Cleaning up Biden’s bird flu mess falls to Trump



The Biden administration’s brilliant plan to address avian flu involved using a non-sterilizing, leaky vaccine on chickens — two years into the pandemic, when most live chickens have already been exposed to the virus. Where have we heard that idea before, and how did it end again?

Over the past four years, I’ve examined numerous studies and firsthand accounts showing how imperfect vaccines, notably the COVID shots, can lead to negative efficacy. The problem with a leaky vaccine is that it allows the most resilient mutations to thrive and become dominant strains. This doesn’t mean the vaccines cause these mutations, but they do foster natural selection that favors the worst variants.

This administration urgently needs to signal a shift away from Biden’s disastrous biosecurity policies, especially concerning avian flu.

The mass vaccination of chickens against Marek’s disease in the 1970s is a stark example of this problem. The use of a leaky vaccine in that case led to the emergence of more virulent strains, making the disease far deadlier for unvaccinated chickens.

As Quanta magazine warned in 2018:

The problem with leaky vaccines, Read says, is that they enable pathogens to replicate unchecked while also protecting hosts from illness and death, thereby removing the costs associated with increased virulence. Over time, then, in a world of leaky vaccinations, a pathogen might evolve to become deadlier to unvaccinated hosts because it can reap the benefits of virulence without the costs — much as Marek’s disease has slowly become more lethal to unvaccinated chickens. This virulence can also cause the vaccine to start failing by causing illness in vaccinated hosts.

History not only repeats itself but also rhymes. Last weekend, South Dakota-based veterinary biologics company Medgene announced that the USDA was nearing conditional approval for its H5N1 vaccine for dairy cattle. What happens if this vaccine spreads to the animal kingdom and eventually reaches humans?

The risks of non-sterilizing, leaky vaccines are well documented. Despite the disastrous outcomes linked to the COVID vaccines, the government has not paused its push for respiratory viral vaccines. Instead, it is actively promoting the new RSV shots, ignoring the potential dangers.

Even Anthony Fauci acknowledged these risks in a 2023 academic paper, co-authored with David Morens, then a senior scientific adviser at NIAID. The paper, published in the journal Cell in January 2023, admitted that flu-like vaccines are non-sterilizing and have significant shortcomings.

“Deficiencies in these vaccines reminiscent of influenza vaccines have become apparent,” Fauci conceded, adding that “they elicit incomplete and short-lived protection.” This admission underscores the need for a more cautious approach to vaccine approval and distribution.

Why are we still allowing the flu vaccine to continue, and why are we even calling it a vaccine? Flu shots do not sterilize the virus. In fact, Fauci expressed concerns about “disease tolerance” and “immune tolerance,” which result from “immune defense mechanisms that allow hosts to ‘accept’ infection and other antigenic stimuli to optimize survival.”

In other words, leaky, waning vaccines that rely on suboptimal antibodies against rapidly mutating viruses can lead to immune tolerance and imprinting. This can cause the immune system to misfire, resulting in negative efficacy. Any short-term protection against severe disease often comes at a long-term cost as the viruses adapt and grow stronger.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, countries like Australia and New Zealand saw almost no fatalities in 2020, before vaccines were introduced. However, deaths surged only after vaccination campaigns began. Renowned cardiologist and epidemiologist Dr. Peter McCullough warns that we may be repeating the same mistakes with avian flu vaccines.

“Remember, when we have bird flu, it’s always a mixture of strains, not a single strain,” McCullough said on my podcast last week. “It’s going to nudge the overall population to more virulent strains. The southeast Asians have now been vaccinating poultry for several decades, and there’s tons of information that it’s backfiring.”

What’s worse is that human vaccines are also in the works. “We’re even more concerned about the human bird flu vaccines,” McCullough said. “We have a CSL Seqirus vaccine that was FDA-cleared in 2021. It's an antigen-based vaccine; in the randomized trials of normal human volunteers, they died with this vaccine. So it frankly looks dangerous from the onset.”

Fortunately, this vaccine was not made commercially available. But why should we think that future efforts would succeed when we have failed to concoct safe and effective respiratory viral vaccines?

This administration urgently needs to signal a shift away from Biden’s disastrous biosecurity policies, especially concerning avian flu. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed last week, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins outlined a five-part plan with $1 billion in subsidies but did not suggest pausing the vaccination campaign or halting the harmful culling of chickens.

