(0:00 - 0:10) Information bioterrorism. Informational biological blackmail. Psychological bioterrorism. (0:11 - 2:11) All termed for the massive psyop we've all been subjected to for the last several years, starting with the COVID narrative to monkeypox and now H5N1 or avian flu, which is most likely the WHO's disease X. Dr. Robert Malone, author of the best-selling book, "Lies My Government Told Me", is also well known as the inventor of mRNA technology, a technology he abandoned years ago when he discovered it couldn't be done without serious side effects. Since the beginning of the current global psyop, Dr. Malone has used his knowledge of science and his past experience working extensively with the U.S. government to uncover the lies, the bad actors, and the ultimate goals of our would-be globalist masters. In addition to being a physician, vaccinologist, virologist, and molecular biologist, Dr. Malone worked in biodefense and medical countermeasure development through multiple infectious disease outbreaks, working in cooperation with scientists at the U.S. Army Medical Research of Infectious Diseases Research Facility and the Defence Threat Reduction Agency. As Dr. Malone himself says, I know these people. I know how they think, what they are concerned with, and what they do. In this interview, Dr. Malone explains not only how psychological bioterrorism is used against us, but who the primary agency is behind the psyop, what the globalists pulling the strings are really trying to achieve, how the globalists themselves are organised, and perhaps, most importantly, what we can expect as the avian flu disease X narrative continues to escalate. (2:17 - 2:22) Robert, it's a pleasure to have you back on the show. Thanks for having me. It's great to be here, Will. (2:23 - 3:09) Now, I reached out to you due to a Substack post that you wrote recently. I found it very interesting, and we're going to get into that in a minute, psychological biowarfare. First, I wanted to ask, and we were discussing this before the interview, your background is in the biological sciences, and yet your book, the one you've already written, The Lies My Government Told Me, and you're working on a new one now, and your Substack, which I've been following for some time, a lot of what you write there is politics, sociology, psychology. That's quite a jump from your background. What led to that? It is and it isn't. Among other things, I am a government affairs specialist, and a lot of that has to do, and you can't operate in DC without understanding the underpinning politics. (3:09 - 6:54) And fortunately or unfortunately, I've had to spend way too much time in DC dealing with beltway companies and government clients. The honest truth is, although I've always had an interest in politics and sociology, and of course, my wife and partner, who co-authors much of this, has her background in anthropology, particularly biologic anthropology, as well as her PhD is in public policy and biotechnology. So, we're very much a team. And as I said, I've always been interested in politics and kept my hand in and tried to follow a lot of the current policy discussions, if for no other reason than it was essential to my business as a consultant in this sector of biodefense and regulatory affairs and government contracting. But during COVID, what I had encountered was that something was very different compared to all the prior outbreaks that I'd been very involved in, going back to the earliest days of what was then LAV, then HTLV-3, and then HIV or AIDS. And so, I've always kind of had my feet in this world of infectious disease. Tony Fauci has been a shadow in the background through my entire career, and I've watched him and avoided him most of the time. It's the reason why I work more with DOD than with NIH is because of how deeply corrupt the NIAID is and how some of the dysfunctional dynamics of NIH and the NIAID compared to the DOD, which is more focused on actually getting products out the door that help people, particularly warfighters, but that's their mission, rather than publishing academic works in high-profile journals. But as I experienced firsthand the COVID crisis and the political dynamics that went on around it, and the attacks, vilification, gaslighting, defamation that I experienced personally coming from corporate media, and then the propaganda, the just amazing propaganda and misstatements that were circulating, I had the need to make sense out of it. Among other things, one of my go-to defence mechanisms is intellectualisation of things. And so, when I started getting attacked, I dove into my favourite go-to of trying to understand why and how this was happening. And so, that led me down these various rabbit holes of what is psychological warfare, what is modern censorship, what is modern propaganda, what is nudge technology, what's driving the policies that we're seeing deployed from the Department of Homeland Security. (6:55 - 9:38) And of course, because of my work in defence, I'm very familiar with the intelligence community. I'm not CIA, please. That's such a worn-out trope. What CIA officer do you know that would out the kind of information that I put out, including directly naming CIA officers? That's not within the wheelhouse of the agency's behaviour. But you can't be in this sector of biodefense without being touched frequently by people from the intelligence community, and having an interface with them, and understanding their culture. And I certainly have had many touchpoints, and lots of experiences, and opportunities to understand. They are trained liars, by the way. In order to become a CIA operative- I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I think we have to stress that point. You're not using that term trained liar lightly, just conversational. You're saying these people are literally trained to lie effectively. Yes, lie and manipulate your mind. So they go through a training programme in the DTC area, and then among other things, they're set loose in the city of Baltimore with tasks in terms of how they are to project who they are. And they have to convince other people that they are what they're not, and get them to do things. I mean, this is part of the training, is lying and manipulation. They're very, very effective at it, or they don't become field operatives. And that training and those techniques that are used, this is a tangent, but when I listened to the testimony from Dr. Fauci and Dr. Daszak, what I see is the classical strategies deployed by trained CIA operatives. The bullying, gaslighting, manipulation, avoidance of truth, just all these things are classic CIA behaviour. It's not saying that either of them are CIA, but they certainly have assimilated that culture. (9:39 - 13:13) Right. Someone is either coaching them or someone has trained them. Yeah. And in the case of Tony, he's been doing this for decades, really since the beginning of the AIDS crisis, and he's grown up with it. And that's all well documented in Bobby's book, The Real Anthony Fauci. So in my case, it was this journey of discovery and sense-making. What has happened here during COVID that's different from prior outbreaks? I'm often reminded of the famous line in Shrek, ogres are like onions, they have layers. You just peel the layers back, and then there's more layers and more layers and more layers, and it's difficult. If you ask me who are the true puppet masters of the COVID crisis, I