Now in part two, we discuss how the COVID-19 vaccines are faring against Omicron, how the concept of herd immunity has been grossly misunderstood, and why he’s deeply concerned about vaccine mandates for children.
“They’re being forced onto your children. And they have risks. And the media—through its censorship—and Big Tech [are] blocking your ability to even learn what those risks are so you can make an informed decision for your children yourself. That is a huge crime.”
Part 1 review:
Jan Jekielek: Previously on American Thought Leaders.
Dr. Robert Malone: The masses formed around the idea that the vaccines are magically going to be able to relieve them of this problem.
Mr. Jekielek: In part one of my interview with Dr. Robert Malone, the pioneer of mRNA vaccine technology, we discussed his career and the intriguing psychological phenomenon known as mass formation. Now in part two…
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: 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, a 20-point IQ drop.
Mr. Jekielek: This is American Thought Leaders and I’m Jan Jekielek. We have this new variant, Omicron, that appears to be becoming the dominant variant. I actually have written this into an op-ed. It appears to be milder. It appears that it’s much more contagious than Delta. But at the same time, from what I’ve seen, it appears that the vaccines aren’t particularly effective against it at this point.
Yet some of the policy is doubling down further on the vaccine. And this is all in the context of what we just talked about. Can you tell me, what is the right approach here as Omicron starts spreading through the population? Before that, I want you to explain what it looks like based on the information available right now.
Dr. Malone: Omicron is a fascinating case that is intrinsically disrupting the narrative. It’s consistent with one of the projected outcomes that is often observed when a new pathogen, particularly a new virus, crosses into a new species. What we’re watching play out in real time with all of our obsession, is something that virologists and public health officials have seen again and again. It is the usual course of what proceeds when a virus jumps into a new species, whether this virus was engineered or came out of bats in a cave or pangolins. It’s kind of irrelevant from an evolutionary standpoint. It entered a new host, humans.
It’s important for the viewership to recognize that this is fundamentally a parasite. That is what viruses are. They are not truly alive until they enter our cells. Then they acquire capabilities from our cells. They rely on our cells to provide them the food necessary to replicate. What viruses really are, is amazingly small, highly compressed DNA and RNA replication machinery that allows those nucleic acids to pass through time. We are their food.
When a virus moves into a new host, whether it’s a bat to a mouse, or a mouse to a human, or a pig to a human, or a pig to a chicken or whatever, it tends to go through an evolutionary process that will last months, typically years, maybe decades, in which it gradually adapts to life with that host, evolutionarily. And as it does that, it will often become more infectious and less pathogenic.
If you think about it from an evolutionary standpoint, it makes sense. For instance, Ebola is a great example. Ebola—this is what was unique about the recent large outbreaks—Ebola has typically been self-limiting. It is so pathogenic. It causes such profound disease that when it crosses into a small village, it will burn through that village, and those people will die quite quickly. But because the villages are isolated, it won’t spread to the next village because the people become so sick so quick that they stay in that village and they die.
That is not in the interest of the virus. It would be much better for the virus if it didn’t kill people so quickly and that they didn’t feel so sick, so that they would go migrate to the next village to trade their cattle or whatever they do and spread the virus there. So, that’s just typical viral evolutionary dynamics when it crosses into a new host.
The risk has been, as particularly featured in the work and thinking of Geert Vanden Bossche, is that there are some risks if you start vaccinating into an ongoing pandemic, unlike vaccination before the virus enters or spreads into your village. That’s a difference in situation. If everybody in your village is vaccinated before the guy from the next village comes walking over, trading his cattle or whatever the thing is that causes him to interact with you, then the virus finds it very hard to get a toehold in that new environmental niche of this hypothetical new village.
If that village is already infected and you start vaccinating into that with a vaccine that is leaky— we talked about this the last time we spoke— a vaccine that is far from perfect in its ability to block infection, replication, and transmission to other people, then what will happen is that virus will evolve in that environment, particularly to escape the evolutionary selective pressure of the vaccine.