She might be reconsidering. This week, Rollins acknowledged that “not enough research has been done” and emphasized the need to ensure that a vaccine would help contain the virus rather than strengthen it or cause it to spread to other species.

Now it’s up to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to scrap this plan entirely. RFK was made for a moment like this. His first major test began the moment he took office, and the clock is ticking.

COVID 2.0? New RSV shots are already harming babies



I might not be a doctor, but as early as January 2022 — 16 months before the approval of the first RSV vaccine — I warned that these shots could make children sicker from the virus. For decades, the industry failed to produce an RSV vaccine after an attempt in 1967 was terminated because it caused antibody-dependent disease enhancement.

Now, amid ongoing problems with the first RSV vaccines from Pfizer and GSK, the FDA is acknowledging that Moderna’s mRNA version is causing severe RSV cases in children. It’s time for the incoming Department of Health and Human Services, along with state officials, to pull the plug on both RSV shots and mRNA vaccines of all kinds.

We have simply too much public information to sustain this deception any longer. The time for action on this long-standing failure is January 20, not a day later.

The FDA reported last week at least five cases of severe or very severe RSV in infants who received Moderna’s new mRNA vaccine during a clinical trial. The Biden administration had already approved Pfizer's and GSK’s senior RSV vaccines, Pfizer’s infant vaccine, and a monoclonal antibody treatment for young children — all of which have documented safety concerns. Earlier this year, the administration approved Moderna’s mRNA version (mRESVIA) for seniors.

However, the FDA has now revealed that enrollment of young children in clinical trials is “on hold for all clinical studies of RSV vaccine candidates” under U.S. investigational new drug protocols.

The clinical trial showed shocking results: “Severe illness was 26.3% in the vaccine groups compared with 8.3% in the placebo.” Talk about “the more you inject, the more you infect”! If there are so many problems with infants, why are we giving this shot to anyone — especially seniors, who are not at significant risk for RSV the way they are for flu or COVID?

Moderna used two versions of the vaccine in the clinical trial, and one of them, mRNA-1345 (mRESVIA), induced severe RSV in an infant. This same vaccine is now being administered to seniors.

Given the 60-year concern about enhanced disease, why are we continuing to push any RSV shots? Why are we continuing to approve mRNA vaccines after the documented issues with COVID shots? Why approve Pfizer’s RSV shot for pregnant women when GSK’s nearly identical version was pulled from clinical trials after causing death and injury?

Finally, why are we promoting vaccines for respiratory viruses at all? COVID and flu have shown that respiratory viruses do not respond well to blood-based antibodies and often cause immune imprinting, leading to a higher risk of infection in the long run.

These are straightforward questions any layman can understand, yet our medical experts remain stuck in ignorance — and greed.

Greater risk for babies

Pfizer's and Moderna’s clinical trials for the COVID vaccine in toddlers revealed that leaky respiratory viral vaccines tend to increase, not decrease, the risk of respiratory viruses. In Moderna’s trial of babies ages 6 to 23 months, researchers found a statistically significant increase in respiratory viruses within 28 days of vaccination.

For croup, 1.3% of mRNA-1273 recipients were infected, compared to just 0.3% of placebo recipients. For RSV, the infection rate was 0.8% for mRNA-1273 recipients and 0.5% for the placebo group. For pneumonia, 0.2% of mRNA-1273 recipients were affected, while no cases occurred in the placebo group.

In Moderna’s trial for children ages 2 to 5 years, 0.3% of participants developed pneumonia compared to none of the placebo recipients. For RSV, the rates were 0.4% for vaccinated children and less than 0.1% for the placebo group. In other words, young children in the vaccine group were four times more likely to contract RSV within four weeks of the shot than those in the placebo group.

This trend persisted even among 6- to 11-year-olds, who are less susceptible to RSV. In that group, 0.3% of vaccine recipients experienced the illness compared to zero cases in the placebo group.

Pfizer’s children’s vaccine clinical trial for toddlers (see page 51) also recorded serious adverse events, including RSV bronchiolitis (five participants), pneumonia (two participants), gastroenteritis (two participants), and lower respiratory tract infections (two participants).

