patrick.net

Despite his claimed ties to mRNA technology, Malone has been an avowed critic of its use and safety. So have other new ACIP selections, including Retsef Levi, a professor of operations management at MIT. In a January 2023 post on X, Levi wrote of the mRNA vaccines, “We have to stop giving them immediately!”

DEMASI: You called for the suspension of the mRNA vaccines…. it was quite provocative—you said there was “indisputable evidence that they cause unprecedented levels of harm, including the death of young people and children.”

LEVI: And I stand by that.

DEMASI: You do?

LEVI: Yes, it’s true, isn’t it?

DEMASI: Well, I believe it is true, but does that mean you will recommend against its use at the next meeting on 25 June?

LEVI: I don’t want to say too much before the meeting and I don’t want to pre-empt the materials and data I will receive, and I’m going to look at what I am presented with. From what I’ve seen so far, I think it's obvious that these mRNA vaccines should not be given to anybody young or healthy. It is also not at all clear to me that they should be given to anybody, based on the evidence.

DEMASI: Not even the elderly?

LEVI: Not at this point, but if they provide me with evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks, then I will keep an open mind. My sense at the moment is that there is no strong evidence why this should be given to anybody — in fact there is evidence to the contrary.

DEMASI: What concerns you the most about the mRNA vaccines?

LEVI: Well, it was first thought that you give someone a shot and the mRNA and the lipid nanoparticle stay in the local injection site and quickly disappear from the body. We now know that that's false.

You also have uncontrolled doses of spike protein being made, and the spike protein, mRNA and nano lipids can stay in the body—we now know—for months, if not years.

Then, we know that there is a phenomenon where you make unintended proteins—off-target proteins—you know, where the mRNA skips along the code and it transcribes unintended proteins?

DEMASI: Yes, I reported on that study [link]…

LEVI: So, basically, you have something that is making unintended proteins and you don’t know the dose, you don’t have control over the biodistribution of these products in the body—to me, that is a collapse in the safety paradigm.

Oh, and of course—you have the concerns about DNA contamination. Levels of DNA contamination have been found to exceed safety limits, so of course this is another serious concern to me.

Finally, you have a product on the market that is not the one they tested in the clinical trials. Do you know about the Process 1 and Process 2 issue?

DEMASI: Of course, you and Josh Guetzkow commented on that in the BMJ.

LEVI: Yes, the manufacturing of the vaccine for the trial was fundamentally different to the one that was given to the population.

So based on that, I don’t believe it should have passed approval. Put simply, there were fundamental assumptions on safety that were used to authorise these vaccines that turned out to be wrong.

DEMASI: You have been outspoken about the risks of the mRNA vaccines in pregnancy particularly.

LEVI: Well, the first thing is that there was no evaluation of pregnant women in the clinical trials. It was recommended based on no evidence regarding safety. I mean, we do not let pregnant women eat sushi, so why would we expose them to a vaccine that has not been evaluated in pregnancy?

DEMASI: Well, the argument was that they were at greater risk of getting ill from Covid-19?

LEVI: I don't think there was any strong evidence that this was true at any time, and it’s definitely not true now with much milder variants. Now, all women in pregnancy are more vulnerable to illnesses and to viruses, right? But I couldn’t justify the risk of recommending every woman take the vaccine, as they advised.

DEMASI: And now we know more about how the vaccine behaves in the body in pregnant women.

LEVI: Yes, we now know that the mRNA gets through the placenta, and even into breast milk.

Frustrated by potential threats of defamation lawsuits, yesterday the New York Times tried to disguise its sneering criticism in a story neutrally headlined, “RFK Jr. Announces Eight New Members of CDC Vaccine Advisory Panel.” But that journalistic restraint immediately evaporated in the sub-headline: “The health secretary promised not to pick ‘anti-vaxxers.’ But some public health leaders accused him of breaking his word.”

Let’s start with the actual news. After summarily firing all 17 members of the CDC’s ACIP vaccine guidance committee earlier this week, yesterday, HHS Secretary Kennedy announced the first eight replacements. Each knows they are walking into the media’s pharma-fueled, character-assassinating buzzsaw. The victims, er, volunteers, include: Martin Kulldorff, MD, PhD (Harvard); Robert W. Malone, MD; Cody Meissner, MD (Dartmouth); Retsef Levi, PhD (MIT); Joseph R. Hibbeln, MD (former NIH); James Pagano, MD (UCLA); Vicky Pebsworth, OP, PhD, RN (Nat. Assoc. of Catholic Nurses); and Michael A. Ross, MD (GWU). ...

