(LifeSiteNews) — LifeSiteNews is pleased to publish below the full transcript of the recent interview between Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Maike Hickson. Dr. Hickson’s questions appear in bold, followed by Dr. Malone’s responses. This transcript includes additional important topics not mentioned in previous LifeSite articles on this interview.



Dr. Malone, thank you so much for this short interview that we are conducting today on behalf of the truth in general about the corona crisis, but also for our Austrian friends that have asked for your advice, especially in their situation right now. And so I’m just going to ask you a couple of general questions, and in the end, we can go into the Austrian situation. Your recent interview mentioned a document that was leaked from the CDC that mentioned that masks might be actually not as effective as one thought in the beginning. Could you explain that to our audience?

What I was referring to was the leaked documents to The Washington Post from about a month and a half ago when we first heard about Delta, it might have been two months ago now. And in those documents, it was quite clear there were projections, if you’ll recall, there were panels with colored lines that showed the projections of potential effectiveness in reducing spread should we have more vaccine uptake up to 100 percent, and whether or not we could stop the spread of coronavirus, with that, with or without masks. And in that, there were a series of assumptions about the effectiveness of masks, and it was clear that even if we had very good mask compliance, by the CDC  own calculations, together with literally 100 percent uptake of vaccines, we still could only slow the spread of Delta —  we could not stop it.

Then there’s a separate paper. There’s a number of papers that look at the effectiveness of masks, separate from that disclosure or leak, or whatever you want to call it. And those, in general, show that the effectiveness of the masks that we’re using, in general in the population, at best is about 10 percent in terms of reducing the spread. And that’s consistent with what the CDC had in their calculations. So the effectiveness… you’re probably referring to my quote from the Bannon show, where Steve asked me: “What’s your advice for people as they come together over Thanksgiving?” And I said: “Well, the most effective thing is to know each other and know whether or not you have symptoms and if a member of your family is starting to have symptoms they shouldn’t come to the table and spend time with each other. And there’s no real logic for using masks in this situation because their effectiveness is at the most, about 10 percent.

I’m very grateful for this because of our German and Austrian audience. I know from Germany they literally are forced in every place and every public space to wear masks, and we never really talk about the negative side effects of wearing these masks and reducing your own, you know, quality of what you breathe in. 

Right, well, it’s not just that, it’s also that the normal bacterial flora that we all carry in our mouth and our pharynx and lungs is now getting filtered onto that mask and then we’re breathing it. So we’re basically setting up a situation where we have additional bacterial flora, and potentially viral, that we’re repeatedly breathing. So it’s not just the effects on CO2 levels and those kinds of things, there’s also some infectious components to it. And then, as you know with children, children need to see faces. And the use of the mask, particularly in the context of schools in children interacting with other children, is really counterproductive. So there’s there’s just a lot of things, like your Austrian friends are also very aware of the lockdown policies.


That would have been my second question: do lockdowns work?

So they’re there, and I used to have pinned a report from a high-quality think-tank that I put up there so that my Australian colleagues could access it. So there are multiple reports out now and deep studies, economic studies, comprehensive studies, that show that the overall impact of the lockdowns is not to reduce deaths. In many cases, you can show an increase in death, whether or not it’s due to the virus itself. There’s a number of other things that these lockdowns impact on, including the mental health of people. So suicide rates go up, people aren’t being fed as well.  If they do have significant disease or need to get hospitalized, they’re not being detected as easily.

There’s a whole cascade of other things. It’s this overly simplistic thought that with this simple intervention, we can have a beneficial effect on the spread of the virus. As you know, the truth is the virus will move through the population. And you know, you can have some short-term impact on that in terms of public health behavior through lockdowns in terms of flattening the initial curve and not overloading your hospitals, et cetera. But the overall impact in multiple assessments is damaging, is worse than if they never impose that at all in terms of the economy, people’s employment, people’s mental health, the rate of suicide.

There’s a lot of other factors, and then, of course, the children that all go into that, and it seems kind of mindless. But what we’re suffering, I mean, we have an epidemic of a virus, we have an epidemic of irrational fear and we have an epidemic of poor public policy. And I think that unfortunately, the Austrian people are about to be getting a lesson in this. And I guess perhaps the German people.


