PsyWar Book CSPAN Q&A Interview

Am I being politically rehabilitated?

Name: Robert W. Malone, MD, MS

Title: Physician, Scientist, Medical Advisor MAHA Alliance, Co-Chair US CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices

Bio: Dr. Malone was trained at UC Davis, UC San Diego/Salk Institute, Northwestern University School of Medicine and Harvard Medical School. He served as an academic researcher and faculty member (rising to Associate Professor) at the UC Davis School of Medicine, U Maryland School of Medicine, and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Scientist, where he focused on bench research and teaching Pathology and Molecular Biology to medical students. He is experienced as a Virologist, Molecular Biologist, Biochemist, Pathologist, Clinical Researcher, and Regulatory Affairs expert, and has worked for the US Government, Gates funded NGO, US Government contractors, small and large Pharma, and various regulatory affairs and clinical research-focused small businesses. During the late 1980s (in his late 20s), he filed the first invention disclosures and pioneered the use of mRNA as a drug and for vaccines.

---

CSPAN BOOK-TV Q&A INTERVIEW SUMMARY

Dr. Robert Malone, a physician and biochemist, discusses his new book "PsyWar: Enforcing the New World Order" which examines the government's efforts to control information, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Malone describes his experiences being a dissenting voice against the official narrative, including being censored and attacked in the media. He outlines his theory that the government used sophisticated propaganda and censorship techniques, often employed in foreign military conflicts, to suppress alternative treatments and promote the COVID vaccines. Malone also discusses his appointment to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and his goal of bringing transparency, integrity, and scientific objectivity to the committee's work.

CSPAN BOOK-TV Q&A INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

Peter Sein (00:07):

Well, thanks for joining us for the Q&A Podcast produced by C-SPAN. I'm your host, Peter Slein. Our guest this week is Dr. Robert Malone, physician, biochemist, and author. We'll be talking with him about his latest book, PsyWar, as in psychological warfare. He's critical of the government's efforts to control information, specifically when it came to the pandemic. Our conversation starts shortly.

(00:40):

Dr. Robert Malone has worked on vaccine research and medications for most of his professional life. He worked to find AIDS medications as well as COVID vaccines. But he's been critical of the government's response to dissenting viewpoints, particularly when it came to the pandemic. Appointed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to the Advisory committee on immunization practices, he outlines his views on government censorship in his newest book, PsyWar. Our conversation with Dr. Robert Malone begins now. Why is a medical doctor writing about, and I'm going to say psychological operations?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (01:23):

Yeah, fifth generation warfare, PsyWar, propaganda, censorship. And the answer is that this is something that's been a hot topic for us on our substack. Since I basically destroyed my consulting business by doing things like speaking out on Bret Weinstein's DarkHorse Podcast and Joe Rogan experience, I turned to Substack to pay the bills. And one of the things that I found was not only is it a viable business model, and I'm a pretty good writer, that's part of what I've always brought to my work, and Jill's a pretty good writer, but it's allowed us a way to communicate to our audience, which is quite substantial now. We have many subscribers, both paid and unpaid, and maintain enough revenue to sustain our daily operations and feed our horses. One of the things that's been fantastic about that model of putting out daily content of about 2000 words a day, so seven days a week we publish, is that it has allowed us to serialize books.

(02:38):

The first book was Lies My Gov't Told Me: And the Better Future Coming, and this PsyWar book is the second. And the genesis of this was that we found that we had been writing so many essays about what we were experiencing as people on the front lines, dissenting from the official narrative in COVID. And then experiencing something that, as somebody who's been in the infectious disease and outbreak space literally their entire career, I had never experienced before, and that is this what many are calling the censorship industrial complex. And for me, as I first was encountering it, to be honest it was a little devastating psychologically to be denigrated routinely. I mean, I've been called a mass murder, I think for about eight different reasons from all sides-

Peter Sein (03:42):

Beginning when?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (03:44):

Beginning after I spoke out really on the Bret Weinstein podcast together with Steve Kirsch and Bret, where we went over the initial Pfizer regulatory dossier or common technical document that Byram Bridle had obtained from Japan that showed that a lot of the narrative that was being promoted was false.

Peter Sein (04:06):

About the COVID vaccine?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (04:07):

Correct, about the mRNA products. And so I was experiencing all of this, and the serial really defamation pieces that came out, Atlantic Monthly, Business Insider, New York Times, Washington Post, and a variety of other channels. And it was very confusing to me because I had always worked for a long time, worked with the press and media usually on [inaudible 00:04:39]. And had previously been a major whistleblower in the Jesse Gelsinger gene therapy death case at UPenn, where I worked closely with Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times at a time when her career was not what it is now. I think that story really amplified her career, accelerated her career at the New York Times.

