I would very much like to see a complete and accurate transcript. Videos suck big-time for finding things, quoting things, etc.
The most important things I look for in an interview are honesty and forthrightness, and a freedom from 'tells' that would make me suspicious of the intentions/veracity/earnestness of the interviewee. Not the details, but the demeanor and character of the person.
My impression is that Dr Robert Malone is telling the truth as he sees it. I see no duplicity or dishonesty, or any attempt to deceive by dropping context. That does not make his claims “true”, but I am satisfied that he is an honest voice that is worth listening to.
What we do need to make this whole mess better is an expert of his caliber that can competently debate his claims. There are few such people in the world today that can claim anything close to his credentials, so that might be a challenge. Especially since there is little honesty left in the medical profession, let alone people free from financial conflicts.
I would also like to see several of Dr Malone’s colleauges who has worked on projects with him before to chime-in and agree. Basically, is he able to garner support among fellow researchers/doctors. But if we can’t get that, can we at least here a good rebuttal?
I would divide Dr Malone’s claims into two broad areas:
- Medical claims: efficacy, risks, etc about drugs, vaccines, etc. These are best handled by spirited debate within the medical community, evidence based with all data (and new data) open to critique. Funding for proper study without preconceived notions of efficacy.
- Management/people claims: who did what and why. These would be ideally handled by a special counsel (legal system) for the areas which may have cause suffering and the loss of lives.