All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 10, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
01:07:23
The New Abnormal with Aaron Kheriaty, M.D.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Hello, everybody, and welcome to Children's Health Offense Roundtable.
It's December the 9th, 2022.
And we are so honored to have Dr. Aaron and Kari Arte with us today.
And we're going to be talking about his new book, The New Abnormal, The Rise of Biomedical Security State.
Amy will tell you at the end of the show how you can get that.
But for now, let's get straight on to questions.
Welcome, Aaron.
Of course, we have a full house with our co-host today.
So thank you, everyone, for being here.
Dr. Cariati, can you tell us, to start off with, what even is a biomedical security state?
Yeah, so what I call in this subtitle the biomedical security state is a kind of unholy melding or welding of three separate things that have been conjoined to form a regime that compromises our freedoms and actually ends up harming people's health.
So the three elements are first of all an increasingly militarized public health apparatus and I can talk a little more later what I mean by a militarized public health apparatus.
The second element of the biomedical security state is the use of digital technologies For the purposes of surveillance and control.
So the smartphone, which first came out with the first iPhone in 2007, fairly recent invention.
So this is the first epidemic or pandemic of, you could say, the digital age.
And these digital technologies were used, for example, for things like vaccine passports, which most folks are familiar with this model of having to show a QR code.
On my phone to get on a plane, get on a train, go to a restaurant, get back into my own country of origin.
You know, if you would have told Americans back in, let's say, 2018, 2019, that you would have to do this and that that QR code demonstrated that you had done what the public health authorities told you to do, including and up to injecting a novel mRNA therapeutic into your body that you may or may not have including and up to injecting a novel mRNA therapeutic into your Americans would have looked at you quite rightly as though you were crazy and said, well, that's never going to happen here.
You know, we would never give in to that authoritarian level of control and micromanagement over our movements and our ability to gather together in public spaces.
But that's precisely what happened and what people adopted in 2022 after a year of prolonged lockdowns, a sort of form of psychological abuse for the better part of the year that happened in 2020.
People were willing to do just about anything to get a modicum of our freedoms back, our ability to live normal lives.
So we adopted these things without much Resistance.
Digital technologies of surveillance and control were used in other ways as well.
So, for example, Vice broke the story a few months ago that the CDC had, without the notification or consent of the American people, the CDC had been utilizing cell phone data, bulk data, for monitoring whether or not we were compliant with lockdown orders.
So, seeing if people were gathering at a school or a church, for example.
Again, without notifying and without getting the consent or permission of the American public.
This was also happening in Canada.
Even though Justin Trudeau promised the American people that the Canadian government would not do this, they went ahead and did it anyway, again, without authorization or notification.
Or the consent of the government.
So these are just two examples of the ways in which digital technologies, which can now track our communications and our movements, were used to control populations in ways previously unimaginable.
We could talk, too, about the censorship regime and the control of the flow of information online as part of that second element of digital control.
So, a militarized public health apparatus, digital technologies of surveillance and control, welded to the third element, which is this whole apparatus is backed up by the police powers of the state.
And, you know, fairly severe punishments and forms of exclusion are inflicted on individuals who do not comply with these authoritarian measures or authoritarian mandates.
And what I argue in The New Abnormal is that Even though many of these policies, these individual policies, have been walked back or rolled back in recent months, you know, whether it's stay-at-home orders or vaccine mandates or vaccine passports.
Nevertheless, that infrastructure that was rolled out during the pandemic is still in place and still waiting for the next declared public health crisis, whether real or manufactured.
And in fact, What was rolled out, I argue, in early 2020 was not just with things like lockdowns and school closures.
It's not just a novel, previously untested measure of public health measure for trying to stop the spread of a respiratory virus.
But what was rolled out was really a new paradigm or a new model of governance.
That involved this kind of micro level of control over large populations under the auspices of a public health emergency and this new form of governance that was rolled out in 2020 really requires jumping from one declared emergency to the next to maintain its power or to advance its power.
So As the justification for a state of emergency for COVID wanes, and we still are operating under a state of emergency at the federal level, still operating under a state of emergency here in California, even though President Biden declared a month ago in 60 Minutes that... Nonetheless, we're still operating in a state where, with a declared federal emergency, the President gains 128 additional extra constitutional powers.
That can be delegated to unelected bureaucrats like the Secretary of Health and Human Services or other administrative officials.
And those officials are obviously very reluctant to give up those powers.
That's why many of his key advisors panicked when Biden said the pandemic was over on 60 minutes.
It was a good thing to say coming into the midterms politically for his party.
And obviously it was true.
The pandemic has been over for quite some time.
But the reason his advisors panicked is that they knew, well, if we admit that the pandemic is over, we're going to have to relinquish those emergency powers.
And we don't want to do that.
So we've seen efforts, you know, in recent months to.
To frame everything from monkeypox to climate change as the next public health crisis for which extraordinary measures must be taken.
So this biomedical security state is something that we We haven't seen the last of if we don't recognize what's going on and sort of what's behind these harmful pandemic policies and and mount resistance to it and reform our public health agencies and and our our intelligence and national security agencies which were also advancing these aims during the pandemic
Then COVID will have been just the beginning of the kind of place that I think very few Americans will want to live in.
So I'm really interested in your backstory.
I have this amazing collection of friends and colleagues now who have either been fired from their jobs or lost their medical licenses.
