The Atlas Society Asks Dr. Robert Malone

December 28, 2023 01:21:36
The Atlas Society Asks Dr. Robert Malone
The Atlas Society Presents - The Atlas Society Asks
The Atlas Society Asks Dr. Robert Malone

Dec 28 2023 | 01:21:36

/

Show Notes

Join CEO Jennifer Grossman for the 185th episode of The Atlas Society Asks where she interviews the "father of mRNA vaccines," Dr. Robert Malone about his book "Lies My Gov't Told Me," his early work on mRNA vaccines, and inspiration drawn from Ayn Rand.

Dr. Robert Malone is an acclaimed scientist who has often been referred to as the “father of mRNA vaccines.” He was one of the first to question the efficacy of COVID vaccines and criticize government-mandated lockdowns only to be censored by Big Tech companies, including being banned from Twitter, and having numerous interviews struck down daily on YouTube. Dr. Malone is the author of Lies My Gov’t Told Me, which draws upon history, psychology, and economics to break down the lies about COVID-19 and why people came to believe them.

View Full Transcript

Episode Transcript

[00:00:00] Speaker A: Hello everyone, and welcome to the 185th episode of the Atlas Society asks. My name is Jennifer Anju Grossman. Most people call me Jag. I'm the CEO of the Atlas Society. We are the leading nonprofit organization introducing young people to the ideas of Aynran in fun, unconventional ways, including our graphic novels, animated and AI, animated videos, even music. Today we are joined by Dr. Robert Malone, a man who needs very little introduction. But before I even do get to that, I want to remind all of you who are joining us on Zoom, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn. This is a really special opportunity. You can use the chat section to go ahead and type in your questions, and we will get to them, as many of them as we can. Dr. Robert Malone is an acclaimed scientist who has often been referred to as the father of mrna vaccines. He was one of the first to raise questions about the efficacy of the vaccines and question the benefit risk profile, particularly for younger people. He also has been a fierce critic of the lockdowns and mandates from the very beginning, only to be censored by big tech companies, including being at one point banned from Twitter X and having numerous interviews struck down on YouTube, which is why we're live across all of our platforms except for YouTube. Dr. Malone is the author of lies my Government told me and the Better Future coming. We're going to talk about that. It draws on history, psychology, economics to break down the lies that the government has told us about Covid-19 and why people came to believe them. So, Dr. Malone, thank you for joining us. [00:02:10] Speaker B: Thanks a lot for having me, Jennifer, and happy New year's. And New year's. Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas. [00:02:17] Speaker A: Okay. You might have another LinkedIn account, another Zoom account open, hence the echo. So I don't know if Jill is in the background somewhere, she might be. [00:02:28] Speaker B: Able to fix that. I can guarantee. I have no other Zoom. [00:02:36] Speaker A: Okay. [00:02:36] Speaker B: And I absolutely am hearing your echo. [00:02:40] Speaker A: You're hearing me? Echo? [00:02:42] Speaker B: I'm hearing echo as part of the broadcast. [00:02:45] Speaker A: Okay. All right, well, we'll just try to get through that. Now. I have a feeling we're going to get even more questions than usual, so I want to encourage everyone to queue up and start typing in your questions. But first I want to share how Dr. Malone and I first met. It was last month in Dallas at a conference hosted by my good friend and a frequent guest on this show, Jeffrey Tucker. And of course, I was wearing my Atlas Shrugged purse, and you came up, pointed to it, said, atlas Shrugged, greatest book ever. So first, our audience would love to hear your Ainand origin story and why her message of reason, individualism, and liberty matter so much in light of what's happened over these past three plus years. [00:03:38] Speaker B: Well, and let's remember that was intimately integrated into the austrian school of economics that's now referred to as the anarcho capitalists, embodied in Javier Milier, the recently elected president of Argentina. I burned through all the in rand books. Must be 20 years ago or a little bit more. I had just had some setbacks. Boy, this echo is driving me nuts. Sorry about that. I had some personal, professional setbacks. I was laid off of a job working as a government contractor in biodefense at the time when Tony Fauci kind of swept in and took it over. And I was having real difficulties kind of grappling with the way the world was, as opposed to the way I had been taught in school and had believed that was the nature of the world and things about fairness and equity and all those kind of things just didn't seem to make sense. And I began reading the books. It totally restructured my world, much as has happened during the COVID crisis over the last four years. Maybe the COVID crisis has finally disabused me from much of my remaining naivete, but it's the structure of how enrand approached the world, her understanding of communism and Marxism and socialism, and the logic of the supremacy of the individual and the freedom of the individual, and in particular, atlas Shrugged, and the logic around Galtz Gulch, and hence the name of my substac, who is Robert Malone, of course, is a reference to that. Who is John Galt? So, John Galt, as this stereotypic figure of the innovator, quietly working, building value, innovating in his area of core competence, which, by the way, I think you probably know better than I. There seems to be echoes of Tesla's career in his story. Just like in the fountainhead, has a lot to do with Frank Lloyd Wright. So. So the logic that was laid out in the books kind of changed my whole perspective on the world. And that has continued and really been refined by this book that Jeffrey Tucker recently introduced me to, which is the anatomy of the state by Murray Rothbard. [00:07:04] Speaker A: Yes. Well, I think Ayn Rand has a lot to offer us in terms of her perspective. Of course, the message of the fountainhead is that you can be right even if the whole world says you're wrong, and the importance of not compromising your standards, your integrity. And he wouldn't even compromise for the sake of the woman that he loved. And of course, Atlas shrugged as well, with its message of rejecting the appeals to the common good, which are always used by tyrants, and rejecting calls for self sacrifice. And that we saw throughout these mandates that young people who had already recovered from COVID who had natural immunity, other people who had natural immunity, who didn't need the vaccine, were told to get it anyway, and young people who are at an absolutely negligible risk of serious illness if they didn't have other comorbidities, again called to sacrifice their interest for the sake of others. And of course, that was always a lie because it was known very early on that the protection that the vaccines conferred was temporary. And so I think that Ein Rand would have been appalled, and I'm particularly appalled when I see that others who supposedly should be standing up for Ayn Rand's objectivism went the wrong way on this issue, accepting government bailouts, celebrating and applauding lockdowns and things like that. And the Atlas Society has been very firm from day one in opposing all of that, and, of course, rejecting any