“The mass is formed around the idea that the vaccines are magically going to be able to relieve them of this problem.”
In this two-part episode, we sit down again with Dr. Robert Malone, who pioneered the mRNA vaccine technology that’s used in many of the COVID-19 vaccines today. We discuss his career and look further into the intriguing psychological phenomenon known as “mass formation.”
We also dig into how COVID vaccines are faring against Omicron, how the term “herd immunity” has been grossly misunderstood, and the dangers of mandating vaccines for children.
“I may be one of the very few that has this depth of understanding of the technology that doesn't have a direct financial conflict of interest. If I'm not allowed to speak about my concerns—whether they're right or wrong—who is?”
Jan Jekielek: Dr. Robert Malone, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders.
Dr. Robert Malone: Thank you, Jan. It's always my pleasure. I look forward to this interview and to many future ones.
Mr. Jekielek: You just had a podcast with Joe Rogan, which I understand is probably the most popular podcast in the world right now. This is what some of the metrics that I've been seeing suggest. It's curious because the topic that took it to that level is not necessarily your specialty. It's this idea of mass formation. I want to talk about that. Before we go there, you're also being attacked by all sorts of actors all over the place. So, I want to give you the opportunity to tell me about where you come from, and what your work has been. I want to make sure that people are very clear on who I'm interviewing here.
Dr. Malone: I have some good news that's along these lines. We have now opened the two clinical trials sponsored by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, with Leidos acting as the sponsor. This is technical pharmaceutical language for the treatment of COVID disease with high dose Famotidine and Celecoxib. So, this is the technology and these are findings in terms of repurposed drugs that go back to the first phone call that I got from the CAA officer in Wuhan on January 4th. This is what my primary thrust has been in terms of research ever since, identifying repurposed drugs, and getting them into the clinic and developing highly innovative clinical trials and trial designs around those.
These two trials that are just launched now, it may be that we're having our first patients in today. We had a long teleconference yesterday about it with the team. These are incredibly innovative trials. They have a whole brand-new patient-centered outcome research tool for capturing data so that patients aren't responding to a predefined checklist of symptoms. The software is designed so the patient drives the symptoms that are captured and characterized and then tracked through their course of their illness.
It doesn't have predefined biases about what people will experience with COVID disease. It has the Fluidda system, which is cutting-edge technology, basically, MRI-based spirometry of the lung. This is high resolution magnetic resonance imaging that is going to be tracking the effects of the disease and the drug interventions on blood flow in the lung, oxygenation in the lung on the arterial side and on the venous side.
The trials include administering influenza vaccine at the end of the treatment and at discharge from the hospital so that we can track the effects of the treatment and of the disease on immune responses. It includes a full suite of omics being done by Emory.(University) They're not just trials of these drugs.
These are going to profoundly change our understanding of this disease and really are bringing to the fore a whole new innovative approach to clinical research that is patient-based rather than based on pre- assumptions from a pharmaceutical sponsor. It has the advantage that it is using repurposed agents, Famotidine and Celecoxib, that your audience will know of as Pepcid and Celebrex. One is over the counter and the other is by prescription, but has been around for a long time, and is well understood.
Remember, my primary focus, my primary core competency these days is not just discovery research and the stuff that I did back when I was running an academic lab. It's running these large teams and helping them structure large clinical trials, and the regulatory affairs components. Currently, I serve as the president of the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists. That's over 16,000 physicians and scientists from all over the world. You can find that on globalcovidsummit.org.
I serve as the chief science officer and regulatory officer for the Unity Project. You can find that at unityprojectonline.com. That's an organization that's focused on trying to resist the mandates, particularly the mandates for children. It is focused on trying to keep the children from being subjected to mandatory vaccination.
Historically, over the lifetime of my career, I've won well over eight billion in federal grants and contracts. I've managed multiple large study sections for federal contracts for the NIH, NIAID typically, or DMID having to do with biodefense and vaccines. I'm often the study section chairperson. This is not a trivial task, trust me, and there aren't very many people that have my breadth of experience all the way through the federal contracting. I actually have quite a bit of experience in federal contracting as a consequence of having won and managed this large amount of capital over decades now.