And in my estimation, They're incredibly smart people and wonderful people, and yet it's happened to a lot of us.
So, can you tell a little bit about your backstory and what it was that you said that was a trigger point for the University of California to clamp down on you the way it did?
Yeah, so for the entirety of my career up until last December, I was a professor in the School of Medicine at the University of California, Irvine, where I also directed the medical ethics program, chaired the ethics committee at the University of California, Irvine, chaired the ethics committee at the California Department of State Hospitals.
The state's system of psychiatric hospitals.
And I was involved with the UC Office of the President, which oversees all the UC branch campuses, UCLA, UC Irvine, UC San Diego, and so forth.
And I was involved at the Office of the President with crafting our pandemic policies from our ventilator triage policy to our vaccine allocation policy in 2020.
Up until the vaccine mandate policy, which the university published in 2021, and our committee of experts was not consulted for that policy, which I found very puzzling.
So I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal in early 2021, arguing that university vaccine mandates were unethical, trying to get a conversation going When the university was considering its vaccine mandate policy, but before they had promulgated and finalized it.
And what I met with was stonewalling.
There was no meaningful discussion, debate, conversation within the university.
I was seeing very little debate happening in academic bioethics outside of the university.
And so I took my arguments to the pages of the national newspaper.
And nonetheless, a few weeks later, the university published and finalized their vaccine mandate.
And at that time, I had already taken a public position on the ethics of vaccine mandates, arguing that they violated the principle of free and informed consent, which was articulated in the Nuremberg Code, and which was really the foundational principle, the bulwark of 20th century medical ethics following World War II.
This was a principle that I taught to all the medical students in the required ethics course that I teach every year to the first and second year medical students.
So I was trying to project ahead to January of this year when I would have taught the medical ethics course and imagining myself talking about the principle of informed consent or encouraging the students in terms of moral integrity and And moral courage that look, you're at the bottom of the hospital hierarchy as a medical student.
But nonetheless, if you see something being done by a doctor or by the institution that's going to harm patients, you still have a duty to step out and say something.
I know you're going to be afraid of things like retaliation or, you know, the power differential between you and the person that you might be sort of blowing the whistle on.
But nevertheless, we have a fiduciary duty to our patients and to the well-being of our patients and their health and their safety to speak out when we see something egregiously wrong happening.
And I just couldn't imagine Trying to say those things to the students.
If I hadn't stood up and done something at my own institution, especially given my position as Director of Medical Ethics, when our institution was rolling out a policy that I thought was going to be harmful if I didn't stand up and try to do something.
So, long story short, in August of last year, I filed a case in federal court challenging the university's vaccine mandates.
On behalf of individuals like me who had natural immunity and under, you know, an argument claiming that our constitutional right of equal protection under the 14th Amendment was being violated.
Shortly after I filed that lawsuit, before the court made a determination in that lawsuit, the university placed me on first what they called investigatory leave, then a month later on unpaid suspension, and then a month after that, as quickly as they could, they fired me.
So I ended up losing my job at the university last December.
I didn't have a chance to say goodbye to the students or the residents.
I just disappeared one day and was not allowed back on campus.
And looking back on that, Although it sort of shook me, as I said, I'd spent my entire career as a physician there.
I'd done my residency training there, so 19 years total at the university.
And, you know, I had to scramble to figure out how to support my family of my wife and five children.
How to, you know, where am I going to find health insurance next month for my family?
Those sorts of practical questions.
How am I going to set up a private practice?
You know, what am I going to do?
But looking back on it, I don't regret the decision.
I wake up every day with a clear conscience.
And, you know, you really can't put a price tag on that.
And while those doors closed, and while I lost some friends and colleagues at the university, I've gained many new friends and colleagues, like the people on this roundtable discussion, and so many others that many of you know, that are people of enormous courage, enormous integrity, that have a different and better vision for medicine and for public health.
And it's been exciting to be a part of those conversations this year.
And I think with so many harmful policies rolled out during COVID, many, many more people Are paying attention to the work of organizations like CHD and things that that many of you have been talking about for years that the public large swathes of the public either wasn't aware of or wasn't paying attention to.
And so we're seeing a groundswell not only of good physicians wanting to develop alternative medical institutions, alternative medical societies, but we're seeing a demand from patients as well for physicians that they can trust, nurses that they can trust, other health care professionals.
Policymakers and so it's it's actually it's been a dizzying and somewhat disorienting year but as I find my footing it's also been a really energizing and exciting year and I've been edified to meet.
Many wonderful people who have been, as you were, have been down this same path and gone through this same process of kind of disillusionment with institutional organized medicine, but then finding other paths where we can continue doing our work.
Aaron, I want to shift.
You are a trained psychiatrist and you trained
Students and residents, in what has always been considered for over 70 years the basis of medical ethics, and you saw all of those doctors turn away from what they had learned and do something entirely different, which is to force vaccines on experimental vaccines, which goes against the Nuremberg Code, on all health care workers,
In some cases, medical students, college students, you know, workers, etc.
And they went along with it.
And they went along with other things, you know, for refusing to give drugs that are useful to patients with COVID for treatment of prophylaxis.
They did give them drugs that we know are not particularly useful, like remdesivir.
And they went along with all of that.
A lot of it because of standing orders, but still, these are individuals who Went lockstep with the program.