We have seen this in real time. Geert predicted it, and I predicted it. We have this evolutionary escape or the development of super viruses, just like we have the development of super pathogens when you overuse antibiotics in livestock, for example. That has been happening, and one example of that is Delta. What we’re concerned about, historically, is there are cases, particularly in the veterinary world, where vaccines were deployed into herds or flocks that had an ongoing outbreak.
With certain types of viruses, Marek’s disease is the notable example, it’s a kind of case study. You will get more severe disease over time that is more highly infectious. You’ll have the worst of both worlds. The good news is we may have seen that somewhat with Delta. Omicron is not behaving that way. Omicron is behaving in another way, and the data from South Africa is now quite advanced.
South Africa, which was under-vaccinated by US standards and certainly by European standards at something like 20 per cent vaccine uptake, had these dense urban areas like Johannesburg in which Omicron took off when it came from Botswana. Yet they have seen remarkably low, if any deaths directly attributed to Omicron. There is some hospitalization, with a pathogen that is in the range of 10 to 200 times more infectious than Delta. Omicron, basically out-competes Delta in a population.
And yet it is less pathogenic. It’s a paradox. Omicron is more highly infectious, but less pathogenic, more readily spread, and reproduces at higher levels. The paradox is, why isn’t it producing more disease? Intrinsically, you would think—more virus equals more infections—you would have more disease than Delta. That’s not the case.
We’ve had hints from multiple laboratories now in the world, Hong Kong and the UK in particular, little hints about what’s going on. It appears there’s a couple of common threads that multiple laboratories are reporting. None of this is peer-reviewed. It is early data, because everything is moving really fast. It appears, based on data from Hong Kong University, that the prior strains have had a predilection for infecting deep lung. And Omicron appears to have a predilection for infecting conducting airways higher up in the respiratory tree.
Now, we’ve seen this pattern before. And a great example is H1N1, influenza. H5N9 is another one. So there’s different variants of H1N1 that are out there. And there are variants that have a slightly different affinity for sialic acid receptors. This is the particular equivalent of ACE2 in the case of SARS-CoV-2, the receptor that the virus uses to gain entry. And subtle differences in sialic acids can be, sialic acid’s sialylation patterns on the proteins, which can cause an influenza virus to preferentially infect deep lung versus conducting airway.
The deep lung-targeting viruses tend to be highly pathogenic and the conducting airway viruses tend to be much less pathogenic. This is the pattern that we’re seeing with Omicron. It appears that it is more sore throat and nasal pharynx, and less of the pneumonia ground-glass opacity phenotype—and less, by the way, loss of smell and taste than prior strains.
There’s still some of the night sweats, but they may be less severe—data is still evolving on that—than with the prior strains. It is clearly more infectious. We spoke before about reproductive coefficients. The baseline reproductive coefficient can be defined like this, to put it in simple words. If I’m infected and I take no other measures—I’m not vaccinated, I’m not wearing a mask, I’m not doing social distancing, I’m just moving about in my world, shopping and doing my business—how many people on average will I infect?
An R-naught of two. Two to three is where the prototypic Wuhan strain was at. That means that if I’m infected, I will on average, with no other interventions, infect two to three other people. With Delta, we had an R-naught that was in the five to six range. A little less than measles, but still incredibly infectious and much more infectious than the original Wuhan strain. Tracking what one would expect from a virus, evolutionarily, over time, it would evolve to become more infectious and produce more virus in a new host.
Omicron has a reproductive coefficient that is in the range of measles, if not higher. Measles is one of the most highly infectious human viral pathogens we know, it is insanely infectious. Omicron has an R-naught in the seven to 10 range. That means that if you’re infected and you go to a party and move about in the party, on average, you will infect seven to ten other people.
Now, there is some intriguing data that is emergent that suggests that it may be that you have an increased probability of being infected as you move around in the environment if you have been vaccinated with one jab, one dose of genetic vaccine. And if you have two doses of vaccine, you have an even higher risk. So, we call this negative effectiveness of being infected by Omicron.