government bailouts. On another note, however, I had also the opportunity to meet your wonderful life partner, Jill. I'm actually hosting the show today from my home, from the home of my parents, who yesterday celebrated their 59th wedding anniversary. So I mentioned this because you and your wife, Jill, also have a very long and productive partnership, stretching back to when you were high school sweethearts. So maybe talk a little bit about that partnership. And curious how she has handled the pressure and of the relentless attacks on you for questioning COVID policy. [00:09:51] Speaker B: Well, she gets the attacks, too. So there's now quite a bit of effort to try to take her down, character and all that. [00:10:05] Speaker A: She wrote that book, right? She wrote a book in the very earliest days of the epidemic in which she was talking about, here's what you can do to boost your immunity. Here's what you can do to be in better health. And that was deplatformed as well, correct? [00:10:21] Speaker B: Yeah, in March of 2020. [00:10:24] Speaker A: Amazing. Because you guys knew what was going down months beforehand. And when most people were just waking up to the news and trying to figure out what was going on, you both had been very hard at work trying to help. [00:10:41] Speaker B: Probably the strength of our marriage has played a large role in my being able to psychologically sustain what has gone on. And likewise, on her side, we support each other. The logic of two intertwined trees in Kahil Gibran's poetry. Poetry speaks to our relationship. We're strong advocates for people forming long term monogamous relationships and really committing to that at an early age, pardon how I'm speaking, I'm having to pause for the echo to catch up. So I think that, well, let me put this way. I've seen many, many marriages dissolve over the last three years, both within the groups of physicians and scientists that we've been touring with and people around us, because there has been so much division and strife associated with whether or not to take the product. And I've actually had to do expert witness testimony for couples at war with each other over whether or not their children are to be inoculated. Inoculated. The intentional division that's been promoted throughout this, that has just fragmented and fractured our culture, has had an enormous impact on the family, on extended families, on single families, on the community, on churches, on all kinds of social organizations. And a strong case can be made that this was intentional. So in our case, because we've had this and because we've made the commitment to always travel together, always be together, co write the substac together, we make this entire endeavor a joint activity, and we've always lived our lives this way, shared our workload, worked together in the laboratory, worked together in running the consulting service that we ran for decades, et cetera, that this has just been another step in kind of the evolution of our marriage. You mentioned that this podcast is directed more towards younger people. [00:13:47] Speaker A: Yes. [00:13:48] Speaker B: I just want to reach out to them and say there's a lot of social pressure encouraging you to delay partnering and to sample the field. There's all these euphemisms that are used, but there is a real upside to committing yourself to another person of whatever gender. I don't want to cast aspersions on what your sexual preferences are, but forming a monogamous relationship, a long term monogamous relationship, is like building value or equity. You put into that relationship, effort, thought, work, and then when you have hard times, you can pull from that bank account, that emotional bank account. And as you get towards your later years, here I am at 64. The dividends really kick in because you have this long standing trust relationship and a partner that you can share every aspect of your life and have the memories going back to your youth. My general encouragement is to strongly consider building long term monogamous relationships as part of other social bonds and relationships. Remember, community is what strengthens us, keeps us from being vulnerable to these tactics of division and strife, and strongly consider the benefits of investing in a long term relationship with a partnership. [00:15:58] Speaker A: Well, talking about division and discrediting one of the ways that people have tried to silence you marginalize you discredit you is by claiming that you overstated your role in mrna development. So we'd love to hear from you in your own words how you were involved in the early history of mrna research going back to the 1980s. [00:16:27] Speaker B: So the wall behind me I call the Alex Berenson wall, in reference to his having attacked me for falsifying my credentials essentially on a Fox News broadcast a couple of years ago, as well as denying that ivermectin was effective. So that's the origin of that. Many patents have been issued and let's see, I'm going to try a different, yeah, I'm going to try this camera angle. Can you hear me okay? [00:17:03] Speaker A: Yeah, here you go. [00:17:04] Speaker B: Okay, so for some reason it's Cam one that's giving me the echo. And if I go to cam two or cam three, I'm good. So I'm going to just switch to this view and forgive me if it's not perfect. So the history of all this, I was just a graduate student, about 28, late 20s, with a young child and a wife living in married student housing at UC San Diego in the middle of my MD from northwestern. And I really wanted to become expert and participate in the new field of gene therapy for treating pediatric inborn errors of metabolism. That's a big word string. That means finding ways to treat genetic disease of children. And at the time, the technology that was at the lead for that field, that was exploding in part because of the leadership of Ted Friedman, a pediatrician from University of California, San Diego, which is where the salk was and where I was a graduate student, the leading technology was retroviruses. These aids is a retrovirus. There's many cancer viruses that are retroviruses. And modification of retroviruses was believed to be a way to make this all happen. And so I was allowed into an extremely competitive postdoctoral lab at the Salk institute in the laboratories of Molecular Virology. Salk at the time had a half a dozen Nobel laureates, including Francis Crick. And I needed to find a way forward in that competitive landscape and so focused on the processes involved in trying to clarify how rna gets assembled into a retrovirus. And in order to do that I had to develop a suite of technology that did not exist at the time, which was how to manufacture large quantities of highly purified rna that could be made into protein, would be biologically active, and how to deliver it into cells. And I tried a lot of different things, worked my can off. My wife talks about 80 hours work weeks. I was a little obsessed with trying to make this work. And then I had a couple of breakthroughs having to do with the structure of the RNA necessary to make this work, and then was given a heads up by a senior Salk investigator about a new technology for delivery involving positively charged fats. We now call them lipid nanoparticles. And at the time that had just been discovered, the first paper had been published from a company called Syntax. And the company and the people behind that embryonic program at syntax in Palo Alto had wanted to work with RNA as well as with DNA, but they just