Now, David Bell is a doctor, an Australian doctor, now in the U.S., who worked at the WHO, has been an international doctor, and he wrote recently about the big lie, that if you can tell lies that are so beyond the pale, people cannot actually
um cognitively accept the fact that you would lie so grossly and they think there must be something wrong with their apprehension of what's going on and um and they believe you because it's just so far beyond the pill so so much cognitive distance to think you'd be lying to them
And I wonder if you agree with that, if you can somehow explain what the psychological mechanisms were that allowed these millions of healthcare workers to go along with this program.
So that's a great question, Dr. Ness.
And David is a friend of mine.
I was just with him last week at the Brownstone Institute Conference in Miami.
And the piece that you refer to, I agree with his thesis there, that for most Americans to wrap their heads around what really went wrong with our pandemic response is almost too much for most ordinary people to comprehend, that our public health agencies,
That our media, that so many of these institutions of civil society would be as compromised and corrupted as they in fact are, is a really, if you'll forgive the metaphor, is a really tough pill for people to swallow.
And David's thesis about the big lie is sort of one angle, one way of thinking about that issue.
That, you know, people need to sort of come along slowly in the process of getting red pilled or whatever metaphor you want to use for a sort of waking up from our sleepwalking or waking up from our slumber to recognize what is in fact going on on a massive scale.
with public health, with organized medicine, and with the other institutions of civil society.
It's just a lot for people to digest.
It's scary for ordinary people who will admit, you know, I'm not an expert in medicine, public health, virology, what have you.
And yet at the same time, I don't know who to trust.
That's a really anxiety provoking position for people to be in.
It's a really intolerable position for most people to be in.
And I think that's one of the reasons that we've seen so much resistance when you bring up a counter narrative or you bring up empirical evidence to challenge any of the preferred pandemic policies that the mainstream media or mainstream public health Embraced during the pandemic.
So I think that's one factor.
I think there's some other factors that work specifically in relation to physicians.
It's a helpful fact to remember that a generation ago, 30, 40 years ago, 80% of physicians were in private practice and 20% work for large bureaucratic health care institutions, whether hospitals or HMOs or large conglomerates.
Today, those numbers are reversed.
80% of physicians work for a large health care institution.
Where administrators, very often individuals who are not physicians, are calling the shots.
And these institutions often have strict policies about what you can and cannot do.
And, you know, when people ask me, why did, why didn't more doctors stand up and sort of push back against this stuff or say what they were actually thinking or say what they knew to be the case based on their And my first response to that is, well, I mean, look what happened to me.
It doesn't take too many people like Dr. Cariotti or Dr. Merrill or whoever, the public examples of losing your job, of being slandered, of being publicly criticized of being slandered, of being publicly criticized for stating a claim.
It doesn't take too many examples of that to silence most people.
And, you know, sad to say, even though doctors are bound by our oath, even though we're bound by that fiduciary duty to the individual sick patient in front of us, Very often we were, you know, suborned and kind of commandeered by forces that, whether economic or political, that
Did not have the best interests of patients at heart, did not allow doctors to exercise what I call our sort of appropriate discretionary latitude to individualize care to specific patients and the needs of specific patients, which is how good Hippocratic medicine should function.
Instead, we had this kind of technocratic model of medicine that involved Top-down, one-size-fits-all policies, whether, you know, everyone stays socially distanced, everyone wear a mask, a needle in every arm, this kind of all-or-nothing approach to pandemic management was dictated from above.
And sad to say, it was really discouraging, demoralizing, dissatisfying to see so few physicians stand up against that and push back.
But at the same time, when you look at the social forces arrayed against them and the threat of cancellation, the threat of losing their job, these kind of totalitarian measures that were deployed, it becomes more comprehensible why we ended up where we did.
I mean, the other thing that happened was you got this false...
Most of the public got a false presentation of a scientific consensus simply because one half of the debate was silenced by censorship, by slander, by exclusion from the public square on social media or in mainstream media.
So it's easy to present to the public the notion That all doctors and scientists agree on these policies when you silence all of the dissidents and you cow the rest into submission or into silence by these severe measures taken against the few initial people who stick their neck out only to get, you know, only to get it chopped off.
Thank you, Dr. Cariotti, for sharing all that, and especially for your bravery and courage, you know, to take this stand, because we need more doctors like you who are willing to do that.
I actually had two questions.
So prior to COVID, were you kind of aware and awoke to this amount of deep corruption that obviously you're writing about now, you're researching and you're witnessing, bearing witness to, you know, before the pandemic?
And then my second question was, as you took on this book, What was kind of some of the most surprising things that you discovered in your research and writing of it?
So to answer your first question, I was aware to some degree of various forms of compromise, conflict of interest, and corruption within medicine.
So I had a A reasonable recognition of the outsized influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the practice of medicine, on practice guidelines, and so forth.
I had some awareness of the ways in which safety issues associated with vaccines were suppressed by indemnifying and protecting from all liability pharmaceutical companies for their vaccines, whereas those same companies, you know, We're liable for their medications and this this kind of partitioning out of vaccines never made sense to me.
And, you know, if you just if I think about let's say the automobile industry, you know, if If car companies like Toyota were protected from all liability for only for their minivans, but all of their other cars, if there were safety issues, you know, the car blows up when it gets into a fender bender or something like that, then they were liable.
I don't think anyone would be out there buying minivans.
You just wouldn't trust them.
One of the ways in which these industries are kept in check is to make them responsible for what their products in fact do.