And if you have three doses of vaccine—remember the Israelis are now going to four—if you have three doses, you have an even higher risk of being infected by Omicron than somebody that did not receive vaccine, or received one dose of vaccine, or received two doses of vaccine. So, your risk of infection from Omicron, on average, appears in some datasets from national governments to be highest if you’ve received three doses.
This is worrisome, because it suggests that there are aspects of Omicron that may be enhanced by something that is associated with vaccination. And there’s a bunch of different hypotheses. Don’t go straight to antibody dependent enhancement, that is one of many different ways. Here’s a trivial. As you receive more vaccine, it may change your behavior. If you’re a European young person, you may be more likely to go clubbing if you’ve had two jabs than if you have three jabs. Maybe three jabs, you’re even more likely to go clubbing and exist in these large, intense groups that are perfect breeding factories for infection.
I use that as a trivial example. We can’t jump to conclusions about the mechanisms, but the data seems to be there. I’m hearing from multiple patients, anecdotally, in New Year’s Eve parties or Christmas parties or other social gatherings where inadvertently most people are jabbed, maybe one or two has not taken vaccine. And somebody comes into that environment that’s infected. I’m hearing anecdotally that the people that are previously vaccinated often become infected and symptomatic much sooner and at a much higher rate than those that were not previously vaccinated.
Here’s the rub with all of that, looking at the CDC data. They’ve stopped reporting the prevalence of infection in the United States. They stopped reporting it at about 45 per cent a couple months ago. But if you look at the trend curves, there’s a good chance that about 70 per cent of the entire population in the United States has been infected with some version of SARS-CoV-2.
That means that they have developed natural immunity. So, when we talk about the difference between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, we have to recognize that there are a bunch of subgroups within that. We have those that are probably naturally immune, but not vaccinated. We have naturally immune that have received vaccine, and we have ones that have not encountered the virus before, but have been vaccinated. So it’s complicated right now. We don’t have clean data.
But in general, the good news is that Omicron is much less pathogenic, even though it is much more highly infectious. I went out on a limb about this as the South African data was coming in before Christmas. It’s on the Laura Ingraham program. I spoke about it. I wrote about it in my Substack; that it looked to me like Omicron was something like a gift.
Whether you believe in a divine entity or whatever, Omicron looked to me to be the answer, if I was given the task of understanding what would be the optimal characteristics of an infectious, live-attenuated vaccine virus. What would that really look like? What would be its characteristics? It would infect the nasal pharynx and the upper respiratory tract. It would spread freely in the population. It would generate a strong T-cell response and mucosal immune response, and afterwards people would not have major symptoms, and they would not die from it. It would be attenuated.
They would develop natural immunity after having recovered from the infection. And I spoke about this at a time when this was heresy. All of the broadcast media was focusing everybody on the fear of Omicron. [inaudible] It’s increasingly strong, as Laura Ingraham quoted the other day when I was on her show, a 300 per cent increase in virus infection with Omicron and a 3 per cent decrease in hospitalizations.
You’ve got to keep in mind, a lot more people are getting infected at the same time, and this will move through the entire population, whether you’re wearing masks or not wearing masks, unless you live on top of a mountain and nobody ever talks to you. That’s just what is going to happen. It is that insanely infectious, whether you are vaccinated or you are not vaccinated. It may be that natural infection provides more protection than the vaccine does, but the majority of America will be infected by Omicron. And they will develop natural immunity.
If we’re lucky, we will get to a point where we finally do reach something like herd immunity. And this virus just becomes another indigenous coronavirus in the population, like the currently circulating beta coronaviruses that we call the common cold.
Mr. Jekielek: Herd immunity, this is another concept that’s been weaponized by the media, certainly among people. But herd immunity is something that is just going to happen with anything, assuming that humanity survives.
