s message says.”

One’s first impulse is to check what Wikipedia has to say on the matter, but the otherwise-pristine waters of that fount of knowledge are muddied by the inevitable Drama. Notably, Malone sockpuppet ‘Glasspool1‘ spent March and June 2021 rewriting the entries on ‘DNA vaccine’, ‘mRNA vaccine’ and ‘RNA therapeutics’ to position Malone at the forefront of innovation. After Glasspool1 was blocked and her revisions were reverted, another sockpuppet ‘Asailum‘ sprang up in her place to denounce the persecution, to defend antivax misinformation, and to blame everything on AntiFa / BLM agitators Wikipedia’s left-wing bias. Both are evidently Dr. Jill Glasspool Malone, Robert’s wife and for already 20 years “President at RW Malone MD, LLC“.

‘Orac’ at Respectful Insolence ventured into the morass, to a depth that is exhaustive even by my standards. All that matters here is that the removal of Dr Glasspool’s spamming additions gave Malone the chance to seek out the company of sympathetic medscammers and wrap himself in the mantle of a persecuted victim of a Censorship Conspiracy, just like them.

When Malone’s name first popped up in the churning hybrid of Ouroboros and the Human Centipede that constitutes antivax discourse, I took myself to the journals and found the same references that everyone else finds. As a grad student, Malone had indeed joined a research team at the Salk Institute that had studied RNA expression / transcription, before falling out with his supervisor and moving to a start-up rather than wait around for a PhD. The Salk work produced a 1989 paper on RNA transfection with Malone as first author (“Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection”).

In biology authorship etiquette, that is the totem-pole position for the student who did the experiments, under the direction of the laboratory leader who assigned the topic and becomes the last author [incidentally, the then-Salk director Inder Verma, who claimed the prestigious last author’s position, was retired in shame in 2018 for his decade-long practice of sexual harassment and discrimination at Salk. In case of Malone’s, it’s likely the research was actually coordinated by the middle-author and vaccine developer Philip Felgner -LS]

Malone was also a minor author of a second paper from 1990, from Felgner’s Vical start-up (“Direct Gene Transfer into Mouse Muscle in Vivo”).

At one stage Malone and Glasspool worked on injecting DNA as a vaccine (to be absorbed by recipient cells, expressed as mRNA, and then transcribed as protein)… which is why he described himself in 2019 on his promotional website, with unusual modesty, as “one of the inventors of DNA vaccination”. I come here not to bury these accomplishments, but to praise them.

His name appeared next to Felgner and others as one inventor on Vical patents US-7250404-B2 and US6867195B1 (inter alia) on therapeutic applications of injectable mRNA, including its use as a vaccine: instructions for cells in the recipient’s body to assemble a protein, to elicit an immune response (rather than injecting the protein directly). In the absence of crucial details for implementing that concept (like stabilising the mRNA molecules and tailoring them to look less virus-like to one’s immune defenses), the patents held little value, and duly expired in 2006. No place for them in Nature‘s display of mRNA intellectual inter-dependence!

ArbutusModernaArcturus? These are typefaces, not drug companies! (Image source: Nature)

However, Malone did not linger at Vical, leaving later in 1989, ‘citing disagreements with Felgner over “scientific judgment” and “credit for my intellectual contributions”.’ He subsequently alternated between Academia and a career in the pharmaceutical industry. This is an important CV adornment if one is to be lionised by Pharma skeptics, as an insider-turned-apostate is more credible than someone who’d been on the right side all along. Everyone loves a Road-to-Damascus Conversion story, though personally I regard it as the least of the Crosby / Hope / Lamour movies.

More accurately, a succession of Big Pharma careers, driven by disagreements from one difficult working environment to another. Tom Bartlett remarks at The Atlantic:

“The portrait [colleagues] paint of Malone is of an insightful researcher who can be headstrong. They related accounts of him, pre-pandemic, getting booted from projects because he was hard to communicate with and unwilling to compromise.”

Catherine Offort at The Scientist:

“As former chief medical officer of Alchem Laboratories Corporation, Malone has previously been involved in work on famotidine: in April 2020, Alchem and its subcontractor Northwell Health were awarded a $20.7-million government contract to test the drug in combination with hydroxychloroquine in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19, the Associated Press reported last summer.
Malone left that study and resigned from Alchem shortly after the contract was awarded, citing a difficult working environment, he told the AP and confirms in an email to The Scientist.”