So I was aware Of, you know, some of the ways in which the vaccine industry had, or rather the government's regulation of the vaccine industry, had been compromised.
But the full extent and the full scope of the ways in which, let's say, the FDA approval process has been compromised, the revolving door and industry capture of that particular agency, the deep corruption in places like the CDC, the way in which the NIH basically controlled primary investigators and other researchers at all academic medical institutions through holding the purse strings to biomedical research funding.
You know, Anthony Fauci stands up and endorses a particular policy.
The reason you don't have researchers pushing back against it is he will retaliate by basically not giving them any more grant funding.
And so institutions, universities will put pressure on any dissidents because they don't want their NIH funding to be compromised.
So these were additional revelations that I came to as I was doing research for the book and just paying attention to what was going on during the pandemic.
So I would say my awareness of the really full extent of Corruption in our public health agencies and in our in our media, the influence that pharmaceutical advertising dollars have over media narratives.
Once I dug into those numbers, it's a lot of things that we saw during the pandemic started to make a lot more sense.
The other thing that I learned in researching the book, Um, that that helped make sense out of things because I was asking the question not only, you know, why were policies like lockdowns or school closures continued for so long when the obvious harms were becoming manifest the mental health harms, which I wrote about in summer of 2020 what I called the other pandemic.
We were we were getting not only Clinical experience of psychiatrists, but confirmed by population-based research from the CDC and elsewhere.
And yet nobody was talking about that.
Why were these lockdowns continuing when they weren't stopping the spread of the virus and when they were doing enormous collateral damage?
Why were vaccine mandates continuing?
Even after it became clear that vaccine efficacy declined very quickly with the mRNA injections and vaccine safety issues were emerging that were, you know, Very, very serious and very, very concerning.
And to answer that question, what I realized in the course of digging into the book is that I had to Google Earth up from these individual policies and maybe who was making these policy decisions to the 20-year history of those developments that I talked about at the very beginning, that the biomedical security model that started being floated
in intelligence agencies and public health agencies shortly after 9-11, actually, and the ways in which that whole model of managing and controlling pandemics through the micromanagement and control of entire populations.
That has a 20-year history that RFK Jr.
wrote about in his book, in the section of sort of the war game, Of pandemic scenarios.
I talked a little bit about that as well in my book.
And to understand what happened during the pandemic requires that we wrap our heads around the fact that was recently revealed by a colleague of mine at the Brownstone Institute, that it wasn't actually the Department of Health and Human Services that was calling the shots during the pandemic.
That's the federal department that has agencies like the FDA, the CDC, the NIH, our public health agencies.
They were not in charge.
If you look at the org chart and how our pandemic response actually functioned, it was the Department of Homeland Security that was calling the shots.
Going back to that theme I mentioned earlier, the militarization of public health.
It was the department that houses the National Security Agency, the CIA, the FBI, and our military.
That was in charge of the pandemic response and it was engaged in wartime level propaganda techniques against the American people to again control the flow of information to censor information and to cow people through the use of fear into obedience and submission.
So we know now that fear was deliberately deployed increasing the fear of the American public about this virus was deliberately done in order to increase compliance with public health recommendations or mandates.
This was a form of psychological abuse.
This was an egregious violation of human rights, and it was perpetrated by our own governing authorities.
And we ended up in a situation in which even public health agencies that were deeply compromised were not put in charge of our pandemic response.
They were They were wholly owned subsidiaries of the military-industrial complex, which was actually calling the shots during the pandemic.
All of this is well-documented.
None of this is a fringe conspiracy theory.
The history of this has been researched and known, if you know where to look, for many years.
And I think it's really important for the American people to be aware of this background information.
And also to be aware, as I said, of what are the next steps in this process?
What are the next steps in the rollout of this biosecurity model?
Ideas that are being floated as we speak.
Today that will be with us in a year or two if we don't stand up and push back against them.
Things like digital IDs tied to biometric data, central bank digital currencies, which will allow for the control of your financial transaction and the careful monitoring of each and every penny that you spend.
These things go hand in hand with the biosecurity model of governance that we saw during the pandemic.
So this stuff is not going away.
And I hope my book, I hope The New Abnormal, can at least help Americans to wrap their heads around not just what happened to us during the pandemic, but where this novel, you know, model or system of governance is headed next if we don't collectively stand up and resist it.
And you are fighting back.
Dr. Curiatti, I really enjoyed your book.
Thoroughly enjoyed it.
I think everybody should read The New Abnormal, The Rise of the Biomedical Security State.
And I want to also laud you for your legal battles because you're fighting legally on several fronts.
Is there is there any way?
I mean, you know, I know some of this information might be sensitive, but is there any way you can give us an update on those legal battles?
Yeah, I'm happy to.
So I mentioned my case against the University of California and unfortunately the appellate court upheld the district court's ruling against me and that ruling basically has to do with legal technicalities whereby the empirical evidence that we submitted about natural immunity was not going to be considered by the court.
We got the lowest level of scrutiny of their policy which is called a rational basis Review, the court was not convinced that a constitutional right was at stake, which would have allowed an intermediate or strict level of scrutiny of that policy.
And so under this very low level of scrutiny, the rational basis review, all the university had to say was that they had a plausible public health reason for their mandate.
They don't have to demonstrate that the mandate actually achieved its public health purpose.