couldn't make it work. They didn't understand RNA, they couldn't manufacture it, et cetera. And so I had already filed a patent disclosure on the ability to potentially use RNA as a drug, including for vaccine purposes. And the salk allowed me to engage in a collaborative research effort with this group at syntax to test out their new reagent. And it turns out that when you mix those two things, it worked like grease lightning. Suddenly, it was a major innovation. And I went around the salt collecting cell lines and then frog embryos, because I was teaching embryology and then chick embryos and kept trying this together with the reporter gene called luciferase, which was the third leg in the stool that made this all happen. Luciferase is the protein that fireflies make that causes light to be produced, photons of light in a certain chemical reaction when that protein is present. And so the combination of these three things allowed me to quickly demonstrate that this system worked very, very well and that catalyzed a huge, nasty, messy patent battle between the sulk institute and UC San Diego and professors on the campus and my mentor at the sulk. And I got caught in the crossfire and ended up with a nervous breakdown and post traumatic stress disorder. I had finished my master's, well, really, my PhD qualification exams and oral exams, but I just couldn't continue to function and took a master's left. My wife was still finishing her bachelor's, and so I needed a job. And across the street was a new startup company. I was employee number ten, called vical, and they were working on other things, liposomal, anti HIV drugs and calcitonin analogues, hence vical. But they offered to sponsor me to continue my graduate work while my wife was finishing her bachelor's. And so I went over there with my reagents and protocols and all that stuff, recreated what I was doing at the saul and carried on. And within about two months, we had a series of additional discoveries having to do with delivering into animals, particularly in vice, and then the use of that, or the obvious easiest application, which was generating an immune response. So vaccines. And that led to a series of patents and patent applications. There's nine of them us, and then all the foreign ones that have issued, that were the original concept and reduction to practice of manufacturing the rna, delivering the rna, and generating an immune response with the rna in a mouse. That gave rise vical. It transformed vical. It received billions of dollars, but they only focused on the DNA vaccine side, not the rna vaccine side. And those patents remained undeveloped for the rna stuff until they expired. And then the CIA, through DARPA, funded Moderna, and the german government funded Biointech, and the rest is history. And we have the COVID vaccines now. So that's the short version. [00:24:04] Speaker A: Yeah. And we've got a lot of audience questions. We're going to get to those, but I have a few that I wanted to get out of the way. One of the things that we pride ourselves at the Atlas Society is that while we're all objectivists, we don't always agree with each other on issues ranging from foreign policy to domestic policy. So it's perhaps not surprising that not all of our scholars or donors are of one mind when it comes to pandemic interventions and vaccines specifically, or the COVID vaccine specifically. But it's the way that we handle those disagreements as we try to seek the truth and model civil discussion and debate that sets us apart from some other objectivist organizations. So people familiar with this podcast know that my take has been virtually indistinguishable from Jeffrey Tucker's from day one. But I want to acknowledge that one of my colleagues, senior fellow Rob Tricinski, has a different perspective and see if I can get your reaction. In one of his recent substat columns, he looks at data presented by the New York Times comparing, quote, death rates among the unvaccinated, the vaccinated, and the vaccinated and boosted. The vaccinated and boosted are significantly less likely to be infected and about four times less likely to die. The vaccines work. Most of us have had them, 69% of the general public, 94% of the elderly. So the pandemic is now over and at far less cost than without the vaccines, end quote. So what has he got right? Or what has he got wrong with that assessment? [00:25:54] Speaker B: So, generally, I don't rely on the New York Times for much of anything anymore. I find the New York Times has become basically an organ of state propaganda, and I would be highly suspect of a New York Times based data analysis that is so at variance with what is now a worldwide consensus on this concerning the effectiveness and safety of the products. The key issue here is really twofold, and one of them is what really caused me to start raising concerns and was the subject of today's substac, by the way, which is informed consent, including consent of the governed, and what we have not had throughout this has been open transparency about potential risks to patients. There has been a clear, unequivocal breach of global ethical norms in terms of informed consent. And as just a bedrock position, this is what caused me to come out of the closet essentially as a vaccine developer of 30 plus years. Regarding these products is the failure of the government not only to provide informed consent, but the willingness of the government to withhold information from the public under the logic that if they were to share with the public the true risks that were known to the government, such as with myocarditis. And there's just been another paper come out today, or shortly recently from Australia, as I recall, that documents that, that myocarditis persists and has long term consequences at the six month level. So the lies we were told by Janet Woodcock, acting director of the FDA, that the myocarditis is mild and short term, are now clearly refuted. So my position all the way through this, my fundamental position, has been that it has been the accepted norm since World War II that individuals, sovereign individuals, so this speaks directly to the objectivist frame of reference. Sovereign individuals have the right to determinism over their own body, and they have right to be informed and make their own judgment as to whether or not they wish to accept particularly an injected medical product, but really any medical product. And this is not radical. This has been accepted norm globally for decades, as I said, since World War II and the Nuremberg trials. It is, in my opinion, fundamental to the respect of the individual that the state recognizes the autonomy and sovereignty of the individual as it relates to their own medical decisions. And again, this is not a radical position. This is something that I was taught and had reinforced multiple times as a clinical researcher and as a fellow in the Harvard Global Clinical Research Scholars program. So what we now know, and is abundantly documented through Freedom of Information act requests and a variety of other mechanisms that have caused information to be revealed, is that there has been an intentional withholding of information from the public by the government concerning the risks of these products. It also was acknowledged by the New York Times over a year ago that the CDC, for instance, has been politicized and is manipulating and has been manipulating data concerning the outcomes associated with these products. So failure to provide informed consent and by extension, failure