Oslo Lecture, Book Launch; "Lies My Government Told Me"

DOCUMENT: Robert Malones boklansering i Oslo 5. desember

Hans Rustad:

This is a great honor, to receive Robert Malone and Jill. We met at the airport today, and just to get to know each other. And you know as well as I do that Robert Malone has been very important in raising a counter-voice to the regime that is descending upon the West, so that the West is no longer the West, would I submit. I will make it short and give the word to the moderator, Christian, who has been his publisher. And Malone will give a speech, and there will be question and answers. But Christian, I leave the floor to you.

Christian Skaug:

So lovely to see all of you here. So we are here to launch the Norwegian edition of Lies My Government Told Me, and the Better Future Coming. This book tells the true story of how the so-called public health response to the Coronavirus outbreak ended up with a breach of ethics, a violation of the sound practice of science, of medicine, of government, as well as, I'd say, the suspension of normal democratic procedure and even of free public discourse. This even went a long way towards destroying normal social life. It even split families. And I think most of us here tonight are still struggling to understand how could this happen, and the book we are launching today helps us to understand this.

So we are naturally delighted to have the author with us. He is not the only author. Several chapters in the book have been written by other contributors. Among others, Mattias Desmet, whom we already published, as you know, and as I'm sure Robert would be the first one to point out, he's not the only main author either, because, as he tells us, he has been working side by side continuously with his wife, Jill, who has the same moral right to the authorship. So Jill and Robert, thank you so much for coming.

Robert Malone is a medical doctor from Northwestern Feinberg Medical School, and he has also completed a fellowship at Harvard University. It was in global clinical research. Yes. He has been working as a researcher for medical business, for the government, for the defense, is an expert on virus outbreaks, on the flu, on vaccines, but also on the approval process for drugs. So he knows the medical system, the government system, the defense from the inside, and I'm sure that makes for some interesting perspectives. His personal story with COVID-19 starts with a telephone call from a former colleague who says that there's an outbreak in Wuhan. And Robert and Jill had been working with several outbreaks in the past, so they started to see, how could we contribute? So Robert started to try to figure out what kind of drugs already on the market could be used to treat patients, to give early treatment because this is a new virus, so it will take time to develop new drugs. So let's try to save lives with existing drugs.

And Jill started to write a book on how to protect oneself against this new threat. In the beginning, this was a potentially huge threat. We didn't know. Now we know better, of course. So Jill wanted to publish her book on Amazon, and then the surprising thing happened, that Amazon censored the book. And as you write, Robert, in the book, at that time, we knew that something very dark was happening. So that was the turning point in your life, I suppose. Now, on top on his other expertise, Robert is also the original inventor of mRNA technology for use in vaccines. Now, not everybody acknowledges this, and if you believe the New York Times, and in particular the hit pieces in the New York Times that are made to discredit a person, he knows almost nothing about mRNA and certainly has no honor in developing the vaccine.

And this year's Nobel Prize in Medicine went to other researchers for... How did they say it? For discoveries that enable the development of effective vaccines against COVID-19. The reason is a lie. They're not effective. But interestingly, one of those two, if I'm not mistaken, has credited you in the past, Robert, for your contributions to the field. So you have the New York Times saying he knows nothing about the field, you have the Nobel Prize winner saying that he was a contributor, so how do you combine those two statements? You cannot, because the New York Times is no longer a real newspaper. As Dennis Prager says, "Reading the New York Times today is like reading Pravda during the Soviet Union." And this is more or less where we have ended up. Our countries, your country and my country, are starting to look like the old Eastern European communist states. And in such a country, who wants medals? Who wants prizes? You saw these parades with the big shots, communists, they had those uniforms full of medals. They just looked ridiculous.

So the Nobel Prize has been politicized as everything else. Let me remind you that the Nobel Prize for physics in 2021 went to a guy who did climate models, but climate models are not real physics, so this is where we have ended up. So this book is, I think it's the most complete protocol of the madness we have been living through these few years. I have never seen anything like it. So you may ask, why should we take a look back at all this? This is behind us now, isn't it? Why shouldn't we forget about all these sad things, the injustices, and look forward? The answer to that is we shall indeed look forward. But to understand those dark forces that Robert mentioned, we need to look back because the methods they were using during the Corona crisis, the manipulation, the brainwash, the psychological operations, the tyrannical methods are still in use. They will be used again.

So we need to look back in order to look forward, to understand who we are fighting, because this kind of global tyranny is not something we want to live with, so I'd say let's fight. So time has come to give the word to the author. I have gently encouraged representatives of the government and the mainstream press to be here, but I think there are none. So I think you are largely among friends, Robert, so we are proud to have a modern American freedom hero with us today. So dear audience, please welcome Dr. Robert Malone.

Dr. Robert Malone:

Thank you, Christian, for such a lovely introduction. Clearly you've read the book. It's a small subset. It's not an easy book to get through. I guess I should say something about how the book came to be. The truth is that way back in time, it seems forever, I had received a call from Mr. Steve Kirsch who was frustrated because a drug that he had sponsored the development of had passed through clinical testing, another repurposed drug. And he had sponsored this clinical research at Washington University in St. Louis, and the results have been favorable. And Steve, an engineer from Silicon Valley who is credited with the discovery and development of the optical mouse, so that's his claim to fame and the source of his wealth, had been sponsoring clinical research, medical research for a long period of time. He's truly a philanthropist, not one of these philanthro-capitalists that make their philanthropic investment in order to make more profit on the side, like some people that are well-known probably to this audience.

And Steve, having completed this milestone and had these positive trial results, had reached out to the FDA and asked if this now qualified for emergency use authorization for this drug. Now, he's an engineer, he doesn't really understand the system, and it really wasn't the right question to ask, but there's no way he would've known that. And they basically told him to go take a long walk and a short dock. I think this is a metaphor that Norwegians would understand. And so he came away very frustrated and talked to people and they said, "You should talk to this guy, Malone, because he might be able to help you sort this out." So that's what brought Steve Kirsch into my world. And I arranged for a meeting with the right people at this organization called BARDA, which has ties to the CEPI organization that some of you may know, that was partially funded by your government. And that's another story.

And arranged for this meeting, and I'm sitting in this meeting over Zoom because the virus is around, and listening to Steve keeps saying, "Yeah, but that doesn't make sense." And the two of us saying, "But that's the way things are." And Steve saying, "Yeah, but that doesn't make sense." And I suddenly saw through his eyes, I had a moment of insight, a flash, where I realized that in a fundamental way, he was right. The world had gone crazy. If you know the metaphor of the boiling frog, I was the frog that had been boiled. I had come along to the point where I had accepted all of these things as the normal practice in my industry, not realizing that fundamentally they were dysfunctional at best. They didn't make any sense. They didn't advance the interests of patients. So, that was that.

And then the next thing was, I got a call from Steve. "I think you should come out to Portland, Oregon." "Why should I come out to Portland, Oregon, Steve?" "Because I want you to be on a podcast." And I had hardly even heard of a podcast at that point. "And furthermore, I want you to be on a podcast with The Dark Horse Podcast." And this sounded really scary to me. I thought this must be the dark web. This guy is asking me to get involved in the steamy underbelly of the internet, but in fact, it's the name of Brett Weinstein's podcast. So we flew out there, and as I like to say, three old men sitting around a table for two hours talking to each other. And the world is fascinated, and there's a million hits before they de-platform Brett off of YouTube for what we said. And I knew that something was happening that was very different.