It never seemed to occur to him that there might be a single common element in all these difficult environments.

The famotidine contract is a story in itself. “There were no published data or studies to suggest that famotidine, the active ingredient in Pepcid, would be effective against the novel coronavirus“, but it inspired another priority battle: Malone and a Dr Callaghan both claimed credit for the brain-fart of using it to treat COVID. Before he walked away from the study in protest at his lack of recognition, Malone believed strongly enough in famotidine to take it himself to cure his own infection (to strengthen his immunity, he also accepted a dose of Moderna vaccine, which he now blames for his lingering post-COVID malaise). The insouciant, pervasive corruption of the Trump administration made it easy to throw $21-million down a rat-hole in the hope of a miracle occurring that would obscure the incompetence of the president’s decisions.

This combination of corruption and faith provides a convenient segue to the other aspect of Malone’s current popularity: his role in the Rise of Ivermectin (IVM). Leonid covered this topic already and it rarked so many first-time commenters into a spittle-flecked rage that I should briefly touch on it again.

It isn’t clear why the quest for an existing, pre-licensed drug with serendipitous antiviral powers moved on from the Hydroxychloroquine fiasco, then famotidine, and came to settle on IVM (which kills ticks and nematode worms) as a cure for COVID-19. At least in the HCQ farrago, there were anecdotal reports from China to give it some credibility… patients who take HCQ for Lupus seemed to become less susceptible to COVID.

Now, of course, the $$-million griefers have emerged from the woodwork: the “Frontline Doctor” fraudsters, devoting what time they can spare from the inflation of their credentials to discourage vaccination and to pimp their on-line IVM prescription / sale services. The IVM-advocacy anti-mask ‘BIRD Group’ behind the meta-analysis by Bryant et al. (2021) are smaller in scale, but they’re crowd-sourcing funds to establish a “Ivermectin Buyers’ Club”. Also the disinformation grifter sites like “ivmmeta.com” and “c19ivermectin.com” from the same anonymised network that previously pumped HCQ for equally dubious, bad-faith reasons. But before all that happened, why IVM in particular?

One could speculate about the sway that is exerted on the Chiliast imagination by parasites. The Millennialist mindset is dominated by the promise of perfect health when the New Paradise dawns, both physically and in terms of the Body Politic, and the only obstacle to the arrival of the Eschaton is the presence of parasites in our midst. Eradicate enough of them – by summary execution in the case of counter-revolutionary saboteurs, intellectuals, rootless cosmopolitans or Deep-State Elites, or by IVM and bleach enemas in the corporeal case – and we will finally enter Utopia. Norman Cohn’s historical survey is always worth reading.

But I digress. A few large, early studies reported very positive outcomes from IVM: Niaee et al (2020), Carvallo et al (2020), Elgazza et al (2020), Patel & Desai (2020), Cadegiani et al (2021). These were widely read (not only by emotionally-invested enthusiasts like Pierre Kory and his FLCCC), and included in meta-analyses, which were thereby swayed towards favouring the drug. Prior to Kyle Sheldrick and Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, no-one looked closely enough to see the red flags of fraud and completely made-up data. So there is no shame in initially sharing that enthusiasm. Why the authors of those early studies were so confident that less-fabricated research would support them, so they could safely fake data without fear of any close inspection, remains a mystery.

Catherine Offort at The Scientist picks up the story here. Readers will be familiar with Special Issues as a “multilevel marketing” aspect of the Frontiers business model. Malone approached Frontiers with the suggestion of a Special Issue on drug-repurposing approaches to COVID-19 (therapeutic serendipity does happen but it is not a reliable avenue to pharmaceutical success). Primarily he had papers in mind that would vindicate his wisdom in promoting famotidine. For balance he invited Kory to contribute a piece of IVM advocacy.