Dr. Malone: Hopefully. Or it won’t. Maybe the virus keeps evolving, because this one evolves really fast. But let’s hope it does, and we do develop herd immunity or something akin to it.
Mr. Jekielek: But the vaccines, the genetic vaccines don’t contribute to the herd immunity. Or do they?
Dr. Malone: I wouldn’t phrase it that way. When you say won’t contribute, that’s an absolute statement. None of this is absolute. So just to loop back a little bit about herd immunity. Herd immunity is not a binary thing, that we’ve reached it or we haven’t reached it. There’s a school of thought that the characteristic of the modern educated mind is a comprehension of calculus. Calculus is a metaphor. What we have is an asymptote, a limit line. Which is, that the reproductive coefficient falls below one.
What is herd immunity? It is a time in which if I happen to be infected, the probability that I will infect anybody else is less than one. This is like thinking about a thermonuclear reaction, a chain reaction. You quench the chain reaction by putting the carbon rods in there, because they typically absorb the neutrons. So, they can no longer participate in a chain reaction in an eventual explosion. That’s how nuclear energy is tamed.
Likewise with viruses. When we reach a point where the probability is that when I’m infected I infect less than one other person, the virus will be quenched. It will no longer spread in the population. That doesn’t mean that everyone will be perfectly protected, it means it won’t be spreading in the population anymore.
And that’s not a binary number, like if we hit 70 per cent. The flaw here was that our public health officials made these grossly naive statements that if we hit this milestone of vaccine uptake, we will reach herd immunity. If we hit this milestone—that was just horrible, ignorant messaging. It reflects the fact that those people that are making those statements, and you know who I’m speaking about, are not actually trained in epidemiology.
Yet, they put out this messaging, if we only reach this milestone, we will hit herd immunity, or if we only reach that milestone. It kept creeping up because we weren’t hitting herd immunity. The fault is, that they should have never made those statements in the first place. Herd immunity is a really complicated variable.
Like I said, if you think of a limit line, when the reproductive coefficient falls below one, herd immunity is approached on a curve that approaches that as an asymptote, for those that are understanding calculus. That’s what it is. That’s how it works. It’s not like a straight line and we cross it and we say, “There we are, we’re all here. We’re reached virus nirvana.” That’s not how it works. We will gradually get closer and closer to it, and the spread of the virus will become more and more difficult.
Jan, this is a nuance that many people don’t get, and it’s built into the human immune system, this assumption. When we’re talking about herd immunity, we’re mostly talking about adults, some pediatric. They reach this threshold and then the virus stops circulating, but it’s still present in the environment. By the way, this virus exists in deer, in cats and everything else. We’re never going to get rid of this virus. We’re done. That ship left the dock.
What will happen is, as more people are born, they form a larger and larger cohort that have not previously encountered the virus until they reach a sufficient number where you can have virus replication and spread at greater rate than an R-naught of one. And then it will take off, but it will only hit the pediatric cohort. That’s why we have pediatric viral disease.
If you understand that, you have now graduated from Viral Epidemiology 101. It’s an advanced concept, but it’s actually not that hard to understand. So, that is what herd immunity is all about. The vaccines, unfortunately, don’t seem to be able to get us there. They are too leaky. What they are able to do so far is, on an individual basis, provide significant level of protection against death. But so does natural immunity.
And the data is clear that for the vast majority of us, except for the high-risk populations, the probability of you dying if you become infected [is slim.] Remember, I’ve had the disease twice. Ain’t dead yet. Never had optimal therapy, never went to the hospital. Never really saw a doctor for either of my cases. So, you don’t have to fear this. Most of us survive it just fine. With Omicron, your risk of death and disease has dropped precipitously. It’s dropped precipitously compared to Delta, particularly in children.
So what happens if we allow Omicron to spread in our population—we can’t stop it anyhow— you might as well make lemonade out of lemons. As it spreads through the population, we will develop a complex, diverse immune response of both T and B-cells, antibody and effector T-cells, hopefully that will eventually confer herd immunity to all of us. Then it will become a pediatric disease that pops up periodically in different places in the world. We’ll probably be thinking about better, safer pediatric vaccines that we might wish to deploy in that situation, which is a long way from where we’re at right now. Does that make sense?