And that, together with Jill's book, which had been published on Amazon, was getting good sales. We were very pleased. Her first major literary work. And then, yes, and I helped write it, I think she's reminding me, but she was the primary author. She worked really hard to get it out. Matter of fact, we've been criticized. This is proof that, in fact, I'm deep state and I knew about this beforehand, because otherwise it couldn't have come out as quickly as it came out. But the reason it came out as quickly as it came out is because Jill worked her can off to write the darn thing, and it was all academically referenced by a PhD and an MD, and you would've thought that would've been okay. And then Jill's insight was that with Amazon self-publishing, with people with Kindles, they could get the electronic version of the book, subscribe to that, and then we could update it periodically as new information came in, and they would automatically get the updates because our focus was trying to help people.

And it comes around to the third update and she loads it and nothing happens. And Amazon doesn't get back to us and call and call and call and, "Whoa, we don't know what's going on." And then finally, somebody on the other end of the phone line says, "Well, we're going to have to remove the book," this book that is just intended to help friends and family and people around us prepare for what's happening. And we ask why. "Well, we don't really know why." And then it goes around and around. And finally they say these words that we had never heard before. "You violated community principles." "What community principles did we violate?" "Well, we can't tell you that, but you violated community principles." And as Christian said, that's when we knew that everything was not anything like the prior outbreaks that we'd been involved with, because we were battle-hardened veterans. We've been through so many of these things. So, that's what kicked it off.

And then not covered in the book is the months and months of intense work with a volunteer team that started after I got that first phone call from Michael Callahan on January 4th, I think, of 2020, alerting me that there was this novel coronavirus in Wuhan that looked like a real threat. Probably, in retrospect, that a lot of that dialogue with Callahan was actually PSYOPs, was actually him planting information into me,§ expecting that I would amplify that information, including the focus on the virus as a major pathogen. And he told me a number of things that in retrospect, in alignment with other things that had been written about him by his close friend, Brendan Burell, that had been published in places like National Geographic, the picture doesn't fit.

I notice all these ships around here. Michael absolutely was in Wuhan, whether it was late 2019 or early 2020. The Chinese government knew that he was a US intelligence operative. Whether he was still one or a retired one, that's a little unclear. The author of the New York Times piece seemed to have extremely detailed information about Michael Callahan and his relationship to the CIA, so you can infer from that whatever you will. And he was put in a hotel, allowed to be there under his academic appointment with Harvard, because there was an exchange program with a university that was nearby to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And he was allowed to visit the main hospital in Wuhan for half a day and observe how they were treating patients. And then he participated in a series of Zoom conferences where he learned how the Chinese were treating the patients and some of the problems they'd run in with their PCR tests, et cetera.

And then he left Wuhan, somehow escaping by boat, because he wasn't officially supposed to be there in theory. That's the story. And shortly after he left Wuhan by boat, which I guess is the way you get out if you're an intelligence person and you're not really supposed to be there in the first place, and was assigned by his close contact, Bob Kadlec, who was the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. So over BARDA, the main funding agency in the government. And Callahan reported to Kadlec. Kadlec assigned Callahan to manage, I see all these ships, the Diamond Princess outbreak. Callahan managed the Diamond Princess outbreak, brought the Americans back. Strangely, they didn't really have to have quarantine procedures for such a deadly virus, but they were brought back. And then he was assigned to develop and deploy the tent city hospitals in New York City that ended up not being used. And then he was deployed to set policy. Meanwhile, he'd set policy about ventilator uses, et cetera. He was the one that had run the remdesivir trials for Ebola previously in Africa.

And then he set policy about how to use the ventilators in the United States, and was assigned to manage and development policy at some of the early nursing home outbreaks in the United States. So in many ways, a lot of the policies that the United States adopted were pioneered by Dr. Callahan, with knowledge and input from the CCP. So that's that front part of the story, and meanwhile, after getting the call, I spun up a group of volunteers that I was working with for another project and got them to volunteer to do computational drug discovery with the full library of all known compounds, both nutraceuticals and pharmaceuticals. And that, among other things, led to the discovery of famotidine, this stomach acid drug that is used by people with mast cell syndrome and the role of mast cells in the disease, et cetera.

So we kept working on that until, under the thesis and my threat assessment that there was not sufficient time to develop a vaccine that would be safe and effective knowing, having decades of experience in the area, that to develop a safe and effective vaccine in alignment with international norms, not just American norms, would take up to a decade, certainly take five to six years, and would not really be possible in a timeline that would help people prevent death. And at the time, remember, the official narrative had become that the rate of death, the case fatality rate, which means if you get infected, you have a 3.4% chance of dying. That was the official policy worldwide promoted by the WHO and largely coming from the Imperial College in the UK modeling. We were just talking about climate modeling not being physics, and public health modeling is not epidemiology.

But that's what was promoted was that it was a 3.4% case fatality rate, which would have meant that we would have mass graves and the hospitals would've been full, and we would have to have freezer vans to carry the overflow because we wouldn't be able to fit them in the morgues and all those things. Under a 3.4% case fatality rate, we would've seen those kinds of things. Out of every 100, people infected three and a half basically would've died. Early on, in about this same timeframe, unbeknownst to me, a group at Stanford led by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, some of you may know that name because of the Great Barrington Declaration, for which he was vilified for basically, together with two other very senior epidemiology colleagues from the obscure universities of Yale and Oxford, as I recall, in addition to his position at Stanford, all full professor. Basically, in the Great Barrington Declaration, led by my friend Jeffrey Tucker, by the way, he's the one that facilitated that of Brownstone Institute. That's another story. They recited what was the WHO position on how to manage a pandemic up until 2019.

So basically, all the Great Barrington Declaration was is a restatement of this is the policy that the world has all agreed upon based on decades of experience up until when this event happened. But what Jay first did, and I only recently learned about this, is he went out as in Stanford, being in Palo Alto, essentially San Francisco area, very progressive region. People were very frightened, very responsive to the fear that was being promoted, and lining up for testing because there wasn't a vaccine available yet. We now know that a lot of that testing was poorly controlled and over-diagnostic in terms of the PCR assays. But Jay went into those lines together with his team and got information about the people that were lining up for that testing, and then made the assessment of what was the true case fatality rate at that point in time at the beginning of the outbreak.

And the number he came up with was about 0.02%. Now, I think you were just alluding to this, Christian, we now know that in fact, they got it right. That is the case fatality rate. It's about 0.02% across all ages.

Much lower in children, a little bit higher in the elderly and those with pre-diabetic conditions and other high risk factors. But Jay got it right. In fact, Mr. Trump got it right, to give credit where credit's due. Early on, he said that it was less than a 1% case fatality rate, which he was excoriated for by our good friends at the New York Times, among many others. And he, not to his credit, flip-flopped on that and accepted the dominant narrative that it was more like 3.4% case fatality rate. So that's a little bit of history.