Purged by Frontiers (here backup)

Readers should also be familiar with the Frontiers policy of wishing regrettable papers into the cornfield, with no explanation, nor acknowledgement that they’d ever existed. In fact they dissolve entire Research Topics with the same Orwellian erasure of the past. That damnatio memoriae happened here. Less sympathetic readers of Kory’s contribution saw all the cherry-picking and judged it to be a display of orchardry more than of impartial scholarship. The authors withdrew it, to find a friendlier home elsewhere (though not in a horticulture journal). Meanwhile the Frontiers management rejected one of Malone’s own papers, so he and his co-editors – belatedly realising that the publisher is yet another hostile work environment – disbanded the Special Issue by resigning. [Poor Frontiers. The serious scientists left, and now the unserious ones are leaving also. -LS]

Don’t worry about Malone’s rejected paper: versions are available at the preprint servers ResearchSquare and SSRN, looking for a good home. While according to his Editorial for a forthcoming issue of Digestive Diseases and Sciences, famotidine has already “gained informal acceptance worldwide due to anecdotal positive clinical responses and practicing physician referrals“. Well done Springer! This must be the ‘cancel culture’ we hear about!

Kory subsequently abandoned any pretence that large-scale data support the prescription of ivermectin. Now he ridicules the notion of relying on mere studies for treatment guidance, appealing instead to Clinical Judgement, anecdotes and Personal Testimonials as the highest grade of evidence. But this is the point where he leaves the story.

Meanwhile Malone is accepting and promulgating more and more outlandish beliefs, for he has slipped the surly bonds of consensus reality. Spike proteins as toxic? Accumulation in ovaries? Conspiracies? Why not?

Screenshot from deleted YouTube video with Robert Malone, Bret Weinstein and Steve Kirsch (left to right). [Multimillionaire Kirsch now promotes fluvoxamine as COVID-19 cure and invited me to debate Kory on YouTube, -LS]

It is tempting to think that Malone went over to the Dark Side for money, but he’s not selling anything AFAIK, nor crowd-sourcing donations to support spurious law-suits.

One thing I learned in a previous career is that although money, and blackmail, and ideology can all cause someone to betray their oaths to county and turn into an intelligence asset for the other side, a major risk factor is thwarted self-esteem: resentment at a perceived lack of recognition. People who feel deprived of the credit that they think they deserve will gravitate to new friends who do at least pretend to respect them sufficiently. The recruitment of HUMINT assets is all about playing on this resentment. Don’t elect a fragile narcissist to a position with access to state secrets or policy, is my passing advice to US voters.

Malone has been embraced by the far right as a result of his contrarian posture (while Kory and the FLCCC are snuggling up to sites like “Gateway Pundit”, noted for mixing far-right conspiracism with extreme stupidity). This only increases their credibility in the antivaxosphere.

Stolen from Oglaf

I don’t know what it is about antivaxxers and inflated self-esteem. When “Inventor of E-mail” didn’t work for Shiva Ayyadurai anymore, and his career as a rightwing US politician crashed and burned, he started competing with Robert Kennedy Jnr. to be Antivaxxiest of Them All [Spoiler Alert: Shiva Ayyadurai did not invent e-mail]. I am personally the inventor of three new sex positions, but you don’t hear me going on about that accomplishment all the time.

Malone’s website is packed with other grandiose accounts in which he was central to (for instance) the defeat of Ebola fever, but I have lost interest in determining how (if at all) these relate to reality.


Donate to Smut Clyde!

If you liked Smut Clyde’s work, you can leave here a small tip of 10 NZD (USD 7). Or several of small tips, just increase the amount as you like (2x=NZD 20; 5x=NZD 50). Your donation will go straight to Smut Clyde’s beer fund.

NZ$10.00

81 comments on “How Dr Robert Malone invented Antivaxxery

  1. jmasternumber1

    Hey, do you have the source on where he said “to strengthen his immunity, he also accepted a dose of Moderna vaccine, which he now blames for his lingering post-COVID malaise?” I can’t seem to find a good place where he says he took Moderna and thinks it made his symptoms worse, you have that on hand anywhere? Thanks you.

    Like

    • smut.clyde

      This does not directly answer your question, but I think you will like it as an appetiser. In it, Malone describes his experiences in third-person, as a “physician/scientist”:

      ‘The story of how famotidine became a priority drug repurposing candidate for COVID-19 began with SARS-CoV-2 infection of a physician/scientist leading one of the computational docking teams focused on the papain-like protease of SARS-CoV-2. This occurred during a Cambridge Mass drug discovery conference immediately after the Biogen super-spreader event (late February 2020). Having developed COVID-19 disease, the investigator began self-administering famotidine, which the team had identified as a therapeutic PLpro inhibitor candidate. Famotidine provided almost immediate improvements in the symptoms of shortness of breath and lung “burning.” The investigator self-titrated to 60 mg oral administration three times daily, discontinued treatment after seven days, experienced renewed symptoms and then re-initiated treatment for an additional seven days.’