to obtain the consent of the governed, that has deeper consequences, in my opinion, in terms of the social contract and the relevance of our constitutional form of government. And that was the second main thrust of my essay today. First off, a gross failure of informed consent based on the logic that this virus had a 3.4% case fatality rate based on modeling, not on actual data. Whereas Jade Bottacharya, early on at Stanford, revealed from his studies that the true case fatality rate, even in the first wave, when the virus was more pathogenic, was about 0.2% on the range of what influenza is. So we were told. And this was all justified based on 3.4% case fatality rate, when in fact that was a lie based on modeling from a laboratory in the UK Imperial College that has a long history of overestimating infectious disease risk. Why they were even listened to is another topic. But based on that, the government then accelerated these various interventions, including the SARS CoV, two vaccines, genetic vaccines, and bypassed the normal clinical review procedures and safety procedures that have been established as norms in my industry for decades. So they bypassed those norms, skipped those tests, didn't require those studies to be done, and we're now seeing the new information concerning those risks coming out. The risks that were not correctly assessed or rigorously assessed concerning, for instance, the contamination with DNA fragments, which are also delivered into your cells using the same formulations, and the presence of contaminants like endotoxin, which comes from the bacteria that are used to produce the plasmid DNA and other adulterations or adulterants and failures to ensure necessary quality control. So the products were rushed, they weren't adequately tested, and the safety profile was hidden from the government. And this was justified based on a lie about the toxicity of the virus, which the government had helped create. That's now also clear. The origin of the virus at the Wuhan Institute of Virology involved Technology and Information transfer, facilitated by Eco Health alliance and Peter Dazick, and funded by the US government, and performed in a kind of a budget laboratory environment at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. Basically, they outsourced the research for the gain of function. So this virus was highly infectious, not highly pathogenic. These vaccines were rushed. We are still learning about the risks. These risks include autoimmune diseases and apparently malignancies, which are not accounted for in the current official databases, which, by the way, the VAER system has now been closed by the CDC. So they're no longer accounting for what the adverse events, particularly the longer term adverse events. And they never have been accounting for the longer term adverse events because they've defined vaccine toxicity as a two week horizon after administration of the product. The data on effectiveness is now widely acknowledged as having suffered this 95 or 97% effectiveness in preventing disease. It's not clear what the endpoints are. Was manipulated by selecting the most optimal statistical analysis method. And when one uses a more traditional statistical analysis method to calculate the effectiveness and also factor in the many patients who were removed from the study for spurious reasons, we end up with a product that's something initially in the range of 40% effective. Pfizer itself acknowledged that they had no data demonstrating that the vaccines would protect against infection, replication or spread. That was another lie. Remember all the talk about herd immunity? That was all based on conjecture. There was no data, were no data establishing that the products would be effective at preventing replication and spread or infection. And in fact, they don't. That's also now widely acknowledged. They don't prevent that. And anybody in their daily lives is well aware that the highly vaccinated in particular, are now demonstrated to be more susceptible to infection, disease and death than those with natural immunity. Those are the data worldwide. Whatever the New York Times says is replicated again. And vaccines aren't effective at preventing infection, replication or spread. They don't do that. We're down to arguing whether or not they reduce severe disease and death. And in the case of the current boosters, there is no evidence supporting that. Remember, what your colleague is probably arguing about are data from early in the outbreak, prior to Omicron, when virtually all of us became infected and developed natural immunity. So failure of informed consent, no clear data of effectiveness in terms of the traditional vaccine endpoints, prevention of infection, replication or spread. Marginal data, which is highly controversial concerning the reduction in disease and death at some prior point in time with early variants. And now we have these all cause mortality data from insurance actuaries all over the world, which are the only reliable data because the governments have been basically manipulating data, particularly the western governments, concerning the risks and effectiveness of the products, and that all cause actuarial data, when analyzed rigorously by skilled academics that have spent decades of their lives working with all cause mortality data, indicate that, as opposed to the Lancet paper suggesting there was 14 million lives saved by these products, that in fact there was 17 million excess deaths associated with the distribution of these products, and that death count is still not peaked. So when you look at the insurance actuarial curves again, the most reliable data in the world, what you see is that excess deaths do not start. Excess all cause mortality does not start in 2020 when we had the more variant virus, because of course the case fatality rate was only 0.2%. But in fact, they start. The inflection point occurs after the rollout of the vaccines, and it is continuing to climb. Even the current head of FDA recently posted on Twitter the observation that we've had a paradoxical plummeting of life expectancy in the United States over the last year and two years that is unaccounted for, unexplained, and there seems to be a complete lack of interest in ascertaining what is the cause of that reduction in life expectancy in the United States. So I don't know what the data are that your colleague is citing, but he appears, based on my assessment of the data, to be at one extreme in the curve of discussion and scientific discussion and debate is a good thing, and I value it, honor it, embrace it, and welcome it. But as I said in testimony in the uk parliament a couple of weeks ago, this can all be readily resolved if governments will stop hiding the data. Now, why are governments hiding the data? I think that's probably pretty self evident to people that would be listening to this podcast because it doesn't support their thesis and their position. If the governments would become open and transparent with the data, like was attempted in New Zealand by a whistleblower who now is facing seven years in jail for having done so. If the data was made open and transparent, then we could all look at that data, analyze that data with a common baseline, rather than this kind of sniping over. Well, you got that part of the data wrong. You got that part of the data wrong. You're dealing with the wrong data set or that's contaminated in this way or that way. We could cut through all that stuff if we had open, transparent disclosure from