There are many moments one could call the definitive end of the 60s—the resignation of Nixon, the Manson murders, Altamont—but one last leprous gasp was heard from the decade’s corpse in February of 2022, when 76-year-old Canadian citizen Neil Young removed his music from Spotify in protest over The Joe Rogan Experience podcast. Rogan’s transgression? Interviewing Dr. Robert Malone, a renowned pioneer in mRNA vaccine technology and horse farmer, about his concerns over mRNA vaccine technology. The hippie movement is diseased and dead.

While some dispute Dr. Malone’s self-identification as the “inventor” and chief architect of mRNA vaccines, even his greatest enemies in the media acknowledge that his work was “seminal,” “landmark,” at the very least “important.” It boils down to two papers Malone co-authored as a graduate student in the late 80s, when he discovered that mRNA could trigger the production of proteins in mice. Those papers were the first dominoes to fall towards some of the most profitable vaccines ever created; the COVID-19 jab industry will top over $50 billion in sales this year. Regarding mRNA vaccines—a scientific discovery that may win the Nobel Prize— immunologist Jan Dörrie states that "Robert Malone was the first to describe this principle and thus described the basis for the development of mRNA vaccines.”

Contrary to what you may have read, Dr. Malone does not identify as an anti-vaxxer. He is vaccinated. He is a lifelong physician and pathologist who received his MD from Northwestern University and has studied at Harvard. Malone takes issue with the rushed review of experimental vaccines, the lack of transparency regarding their documented side effects, and the climate of fear and censorship that surrounds their discussion. It is this last aspect—there have been enough words spilt over the science—that we at Countere focused on during our interview with Dr. Malone: what he described as full-on, “no-holds-barred, 21st-century information warfare.”

You’ve received an insane amount of exposure and controversy in the past year. How has it affected your view of power and the people in power? 

Well, I just got off a Zoom call with a group of European physicians and medical scientists. What we've all observed is the political weaponization of public health—a globally harmonized effort at total information control. 

We, the Western world, have been driven towards the practices that we’ve criticized the press and the government for in Russia and China. With many of my peers and colleagues, we've had trouble coming to terms with this. It has compromised many of the sources of information that as physicians and scientists we had believed were reliable and independent and truth-seeking—sources I had relied on since childhood. The academic literature is now compromised in many of the same ways as the “legacy media” or what we would call “the mainstream media”; increasingly, I think the proper term would be “state-sponsored media.”

How has it affected me personally? It's demoralizing and disenchanting. Much of the information that I'd believed represented truth has to be reexamined. It's not just the personal attacks and gaslighting and defamation and character assassination—that certainly gets your attention. Those are fundamentally unfair; not that anything in this world is fair anymore. The concept of fair seems to be anachronistic in this unrestricted media warfare environment that we’re in.

This is no-holds-barred, 21st-century information warfare. We’ve become aware of how the legacy media coordinated with the Trusted News Initiative, the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Economic Forum, the CDC…to actively manage public opinion. Us physicians can see it because we’re out at the forefront.

I have a colleague, Dr. Paul Marik, a very successful academic and one of the world experts in emergency care, who has been subjected to brutal harassment, deplatforming, and ejection from his university [for his views]. He said to me the other day, "I used to sit down and read the New York Times, it was part of my daily routine. I can't do that anymore." He's a longstanding Democrat, left-liberal progressive academic, basically. And he now finds himself adrift with no intellectual home, no trusted source of information, questioning everything that he thought was true.

What sources or institutions can we trust?

As a scientist, I'm trained not to trust anything.

In the medical world, my intellectual home is pathology. Pathology is essentially the quality control discipline for the entire medical care system. That's the nature of an autopsy—not just to ascertain the truth of an individual and their death, but to provide quality assurance for hospitals in the entire medical system. We're trained in pattern recognition, we detect and discern signal from noise, we’re trained to do this in the medical world.

As a scientist, I was rigorously trained to question everything, including myself. [I use] the intellectual structure called The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses. The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses was originally published in Science Magazine in the late 1800s. So these are fundamental philosophies of medicine and clinical research that I'm speaking of.

The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses addresses the problem that exists for scientists, which is that we have a tendency to use a system of scientific questioning that we call hypothesis-driven research. The problem with hypothesis-driven research as a tool to discern truth is that it suffers from what's called “strong inference”—the tendency of a scientist to say, “I know the answer, I have a hypothesis, it’s my hypothesis, and I take ownership of it.”

What happens when you do that is that you will bend truth and reality and information to conform with your hypothesis. I don't normally discuss The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses. I'm speaking about this because I know that your magazine [Countere] thinks about these kinds of underlying philosophical issues. 

I've been trained to approach the world as a cluster of information. That information is divided into three compartments. One is, there's the Known, the things that we can all agree on: the Earth is generally round, it orbits the sun, gravity exists. These have been divisive at various times in human history, but now we're pretty convinced those are solid truths. 

