KFIST - Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Filename: 20021123_Brock_Alex.mp3
Air Date: Nov. 23, 2002
215 lines.

In this conversation between Alex Jones and Joe Matthews, they discuss the issue of missing children from state custody. Joe promotes his company's DNA kit for families to maintain samples at home for medical reasons or in case a child goes missing. However, Alex expresses skepticism towards government involvement and cites instances where authorities have behaved criminally. The conversation becomes heated as they exchange perspectives and examples, highlighting the broader issue of mistrust between citizens and authorities."

Time	Text
	Welcome, my friends, to this live Friday edition already into the second hour.
	I'm your host, Alex Jones.
	The websites are InfoWars.com, InfoWars.net, and now PrisonPlanet.com.
	We have another great guest coming up in the third hour about the way they're keeping our children safe.
	Well, now all children, they're going to start taking DNA from them at the schools.
	We are now joined by a professor at the University of Rhode Island.
	I guess when the show rebroadcasts on 50,000 Water there in Providence, he'll be able to hear himself Monday when it rebroadcasts there.
	Dan W. Brock, and he is a biomedical ethics professor, and the headline from the
	Hello?
	Yes, sir!
	I'm not a professor at the University of Rhode Island.
	Okay, well then this article is incorrect.
	You were giving a speech there.
	I was giving a talk there, yes.
	You're a professor where?
	I was a professor until the end of last year at Brown University.
	I'm now at the National Institutes of Health, though any views that I state to you now are only my own views, not the
	National Institutes of Health.
	Oh, so you work with the federal government then?
	That's correct.
	Alright, well I'm sorry for my ignorance.
	I'm aware of Dr. Peter Singer.
	Is he a colleague of yours?
	Well, he's someone I know, but he teaches at Princeton University.
	Yeah, in fact he's from Australia, right?
	Right.
	They brought him over here and gave him a fellowship, didn't they?
	Well, I gave him a chair at the university.
	Oh, yeah, overall, the whole department.
	Boy, he's doing quite well.
	He's written some interesting books.
	We've read some passages here.
	Now, what exactly are you calling for here?
	Because I've got the article, but let me get your take on exactly what you're saying here.
	Well, the question was to, the question I was talking about concerned genetic screening programs to
	We're good to go.
	All right.
	Things one can do if one learns that parents are at serious risk for passing on a serious genetic disease.
	Well, you are a professor, but I guess you basically still are, I would say, a professor.
	Are you a doctor?
	What's your title, sir?
	No, I'm a philosopher by training.
	When I was at Brown University, where I was for over 30 years, I was half in the philosophy department there and half in the medical school, where I directed a center for biomedical ethics.
	Ah, and now some of the guidelines written there at Brown, aren't those used in a lot of hospitals?
	No, Brown doesn't write guidelines.
	I mean, there are hospitals that have guidelines, but the Center at Brown and Brown doesn't write guidelines.
	I had just read in past articles that Peter Singer has helped write some of the guidelines adopted by many hospitals.
	I doubt that's the case, frankly, because Peter's views are very controversial.
	And I imagine that they would not be adopted in guidelines that hospitals would undertake.
	Alright, we're talking to Dan W. Brock, Biomedical Ethicist.
	Now, I'm trying to understand something here.
	Now, I've read some articles on the BBC a few weeks ago where they were saying they're discussing genetic screening by law.
	Of course, because it costs everybody money having to take care of these people, these blind and disabled and others.
	And some of Singer's colleagues, in one of their books, Back to Eden, I believe is the name, I read it about a year ago, said that they need to take control of human evolution.
	Now, you say these are your views,
	What are your views?
	What exactly do you do there in your government office?
	Well, there's a department of clinical bioethics here which does research on bioethics issues.
	We have training programs and so forth, but mostly I do research and publish on bioethics issues.
	I've only been here since this past summer, so I have most of my career been in a university.
	Well, I'm trying to understand here, I think most Americans find it chilling, kind of Orwellian, or a type of Brave New World, like Huxley wrote about, and of course his brother, the UNESCO head, that are talking about eugenics, how wonderful it was.
	It sounds chilling to say, set up programs for people to
	No, I didn't talk about that at all.
	What I talked about is a practice that goes on now that I think isn't all that controversial.