the governments of what has actually transpired, and then we could have a rational scientific discussion examining that. And that's my bedrock position here, is rather than engaging in this tit for tat, oh, I'm going to cite this study, or I'm going to cite that study, et cetera. Let's all agree that what we need is transparent disclosure from the governments of the world of their data, so that this can be examined and comprehended. Because there is the appearance that we have both a major ethical breach and a human tragedy which is ongoing because remember, these people that have died, lost family members. I just was on a Zoom call earlier today when someone related three separate cases in their immediate family of elderly people and middle aged people dying within two days of receiving another booster. Maybe that's just coincidence, but we have suggestions that we have a massive human tragedy, including those that are vaccine damaged and are not receiving care. And I think that we owe that to them. And as objectivists, as lovers of freedom, I would think that this community in particular would join me in embracing a call for open transparency, disclosure, and objective analysis of data concerning this so that we can all move forward. Because the appearance is that we have had major malfeasance on the part of western governments in breaching the personal rights of individuals, their property rights. These rights that we have assumed were guaranteed by the Constitution for congregation, personal property, personal autonomy, assembly, religion, et cetera, et cetera, have been compromised. And in retrospect, when you analyze the data around those decisions, none of them provided benefit, and all of them are associated with harm to individuals in the public. And if we don't respond to this, it will continue to be done. It will be normalized. And I argue in my essay that this is breach of contract. [00:43:40] Speaker A: Yeah, and we're going to put the link to your essay in all of our chats, but those chat streams are really filling up with a lot of questions from our audience. [00:43:50] Speaker B: Try to be more brief, but that. [00:43:51] Speaker A: Was a hot try to get to a few of them. And I have a lot more questions of my own, having read this book, which I highly recommend. But all right. My modern Gault on Instagram, he's always first through the gate typing in his question. He wants to know, can lockdowns like those in 2020 happen again? Or maybe the better question is whether people will let it happen again. [00:44:18] Speaker B: So what we haven't talked about is the psychological warfare, or fifth generation warfare that has been deployed on the citizenry by this public private partnership between the governments and pharma and corporate media. And the power of modern media based psychological manipulation technology is such that clearly populations can be hypnotized to tolerate amazing insults. And I argue, as I was saying, what we have here is a fundamental breach of contract in the sense that the constitution represents a contract, a social contract between the governed and the governors and the elected officials. And by not objecting to that breach of contract, we have essentially conceded the right of the government to act in this way in the future, technically, from a legal standpoint. And I have not only, no doubt, but the language of the new pandemic treaty for the World Health Organization and the international health regulations will strengthen the ability of this globalist organization, the WHO, to impose such measures, as well as to mandate that you accept whatever medical procedures or other procedures that they shall recommend in the event that they declare another public health emergency. And, oh, by the way, there's over 200 scientific publications advocating that they do so. They declare a public health emergency specifically because of human induced climate change. So that's where we're going. Not only will they, I anticipate they absolutely. Not only can they, they will, and they will use these Cywar technologies, and already are, to convince a scared, intimidated public to go along with these measures, which will compromise fundamental aspects of sovereignty and personal rights. [00:46:59] Speaker A: All right. Over on LinkedIn, Jackson Rollins asks, what do you think about the dramatic increase in the number of vaccines required for infants and young children? Is it necessary preventable measures or something else going on? [00:47:15] Speaker B: What we've had, and I've watched this through my entire career, is a policy put in place under Nixon that provided indemnification to the vaccine manufacturers, coupled with the vaccines for Children's program, which provides a guaranteed purchase and distribution network. So if you're a pharmaceutical industry corporation, what you have is the opportunity to develop products for which you have no liability. You have a single purchaser, and if you can get your product into the vaccines for children program, in other words, approved for pediatric use and recommended by the CDC for that use, then you have a cash cow in perpetuity. And functionally, you have a monopoly, because it's so expensive for another company to bring another product to market. So it's no surprise that you've seen a massive explosion of the vaccines schedule, pediatric vaccine schedule, because the perverse financial incentives, together with the complete indemnification of the manufacturers, have incentivized corporations to do this. And a captured CDC and FDA, with its revolving door relationships, has been more than happy to comply. Remember, the CDC in particular, has a dual function as it relates to vaccines. It's supposed to report on vaccine safety and efficacy, as well as infectious disease risks, but it also has a mandate to advocate and support vaccine compliance and distribution. And paradoxically, the funding for supporting vaccines is much greater than the funding for analyzing and regulating vaccines. And that's how we end up with this, is because of these dual function agencies. And the same problems exist across virtually every one of these agencies. USDA, FAA. Again and again, you see the same problem where we empower these federal agencies for dual purpose of both regulating the industry and advocating for the industry. That's a good start. There's a lot more underneath that, and I could go on for an hour on that topic. [00:49:44] Speaker A: Well, speaking of that, can you give us another ten, maybe 15 minutes, because I think we got a little. [00:49:51] Speaker B: Jennifer, I'm so grateful that you've forgiven me for being a little bit late. I will stay here as long as you want to ask me questions. [00:50:00] Speaker A: All right, great, because I do want to get to the book, but also kind of. Here we are. It's the holidays, and a favorite Christmas activity in many households is rewatching the great holiday classic it's a wonderful life. In the movie, of course, the angel Clarence shows the despairing protagonist, George Bailey. How would the world have turned out if he had never been so I, in rewatching this with my parents, I wanted to put that to you. How might the world have turned out rather than George Bailey, if Anthony Fauci had never been born or at least had not been in a position to dictate pandemic policy, what would that world have looked out? [00:50:54] Speaker B: With regards a couple of things, Anthony Fauci has become a very convenient scapegoat, and it may be over the next. There's things