Clearly, respiratory viral vaccines make individuals more vulnerable to RSV. Many people now avoid these vaccines, but the industry has adopted a clever marketing tactic: offering a monoclonal antibody as a prophylactic measure against RSV, alongside the GSK, Pfizer, and Moderna shots. Originally developed by AstraZeneca and now distributed by Sanofi, Beyfortus (nirsevimab) has been administered to newborns since last October. New mothers are convinced their babies could suddenly die from RSV, which may have originated in the 1950s through polio vaccine research. According to the CDC, 40.5% of babies in America received Beyfortus during the last RSV season.

The FDA’s briefing document on Moderna’s clinical trial reported that the Moderna shot not only worsened the disease but also “blunted” Beyfortus’ efficacy in babies who received both. But what the report fails to disclose is that Beyfortus is as problematic as Moderna’s mRESVIA.

After hundreds of thousands of French babies received Beyfortus in 2023, Dr. Helen Banoun identified a shocking and unexplained increase in infant deaths linked to the vaccine’s uptake. Banoun also highlighted the FDA’s own data, which shows — clearly and alarmingly — a much higher rate of deaths in the Beyfortus treatment group compared to the placebo. This data appears on page 70 of the Biologics License Application for Beyfortus, but it seems the manufacturers rely on no one reading it.

 

Other literature cited in the Banoun paper shows that children were getting sicker with respiratory illnesses, signaling immune imprinting and disease enhancement — negative efficacy against the very illness the vaccines are supposed to treat.

According to VAERS reports, a baby boy died immediately after receiving the injection, and a baby girl was found unresponsive seven hours later. “Sudden infant death syndrome,” indeed.

What Trump can do

Moreover, the problem extends beyond the individuals receiving the vaccine. Dr. Peter McCullough has documented growing evidence that these products may be creating super-resistant strains of RSV.

We cannot continue like this as a civilization. Continuing mass vaccination without immediate restrictions and research violates the principles of the pro-life movement, based on the available data. It also violates the Nuremberg Code on human experimentation.

To that end, Trump’s next HHS secretary would do well to implement the following policies regarding vaccines:

  • No shot should be marketed as a vaccine in any way if it is not proven to stop infection.
  • No shot should be approved without a full placebo group that is kept permanently to study long-term differences with the trial group.
  • No shot should be approved unless it shows an all-cause mortality benefit over time and most certainly cannot show more deaths in the trial group.
  • No shot should be approved for one age group when there are clear safety signals in other age groups, unless it can be proven that those safety issues do not apply to the targeted cohort. For example, even after the FDA admitted that RSV shots caused Guillain-Barré syndrome and walked back its approval for people over 60, the agency still recommends the shots for people over 75.
  • No mRNA shots whatsoever.
  • No shot should be approved without oncogenicity, genotoxicity, or long-term safety studies, none of which were conducted with any of the RSV shots.

This issue is no longer just about COVID or Operation Warp Speed. The RSV vaccine approvals were conducted openly, despite known problems with these shots from day one — just like in 1967. They didn’t even need to rely on emergency use authorization.

We have simply too much public information to sustain this deception any longer. The time for action on this long-standing failure is January 20, not a day later.

Why Crunchy Moms And Independent Doctors Are Now Aligning With The Political Right

Voters from both sides of the aisle have found common ground in resisting everything from mandated childhood vaccines to food additives.

Court: Doctors Threatened For Questioning The Covid Regime Can Sue Tyrannical Credentialing Boards

The ruling is a huge win for patients seeking medical freedom and for doctors who questioned the government's Covid narratives.

Study claims harms of COVID-19 vaccines 'profoundly outweighed' benefits; calls for moratorium on mRNA shots



A new peer-reviewed study in a Springer Nature Group journal has painted a damning picture of the global COVID-19 vaccination campaign along with the novel mRNA products at its core — vaccines millions of Americans were compelled to take if they wanted to keep their jobs, eat in public, stay in school, remain in uniform, or visit their loved ones.

According to the study, published on Jan. 24 in the PubMed-listed open access journal Cureus, standards were dropped, corners were cut, and red flags were missed in the testing, authorization, and ultimate deployment of the COVID-19 vaccines. The result: a product with an "unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio."

Impurities

Extra to hinting at possible ulterior motives driving the decision to rush out the vaccines in a fraction of the time conventionally figured appropriate, epidemiologist M. Nathaniel Mead and his co-authors — including Texas cardiologist Peter McCullough — wrote that the vaccines "evaluated in the trials were not the same products eventually distributed worldwide."