(05:04):

So I'd always had a working relationship with media as a consultant. My business model as a consultant had been one of staying below the radar as often as the case for folks like me in D.C., letting my clients take the credit for my contributions because that's part of the business model. And going about my business on a daily basis in a relatively low-key way. And one of the things that had been a major selling point for me and kind of become part of my brand was that people, C-suite experts, so chief science, chief medical, chief operations, chief executive, would engage me largely as a second opinion because they tend to be surrounded by sycophants. And so part of my business was speaking truth to power.

(06:03):

And in a sense this was a very natural progression, but then suddenly the censorship and attacks that came at me were like nothing I'd ever seen before. Not just against me, but against the other physicians and scientists around me that were speaking in opposition to the promoted narrative. So for me, one of my personal, not to get too deep into this, one of my personal defense mechanisms is to try to make sense out of things, to intellectualize. And so in Substack, through a series of essays, I had really gone deep into trying to understand these things like Mattias Desmet's theory of mass formation, or the formation of crowds and crowd psychology. And in that journey of learning about modern censorship and propaganda, I encountered the literature around fifth generation warfare or PsyWar, and this is a suite of largely military and intelligence technologies.

(07:14):

And what I found as I dove into this trying to make sense out of the world that I was encountering, was that it appeared that the tech that had been largely developed for offshore combat against insurgencies or fifth generation warfare, which is very much driven by the logic of nudge technology, propaganda, et cetera, appeared to be being applied to the citizens of the country as opposed to offshore conflicts and color revolutions. I mean, this is the tech that the United States government largely deployed in Middle East to facilitate the color revolutions. And yet it was being deployed, so it appeared, against the citizens of the United States in order to enforce this narrative that these products were, "safe and effective." And that it was necessary to silence any voices that would cause vaccine hesitancy, whether what they were saying was true or false. And as time went by, there was more and more information that leaked out, that demonstrated that in fact, this hypothesis was correct.

(08:33):

So I'd written all these essays, and as we looked back on what we'd written, it was clear that there was enough there to build a book. And so it was logical that after this book that initially just chronicled what frontline physicians had encountered, and what that meant in the COVID crisis in terms of advancing early treatment strategies, often with repurposed drugs, something that I built a company around previously, had great expertise in, and that was my initial focus for the first year. And until I got sucked into this whole vaccine controversy, because it was based on my tech when I was a kid.

Peter Sein (09:16):

Yeah. What is your connection, Dr. Malone, to the mRNA vaccine?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (09:22):

So the tech brings-

Peter Sein (09:26):

Which was used in the COVID vaccines, correct?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (09:29):

Right. So this is one of these strange things in the course of my life. In my late 20s working at the top, literally the top gene therapy lab in the world at the Salk Institute for Inder Verma, who was arguably the top gene therapy researcher in the world at the time. I was an MD-PhD program, and I really wanted to do pediatric gene therapy. I wanted to be able to treat children with inborn errors of metabolism like sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and muscular dystrophy. And I had a background in retroviral biology and AIDS, frankly. This looked like a long-term positive thing that I could do with that knowledge. And so I was working in a post-doctoral lab, intensely competitive gene therapy lab at the Salk, and needed to carve out my own little niche so I wouldn't get killed by all the post-docs because I was the only graduate student in the lab. And I chose to focus on the biology of the RNA phase of the retrovirus, and I wanted to do what's called reverse genetics. So precise experimentation where you introduce a mutation, and then you see what it does in terms of the structure of the RNA of the retrovirus.

(10:56):

In order to do that, there wasn't any tech that would allow you to reproducibly introduce RNA into a cell so that you could ask how it behaved. And there was general ideas about the necessary structure of RNA, but nobody had ever put them all together. And there was some emergent new technology on how to make small quantities of synthetic mRNA, but nobody had ever done it in larger scale. So I basically obsessively worked through all that, built that suite of technology. And suddenly in a laboratory where I was surrounded by everybody using retroviruses and adenoviruses for gene therapy, including the guy that founded Crucell that later became J&J, that's the technology for the J&J vaccine traces back to the same laboratory okay. So that was the context.

(11:59):

Suddenly I found myself way out, away from the mainstream working with mRNA as a gene delivery method, a genetic therapy method. And not only that, as if that wasn't bad enough, I was working with non-viral delivery in a viral delivery world. So I was way outside of the mainstream. But in that process, I had, had the epiphany too, key discoveries. One was that you could use RNA as a drug, and I wrote the first patent disclosure for using RNA as a drug, that was considered way outside of the norm, that was crazy talk that this was a new pharmaceutical technology. And furthermore, if you're going to use RNA as a drug, and it has certain advantages, natural RNA, because it doesn't last for very long in your body. It gets degraded within half an hour to an hour and a half, natural RNA, not the stuff they're using. Okay, in these products that Kariko and Weissman got the Nobel for, that changes it into a very synthetic molecule that's very different, lasts for a very long time.