Then, there’s the world of Knowable but Unknown. If we apply the Scientific Method—which is increasingly a new priesthood, but that's another problem—if we rigorously apply the Scientific Method to this world of Knowable but Unknown things, we can gradually pull truth out of that information cloud and place it into the world of the Known.

Then, there's a third compartment of information. This is the Unknown Unknowable. And that's basically the world of faith. That's the intellectual space of things which we are not able to directly perceive or measure, which may or may not exist. And we can't really apply the Scientific Method to this thought space. We can't get data to test hypotheses. This is the world of philosophers and theologians.

I've been trained on the first compartment, the Known. Then there’s this middle compartment of stuff that’s Knowable but Unknown, and that’s the world I’ve always lived in, first as a young academic and then as a scientist and pathologist.

I had thought that I didn't have to apply that kind of intellectual rigor to the world of politics or public policy or economics. I thought that that was all being adequately handled by other experts that were similarly objective. Now we learned that absolutely not the case, and all of us are forced into becoming citizen-scientists-philosophers, whether or not we're trained. 

I didn't choose to be one of the “Leaders of the Resistance,” to use a Star Wars metaphor. But having been placed in that position through circumstance—because I was early in speaking out about certain things, and I had a background that enabled me to legitimately question what was going on—I now find myself with the burden of responsibility of that leadership, and it's one that I don't take lightly. Feeling that responsibility results in some self-editing, some self-censorship. There are things that I observed, for instance, about the World Economic Forum that are so far beyond what average people can accept that I have to self-censor. Otherwise, I'll be labeled as a crazy person.

You don't want to sound too much like what they would call a conspiracy theorist.

Precisely. I think part of our mission now is that the opposition forces of censorship and propaganda are acting to constrain the Overton window (the boundary of acceptable thought) and redirect it in ways that they find economically or politically useful. They are basically weaponizing information for population control to advance their own personal agendas. And it's our job, in my opinion, to push the Overton window open in a responsible way—we're always on this knife edge of how far can we push it open to allow more public discourse of a topic, versus losing our legitimacy so that we're no longer effective in broadening the scope of what the general public is allowed to consider. And I think this is the essence of free speech—resisting the forces that wish to constrain information and weaponize it.

It's very easy to assume or presume that what we're experiencing is something unique—that it’s modern and hasn’t been experienced throughout human history. I was just with a physician over the weekend on the West Coast. He told me that in his clinical practice, he has a poster of the classic artwork, The Trial of Galileo. He tells his patients and colleagues that this is a metaphor. My point is that the tendency of humans to reject heretics who are speaking things that are not approved by an anointed clergy is nothing new.

What is new is the technology that is enabling the tracking of every single one of us: all of our thoughts, all of our actions, all of our economic activities, along with the ability to process this massive amount of information and then use it to actively manipulate our behavior. This has been a long-standing goal of various intelligence agencies throughout the world for decades. A notable example is Operation Mockingbird in the United States, which was direct CIA placements into the press. In the modern era, we have many members of the press and tech and finance that have been actively trained in the Young Leaders Program at the World Economic Forum and then actively placed in positions of influence and power, who are acting to advance a political and socio-economic agenda, which they believe in, that has to do with a one-world government. And these are backed by major corporate interests. 

Their logic is that the structure of the nation-state as an independent, autonomous entity is no longer viable in a global environment with this kind of population density, and that we need to migrate to a central world government. And the World Economic Forum has become the leading Western advocate for this one-world solution, which they believe is necessary. But that structure is dominated by large corporate interests and high-value individuals who seem to assert the logic that by virtue of their wealth, they are more qualified than the likes of you or I to make decisions about how we should live.

Fascism should really be renamed as corporatism. It is the diffusion of the interests of the corporation with the nation-state. I think it is self-evident that we are in an environment in which we have had the intimate fusion of the nation-state with…social media and big tech and finance and all kinds of large corporate interests globally integrated to advance their political and socioeconomic and medical agendas.

That’s the world that I encounter now and try to make sense of. We used to think of a “vertical of tech” or a “vertical of government” or a “vertical of healthcare” as semi-autonomous entities. That's no longer the case. They're all fused, they're all integrated, so that you have the interests of the pharmaceutical industry and healthcare industry being supported by the tech industry. We used to think of journalism as a vertical; we called it The Fourth Estate. That's increasingly no longer the case. These verticals have become corporate divisions of very large aggregated blocks of capital that are no longer coupled to nation-states—they're transnational, and they exist for the purpose of generating profit. They are intrinsically amoral, and they are not grounded in concepts of beneficence for the human population, human health, or anything else.

If you could answer just a few of the biggest whys and hows behind all these events, which would they be?

There's two ways to take that question on. One is grounded in accountability: is there someone or some organization that's responsible for this enormous public tragedy? And if so, how could they be held accountable? The other lens that I prefer to think about is a forward-looking, medical-based point of view of what things can we answer that will mitigate the risk of damage to children and adults globally.