We carried on with our drug discovery efforts with Department of Defense funding and developed a protocol involving three agents, celecoxib, famotidine, and another agent that you may have heard of called ivermectin. And this is all being sponsored by the Department of Defense under a program designed to rapidly identify medical countermeasures for emerging infectious diseases based on existing drugs.

And as that proceeded, I was able to convince the Department of Defense to designate, I think it was about $300 million in funds to do large scale clinical trials, very cutting edge for this three drug therapy. And we did all the right things, put together a very experienced team and seasoned veteran drug developers to try to get this through as quick as possible. And we put together the documents, submitted it to the FDA, they sat on it for a couple of months and then they said, "Nope, that's not going to go forward." And this went to two or three rounds. The team had never encountered anything ... And these are seasoned multi-decade veterans. They'd never seen anything like this in the past. And finally, the FDA put down their feet and they said, "If you are going to use ivermectin in this protocol, you have to show us in the test tube how ivermectin works.

Now, that's never been the position of the FDA in the past, that you have to demonstrate mechanism of action in order to launch a clinical trial for an already licensed drug that's already been proven to be safe and effective for other indications. And they put up such a roadblock that the Department of Defense gave up. So the Department of Defense could not overcome the FDA's intransigence, and they withdrew the ivermectin from the protocol. And then finally we got the whole thing through and just started the trial when Omicron dropped. And as you know, Omicron basically, as I predicted on Laura Ingram at the time in that Christmas cycle, functioned as if it was a very effective infectious vaccine. It was highly infectious and poorly pathogenic, and basically all of us got natural immunity at that point in time, and it really shut down to the extent that there wasn't a major risk.

Now, in retrospect, what the epidemiologists that have been looking at the only data that has any integrity in the world right now that's available, which is all cause mortality data from a variety of sources, because death is a binary endpoint. You either die or you don't die. And it's very difficult to manipulate those data, particularly if you're getting them from insurance actuaries, another thing that Norway knows well about because you do naval insurance. And you know that the insurance business is all about having the right data so that you can make an accurate prediction of the bad event like this shipwreck that you may have to ensure.

And in the case of death and disease or morbidity and mortality, the insurance actuaries are rigorous data scientists capturing data from all over the world. And that has turned out to be the only reliable data. Now, to get to the punchline of what I said yesterday to the British Parliament and was reinforced by the others that testified with me, what we need now, if there's one thing that could come out of your action in interacting with the Norwegian government or any of these other Scandinavian nations with socialist healthcare systems where you have such strong capture of data on a patient level, it's to open the books. If we could just get the data from governments which they're hiding on what has transpired on the relationship between vaccination and death and disease, then we could answer all these questions about whether or not these products are safe and effective.

Now, most of us in this room already know the answer, and I sense that most governments already know the answer because otherwise they'd be glad to disclose the data. But that's where things are at right now. And you've heard this recent kerfuffle over the gentleman that disclosed these data from New Zealand from a government database that were anonymized so that there wasn't compromising pace and confidentiality, and it resulted in the usual. It's become so routine, the circular firing squad where everybody suddenly starts shooting at each other saying, "Well, you interpreted that wrong. You got this little nuance wrong. There's this flaw in the data and that flaw in the data, et cetera, et cetera." And we all go around in a big circus that's probably partially promoted by those that in pharma and the governments that want us to all attack each other and we get nowhere.

And that's the story that's played out over the last week if any of you have been paying attention. And I assert that the solution to that whole situation is not to be attacking each other over whether or not somebody has made a mistake in analyzing a given body of data, but rather to turn our focus on the governments as we did last night regarding the National Health Service and say, "Hey, let's clean all this up. Let's resolve this controversy by just getting access to the data. And once we have access to the data direct from the governments that's been anonymized, so we protect patient confidentiality, then we can argue about those data, we can analyze those data and there's going to be differences of opinion about those data, but at least we'll all be talking about the same thing. And we should be able to get to the point where we all come to terms with what those data mean in terms of safety and effectiveness, and hopefully break through a lot of the denial that exists in the European Parliament and so many other places."

So that's kind of where we stand. Now in terms turning back to the book, I told you the story of what led me into this bizarre world of the podcast. And once we had done that and we started to get this enormous press backlash of ... How else do you say it? It's not just defamation, it's character assassination. It's targeted character assassination. And it reaches out into Wikipedia in an organized fashion that involves British intelligence. And we could go on and on and on. I mean, the mechanisms for the propaganda campaign that have been deployed on all of us in a globally harmonized fashion are like nothing I've ever seen before. I think it's like nothing the world has ever seen before. I think we have witnessed the most profound, highly organized PR propaganda campaign in the history of the modern western world over the last four years.

And so I started to experience it early on because I was out front in just trying to help people to understand what was happening. And as we got this backlash, Jill and I sat down and said, "What are we going to do about this? You can't fight it when anything you say they can and will use against you and distort, what can you do?"

And so the decision we made was to throw ourselves into the podcast, and I've done hundreds and hundreds of podcasts trying to just educate people about what this technology is, what's going on. And then once again, looping back, I got a call from this guy, Steve Kirsch, who said, "Robert, there's this new thing you need to look into. It's called Substack." And Substack is a application that supports independent authors. It's really become in the states, one of the greatest mechanisms for enabling alternative media. And now there's a number of authors, journalists like Matt Tavi and others that are on Substack as their primary venue because they can't stand working for corporate media anymore. They can't stand working for this organization, this monolith that's all integrated, that is so heavily influenced by the government, as was said in the opening comments. Any of you that follow these things, operation Mockingbird goes back to about '48 by the CIA, and it involves the direct manipulation and hiring of mainstream journalists to put out stories that the US government wants to have put out.

For instance, we could discuss Nord Stream, just something that you all know a little bit about, but that was a great example. You got to see that engine in action as that story broke. Whatever you think about that story, it's a great case history in how this machine works to propagate a storyline that's approved by the government, that is in the interest of the government. And suddenly I found myself and Jill at the target of this massive organization, just a little less being labeled as a far right neo-Nazi radical, and then later antisemites. What other things, Joel?

Yeah, which is, I get a paradox. I spent a lot of time with a Jewish babysitter when I was a kid, and I'm the absolute opposite of being an antisemite. I'm probably biased mostly in the other direction, but it didn't matter. They liked to promote these labels. So we decided, what can you do against this monster? You have to go to alternative media if your goal is to get information out. And then Steve said, Substack, and you can support yourself with that, because now I destroyed our business that we had run our consulting business that we'd run for decades.

And I got this call from Steve and Jill and I talk about it, and we say, and kind of in parallel, we get a call from, we have a friend, Gavin de Becker, who happens to run a large security firm and is the backer of the largest super PAC. So this is a political funding organization in the United States supporting Bobby Kennedy. And he's a good friend of a publisher named Tony Lyons that runs an organization called Skyhorse. And we get a call saying, "Robert, I think you should write a book." And Jill and I, so totally naive, we'd never really done a formal book before. So I asked the question, "Well, what could we get us in advance?" Because we're starting to run low on money and the sum is modest, let's say. And it's very clear that we're not going to be able to support ourselves and feed our horses off of the advance that we're going to get for writing some future book as first time authors.