(13:18):

But the original idea was that if the physician administered this dose of RNA and it caused a protein to be made in your own body, and there was a problem with that, then just like any other drug where you get an adverse event, you don't re-dose the patient. It gets degraded, no big deal. It's all over, right? So that was the core idea. And then from that, well, what's the easiest application? What's the low-hanging fruit? What's the one thing that is most likely to work with this bizarre new idea? And the answer is that in parallel, in the laboratory working with a postdoc named Dan St. Louis, I've been the first one to figure out that there was a fundamental problem with gene therapy, which is if you're introducing the good gene into the poor soul that has a genetic defect, their immune system doesn't know it's a good gene, it only knows that it's a different gene, and it treats as if it's a bad gene because it's different. In other words, it mounts an immune response against it.

(14:28):

So the whole logic of gene therapy, I realized there as a 28-year-old, I was going to do my whole career on this. And suddenly the house of cards just collapsed in front of me because it wasn't going to work because the immune response. What is a person to do? Well, make lemonade out of lemons. Instead of trying to use this tech for purposes of correcting genetic disease, you could use it to make vaccines in a way that was kind of similar to a live attenuated virus vaccine for polio.

(15:03):

... or to a live attenuated virus vaccine, like for polio or yellow fever or mumps or measles. Very effective vaccines, but they have a problem. Sometimes they will revert and produce virus. Most of the polio these days is actually from revertant live attenuated polio vaccines. Many of the measles cases are from revertant live attenuated measles vaccine. But with a gene therapy and mRNA strategy, you can produce the protein as if you're infecting somebody with the virus or a mutant version of virus, but there's no virus. So that was the logic.

(15:39):

That's where it all started. Then it all exploded. Multiple faculty members thought that they ought to be on the patents. The Salk started fighting with UC San Diego, which was my home campus right across the street. Everybody wanted to own it. Suddenly my principal investigator that had treated me like extra noise in the laboratory and something that had to be tolerated, wanted to be on the patent. And I had a nervous breakdown... getting caught in the crossfire of all this.

Peter Sein (16:14):

What year is this?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (16:15):

This is 1989.

Peter Sein (16:17):

So way before the COVID crisis.

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (16:21):

A decade before Karikó and Weissman even started their work... that they got the Nobel Prize for.

Peter Sein (16:27):

So you mentioned that you had been working initially on HIV or AIDS. So Tony Fauci was doing that?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (16:36):

Yeah, and I've-

Peter Sein (16:36):

Do you know Dr. Fauci?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (16:38):

... met him. I've been in his office. At one point he was asked if he knew me. He said he didn't, but I know that because we track who views our Substack, I know that he's been reading our Substack for years. So whether he not, he remembered meeting me back then, he certainly has known about me in the present.

Peter Sein (16:59):

And C-SPAN's Q&A podcast continues in a moment.

(17:02):

And we certainly want to talk about your book, PsyWar: Enforcing the New World Order, but I want to put a period on this part of your... of the conversation. So along comes COVID. Did you make a public stand for, against the virus for the vaccination?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (17:23):

Yeah, so that part of the story. So I... you can't... I've been in the biodefense world now for a couple of decades. Starting immediately after the anthrax attacks when I went to work for DynPort Vaccine Company, which has the prime system contract back then for all biodefense products for the USDOD up in Frederick next to Fort Detrick. So that's where I kind of got injected into this world. And you can't be in the biodefense space and be a leader or be active and not be in contact with the CIA. They have people all through this space through DARPA and a variety of other venues.

(18:04):

And one of those people that I had developed a business working relationship with was a guy named Michael Callahan, who is a CIA officer MD. And Michael and I had co-published during Zika. I had come to value his insight into emerging infectious disease because he had access to information I could never get access to. He's advised multiple presidents. He called me on January 4th of 2020 approximately and said, "Robert, you need to spin up a team," because he knew of my expertise in team building coming up with solutions for the government, "to address this new coronavirus that is active in Wuhan." I thought he was calling me from Wuhan. He now says that was right before he went to Wuhan. And he advised me that I really needed to look into this. I needed to build a team. We needed to get going.

(19:09):

And so I did my usual practice of doing an independent threat assessment and then pulling together, in this case, team members to focus on the latest tech for repurposing drugs for Zika. I mean for what was then the novel coronavirus before it had a name. And on January 10th, the sequence was uploaded and we were off to the races doing molecular modeling and computational docking. So I spent most of the first year working on discovering drugs and drug combinations that were repurposed for treating the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.