can't give you an answer. I can triangulate around that answer, and I can tell you that it's not Klaus Schwab. I can tell you that it's not Tony Fauci. Is it Peter Daszak? He's pretty close to the centre. But there's those that spin off into the ancient banking families, and then we get into ethnic group pejoratives and all of that stuff. I don't want to go there. I'm not compelled that this is manipulations of the Rothschilds behind the scenes, just to give one example that some people cite. Does it have an economic component? That's undisputable. Has the COVID crisis been weaponised and manipulated to support a variety of economic agendas or economic political agendas, including imposition of a variety of personal identification and tracking technology? That, I think, is well-established now through the green cards. Is this related to the social credit system? Well, I'm like you. I don't like to speculate. I'll wrap it around an explicit statement. This is my hypothesis. But I don't state as truth things that we don't have artefacts to demonstrate that truth. So for instance, for a long time, I would never talk about depopulation agenda until I saw the Kissinger report. And if you read the Kissinger report, it's explicit that it's US policy to promote a depopulation agenda. That's indisputable. It is American foreign policy. And it's really quite dark, as are many things when you apply Kissinger's version of real politic to them, where the ends really do justify the means. (13:14 - 13:39) It leads to a lot of really dark political positions. But can I say the vaccine is a depopulation tool? No, I don't see any artefacts. Whether or not it may actually function as such, I don't see any artefacts that allow me to conclude that that was the original intent. (13:40 - 14:49) So I don't say it. Others do. And that's their business. But I don't find that useful. So just using that as an example, so I've been on this journey now for almost four years of trying to comprehend what has occurred and what makes this different from the prior outbreaks that I've experienced. And part of what makes it different is me. I was much more naive in the past. The experience of experiencing these things, having these personal direct experiences and observations has impacted on my worldview. There's no question. I'm a different person than I was before the COVID crisis. But the diving into the politics, the sociology, the economics about which I'm almost completely ignorant. I'm just a beginner student. (14:51 - 15:38) Things like anarcho-capitalism and what does that mean? What's the logical underpinnings of that philosophy as opposed to libertarianism are all things that I've had to dive into bringing to bear the training that I've received in terms of thought and logic and research. But it's been a journey of discovery for me. And the Substack has basically been a, number one, it's a way to serialise a book because books don't pay anyhow. (15:38 - 15:52) And there's no way I could afford to just sit down and write a book. So Substack gives me daily revenue. But the Substack has been a journey of discovery. (15:53 - 19:29) That it's a chronicle of that journey, almost like a diary. And I think that has proven useful for many who, like me, were not sophisticated, hardcore sceptic wonks of following government affairs and state department memos. Those people are out there. I have great respect for Matt Taibbi, for example, who brings insights daily and his cohort, his colleagues on Racket News and the other organisations that he interacts with. I've always enjoyed reading Matt Taibbi back when he was at the old Rolling Stone. But I enjoyed reading Hunter S. Thompson also. It's been a journey of discovery. And that's led me to the point, plus together with the daily experiences of interacting in social media space and corporate media space as a protagonist, rather than just an observer and occasional commentator, usually off the record, with this journalist or that journalist. Subject matter expert, commentator has been my role with the media historically for decades. But to be directly in the firing line changes your point of view on those things, especially when you're subject to their attempts to delegitimise you. It certainly does. Yeah. So that's what brought me to this place. And I don't pretend to be anything other than a student and an observer. But I do bring a certain amount of intellectual firepower and training and this deep experiential background of having spent my whole career dealing with these jokers in the DOD and in the NIH and HHS and CDC. I've sat through I don't know how many ACIP meetings on behalf of clients and watched the games that go on there. So at least I wasn't naive about those things. Those are the tools that I've brought to it. And that's why I've come to that place. Yeah. And we all have. I started my freedom organisation in the summer of 2020 having absolutely no idea of what was really going on. It actually took me a while to figure it out. But a lot of the information that I collect now is on the lines of trying to figure out what are their strategies? What are they going to do? Not so much what have they done, but learning from what they've done to what they're going to do. And that was where your recent sub-stag on psychological bioterrorism really caught my interest because you were very clearly in there referring to things that they had done, but you were also talking about things they might do coming down the road in the next few years. So before we get into that, though- Or the next few days. Or the next few days. Yes. The H5N1 is an ongoing case study. Yes. Absolutely. Fascinating that Asimov is referring to the prior H5N1 events in his interview that was the basis for this essay. One that was done in 2017, yes. (19:29 - 20:16) Exactly. The interview, that was when... So the history of this, just to give credit where credit's due, is I had posted other stuff. I write about psychological warfare pretty frequently because of course that's the focus of the new book. And it's something that I find fundamental to trying to comprehend what's going on. And so somebody posted this link, a follower fan from New Zealand, posted the link to this interview and said, hey Robert, you ought to read this. And as I dove into the interview, it just blew my mind because as you point out, the interview was done in 2017. (20:17 - 22:13) And yet this Russian foreign intelligence service agent who has left the SVR, Soviet Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, prior to the interview, basically stepped out because he was the new Russia, not the Soviet Union. I guess he probably couldn't have done that back in the day. And relates this story that he was directly responsible for these type of activities, what he's calling information bioterrorism, what I'm calling psychological bioterrorism. I had come up with that term independent and then this follower posted this interview. And as I read through it, it just blew my mind because he lays out a discussion of what's essentially spy tradecraft in this area. He presents it as if this is well known, this is how one does it. This type of information bioterrorism, or I think he calls it information bioterrorism blackmail as a synonym. So he uses the term blackmail. And it's not blackmail of individuals, it's blackmail of entire societies and governments, which absolutely is... If you listen to Ursula von der Leyen speak about