And so the epiphany was that Charles Dickens did a lot of his work and serialized it. They would publish chapter after chapter after chapter and circulate his monographs in the UK back in the day. And so the epiphany was, "Oh, we could do that using Substack." And so that's how this book came to be. There's no way we could have written this book if we sat down to write it, because the book is a real time capture of the flow of experience and information during that crucial period of the COVID crisis where everything went upside down in all of these strategies of vilifying physicians, suppressing alternative treatments, promoting exclusively the vaccine. All of that happened. And as it was happening, we were basically on a journey because of the book, the mission of how do you write this book? Our mission that we took was how can we help people make sense out of what's happening?

And so we wrote this day after day after day, we've become daily Substack authors, and at some point we'd accumulated so many of these essays, we said, "Okay, this is finally it." And so we get criticized in the book by some readers that it's a little disjointed, but the truth is it's a series of essays that have put together in a structure. And the big dilemma was how do you structure this kind of real time flow of information into some sort of a volume? And then the insight was why don't we approach it like a physician approaches a patient? So physician approaches a patient in old school medicine, not new medicine, where they ask a series of questions submitted to an AI or something, get a checklist and treat according to the checklist. At least that's how it's happening in the states these days. I hope it's not happening that way here, but it probably is.

So the way I was trained is first you approach the patient and you take a history and physical, you find out what their story is, you find out what their signs and symptoms are, then you come up with a diagnosis, you try to integrate all that and make sense out of it. And then you try to come up with a treatment plan. How are you going to help the patient? And it's the whole patient. It's not just the specific chief complaint they came to you. It's everything around them in a good physician. And so that became the model for the book. So that's why those that have looked into the book, note that it has three sections.

The first section basically covers a series of first person reports. "This is what I experienced," whether it's Spear Corey or Merrill Nass or myself. We're talking about Jill's book, et cetera. It's first person accounts. This is what it's been like to be at the forefront through this particular time experiencing these things. The second part where we dive more into public policy and things like the World Economic Forum, when we started writing about the WEF, it was highly controversial. Steve Bannon reprimanded me for getting out of my swim lane. A lot of people, at first, I wouldn't even talk about the WEF because I thought it was a conspiracy theory, the great reset.

And then Jill got the book and we read the book from Klaus Schwab about The Great Reset, which we didn't find particularly impressive in terms of his acumen or intellect or insight. But there it was, The Great Reset.

Christian Skaug:

His chutzpah was amazing.

Dr. Robert Malone:

Yeah, chutzpah. And of course The Great Reset was first announced by the new King of England. So then we drove deeper into political science. What's happening here? And these words are being bandied about, we were being called fascists. Other people were being called fascists. People were being told, don't use the term fascist. So we looked up what is the meaning of the word fascism in a political science framework. And that's essentially synonymous with corporatism. And corporatism is at the heart of what we've all experienced. This public-private partnerships, ever hear that phrase? Okay, that's a euphemism we have experienced all the way through this, like the redefining of vaccines in order to make them fit into what is this gene therapy applied for eliciting an immune response like the term anti-vaxxer. Did you know that anti-vaxxer now means, according to Webster, that you are not okay with vaccine mandates?

And so if you're not okay with vaccine mandates, then you're an anti-vaxxer. Now, I know some hardcore anti-vaxxers, most of them hate me because I've worked on vaccines for 30 years and they think I'm absolutely evil for having done so let alone having played a role in the genesis of this particular technology that's a major source of hate. I think we once counted. There's about 10 different ways that I've been accused of being a mass murderer and having invented this technology is one of them. So there are absolutely people that are adamant that you shall not vaccinate your child and you should not take vaccines. And on that spectrum, are those that get wrapped up in the logic that there's no such thing as a virus. This terrain theory thesis versus germ theory that goes back to the late 1800s in which I readily resolve is saying, "Hey, both are true." Okay?

It matters how you take care of your body. That's the terrain. And it matters whether or not you encounter a significant dose of a pathogen. That's the germ, okay? They don't have to exist separately. But there are folks out there, as you may know if you're active on the internet, that are adamant that there is no such thing as a virus. And I've run into one or two of those here in the north in Europe from time to time.

And so there are all these trends moving all at the same time, everybody fighting with each other for how they see the world and how they assert that everybody else should see the world. And this is actively being promoted, of course, by others that want the chaos within our movement and want us all to be biting at each other all the time because that distracts us from what's really going on. And so as we start to move through these layers of trying to seek who are the puppet masters, what's really driving this? What has happened to us? What does political science teach us about this?

We learned about things like inverse totalitarianism, a phenomena that was predicted. And we discussed in one of the chapters that was observed by a academic from Northern California, Sheldon Adelson, as I recall. Did I get the author name wrong? So inverse totalitarianism is basically where the administrative state becomes our master. And then I, as I'm going along this journey, trying to make sense out of things, I hear a podcast from this character, Mathias Desmond, that use these terms mass formation or mass psychosis or mass formation psychosis was how the original podcast was labeled. And when I listened to what he had to say about the fragmentation of society and social structure, the atomization of individuals, bullshit jobs, all of the precursors that tore us all apart as a society that enabled this mechanism to be deployed on us, suddenly I had an answer for the why and how, or certainly how a lot of this had been deployed.

And Mathias has since become a great friend, and I've since become attacked. This is yet another way that I'm a mass murderer, by the way, is because the thesis is that by focusing on the psychology of the individual, which by the way goes back to Freud and Hannah Arendt, and Plato and the allegory of the cave, I was enabling the global predator. So just good to know another way that I've contributed to the end of the world.

But as I assimilated Matthias's theory, I found that in speaking to audiences, including groups of people much larger than this, I was seeing this odd thing in the audience grown men breaking down in tears as they were hearing this theory of psychology. Very odd, because all of us have had our social structure and our families and our professional relationships and everything that we thought we knew about the world and right and wrong, torn apart. And families against families, parents against children.

How could this happen? This sleepwalking, this acceptance of the promoted narrative without critical examination? And I still think that Mathias got as close as anybody has to making sense out of that. And while I'm on that thread, I just had the pleasure of listening to Mathias talk about his latest book when we did the fourth International COVID Summit in Bucharest about two weeks ago, in which he, in his lecture, mentioned that in his new book, he's focusing on how do we get out of this? What do we do? What's the treatment? What's the treatment plan for this mass formation phenomena? And his answer is truth speech.

His answer relates to what he's observed, for instance, in the activities of Mahatma Gandhi, a man, by Mathias telling, of no particular stature, not particularly good-looking, no particular intellectual gifts who spent his entire life focusing on trying to speak truth as best as he possibly could. And in so doing overthrew the British Empire. An amazing story. And so this is Matthias's teaching to all of us, whether you wish to concur or disagree, is that what we need to do, what all of you can do to help keep society from falling even deeper into this phenomena that we observe around us, otherwise you wouldn't be here, is to speak truth.

And in the case of folks like myself and Pierre Corey and Ryan Cole, and even Steve Kirsch with his idiosyncrasies, what we're doing is we're trying in our own ways to speak truth. And I'm constantly amazed that people want to listen to us. And I think it teaches us that the world is hungry for genuine interaction. They're desperate for it.