afloat moving in DC right now relating to this that I can't really speak about much. I'm in touch with federal investigators, et cetera. Anthony Fauci is one of many guilty parties here, and we also had a widespread systems failure, and this was kind of the culmination of that. And yes, he did sit as the head at the top of the pyramid of the by defense industrial complex. In a sense, a strong case could be made that Peter Dazick may be more of the puppet master here, and Anthony Fauci is more of a middleman, a bureaucratic functionary. He's certainly no genius. I don't know of any particular innovation that I can ascribe to Tony Fauci during his career. He is a politician, bureaucrat, scientist, and has become a master at DC politics, which has its own idiosyncratic set of roles. And I don't wish to minimize his complicity and role here, but there are many others. I mentioned Janet Woodcock earlier, Dazic, of course, the entire eco health Alliance, Ralph Barrick, the CCP and Wuhan Institute of Virology and People's Liberation army clearly has a role and should be held accountable. So should Stefan Boncel, who led the manufacturing, the development, the build of the Wuhan Institute of Virology before he became CEO of Moderna we have players. Rochelle Wolinsky, Deborah Burks. It's difficult to sort out the top ten guilty parties here, and all of them are guilty of disinformation. So I guess I would answer your question. I don't think that if we were playing Jenga and the block that says Anthony Fauci, we pulled out of the stack, I don't think the stack would fall. I think that it was supported by too many other structures, incentives and personnel, both nationally and globally, that this was a catastrophic system failure long in the making. And Tony was particularly adroit at exploiting many of the problems within that system. But the biodefense industrial complex has, much like the military industrial complex, is much deeper and broader in its corruption and its activities than just Tony Fauci. And you can see that now the whole thing is continuing with the same momentum or greater momentum in his absence. So I hope that answers your question. [00:54:37] Speaker A: Yes, it does. I mean, we could have also applied it to Donald Trump because he wasn't a scientist, clearly, but he was a leader. And as a leader, you need to have vision. And he, at the crucial juncture of his presidency, tragically failed to have the vision and the courage to. [00:55:02] Speaker B: Trump is a tough one here, because we're looking at a complicated political landscape now, and we're once again faced with a lesser of two evils, functionally, in that I love Bobby Kennedy and think the world of him and admire him. [00:55:20] Speaker A: Who wrote the introduction to your book? [00:55:22] Speaker B: Yeah, I can't say enough positive about Bobby Kennedy, but I'm afraid that were he to find himself, which I think is highly improbable as anything more than a spoiler in this upcoming election, DC would eat him alive within months. Just like they rolled Donald J. Trump. Now, Trump, with his own idiosyncratic problems that I don't prefer to delve into too deeply because a man is thin skinned. The appearance is that he was rolled, but he refuses to acknowledge what took place. And in part, I think one of the big problems that happened in that presidency was I don't think he thought he was going to win. He wasn't prepared to win. He didn't have the depth of the bench for appointments, and he ended up appointing a lot of deep staters into his own administration, and they then proceeded to backstab him. Is that an excuse? As you point out, the buck stops here. The president is the ultimate decider. He did have that responsibility. He was sitting at the resolute desk, and he did. He did attempt, for instance, with Scott Atlas to get second opinions. But for whatever reason, he seems to have had a weakness, as we all do in our characters. That allowed. I think one of his key weaknesses is sycophants. And I think that there's a good chance that he got played by parties who were very solititious of him and appeared on the surface to be deferential. But, like often happens in DC, were not what they appeared. But that doesn't excuse why he isn't backing acknowledging the errors. [00:57:41] Speaker A: That would be a refreshing show of honesty and integrity and would help to. [00:57:50] Speaker B: Increase we're aligned trust. It is a major electoral weakness that he's facing right now. [00:57:56] Speaker A: Yeah, he's still out there saying, I saved millions and hundreds of millions of lives, and blah, blah, blah. All right, let's turn to your book, lies my government told me, and the better future coming, which you co authored with your wife Jill. In it, you describe the chilling phenomenon of doctors being hunted down by journalists to expose them for offering early treatments not federally sanctioned, and the pylon of others seeking to have such doctors have their medical licenses revoked. It's like reinforcing the old narrative that all doctors agree if you eliminate those who don't. So what are some of the examples of that? [00:58:43] Speaker B: Well, the book is structured into three sections, and basically it was written in a serialized fashion through our substac. And frankly, the substac has continued our journey of trying to make sense out of the craziness of the COVID crisis and what it means in terms of our government and the world around us. And when we finalized the book, which is a little over a year ago now, it was out for last Christmas, we were still on that journey, and we still are. I can't believe we keep uncovering stuff on a daily basis, but it's structured into three sections as akin to the way a physician approaches a patient, where the first thing that a physician does is take a history and physical check in with a patient. What's your chief complaint? What's really happened to you? What's been your experiences? The second is functionally the diagnosis. How do we make sense out of this? The third part is, what is the treatment plan? What can we do about it? What can we do to fix the problems with the government, et cetera? And then that bleeds into my attempt to find some silver linings in all of this as we look forward to a different future. And I, of course, advocate a future that's more aligned with the goals of your organization, in which we value community and integrity and human dignity and personal freedoms. We'll see how that plays out. We may have to all go down into our own gault sculch between now and then and that we kind of talk about that a little bit. In the first section, I have a number of narratives, first person narratives from physicians who have been subjected to this, as well as a newspaper editor and others that have experienced this censorship. And since the book came out, we have had the benefit of the group. Michael Schellenberger, Matt Taibi, racket News, the consequences of Missouri versus Biden and the reveals from that, all of the FOIA information, the FOIA information about the specific targeting of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration by this bully group. I mean, that's really what we have here, is academic and media bullying of physicians. And it's come out through a variety of disclosures that much of this has been organized by the intelligence community and by organizations like CISA within the US government and the UK government, the 77th Brigade. And we absolutely have documentation now about the deployment of. I referred previously