this whole kerfuffle over her negotiating the terms for the Pfizer vaccine licence using a chat app with Bourla, which all that negotiation is now ostensibly deleted and unrecoverable, so no one can track what she actually said. (22:14 - 24:14) But pharma weaponised these events to intimidate governments into favourable terms, contract terms and conditions for buying their unproven product. That is stunning. I mean, we all knew that State Street, BlackRock, Vanguard, Bank of America, blah, blah, blah, the big, big funds now have more power than most nation states do on the international stage and more access to capital. But the fact that a pharmaceutical company could manipulate an information warfare battlefield to the point that they are able to gain negotiating advantage with governments and supergovernmental organisations like the European Union is mind boggling. And so Kozunov lays out this series of steps that one takes as a skilled practitioner of the art of information or psychological bioterrorism, being my term, in order to affect a variety of endpoints. And I don't know if you read all the way through his essay. I didn't cover in my essay, so his interview, in the last pages, he gets into what is the purpose, who benefits from this. And he talks more about the economic benefits that accrue to those that are performing this. Obviously, there's intelligence benefits having to do with destabilisation of nation states, economies, populations, cultures, etc. (24:15 - 24:45) If that's your goal, if you're in a psychological warfare situation against another nation, state, or culture. But he also talks explicitly that if you analyse the economic impacts of the known actual bioterror events, like the release of an agent in JEP and Subways, for instance. I mean, there's a number of discrete bioterrorism events that have occurred. (24:46 - 26:00) And one can quantitate the financial impacts associated with that in terms of disruption of economies and money spent to mitigate it, etc. And he makes the case that for these information bioterrorism events, which is what we've really been through. I mean, that whatever you think about whether there was a pandemic, or there wasn't a pandemic, or there was a virus, or there wasn't a virus. I think we can all agree that the psychological warfare, the information warfare component of this, the misstatements, or I could just call them lies, like I do in the book, promoted by governments, and World Health Organisation, and the World Economic Forum, and the UN, were at best dysfunctional, did not represent true reality. Beginning with the 3.4% case fatality rate, when in fact the case fatality rate was a fraction of a fraction of a percent, as Jay Bhattacharya showed early on, and he got excoriated for it. But he got the number right. (26:01 - 30:06) So the economic damage caused by the lockdowns and forced compliance with both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical treatments, we just lump them together, because it's not just the jab, and the mandate of the jab, it's what happened with the remdesivir. A lot of this was a iatrogenic death, hospital or physician-caused death. The documentation, I think, is compelling on that. So if you add up the sum of the loss of small businesses, the upward transfer of wealth, the damage from nation states taking on massive additional debt, et cetera, et cetera, Kasimov makes this point that the economic damage associated with these information bioterrorism events, of which there have been a number, as I mentioned, he considered the prior H5N1 to be a great case study example of this having been deployed. And the economic consequences are at least tenfold greater than those associated with actual bioterror events involving an infectious agent release or a toxin. He absolutely lays out how this is a weaponised, basically, warfare, how it's done, and the role of the media, the various phases that one uses, the use of influencers, the basically purchasing of influencers to help deploy and amplify the fear messaging. All of these things, as you go through not only the substance of what he lays out point by point, but even the sequencing that he lays out point by point in 2017, it's precisely mirrored by what we all experienced. And I had already come to the conclusion in my own journey and investigations, and basically on sort of an open mic, a little bit of a... I hadn't intended to say this quite so bluntly on Bannon. I think it was the time I was on Bannon, curiously enough. I was in a studio, and I spoke about that I had become convinced that the real puppet master organisationally behind this was the CIA and the Five Eyes Alliance, the extended basically NATO ally of British... Five Eyes Alliance being UK, Canada, United States, Australia, and New Zealand. They're all former British Empire states that are associated in this, what is arguably the most powerful intelligence alliance or potentially the most powerful organisation in modern history, and an organisation that has profound influence over the world as we know it, particularly the West, and which coincidentally all those nations were among the most egregious in terms of their deployment of totalitarian, authoritarian measures. We can argue about Germany and Austria, which are also NATO. (30:07 - 34:27) But in my opinion, I already come to the conclusion that as I have tried to follow these various leads and make sense out of the facts that I've been able to document and uncover having to do with COVID, myself and others, the facts that I had available, let's put it that way, because I didn't uncover them all. Every major twist or turn as you went down that, you found the CIA looking back at you one way or another, or the intelligence community, including of course the origin of the virus. And then I have a friend who actually employs a former DCIA, who runs a very large major security firm. And it's not Blackwater, to say that. Who I was talking to about this, we talked from time to time, and I asked him the question, is it plausible that the CIA could have been behind all this? And he told this anecdote, I once asked my employee, this former director of the CIA, whether the CIA was now the most powerful organisation in the world. And the guy thought for a moment, and he said, yes, I believe it is. Just a data point. For me, all these things have been gradual reveals. Again, the metaphor of Shrek, organs are like onions, and you have to peel the onion, and there's layers and layers. There's been layers and layers of truth and reality that I've had to dig through, as you have. And one of the ones that I found most striking, because I was travelling internationally a lot earlier, was that this purchasing of influencers happened in a simultaneous, harmonised fashion across the Western world. In terms of the nature of the influencers, they varied by culture or nation state. For instance, in Austria, with its strong emphasis on classical music and performing arts, the influencers, basically everyone involved in the performing arts was offered money to support the jab. In the United States, obviously, we had comedians and social media figures, the notorious scenes on late night TV with the dancing syringes and other things, and the videography of this kind of Broadway production selling vaccines that Mickey Willis has done such a great job highlighting. That was done in a harmonised fashion simultaneously across the Western world. There's