      Like

    • smut.clyde

      For the main course, I will quote Tom Bartlett’s Atlantic piece:
      ‘Malone contracted COVID-19 in February 2020, and later got the Moderna vaccine in hopes that it would alleviate his long-haul symptoms. Now he believes the injections made his symptoms worse: He still has a cough and is dealing with hypertension and reduced stamina, among other maladies. “My body will never be the same,” he told me”.

      Like

      • Lee Rudolph

        “My body will never be the same[.]” Banal: you never live in the same body twice.

        Like

      • jmasternumber1

        Thank you, I appreciate that. I wish the Atlantic article had a more primary source for that bit of info, but something tells me the author is a bit more honorable than Robert “Covid vaccines kill 2x as many people as covid” Malone.

        Like

  2. Trickricky

    Nicely written propaganda 👍 Now i’m certain that mr Malone is the real inventor 👍

    Like

    • @Trickyricky Very useful comment indeed, full of info and evidence based arguments. Thanks for nothing.

      Like

  3. James A Butters

    This is my conclusion after reading tons of information on this :

    Robert W Malone MD is way smarter than you or anyone mentioned in this entire article.

    I’ll check back with you in 3 to 5 years.

    ..

    Like

  4. laurentien

    I am totally disappointed by this article that does not bring any evidence to discredit such a great scientitist. I wonder if this very honest journalist has spent the time to check his name in Google Scholar which would have shown his tremendous contribution. You are not working for better science as what he said is totally true but it now proves that there is a conspiracy to suppress real information about Covid-19.

    Like

    • I am paid by both Soros and Rotschild.

      Like

    • Scientitist? Yes, he is. As for Google Scholar, do you know this is just a machine, right? Tons of bad self entitled scientific journals out there publishing all sorts of rubbish. By the way, his wife has a PhD in Public Policy. She’s not a virologist or immunologist and yet has co-authored many of his articles on DNA and RNA vaccines, and now also claims to be an ‘expert’ on Zika virus. He doesn’t have a PhD. He couldn’t make a career as a scientist so he became a medical doctor.

      Like

  5. Nada Norenson

    A hit piece pure and simple defended by a couple of left wing trolls. Neither smart nor funny but certainly vain witnessed to by how infatuated they are with their own words. Being called smutt seems cruel. Change your name to smug. As a creative writing exercise it does have a general bullshit appeal though. Well done.

    Like

    • Smut Clyde

      Hi Nada. Are there any specific facts I mis-stated? I am always eager to learn and to correct errors.

      Like

  6. How can Glasspool be a co-author of Malone’s articles on DNA and RNA vaccines if she has a degree in Anthropology, a 2 year master degree in Comparative Pathology, a degree (not specified) in Public Policy (with a specialization in Biotechnology) and a “post-doctoral research” at Harvard Medical School called Global Clinical Scholars Research Training (GCSRT) program, a one-year-program that provides ‘advanced training in health care research and methods’. When exactly did she study and did scientific research in Microbiology, Virology or Immunology?

    Like

    • Smut Clyde

      I am in no position to complain when people collaborate on papers without bothering to get a formal qualification in the field.
      People can even write snarky blogposts without bothering with a formal qualification!

      Like

      • True, but blogs don’t claim to be scientific. Every science student knows how to spot rubbish scientific articles that list an author just for her PhD degree in an area unrelated to the contents of the article. It comes handy when her husband has no PhD degree himself.

        Like

  7. Honestly, what matters is the paper content, I am not bothered by an anthropologist writing about RNA, if he gets the facts right. There is even a paper in Plos by a group of kids, like 10 years old (don’t remember how you call that in the US). They were working under the direction of an entomologist, but still they are one of the author.
    That’s different, of course, from gifting authorship because it’s your spouse.

    Like

  8. I don’t care if she’s his spouse. What I do care is that she’s co-authoring papers on molecular biology and she has no background on the matter. It’s bad science. He doesn’t have a PhD (basic degree to publish in serious scientific journals) and she’s providing her PhD as a matter of semantics. It’s not about formal qualification is about qualification. He quotes his wife’s achievements in every interview “PhD here, PhD there, PhD everywhere”, he just forgets to mention that her PhD is a one-year virtual program in clinical research training, not related to RNA and DNA vaccines, which is the matter in discussion.