Typically, they have me in as study section chair for this large study sections that are giving out contracts in the $80 to $150 million range for biodefense vaccines-related products. There are many aspects to what I do. I guess it wasn't previously recognized by many that I have graduated from Harvard Medical School in a fellowship that involve global clinical research. I've been brought back to speak to students, including this last year's class, as one of their exemplars. I completed two fellowships after I completed my M.D., both at UC Davis.
I've done many things. This is not bragging, it's just I've worked hard to get to this place in my career where I have 30 years of experience, with deep experience in bench research; over 15 issued patents, 10 of which at least are directly relevant to genetic vaccines, RNA, DNA, and viruses; nine of which were filed on March of 1988, I guess it was, 1988 or 1989, a full decade before the Kariko and Weissman work.
Kariko cites me in her first mRNA delivery paper, in the acknowledgements and in the references. I had actually spoken to her, coached her a little bit, and invited her to a key conference that I'd set up in Annapolis back in the day. This is mid-90s when she first started doing this, so that she could speak to other experts in the field and learn from them.
I've been in this a long time. Yes, there's all this yellow journalism and they attempt to demean me or perform various forms of character assassination. These are often done by junior journalists. Often the pieces are poorly written. The Atlantic article, I find it as kind of a case study of what not to write and of an example of what comes out of a less well-trained journalistic pen.
I had expected to have this type of attack. I've seen it happen with others. I saw it happen when I was a young scientist with Peter Duesberg, where he got canceled. Bobby Kennedy, in his book, makes the case that Peter Duesberg's intentional canceling by Tony Fauci because of his comments about HIV disease and the origin of AIDS is maybe one of the first examples of cancel culture.
Peter Duesberg is one of the great virologists of the 20th century. One of the lovely things about the Kennedy book is that it so clearly demonstrates that what we're experiencing here with the media manipulation, propaganda, and censorship was really piloted with the HIV outbreak. We're seeing a third or fourth generation version of the strategies that were developed then.
I hope that that speaks to this question of expanding and understanding my CV. I always say it's more important to me to help people to get access to the data and learn to think for themselves and make their own opinion. I don't want to tell people what to think. I want to help them think, and give them the tools to do it.
So your viewers can easily do a search on Google Scholar for my name R.W. Malone, M.D. You'll see the full spectrum of my publications, domestic U.S. patents, my scholar ranking, and all the citations I've had on the various documents. You can make your own opinion about whether or not I invented these technologies and the role that I've played in my industry.
Mr. Jekielek: They're all available there for now? You've had some commentary about Google search and the concept of mass formation. I know that the modern originator of this discussion has asked that the term psychosis be stricken for very good reason. So, I'm just going to use mass formation here. Are you concerned that there may be that kind of censorship potentially in the future?
Dr. Malone: You're referencing that over the last weekend on New Year's Eve, the Rogan Show came out in which I spoke about mass formation, a topic I've spoken out on multiple other podcasts. There's been media out there on this for quite a long time. I'm just a student of Mattias Desmet. I've made this very clear—Dr. Mattias Desmet, University of Ghent in Belgium. I've learned from him everything I know about mass formation.
I spoke about it in a simple way that seems to have connected with people and it became one of the top trending search terms on Google over the weekend. What was fascinating is people that are on my Gettr account started tracking by comparing DuckDuckGo search results and Google Search results and taking a screenshot of the differences.
They were able to demonstrate Google actively manipulating the search results in real-time over the weekend to downgrade the links that would pop when people would search mass formation, because I was initially coming at the top of the stack on Google.
Google then stopped the ability of users to search mass formation and went in and manually changed the ranking results, so that obscure videos that had been posted by people that were attacking—assuming that I was the originator of the theory and the logic, which was not true—attacking me personally for what I had said, not realizing that it's actually Mattias Desmet that developed all of this theory and I was just reciting what I've learned from him.