Exactly, one of the greatest side effects, so to speak of lockdowns, is the attack on freedoms. The idea that the state can just limit human traffic and just anything outside your own home to such an extent that you are literally a prisoner in your own home and, you know, the damage of that part of the lockdown. You recently also talked about the danger of global tyranny.

Yes, this is the “camel’s nose: is the metaphor that’s often used: once the camel’s nose gets in the tent, pretty soon the whole camel’s in the tent. We have this tendency in Western democracies. Frankly, I think Great Britain is particularly susceptible to this. The idea that we’re doing it for the common good, that we can do social engineering, we can have these interventions if it’s limited. It’s just for this thing, it’s just for that thing. And then we get this incrementalism. Well, if it was good for that, then it’s good for this. So that, you know, the obvious example is this Trusted News Initiative. That is a clear case where it started off for a noble cause, that is resisting incursion into our political system from offshore political interests. You know, they spoke about the Russians as the threat, but really any. And then that’s been weaponized against vaccine dissent.

Really, it comes down to dissent about the interpretation of facts and information. And now it’s we’re going to do the same thing with climate change, and who knows what the next social engineering objective is going to be? It just seems to be this chronic erosion of civil rights and liberties in the logic that countries and governments — that it’s OK to do social engineering through these various interventions. And I think that that is really worrisome.


You recently also retweeted a statement from Archbishop Viganò where he spoke about the need for an anti-globalist alliance. Could you explain to us why you supported the statement from Archbishop Viganò?

So I’ve become convinced, as he has, that there’s something here that goes beyond just vaccines and public health, and I have not wanted to go there intellectually. And yet it is impossible to make sense out of what is transpiring in the world right now, just as an explanation of public health and vaccine policy, or antiviral policy. And I have become convinced that we’re in a situation in which we’re all having our rights eroded and that there is a larger force beyond this. I have colleagues who speak at length about evil. There is a growing sense by many people that there’s something fundamentally evil going on here.

I’ve become convinced that we do have a situation that is essentially the growth and expansion of global tyranny, there is harmonized that is managed, that is aligned across nation-states. And it appears to be aligned with the economic interests of a small cluster of investment funds that represents the bulk of global western capital. And what I’m particularly alarmed about, me and many others and apparently also the archbishop, is that this pool of capital is so large now that it has more power than individual nation states do. We’ve been warned about this for a long time. I used to be a political science student also, and I read about the rise of transnationalism in the New World Order back two decades ago. We now seem to be seeing it play out.

And personally, I’ve become convinced that one of the fundamental problems that have resulted in this disassociation within our society is fragmentation of our society. The sense that things don’t make sense, that we are no longer connected, is that we have elected to use the language of economics to describe the human condition. We, by our very language — language matters — by our very language we have reduced the human condition down to economic units, and that makes us all basically economic pawns in a process of growing wealth. We use that language. We’ve substituted the language of good and bad, and evil, and good works — in this kind of thinking — for the language of profit. And what I think I see is a growing world in which there is a large block of capital, which is decoupled from nation-states.

It used to be that the capital would stay connected to the geography and the people from whence it was derived, even if it was pooled in the top one percent, at least it was still linked to that nation-state. That’s no longer the case. The capital is decoupled, it will move wherever it wants to go, and it moves in response to one primary driver, which is return on investment. It has no moral compass, it has no moral component. It only responds to the opportunity to seek additional return on investment. And so we’re all reduced to economic units that can be exploited to generate more return on investment wherever that capital seeks to move. And the capital is now so large that it can dictate policy, economic policy and national policy in different nation-states. And that capital has acquired all of the main media, all of the Big Tech and all of the major vaccine and pharmaceutical companies. And it’s all acting globally in an integrated fashion.

So what do we call this? We have language for these things. And the language that we have chosen to use in the past to describe this fusion of the state and corporate interests, the word that we have chosen to describe that is fascism. But this is more than fascism because fascism is linked to a given nation-state. This is something bigger. This is something in which this fusion has occurred at a level that is decoupled from the nation-state. It is global. So when we talk about global totalitarianism, this is a descriptor. This isn’t just a political concept. This is trying to be technically precise in describing what’s being observed.