no way World Economic Forum, I'm sorry, the WEF does not have, despite their young leaders programme, they don't have that level of capability. The only organisation that does is the intelligence community. Right. And this is a question that I was going to ask you, and I'm going to ask you to respond on this now. Because as I've said to people, and you and I are in agreement here, is the WEF one of the players? Of course they are. But Klaus Schwab as Dr. Evil is not sitting around a big boardroom with his minions plotting all of this. What we have here, as far as I can see- He's just a big figure. He is a tool. Right. He's one factor, that's all. So what we've got is this very large group of people, I collectively call them the globalists. But by the globalists, I don't mean the WEF, I mean all of the people who are behind this push for global government, and it's a wide list. (34:28 - 40:38) And the term is used in the States sometimes, the blob, is another one. That's another good term for it, yes. But I agree. I think globalist is a good catchphrase to kind of roll this up. Right. So earlier in the interview, you said if you were asked who all the major players are, you would have a hard time answering that question. But that's not the question I'm going to ask, is the one you've briefly already answered. Knowing that this is not Dr. Evil sitting around a table plotting all of this in a very coordinated fashion, executing the plans through his minions. It's a bunch of group, a group of different people who all have perhaps similar interests and are cooperating to get to that end, whatever their end is. And if that is the case, how in the world are they coordinating all of this so well? Because yes, we have all been subjected to this massive, well-coordinated PSYOP. Your answer is the CIA. Well, and kind of above or interfacing with CIA, that absolutely State Department has a role in this. And CIA is an outdated term. It's better to call it the intelligence community or the IC. CIA kind of got its hair cut a little bit. And now we have NSA, we have the State Department sockets, we have, forget this, like 20 different intelligence agencies, DIA, Defence Intelligence Agency. There's all of the groups associated with this Department of Homeland Security that's morphed into a monster, including CISA, which is the group that basically coordinates the censorship industrial complex. We have, as has been documented again and again in Taibbi and his colleagues, through the Twitter files and various FOIA documents, et cetera, we now have groups that functionally are mercenary censorship industrial complex players. They're actors for higher up by corporations, including pharma, that have government sockets. And also, we call it big information. People often call it Silicon Valley. That's kind of an outdated euphemism. These large IT related conglomerates, like Google, Microsoft. Microsoft is so much more than just Microsoft. And of course, there's Gates Foundation socket and Warren Buffett. And then we have outside of, it's like, again, it's like the onion. These circles of influence wrapped around each other. So Atlantic Council, Council on Foreign Relations, you know, these interfaces, Bilderberg, in these groups that come together to... And the WEF is absolutely part of this, we could call it globalist consortium. It's a group. And it's not just the NATO block. It's not just the Western countries. Because WEF, people think of WEF as synonymous with Davos, and they don't know. And we documented in this, our substack, like two years ago. The WEF holds its summer sessions in People's Republic of China. It rotates, I think, between three different cities. And BlackRock is just as invested in PRC as it is in the West. And BlackRock, of course, has the contract to rebuild Ukraine. I mean, when you dive into it, all of these things are interlinked. And I come back to, in part, that early podcast with credit to Bret Weinstein, the Dark Horse podcast with me and Bret and Steve Kirsch, where you have, I like to say, three old men sitting around a table and it goes viral, you know something's weird. And they're talking for three hours. Towards the end of that, Bret starts talking about what's behind all this. He's asking the same question that we're still asking here three years later. One of the things he said, he said some things that, in retrospect, he probably regrets, like appealing to Elon Musk to save us from ourselves and buy Pfizer. But he says, basically, builds the thesis that, in part, what we have is an emergent phenomena consequent to the consolidation engineered by the likes of BlackRock and State Street, in that a Reuters board and a Pfizer's board are intermixed. These corporations don't function in these separate silos, industrial silos, pharmaceuticals, information and media, finance, et cetera. We always think of these as functionally independent economic silos, business silos. But that's no longer the case. They are all owned by umbrella organisations, and they function as more akin to divisions of one large corporation. (40:39 - 41:55) Yes. And so they all have these interlinking management teams and board memberships, et cetera. And they all basically sing off the same hymnal. They have a shared business and economic interest, even though they're in separate sectors. And so that was one of the things, I think, early on that was very confusing to a lot of people, is why would we be seeing this coordination between these ostensibly independent, autonomous sectors? And the reason is because they're not independent and autonomous. Right. They're not. So there's that. I mean, it's just layers and layers of things which have fundamentally corrupted the concept of a free market economy and transformed it into modern corporatism, which I repeatedly argue is a synonym for fascism. It's kind of the modern synonym for fascism, or the pretty term that's used is public-private partnerships. That's all a continuum. But we no longer have a free market, per se, in a traditional capitalistic sense. (41:56 - 42:48) And we have a very heavy engagement of these corporate, private sector, public sector partnerships in which the public sector absolutely chooses winners and losers and does so very inefficiently. But we can see that happening. We saw it happening with this extreme emphasis on genetic vaccines, and in particular the mRNA technology, to such an extent that it's hard to argue against the thesis that part of the agenda here was a deployment in gaining widespread acceptance of a willingness to accept an injected genetic product. (42:51 - 43:45) It's hard to refute that based on the... as we've seen. And now that we've arrived at that very important conclusion, and you've done a fantastic job of wrapping all of that up, people don't understand. You're right. It's not these different industries. It's not these different organisations. They're all being controlled by the same people, somewhere up there, whoever those people are. That's not important right now. Let's call it Larry Fink. Whatever. It doesn't matter. Of course, it could be Larry Fink. But what we... Just to illustrate, let me interject. Just to illustrate, Larry Fink has way more power than Klaus Schwab does. And I would agree. Yes. So we've got this massive conglomeration, agglomeration of organisations that are all being controlled by the same powers. And the intelligence community, as you've already pointed out, is, and