(19:57):

And it wasn't until they started to roll out these vaccines I was asked... I wrote an essay in TrialSite News talking about the bioethics of what was being done and the failure to provide informed consent, what was wrong about the enticement, coercion and compulsion that was going on particularly in Canada at the time. And that led one thing to another to this Brett Weinstein podcast, How to Save the World.

Peter Sein (20:30):

And who is Brett Weinstein?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (20:32):

Brett is a notable podcaster, former academic.

Peter Sein (20:36):

From Evergreen in Washington State, I believe.

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (20:41):

He was originally in Oregon in Portland. And that's a whole other story about how he ended up getting ejected out of academe. But he had started this podcast, Dark Horse Podcast, which become very successful. It's how he was supporting his family, kind of akin to how I support myself with Substack. And he had become a big advocate for ivermectin. And-

Peter Sein (21:09):

Which is?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (21:11):

A complicated drug that is derived from a soil microbe.

Peter Sein (21:22):

On a normal basis, what would ivermectin be used for?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (21:27):

It's used as an antiparasitic. So I administer it to my horses, but it's routinely used for humans for antiparasitic. And the Nobel Prize was awarded for ivermectin to a scientist at Merck that had isolated the source microorganism and then purified ivermectin from a golf course, by the way, was the original source of the isolate. And ivermectin has a... as a natural product. So it wasn't custom designed for this purpose. It's a natural product and it has a wide range of activities, some of which are not completely understood, but seem to involve pro-inflammatory signaling.

(22:14):

And that's part of why the controversy around ivermectin in FDA and in the pharmacology space is that if you test ivermectin in cell culture for inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 replication, the level of ivermectin that you have to put into the medium in order to inhibit the replication of the virus is above the level that you can obtain in the human, in the extracellular fluid.

Peter Sein (22:51):

So what does that mean?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (22:53):

So that this relates to an area in pharmacology that's in transition right now. And the FDA is largely still stuck in the old paradigm, which is that there has to be an alignment between the pharmacology testing for dose response in an artificial system, in a Petri dish and in the human being. So you have to have a drug or drug combination that will inhibit it had... The thesis is it has to act by inhibiting the virus, not by say, enhancing the immune response or other mechanisms. But the belief system that the FDA was, it had to act by inhibiting the virus and it had to be active at a level that can be achieved in the extracellular fluid in the human body without causing excess toxicity.

(23:55):

And ivermectin did inhibit the virus, but required more drug than you can normally yield in the extracellular fluid in the body. Now here's the problem. This is an area of pharmacology that is in transition because the new thinking at places like MIT is that it's not the extracellular concentration that matters. It's the intracellular concentration, which is where the business is. And cells pump drugs in and out. So what you really need to be concerned about is not how much you have to put in the media, but rather how much gets into the cell. But that's really hard to measure, and the FDA still has its head wrapped around the metaphor that it can't work if it can't get to the right level in the blood.

Peter Sein (24:47):

So we left off in January of 2020. When was a vaccine on the market and did you get it?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (24:57):

Well, initial trials are 2021 and they start deploying it through National Guard in the latter part of 2021. I needed to travel, and I unfortunately was infected with the original Wuhan-1 strain in Boston when I went to a drug repurposing conference. And I happened to be staying right across the street from the company where the initial outbreak happened in Boston. So I got the original bad boy and it hit me hard. Forgive me, I'm going to shut that down. And I developed long COVID. I also really scared myself, I thought I was going to die. It was as sick as I've ever been. And those who say there isn't a virus and it doesn't cause disease, and it's just the same as a flu, I'm sorry. I had the original strain. It was wicked bad. And afterwards I couldn't breathe well. My stamina was shot.

(25:57):

I couldn't do farm work, because I run a small farm in Virginia, etc. It changed my life. And as a pathologist, somebody trained in pathology and taught pathology for years, I thought I was going to develop a disease called progressive interstitial fibrosis. It was going to kill me because that was what our current thinking was about this virus and what it was doing to people. And out of desperation, I started taking some of the drugs that we had discovered through our computational docking. One of those was Famatidine. Famatidine is sold as a drug for treating excess acid, but it's, that's actually just one application. And a lot of the people that develop a certain syndrome, mast cell activation syndrome, which it appeared is part of the disease associated with COVID, have found that high dose Famatidine relieves their symptoms. And we had identified this as a good candidate. It had a really good therapeutic window, which means it's relatively safe and you can’t overdose it.