What’s observed is that we now have a situation in which it’s not just a fusion of the interests of corporatists and the nation-state. It’s a fusion of corporatists and this large pool of transnational capital that roams around looking for a return on investment. And it will act in whatever ways it needs to act in order to improve that return on investment in an amoral sense because it has no intrinsic morality.

This is why I originally tried, with your assistance, to reach out to the Vatican, because if there is one — in my space, I don’t have connections with the Muslim community — but at least I have some grounding in Christianity, that’s my core culture. And in my view, in the western world, if there is a remaining moral authority in the world, it is the Catholic Church as the dominant moral authority. And I was hoping that the Catholic Church would take a principled stand here and take a position that this is wrong, that this is fundamentally contrary to humanity, what we have believed as humanity. And this is why I supported the Archbishop because the Archbishop seems to also believe in these core concepts and uses extraordinarily strong language. I was very struck by the bravery of the Archbishop to speak so freely about these things. And also, I felt it a little bit validating that here’s somebody coming independently from a different discipline, in a different frame of reference, a different tradition, and yet had come to the same conclusions that I was coming to.


And in this manner of depriving us of our freedoms, you would also include the vaccine mandates, right? And forcing of vaccines on people who have different reasons to object to them?

Absolutely, and by the way, one of the most potent legally in the United States is the religious objection. Now that apparently is going to be very difficult to overcome legally, one hopes. But I feel fundamentally, I believe there’s a fundamental principle in the logic that people have freedom to choose, and particularly over their own body in medical procedures. And what we’re talking about is mandating individuals receiving a medical intervention with an unlicensed medical product that they may or may not wish to accept it. In my opinion, if people wish to accept vaccine and they are well-informed about the risks and benefits of that vaccine, then they should have access to it. We shouldn’t forbid them from taking it. But we also shouldn’t mandate that they accept it, if they have objections


And we shouldn’t suppress literature or studies coming out that are critical about the vaccines, either, because then we don’t give informed consent.

Absolutely. And this is fundamental, if there is an underlying fundamental logic behind what I’m trying to do with Twitter and social media in interviews like this, it’s to provide some access to information so that people can make their own decisions. I don’t want to tell people, “take the vaccine”, or “don’t take the vaccine.” Let me express my position as a physician as to whether or not there’s merit to taking the vaccine, but I believe strongly, fundamentally, it is against the principles that I’ve been taught for 30 years of bioethics that you should impose a medical procedure on an unwilling patient. [00:19:41][42.3]


One of your early arguments against this mass vaccination was also that it would promote and provoke the increase of variants of the virus, as you have explained on numerous occasions, do you see this now coming? Do you see that there’s evidence, that compared to the, let’s say, first 18 months of the corona outbreak and what’s happening now under the massive vaccination programs?

From what I’m seeing, and it’s not my core competency to be carefully examining the evolutionary course in the specific point mutations of these different viruses, I could do that, [but] it’s not what I’ve been doing, other people are doing it very well. My impression is with the Delta variant and now the Omicron variant that we are seeing evidence that’s consistent. So I’m going to use scientific terminology.

We’re seeing data that are consistent with the hypotheses of Geert Vanden Bossche and others. I’ve been very influenced by his thinking, but I want to give him credit for his contribution. I didn’t come up with this, I was an early adopter and very influenced by it. But it does appear that the pattern of mutations that we’re observing is entirely consistent with what Geert has predicted. And here’s the one nuance, what Geert has been alerting us to is the risks of Merrick’s disease in chickens, which is a cancer DNA virus that, if you vaccinate against you will end up with worse disease than you get if you don’t vaccinate into an ongoing infection. And so his his alarm has been not only that we would develop vaccine resistant mutants, but that they would be increasingly pathogenic. I think that the data are now really compelling.

We are selecting for vaccine-resistant mutants. Now what is not yet clear is are these mutants more pathogenic? And that is a difficult thing to sort out because the viruses as they move as a population, it’s not that we just flip a switch and everybody was on Beta and then suddenly became on Delta. And so you could see an abrupt transition, but rather it’s a blending of information. And now we’re going to probably see a blending from Delta into Omicron, or we won’t. But if the experience in Africa holds true, that’s what we might see.