	The idea is that if we can prevent very serious diseases like Tay-Sachs disease or Huntington's disease, then most people think it would be desirable to do so.
	Forget about any cost to the broader society.
	These are extremely disabling diseases to the persons who have them.
	They often involve very severe suffering.
	Sometimes they involve early death of a child, as with Tay-Sachs disease or Leishnian disease.
	So these are serious afflictions and some diseases, like the ones I just mentioned, are transmitted genetically, in effect.
	If you have the gene in question, you'll develop the disease.
	What we can now do is to do genetic testing for, as I say, whether parents are at risk for passing on this disease, or one can do, again in some cases at least, genetic testing of an embryo or fetus to determine whether it has the genes for the particular disease.
	Ah, tested in utero?
	Yes.
	I want to talk about how that's done, but is this an accurate quote from the Narragasset Times?
	It says, I want to define genetic testing in a strictly reproductive context.
	It's uncontroversial that serious disability should be prevented in born persons.
	Brock asserted, it's considered a misfortune to be born blind or with serious cognitive disability.
	But if it's a bad thing for a person, then why not prevent these conditions if someone will be born?
	Did you say that?
	Who will be born?
	That's a paraphrase, but that's a reasonably accurate paraphrase.
	So they misquoted you because they have it in quotes?
	Yeah, I don't think I, well, I was, I don't know whether
	I don't know whether it's an accurate quote, but it's a reasonably accurate paraphrase in any event.
	In any event, it reasonably represents my view.
	Are you aware of Wesley Smith, Wall Street Journal writer, bestselling author?
	Right.
	We've got him on.
	He's named names.
	He's named names of bioethics people.
	He didn't name you here.
	You're obviously one of the less radical ones, comparatively, on this scale.
	But he brought out, read the quotes.
	It's been published.
	The Wall Street Journal wouldn't let him run it because the liability wasn't true.
	We've got this creature
	Singer calling babies mackerels, saying they have the same worth as mackerel fish, calling retarded children subhuman.
	I mean, these are chilling statements, and there is a large body moving towards forced screening, and obviously it starts out as a voluntary thing.
	Aren't you concerned about that?
	Sure, I'm concerned about that.
	I mean, I can't be responsible for what somebody else says or for somebody else's account of what somebody else says, so I have no comment on what Leslie Smith says about what Peter Singer says.
	But, of course, I'm concerned about the shift from doing any of these practices
	Voluntarily, when it's the parent's decision, and involuntarily.
	Just as I have been a supporter of patients' rights to make decisions about their own medical treatment, I would be concerned if we moved to forced decisions by someone else about patients' medical treatment.
	Here's a London Telegraph article today, sir, where it says that if people do not take all the vaccines ordered by the government, though it's not the law, all their health care will be denied, period.
	It was usually about three years ahead of us.
	I haven't seen the article, so I don't know whether that's true or not.
	I wouldn't support that.
	We do have some vaccines that are in effect compulsory in this country.
	Now wait, there is no effect.
	Hold on.
	Hold on, Doctor.
	Whatever.
	Hold on just a second, Brock.
	Wait a minute.
	Either it's the law or it's not, and you cannot make someone take a vaccine.
	They try to create color of law, and now they're trying to make DNA tests from all the kids they have to do it.
	There's no law, it's a policy.
	So that's not, what you just said is not accurate.
	They cannot make, well I guess under model states that just passed federally, I guess they can forcibly inoculate us.
	Maybe you're right under martial law.
	What I was about to say was that
	In many states, for children to enter school, they have to have certain vaccinations.
	But there's a... typically a public health reason for that.
	Nope.
	One's getting vaccinations for infectious diseases where there's not just a risk to the child, but there's a risk to others if that child... No, that's a mandate.
	They have waivers in all 50 states.
	You didn't know about that?
	Yes, I know they have waivers, but they have waivers only for certain reasons.
	I'm intrigued by this discussion.
	I want to hold you over another segment if you can do it, sir.
	Mr. Brock, can you tell us about a website where we can read your writings or read some of the text of your speeches?
	No, I don't have a website that has them.
	I don't have a website that has them.
	So you're in the bioethics department of Brown, or what's the name of the department?
	No, I now work in the Department of Clinical Bioethics at the National Institute of Health.