Mr. Jekielek: Makes a ton of sense. You are part of the Unity Project or Unity Initiative in California, specifically focused on opposing mandates for children. Why is this so important to you?
Dr. Malone: I have seen in the data on these genetic vaccines, which is all we have available in the United States. When I started speaking about the risks of the genetic vaccines in the United States, this was heresy. It was forbidden speech. It still is. The official line was that all three of these vaccines were safe and effective.
Now, as the government has come to terms with the fact that the adenovirus vectors are causing excess deaths, and they are no longer recommending the J&J vaccine. So now we’re left with two RNA vaccines. One has three times the dose of the other, that’s Moderna. It’s three times the dose of Pfizer. Now, globally, there are seven WHO-licensed vaccines.
There are multiple other vaccines that are traditional, inactivated subunit or inactivated whole virus. And there are countries like Peru that assert that these whole inactivated virus vaccines are actually providing superior protection against the newer variants, because they elicit a more diverse immune response, more like natural immunity.
But here in the States, we’ve only been allowed access to the two genetic vaccines. One of which was developed explicitly at NIH Vaccine Research Center and NIH gets revenue from them. So, what I have seen in the data and which is now being confirmed more and more abundantly on an almost daily basis, is that the risk associated with the vaccines are sufficiently significant that they outweigh the potential benefits.
I’m often asked, is there a cohort, an age group, a risk group, for which you think the vaccines are still safe and effective? My position has been the whole way through this, that the vaccines should be deployed only in the high-risk population for these reasons—risk benefit ratio and the evolutionary drive of developing escape mutants. So, I have been aligned with the Great Barrington Declaration from the beginning.
Here’s the problem—when you look at the available data, all of which has problems, with potential exception of some of the Northern European databases, where they have really rigorous socialized medicine and few barriers to disclosing medical information, Iceland being a notable example—most of the data is really contaminated with various forms of reporting bias.
There’s a recent peer reviewed study that suggests that the reporting bias in the VAERS system is about 20-fold, roughly. So that means that the number of adverse events of any given type or deaths reported in VAERS is under reported by about 20-fold. Now, there’s others, such as the Steve Kirsch Group and Jessica Rose, that are deep experts in this, that have examined the same data that assert that it is 43-fold difference. And there’s a peer reviewed paper out there titled, “Why Are We Vaccinating Children against COVID-19,” that is more aligned with those higher numbers.
So multiply the VAERS reports by those co-factors, and you end up with some very large numbers of deaths and adverse events. Then if you do the risk-benefit ratio calculations, it becomes very hard to justify the vaccines as saving more lives than they’re killing. I don’t know how else to say it gently. It’s all the way through all the cohorts.
So now I’m forced into a very tenuous position. My prior position has been to save the vaccines for those that need them the most, aligned with the Great Barrington Declaration. Now I am having to acknowledge the possibility that the data, as it’s emerging now, suggests that there’s no benefit for these genetic vaccines in any of the American cohorts. And of course, then I’m immediately branded as an anti-vaxxer. I’m already branded as an anti-vaxxer and attacked because I disagree with the mandates.
Why do I disagree with the pediatric mandates? Number one; the adverse events are clear and compelling. For those who wish to factcheck on this, I invite you, as I invited Thomson Reuters, to visit our website, www.rwmalonemd.com, where data on pediatric risks, primary data and peer-reviewed studies are aggregated, in a bunch of tabs by different organ systems.
We have a massive collection of reports of sudden death in high performing athletes, youth through early twenties. We’re all aware that this has been discussed. You can click on those and see the information, or the article covering those, and make your own decision. We also have links. There’s a very large number of pediatric deaths that have been reported in the US VAERS database.