And so what we’ll see is a gradual gradient of evidence that the vaccines are being less and less effective. And so the metaphor everybody keeps using is the one of the frog put into the pot of water, and then the heat is slowly turned on and it slowly comes to a boil and the frog never realizes and jumps out when it could outright. It just boils because it’s this incrementalism, and it is likely that what we will see is an incrementally increasing signal indicating a reduction in vaccine effectiveness, which is what we’ve seen with Delta. I mean, if you recall back in time, you’re a journalist you’re following these things, we had people saying “well, the vaccines are losing their efficacy,” and then we had all of this tussle over whether that’s true or not true. Now it’s widely accepted, you have even Bill Gates and Tony Fauci admitting it. But there’s been this period of time where we were all tussling over whether this is true or not. And then the data became more and more and more and more compelling as Delta moved into the population. This is what we’re likely to see with Omicron if it successfully competes with Delta.


So we would need constant booster shots to adjust the vaccines the new variants?

So this is Ryan Cole, I think is of the people that I interact with, the one that really first made this very stark. The vaccines that we would be boosted with are designed against the initial strain, the Alpha strain. They are now grossly mismatched. He makes the appropriate point of the analogy to influenza vaccination. So with with our influenza vaccines, we have seasonally adjusted in vaccine mixtures because of the drift and shift in influenza vaccines that occur globally. So this is the norm in vaccinating.

Remember, influenza is an RNA virus that causes upper respiratory disease. The parallels are fairly strong. Both of these RNA viruses mutate at high levels because their polymerases generate mutants. They are not able to air check like DNA viruses. Polymerase is able to do so. So we’re seeing the drifting in the genetics of the circulating strain, just like we do with flu. And what we would normally do with flu is we would adjust our vaccine formulation on an annual basis. And we’re not doing that. And for whatever reason now, the vaccine developers are saying, “Oh, well, good heavens, with Omicron if that really turns out to be that severe, then we can make our adjustments.”

Here’s the thing about that, when you make those sequence adjustments in the case of influenza, we have years and years and years of experience to say which ones of those adjustments are going to be OK and which ones do we need to do. Additional studies for the vaccine manufacturers seem to be saying that we want the latitude to deploy new vaccines in the same way that we do for seasonal influenza, without going through that period of learning. So once again, they want to rush the whole thing, and shortcut the safety assessment. So far, that hasn’t worked out so good.


Yeah, exactly. So the Minister-President in Germany [Marcus Soeder], from Bavaria, has now argued that only if we get the whole population vaccinated – so he argues that Germany should start by January 1st with a vaccine mandate – that only this way could we get rid of Coronavirus. How would you respond to the statement? 

I would respond that it’s grossly naive. How many times do we have to say, these vaccines are poorly effective at preventing infection, replication and spread? They are partially protective against disease; natural immunity is significantly more protective against disease, that means hospitalization, for example. Both natural immunity and these vaccines currently are very protective against death. The vaccines are partially protective against severe disease compared to the unvaccinated.

The problem with that logic [proposing vaccine mandates] is the unvaccinated are an increasingly tiny population, not just because of vaccination, but because of natural infection. And they’re not really monitoring the fraction of the population that have been naturally infected and recovered. A lot of estimates show that certainly in the United States, while we have less than 60 percent vaccine uptake, we probably have 80 plus percent in the total population that have either been infected or vaccinated. OK, so this logic from the German minister, this is what is driving so many of us to distraction as it’s not based on science. And if it’s so obviously not based on science, what is driving that policy? There’s kind of two explanations that I’m comfortable with, well let’s say three.

One is that they’re just locked into a belief system, and they are so deep in it now that they can’t admit their failure and their flaws, and they feel like they just have to keep doing it. This is the ‘give a three-year-old a hammer and everything becomes a nail logic,’ right? They have a very powerful system. They think they can keep administering it and getting a response. But you know, there’s that quote from Einstein, I believe it’s attributed to. ‘If you keep doing the same thing and expect [different] results, this is the definition of madness,’ right? So that’s one answer: that they’re just so dug in, they feel they have no other options and they have to keep doing this because they can’t admit their prior failures and flaws.

Another one is [to do with] the economic or other external forces, which basically argues that the leadership in the European Union and throughout the West, including the United States, has been captured functionally by the economic interests of some financial entity, of which the pharmaceutical industry is a component. So there’s that argument.


