The anti-vaccine campaigners blur these lines and ask us to assume that the vaccines are poison because of political corruption.
Some may do, but I personally do not. I simply present the data from governmental sources and show an interpretation that is hard to refute (and generally has not been refuted). I, like Dr. Malone and many others are pro science, pro health and pro truth - which ultimately requires being pro integrity. If you accept that large corporations and governments will kill you for profit, then when the data confirms that this is happening due to COVID19 it is surely a situation to pay attention to the data and testimonies that are available.
I am not asking anyone to assume anything, there is no need to. Just look at the data rather than believing the narrative and interpretation fed through MSM and gov.
He was one of many scientists experimenting with injecting DNA and RNA into muscle cells in the '80s, but was not involved with subsequent decades-long research that led to lipids being used safely without excessive inflammation.
This article in Nature covers the story and Malone's involvement. I don't know how much of it he personally would agree with. In essence, he was part of a chain of people involved in discoveries that led to the technology as it is today, that is correct. While it is perhaps not 100% correct to say that he is THE inventor of mRNA technology, he is certainly one of the key people involved in it's 'invention' and deserves to be heard.
this part seems to rely on argument from authority, which is inconsistent with a philosophy that we should question claims from authority figures.
Absolutely, appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, for good reason. When I bring up Dr. Malone it is not to defer to his authority or to suggest anyone else should - it is actually to present an opposing voice against other supposed 'voices of authority' that still others would have us defer to. I personally value my own interpretation of things above most others, but only because of the extent of the research I've done on so many inter-related topics. I think it would be great if everyone trusted themselves above others too - but that is not where the majority are at currently. In order for me to trust myself above others, I have to also always remain open that I might be wrong on absolutely anything and be open to be corrected. The trust in self comes from me knowing the full chain of logic and research that has gone into my own position, whereas I don't know that in other people. I can 'debug' my own reasoning better than I can do with other people.
Do you believe him because he is an authority figure or because his views confirm your bias?
I aim to have no beliefs whatsoever. Beliefs are simply thoughts that say that other thoughts are correct, without really knowing if they are. Beliefs are essential guesswork and misleading at best. I also don't trust alleged authorities over other people, in general. What I do do is keep an open mind and listen to those who have clearly put a lot of time and intelligence behind their understandings and statements. Dr. Malone is one of quite a long list of experts who hold similar positions regarding the COVID19 shots and there are many aspects to the situation that some would agree on and some would not. I highlight him primarily because he seems to me to be a well balanced thinker who I have never seen debunked on an of his claims. Additionally, his connection to the development of mRNA vaccine technology is relevant to me in terms of the relevance of his experience to the subject.
Here is a long interview with him where he covers a long list of relevant points to this whole topic: https://www.theepochtimes.com/dr-robert-malone-mrna-vaccine-inventor-on-latest-covid-19-data-booster-shots-and-the-shattered-scientific-consensus_3979206.html
His complaints are trivial such as taking issue with the expeditited approval process or the government’s system for tracking adverse reactions, or saying we don't have enough data to administer shots to children
The majority of people I know would not consider these issues to be trivial. This is where we diverge in a major way. He himself has stated many times that Fauci, for example, is a criminal:
He is also desirous of seeing other key figures charged with criminal acts:
~~~ embed:1451644939469680641 twitter metadata:UldNYWxvbmVNRHx8aHR0cHM6Ly90d2l0dGVyLmNvbS9SV01hbG9uZU1EL3N0YXR1cy8xNDUxNjQ0OTM5NDY5NjgwNjQxfA== ~~~
There are other interviews with him where is more vocal in terms of his suspicions of orchestrated criminality - aka conspiracy.
He is also vocal on the control and censorship of the use of Ivermectin:
For me, the most pressing issue is that of vaccine adverse reactions, which are being covered up and denied. I continually see testimony from people who have probably been permanently injured or relations of people who have apparently died as a result of the shots. This is not insignificant. The calculations I have made show that there is a reasonable chance that the shots will kill more people than COVID19 can. The links to the relevant articles have already been shared to you here. Here is one in particular based on US data:
The risk from COVID19 to children is almost non existent, but the risk to them from the shots is substantial. The idea that it is meaningless that many innocent children would be killed for nothing as a result of using this shots is abhorrent!