My wife and partner, Dr. Jill Glasspool Malone went through every single one of those, opened them up and made an assessment. Was it clear that this person committed suicide, or had some other cause of death, or was it reported by their parents or some other third-party? All of those got rejected and were not included in that list. Only the ones that came in from physicians and seemed to her eyes to be reasonably associated with vaccination are listed there.
But you don’t have to rely on her. They are there as links to the VAERS database. If you click on them, you can see the actual VAERS report that was filed by a physician saying this is what happened. You can make your own decision about whether or not you think that it is vaccine related. So, all of that data is there.
It is clear that parents should think twice, and also grandparents, about vaccinating their child. Because once the damage occurs, it may occur as some of these serious adverse events like neuropathy, like Maddie de Garay developed, or the myocarditis or pericarditis so severe that it puts your child into the hospital. And there are a number of other effects. That event rate is about one in a 1000 to one in 2000 children. That means that there’s a good chance that if your child takes the vaccine, they won’t be damaged. They won’t show clinical symptoms. They may have subclinical damage.
But the question is, do you want to take that chance with your child? Because if you draw the short straw and your child is damaged, most of these things, if not all of them, are irreversible. There is no way to fix it. I get these emails all the time: “Doctor, what can we do? This has happened.” Once it’s happened, you can’t go back. You can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again. So that’s my point in general about the logic of vaccinating your children when they have virtually no risk from the virus, unless they have major pre-existing conditions.
Now, the Unity Projects’ position is one based on the logic of informed consent versus forced vaccination, and that mandates should not happen. The state should not be forcing itself into the family. The decisions belong at the level of parents, not at the level of the state or the school board. School boards and schools and teachers have no right to understand and seek out medical information about their students. That’s illegal.
Yet, it’s being done all the time, and students are being bullied if they haven’t taken vaccine. Looping back, I suggest that has to do with the fact that many teachers have succumbed to mass formation. Because I can’t believe that they would so readily transgress the fundamental ethics that they have been taught as teachers, but it’s happening all the time. Talk to any child who’s not vaccinated, who is in school, and they will tell you horror stories. We have recorded videos of children speaking about these things. You can find them on the website for the Unity Project, unityprojectonline.com.
You can find a fascinating video of Dr. Mark McDonald, a pediatric psychiatrist in Los Angeles, speaking about the profound damage that has happened to children through all these behaviors, the bullying and everything else. Just to pick that apart a little bit, it’s not just the jabs. It’s the masks. It’s the disruption of schooling. There is measurable deterioration in very young children that have been born or are at very young age during this outbreak, with all they’ve been subjected to, it’s a 20 point IQ drop.
There is clear evidence of developmental delays. Children must see faces. They must see mouths in school and in their social interactions, because their brains are developing in real time. They’re picking up all kinds of information from their environment and their interaction with their peers about social learning and language, that requires them to be able to visualize the expression on people’s faces. That’s all damaged by the masking. The damage that’s being done to this young cohort through these policies is profound and it will resonate for decades.
So, think twice before you vaccinate your kids, because if something bad happens, you can’t go back and say, “I want a do-over.” Mandates are illegal based on the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Accord, and the Belmont Report. These continue to be unlicensed products. They’re only available through emergency use authorization, which, by the way, that emergency use authorization is predicated on the declaration of emergency issued two years ago on January 15th. It will expire in just a few days from where we are right now.
So, they have to re-declare another two year national emergency, or all of these emergency use authorizations for drugs and vaccines go! That is how tenuous this is. These are not licensed products, and they’re being forced onto your children, and they have risks. And the media, through its censorship and big tech, is blocking your ability to even learn what those risks are so you can make an informed decision for your children yourself. That is a huge crime in my opinion.
Mr. Jekielek: Just to remind everybody about your stipulation, I’ve seen papers that actually look at a review. Dr. Paul Alexander has done an extensive literature review that looks at the risks of the virus to children, and for healthy children, it’s very small. So, this is all in this context.