to fifth generation warfare of military psyops divisions against their own citizenry in the United States, Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, the Five Eyes nations, and probably also in much of western Europe. So what has been revealed is that a lot of this activity has been organized. We've had, of course, the various, I refer to them now as Mockingbird media, very intelligence community influenced and coordinated corporate media outlets and their messaging and attacks, coordinated attacks on me and many others. It's not just me. I'm just kind of a particularly good case study because I was out early and out visibly and a little bit harder to take down, I think, than some. But we have now, for instance, the evidence that through the foundation for CDC, which is funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and other players. So this nonprofit foundation that the congress has specifically allowed, there's an analogous one for NIH, has taken the donated money and funded the public good projects, which then has funded a contract to shots heard around the world. This is just one example that has assembled, essentially, a social media gang stalking group. Gang stalking is technically a federal crime, but they've organized this and they send out emails, they've arranged for these social media influencers, many of them physicians and scientists, all ostensibly working to advance the public good, because, of course, anything that would cause vaccine hesitancy would cause excess loss of life because the vaccines are so good and the virus is so deadly. And so what the foundation for CDC did through this contracting mechanism was assemble a very large group of social media influencers and then arranged with the social media companies that these people would not be retaliated against in any way. So they got special protections and status and then would send out email blasts to these people saying, hey, Dr. X has said this thing on Twitter or X or LinkedIn, I'm still off of LinkedIn, by the way, or Facebook, or choose your poison. And then these people would all attack that person and also send letters to their medical boards, et cetera, complaining and asking that these people lose their license. Now, Jennifer, here's the good news. It could be worse, because in Canada, they have literally implemented re education programs in which, and Jordan Peterson, of course, is one of the most high profile of individuals. But many average physicians who prescribed early treatment or wrote medical exemptions for the vaccines have also been convicted in these kangaroo courts. And in order to retain their license, they have to pay for reeducation. We call it reeducation. This is textbook USSR. They have to have reeducation. And at the end of their $5,000 reeducation program that they have to take, they have to write a letter indicating their regret for their various transgressions. And if that is not sufficiently persuasive and convincing to an anonymous review board, then they have to retake that whole program and write another letter at the end of it at their own cost if they wish to continue practicing medicine. So my point is that it could be worse. And like a lot of the things that we've seen during the COVID crisis, for instance, the debanking, the advocacy for central bank digital currency, various forms of social control, this has been pioneered in what I assert is a client state of the World Economic Forum now, and is intended to be deployed throughout the other client states of the WEF. And a good case could be made that the UK is already there, Ireland is already there, New Zealand, throughout Jacinda Arden. So, so far there's some good signs there. But the next election, I believe, is going to make a determination about whether or not the United States is going to become a full web client state, as opposed to this kind of hybrid globalist situation where we find ourselves right now. The other day I was talking to a colleague from CPAC who was telling me about Kevin McCarthy. One of the bizarre things that's happened over the last three years is I've been embraced by the conservative community, as you mentioned, with Jeffrey, and they told me that Kevin McCarthy is all in on globalism, and his position is just that the Republicans need to find a way to do it better than the Democrats. That's where we're at, is what we've seen play out around us, which so many are asserting is an intentional, creeping form of socialist Marxism is embraced by what are ostensibly both political parties that are supposed to be in opposition. But we have euphemisms for this, like rhinos, et cetera. And they're all kind of playing from the same playbook. They're just arguing about the fringes, the nuances of the new world order. And that's what's in play. If people don't stand up and object and wake up, we're going to see this integrated system of information and media control and thought control that is so aligned with the dark warnings of George Orwell. Absolutely. George Orwell is like the operational side. Anne Rand is the underlying intellectual underpinnings that drive all of this as a system. And as you know, the anarcho capitalists are all dancing right now, feeling completely vindicated. [01:08:45] Speaker A: Well, yes, of course, Ayn Rand was not an anarchist, but she did believe that ideas rule the world and that politics is downstream from culture. Culture is downstream from philosophy. And that's why we focus on introducing young people to the philosophical ideas of Ayn Rand and objectivism. I always like to say that to be objective, one must have perspective. And I think it is very easy to get dispirited because we are constantly bombarded by negative headlines and bad news, and we're evolutionarily wired to look for threats. But you and your wife have certainly been a model of resilience. Every interview I've ever watched of yours, it's always with equanimity and grace and good cheer and generosity. [01:09:44] Speaker B: Thank you. [01:09:44] Speaker A: So, looking around, what do you see as some of the positive reasons for hope? So that we can fortify ourselves to be committed to fight what's wrong, but also gain some strength and balance from what might be going right and gain gratitude for that as we lean into 2024. [01:10:09] Speaker B: Well, thanks for the opportunity to try to close on a positive note, which is also the message of the book. What is that? Better future. And I earnestly and honestly believe that we are going through a transition period, a turning, and that turning can move towards, in theory, the world of transhumanism and that dark aeon, referencing another book, a version in which humanity is merely a stepping stone to evolution of a machine species that's superior. That's that vision. I think that our future as a species and as individuals is very much grounded in the dynamic tension between the sovereign individual and group or collective action. I'm not in any way a collectivist. I'm not a socialist. But having learned from the logic, particularly of Atlas Shrugged, I believe that we do need to self assemble into active communities that share a common commitment to the ideal of living in a world with a minimalist government. I'm not personally an NCAP. I'm probably more appropriately described, as is Jeffrey, as a micro cap. I'm a fan of minimal government. I'm a constitutionalist, at least at present. I think that's the best document we have at present for managing human affairs in a governmental structure. I do believe in the and