I personally really like the argument of Mattias Desmet, which is this mass formation psychosis argument, that fundamentally a significant fraction of the population [has] been hypnotized. It’s not [something] that they are conscious of. So the ‘they’re so dug in that they can’t back out argument,’ is founded on the belief that they’re actually aware, that they’re not experiencing cognitive dissonance because they’re aware that they’ve made a mistake.

But many wouldn’t.

Right? The mass formations psychosis argument of Mattias Desmet of Ghent argues that they are truly hypnotized, that a large fraction of the population has become hypnotized, much as happened to the German people during the 1930s and 1920s. And it has similar psychological roots in a lot of us, including myself. I’m just one of many who find the arguments of Dr Desmet very compelling. They seem to explain a lot of behaviors that are otherwise inexplicable, like this extreme level of aggression and venom that is vented against anyone who’s expressing anything such as you do at LifeSiteNews. Anything that is contrary to the dominant narrative they attack this in the most personal terms. It is their venomous, aggressive attacks that are not based on any data or information.


Exactly. For example, in Germany, since we just talked about Germany, the official data just came out which showed that in the age group, about 60-year-olds, 71 percent of the hospitalized are now fully vaccinated and 52 percent of those who died were fully vaccinated. So these data actually should be taken in, showing at least that the vaccines, as you always say, seem to be leaky. But at some point one also has to worry about why it’s little more than half who die are dying with the vaccines, whether the vaccines are truly doing what they are supposed to do.

And the worry is, as you know, the worry, the chronic worry that many of us have had – those of us that think about these things, and try to look carefully at the data, and are aware of the prior data in coronavirus vaccine development in humans which [have] repeatedly encountered the problem of vaccine enhanced disease – is this: Is this paradoxical signal that we’re seeing an initial indicator of some deeper phenomena having to do with vaccine enhanced injury?

This is coming out more and more in the data, in the press. What the infectious disease community and World Health Community and European Medicines Agency and U.S. CDC and Canadian National Health Service, et cetera, we could go on and on, have focused on is what they classify as vaccine-related injuries, which are things that are narrowly defined as meeting their preset criteria for what they consider to be a vaccine-related injury.


And the problem with that is that it’s all subject to various forms of biases, having to do with the reporting and the classification of the information is very subjective. It is subjective. That’s the best way to put it. That type of data analysis results in data that is contaminated with all kinds of confounding variables and subjectivity. So what can you do? Well, you have to start looking at all-cause mortality. When somebody dies, that’s a very clear signal. We kept good records on how often people die, and we can argue about whether or not this heart attack death was associated with [the] vaccine or not associated with [the] vaccine. But when we see all-cause mortality going up..

Excess death…

Then that’s something to worry about. The problem is, how do you disambiguate all-cause mortality due increase due to vaccine, versus increase due to circulating virus? And that gets really hard. That’s the basis for the argument that many people make when they say, I’m part of the control group. That used to confuse me when people would say ‘I’m part of the control group,’ I’d say ‘what clinical trial?’ What they’re talking about is the idea that unless there’s some cohort that has not accepted the vaccine, then we can never disambiguate what is due to the vaccine, and what’s due to the virus.

So without some really sophisticated and expensive immunology testing to figure out – because we can test and see whether or not you’ve just had the jab or whether you’ve been infected – it may be possible to see whether you’ve got both going on right now because of some immunologic characteristics.

So they argue that they’re part of the control group, because if we lose that, if everybody is universally jabbed, then we can never do any comparison and sort out what’s due to the jab and what’s due to the infection. This is one of the arguments that’s made about why this insane push to universal vaccination is a way of covering your tracks if you happen to be a global biopharmaceutical company.

But I’m worried, as I know you are, about this push that seems irrational.


Just as the last question, what would be your message to the Austrians who are going to hear your message in translation? What is your message to the Austrians that are now essentially locked down and facing mandated vaccination within the next half a year, as well as to the Germans, where it’s lurking already around in the discussion? What is your message to these countries?

That’s a hard one. I try to always conclude my interviews with something positive. So those people, and also the Australians, are facing an intolerable situation, where their governments literally, in my opinion, have gone mad. And I think they’ve probably gone mad because of this mass formation psychosis of the desperate. But time will tell maybe, or maybe it will just get hidden.