Many people phrase all of this in terms of good and evil, however you want to structure it for your own mental health to make sense out of what we're experiencing. Certainly good and evil is one way to think about it. And in order for people to keep the world and their communities from going even deeper into this process that Mathias describes, that is really the process that Hannah Arendt described concerning her observations of World War II and the concentration camps and all that. Mathias is really a 21st century update of Hannah Arendt. We all need to speak truth bravely, consistently. And if my presence is useful to you in any way, I hope it's useful by demonstrating that a person can withstand all of the brutal ugly.  I mean they could shoot me, but in terms of harassment, ridicule, deplatforming, all of the things that we know people can do to each other, I've been hit with most of it and I'm still standing here. I'm still here with you. I'm still happy. I still love my wife. We're still together. We have our farm and we're living our lives and we're brought to places like this to meet new friends. We've had an incredible journey of meeting people and making new friends and learning from people all over the world. What a wonderful thing to have happen when you're 64.

Early on I had people kind of come up to me and say, "What's it like to have this happen so late in your life?" And I'm like, I don't know. It's just we go day by day. And the point is, if I can be a happy warrior her and live through this, so can you. And so that's by way of encouraging you to have courage and do what Mattias diagnose and his treatment plan, which is try to speak truth to those around you and you will get blowback. You all know it. Whether it's your children or your neighbor or the person that you meet in the store or your fellow workers or the healthcare institution that you work for or whatever, they are going to push back because, I'm going to say something that's kind of strong, we are threats to the state, which is just bizarre.

They're perceiving us as threats to their legitimacy because what they've done is wrong and I think they know it and they're going to do anything they can to shut us down because if the truth on all this comes out as it's coming out now, they're going to have so many questions to answer. There has been a huge human tragedy. Going back to the looping back to the Nobel Prize, they made a number of assertions in making those awards, both in the initial announcement and subsequently in the press conference of the committee. And one was the rationalization that the vaccine had saved 14 million lives. That's based on a Lancet article. And it turns out that that Lancet article has some fundamental mathematical flaws. Thanks God there are mathematicians in the world that can fact-check, actually fact-check statisticians and determined that they have scrambled their numerators and denominators and that they need to go back and do the math.

And so a great group in Canada that specializes in all-cause mortality analysis and has done so for decades, went through and tried to reproduce, where did they get that figure of 14 million lives saved from the jab? And what they found is they reworked the mathematics that had been done to support that Lancet article that was cited by the Nobel Prize Selection Committee at the Karolinska, they found that there were fundamental mathematical flaws, and when they reran those calculations, they found that they could absolutely not demonstrate that there were 14 million lives saved. And a matter of fact, what they did then was they did a more rigorous analysis of all-cause mortality data from all over the world as a function of time. And those that follow this know that you don't see an increase in all-cause mortality up until when the vaccines get deployed and then it kind of takes off.

Now, correlation doesn't prove causation, and there's other things that happen, the lockdowns et cetera, and suicides. And in the United States, fentanyl and there's all... So we all get into this little, again, circular firing squad of, oh, did you remember this variable? Did you deal with that variable? And in fact, there's this big megatrend, but this group was highly qualified academics and they demonstrated that at least 17 million lives have been lost due to the vaccine globally. So we went from 14 million saved in a flawed Lancet article that got the math wrong, to something in the range of 15 to 20 million excess deaths that can be tracked back or appear to be able to be tracked back to this product.

Probably some of those are here in Norway I suspect. And of course there is a cumulative risk. The more jabs you take, each time, it's a little bit like roulette, spin the dial and see, because not everybody gets sick. We don't understand what the factors are that lead to your having risk of significant clinical damage from the vaccine. We do know as Jill and others have compiled all peer-reviewed data on the adverse events associated with these vaccines, which is depending on who's doing the analysis, somewhere in the range of 800 to 1200 papers that these risks fall into some big buckets. And one of those risks is myocarditis and also tachycardia. So damage to the heart. And there appear to be multiple mechanisms that lead to the damage to the heart. Another one is clotting another big one. And clotting of course can damage any part of your body and most notably your brain.

So then that's ischemic stroke. These are acknowledged adverse events of these safe and effective products. And the argument that's made globally by your public health authorities is that these are rare adverse events, but they never define what rare means. One person's rare is another person's high frequency. So you could say that an event rate of one in a thousand for a given adverse event is a rare adverse event. Incredibly say that if you were going to define what you consider to be the threshold for a rare event.

But it seems like in total when you add up myocarditis, neuroinflammation, transverse myelitis, reproductive harms, by the way, most women are well aware that these do cause alterations in menstruation. They may not be aware that these particles accumulate in the ovary, but that was actually known before it was ever injected into humans. They may not know that there is evidence of spike protein expressed after inoculation with these products in the semen and the testis. They may not know that Pfizer apparently believes that one of the main mechanisms of action for this kind of toxicity is direct hypothalamic damage. So that's central nervous system damage, but reproductive risks absolutely occurring. There are many OBGYNs, people involved in delivery of babies, that are asserting that they've never seen such high levels of spontaneous abortions. So there's a cluster of things relating to reproductive health.

And as I mentioned, the heart damage, brain damage, peripheral nerve damage, spinal cord damage, there's evidence of damage to the gastrointestinal system. Pretty much all major anatomic systems are influenced by a variety of different mechanisms. The spike protein is a toxin. And that's another thing that I said early on that I was excoriated for. But in fact, there were already data from the Salk Institute demonstrating the spike was a toxin. And now it's universally pretty much accepted that the spike protein has a number of different toxicities, not the least of which is triggering blood clots. These very unusual blood clots that are highly cross-linked.

So the toxicities are real, and now we're down to arguing, well, how frequently are they? And some people estimate as much as one in 50 people have major consequences after inoculation for each inoculation that are serious enough that causes them to go to the hospital or seek medical attention and treatment. But apparently our public health service and the WHO believe that that's not a significant rate. Most of us would probably say otherwise.

So that's kind of where we stand. Now, there's a new thing that's been discovered, and this is something that should have been known from the outset. I think Kevin McKernan among others are people who are skilled in genomic sequencing from fragments of DNA. And they remember that Pfizer and Moderna by contract prevented your government and most governments from testing vials that normally they would test when they had a shipment come into the country from a pharmaceutical manufacturer, biologics manufacturer, usually your regulatory agency will do independent testing to verify that everything is as the manufacturer purports it to be, but by contract they've been prevented from doing this. And just like there's been a great reluctance to actually provide the list of what the ingredients are.

So these researchers starting with the United States and then followed with another group in Canada, and now I think there's 12 different laboratories that have reproduced it, managed to get a hold of some vials from dissident physicians and others that were still unopened. So they couldn't have been contaminated with say, graphene oxide just to pull a name out of the hat, and sampled those vials and sequenced what they found. And what they found was a very high concentration of DNA fragments. And when they applied their genomics tools to reassemble where a linear map of what those DNA fragments were derived from, what they discovered was that these were bacterial plasmids, circular pieces of DNA that are grown in bacteria. And the reason for doing that is elaborated in this paper from 1989, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, first author Malone, that laid out how you do this and how you manufacture this RNA, which is basically you have to make RNA from DNA. That's how it works. Central dogma biology, DNA makes RNA, RNA makes protein. So to make RNA, you need to start with DNA.