have really benefited from the counseling of Matthias Desmot, author of the psychological basis of totalitarianism, and coming out with a new book focusing on what we can do to overcome this creeping totalitarianism that we've all been subjected to and immersed in what we can do to wake up and help wake up our fellow men or persons. And his prescription is, in short, truth speech. So one thing that all of you can do as a positive action item is commit yourself to speaking truth. Speaking truth is more than just what it seems on the surface. It's opening up your soul to others and speaking from the heart, speaking with a profound honesty. Sometimes that's extremely painful, but people respond to it. They can recognize when it happens. I'm not a perfect communicator of truth speech, but it seems to be something that I manage to hit from time to time that resonates with an audience. And as a consequence of speaking truth to authority, speaking my truth, recognizing that truth is often context dependent. I have been subjected to enormous levels of attacks from every corner of the compass, politically, and they continue. And yet, here I am. My marriage is intact. My wife loves me. I love my wife. Our farm, our own personal golf sculch thrives. Our horses are all fine, our dogs are happy. And I'm still communicating as I am here, and trying to live in a world of ideas, interpretation, comprehension, and share that with others. And if I can withstand it, you can too. So don't allow the bullies to intimidate your speech. Intimidate your truth. Don't let them shut you up. In the Bibles, there's the infamous parable, having to do with hiding one's light under a bushel basket. Speak freely. Speak honestly. Recognize that you will be receiving blowback, including bullying and harassment, from people who don't understand you, who don't agree with you. But please have the courage to try to practice truth speech in your daily life within your family, to your children, to your relatives, to the souls in the grocery line, I like to say, don't be a jerk about it, but be honest. And when you do that, or let me put it the opposite way, if you don't do that, every time you withhold your truth, a little tiny bit of your soul is carved out. And when you get to 64, when you're 64, I'm there. Beatles song. It's really nice to arrive with your soul more or less intact. We all make mistakes, and God knows I've made mine. But by speaking truth and remaining true to that inner voice, you can retain ownership of your soul, and that's worth something. And then the other thing I like to close on, in addition to emphasizing the importance of truth, speech, and courage, is these three words that came to me when I was trying to build a speech to give on the Lincoln Memorial in a very cold January. I think it was over two years ago in which I emphasized integrity, dignity, and community as the three things. If you focus on those that can help get us out of this integrity, of course, being truthful, something that has been grossly compromised throughout this last three years and beyond, we now know that the government has been lying to us for decades and decades and decades, and does it with a skill and ability the likes of which has never been seen before because of digital media, et cetera. Integrity has to be restored. And I argue in the kind of the foundation documents for the Malone Institute that we shouldn't even do business with people who lack integrity. Just don't do it. Dignity comes from some discussions I had with a biographer of a key catholic bishop, Bishop Pagano. And he emphasized the importance of human dignity in the teachings of the church. And I think that's an important underpinning, too. We have had human dignity trampled into the mud during this. This is what the failure to provide informed consent is. This is the belief system that the state knows better, that the nanny state has the right to tell you what to do, that they have the right to determine how you should act and what you should do that is destructive of this fundamental property of human dignity, the respect that we should show each other no matter what our walk of life is. And then the last one, community. That comes from Matthias's teaching that the underlying event here that has enabled the government to deploy these various strategies on us so effectively has been fragmentation and loss of community. And I think that the way forward to the better future, in particular, runs through the assembly of what are functionally autonomous communities such as were described in Goldskulge and the growth of new ethics and structures. I don't know what the answers are. I don't know what the best political solutions are. I don't know the best way for humans to self assemble in communities. Many various experiments have been tried over time, but not all possibilities have been explored. I think that's what the young people can give to the world, is the possibility of a breakthrough in human community, organization and structure. And I believe it's got to be a decentralized one. [01:19:32] Speaker A: Yes, and that's hopefully what we can provide at the Atlas Society to the young people in our community coming to our Gult 2.0 conference in Washington, DC next summer, that at least for them, to explore, understand, and try out the principles of relating to each other, rational self interest, and a politics of laissez faire capitalism. So the book again is live, my government told me, and the better future coming, everyone. Please check it out. Dr. Malone, thank you so much for joining us and particularly during this holiday time. I really appreciate you and I really enjoyed meeting both you and your wife, and I hope to see you again soon. [01:20:22] Speaker B: Thanks, Jennifer, and thanks for tolerating my long windedness. [01:20:26] Speaker A: And I want to thank all of you who have joined us on our very last the Atlas Society asks of the year. Next week it will be 2024. So I see all of you that sign up on Zoom, all of you that ask questions, all of you that join us. I see some of you who are putting your money where your mouth is. You're supporting the Atlas Society with tax deductible donations. And I know some of you were probably waiting till today to do that. So make sure to get your tax deductible donation to support the Atlas Society in if it's the very first time you've ever donated, that donation, whether it's five or ten or 100 or whatever, will be matched by our board. So thanks in advance and I will see you next year when we are going to be joined by editor at large for tablet magazine Lille Lipovitz. We're going to be talking about the surge in anti semitism on college campuses and what we can do about it. Thanks everyone. See you soon.

Other Episodes

Episode

June 30, 2022 01:04:31
Episode Cover

The Atlas Society Asks James Lindsay

Join CEO Jennifer Grossman on the 110th episode of The Atlas Society Asks as she talks with one of the most interesting public intellectuals...

Listen

Episode 0

September 14, 2020 00:49:30
Episode Cover

The Atlas Society Asks Terrance Wren

Join us for The Atlas Society Asks Terrance Wren. Terrance is a popular TikTok commentator and entrepreneur. The father of four from East Saint...

Listen

Episode 0

March 24, 2021 01:02:24
Episode Cover

The Atlas Society Asks Jose Cordeiro

Jose Cordeiro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Luis_Cordeiro) is a futurist, an MIT engineer, an economist, a transhumanist, and an author of a dozen books, his most recent being...

Listen