I'm going to use Kuzminov's term here, the executor. Yeah. (43:46 - 43:50) They're the ones who are spreading all of this propaganda. Operationalising it. Yeah. (43:50 - 44:52) Operationalising it. So from that, rather than trying to say, who are those people at top, Larry Fink, whatever, what conclusions do you draw from that as to what their goals are? Good. I think that one of the underlying drivers in all of this is, so this is going to seem like a tangent. We're still all living in Kissinger's brain in the sense that Western policy is still dominated by his construction of real politic, of this very much ends justify the means kind of logic. And by the way, we have some modules that have been kind of appended onto that. And one of those modules, for example, is Malthusianism. (44:52 - 45:39) That's logic that the human population has grown to such a state that it is a, you know, overused term, existential threat to the survival of the globe and other species. This is what underpins the One Health Initiative that is part of the logic underpinning the temporarily aborted World Health Organisation pandemic treaty, quote, unquote. The logic that all species basically have equal rights in a world of infectious disease and all species matter. (45:40 - 52:00) There isn't a predominance of emphasis on human beings just to let you know that's one facet of the world, one health agenda. So what is the end game is kind of what you're asking. And it's still global power and economic dominance. And basically, fundamentally, this I'm going to sound like Che Guevara or something, but it is imperialism. It is the remnants of the American empire still playing out. And you can see this in the current tensions that exist right now in Europe. I'll be off to Geneva on Wednesday for this rally that's happening. And of course, we have the votes for the European Parliament coming up in June 7 tonight. And this wave of populism, as was Mike Benz, I think, in this Tucker Carlson interview, just transformational interview from Mike, where he lays out that this wave of emergent populism in the European Union fuelled by social media, which is why all of the heavy-handed crackdown on freedom of speech throughout Europe right now, is justified in the minds of those that are in the position to control public policy because the rise of populism threatens the fragmentation of the European Union, which is basically the American construct to maintain dominance over Western Europe. It's basically our socket for exerting foreign policy and influence in that part of the world. We really have subjugated Europe and have done so since the Second World War. It's a firm hand inside a soft glove, but the intelligence community, Europeans across Europe in dissident communities all speak about the role of the CIA in controlling European politics. The existential threat pointed out by Benz is that basically he develops the argument that social media was developed as, as we know it, Facebook, Twitter, et cetera, were developed as information warfare tools by the intelligence community. That's absolutely true. I know that from first experience working with a client who built some of the capabilities that are within some of these social media programmes relating to natural language processing, tracking, mapping of influencer networks, et cetera, targeting of influencer networks and manipulation. That was all deployed in Arab Spring to great effect to basically enable overturning of Middle Eastern governments that the United States didn't think was in their interest to maintain. That was a huge success for the intelligence community and the CIA and the State Department. Then we had Nigel Farage, UKIP and Brexit. It was fuelled by that same toolkit. That was an oh shit moment for the State Department slash IC because here their tools were used in opposition to their agenda, which threatened the fragmentation of the European Union at that point, because we're talking about Greek exit, et cetera, Grexit, and a number of the other smaller states leaving at that time. They managed to shore it up. But as Mike points out, then we had Donald Trump. Donald Trump's surprise election was fuelled in large part through a more adroit management of social media capabilities than was done by his opponent in the Democratic Party. Then we had the rise of this whole discussion that in order to preserve democracy, we had to impose censorship. That and the COVID crisis justified the deployment of advanced psychological warfare technologies that had been devised for combat against the likes of the Taliban. This is fifth generation warfare. It's really the dive into fifth gen warfare that brought me into understanding psychological warfare and driving me down that rabbit hole. NATO now calls this the doctrine of hybrid warfare. They point out that psywar is actually much more effective and certainly more cost effective than is hot kinetic warfare like is going on in Ukraine right now. The end game here is that if these populist movements are allowed, like Alliance for Deutschland, which is now outlawed in Germany, the leading conservative party in Germany is now outlawed. If you fly the German flag like you've got over your shoulder with the Canadian flag, you're considered a neo-Nazi in Germany. There's a concerted effort to delegitimise nationalism. Because one of the objections is this rampant immigration that's happening under the guise of Agenda 2030 that we all have the right to live wherever we want in the world. (52:00 - 54:26) But the subtext is really cultural replacement and repopulation throughout a lot of the liberal democracies, or however you want to call them. In terms of the end game, where is the intelligence community going in the State Department? I think they are profoundly afraid of the trends, the social trends that are ongoing, particularly in Europe, but to some extent in the United States. Canada, there is this small resistance that you represent your voice within. I guess it's Ottawa that is kind of the champion of that as a province. Perhaps you're going to get some traction. But the perception is that this growing wave is going to trigger destabilisation of these structures that have been assembled since World War II. And eventually, you're going to have the collapse of NATO. Oh, shit. A multilateral world with the BRICS economies, et cetera, even though the United States is still overwhelmingly dominant militarily. It's that all the technologies underpinning that are changing. Aircraft carriers are obsolete. Hypersonic weapons have come to fore. We have so many new emerging military technologies that are challenging the dominance of the American military industrial complex. As we can see, we can't even fight little Russia to a standstill in Ukraine using surrogate soldiers, and apparently also UK soldiers, if you believe Andrew Bridgen. So what's the agenda? I think it's preserving the old world order and transitioning to this new one that was described in part by Klaus Schwab as the Great Reset, in which they are offering solutions to this great dilemma of massive, massive debt. (54:27 - 55:34) Yes. It's so massive that it risks destabilising certainly the entire Western world. And one of the leading holders of that debt being the United States government. And that debt indebtedness is largely driven by the military industrial complex, which has become parasitic. But the intelligence community and the State Department