They don't have to demonstrate that it was narrowly tailored.
They don't have to demonstrate that the benefits outweigh the harms.
None of these scientific or empirical evidence was going to be considered by the court.
So I'm not sure yet whether we're going to appeal that case to the Supreme Court.
I don't know that the Supreme Court is inclined to roll up its sleeves and actually look at empirical evidence related to vaccine mandates.
It may be more fruitful to try to pursue support for a legislative solution to the problem of vaccine mandates.
But I have a couple of other cases I talk about in the book, the FOIA request that we submitted to the FDA.
I coordinated the doctors and scientists that submitted that request to get the Pfizer clinical trials data.
We've got almost all of that at this point.
Pfizer and the Department of Justice and the FDA wanted 75 years to release data that they reviewed in only 108 days.
Fortunately, we had a good judge who said, no, Pfizer will not be able You know, allowed to redact the data and you won't be given 75 years to release it.
You need to give it to us in the next nine months.
So that was a legal victory in terms of transparency, but I think obviously we need better data transparency both at the CDC and at the FDA and that's going to require administrative and legal reforms.
I have another case in actually two other cases in federal court.
One is a case that listeners may have encountered in the news media, Missouri v. Biden, which is a case filed against several senior administrative officials in the Biden administration, filed by the Attorney General of Louisiana and the AG of Missouri. filed by the Attorney General of Louisiana and the AG There are also four private plaintiffs attached to that case.
Myself, two of the signers of the Great Barrington Declaration, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Koldorf, and Health Freedom Louisiana, which is a nonprofit group in the state of Louisiana.
And we are alleging that several officials from 17, literally 17 different federal agencies, public health and intelligence agencies, were colluding with social media companies, Twitter, Google, Facebook, big tech, to Google, Facebook, big tech, to censor information that challenged or contradicted the government's preferred pandemic policies.
Now, Arguably, private companies like Google or Facebook can censor.
I say arguably because there's legal debate about this and whether they should be permitted to do this.
But inarguably, nobody on either sides of these debates doubts that the federal government cannot do that.
And the federal government cannot lean on social media companies as the long arm of its censorship regime.
That's a clear violation of Americans' First Amendment rights to free speech.
But that's exactly what was happening during the pandemic.
The evidence that we've had so far on discovery shows not only that this was happening on a massive scale, but it was even more widespread than we initially suspected when we filed that lawsuit.
Just two weeks ago, this also made the news.
We deposed Anthony Fauci.
He had to sit through a seven-hour deposition, during which he was questioned under oath, under penalty of perjury, about his role in collusion with social media companies and about many other aspects of our pandemic response.
We could talk about that deposition probably on another day, but very quickly, one of the interesting things that I talked about on Twitter that came out of that deposition was the origin of lockdowns, we knew already, was Wuhan, China.
And what happened, and Fauci confirmed this during the deposition, is he sent his deputy at the NAIAD, a man named Clifford Lane, As the American delegate of the World Health Organization's trip to China in February of 2020, very early in the pandemic, the WHO sent this delegation, which included Clifford Lane, Anthony Fauci's deputy, and they went to China.
They talked to the Chinese Communist Party, who told them, we've stamped out the virus through draconian lockdown measures, through very strict measures.
Clifford Lane came back and convinced Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx that lockdowns were the way to go.
As members of the President's Coronavirus Task Force, they convinced President Trump that we needed to lock down.
And Deborah Birx then went on a roadshow and met with all the governors and convinced the governors that we needed to lock down or these governors would be responsible for the deaths of millions of people and that blood would be on their hands.
Well, The Chinese Communist Party propaganda obviously turned out not to be true.
China did not stamp out COVID through draconian lockdowns.
There are even more severe lockdowns that are continuing to this day, and nonetheless, they can't get a handle on the virus because so few Chinese people have developed natural immunity.
So China's in very dire straits right now, but that was precisely the regime that we copied We didn't have any empirical evidence that lockdowns would work.
They were wholly untested.
They were part of this biosecurity model of governance and based on a flawed computer model from the Imperial College London.
And the word of essentially one man who took the word of the Chinese Communist Party propaganda at face value.
Once we locked down, the rest of the world followed suit.
And this this ended up being a globally disastrous policy with harmful consequences that will last literally for for decades.
So the Missouri v. Biden case, I think, is very important because if what we're alleging turns out to be true, this will be the largest and most pervasive ongoing violation of Americans' First Amendment free speech rights in American history.
It's no exaggeration.
To say that nothing even during, you know, World War One or World War Two, nothing comes close to the level of censorship that we saw the government directing during COVID.
The recent release of the Twitter files is confirming kind of Twitter's role in social media censorship.
And much of that very likely was was directly the result of the government, you know, under threat of we're going to regulate your industry and you're not going to like that if you don't do what we say.
So the Missouri v. Biden case is very important.
The other case I'm involved in is a case challenging California's Assembly Bill 2098, which is a gag order on physicians.
It empowers the state medical board To discipline any physician and potentially remove their medical license if they contradict the government's preferred COVID pandemic policies.
And we are arguing in this case, myself and four other physicians in California, are arguing that this violates our constitutional First Amendment free speech right and also our equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment because The language of the law is very vague, so it's not clear when a physician may be violating this law, which I think is part of the intent.
The law is going to have a chilling effect on the ability of doctors to individualize care to their patients and to answer questions honestly.
