Robert Malone EXPOSES Stanford Doctor Pushing Vaccine Propaganda
In another striking segment of my conversation with Dr. Robert Malone, the discussion moved from what might change in U.S. vaccine policy to a deeper question: why the current approach is failing in the first place.
Malone’s opening line was blunt:
“The kindest thing we could say is—it’s not working.”
What followed was not a technical dispute over individual viruses, but a philosophical and political argument about mandates, evidence, trust, and the limits of state power in medicine.
Responding to Critics: Data or Rhetoric?
I brought up a recent critique published in STAT News by infectious disease physician Dr. Jake Scott, which argued against aligning the U.S. vaccine schedule with Denmark’s. Scott’s core claim was that Denmark’s outcomes can’t be compared to America’s because Denmark has universal healthcare, better access, and different social conditions.
Malone’s response was unsparing—but specific.
He argued that this line of reasoning mirrors what was presented by medical guilds during recent ACIP meetings: identify contextual differences, then use those differences to dismiss the comparison—without actually producing data.
In Malone’s framing, this isn’t evidence-based rebuttal. It’s rhetorical insulation.
“Where are the data?” he asked repeatedly.
“He’s criticizing the absence of data while offering none of his own.”
Malone characterized the argument style as straw man debate: inventing simplified positions, then knocking them down—rather than engaging the core empirical question of whether less complex schedules can achieve comparable outcomes.
Hospitalizations, RSV, and Emotional Appeals
Scott’s article went virus by virus—RSV, influenza, meningococcal disease—asking rhetorically why society should tolerate preventable hospitalizations when vaccines exist.
Malone’s objection wasn’t that these diseases are harmless. It was that the argument assumes the conclusion.
“Why accept preventable harm?” only works, Malone argued, if it’s already been demonstrated that the policy in question actually prevents that harm—without introducing new risks.
Absent that demonstration, he said, the argument becomes emotional rather than scientific.
The Core Disagreement: Who Decides?
At this point, Malone made clear that the debate isn’t just about epidemiology. It’s about political philosophy.
In his view, Scott’s argument rests on a utilitarian premise: that the state has the moral authority to mandate medical procedures if it believes doing so produces the greatest good for the greatest number.
Malone rejects that outright.
“The state does not have the right to mandate medical procedures on its citizens.”
He emphasized that this position is shared by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the President, and—he believes—a growing portion of the American public.
The alternative model Malone pointed to is the Nordic one.
In countries like Denmark and Sweden, vaccine uptake is high—but mandates are rare or nonexistent.
Why? Malone’s answer: trust.
“You don’t build confidence by mandating injected products.
You build confidence by respecting people and giving them real information.”
Consent Cuts Both Ways
Malone was explicit about what informed consent actually entails.
If parents are fully informed and choose vaccination, adverse outcomes are a risk they knowingly accept.
If parents decline vaccination and a child later becomes ill, that burden also rests with them.
This, he argued, is how classical liberal democracies function—not through coercion, but through responsibility paired with choice.
A Crisis of Trust, Not Just Policy
By the end of the segment, it was clear that Malone sees the current moment not as a narrow vaccine debate, but as part of a broader reckoning.
Public health, in his view, has drifted from persuasion to enforcement—and in doing so, has lost the trust it needs to function.
“Respect people, tell them the truth, and let them decide.”
Whether one agrees or disagrees, the argument explains why the proposed shift away from mandates—and toward models like Denmark’s—is not just about schedules or doses.
It’s about who gets to decide what goes into your body—and your child’s body—in a free society.
Support The Illusion of Consensus!
The Illusion of Consensus is a fully reader-supported publication. If you support the high-quality mental health and wellness journalism on this site, consider becoming a paid or founding member to receive exclusive articles, early-access episodes, and ask questions for future episodes. Or support The Illusion of Consensus with a one-time donation.
 | A guest post by
|
I find Dr Malone's discussion very helpful in setting out the issue of who decides what treatment one agrees to receive. I personally very strongly support informed consent. In the meantime two groups of states have joined forces to, among other things, replace HHS authority with regard to medical decisions for their citizenry. My state has joined the east coast group, making the issue a personal concern.
Dr. Malone, thank you for the change of heart you have had starting in 2021. I am a physician who was kicked out of academia for developing ETHICAL VACCINOMICS concepts starting in 2005. We need to be moving most vaccines out of the first year of life to avoid maternal derived antibodies creating immunointerference. Maternal derived antibodies delivered to the fetus during gestation have half-lives of 6 months and are interfering with vaccine efficiency - plus we don’t and never have vaccinated for measles mumps and rubella in the first year which is a classic example right in the cdc schedule of the unethical decision making stacking the rest of the vaccines into the first year of life. We also need to be calculating titer decay rates in EVERY American as most boosters are a complete fraud if done when the individual still has plenty of antibodies from prior infections or vaccination. There’s no excuse anymore for failing to run titer checks before every booster-that’s the crux of Ethical Vaccinomics check for lack of antibodies before vaccination at the individual level - we do things this way in all other branches of medicine - imaging or lab testing to prove the need for an intervention. Some how the lowly pediatricians have corrupted the entire profession of medicine. They are usually not the brightest medical students - the future pathologists, radiologists and surgeons are the brightest as it is much more challenging to go through those longer residencies.