(27:14):

And so I started taking it and within half an hour, I got relief from the symptoms of the burning in my lung. And so that was the first big initial discovery. And I really brought together a world-class, Nobel also ran kind of team, and we published a fantastic paper on Famatidine, and I'm still proud of that work. And then together with another physician up in Michigan, I worked to develop and combine and start clinical testing that plus another drug that had been discovered in China as effective, Celecoxib.

(27:53):

And then we added ivermectin to that protocol, very, very effective for hospitalized COVID. People, almost all obese, that were suffering this severe disease and often put on respirators with remdesivir and it would kill them. But this combination worked like grease lightening. And so I was able to get that funded. I captured well over $500 million in federal funds to advance these various projects during that time phase. And that was progressing and those clinical trials, we were busy trying to get that through the FDA. The FDA would not allow us to move forward with anything having ivermectin in it. So the Army gave up on the ivermectin part of that triple protocol and just went forward with Celecoxib and Famatidine, and that's an amazing statement in of itself.

Peter Sein (28:51):

And are those the ingredients that became the Moderna?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (28:54):

No. No, no.

Peter Sein (28:55):

J&J and Pfizer?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (28:56):

No, no, no.

Peter Sein (28:57):

No?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (28:57):

No, no, no. So no, everything in early treatment was suppressed. Any drug combination with suppressed.

Peter Sein (29:04):

But why? And this ties into your book PsyWar.

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (29:07):

The why is one of those... one of the elephants in the room. And there's various theories. It's never really been addressed.

Peter Sein (29:16):

What's your theory?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (29:19):

I think one of the ones that holds most water, let's call it a hypothesis, is that the criteria in emergency use authorization is that you cannot get emergency use authorization for a product to counter a medical emergency under the Emergency Use Authorization Act. If there is an alternative treatment-

Peter Sein (29:46):

Ivermectin.

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (29:48):

Or hydroxychloroquine or various steroids, Pierre Kory gets the gold star for that. And we early on had a conference in Rome, Italy, actually in the...

(30:03):

... in Rome, Italy, actually in the Italian Senate where it was the first time that physicians came together from all over the world to share protocols on early treatment. And there's many drug combinations that can be used, if they're used early in the disease. If you do, what happened as the norm here of if you come into the emergency room and you say, "I've got COVID," and they check your blood oxygen and it's not bad enough, they send you out with aspirin or some anti-inflammatory and say, "Come back when your lips are blue." Okay? That has never been the way infectious disease has been treated in the past, but that was the norm.

(30:51):

And it was basically reflecting the protocols that were coming from largely NIH and the World Health Organization. That kind of became standard of care all over the world, and particularly in the United States hospitals. And so the hospitals were afraid of veering from that, and so they wouldn't allow physicians to do anything other than that. And so that's kind of what happened. And it appears that one hypothesis is that alternative treatments were suppressed except for the ones that the government wished to promote, which was Remdesivir and monoclonal antibodies. And repurposed drugs were suppressed.

(31:29):

Now, some would say that that is because pharma couldn't make profit on repurposed generic drugs. That's certainly one hypothesis. I haven't seen the smoking gun from the CEO of Pfizer to the Peter Marks at the FDA saying, "You shall not allow any alternative treatments other than vaccines." Many people think that's what's happened. Many people assert that this was, among other things, a intentional effort at depopulation. There are many theories that are circulated, but I'm of the bent that if I don't see the artifact, if I don't see the document, if I can't show that in fact those things occurred, then I'm not going to buy into that kind of explanation.

Peter Sein (32:25):

So, Dr. Malone, did you ever get a Moderna, Pfizer, or J&J shot?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (32:30):

So I had long COVID.

Peter Sein (32:32):

Right.

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (32:34):

And it was still really compromising me and I needed to travel, and you couldn't travel if you didn't take the jab. And furthermore, I happened to be one of the people that knows people in this space because I used to work with them. And I called up some of my old buddies and they said, "Don't worry. We fixed the old problems that you ran into. And that's all been solved. It stays in the shoulder, it goes to the draining lymph node. We've solved the toxicity problems, et cetera." So I said, "Okay, I'm going to take this." As it was being administered, Moderna, by the National Guard in my part of Virginia.

(33:14):

And on dose two, it turns out I received one of the known bad batches and I developed hypertension to 230, systolic, that's life-threatening, tachycardia, atrial fibrillation, POTS syndrome, restless leg syndrome, tinnitus, and a number of things that at the time were unreported adverse events, but now are commonly known to be associated with this. I probably had myocarditis because of the other cardiac symptoms.