And when a patient asks them, and certainly I would say a patient on, you know, wherever you are on COVID policy, wherever you are on vaccines, wherever you are politically, I don't think there's any patient in the state of California that when they go to their physician, they ask their physician a question, doesn't want an honest answer about what their physician actually thinks.
I don't think any patient wants the physician just to get out a script that was written by the California Department of Health and read it to their patient.
Rather than actually speaking their mind.
Now, a patient could take or leave their recommendation as they see fit.
They can go get a second opinion.
But if your physician has a gag order from the government and can't speak honestly with you about medical questions that you bring up, that's not a physician that you can trust.
And as we all know, trust is the absolutely essential ingredient So, this law is not only a violation of doctors' free speech rights, which is a big enough problem as it is, but ultimately this is an egregious law because it's going to harm the practice of medicine in California.
Good doctors are going to leave the state rather than be bound to a law like this, and ultimately that's going to harm Patients who will not be able to trust their physicians in California if something like this goes forward.
And I fear that if this law is allowed to stand, California will be sort of the tip of the spear in terms of other states adopting similar laws to try to control what happens with physicians in the consulting room.
Dr. Cariati, I wonder if you can address this.
So many people saying, well, why should I care?
Why should I care if my face is scanned at the TSA?
I think it's great.
I think we stop the terrorists coming in.
Why should I care if they can see in my bank account?
I have nothing to hide.
I have nothing to hide is the famous line they use the whole time.
Transhumanism, biomedical security state, That's just advanced technology, Polly.
So I wonder if you could, Dr. Cariati, if you could address those people so we can click that for our social media and send it out to the people that say that consistently.
Well, I would encourage everyone to ask themselves the question, where is my hard line?
Where am I willing to draw the line in the sand and say, Further encroachments upon my privacy, further encroachments upon my civil rights, First Amendment rights, are just not acceptable and I'm going to stand up and say no.
If you don't have such a line, you are inviting Tyranny, whether it comes next week or next month or next year or 10 years from now, I think all of us need to have some kind of limit that even under state of emergency or crisis, we are not going.
There's certain fundamental rights that we're not going to give up.
I talk in the book about the two next steps, digital IDs and central bank digital currencies and the rollout of the biosecurity regime.
Once these things are in place, if we transition to a cashless society, we will be in a situation in which dissenting from The government's preferred policies on just about anything will become de facto impossible.
Why is that?
Well, central bank digital currencies need to be distinguished from decentralized digital currencies like Bitcoin.
A central bank digital currency involves basically a situation in which the government can track each and every one of your transactions, can tax them, you know, moment to moment.
And what you have With the digital dollar in your digital wallet is not actually money in the same way as having a real dollar bill in your pocket.
And the reason is, let's say the government gives you a tax refund of $1,000 in the form of a central bank digital currency, a digital dollar.
The government can actually program that digital money to have certain conditions attached to it.
So they can say, well, you have to spend this money in the next nine months to stimulate the economy.
You can't put it into savings.
Or you have to spend it on these favored industries and you cannot spend it on these disfavored industries, right?
You have to spend it on green energy, for example.
Or, you know, you can give it away, but you can't give it to these disfavored nonprofits like Children's Health Defense because we don't like what they're doing and we think they're spreading misinformation.
So what you have in your pocket is actually not money.
It's a temporary voucher given to you by the government that is meant to nudge or control your ability to engage in financial transactions.
With central bank digital currencies in a cashless society, you can also be boxed out of markets if you're not doing what you're told, right?
So when your biometric information and your vaccine passport and your digital ID is tied into this financial system, you know, if you don't get your booster shot, you know, we're going to
Some algorithm or some actual person is going to push a button and you won't be allowed to travel, you won't be allowed to purchase gasoline, you won't be allowed to purchase complementary and alternative medical treatments or early treatments for COVID.
So this is a system of potentially of total control that the totalitarian regimes of the past could only have dreamed about.
Hitler and Stalin Access to surveillance technologies, but surveillance technologies that look like child's play compared to what these novel technologies would be capable of.
So I include in at the end of the book, an epilogue called Seattle 2020.
And I hope that, you know, curious readers will at least go to the epilogue and dip into it or persevere to the end of the book if they want to read the whole thing and not skip that part.
And what I try to do is imagine in the not too distant future what life is going to look like if these things advance.
And one of the things I do in that section is I say, okay, I'm not introducing any novel technologies that have not yet been invented.
So it's not science fiction in that sense.
It's taking already existing technologies that are available that just haven't been adopted on a widespread scale.
So sometime in the next seven years, if we adopt these technologies, this is what your life is going to look like.
And initially, as you read the epilogue, it sounds like some of these advances are a positive thing.
They're going to be sold based on frictionless travel and frictionless transactions and convenience.
And oh, you forgot your passport or your wallet at home?
No problem.
You're not going to miss your flight at the airport.
We're just going to do a quick iris scan or face ID.
Or fingerprint, you'll be able to go through the Security Line, which sounds, you know, pretty convenient and pretty cool.
But as the story proceeds that I tell in the epilogue, you begin to see, okay, there's some flies in the ointment here, there's some downsides, or there's some individuals or segments of society that are harmed by these policies.
And then by the time you get to the end, without giving away the punchline, hopefully you recognize that these are going to lead to a kind of dystopian regime that I don't think anyone would want to be a part of.
Um, let me change the subject a little bit.