And Google put YouTube clips that maybe only had like 10 hits at the top of the search stack as the most frequent responses when people would search, and pushed me way down in the stack so you couldn't find it unless you searched on DuckDuckGo.
It was a fascinating example that actually validated in real-time Mattias Desmet's theories. I was on a podcast with Mattias yesterday, and we had a good laugh that, over the last week, we have had enough data generated validating his theories of mass formation to keep him and his graduate students going for the next 20 years. It has been amazing watching it. What it demonstrates is the lack of self-awareness by big tech that they are caught up in the mass formation themselves, or else they are intentionally manipulating it.
[Narration]: When we reached out to Google, a Google spokesperson disputed Dr. Malone's characterization of the search results and said they were "automatically generated."
Mr. Jekielek: You've been able to kind of explain this theory in a very simple way. Briefly, could you explain what it is?
Dr. Malone: Thanks for asking. I had the benefit of this interaction with Peter McCullough and myself on the Tommy Carrigan podcast yesterday. I was asked by Tommy to recite my understanding of mass formation and then get Mattias' feedback and coaching in real-time, confirming the things that I got right, and correcting me on the things that I got wrong. So hopefully I would get it right this time.
Mass formation does not actually originate with Mattias Desmet. It is a very active source of research in psychology that goes back decades. There are multiple books that have been written about it. The storyline for how this came about, this spark of awareness by Mattias Desmet, which he does get credit for, is as follows: he's an unusual academic because he not only has his Ph.D. and his academic appointment in psychology but he also has a master's in statistics.
He tells the story the genesis of his insight. He was looking at the projections from the Imperial College of London, which, by the way, are the basis for the CDC asserting the incidence of Omicron in the current population in the United States, which appears to be overestimated.
The Imperial College has all the way through this—they're a modeling shop—they have overestimated the risks associated with this virus again and again and again. Yet they're still doing it. In the early days, they made projections that were catastrophic about the number of deaths that were going to occur in different countries.
Mattias started looking at this data as a statistician and compared the actual incidence data with mortality data in his country and then in different countries in Europe, because that data was available. Your audience can look on Worldometer or the Johns Hopkins site to find it for themselves.
He began doing this as a statistician and comparing them to the projections that were the basis for these very harsh measures that had been implemented, like the lockdowns. Just recall the Great Barrington Declaration team had said the lockdowns were counterproductive and shouldn't be done, that we would have more deaths consequent to the lockdown strategy than we would have if we didn't.
Mattias was looking at this data, comparing the differential, and it became very clear to him that public policy was not aligning with the actual reality. This caused him a lot of cognitive dissonance. "Why is this? What's going on?" Because already at the time, there was a lot of the conspiracy theory circulating. It was only after a couple of months that he had the insight, the brainstorm, that what he was seeing was mass formation in progress, something he had taught academically. The fact that it took him a couple of months to realize it demonstrated to him that he was also suffering from the mass formation, because he hadn't been able to make the connection in his own mind.
So, what are the conditions for mass formation as laid out by Mattias? There is a sense of social isolation that pervades society. People are disconnected. He cites the figure from various studies, and I recommend to your audience that they go back and search Mattias Desmet's videos on YouTube and you'll find where he cites the reference source.
He cites that there is solid data that something like 60 per cent of the population in the United States believes that they have no friend, which is profound. We have become profoundly decoupled from each other in society. One of the conditions is this decoupling from each other and from the classic social institutions—churches, Rotarian groups, any of these things, sports events, and teams. We've become decoupled, isolated. Even before the virus we had developed a sense of free-floating anxiety. This is one of the key features. A sense of anger, aggression—free-floating, undirected anger and aggression.
Mr. Jekielek: Just to be clear for the benefit of everyone, free-floating means that you're not sure why?
Dr. Malone: Yes. Mattias uses the example that in standard anxiety, we have a mental image of the thing that is causing the anxiety. That can actually be very adaptive. If we have a mental image of a tiger, we're anxious because the tiger might eat us. It’s a mountain lion if you're living out west. Mountain lions eat people out west. It happens. Or a bear, okay? If we have that mental image of what the threat is, then the anxiety isn't free-floating. It's directed against a specific thing and it's adaptive. You don't want to put yourself in a position where the mountain lion or the bear is going to eat you. That's clear.