(33:44):

So that kind of alerted me. And frankly, at first I was embarrassed. I was embarrassed to even say that I'd had the disease. I was embarrassed to say, not that I'd taken the jab, but that I'd had these adverse events. There was a cloud over all of this for anybody to talk about this on social media. But I started... I was one of those dilemma moments and I felt like I had to... My brand is speaking truth and transparency, and so I felt like I had to say something.

(34:23):

And so I started talking about it and then found that there was a whole community of people that were having some similar effects. And then that kind of snowballed. At the same time that I was being asked just to explain the tech. They had done such a poor job of introducing the public to the nature of the technology and this name that they used, mRNA vaccines, was by many people seen as very threatening. They didn't understand it. They didn't know what it was. The government was clearly propagandizing, was suppressing any voices that were questioning this. They were busy advancing the thesis that this was just another vaccine, clearly wasn't. I was saying, and I think I have the right to say it because I bloody well invented the core platform, that this was a gene therapy. It came from a gene therapy lab. It came from a gene therapy researcher. It involves transferring genetic information into people's bodies. It is a gene therapy applied for vaccines, as I originally envisioned it.

(35:37):

And that was suppressed. When I talked about the data that had come out of the Salk about the toxicity associated with spike protein, I was attacked for that by people that had never gone to college in biology, the fact checkers, right? All of this came at me and it was bizarre. I mean here I am just saying, this is the truth. This is well-established standards since World War II for bioethics. This is the science. I know the science. I'm telling people how this is working. I'm telling people what the FDA has said are potential risks. I'm telling people that, in fact, there's never been a successful coronavirus vaccine developed, that coronavirus vaccine development in the past are associated with these various types of problems. And we started seeing those problems play out again.

(36:33):

And telling people as... I'm also a regulatory affairs expert, telling people, particularly in the gene therapy space, telling people what the regulatory guidance was for vaccines and for gene therapies and how this hadn't been tested properly according to the FDA's own rules, and just getting vilified by a broad spectrum of corporate media saying things that they didn't even understand what they were saying. And that was kind of the moment where I knew I was no longer in Kansas.

Peter Sein (37:12):

And C-SPAN's Q&A podcast continues in a moment.

(37:15):

So, tie that experience into your new book, PsyWar: Enforcing the New World Order.

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (37:23):

So, as I was-

Peter Sein (37:24):

Was this fifth generation warfare, the censoring and the suppression?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (37:28):

So, in trying to understand what I was experiencing, including the role of the government and these various techniques that were clearly being deployed on social media, now documented, because the latest was the disclosures from Tulsi Gabbard, or the disclosures that came out of DOGE having to do with the role of the government in sponsoring this international campaign of propaganda and censorship during COVID.

(38:12):

I, trying to make sense out of it of what I was experiencing, what I was seeing happening, something totally foreign to any prior outbreak that I'd been involved in, I started diving into the literature of propaganda, going back to Edward Bernays and the role of the media, modern technology, psychological warfare, fifth generation warfare, OODA loops, all of this body of information that's out there if you dig in, particularly into the military literature. And nudge technology, showing how it appeared to be directly relevant to what we were all observing and now is being documented, particularly with the Twitter files. And that journey of trying to make sense out of it is really what's captured in the book.

Peter Sein (39:08):

So, you talk in your book about a surveillance capitalism business model, which is what?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (39:14):

Yeah. So it's not my phrase, I didn't come up with this, but surveillance capitalism is a particular business model that we are all familiar with indirectly. The tickling of the brain that allows you to perceive that you're experiencing this business model is when you go on Amazon or Google and you get push media, like Amazon suddenly trying to sell you something that you were just talking to your wife about, or Google pushing political information at you that is remarkably aligned with whatever your current thinking is. This is the business model that has powered a lot of the profit in Silicon Valley, particularly around the social media companies like Facebook or Meta.

(40:12):

What it amounts to, and just a trivial example, when you go shopping at the grocery store, they say, "Do you have your PIN number so you can get your special discount?" Okay? When you agree to that contractual relationship with your local grocery store, what you're agreeing to is to allow them to sell the data associated with your purchasing patterns at the grocery store, what you're buying, when you're buying it. That data gets sold to whoever wants to purchase it. As you get in your Delco car, you're constantly monitored for where you go, how you drive, et cetera, et cetera. This pervades everything in your life now. So data is constantly being acquired about you, largely without your permission, and you will often agree to this fine print without ever reading it.

(41:08):

Another illustration is that when you sign up for X, formerly Twitter, and you upload the application onto your laptop or your cell phone, it has a preset slider switch that is set to allow X to monitor not only what you do on X, but what you do on any other open tab in your browser. So X is capturing all that data. Why are they capturing all that data? That's expensive to capture all that data and store all that data. Because then they take that data and they compile it into what's called in the industry, behavioral futures. Like you would have stock futures if you're going to go to someone who is a broker investor.