“By far the most contentious pick, and the one with the highest profile,” the Times soberly informed readers, signaling the smear to come, “is Dr. Robert Malone.”

I know Robert and consider him a friend. Not the kind of friend that I watch football games with or take joint family vacations, but a battlefield comrade, with affections forged in the fiery crucible of pandemic cancellation, back when it was especially risky to oppose government policy at all.

Malone, who holds some of the earliest mRNA patents and has never been contradicted over his claim to have invented the technology, was an early and vocal critic of the covid vaccines. Owing to his credentials and his incomparable knowledge of the mRNA platform, Dr. Malone’s voice was one of the most challenging and difficult for the establishment to rebut. They hated him, in other words (and still do, quite fiercely, in fact).

Not only that, but Dr. Malone is a deep reservoir of institutional knowledge, gained through his own professional experience in vaccine development, arcane government skunkworks operations, and the defense industry’s inexplicable involvement in the biomedical sector. He took the first two shots and promptly got a serious vaccine injury, which he barely survived.

Within the MAHA movement, there is a deep thread of dour skepticism about Dr. Malone, owing in part to a highly public personal conflict with some well-loved MAHA authors. It is also (I think) because he clings to a position that some kind of mRNA could still be useful (if properly and carefully designed), and because he used to dwell in the back acres of the deep state’s alligator farm. Not that my opinion matters, but —though I understand the concerns— I do not share these concerns. (Nor does Michelle, who is a super suspicious and reliable human fraud detector.) ...

It took a lot of faith and courage to step out and take the podium in 2021 and 2022. Believe me. So much so that it has become my new intelligence test: what was the person’s position during the mandates?

Beyond Robert Malone, Kennedy’s other picks —obviously pre-planned— were also a gift bag of MAHA goodness. Martin Kulldorf, for example, was one of the three co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which caused all three scientists to be immediately placed on the U.S. federal government’s personal destruction list. He was eventually fired from all his jobs, but before that, he helped Governor DeSantis unwind pandemic mania in Florida.

Retsef Levi, the MIT professor, conducted some of the earliest studies on covid vaccine safety signals. In 2023, he called for the shots to be withdrawn:

https://x.com/_aussie17/status/1619967181651070976




The others were equally strong. Here’s a little roundup of their pandemic bona fides.

https://x.com/harryfisherEMTP/status/1932972901113667814

These appointments are a worst-case scenario for Big Pharma. Not just because these picks are MAHA-friendly, but for two additional reasons. First, they were all savvy enough during the pandemic to avoid saying disqualifying things —things we all know, and many of us wished they would say out loud— but they were wiser than we were, and they played the institutional long game. So they all possess sharp political skills.

Second, they are all veteran survivors of cancel culture. They have proven beyond doubt, under duress, that they believe in speaking the truth regardless of the cost, and they don’t care what the media says about them.

It’s also a worst-case scenario for the media. With the possible exception of Dr. Malone, none of Kennedy’s picks are “public figures,” which means corporate media must be incredibly careful to avoid defaming them. One of the classic grounds for a solid defamation claim is saying anything that casts doubt on “a person’s suitability for their chosen profession.”

Truth is a defense to defamation. But you’d better be able to prove it, which makes opinion-based defamation extremely dangerous. It’s impossible to prove a label or an opinion. For example, carelessly calling someone a “racist” is super risky. Can you prove that? Can you show evidence they were … what? A member of the KKK? A published black supremacist? The evidence better be solid, not just someone reposting a meme calling Kamala a “hoe.”

So the Times couldn’t publish the eight-way hit piece it wanted. It was all tied up by its legal department’s concerns. It wanted so badly to trash each and every one of Kennedy’s new committee members, but that would have practically guaranteed several visits from the process server.

So far as I know, the ACIP does not need 17 members. So Kennedy might stop at eight. This could be it. The Committee’s next meeting is later this month, and you better believe the livestream will be well attended.

Upcoming meetings 2025

June 25-27
October 22-23