This decoupling is where you have anxiety, and you're disassociated from your social structure. You're an island as an individual. You have this anxiety, and you have anger about having that anxiety. You have a sense that things aren't right and yet you don't know why. These conditions all existed prior to the outbreak in droves, and Mattias cites multiple examples demonstrating it. The frequency of individuals that felt that their job had any meaning is, historically, in the cellar. We had a society that was profoundly ill in a fundamental way, across the world in western industrialized societies.
Then an event happens. It is an event, any event. It can be the rise of a populous leader that is espousing hatred towards an ethnic group, an enemy, an other. It can be an event like a major economic disruption, which is fundamentally what happened after the Armistice in Germany prior to World War II. The Russian Revolution is another major disruptive event. Historically, there have been many.
With the planes hitting the twin towers, a case could be made that triggered a mass formation in the United States. Historically, it may be that Socrates in drinking the hemlock was the victim of mass formation in his society. A case can be made that the story of Jesus Christ captured in the Bible is a story of mass formation and the consequences of mass formation.
This has been with us forever. I'm not an expert in this, but those that are have noticed a trend of mass formation becoming more and more powerful, more and more universal, and deeper and deeper during the 20th century, as we have had the rise of coordinated global media and dense urban populations. They make the case that there's a historic trend to mass formation over time, particularly in the 20th century, and now into the 21st century. What happens is there's an event, and there could be multiple different types of sources of this event.
Mattias says it straight out: mass media, through its actions, drives the focus of the population, in our case globally in the current situation, drives the focus of the population to a single point through its obsessive messaging. So Mattias is explicitly identifying the role of mass media in triggering mass formation in modern society. He asserts that what happens, as media does its thing to sell clicks or newspapers or whatever it is, creates fear porn all the time. It's very good for the media to incite fear. It works for them as a business model. We've seen it again and again.
So, the media drives this focus and a fraction of the population, and it's typically about 30 per cent of all the population, becomes obsessively focused on a single point, exactly akin to what would happen during the process of hypnosis. With hypnosis, you can focus the human mind on a single topic and exclude all other signals in the environment so that a surgeon can do a surgery on a patient who, perhaps, is allergic to an anesthetic agent that might otherwise be used. This is used clinically. This isn't just stuff that carnival tricksters use. Hypnosis is a real thing, and it is used clinically. It involves focusing the human mind on a single point to the extent that it will exclude all other data and signals.
That is what triggers mass formation. It typically happens when it gets triggered in about 30 per cent of the population. Again, and again, and again, a leader will either incite that triggering or will gain control so that they are perceived as the solution for the anguish and psychological pain that the people have been experiencing. So, a leader is identified by the mass, once they are formed, as offering the solution.
Furthermore, by forming this mass from these people that had previously been totally dissociated in society, decoupled, and had no friends, suddenly they have all found a common bond. So, they have relief from their psychological anxiety and stress. This free-floating anxiety is relieved. They now have the metaphorical tiger or bear or mountain lion that their brains can focus on. Whereas, previously, their brains had all this internal cognitive dissonance, but they didn't know what to focus on.
Now, suddenly, they have a thing that they can focus on. When that happens and you have a leader emerge that is accepted as the savior for that mass that is formed around this hypnotic event, that leader can do no harm.
That mass, as we saw with Stalin, will first consume those that are perceived or identified by the leader as the other, the threat. And we see this in the modern context, in the current context, in the anti-vaxers or the non-vaccinated. They are identified as the threat outside of the mass. Whether or not the data supports that it is irrelevant. They are perceived as the other.
Historically, during mass formation in human populations, people will eliminate that threat. The mass will act to eliminate the threat. Deplatforming is actually a very benign version of that response. It happened during the time of Stalin, as one example. Hitler, of course, is the notable example that we are all very attuned to with the concentration camps. With Stalin, it was the Gulags.