And how are you going to get the DNA? Well, in the clinical trials, they started by making the DNA using PCR, but they couldn't make enough of it. And so they went back to the old way that I had done, which is they grow the DNA in bacteria. And they appear to have taken bacterial plasmids off the shelf that were for research purposes rather than reengineering them specifically for use for this application. They were in a bit of a rush apparently at the end of the initial clinical trials when they figured out they couldn't make enough RNA. And they had to come up with something different, a new manufacturing process, which by the way, almost I think only 300 of the patients, of the thousands of patients that were in the clinical trials were actually inoculated with product from this second manufacturing process. So it's actually not been tested essentially rigorously in clinical research. But they started growing the plasmids in bacteria.

And one of the problems with that is endotoxin a constituent of bacterial cell walls, which humans are super sensitive to, and it causes anaphylactic shock, which by the way is one of the major acute adverse events that have been observed with these vaccine products. The correlation does not prove causation, but these investigators are also seeing elevated levels of endotoxin above that which would normally be allowed, but they're absolutely seeing high levels of these DNA fragment contamination. And what that comes from is when you use these circular DNAs to manufacture the RNA, you've got to get rid of the DNA somehow. So what you do is you use an enzyme that cuts up the DNA into little fragments, and then in this case, they appear to be using a form of centrifugation. So spinning the sample to differentially separate the longer RNA strands from the little small DNA strands. But they're not doing it very well.

And so what's happening is that all those that have taken these products since the early clinical trials have not only been receiving RNA, but they've also been receiving DNA fragments that are part of these same lipid nanoparticles because the whole formulation process, the self-assembly that brings these together doesn't know that it's RNA or DNA, it just knows that it's a negatively charged polymer because it's driven by ionic association like a magnet with iron filings. And so we've all received those of us that have taken the jab, including myself, I took two doses of Moderna because I had long covid from my initial infection in February of 2020 and I needed to travel.

And with my second dose, I got one of the known bad batches and I got tachycardia, hypertension, POTS syndrome, restless leg syndrome, tinnitus, and some of the other things that we now know are common side effects. But we didn't know at the time. So bad on me. I'm sure a number of you were too smart to fall down that trap, but I did.

And so I've probably also received these DNA fragments. And what's the problem with receiving some fragments of DNA? Well, according to Moderna, Moderna's own patents, not to mention the whole history of regulatory affairs with DNA vaccines, delivering DNA fragments into your body creates a high risk for what's called genotoxicity or insertional mutagenesis, which is to say that these little DNA fragments, if they get into your cells and get into your nuclei, have a nasty habit of sticking themselves into your genome.

And that isn't just the genome of your muscle cells or your kidney cells, the mature cells, but also into stem cells. And by the way, these products cross the placenta. I've already mentioned that they have a proclivity for the ovaries and testis. So that's where that's at right now. And these various investigators did this research demonstrated the frequency of these DNA fragments, which vary considerably, in which seem to exceed the previously established threat holds for DNA contamination, and confronted Health Canada, FDA, MRMC and European Medicines Agency. And they've all now kind of come out with statements to the effect of, "Yeah, you're right. Yeah, we didn't tell you about this. So what? We assert that these are not toxic levels," and to which those of us on this side of the discussion have said, show us the data showing that these are not toxic levels. Did you do the studies? Because that's normally what would happen. Show us that you've done the analysis with these lipid nanoparticles that you could administer this level of DNA contamination together with RNA and not cause any genotoxicity or rearrangements.

And it's been crickets, to use an American metaphor. I don't know if you use that metaphor here in Norway. No response, no information, no disclosure, no data. So it appears that they're stonewalling and that in fact we all do have a low level risk of genotoxicity, which may have something to do with the new adverse event that's being observed and was discussed at length last night in the testimony before Parliament, turbo cancers.

And so what is now being observed is an unconfirmed, but frequently observed new phenomena is in the vaccinated is the reactivation of malignancies, particularly lymphoma and leukemia initially, but now also solid tumors in people who have received these products who had, for instance, previously been treated for cancer and were believed to be in remission, end then suddenly the cancer comes back and it's particularly aggressive. It has characteristics like it divides very rapidly. Pathologists call that a high mitotic rate and tends to progress quite rapidly. That's when we talk about what is the risk of the vaccines right now. And the question that I'm often asked, it's a variation of, are we all going to die? And my answer is, yes, we will, because that's kind of the way things go. We're all mortal so far. We haven't yet learned how to load our consciousness onto the internet. I'm sure Bill Gates will be the first and become immortal, but until that point, we're all going to die.

Are we going to die from these vaccines? Some people will. Are we all? No, it's an odds phenomena. We don't really know what the risk factors are. So don't leave this thinking that you have no hope and all of that darkness. But it appears that there it is going to be some fraction of us that will develop malignancies and autoimmune diseases over the next few years. So the all-cause mortality curve that seemed to get kicked off about the same time as the vaccine campaign started is not yet leveling out. It hasn't yet peaked. So we don't really know, to be honest, how that's going to go.

So that's kind of the state of things in terms of the vaccine products and a little bit of background about the book, how it came to be. And it is an ongoing journey. Anybody that follows our substack, and I'm not pitching it to you, but if you want to subscribe to it, you don't have to pay. It's about getting the information out. But we've continued on that same journey of going deeper and deeper into trying to make sense of what has happened to all of us. And I've become convinced, for instance, that in the list of bad actors, we can talk about Klaus Schwab and we can talk about Justin Trudeau and we can talk about Tony Fauci and we can talk about, broken glass, be careful, and Bob Kadlec, who now just last week has come out in a Sky News interview, acknowledging that he cooperated with Tony Fauci to suppress information about the origin of the virus.

I mean, we now know it's pretty explicit that this was engineered by the US government with some component of France involvement and the CCP. It's not the China virus, sorry, Mr. Trump. It is a cooperative venture capitalized by my government and involving technology transfer into the Wuhan Institute of Virology from the likes of Ralph Baric. And that's the truth.

It's a truth that is extremely inconvenient because if you think it through, what are the political and economic consequences if the US government was to acknowledge that its actions gave rise to this pathogen that has destroyed economies, lives all over the world? How could you compensate people for what they've experienced? How could we be compensated for the four years that have been stolen from us? I mean, that's what I feel. And if I let myself get angry, and sometimes it happens, I try to keep it down because the horses don't like it when I get angry, neither does my wife. But sometimes it's hard not to be angry and to come to terms with the fact that we have had a substantial fraction of our life stolen from us for no good reason at all, or for some nefarious reason that we're still trying to make sense out of having to do with economics and power and control.

But it's happened. And how could we ever be compensated for what we've been put through? There's no way to calculate it. That's why I say paradoxically, this little ragtag band of all of us are truly a threat to the state. And we kind of got to come to terms with that because the state will behave as the state would behave when confronted by a threat. And to expect it to do anything else is to be grossly naive.

And it's one of those things, if you're going to sign up for this and be one who speaks truth, in order to keep the culture from even going deeper into crazy land, you need to know that there's going to be blowback. They're going to do ugly things like I was just shared with me about your local nurse that has twice lost her court case for, I guess arbitrary and capricious termination by her employer because she wouldn't take the jab and she wouldn't administer it to other people. And now she's being charged with the court costs that the state has incurred in fighting her request for compensation, for having been inappropriately terminated, and this is happening all over the world. And don't expect anything else. That's another core message here. Don't expect them to be nice. This is not about fair. This is not about proper. This is about power, and you got to come to terms with that.