I believe that the only recourse now that most of us have, is this idea of building local community. I really believe that we’re now in a situation, and again, I’m very influenced by Mattias Desmet’s analysis. He’s of the opinion, it’s quite dark, that this period of global totalitarianism will sweep over us. It’s now gained enough momentum and enough buy-in from enough nation-states and political organizations, that it has a momentum of its own. And we are going to have to come to terms with that, while we also come to terms with the fact that the virus will have its way with us.

So to my mind, whether it’s Omicron, or Delta, or Delta Plus, or fill-in-the-blank variant, we are likely to have another wave this winter. I think it’s already kicking in pretty hard in Europe, and we may end up with kind of a bimodal wave. We may end up with a Delta wave with an Omicron wave superimposed on it later. OK, so in the face of a dysfunctional government and public health response, what can you do? I think there’s three things.

One is build connections within your local community. This is the fundamental sickness in our society that has given rise to the mass formation, if you listen to Mattias’ argument. So try to rebuild those connections, and that means in part, building contact lists, particularly for the elderly within your community. Whether your community is a church or a town hall, whatever your political and social structure is, try to build community, try to build contact list call lists, stay in touch with each other, and in particular, try to stay in touch with the high-risk groups, the elders, etc. They represent your wisdom and they’re at highest risk.

And the biggest crime I think that’s going on is the feeble elder who encounters the virus, goes to the hospital, was taken to the hospital, gets told, ‘No, you’re not sick enough. Go home. Here’s an aspirin. Call us when you’re sick enough,’ and they go home. And there’s some complex physiology about blood oxygen levels that makes it so that the pulse oximeter appears to be underestimating your oxygenation problem. And so they go home and they die, and they die alone, and it is completely unnecessary because early treatment can help them.

So number one, build community, stay in touch with people, watch over each other because the state isn’t going to do it for you. OK, the unfortunate situation is that our pharmaceutical hospital industrial complex is not helping us, right? It’s become incredibly dysfunctional, so we’re going to have to kind of do it ourselves. So build those lists, stay in touch with people, find physicians, if you can, who will administer early treatment.

What we’ve seen in multiple examples, particularly with the elderly that do not have access to the internet or often or are challenged in getting access to digital media – we all think that we’ve all got laptops. That’s not true for a large cohort of the population, particularly the feeble and the elderly, – those people really appreciate having a document.

There are a variety of sources of information and documents in English –the FLCCC’s protocol is one where they formatted these treatment protocols as PDFs, and you can just print them. Getting information into the hands of the feeble and the elderly and the disadvantaged has two advantages. Number one, it reassures them that it’s not hopeless. It reassures them that you can survive this virus. That it is not a death sentence if you get infected, and it shows them graphically that there are things, tangible things that can be done, OK?

Those two things alone provide enormous relief. I’ve seen it. I’ve seen it in people’s faces. The people, particularly the people that are in this zone where they are subject to the mass formation psychosis, but their minds are a little bit open, and when you give them a document saying, ‘Hey, this is not a death sentence, if you get this, there is hope,’ you can see the change in their expression and the relief that they get just from that one thing.

The release of stress, just from having a document, in your hands. So that’s number two, to get information out to people. There’s a variety of sources of information: help them know that this is not a death sentence.

The third thing is in building communities and identifying doctors. Over time, we’re going to start building clinics and treatment associations, et cetera. I mean, what I’ve seen, for instance, in Hawaii with Kirk and Kim Malone, Kirk is a pediatric cardiologist with expertise in vascular inflammation. Kim is a pediatric anesthesiologist. They’ve worked together. They’ve been kicked out of the only hospital in Oahu because they have been administering early treatment to patients. This is shocking when you think about it.

Kirk is also a minister at a local congregation. Jill and I have been there to their meetings, there are a couple hundred people that come to his congregation, and he runs a food bank. This is a deeply, spiritually committed individual. Not from your denomination, but it doesn’t matter. He is fundamentally committed to good works, and he is setting up a clinic where he is treating people with these life-saving drugs early on. Kim and Kurt together. So eventually, that’s going to grow into a community clinic.