What happens with mass formation? In the French revolution, another great example, it's the guillotine. The group that was identified as causing the pain for the French people were the aristocrats, and so the guillotine. Here's the thing. As the mass formation deepens, those that are part of that group will eliminate by any means those that are identified as their enemies, as the cause of the inciting event that they're focused on, as responsible for that event, as responsible for the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the population.
All this messaging we're hearing from the White House that it's the unvaccinated that are the cause, what that is, is deepening the mass formation of this group that has become totally hypnotized. It's classic. It's so classic, you wonder, is there anybody home? Is there any self-awareness of what they're doing in terms of manipulating the population through this kind of crazy messaging? It is such classic mass formation behavior.
But what will happen is that they will burn through, one way or another, that enemy, and then they will turn on themselves. It happens again and again and again. So, you ended up with Stalinist Russia, where Joseph Stalin killed, literally, over 50 per cent of his communist party membership through the Gulags, as documented by Solzhenitsyn and others.
Here's the amazing thing. Those that are in the mass that have formed this mass, they will sacrifice anything. They will sacrifice their wealth, and they will sacrifice their freedom, because they are psychologically hypnotized and caught up in that mass and they will do anything. If the leader tells them that since they burned out all of their opponents, they're actually the ones that are responsible for whatever the latest transgression is, then they will willingly go to be killed. They will willingly accept, for instance, in the case of the mass formation in Russia, they will accept that they transgressed in some ideologic way with communist party dogma and will agree that, yes, they should be put in the gulags.
The classic example of this is the Jacobins after the French Revolution. As you'll recall, the French revolution burned through the aristocracy and then the guillotine started going after the people that were part of the revolution. That was the Jacobins saying, "Well, you're not sufficiently pure, off to the guillotine for you.”
So, this is classic mass formation or mass formation hypnosis. We are demonstrating all the signs and symptoms and that was what was fascinating about what happened over the last week, and the deplatforming of myself and many, many of my colleagues. If you speak against the dominant narrative that is accepted by those that have formed this mass, about 30 per cent of the population, you will be eliminated. You will be eliminated from society, from the dialogue. You may lose your life.
So, Peter McCullough and I are having this chat with Mattias on a podcast, and I asked Mattias, "Okay, doctor, what's the prescription? What's the therapy here?" He said that he and his colleagues have been talking about this a lot, because now he's out in this inference, this hypothesis is widely circulating in his academic domain, and they're all debating it. He said that the emerging consensus is that we're already so deep in it, it's here.
It's not the wolf is at the door, the wolf is in the house. We are suffering from mass formation on a global scale reinforced by global media. That's what all this coordinated propaganda censorship and everything has done. We're there. He said, "The only thing yet to be determined is how deep the mass formation goes, and how intimately people get wrapped up around this logic.” It's a stretch to call it logic. It is completely resistant to facts. Facts are irrelevant.
If facts are inconsistent with the storyline that the mass has formed around, those facts will be rejected. This is another fundamental thing about human psychology. It can be clearly demonstrated that there is data which comes in through your senses, and what happens is your brain processes that data and compares it. These are fundamental signals coming through your eyes or your ears or touch. That data isn't directly perceived.
They're compared against a model cognitively in humans, and that data which is inconsistent with that model will be rejected. We are only able to perceive that which is consistent with our own intellectual model of reality. It can be demonstrated again and again. This is a core part of hypnosis.
So, these people that are caught up in the mass formation, it doesn't matter how much data you throw at them. They will reject it. We see this in real time. This is what deplatforming is all about. The logic of mass formation is intrinsically integrated into the Trusted News Initiative. The Trusted News Initiative defines any interpretation of current events, risk profiles, adverse events of vaccines that is inconsistent with the party line being put out by the World Health Organization or national health authorities is not allowed to be discussed.
The only permitted discussion has to be consistent with the storyline being put out by these global bureaucratic public health leaders. Nothing else is permitted. This is intrinsically anti-science. It doesn't matter, because those people are the identified leaders of the mass that has formed. Any other information will be rejected, and if you spread any other information, it is determined that will lead to vaccine hesitancy. The mass has formed around the idea that the vaccines are magically going to be able to relieve them of this problem, which is infection by SARS-CoV-2 and the threat that it represents.