Dr. Malone: That review that Paul did was pre-Omicron. That’s pre-Omicron data. So that minuscule risk existed historically with the prior strains, including Delta, which is a wicked, bad virus, and not representative of Omicron. There is virtually no data available on the risks of Omicron in children, but all the indications are, they are minute.
As a matter of fact, this is a basis for a Supreme Court amicus briefing that I’m signed off on, that would be filed today with the US Supreme Court. The government has no data upon which any government, any school board can base any mandate requiring these vaccines, which are mismatched for Omicron, in children, and to justify the risk benefit ratio for children in preventing Omicron, which is the dominant virus currently spreading.
Mr. Jekielek: So, the bottom line is, and this goes back to this earlier question, these vaccines are mismatched in your and others’ opinion for this new variant.
Dr. Malone: Incontrovertible. It’s not just an opinion. Let’s hope this is why the federal government has withdrawn access to many of the monoclonal antibodies, they are mismatched for Omicron.
Mr. Jekielek: On your Substack recently, you’ve referenced the statements of a leader in the Indiana Insurance Company.
Dr. Malone: Worth over a $100 billion, he’s the CEO.
Mr. Jekielek: Basically, he came out and said that excess mortality over the last year, based on their data-
Dr. Malone: Particularly in Q3 of 2021 is running at 40 per cent over baseline. He makes the point using typical insurance actuary, dry-data analysis. This was an event that was three standard deviations above the mean, because he’s dealing with such large datasets. In his case, he’s talking about data that they have on 18- to 64-year-olds that are fully employed, because that is who his company ensures—fully employed, 18- to 64-year-olds. Looking at his data, he says that a three standard deviation from above the mean would be about a 10 per cent increase in excess death.
Yet, he’s seeing a 40 per cent increase. This is relative to 2020. So, this is an increase which is independent of virus, in general. We had more virus attributed deaths in 2020 than we’ve had in… I’m sorry, in 2021, that’s true, than 2020. But 2020 is the baseline that he’s comparing against.
He’s made the statement that the majority of those deaths are not listed as SARS-CoV-2 or COVID. So, we have a 40 per cent increase, which is unprecedented in his opinion. It’s going to force them to raise their rates, at a minimum. It could bankrupt members of the insurance industry. He says that this is being seen all across the industry, not just in his firm, this 40 per cent increase over the 2020 mortality, it’s unprecedented. And he sees no sign of any change in that trend line in the fourth quarter, because that data is not in yet. When he gave this very dry discussion in a joint Zoom call with hospitals and other insurers in Indiana, it was covered by a relatively obscure publication.
It was picked up by some stock analysts, and one of them sent it to me. And as you mentioned, in our Substack, we came out with one of the first discussions about it. Then Zero Hedge came out with a discussion. There are those that attribute the significant drop in Pfizer stock valuation to that discussion being disclosed and circulated on the street.
This is not trivial data. This is coming from a very large dataset. It is not sorted by cause of death. We don’t know if it’s due to suicide, which could be the case, because of this very phenomenon we were talking about—the social isolation and other things, depression, the lockdowns, all those kinds of things. We don’t know the effect on mental health. Is this people overdosing on opiates or other drugs to treat their depression? We have no idea.
Mr. Jekielek: Based on the CDC data, I’m just going to jump in, because I’m remembering a recent report that the CDC did pick out, that fentanyl overdosing has become the number one cause of death in a particular cohort.
Dr. Malone: Could be. Although, these are fully employed people in this younger cohort, that has not had major mortality from SARS-CoV-2, so something is going on. If we were going to have a bet here, I would say it’s multifactorial. But there is a very high probability, because this is the same cohort that has been subjected to vaccine mandates. So, they’re highly vaccinated, and they seem to have significantly more mortality than the general population.