(41:57):

So they subscribe to services that make predictions about the future trends in stock market. Well, likewise, you, me, or Coca-Cola can buy behavioral futures or a particular party, political party or candidate can buy the data that will describe you as an avatar and people like you based on this aggregated data. The government buys it too. And so they can take those data and they can use it for marketing campaigns, they can use it to push information to you to modify how you're thinking, how you're feeling, what you're believing through psychological warfare technology, through this, through any of these channels where you're interacting with media. You are being manipulated using the scope of tech that was largely built for manipulating insurgencies in offshore combat, but now it's integrated into everything in our lives, notably politics and marketing.

(43:15):

And so functionally what's happened is that they are stealing a little part of your soul and then reselling it to be used for whatever purpose the buyer wants to use as an input. Remember, this is all now put on hyperdrive through artificial intelligence. So now you take this massive database, AI filters that database, makes predictions about what you're going to do next, which is why Amazon, so presciently, is able to say, "Oh, you want to buy a blue suit, don't you? Here's an array of blue suits that you can buy," right? Or whatever the thing is, because they know what it is because of these predictive models that you're likely to want next. So that is the essence of surveillance capitalism.

Peter Sein (44:08):

So, Dr. Malone, that's relatively harmless, isn't it?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (44:12):

It is not in that the goal is to manipulate your thoughts, emotions, and your whole information space.

(44:24):

So let me illustrate. I was on a broadcast with Great Britain News, and you're probably aware at C-SPAN that the British media is subject to a censorship board. And one of the policies of that censorship board is if you are in a broadcast medium environment like what we're in right now, and the person that you're interviewing as the host is speaking about things that...

(45:00):

That are not in the interests or are contrary to the position of the government. So they're against the government narrative, and this has become a very sensitive issue in the Great Britain, right? Against the approved topics. Then there has to be a third person in the conversation that represents the perspective of the government. So I was in this interview in that context, and the person representing the government said exactly what you just said. They said, "Well, here in the UK the position is that once we have an election and we form a new government, that government acquires the right from the people to act as it sees fit in governance. And so it is allowed that the government shall be able to use this kind of technology on its citizens."

(46:05):

Now, here's the rub. The tech has gotten so powerful in the internet age with AI and everything else, and all of these techniques that have been developed by... They have a full British military unit, just like we have a full propaganda unit here in the United States in Fort Bragg and a lot of National Guard units all over the country that have been involved in this, by the way, during COVID.

(46:28):

As did the Canadian government, as did the Australian government, as did the New Zealand government, as did the UK government. Okay. But they believe they have the right to implement this tech to enforce whatever the narrative is that the government wishes to have enforced, that government at that period of time. And the tech is so powerful, it is explicitly designed to control the new battlefield. The new battlefield is not over territory, it's over minds. The tech is designed to control the extent possible, all information that you get access to and what you think, feel and believe as a derivative of that information. And so now you have a position where the government, through this new category of propaganda, can basically create whatever consensus it wants. And it feels that, in the UK in particular, and in the European Union now, that it has the right to do so. And therefore we have lost the sovereignty over our own emotions and thoughts.

Peter Sein (47:36):

So is there a deep state? And if so, who are the puppet masters? The so-called puppet masters [inaudible 00:47:43]. I had to ask that question.

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (47:44):

The puppet masters is a question that comes up again and again and again. During COVID, we saw various communities coming up with their hypothesis of who the puppet master was. There was a period of time when Tony Fauci was the favorite target. "This is all Tony Fauci's doing." And then it became Klaus Schwab, and then it became the Bilderbergers. And then we went through this series of pyramids to express who were these nefarious individuals that were doing this. What we've learned is that USAID played a huge role in this. We've learned that the CIA played a huge role in this, that there are rogue elements within the government that propagated these things. There is the appearance that there was some form of collusion with the pharmaceutical industry and elements of the government to propagate these messages. We know that a lot of this purchasing of influencers and propagating of messages, which happened throughout the West in a harmonized fashion. And I can give you examples. Akin to the recent Astroturf actions to try to resist Secretary Kennedy's advocacy that we would no longer allow sugary soda pop to be purchased with food stamps through the SNAP program. And we had the soda industry setting up AstroTurf organizations and paying conservative influencers a thousand bucks each to tweet things based on messaging coming from the soda industry. I mean, that's a tangible recent example that we've all seen. That happened throughout the COVID crisis, this purchasing of influencers, as I said, a lot of it funded through USAID. So we had coordinated messaging coming in force through the global agreement on responsible advertising, the GARM agreement. The attacks on Joe Rogan after I went on Joe Rogan turns out by Congressional Report to have not been catalyzed by Neil Young, which was the narrative that we all heard, but rather by Coca-Cola through the GARM agreement. And then a GARM putting pressure on Spotify, saying they will withdraw their advertising if Rogan didn't get in line and stop allowing people like myself and Dr. McCullough on.