are very much invested still in the underpinning logic of Pax Americana, and containment, and America as a superpower, and the exploitation of that and the petrodollar for economic dominance really is what we're talking about. Maintaining economic political dominance in an environment in which that is increasingly untenable for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the national debt. (55:35 - 56:34) And so it's an end game. And what was the COVID crisis, was it an intentional play? It's getting harder and harder to argue against that. I haven't seen the artefacts to prove that we don't have artefacts showing Daszak scheming with Tedros and Obama, or whomever, Mr. Biden's representative to deploy this, or even I'm still perplexed that we saw this agent deployed in the beating industrial heart of China. (56:36 - 58:43) If this was a Chinese intended release, which is one thesis, why Wuhan? That just doesn't make economic and political sense for the PRC. There's a lot of other ways they could have played this. But if you reel back in time, that was a period of some tension economically and trade-wise with the Trump administration. There's too many coincidences here and unexplained facts, inconvenient facts, that to just pass this off as a inconvenient serendipitous event that just happened to occur at that location at that point in time. But there's no smoking gun right now. There is increasingly evidence of cover-up with the testimony that's happening. And you'll note that the select committee in the House of the United States is only allowed to talk about the origins of the virus. They will not take up anything having to do with the pharmaceutical interventions. And they have, I think it's seven physicians on the committee. And there's two of them that are willing to question things and the rest are all in with pharma. So what is the agenda? It has to be power, economic dominance, and as this Russian intelligence officer points out in his essay, in his interview, there was an enormous economic benefit to the pharmaceutical industry. That is undeniable. (58:43 - 1:00:05) Yes. And it's not just in the present. This launching of this technology platform and the establishment of a functional monopoly, because that's what's happened. Functionally, people don't appreciate how regulatory affairs works. Pfizer and Moderna are now sitting on a mountain of data, which the CDC and the FDA support as demonstrating safety and effectiveness of not just the product, but the platform. And it was the intention from the outset that this data be available to validate the platform so that it won't be necessary to do extended safety testing as new products are rolled out based on this platform. And the only people that hold that data that can exploit it in this way are Pfizer and Moderna. So that gives them a functional monopoly on the platform. And the platform is a multi-trillion dollar platform that will allow them to displace existing pharmaceutical products across the entire industry. (1:00:05 - 1:00:49) Right. And cook up an mRNA shot for everything under the sun. Now, everything you've said in the last 15 minutes, Robert, I could ask you literally half a dozen more questions on that, but we're running up against our time limit. So I'm going to ask you just one more. And we're here to discuss psychological biowarfare. We've discussed how it's been used in the past. Who's probably behind it? Who is the executive, the intelligence community? In your article, you discussed H5N1, which probably is the WHO's disease X. They're working to make it communicable between humans. It's got a much higher case fatality rate, say, than COVID did. And I think that's important because here's the question. (1:00:50 - 1:01:06) I would say, given the number of people now who have figured out that this narrative is false, they can't just do a repeat of COVID. They can't come out with another weak blue and scare everybody with that. They're going to have to do it differently this time. (1:01:07 - 1:03:14) How do you see them executing disease X, whatever it is, and then the psychological biowarfare that goes with it? So we're seeing the CyWar deployed in real time right now. H5N1 is being weaponised as spear port in real time as we sit here. You can follow it in the media. I've written about it. I just had an interview with the Defender, a reporter from the Defender, which is the Children's Health Defence, and they're going to come out with a publication because Drew Pardoll and UPenn are now touting that they've already come up with an H5N1 vaccine based on the mRNA technology. And that reporter was asking me, do they have a financial benefit here? And I'm like, of course they do. They own the damn patents. And to interject, and we've been talking about the CDC, right on the CDC website, there is a timeline of H5N1, of avian viruses. It's clear, they're building up to this conclusion that, oh, well, it started out in the back, and now it's going to jump to these animals, and then from there it's going to jump to us. They're priming the pump for the story. Well, and so, and the backstory here is that H5N1 has already, we all, we have this vague awareness that there was a moratorium on gain of function research. What we forget is that moratorium was implemented in reaction to the gain of function research that was done on H5N1 previously by two different laboratories, one in the Netherlands and one in Wisconsin, USA, in which it was found that there's four specific point mutations in the hemagglutinin protein, which is kind of akin to spike, of H5N1 that will confer efficient mammal-to-mammal infection using a ferret mode. (1:03:16 - 1:08:31) And those were published. That means that virtually anybody with a, you know, certainly a graduate degree in molecular biology and virology can reproduce that. Really, pretty much even with an undergraduate level of education, you can do that as a good technician. So weaponization of H5N1 is now essentially out of the box, and any nefarious actor can do that. Are we seeing, you mentioned something I'm going to push back on, the case fatality rate for H5N1 being 50 to 60%. That's absolutely being widely distributed that that's the case. It's an artefact of sampling. It's a sampling error, okay? When they say that, there's been like 55 or so cases since 1995 of H5N1 in China, just to illustrate, and about 30 have died. So that gets you your 50 to 60% case fatality rate, but it's not transmissible human to human. Those people that got that had some unusual circumstance. They got a high level of exposure to virus because they were, you know, killing... H5N1 is endemic, just to say it again, in waterfowl, migratory waterfowl. It survives for long periods of time in water. It's in all of the open water sources that we have that are frequented by migratory waterfowl that poop in the water, okay? So that means if a cow drinks from an open water source where a duck has pooped, or a Canadian goose, he's going to be exposed to H5N1 nucleic acid, and probably if you turn up your cycle number and you swab him after he's had a drink, you're going to come up with positive H5N1 sequences, okay? So in terms of the case fatality rate, those are people that presented to a hospital with a fluorid upper respiratory infection, and some doc took a swab and sent it off to the, you know, the Chinese CDC or whomever, and it came back H5N1. The person was already really diseased. They probably