Whereas the mRNA products from "clinical batches" in the registration trials were ostensibly free of process-related impurities, the doses made with "a method much more suitable for mass production known as Process 2 ... showed significantly reduced mRNA integrity," claimed the researchers.

"All of the COVID-19 mRNA products released to the public were produced via Process 2 and have been shown to have varying degrees of DNA contamination," said the study. "The failure of regulatory authorities to heretofore disclose process-related impurities (e.g., SV40) has further increased concerns regarding safety and quality control oversight of mRNA vaccine manufacturing processes."

Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo noted the detection of "Simian Virus 40 (SV40) promoter/enhancer DNA" in the vaccines in a Dec. 6 letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Peter Marks, director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in reply, "No SV40 proteins are encoded for or are present in the vaccines," and emphasized that the shots were safe and effective.

The European Medicines Agency, which regulates vaccines in the EU, indicated that "non-functional" fragments of SV40's DNA sequence are used in the manufacture of the COVID-19 vaccine, reported the Associated Press.

Pfizer indicated the SV40 sequence is commonly used in developing vaccines.

Regardless of whether elements of SV40 were specifically of any consequence, Mead and his coauthors underscored that the mRNA vaccines were not as advertised.

Harms and unintended consequences

"Re-analysis of the Pfizer trial data identified statistically significant increases in serious adverse events (SAEs) in the vaccine group," wrote Mead and the other researchers. "Numerous SAEs were identified following the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), including death, cancer, cardiac events, and various autoimmune, hematological, reproductive, and neurological disorders."

According to the study's authors, many of these serious SAEs "have often been wrongly ascribed to COVID-19 rather than to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations."

"Misattributions of SAEs to COVID-19 often may be due to the amplification of adverse effects when mRNA injections are followed by SARS-CoV-2 subvariant infection," said the study. "Injuries from the mRNA products overlap with both [post-acute COVID-19 syndrome] and severe acute COVID-19 illness, often obscuring the vaccines' etiologic contributions."

The study suggested not only that the vaccines are likely responsible for a host of devastating side effects that have been conveniently blamed on the virus but also that boosters have actually had a paradoxical impact.

"Multiple booster injections appear to cause immune dysfunction, thereby paradoxically contributing to heightened susceptibility to COVID-19 infections with successive doses," wrote the researchers.

The researchers suggested further that the vaccines are perpetuating the emergence of new variants.

"Mass mRNA inoculations result in the natural selection of highly infectious immune-evading SARS coronavirus variants that successfully bypass vaccine-induced immunity, leading to a dramatic rise in the prevalence of these variants," said the study.

On the basis of their review, the researchers concluded that for most adults under the age of 50, "the perceived benefits of the mRNA boosters are profoundly outweighed by their potential disabling and life-threatening harms. Potential harms to older adults appear to be excessive as well."

In addition to calling for COVID-19 vaccines to be removed from the childhood immunization schedule along with the suspension of boosters, the researchers urged "governments to endorse and enforce a global moratorium on these modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered."

Regarding possible conflicts of interests, the authors indicated that no financial support was afforded them by any organization for the study.

Stephanie Seneff, one of the authors, nevertheless declared a grant from Quanta Computer Inc., a Taiwan-based computer manufacturer. Entrepreneur Steve Kirsch, another author, noted that he is the founder of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation but "receives no income from this entity." McCullough, who supervised the study, highlighted his employment and stock options from the Wellness Company.

McCullough was involved in another troubling study that was recently published.

His peer-reviewed study published last month in the pharmacotherapy journal Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety stressed that "COVID-19 vaccination is strongly associated with a serious adverse safety signal of myocarditis, particularly in children and young adults resulting in hospitalization and death."

"COVID-19 vaccines induce an uncontrolled expression of potentially lethal SARS-CoV-2 spike protein within human cells, have a close temporal relationship of events, and are internally and externally consistent with emerging sources of clinical and peer-reviewed data supporting the conclusion that COVID-19 vaccines are deterministic for myocarditis, including fatal cases," claimed the study.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Study: COVID-19 vaccination is 'strongly associated with a serious adverse safety signal of myocarditis'



The U.S. government, the mainstream media, and so-called experts long downplayed the possibility of a link between heart inflammation and COVID-19 vaccines. Elements of the medical establishment and social media companies worked to shut up those who dared to press the issue.

Health officials and their stenographers in the media later admitted an elevated risk of myocarditis among mRNA COVID-19 vaccinees, especially among boys and young men. Despite belated advisories to this effect from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, little changed in the way of the prevailing narrative: the supposed benefits of the vaccines outweighed the risks, which allegedly remained mild and rare.

A new peer-reviewed study published Saturday in the pharmacotherapy journal Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety has thrown some more cold water on that persistent narrative, indicating that "COVID-19 vaccination is strongly associated with a serious adverse safety signal of myocarditis, particularly in children and young adults resulting in hospitalization and death."

"COVID-19 vaccines induce an uncontrolled expression of potentially lethal SARS-CoV-2 spike protein within human cells, have a close temporal relationship of events, and are internally and externally consistent with emerging sources of clinical and peer-reviewed data supporting the conclusion that COVID-19 vaccines are deterministic for myocarditis, including fatal cases," the study claims.

The study is the result of an effort on the part of Texas cardiologist Peter McCullough, biologist Jessica Rose, and researcher Nicolas Hulscher to further explore links between COVID-19 vaccination and heart inflammation using the vaccine adverse events report system.

On the basis of data in VAERS — a system created and implemented by the FDA and CDC in 1990 — the researchers examined the frequency of myocarditis reports in the aftermath of COVID-19 vaccination and compared their findings with past reports from other vaccines that have been rolled out over the years.

The researchers found that upon the massive rollout of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in 2021, there was a significant spike in the number of myocarditis reports, "far higher than the reports from all other vaccines combined over the previous 30 years. This side effect was mostly reported in young individuals, especially males."

The spike represented a 2,500% increase in the "absolute number of reports in the first year of the campaign when comparing historical values prior to 2021."

Contrary to governmental claims of mildness, the study found that most of those who reported myocarditis required emergency medical care or hospitalization, and 92 individuals reportedly succumbed to the apparently vaccine-induced affliction.

The study highlighted that the COVID-19 vaccines, which were rushed through safety and efficacy trials inside a 10-month period as opposed the years-long process that novel genetic products customarily undergo, continue to be recommended to everyone 6 months of age and older. The researchers suggested this recommendation should be axed, at the very least for children.

"Children have a negligible risk for COVID-19, and yet they are a high-risk group for myocarditis from COVID-19 vaccination," wrote the researchers. "The World Health Organization's current vaccination advice states that healthy young people ages 6 months to 17 years are a 'low priority group' and that vaccinating this group has limited impact on public health."

The researchers stressed further in their paper that "myocarditis resulting in hospitalization and death attributable to the COVID-19 vaccines may be viewed as an excess risk of the injection program" because, despite claims to the contrary, the vaccines never stopped transmission and there "are no prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of COVID-19 injectable products demonstrating reductions in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths as primary or secondary endpoints."

"We believe COVID-19 vaccination may pose more harm to children than theoretical benefit. This corroborates actions taken by Sweden, Norway, and Finland in 2021 when health officials suspended the use of Moderna injections in young people due to the detection of safety signals for an increased risk of myocarditis," added the researchers.

Europeans are not the only ones who have spared their children from the novel vaccines. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration has recommended against COVID-19 vaccination for children and young men since March 2022.

McCullough said of his study, "If vaccines cannot demonstrate acceptable safety profiles or be modified to improve safety, they must be removed from the market. Don't accept 'unavoidable harms' and freedom from liability for the manufacturers. These data demonstrate COVID-19 vaccines are not safe."

Dr. Jordan Peterson responded to the study on X, writing, "I think it's about time to lay some criminal charges." He added in a subsequent message, "This is utterly terrible."

Katy Faust, the head of the children's rights group Them Before Us, tweeted, "The pressure to vaccinate my teenagers was overwhelming. From schools, from doctors, from friends, from public establishments that shut them out. A pox on all the medical professionals who pushed this at the risk of children's lives and long-term health."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Twitter reinstates two esteemed doctors who had been banned for COVID 'misinformation'



Drs. Peter McCullough and Robert Malone were reinstated to Twitter Monday night. Both had been kicked off the platform for allegedly spreading misinformation and for challenging the establishment narrative concerning pharmaceutical responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The restoration of their accounts, which some critics reportedly have suggested will cause harm, comes amid a campaign under the social media platform's new leadership to ostensibly foster and protect free speech — an initiative once called into question by one of the former Twitter exiles.