You would think they would have less. They have healthcare, they have insurance, they have jobs. What’s not to like? Compared to the rest of the population and what they’re experiencing, these are the ones that are in the best position. And yet they’re having this excess mortality. It’s inexplicable. But we do know that this is a highly vaccinated cohort, because of the federal mandates that all businesses greater than 100 employees shall be fully vaccinated. So, it’s inexplicable right now. It is a foreshadowing of something that is an indicator of massive death.
Mr. Jekielek: Yes. The report also said that a 10 per cent increase is once in 20 years. They used the word cataclysm. So, 40 per cent is a whole different piece all together.
Dr. Malone: Unprecedented. They also mentioned in the report, the CEO mentioned that it’s not just increase in death, but it’s also increase in disability claims, which they would also be seeing, because they’re a life insurance policy company.
Mr. Jekielek: We did number crunching following this, looking at the 12 months ending in October. And we were actually comparing ending in 2019 data versus ending in 2021 data. We found that there was a 40 per cent increase in mortality for people ages 18 to 49 compared to that same period. I know the new CDC data doesn’t disclose where that mortality is coming from, aside from pneumonia.
Dr. Malone: If I can react to that, Jan, what you’re describing is the difference between pre-pandemic and year one of the pandemic. What this insurance CEO is describing is year two of the pandemic compared to year one of the pandemic. So that would be potentially additive on top of the effect that your data analysis from the CDC is demonstrating.
Mr. Jekielek: There needs to be a robust area of study here. If there are any people who have access to some of this insurance company data and that are willing to share it, we’d like to see that. And we’d like to be able to do some analysis on it.
Dr. Malone: It would be in the public interest. This is not just about your profit or your competitive position. We’re talking about a major human tragedy, in terms of disability and death. Getting to the core of the why question is crucial, ethically. If we can’t get that out of the US government, at least we could get it out of the insurance industry who has intimate, detailed knowledge from very large numbers in a comprehensive way, because it’s their business to do it.
Mr. Jekielek: Robert, any final thoughts as we finish up?
Dr. Malone: Thanks, Jan. As I always try to close, let’s be kind to each other. This is a problem that we’re all confronting. It’s not Democrats or Republicans. It’s not Left or Right. It’s not vaccinated or unvaccinated. It’s not pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine. It’s not a particular ethnic group. We’re all in this boat together. In my opinion, after learning from Mattias and everybody else, the real underlying problem is some social ills, that are an emergent phenomenon from all of the change in social media and electronic appliances. All these things that have torn us apart. The media has acted as napalm on an existing dumpster fire. They exacerbate all of these ills and problems through their behaviors.
We have to come together as a people. This is the reason for the rally. This is the logic of the rally that is scheduled in DC in on January 20th, it’s a Sunday, on the Quad between the Washington monument and the Lincoln Memorial. You can find information about it on the website called defeatthemandatesdc.com. But my core message is let’s be openhearted.
We don’t have evil people. The pro-vaccine or pro-mandate people are not evil. They are fellow humans. I think the way we get out of this is with three core concepts and words. We need to restore integrity in our public officials, in our companies, in our entire lives. Stop lying. A noble lie is not okay. Restore integrity, and restore human dignity. We are not economic units. We are not excess mouths that have to be fed. We’re humans, whether we are at the lowest, somebody is homeless on the street, or somebody who lives in the White House or works in the Capitol. We all deserve to be treated with dignity and we need to treat each other with dignity.
The last point is community. This is the true underlying social ill. If we learn from the logic of Mattias Desmet and mass formation, we need to find community again. We need to find connections between each other. That doesn’t mean online with your friends list, getting your dopamine rush when somebody clicks like. It means actually being with each other, whether it’s church, community groups, sports activities, whatever, we have to find community again and rebuild it. That’s how we heal. That is the underlying illness. I suggest that our way out of the woods is easily captured in three words, integrity, dignity, and community.
Mr. Jekielek: Dr. Robert Malone, it’s such a pleasure to have you here again.
Dr. Malone: Always. I look forward to the next one.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Subscribe to the American Thought Leaders newsletter so you never miss an episode.