Our opponents in this don't really see right and wrong in the same way that we do. Obviously, they aren't committed to the Nuremberg code and the Helsinki Accord because none of us were given informed consent. That's obvious. And that's one of the things that really triggered me initially to speak out. The first essay that I wrote about this was triggered by a Canadian physician who had told me the stories of what he was experiencing in Canada in the censorship of his reports of adverse events in patients, and the reaction that he was getting for administering early treatment with licensed drugs, and that he asked that I don't share his name, but if any of you followed Jordan Peterson's story of being forced into a re-education program by the government of Canada, this physician and many others all across Canada are being forced into re-education programs. I mean, you made a reference to the USSR and the former Communist Bloc nations. They are there. Okay?

If you've prescribed early treatment or you've spoken out about the safety or the lack of ethics, bio ethics, fundamental bioethics and what's been done in Canada as a physician, you will be prosecuted, you will lose your license, or you will go through a reeducation program that you have to pay for. It's about 4,000 bucks. At the end of which you have to write a letter of contrition. And if you're not sufficiently contrite, you have to go back in to the same program, pay another $4,000 and write another letter at the end of... That's how this is working. Okay? They have been...

PART 3 OF 4 ENDS [01:21:04]

Dr. Robert Malone:

That's how this is working, okay? They have been, the government of Canada, I assert, has become a client state of the World Economic Forum and is tightly following all of their guidance. And we have the documentation to be able to say that and the statements from Klaus Schwab, about having his words infiltrated the Canadian cabinet, with his World Economic Forum, young leader trained acolytes. And this is what they're doing. And Great Britain is that far away from being in the same place. I don't know where things are at in terms of Norwegian politics. I haven't followed that, forgive me. But this is what's coming at us.

And the latest iteration of this, the one that is currently at the forefront, is an initiative developed by our government, the United States Government Health and Human Services branch called the International Health Regulation Modifications for the World Health Organization, a division of the United Nations that has a treaty relationship, both with Bill Gates, its second-largest funder, and with the World Economic Forum in which this has been examined again and again, the International Health Regulations will give Mr. Tedros, who is not a physician, not even a veterinarian, their right to declare a public health emergency for whatever purpose he wants.

In a nation state, he will have the right to have observers, ergo, spies in your nation state, observing what you're doing, observing if there is something that is believed to, perceived to be a public health crisis. We all saw Monkeypox. Now we're hearing about white lung disease coming out of Canada. Woo, okay. What it is is a combination of respiratory syncytial virus, influenza virus, SARS-CoV-2, and overlay of mycoplasma that's partially drug resistant. I've had mycoplasma about four times in my life as walking pneumonia. We've all had mycoplasma, I guarantee. This is not some new engineered Chinese pathogen as the press is promoting to us. But Mr. Tedros would have the opportunity to declare public health emergency and declare the mitigation measures that your country would have to take.

So national sovereignty goes right out the window. Mr. Tedros, an appointed individual that many assert is basically a puppet of the CCP and the Gates Foundation or Mr. Gates, will have the right to make his own arbitrary and capricious decisions, as he did with Monkeypox and declare a public health emergency in Norway. And you will have to take the jab that he declares you should take. You'll have to take the drugs that he declares you should take. You will have to perform in the ways that the WHO mandates. And by the way, there's over 200 current scientific journals that are calling for recognition of another major public health crisis, climate change. Okay? So climate change will fall under the rubric of the WHO powers under the International Health Regulations and the new WHO Treaty. Something that I'm told is something that you as a body of people, as a culture, as a nation state are not even aware of. But a number of nation states that are aware of it are objecting now and there's a growing momentum of nation states worldwide saying, no, we're not going to endorse this.

Speaker 3:

Because of this resistance

Dr. Robert Malone:

Yeah, Jill wants me to credit all of us for that, and I think there's some merit to that. We certainly have been some squeaky wheels raising this issue of national sovereignty. Which leads to another thing, and maybe I should close on that, which is PsyWar, the topic of our new book, PsyWar Sovereignty and the Rogue State, and this is again, a product of our substack travels of trying to follow down all the little rabbit holes of what's going on here. What's been the role of the CIA? What's been the role of the WEF? How does this all come about? What about the economics? Et cetera, and having the direct personal experience of having been subjected to these methods and techniques, and learning, going back and reading the Warren, the, I'm sorry, the church commission report and the reporting of Carl Bernstein on Operation Mockingbird and all this other documentation.

And now we have this flood of disclosures that have come through Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi and others that we call the Twitter Files, the Facebook Files, the disclosures consequent to Missouri versus Biden, which is hitting the Supreme Court now. And now these, what do they call it? CISA files, that show that this whole censorship activity in the protection of democracy, right? We have to be protected from bad thoughts. That's where we're at. To preserve democracy, you have to be protected from bad thoughts that people are spreading on the internet, like from people like me.

Again, I'm clearly a major threat to the state. Che Guevara, here I come. So we now have this massive body of documentation about what Shellenberger calls, the Censorship Industrial Complex. And that is really what has given rise to the ability of those that control, the phrase that was used early on in the CIA is the Mighty Wurlitzer, which allows our government, and you're well aware of the longstanding intelligence community relationships between our government and your government, for better or worse, they are, to promote whatever narrative they want. And the technology now for doing so in the presence of the internet has been developed to a heightened level that Dick Nixon could only dream of, largely for offshore combat. So this gets to what is fifth generation warfare, the gradients of warfare. First generation war is sword, arrow, sticks and stones, often with centralized authority of the king.

Second generation warfare you can think of as mechanized, beginning to be mechanized. Gatling gun, the first World War and Flanders Fields are kind of the highest development, in many ways, of second generation warfare. In many ways, the Ukraine conflict with Russia right now is falling back on second generation warfare principles, but with drones and other new technologies. But they have battle lines, entrenchments, it's very much like the way the First World War was fought. Third generation warfare is the Blitzkrieg, it's the Nazis, it's their innovation. And one of the key innovations there is command structure. So one of the things that they did, think Rommel, is they empowered their field officers to operate semi autonomously from central command and so adaptive battlefield conditions, and that turned out to be really effective. That's third gen, mechanized tanks, rapid moving forces, decentralized command structure.

Then we come to fourth generation warfare, which is this conflict that we've seen that's more guerilla-like and really hearkens back to the American Revolutionary War, et cetera. These guerilla operations combined with propaganda. That is what has given rise to Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and all the success in the Middle East where you combine this religious fervor and commitment, ability to persuade a population of your point of view, and the purity of your cause and the righteousness of your cause together with kinetic warfare and a very, very decentralized command structure. So one of the things that was learned with the assassination of, I'm suddenly blanking, Osama bin Laden, was that what it did was enable a whack-a-mole where you have pop-up organizations that are loosely affiliated, they all have one central kind of thesis, kill Americans, and we don't really care how you do it, okay?