So, anything that is perceived as leading to individuals to making a reasoned choice, that they do not want to accept this vaccine personally, is deemed to be mis or disinformation by its very nature, because it would alter their behavior and they wouldn't take vaccine.
If you think this through, what that means is that the information that a given individual in your audience would require in order to have informed consent, true informed consent is not allowed. They cannot have access to that information that might lead them to make any decision other than the decision that the mass wishes them to make. Because the mass has formed around the concept in this situation that the vaccines are a perfect solution to their problem. It is cognitive angst, which is the existential threat of death from this virus. That's why they're so resistant to the data demonstrating this is an incorrect existential threat.
That's why it's profound that the government is not allowing the true data on risk to be distributed. The government, and it's reinforced by Pfizer. There's a great clip of Scott Gottlieb, former FDA director, now a member of the Pfizer Board of Directors, speaking to the press on video, stating that there's been over 600 deaths in the pediatric cohort in the United States since the beginning of the outbreak from COVID and, therefore, there's a major threat to children associated with COVID.
He never mentions the fact that there was a deep academic study that documented that virtually every one of those deaths was in a child who had major pre-existing comorbidities. They didn't die of COVID; they died with COVID. But Pfizer, with its representative board member, former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, neglects to mention any of that. Only the scare—your child is at risk for dying from this—600 other children in the United States over the last two years have died. Therefore, your child must be jabbed.
So, we have the mass formed around this idea that the vaccines are a perfect solution, reinforced by government officials; and we all know who. Reinforced by this surrogate marketing, which, by the way, is illegal. I've been trained in medical affairs. You are not allowed to market a product that is not yet licensed. There is no licensed vaccine available in the United States. It's all emergency use authorization. But that doesn't matter.
Getting back to mass formation, what will happen is that anybody who speaks against mandates, you are an anti-vaxer. That definition is now in Websters. The definition of the term anti-vaxer includes anybody who is opposed to mandated administration of an experimental medical product, which is exactly contrary to the Nuremberg trial outcomes and the Helsinki Accord, which say that you absolutely can't do that. You cannot mandate that somebody accept an experimental medical product without full, informed consent and willing acceptance of the risk. Those criteria are abundantly not being met.
We have governments asserting that it's okay to go in and vaccinate children without their parents' consent. We have policy positions that if your child goes to school, you are, by definition, consenting that your child will be vaccinated at that school. When people ask, "Why are you speaking out, Robert?" Because it is profoundly shocking and antithetical to everything I've ever been taught in terms of bioethics.
As a clinical researcher, you are subjected to bioethics training rigorously and repeatedly. It is one of the criteria. If you want to be a principal investigator at a clinical research trial, it was a core part of the Harvard program that I went to, bioethics training. Bioethics, I've had it again and again and again, and we have completely disregarded it.
Aaron Kheriaty, the lead bioethicist for the University of California, Irvine, as I recall, was drummed out of the university because he wouldn't take the jab because it was being mandated by the University of California. And they booted him out of the University of California, their lead bioethicist, who was taking a firm stand that was consistent with modern bioethics. It goes on and on. But those that are allowing themselves to be wrapped up in this, need to be aware that if this continues, they're at risk also.
Now, here's the last little hook that Mattias shared. It just locks in what I have to do and what I have to keep doing. So does Peter and everybody else. What Mattias spoke to us of is that the mass formation has occurred. It is in progress. It is global. It's too late to stop it. The media is caught up in it. The governments are caught up in it. The WHO is caught up in it. Big media, big tech, and big pharma are all reinforcing it.
Mr. Jekielek: And many people maybe even aren't aware…
Dr. Malone: Yes, that's the nature of it.
Mr. Jekielek: …that they are caught up in something.
Dr. Malone: Yes, precisely. We don't have to resort to Klaus Schwab or Bill Gates or whatever counter mass formation you want to make, because that also happens. For those that are in the out group will develop their own counter mass formation. It is a fundamental human behavior.