"The risk from COVID19 to children is almost non existent, but the risk to them from the shots is substantial. The idea that it is meaningless that many innocent children would be killed for nothing as a result of using this shots is abhorrent!"
More like:
The risk from COVID19 to children is almost non existent and the risk to them from the shots is also almost non-existent (but perhaps slightly more than COVID19 iteslf). We are talking a small fraction of a percent in either case.
The only public data on the actual harm being done by the shots comes from the public adverse reaction databases which I have already analysed and published data from. They are known to be inaccurate and involve drastic under-reporting. I don't know if anyone knows the correct figure for adverse reactions or deaths from the shots, but it is possible that more people will die from the shots than from COVID19. As stated, part of the problem is that many problems caused by the shots are very similar to COVID19 (unsurprisingly), so people are being logged as COVID19 deaths when they are actually vaccine deaths.
"As stated, part of the problem is that many problems caused by the shots are very similar to COVID19 (unsurprisingly), so people are being logged as COVID19 deaths when they are actually vaccine deaths."
Do you have evidence of that? My understanding is that viral tests will not show a positive test result as a result of a vaccine but only of the virus. I don't think deaths are GENERALLY declared as covid deaths unless there is a positive test for covid (though I don't doubt you could find anecdotal examples of that not being true).
The evidence goes back many months and comes from all angles. With regard to deaths being attributed to COVID that clearly weren't due to COVID, there are many, many testimonies from Doctors and nurses around the world to this - but we also have it publicly explained by top government health people. The following video demonstrates the general (failed) policy in the US:
This was also the case in Italy, UK and other places. We can also talk about how hospitals are financially incentivised to log deaths as COVID19 but that is a side issue.
A very large number of people who have been logged as COVID19 deaths were never even tested. That is again the case for the UK, US and elsewhere. In fact, there have been almost no autopsies performed on these people either:
https://peakd.com/hive-196427/@ura-soul/zkalgumw
Several high ranking pathologists have stated that they have identified that a high percentage of the deaths they have seen at autopsy (the few that are being done) were due to the vaccines and not due to COVID19:
https://peakd.com/hive-150329/@ura-soul/40-of-covid19-deaths-within-2-weeks-of-vaccination-were-caused-by-vaccine-top-german-pathologist
As stated, many people logged as COVID deaths have not even been tested at all. However, generally speaking there have been significant problems with the tests, with or without the presence of a vaccine. The Australian vaccine was cancelled because people were testing posting for HIV after having it because it contained aspects of the HIV virus. To my knowledge it is also possible to test possible for SARS CoV2 after having had a vaccine, but the whole topic is a mess, not least because the PCR tests are flawed. The PCR process has already long been shown to identify cases of Influenza as COVID19 because the codes are so similar.
Another key problem is that people are being logged as 'unvaccinated' until 14 days after their last shot. This means that many people have died after a shot and are a logged as both unvaccinated and therefore also as a COVID19 death. This is criminal negligence or worse, yet it is happening.
Now you've shifted the argument. People dying being labeled covid deaths when they have multiple comorbitities and COVID not being the root cause or even a significant factor is different than saying it's really the vaccine causing the deaths.
Or are you saying that if someone died in a car crash and they were vaccinated then it must have been the vaccine that caused the death? :)
FDA: "The only way to know the effects of the shots is to give them (to kids)"
Technically true. The best you can do is make an educated guess based on the available data. However, I believe trials have been ongoing for a while now for children under 12 so they should have some pretty good data by now.
"The data summarized from this Phase 2/3 study, which is enrolling children 6 months to 11 years of age, was for 2,268participants who were 5 to 11 years of age and received a 10 µg dose level in a two-dose regimen. In the trial, the SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing antibody geometric mean titer (GMT) was 1,197.6 (95% confidence interval [CI, 1106.1, 1296.6]), demonstrating strong immune response in this cohort of children one month after the second dose. This compares well (was non-inferior) to the GMT of 1146.5 (95% CI: 1045.5, 1257.2) from participants ages 16 to 25 years old, used as the control group for this analysis and who were administered a two-dose regimen of 30 µg. Further, the COVID-19 vaccine was well tolerated, with side effects generally comparable to those observed in participants 16 to 25 years of age."
You are cherry picking which statistics you accept from government sources, making unnecessary assumptions, and ridiculous extrapolations.
In what way is the data cherry picked? I just went to the US VAERS database and used all of the relevant data.