had an immunodeficiency, or they were busy whacking a bunch of ducks for slaughter or something and got a massive viral load. Something happened that's unusual, and they present already with severe disease, and those are the only ones that are being counted, and so of course that has a high fatality rate. That has nothing to do with what goes on in the general population. Example data. Two people are asserted have been positive dairy workers for H5N1. How they must, one of those must have died, the other one must have- In the U.S. In the U.S. You're referring to the two in the U.S., yes. Yeah, okay. No, I'm sorry. They got pink eye, okay? Right. Neither one is dead, and there's been no transmission to anybody else, okay? And so now I don't know if it's the CDC or the USDA is offering dairy workers 75 bucks a pop to be tested for the presence of H5N1 sequences. Now this is, you know, how many times do we have to see this over-testing and over-interpretation of PCR signals before we get it? Just like was in the early days of COVID, SARS-CoV-2. So we're seeing, as you point out, all the classic behaviours of a bureaucracy on hyperdrive trying to demonstrate that there's a crisis. And by the way, it's very much in their interest that there's an H5N1 crisis. They'll get all kinds of promotions and supplemental budgets and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Best thing that could possibly happen to the USDA right now is if H5N1 can be shown to infect cows because they're going to have to hire all kinds of people to surveil all the cattle herds. And by the way, there's this socket interface with what appears to be some nefarious agenda having to do with decreasing cattle populations in North America. That just seems to be a convenient coincidence. But here we can already see how they're going to deploy it, okay? There's this concerted fear that's being driven, the narrative about the high case fatality rate, the narrative that it's jumping into dairy workers, that it's infecting cows. Daszak said it on the stand in front of the house. He said, well, now there's PCR positivity in the milk. Oh my God, we can't drink milk, okay? It just goes on and on and on. So this started before when Monkeypox, remember? Yes. (1:08:31 - 1:09:10) Remember? And there was a committee, Tedros's committee, to determine whether or not this represented a global health crisis. And the first meeting of the committee, they said, nope, sorry, Mr. Tedros, it ain't. And what did he do? He said, well, I'm going to have to convene a new committee that has a better representation from the population that's at high risk for Monkeypox. You can translate that one. And he did so, okay? And so he gets this new committee that's now more skewed towards those that might be particularly hyper aware of the risks of Monkeypox. And we should point out what a number of people on that committee work for Big Pharma. (1:09:11 - 1:09:27) Okay. And still that committee votes against, what was it, eight to 10? Votes against calling it a global health emergency. Mr. Tedros steps in and declares that a tie, which he has to break. (1:09:27 - 1:09:57) And he determines unilaterally that it's a global public health emergency. So then we deploy the Canbis vaccine, the live attenuated smallpox vaccine that has got a rushed approval for Monkeypox. And by the way, there was a whole event 201-like thing held in Germany almost precisely one year prior to all this little kabuki theatre that laid out almost to the day when this was going to happen. (1:09:58 - 1:16:31) It's got the contagion, I believe, is what you're referring to. Is that another one for Bill Gates? And yeah, it's got the Gates Foundation's fingers in it. And how did that work out? They were able to unload a bunch of the stockpile. And by the way, they have stockpiled H5N1 vaccine right now manufactured by an Australian company called Seqirus in an egg-free manufacturing process at a plant in Holly Springs, North Carolina. And this was all purchased from Novartis who did it under the original contract to BARDA and then got out of the industry because they got out of vaccines completely because they said it didn't make financial sense. But Seqirus bought it up at $0.10 on the dollar and they own this thing and they've had the stockpile contract. So we got a whole bunch of these vaccines sitting around expiring, ready to be jabbed into arms. So that's in the interests of Seqirus. It's in the interests of BARDA. It's in the interests of the whole biodefense industrial complex. USDA wins, WHO wins. What's not to like about another round of good old fear porn? Scare the natives with H5N1. And there's no evidence of human to human transmission now or at any time in the past. Right. Absolutely. And thank you. I've been harping on that on my news show now for weeks that the only time that people ever get infected with avian flu is when they come in direct contact with an infected bird, that it can't be passed between humans. But let's assume that that's what they're trying to do with it. We know they've been monkeying with it in the lab in China since at least 2021. We've got former CDC director Redfield saying that he could do it in a matter of a few weeks. Because it's already published. Right. So then, and I lied earlier, I said with my last question, but I have to ask this one, Robert, given the overlap in your areas of expertise, I think you're probably the best person I could ask this question of if they succeed in making this H5N1 something that is airborne transmissible between humans. And you already made the point, you're right. The fatality rates that we have are useless, really. Yeah. They're an artefact. They're sampling artefact. Right. How virulent would you fear that that virus might be? It's so, I have a friend, a colleague, Stephen Hatfield, who was the guy that got labelled as the source of the anthrax spores and just harassed mercilessly until it was proven that he wasn't. And he walked away with, I forget, $6 or $8 million in settlement with the US government over that. Now he has a nice place down in Florida. But Hatfield makes the point, and he's in a position to know, he had higher security clearance and much deeper involvement in Fort Detrick and all that stuff than I did, that it's wicked hard to engineer a virus to be more pathogenic in humans, to seriously be more pathogenic. I mean, SARS-CoV-2, yeah, it's more infectious. Is it really that lethal? No. So the probability is that we already have significant antibodies and cellular immune response to a large fraction, if not all of the core antigens associated with influenza. Because we're not, all we're talking about is H5N1 and bird flu. We're still talking about flu, this multi-segmented genome, and we're just talking about these two antigens that are on its surface, the neuraminidase and the hemagglutinin. And the neuraminidase is the same that we've all encountered before, like H1N1, H5N1, H1N1. We've all seen the N1 neuraminidase before, our bodies have. So we've already got cellular and humoral immune responses against the neuraminidase, and the question is the subtle differences in the hemagglutinin, and are those subtle differences really going to make that much difference in terms of our resistance, given that virtually every human being on the planet has been infected with some form of flu, let alone whether or not they've been vaccinated. Now, the caveat to that, and it was, it's some of