    Like

  9. Ah yes yet another ney sayer that merely writes blogs only associated with his own government values instead of associating health with… well health. Poorly written blog, with a plethora of hand picked links not nearly of a non biased nature. When these conspiracy theorists stop correlating with such things as right-wing or left-wing terminology maybe we will all get a shred of credible information. This should not be about politics and should be about health. This is why there’s so much misinformation is because of identity politics.

    Like

    • Smut Clyde

      “a plethora of hand picked links”
      Would you prefer fewer links? Or ones picked at random? I hope you are not making fun of my compulsion to provide documentation for everything, for it is PART OF MY CULTURE.

      Like

  10. Avi Kerendian

    “… ideology can all cause someone to betray their oaths… a major risk factor is thwarted self-esteem: resentment at a perceived lack of recognition.”

    Something about this quote struck a chord with me. You can create the most research-intense paper with the most advanced data; but if it it’s perceived as biased (even if it’s not in reality) it’s pointless. A broken sense of self-worth stemming from resentment over a perceived lack of recognition is a major risk factor in someone betraying their country’s pledges and becoming an intelligence asset for the opposing side, even if money, compulsion, and ideology may all contribute to this.

    Cheers,
    Avi Kerendian

    Like

  11. MD, fact-checker, stats lover

    Thanks Smut for elucidating so much of the nonsense behind these discredited, debunked (but very loud) voices that permeate the echo chambers of the conspiracists. Their brains are challeneged by the scientific process, which is likely attributable to their lack of background in the field. Certainly a shame, but if given a semester of a college-level statistics or epidemiology course, the tone would assuredly change. Unfortuately, there is now a prejudice against the “educated elite”, and those same folks have become biased against learning how to separate truths from fiction.
    As far as I’m concerned, if you cannot properly crituque a well-written journal article, you have no place attempting to discuss the contents or extrapolating the results. As with everything else, leave it to the experts. Twitter and Joe Rogan/podcasts aren’t a great base for your belief system. (I have yet to have an anti-vaxxer approach me with any well-designed studies (much less randomized, peer reviewed, multicenter trials) that support their position. They live in a separate reality, of course.
    Nonetheless, for some reason these same folks will rush themselves to these same evil hospitals and doctors when they become terribly ill, or traumatically injured. Not questioning their evidence practice at that time, right?
    Just waiting for the virus that has a significantly higher mortality rate. When the rate is on the order of 10-50%, I bet their positions change REAL quick!

    Like

  12. someonewhoknew

    I was a colleague of both Bob and his wife Jill a number of years ago. Jill and Bob were much more than husband and wife, they were a formidable scientific team I always thought that by being such an unabashed supporter, his wife did not provide any limits on his egotistical and pedantic behavior. That said, I do think that Bob tries to be ethical. Anyway, similar to what happened at Salk, he left my institution after a disagreement, and he filed a lawsuit against my institution over what he thought was mishandling of a patent (surprise! surprise!). Interestingly, this event was completely left out of the Nature article. I have not heard of Bob in a number of years, but I am not surprised that he did not go quietly into the night.

    Unquestionably, Bob is a genius as far as his verbal skills are concerned. He could write large sections of a grant overnight in a logical and clearly expressed manner. He could walk into a meeting with senior scientists, and he, as a junior scientist, quickly commandeered the meeting. It was really pretty amazing to observe. Nevertheless, I was never quite sure about whether his scientific claims (and verbal skills) matched his scientific abilities. For example, despite his claims to the contrary, I never thought that he made any major scientific advances after he left southern California some twenty-plus years ago.

    One thing that most individuals don’t know about Bob. It was not that he has changed his mind about the mRNA vaccines in the last 30 years. In a related gene therapy field, he would discuss at length with me long-forgotten early gene therapy trials (prior to first NIH trials) that had gone horribly wrong. His supporters would argue that he was only pointing to the potential risks in a promising field. I think it was much more than that, however. Driven by his ego, intelligence, and his permanent aggrieved victimhood, Bob is a natural iconoclast. Covid-19 has arrived and this is his moment!