So, what Mattias said to Peter and I is that you must continue to speak out in a non-violent, calm way, because the only thing that will keep the mass formation from going deeper and society going even more crazy is the dissidents that speak out, the dissidents that speak the truth. But he said, you have to be really careful because if you show any signs of violence or aggression, you will get stomped—not his exact words. You will be attacked.
I didn't ask for this. I spoke out based on my morality and my training. I spoke of the truth that I was able to observe, because of my knowledge of the technology and regulatory affairs and clinical research. I felt compelled by my own ethics to speak about what I was observing.
The comment has been made, because I've been deplatformed now by Twitter and LinkedIn, is whether I'm right or wrong, with my background and experience, and I may be one of the very few that has this depth of understanding of the technology that doesn't have a direct financial conflict of interest—if I'm not allowed to speak about my concerns, whether they're right or wrong, who is? Who is the valid person to participate in the dialogue? We could say that Joe Schmo down the street, who's a stockbroker or a plumber or whatever, shouldn't be allowed to have unorthodox opinions about vaccination. Or Alex Jones, to take a stalking horse.
But if not me, who? So that's the situation we're in as I started speaking out. Peter started speaking out about early treatments, the alternative to the vaccine. Both of us have been shut down, attacked, and have had purposeful attacks trying to remove our medical license, our freedom to practice our art, with violent attacks in the press, continuously. By Mattias' diagnosis, we have no choice but to carry on.
The only thing that can be done to keep the mass formation from going even deeper and from society becoming even more decoupled from reality is for those that are able to serve as dissidents, to speak truth in a non-violent way to the population and hope that, in doing so, it mitigates the risk of the mass formation going even deeper than it already has. It is Peter and I and Pierre Kory, Ryan Cole, Mauro Rango, head of Hippocrates in Italy, and all of the others that are walking this walk. It goes on and on and on all over the globe.
Remember the 16,000 physicians and medical scientists that have joined us in this, that have all signed off on the declaration that's on the globalcovidsummit.org site. We must continue to speak truth to what is essentially power, despite the fact that we eventually may be forced to drink the hemlock. Not to be histrionic, but the metaphor is the death of Socrates. We must continue because we have an ethical obligation as the leaders to try to reduce the depth of the mass formation that has taken over the world.
Mr. Jekielek: There are so many thoughts that I have right now. One is this could be a dangerous time in history we're entering. That's what you're describing. At the same time, there is this realization, as I mentioned earlier, that many people are simply not cognizant of the situation, and that there could be a compassionate element to this. It can help many of us that are not in this mass formation think about others in a much more peaceful way perhaps.
The third thing is I learned many years ago is that I'm not susceptible to being hypnotized, and apparently there's a small portion of the population that is like that. I watched the mass formation happen, and it was being done in public in a situation where I knew it was real. I always thought it was parlor tricks, as you said. So it's a very real thing. It's used clinically. Yet there's some portion of the population that it just simply doesn't work on.
[Narration]: Our team reached out to Dr. Scott Gottlieb, but we did not immediately receive a response.
Part two preview
Mr. Jekielek: Coming up next on American Thought Leaders.
Dr. Malone: This will move through the entire population, whether you're wearing masks or not, unless you live on top of a mountain, and nobody ever talks to you.
Mr. Jekielek: In part two of my interview with Dr. Robert Malone, we discuss how the COVID vaccines are faring against Omicron and how the concept of herd immunity has been grossly misunderstood.
Dr. Malone: Herd immunity is not a binary thing.
Mr. Jekielek: And why he's deeply concerned about vaccine mandates for children.
Dr. Malone: The government has no data upon which to base any mandate requiring these vaccines, which are mismatched for Omicron.
Mr. Jekielek: And the price children have paid during this pandemic.
Dr. Malone: It's not just the jabs, it's the masks. There is measurable deterioration in very young children of a 20 point IQ drop, clear evidence of developmental delays.
Follow EpochTV on social media: