Dr. Robert Malone, the scientist who pioneered the technology behind the mRNA COVID vaccines, told Ben Shapiro Friday he would no longer advise even most elderly patients to get the jab.

Speaking on Shapiro’s popular radio show and podcast, Malone, who was marginalized by the media for raising questions about the vaccines early in the pandemic, said young and healthy people generally don’t need the shots. But he added that new data is showing that adverse effects of the vaccines increase with age, seemingly obfuscating the argument that the shots benefit the elderly, even though they may be more at risk of dying from COVID.

“If you factor in the stratified risk of the vaccine products the stratified risk of the virus as it exists right now, and the availability of early treatment, you really can’t make a case based on the data for employing these products for anyone,” said Malone.

The 63-year-old physician and scientist said his early reservations about vaccinating children, a position also held by Shapiro, were based on data showing an elevated risk of myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart. Now, he believes the vaccine poses a danger to older people that outweighs any benefits it may convey.

“Originally, my position was that we should vaccinate the high-risk cohorts, including the elderly,” he said. “And over time, as the data have come out and the analysis has come out from respected individuals, I’ve had to shift that position.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE LATEST EPISODE OF “THE BEN SHAPIRO SHOW”

Malone, who has a new book out called “Lies My Government Told Me And The Better Future Coming,” is a vaccine scientist who in the late 1980s conducted the foundational research that helped establish the mRNA vaccine technology used in the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines. Although he told Shapiro he got the Moderna vaccine, he came to question the forced vaccinations of Americans and the safety of the vaccines. He was banished from Twitter for raising concerns, but has recently been reinstated under new owner Elon Musk.

Shapiro noted that many of the concerns Malone increasingly raised over the past two years had turned out to be well-founded.

“The censorship of Dr. Malone during the course of the entire pandemic is one of the big stories of the pandemic, considering that he was largely right on the risks of the COVID vaccine, particularly to the young and healthy,” Shapiro told his audience.

Shapiro, who has said he got vaccinated due to initial alleged data on the reduction of spread, helped lead The Daily Wire’s historic fight against the Biden administration’s requirement that employers force their workers to get the vaccines. The Daily Wire took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it prevailed.

An issue that troubled both Shapiro and Malone was that the federal government pushed pro-vaccine claims that later proved to be false, notably that the vaccines prevented transmission of COVID. Such claims were made to convince, and even force, people to get vaccinated.

“We should not have mandates and we should not have coercion in the form of government propaganda and other surreptitious marketing strategies to entice people or coerce people or mandate people to take what’s still really an experimental medical product,” Malone said.

Malone said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lost its way during the pandemic and chose politics over science.

“It is a political arm of the White House, and it functions as such,” Malone said. “It no longer is functioning as an objective reporter, an analyst of epidemiologic and other medical information.”

Malone accused the federal government of pushing the vaccines with a “clinically tested propaganda messaging strategy,” and said officials silenced scientific inquiry. He recalled asking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office over a conference call to help him obtain age-stratified data on the risks of COVID, but was rebuffed.

Shapiro asked how federal officials peddling propaganda can be distinguished from those simply giving the best available information, which may later turn out not to be true.

“It becomes extremely difficult,” Malone acknowledged. “We’re now in an environment in which public faith in governmental public health officers has tanked.”

Malone said new data is undermining old claims, and the public is increasingly suspicious it has been lied to.

“It’s almost as if the propaganda or sensitive topic areas have an electric fence around them,” he said. “As soon as you get close to those topics, you get a shock. The shock comes in the form of gaslighting, you know, de-platforming attacks, straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, et cetera.”

A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit from Massachusetts parents who accused public school officials of hiding their children’s gender transitions from them.

U.S. District Court Judge Mark Mastroianni, an Obama appointee, criticized Ludlow Public Schools officials for allegedly hiding the pair of siblings’ gender transitions from their parents, but he said the officials’ actions do not “shock the conscience.”

“While the court is apprehensive about the alleged policy and actions of the Ludlow Public Schools with regard to parental notification, it cannot conclude the decision to withhold information” about the children from their parents meets the conscience-shocking legal standard in Massachusetts, the judge wrote in his December 14 ruling.

Back in April, parents Stephen Foote and Marissa Silvestri filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts federal court against staff members at Paul R. Baird Middle School, as well as the elected school committee, and the town of Ludlow just east of Springfield, Massachusetts.

School officials “impermissibly inserted themselves into the private realm” of their family, violating their “rights to make decisions regarding their children’s upbringing, mental health, and well-being,” the parents wrote in their suit.

The parents claimed that school officials failed to inform them that their two children, an 11-year-old girl and a 12-year-old boy, were transitioning to a gender other than the one corresponding to their biological sex.

The 11-year-old girl allegedly emailed school staff in February 2021 and announced that she wanted to go by a cluster of new pronouns.

“I am genderqueer. … My new name will be R**** … If you deadname me or use any pronouns I am uncomfortable with I will politely tell you … A list of pronouns you can use are: she/her he/him they/them fae/faerae/aer ve/ver xe/xem ze/zir. … Please only use the ones I have listed and not the other ones. I do not like them,” the girl wrote, her parents said in court documents.

Afterward, a school counselor allegedly sent an email to staff ordering them not to tell her parents about the gender identity change.

“R**** [B****] is still in the process of telling his parents and is requesting that school staff refer to him as B**** and use she/her pronouns with her parents and in written emails/letters home,” the counselor wrote, according to the parents.

Meanwhile, the girl’s 12-year-old brother asked school staff to use female pronouns for him, and staff hid that information from his parents, the parents claimed.

The parents also said in court filings that they had previously even asked school staff not to have private conversations with their children about gender. However, they discovered that the superintendent, principal, guidance counselor, and teachers all ignored that request and were using the children’s new pronouns.

Later, the school even fired a teacher, Bonnie Manchester, 48, for telling the girl’s dad that she was transitioning to “genderqueer.”

In his ruling earlier this month throwing out the parents’ lawsuit, Mastroianni pointed to the requirement in Massachusetts for school officials not to discriminate against students on the basis of gender identity.

He also cited “the difficulties this issue presents and the competing interests involved.”