I have some controversial ideas.
I believe that the pandemic occurred in order to bring in these societal changes.
And I doubt that Tony Fauci was convinced of anything because of what Clifford Lane or the Chinese said or did, but that this was a plan that was to be imposed on the entire world through the WHO, as it turned out, that had been designed ahead of time.
Because there were so many other aspects of the response to the pandemic That required pre-planning and agreement of all the nations, virtually all the nations.
And I'd go back as far as even before 9-11, and let me remind the watchers That the nine, the anthrax letters case was never solved.
And the person who was blamed for the anthrax letters, there was no evidence, no solid evidence of any kind that supported the fact that he had done anything.
They never found any anthrax in his car, his home or whatever.
I know him.
He was a friend of mine.
And the FBI's case was challenged by the General Accounting Office, which is Congress's investigational arm, and it was challenged by the National Academy of Science in reports that came out later.
When you look back and you see that the FBI conducted a Keystone Cops type review of the 2001 anthrax letters, you realize they were covering up who really did it and most likely it was the United States government that was involved.
But what the anthrax letters did was begin the overt ushering in of the biomedical surveillance state.
That's right.
So we got the Patriot Act and then we got BioShield Act Even before 9-11, the CDC had gotten a version of the Model Emergency Health Powers Act that was then run through all the states after 9-11 so that the governors would be able to get dictatorial powers in the event of a pandemic or biological warfare.
It seems to me that, and then the FDA did not act the way it ever has before.
It didn't go through its normal procedures.
It basically just rubber-stamped the issuing of EUAs and then licenses for these vaccines and for some other drugs without any evidence of safety.
Yeah, really no evidence of safety or efficacy.
Certainly no risk-benefit analysis.
So I agree with you, the normal public health agencies weren't the ones in charge, but who was in charge?
I would propose that if you look at warp speed, yes, the military basically had some liaison people from the FDA, but they were told what to do.
But it probably wasn't, the top of the pyramid probably wasn't even the military or homeland security, but some other entity rolling out the identical policies around the world.
And I don't know if your book addresses that international issue that all the developed countries blocked the hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and rolled out these untested vaccines.
Yeah.
So I think there was a confluence of corporate interests of the the largest world spanning corporations that have many of them have trillions in assets.
I mean that's that's what the World Economic Forum is.
It's a representative body of the wealthiest Global corporations on the planet and it it exists to advance their interests.
So if you look at the WEF agenda, you see that basically this is this is like a trade trade organization.
That's what in fact they are and and that this sort of power and influence that they have assumed and it's not as though, you know, I don't imagine that there's a smoke field room in Davos where a few people get together and sort of map everything out.
It's more like, you know, Klaus Schwab is a kind of mascot.
He's a kind of, you know, garish representative of actually the ideology and the ways of thinking of all the corporations and their leadership that are involved in the world economic forum.
So he's sort of representative rather than being the main power broker, sort of pulling the strings.
What my book posits is a kind of confluence of interests and a kind of melding of state and corporate power, a sort of new corporatism, which, by the way, is the original definition of fascism.
This word fascism is thrown around indiscriminately these days.
You know, people are fond of calling their political enemies, you know, accusing them of being fascists.
But if you go back to Mussolini's definition of fascism and Giovanni Gentile, who's the the Italian philosopher of fascism, the original definition of fascism was precisely the melding of state in corporate power,
which we saw with the regulatory capture, which we saw with the regulatory capture, which we saw with these world-span corporations influencing the government and the government basically suborning these corporations to do its bidding when it comes to things like censorship.
So what I see is is a network of in of of public and private entities and individuals who all Uh, were managed to advance their own interests during a crisis and during the pandemic.
And, um, you know, whether it was an accidental lab leak or deliberate leak, it's very clear to me at this point that the vaccine was manufactured in a lab.
I can't rule out the hypothesis that it was deliberately released, and there's a lot of at least indirect evidence suggesting that that hypothesis is plausible.
But whether it was an opportunity that presented itself for the advance of this agenda, or an opportunity that was created in order to advance this agenda, that the outcome in the end Was was the same if you look at who benefited whether politically in terms of gains of power or financially in terms of monetary gains and gains in control over markets.
And you saw the ways in which these players behave before, during and after the pandemic things start becoming a lot more clear.
And I agree that.
The thing started at the public health level even prior to 9-11.
So I talk about there was a conference held in D.C.
I believe it was 97 or 98 of leading public health officials and scientists.
And it was orchestrated by and run by none other than Dr. Anthony Fauci.
And there was a very important shift that occurred in terms of framing of the management of a pandemic at this conference back in the late 90s.
And the shift occurred because prior to that, If we're dealing with a respiratory virus, the virus or the illness itself was seen as the enemy, if you want to deploy a military metaphor.
So we need to strengthen ourselves against the virus by strengthening our immune system and by treating people who get sick with the virus early on, and perhaps by vaccines if they can demonstrate good safety and efficacy.
But You know, but the virus or the illness is the enemy.
What happened at this conference was rather than seeing the pathogen as the enemy that we need to strengthen ourselves against or treat when we get sick with it, the human population itself was seen as the problem because human beings are a vector of disease.
So the way to control a pandemic was to control entire populations at a very micro level.
So this subtle shift created a situation in which rather than the pathology is the illness or the pathology is something caused by a virus or bacteria or what have you, the pathology or the problem was human beings themselves.