Eventually, those community clinics are going to provide an alternative to this industrialized medicine model that we’re in the middle of right now. And that, I think, is the long-range hope. How long is it going to take? How many decades? I have no idea. But it all starts with the idea of being globally aware of what’s going on, but acting locally within your community to start to build capabilities. And I think that is the way we break free of the mass psychosis.

But this is Mattias’s point, is that if we can get people to realize that global totalitarianism is a bigger threat than the virus, and get them to break away from this mass psychosis, then they create a new kind of mass psychosis, which is their fear of global totalitarianism, fused to their anxiety and social disassociation. And so we still haven’t cured the underlying problem. The underlying problem is the sickness in our society, and we all know it’s there. We can all feel it. We’re aware that there’s something fundamentally wrong. Until we give humans as a community, a sense of belonging and responsibility for each other, and break free of this idea that we’re just economic units and whoever dies with the most toys wins, and instead, we move to a space that is fundamentally a more spiritual space. It’s a space in which we acknowledge our interdependency with each other and our need for social connectivity. This is fundamental.

And the antidote against the lie, against propaganda, is human connectivity and exchange of reality, of things that happen and that undercuts propaganda. It is putting people together.

It’s the cure. Yeah, it is the real cure. It’s the cure of the disease that Mattias Desmet has diagnosed for us, which is this mass formation, psychosis, the madness of crowds.

And so we would in a literal sense and philosophically form an anti-globalist alliance, as Archbishop Viganò proposed. 

I think he nailed it right on the head. I think he called it correctly now, and I think it showed great bravery and foresight. But you’ve taught me that he is a person who, for whatever reason, has had the courage to speak truth to power in the past. And I honor him for that.

And we honor you for doing the same in your field. 

I’m trying! I’m going to share one of the other things that happened to me today. I received something in the mail, and it was a cease and desist letter from the lawyer representing a family. They were upset because I had retweeted a video montage of young athletes dying or having heart attacks. That video montage included a clip of their son who had died, but his death occurred before the outbreak, and whoever created that video montage had manipulated the information about his death and included him in the montage. And then I was being accused of having been the person that did this because I retweeted it, and it was very upsetting to get this.

A ‘nico,’ a threat.

Yeah, it was. But then I stepped back, and I mean, this goes to turn the other cheek and try to empathize, and I realized these are parents that are in pain. And they accused me of exploiting this to support an anti-vaccine agenda, which they were clearly very upset by, exploiting their son’s death. I have to say to myself, I empathize with their pain, and I can understand why they were upset, and I went and took that post down. But what it underscores… I have a colleague that I won’t name, who is a prolific writer about these things, you would recognize him, who made the case the other day that the other side is lying all the time and we have to be willing to lie too and to make our point because it is a global fight. And I objected. I said, No, we can’t do that.

The end does not justify the means. 

Right! But I think that when we’re in the thick of this confrontation, this truly epic battle, I think that’s not overstating it. We are in a truly epic battle. And I think that we have to try really hard to maintain our integrity and not follow into the behavior and the ethics of it.


Because, you know, if we want to talk about soul, that’s how we lose our soul. That’s how we become perverted and brought into that darkness that we seem to see our opponent as fallen into.

Exactly. And what really comes to me just in this whole conversation, when you speak about the economic powers today, when we talk in biblical terms, you know, our Lord always said, you cannot serve Mammon and God at the same time. So in a sense, you cannot in fighting Mammon, you shouldn’t adapt the methods of Mammon. You still should keep that ethical approach because finally, we stand before God and not before man. 

I think that is a fundamental truth that transcends all theology. I believe there are universal ethical truths, which are the foundation for Western culture. I can’t speak to eastern culture as I don’t know it, but in my world, there are fundamental, transcendent ethical truths. A lot of them stem from the idea that we have, as thinking beings, a responsibility to each other and to the world around us and the animals around us. And you saw that today as we went out and saw the horses, et cetera. I think that if we lose that ability to empathize and our commitment to our fellow beings…

Then we lose our soul. 


Well, thank you so much, Dr. Malone, for this wonderful interview. And we hope we can do that again, and we can keep listening to your wisdom and good guidance in this very, very difficult time. Thank you so much. 

Oh, it’s my pleasure.