the gain-of-function research that nobody ever talks about, it was done to identify mutations which will shift the targeting or trophism, is the fancy sciency word, of where the virus infects. And if H5N1 or any other influenza shifts from more of an oropharyngeal upper respiratory pattern of infection to lower respiratory tract by changing its use of certain receptors, but that's a major jump, that can be associated with significant increased pathogenesis. I probably shouldn't even be saying this, but that was done in dual-function research R&D at the CDC, I don't know, 20 years ago. So that's the real risk, is not subtle shifts and whether it might be slightly more, you know, make it possible for it to be spread by aerosol from mammal to mammal or human to human, which is what they did with the ferrets, but rather the distribution of the virus in the lung tissue. And getting virus down into deep lung is tough. It has to do with the, kind of the biomechanics of particle size and airflow. You have to have a tiny little particle to get it down into deep lung because we've got all this branching twists and turns and the mucus and all these various evolved barriers that we have to keep respiratory viruses up and out of the deep lung where they can do a lot of damage. (1:16:31 - 1:17:33) So, you know, if somebody said, Robert, H5N1 has now evolved to efficiently infect deep lung and to be transmitted by smaller particulates in aerosols, I'd say, hmm, that sounds like we've got a problem. But barring that, and even then, it would be a significant problem probably in the same way that COVID was, SARS-CoV-2, in that it would cause more severe disease in individuals that had pre-existing conditions like pre-inflammatory syndrome, diabetes, obesity, old age. Influenza used to be called the old man's friend. (1:17:36 - 1:18:06) You know, when you get to a certain age and your body's all worn out, um, this is going to sound a little bit, well, you're in Canada where they do assisted suicide paid for by the government. Believe me, we're not proud of that, but you're right. So maybe it's politically acceptable to say that, you know, when you get to a certain place in your life and your body's all worn out, sometimes a quick, relatively painless death can be welcomed. (1:18:07 - 1:19:08) Yes. Hence the old man's friend is the clinical saw. But is it going to take out little babies in, well, little babies also are a little bit more fragile, but is it going to take out our children and healthy individuals even, you know, without some major, major change that has never been seen in flu? Remember that the whole narrative about how nasty influenza is and how threatening it is, is all based on a fraud. Okay. The whole story that's weaponised to all of us about how you should be afraid of flu is all based on swine flu, 1918, post-World War I. Okay. And the truth is, as has been revealed now by medical historians, two major factors behind that. (1:19:09 - 1:19:50) One is, and it's been perplexing for years, and now it's resolved. Those deaths were primarily a consequence of bacterial super infection. If they'd had penicillin, it never would have happened in the first place. It's also the consequence of overtreatment with a cool new drug that had just been developed that was really good for treating fever. And so physicians would treat the fever. And if the fever didn't resolve, they give more of the cool new drug. The cool new drug is called aspirin. Okay. And absolutely they were overdosing and killing people with aspirin. (1:19:51 - 1:21:00) Shades of COVID and remdesivir and ventilators. Because aside from reducing fever and headaches, it has other effects. Yeah. And the masking, which causes the concentration of bacteria in this space in front of your nasopharynx. So you're basically increasing your risk of getting a bacterial pneumonia, not decreasing it. It was these factors that drove H1N1 1918. It wasn't the intrinsic pathogenicity of H1N1. But we've been sold that again and again and again. It's been part of the propaganda that influenza, the boogeyman is Spanish flu, and you're all going to die because you all died then. But the truth is we have antibiotics now, and we're not all going to die of bacterial super infections. Yes. So- And so the whole flu narrative as the big scary boogeyman is based on a lie. (1:21:00 - 1:22:00) Okay. And so then the summary would be, while of course you don't have a crystal ball, but it would take a major change to this virus, something that hasn't been done before, to make it virulent. And so if they do manage to make it transmissible among humans, it's quite likely going to be relatively harmless. Yeah. It's most likely going to be a nothing burger. The investigators that did the actual gain of function research that triggered this whole shitstorm around gain of function research and the original ban or pause on it, never claimed that the ferrets got worse disease. It just, the mutations in H1N1, I mean H5N1 and the hemagglutinin that they introduced, caused it to be transmissible from ferret to ferret in a model in which you put ferrets in adjacent cages. So that means that they're generating an infectious aerosol. Yes. (1:22:00 - 1:22:16) And that infectious aerosol is being breathed in by the other ferret and the other ferret is getting infected. But they never claimed that these ferrets were developing significant clinical disease. No, they were just being infected with a disease they didn't have immunity to. (1:22:16 - 1:22:47) Right. And calling it a disease is really almost a stretch. They were being infected with an infectious agent and they were developing some brief clinical syndrome, just like when cows get the flu. Cows get upper respiratory infections all the time. They just have never tested before for H5N1 in cows. They get it all the time and they clear them, just like humans do. (1:22:48 - 1:25:03) We've all been living with influenza and rhinovirus and beta coronaviruses for probably millennia. And this is a highly evolved, it's not even a host-parasite relationship. It's more like a commensal relationship. And it has been for all of human history. And all of this infectious, again, psychological bioterrorism, let's bring it back around. That's what we're being subjected to, is psychological bioterrorism. They're intending to manipulate us through fear tactics. And that is fundamentally not ethical. It should be forbidden. The weaponization of fear of infectious disease is unethical. People who do it should be shunned. They should be prevented from any participation in public dialogue. They should be shamed and they should be shunned. This is not acceptable behaviour, because fear has real tangible effects on personal health, on suicide, on all kinds of things. If people act as if the promotion of fear is just a benign way to manipulate masses of populations, and it's not. And it has to stop. Absolutely agree. Dr. Malone, thank you so much for your generosity with your time. We have gone well over the time limit that you gave me when we started. Thanks for your topic, Will. I've enjoyed, obviously, this is something I'm passionate about. So thanks. And I appreciate it very much. I appreciate your honest and insightful views on all of this, because you're right. The cure to fear is truth. And information. People fear what they don't understand. And we can bring them understanding. We chase away the fear. Yep. Thank you. All right. Thank you.