That turns out to be incredibly effective. You can't drone out every one of those field commanders. And that, together with the propaganda in fourth generation warfare, I assert the United States government and its massive military has never won a fourth generation war conflict. And that gave rise to the development of fifth generation warfare technology, which really traces back, in the United States government, back to the Ghost Army divisions that were set up for the initial landing where you had the inflatable tanks, the noise as if there's mechanized divisions, all of the PSYOPs to try to convince the Germans that we were landing in a different place than we actually did. And that division that did that is currently at Fort Bragg and they are the leading division in the US Army for PSYOPs. PsyWar is a major function and the current Secretary of Defense in a recent article that's just come out, it was published a couple of years ago, sees this as the future of military combat.

This is fifth generation warfare where the battlefield is for your mind and it's no longer, kinetic weapons are an accessory. These aren't discreet separate things, these generations of combat, as we can see in the Ukraine or we can see in Gaza, right now. These are a fluid mixture of different types of battlefield technologies, but the most developed right now is this non-kinetic warfare battle for your mind. And it knows it is not about territory, that's one of the things that distinguishes it. It's incredibly decentralized. In fifth generation warfare, you should never be able to perceive who your antagonist is. The ideas and information should be coming into your mind with you being completely unaware that it's being done to you. This is employing modern psychological technology, things like neurolinguistic programming. Remember it's safe and effective, it's safe and effective, it's safe and effective.

You've seen that video clip, right? Okay, that's neurolinguistic programming, where you have that repeated messaging coming at you and in all the clang associations associated with that, that's PsyWar. You've all been subjected to it. And oh, by the way, the most educated or among the most vulnerable to it, a lot of people think they're smarter than they actually are, that's called the Dunning-Kruger effect, and it's been proven with the Milgram experiment that most people, like 60 or 80% of people, will actually dial up the knob to give somebody a shock to kill them if they're told by someone with a white coat and a figure of authority that they should do so, that it's important that they turn up that electricity to kill that person. Now, this experiment was done in a way that they were blinded from the fact that they actually weren't turning up the current and shocking somebody to death, but they were willing to do it.

That there are a series of these fundamental psychological experiments that caught anybody that reads it has got to be deeply disturbed about the nature of humanity and the human mind. But that's all being weaponized now, on a routine basis. Our Secretary of Defense says that's absolutely the future and we have to deploy it against civilian populations. This is the logic of what Mr. Obama rolled out at Stanford a couple of years ago. We have to censor and deploy these technologies in order to preserve democracy. That's the belief system that we're dealing with. And many people would say this is profoundly evil, it's anti-democratic, but that is the belief system. Whether or not we like it, whether or not we think it's proper, it is the belief system. We have to deal with it.

It is what you're being subjected to. When you find this problem of, and how many have you experienced, I don't want a show of hands, but where you say to your neighbor or your child or your mother or your aunt, you say, don't take another one of these products. Here's the data. Here's why I don't want you to do this because I love you. I care for you. You're putting your body at risk by doing this. And they say, oh no, that's just a conspiracy theory. I don't even want to look at that data. I don't want to look at that information. They have been hypnotized by this incredibly powerful technology. And here's the most important thing I'm going to say to you, right now. Most important insight I think I've had in this whole four years.

When a government is willing to deploy modern PsyWar technology, highly developed for offshore combat against its own citizens, then the concept of sovereignty and autonomy becomes completely obsolete because the technology is so powerful that it can control everything that you think, everything that you see, everything that you feel, you are no longer a sovereign individual because the understanding of psychology and how to manipulate psychology and the pervasive nature of our digital world is such that your mind can be controlled and it is being actively controlled on a daily basis by large corporations, multinationals, individuals, and groups interested in a new world order, in a one world government, because that'll make it easier for them to make profit, et cetera, et cetera. That technology exists and it is being justified to be deployed against the citizens of nation states. And I argue that when that happens, when a nation state is willing to do that to you, then these little skirmish issues of integrity at the ballot box and whether or not we use electronic voting records or personal ID or paper records or whatever, it is trivial.

It means nothing. Because what you think and believe is able to be actively manipulated. Your frame of reference for the world is what is being controlled. In the latest disclosures from Shellenberger, it's laid out explicitly. They are intentionally deploying military-grade PsyWar technology on the citizens of the world. That's what's happened here? Who's done it? Who's authorized it? That's a good question and I assert that, as I look, one of the things that has troubled me the most personally is I've gone down this journey and looked at these key points, the origin of the virus, the global harmonized communication and messaging, the purchasing of influencers globally, all in a harmonized fashion all across the western world. There's only one organization I know of that has that degree of sophistication and power. And by the way, it's awesome. I mean, look at what they were able to do.

Whether you like it or don't like it, is an amazing thing that was achieved. The coordination and skill to deploy this in a harmonized fashion all over the world simultaneously is an amazing demonstration of power. And I assert there's only one organization in the world that has that level of skill and coordination and capability. And it's the American CIA, an intelligence community that interacts within the Five Eyes Alliance, particularly in the axis between, and we're seeing it come out in the Shellenberger documents that were just recently disclosed, is it's an axis between the UK and the US intelligence communities with the associated activities and capabilities of Canada, New Zealand, USA, UK, and Australia, the Five Eyes Alliance.

So, I think, that's where we're going in our intellectual journey. That's the book that we're trying to get wrapped up now, and it's another meaty volume that we've pulled together from the essays that we've written over the last year since this book came out, about this time last year before Christmas. And hopefully we'll have that out in the next few months again from Skyhorse. So with that, I kind of feel like I've talked out, I've noticed a number of you kind of needing some coffee and I'm glad to take questions or follow the organizers, however they wish to manage this. Sign books, take selfies, whatever it is you want to do, I'm here to support you. And that's not just words. Jill and I have traveled all over the western world, not to Asia yet. We couldn't go to CPAC Japan, in part, because we were coming here. And I'm honored by your support, and that's from the heart. That's not a contrivance.

I recognize and own the burden of your faith and belief and support in us, in our mission. And I can tell you that I would be perfectly glad to go back and deal with our dogs and horses full-time and not travel these crazy schedules. But, in part, I'm doing it because Mattias told me, in a podcast two years ago, he said, you have to keep speaking out because otherwise the world will go even deeper into the mass formation. And with that, you're in a moral dilemma. If you care about people and you care about society, you have to keep going no matter what they do. As I was saying yesterday in the UK, in for a penny, in for a pound, and I, in closing, thank you from the bottom of my heart and Jill's heart for your support, for the honor of having a Norwegian edition of our book and coming back here to Oslo, a town that we spent considerable time at over almost two decades ago in creating this company called Inovio, which was kind of a next generation vaccine company by the way.

And working with a young gentleman who I had hoped would be the audience, but he isn't here, Jakob Mathieson, who created this company called Inovio. And led us to spend time with Oslo and your academic community and your people, which are very aligned with how we see the world. We are, fundamentally, farmers. We are on our fifth small farm and we've created this one from raw land. We homesteaded it. We lived in an office trailer with a porta-potty and took showers at the local health club until we got the houses put up. That's kind of how we live our lives. We're not pretentious people living in a fancy building, we're rooted in the earth and with the skill sets to do it. And I understand that's kind of at the core and heart of the Norwegian people also. I felt it when I was here before and I'm glad to be here again and to have your support.

---