The Event 201 planning, the open transparency of the World Economic Forum in terms of its agendas and the Great Reset, the curious investments of The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the academic and technological push to advance candidate coronavirus vaccines before the release of the virus—among other events—make it hard not to conclude that there was some component of intention here. But you're probably as jaded about public information management as I am now. So I don't think we'll ever get to the bottom of it. Which means we're going to continue to limp along in this environment that's intensely Orwellian. As an article of faith, I personally choose to believe that this was not an intentional scheme to take over the world like something out of a James Bond movie.

What we really have here is the conflict between the analog world and the digital world. The analog world is very messy. An action by the state against someone that has transgressed a law requires a large amount of energy or friction—coming up with a warrant, arresting somebody, imprisoning somebody, having a trial, etc., before you finally make a judgement. The folks in power now are not based in that analog world. They live in a digital world of massive information and artificial intelligence. And they wish to exert influence on the analog world using the tools available to them. They have two primary tools: one is total information control and manipulation, and they are largely successful in achieving that objective with the exception of dissident platforms like podcasts, your magazine, and others; their other big lever of power is the economic one, consequent to the international integration of the banking system.

Finance is now a servant to those who operate in the digital world: the tech magnates, financial overseers, oligarchs. If they can push a button and without any due process, without any arrest, without any trial, they can totally compromise any of us as individuals…this hand was revealed with Trudeau and his finance minister economically de-platforming people for engaging in peaceful protest. It has been a gradual process, but now we have fully weaponized the banking system against the Russian government, for better for worse, whether they deserve it or not, that Rubicon is now crossed.

I believe with many others that this is the [impetus] for digital IDs. If those that manage the world through digital platforms are going to exert influence on us, they need to be able to identify us as individuals by some sort of validated pathway that's less messy than a passport or a driver's license…this is the logic that some see as behind the obsession with universal vaccination. With vaccination comes identification of the individual and an acceptance by the populace of the need for a universal identifier, that one will be challenged to present a QR code or [proof of vaccination] or whatever. That’s one explanation behind this globally harmonized effort for universal vaccination, which makes no sense from a public health perspective.

I have one last question. From what I understand, you live on a beautiful horse farm, which I see as a manifestation in modern times of this analog world. How has such a life with your family affected your mentality during these digital-world controversies over the last year?

I wish we had more time to spend here. As I speak to you, I’m looking out the window at the pastures in the barn. My wife and I, throughout our lives, have almost always had a small farm. We have bred horses for decades. One of the things about breeding draft horses in the United States is that pulls you into the intellectual and cultural space of the Amish and the Mennonites.

These are faith-based communities, which are far from perfect. But they are successful as small farmers, and there’s a number of things they do: they work very hard, they are very entrepreneurial and solutions-oriented, and they typically have a decentralized financial base. In an Amish farm, you’ll often see many different sources of revenue.

My wife and I, as people that started off as a carpenter and an orchard farmhand, we’ve always lived in this schizophrenic, hybrid world of academe and intellect and science, and yet still being grounded in the land and the pragmatic solving of daily problems necessary to run a small farm. Small farms don't generate enough revenue that you can just hire people to do all the tasks. You have to do them yourself or you’ll go quickly broke.

Our farm is within a [REDACTED] drive of at least three signatories of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I don't think it's a coincidence that the people who gave rise to this American experiment, this liberal philosophy of governance and self-governance, were grounded in both intellectual life as well as the day-to-day realities of managing small businesses and farms.

In my opinion, the historic greatness and innovation of the American experiment derives largely from this world of citizen/farmer and citizen/small business owner: people that are typically very pragmatic, very solutions-oriented, and often tinkerers. A case can be made that the whole aviation industry and automobile industry derives from farmers tinkering in the winter in their workshops. That ethic—the idea that all of us can solve problems and come up with innovative solutions—seems to have been lost in a large fraction of the culture where we believe that we are disempowered and subject to the whims of arbitrary authority and that we should just go along to get along.

This experience of being a small farmer and tradesman, as well as an academic and scientist, has led me and my wife into a thought space that’s a bit schizophrenic at times. Recently the two worlds have come crashing together. Just to illustrate, I generally go about my life here in this part of Virginia without highlighting that I'm a physician and a scientist. But the other day, when I went with our old pickup truck to get grain for the horses, the guys at the local feed store wanted to take selfies.

My wife and I would be very happy to count the days on the farm. We would rather live our quiet lives than take on the burden of this enormous situation that's overwhelming at times. In some ways, it's a loss: the loss of privacy and autonomy, the ability to just move around in the world without attracting attention. That's one of the things that we mourn. That’s not to say we're not grateful for all the people that give us hugs and handshakes and and say hello. We love all our new friends, but it comes at a price. I now have full-time security.

Follow Countere Magazine on Twitter.