    Like

    • That is great a insightful comment ! He seems very uneducated to me, I’m from Europe, and didn’t know if it is some cultural difference- maybe, that I am not privy too – because what I am listening from both sides is a lack of sensible discussion that’s filled with charged emotions – instead of cool approach to all of this. What was missing for me, here- with all this emotion- was that people were and still are, kind of not addressing the real issues with him, or points that his making. Just to mention one lately- like he’s hanging around Prof Mattias Desmet, and he completely wrongly cites his hypothesis- he doesn’t even name the title correctly- it’s Mass Formation where he adds Psychosis- and just butchers the whole thing – like my drunk uncle would, after having a beer or two, with his friends, mashing up all that he can sort of remember vaguely, cause you know, he saw it the other day on YouTube & telling to his other drunk friends, in some bar after work, from recollection. But my uncle, is not a scientist in this story – at best he’s a postman. So I guess with all these charged emotions anti & pro – I can’t find any kind of that’s addressing this issue. A level of his education on paper- doesn’t really address his knowledge? There are millions of examples of him hanging around some quiet a knowledgeable people, or listening to some others scientists podcasts- that hold merits- where he copies them, and butchers them- and if he really has to bring an author’s name, he will, but I saw it skip bunch of them, explaining like it happened to him. And with these examples of him, you don’t, even address at a vaccine issue- at least not the way it’s done, so far – where people just immediately jump on each other- but more precisely- about his lying, currently while everyone jumps to defend him, like crazy – like he’s some second coming of Jesus Christ- and convo is done with these people. But nobody is mentioning that he’s stealing other people’s ideas, when he speaks- like above mentioned Mattias. There’s so much material, like that example that if you listen you could really write an article- that even some of his followers would read without dismissing it,
      and call it a smear peace immediately.

      Like

      • smut.clyde

        he’s hanging around Prof Mattias Desmet, and he completely wrongly cites his hypothesis

        Google tells me that Malone later backpedalled on his extreme exaggeration of Desmet’s jibber-jabber. He does this a lot: he tweets out some damaging nonsense (or raves about it on podcasts for the sake of hearing his own voice); waits for his followers to circulate it until the nonsense goes viral; then he retracts his tweet or backpedals on the exaggeration, allowing him to feel virtuous, without reducing the impact of his stupidity in any way.

        Desmet’s “Mass formation” is pure flimflam, but I can see the appeal: it gives antivaxxers license to admire their own intellectual probity. “See, it’s really the vaccine advocates who have succumbed to conspiratorial irrationality. It’s really the vaccine advocates who are coalescing into angry stupid mobs. It’s really the vaccine advocates who are sending death threats to their opponents.”

        Like

  13. “Google tells me that Malone later backpedalled on his extreme exaggeration of Desmet’s jibber-jabber.“
    I didn’t seen him backpedal – but you’re citing google, which completely addresses Malone’s version of the story, like he’s the author. So google basis of argument is Malone’s basis of argument – wrongly so, because Desmet argues that, and this is the first flaw in Malone’s superficial understanding of this particular subject-and this is how I know he didn’t read it – is that he’s addressing a Covid period, as conditions met – where Desmet says the exact opposite – it’s the pre-Covid period, and this is very important in Desmet’s hypothesis; he repeats this more than once, that it’s all pre-covid. So these conditions that have to be met, they are all pre-covid, and he goes in lengths to explain these pre COVID conditions, and every conditions he mentions, before explaining it- he says “remember this is all pre-covid” And then, first that other doctor, goes to Rogan, and he ties falsely conditions, to lockdowns, covid, isolation, and then Malone of course goes and says the same gibberish – adds in “psychosis” which I think even that first doctor did. He then goes on his substack, and writes this all down as he says “to sum it up” – he loves doing that “sum it up” – well you can’t just sum it up, and leave that part out, if the author says it’s really important to remember that it’s all pre-covid! So google doesn’t even read it, they don’t even address it properly from the start, they go and ask some other expert in that field, presenting Malone’s stupid theory – so Google is just like Malone, they are touting Malone’s shit, and others keep repeating it. On his stupid substack he chooses the You Tube video of Desmet interview on this, which in my opinion, would not be first in the list, and people continue with Malone’s bullshit, and pile one some more bullshit of their own- because it’s BS in the first place! And that’s just a start! At the very beginning where it’s wrong!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: