A short, interesting video which speaks the truth about what is happening.
How would you know that it is the truth? Just because it agrees with you does not make it right. Were there claims put through peer review? By the way the claim that Robert Malone "invented" the mRNA vaccine has been debunked. He had a hand in its early development, but in no way is he justified in such a bold claim. When your source relies upon a dishonest person that overplays his own part in something. Robert Malone discovered a way to enter mRNA into a cell where it would go on to make a protein. But that is only one small part of inventing a vaccine. It is comparable to the person the inventing the drivetrain to claim that he invented the car. He would have had a sizable hand in it, but he could not claim to be the sole inventor.
You might want to read more about him here:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science...lone-vaccine-inventor-vaccine-skeptic/619734/
Perhaps he is a bit antagonistic to the vaccine because it was developed to late for him:
"His concerns are personal, too. 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. In media appearances, he often notes that he has colleagues in the government and at universities who agree with him and are privately cheering him on. I spoke with several of these people—vaccine scientists and biotech consultants, suggested by Malone himself— and that is not what they told me. The portrait they 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. (Malone has acknowledged his penchant for butting heads with fellow scientists.) And they are taken aback by his emergence as a vaccine skeptic. One called his eagerness to appear on less-than-reputable podcasts “naive,” while another said he thought Malone’s public rhetoric had “migrated from extrapolated assertions to sensational assertions.” Stan Gromkowski, a cellular immunologist who did work on mRNA vaccines in the early 1990s and views Malone as an underappreciated pioneer, put it this way: “He’s (deleted) up his chances for a Nobel Prize.”
According to the very scientists that he said that supported him he overstates his case.
Does he deserve recognition? I would say yes. But he has ruined any chance of getting a Nobel for his work by overstating his case and spreading disinformation.