What are the details?

Robert Malone, a biochemist involved in the invention of the mRNA vaccine platform, had his account banned late last December for "violating [Twitter] policy on spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19."

Upon learning of his ban, Malone, branded a "Covid Misinformation Star" by the New York Times, wrote on his Substack, "We all knew it would happen eventually. Today it did."

"Over a half million followers gone in a blink of an eye. That means I must have been on the mark, so to speak. ... It also means we lost a critical component in our fight to stop these vaccines being mandated for children and to stop the corruption in our governments, as well as the medical-industrial complex and pharmaceutical industries," Malone added.

The ban took place ahead of Malone's appearance on the "Joe Rogan Experience," which was entered into the congressional record by Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) after both YouTube and Twitter removed the interview from their platforms.

Malone suggested to Rogan that he might have prompted the final censorial response when he referenced on Twitter a "fantastic video" put out by the Canadian COVID Care Alliance group detailing alleged "malfeasance and data manipulations, misinterpretations associated with the Pfizer vaccines and their clinical trials," which he conceded may have been "interpreted as something that would cause people to become vaccine hesitant."

Cardiologist Peter McCullough is the former vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center, an author of roughly 677 medical publications in peer-reviewed journals, one of the world's most cited medical experts, and a medical practitioner who treated COVID-19 patients. He had his account permanently suspended on Oct. 6.

At the time, McCullough told the Falun Gong-run broadcaster NTD, "This is just another example of medical censorship by Big Tech on doctors who have the freedom, according to the First Amendment, to express their scientific views through freedom of speech."

Their reinstatements come after Twitter dissolved its Trust and Safety Council, first formed in 2016.

Back in the saddle

In his first tweet after reinstatement, McCullough wrote, "Alright everyone, I am back on Twitter! Let's see my verification and completely uncensored, no unfollow programs, no bots assigned to me, and absolutely no shadow-banning. Let the world hear the medical truth (98% want it) on the pandemic and more!"

McCullough proceeded to promote his socials and note that if Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who visited Twitter's headquarters on Saturday, had something to do with his "release" then he is "indebted."

After calling for other silenced medical professionals to be permitted back on Twitter, the cardiologist went on to tweet, "Since Twitter struck me down, I have come back even more powerful, more than @elonmusk can ever know! Let's join forces to break the psychological-pathological spell of the bio-pharmaceutical complex and get the world back on its axis!"

 
\u201cSince Twitter struck me down, I have come back even more powerful, more than @elonmusk can ever know! Let's join forces to break the psychological-pathological spell of the bio-pharmaceutical complex and get the world back on its axis!\u201d
— Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH\u2122 (@Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH\u2122) 1670942451 
 

Upon his return, Malone similarly called for the restoration of other suspended doctors' accounts.

After retweeting a post accusing Dr. Anthony Fauci of causing "more harm to humanity than any other scientist in history," the biochemist also responded to critiques of his reinstatement, writing, "Well, there are still the usual Twitter trolls tossing old corporate media hit pieces and snark at me. What they do not know is that our lawsuit against the WaPo is progressing, and we are biding our time for many others including the Atlantic and the NYT. Truth is like a lion."

 
\u201cWell, there are still the usual Twitter trolls tossing old corporate media hit pieces and snark at me. What they do not know is that our lawsuit against the WaPo is progressing, and we are biding our time for many others including the Atlantic and the NYT. Truth is like a lion.\u201d
— Robert W Malone, MD (@Robert W Malone, MD) 1670942115 
 

It is unclear whether Malone's reinstatement will affect his previous distrust for Twitter CEO Elon Musk.

Malone penned an opinion piece for LifeSite in October, suggesting that Elon Musk does not really care "about scientists' and conservatives' ability to interact on the social media app."

The biochemist accused Musk of seeking to "bring social media, banking, auto loans, Amazon type buying, insurance, paying loans and utility bills, medical insurance, service estimates, you name it, under the umbrella of Twitter. Everything you do, buy, or need could be bought on the Twitterverse. This is about power and money."