	So you're no longer even doing anything with Brown, then?
	That's correct.
	Just the National Institutes of Health.
	Well, stay with us, please, sir.
	I appreciate you joining us as we talk about the new developments here in the brave new world.
	Alright, welcome back my friends.
	We're talking to Dan W. Brock who is a biomedical ethics, bioethics person in the federal government and we have the Webster's Dictionary here and it says eugenics.
	And the 1883 definition, a science that deals with improvement as by control of human mating, of hereditary qualities of race and breed, and the other nine definitions are similar.
	Why do you guys call it bioethics?
	I guess eugenics got a bad name, a bad rap, so it's bioethics now?
	How do you answer that, Mr. Brock?
	Since we're coming on after your commercial, I want to repeat that I speak only for myself and not for any branch of the federal government.
	The term bioethics was coined in the early 1970s.
	Most of it has not had anything to do with issues about eugenics.
	It's had to do with, for example, end-of-life care with patients, with issues like the definition of death.
	But that's exactly, not the eugenics.
	Hold on, sir.
	Not the eugenics was exactly that.
	Getting rid of the retarded folks, the blind, the old.
	When I talk about end-of-life health care, I'm not talking about getting rid of any of those persons.
	There's been a large movement as I assume you know in this country over the last several decades through things like advanced directives whereby people can gain control over their own health care.
	Near the end of life, and that I don't think has anything to do with getting rid of people.
	Wait a minute, in Norway and other areas, they wear toe tags and carry cards saying, please don't euthanize me, and they're moving for that here.
	Look, it says, I've got your quote right here, I want to define genetic testing in a strictly reproductive context.
	What that means is, that quote is inaccurate.
	What I said is, I'm going to talk about
	Reproductive testing in, I'm sorry, about genetic testing only in a reproductive context.
	What I distinguish that from is testing, for example, of individuals as to whether they have genes for breast cancer and so forth.
	Well look, abort the blind and disabled, that's the headline here.
	They've got your quotes in here which are now saying aren't accurate.
	I'm trying to understand this.
	That is the exact definition of eugenics.
	It is also, if you understand eugenics in that way, then if a parent, I suppose, tries to do genetic testing to see if they have the gene for passing on Tay-Sachs disease, which is a devastating disease that
	I don't
	Uh, the gene for that condition.
	I suppose that's eugenics, but that doesn't seem to me an obviously bad thing.
	Look, here's the thing.
	If you want to talk with me, then you'll have to let me finish, too.
	Okay, go ahead.
	It doesn't seem to me an obviously bad thing to want the children that we give birth to to be healthy as opposed to having devastating diseases.
	It's what it leads to, though.
	It's what the other bioethicists are saying.
	It may or may not lead to the other things.
	I would oppose many other things that you think it would lead to, and I would make distinctions between them.
	Okay, let me ask you another question, Mr. Brock, because this is very important.
	Look, we have this movement, it's out there, the other bioethicists are saying this horrible stuff, calling babies mackerel, the rest of it.
	In this article, they've got you in this speech before all these people at the University of Rhode Island saying, you know, that abort blind babies.
	I've got friends that are blind, that were born blind.
	We've got great scientists, philosophers, people with ideas.
	Many times, handicapped people I know are more intelligent, more loving, wonderful people because they didn't become these mindless, satanic yuppies running around, these materialistic idiots.
	And this, I mean, come on!
	Of course, I made exactly that point in my talk at some length.
	So, of course, there are many blind people that lead wonderful lives.
	That wasn't the point.
	Why abort them then?
	If you, if you, um, do you have any children?
	Oh, yes, I do.
	Would you be sad to learn that one of your children was going blind?
	I would not.
	I would not abort a child.
	They told me that if the child was going to be blind, I would have that child.
	Okay, but you didn't answer my question.
	Would you be sad to learn that your child was going blind?
	Yes, and I certainly wouldn't kill it.
	Yes, and no, of course, and nor would I.
	But the point is... We got a break, Professor.
	Please stay with us.
	Just one more segment, okay?
	No, I think this will have to be the last one.
	No, come on!
	Don't be cowardly.
	Stay with us.
	We got a call we want to talk to you.
	I'm not cowardly.
	We're not.
	You're evil!
	And I know you are, buddy!
	You have a nice day in your federal bureau!