(50:32):

So I think the answer to the puppet masters is that it was multifaceted. And I personally, my favorite hypothesis is that the promotion of this fear narrative caused a widespread kind of emergent consensus in many aspects of the population that supported the thesis that was explicit in agreements. For instance, bilateral agreements between the UK government and U.S. government, that anything that would cause vaccine hesitancy had to be suppressed, whether it was true or false. And we had this introduced narrative from Mayorkas, Homeland Security, that anyone promoting narratives that would cause vaccine hesitancy was a domestic terrorist.

(51:33):

We now know because of Tulsi's disclosures the FBI launched investigation campaigns on anybody so guilty titled as domestic terrorists. So I think what we had was kind of an emergent multifaceted campaign that was driven by fear and driven by a number of falsehoods that were readily accepted and promoted through money by various organizations such as USAID and various NGOs, and perhaps by the pharmaceutical industry. To suppress alternative voices and promote a harmonized narrative wrapped around the logic that anything that would cause people to become vaccine hesitant had to be suppressed. And of course, that is in direct opposition to the logic of informed consent, a fundamental principle in medical ethics. That people have the right to know, particularly for an experimental product, and consent to receiving that product on the basis of a full disclosure of what the risks and benefits were.

Peter Sein (52:49):

Now we've been talking with Dr. Robert Malone about his book PsyWar: Enforcing the New World Order. I want to ask you, it's kind of come full circle in a sense, you were just appointed recently to a board at HHS, the ACI, the Advisory Committee on Immunization.

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (53:06):

Practices.

Peter Sein (53:07):

What do you think you bring to the table?

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (53:10):

Hopefully what I bring is a commitment to truth, integrity, and scientific objectivity. I've been rigorously trained as a scientist. Beyond that, I have worked with the government for years and years and years in the infectious disease space. I've worked for NGOs, I've worked for Bill and Melinda Gates- funded organizations like the Aeras Global TB Vaccine Foundation. I've worked for the pharmaceutical industry, I've worked in regulatory affairs, I've worked in federal contracting. I've sat on study sections at NIH and chaired study sections. I'm very familiar with the whole mechanics of how this entire integrated industry, that interlinks academe and the pharmaceutical industry and the government and the military, I'm very familiar with the wiring diagram for that. And my business as a consultant before all this blew up back in the day was basically... This is why Michael Callahan called me. My business was focused on making a dysfunctional bureaucracy work.

(54:22):

I have capabilities proven over time and a deep understanding of how things go wrong and what you can do to make them go right. And it's that mindset together with my kind of rigorous mind and my experience, particularly in vaccinology that I hope will bring value and facilitate transparency and integrity in the evaluation and advisory because this is only an advisory panel. The truth is the CDC director, over the last few CDC directors, have not exercised their authority. They have basically conceded to whatever the ACIP recommendation panel has recommended, but the way the structure is really supposed to work is there a bunch of people that look at the data as presented by the CDC, ask questions, make decisions to advise the CDC director, and the CDC director is the one that is supposed to make the decisions about whether or not to accept those recommendations, modify, or reject them. And hopefully we get back to some sort of a balance in which political actors are the ones making policy decisions, not scientists.

Peter Sein (55:49):

And we've been talking with Dr. Robert Malone, along with his wife, Dr. Jill Malone. They have written this book, PsyWar: Enforcing the New World Order, the foreword by retired General Michael Flynn. Thank you for your time.

Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS (56:05):

Thanks for having me on.

Peter Sein (56:08):

Well, thanks for listening to this week's Q&A podcast produced by C-SPAN. If you like this podcast, tell your friends, rate and review us, and follow us on social media at BookTV for more updates and schedule information. And are you looking for more of C-SPAN's book programming? Follow our Bookshelf podcast feed, your one-stop source for afterwards, Booknotes+, and Q&A podcasts. Discover compelling conversations with authors, historians, and thought leaders all in one place. Subscribe to C-SPAN's Bookshelf podcast today.

(56:46):

Now, next week, our guests on Q&A are Presidential Foundation directors. What is a presidential foundation, and what's its relationship to a presidential library, museum, and to the National Archives? We find out when we sit down with representatives of the Johnson, Clinton, and two Bush foundations. That's next week on the Q&A podcast.

---

Regarding the “Puppetmasters” question - Based on Mike Benz’ reporting, it appears that Jeff Zients was one of the major actors.

Link to this thread on X is here.