And I think that subtle shift was very important in terms of reframing public health as biosecurity, as the control of persons rather than the control of a novel pathogen.
That shift has been in the works for more than 20 years, and we saw it manifest, I think, most fully during the pandemic.
But that model of, you know, we need to control entire populations at a very micro level, the biosecurity model, is going to continue to advance if we don't wake up and recognize, okay, this is not really about public health.
This is not really about Um, individual or population health.
This is about power.
This is about control.
This is about instrumentalizing and using crises like public health crisis crises in order to gain and maintain political and economic power.
Erin, I have not ordered any COVID vaccines for my patients and I will not, but if I had, I would open up the bottle or the box and I would find a vial and then I would find, instead of a package insert that typically would show things like pharmacokinetics and contraindications and side effects,
This page intentionally left blank and it boggles my mind that people have given about 13 billion doses of this vaccine with a blank package insert.
So my question to you as a psychiatrist is, how did the pharmaceutical industry decide that people would find that somehow acceptable and just plug right away and get a shot in every arm?
It's astonishing what happened with the mass vaccination campaign.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around, you know, what happened with the mass vaccination campaign.
But yes, the way in which the authorization, the clinical trials were run, the suppressing of clinical trial whistleblowers like Brooke Jackson, another whistleblower from one of the largest sites in Argentina that I was in touch with, That was entirely ignored by the media.
People, well look, people had been subjected to What I consider to be emotional abuse for the better part of a year with lockdowns and school closures.
And then that was utilized to try to coerce and force compliance with vaccines.
So yeah, you can get a modicum of normal life back.
All you have to do is get this jab.
Everyone's saying it's safe and effective.
We're going to call you names and exclude you from polite conversation if you raise any Questions about it.
I mean, that's what the anti-vax label is meant to do.
It's meant to be not a descriptive label, but an epithet, you know, in order to discredit people who raise questions about vaccines.
And so those kinds of social framing and political framing of the vaccine question, I think, influenced a lot of people.
Early on, people were being bribed.
We may have forgotten about the Joints for Jabs program in Washington State, where if you got a vaccine, you got some free marijuana from the local dispensary, you know, brought to you by public health officials who really care about your health.
That was supported, by the way, by a federal grant.
So your taxpayer dollars at work, even if you don't live in the state of Washington.
But people were bribed with, you know, lottery tickets and, you know, chances to win a scholarship and so forth.
When the bribery stopped working, Um, then people were, uh, were nudged and coerced by being excluded from public gatherings.
And when that didn't work, uh, employers started mandating and under the threat of losing one's job, uh, people were, uh, people were oftentimes coerced into doing something that they really weren't comfortable with.
And you could show them the blank package insert at that point.
And they could know that they are taking a risk that they don't want to take by getting the job.
But gosh, I need to, you know, I have children.
I need to support my family.
If I lose my job, I don't know what I'm going to do.
I mean, this is such an egregious violation of human rights.
It's so horrifying to me that we allow this to happen.
you know, allowed it to proceed under the banner of science as though these policies had any meaningful scientific justification.
I mean, it's really astonishing to me that the American people accepted this.
But I think I think it's easier to understand if we place it in the context of the year of prolonged lockdowns and school closures as a sort of form of psychological abuse, to coerce people into passive compliance with anything that would allow them to get their their lives back.
If we hadn't had the lockdowns and school closures, I think we wouldn't have been able to see the level of coercive vaccination policies that were permitted in 2021.
So I think it's impossible to understand 2021 without understanding what happened to us in 2020.
Right.
It was all very premeditated and planned out in a social conditioning that led up to where we are.
We're so thankful for you, Dr. Cariotti, for coming on today and sharing all about your excellent book.
Let's share with our viewers again where they can purchase this so we can get more people learning the truth and seeing the great work that you did for the new abnormal rise of the biomedical security state.
So where can people find this?
So you can find it at all major booksellers.
It's available on Amazon.
If you don't like buying from Amazon, I don't blame you.
It's on Barnes & Noble, Books A Million, Indie Books, any of the online booksellers or the large bookstores.
It's available on audiobook, so you can download it on Audible.
It's available on eReader, like Kindle and so forth.
So, multiple formats, hardcover, audiobook, and eReader.
Yeah, get yourself a copy of the book.
I like to joke that the book makes a great Christmas gift for anyone who fired you during the pandemic.
But I hope you find the book helpful.
I would love if you wanted to post a review to Barnes & Noble or Amazon.
That can always help with sales.
So I appreciate the opportunity to come on and speak with all of you.
I'm a great admirer of the work that you're doing at I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about these issues and to discuss the book with you.
Great.
And where can people follow you and more news that you're putting out there, more information?
So I'm active on Twitter, at A. Cariotti is my Twitter handle.
I have a Substack newsletter, AaronCariotti.substack.com.
Human Flourishing is the name of the newsletter.
Do a search for Aaron Cariotti's Substack.
I post on that usually once or twice a week.
And I have a personal website, AaronCariotti.com, with some old articles and interviews posted.
So I have an online presence.
I would love if you wanted to subscribe to either the free or the paid version of the Substack newsletter.
And if you're so inclined, you can follow me on Twitter.
Great.
Well, thank you for your bravery, your courage, your intellect and your passion and speaking out on this.
Can't wait to read the book.
It looks fantastic.
I'm sure many of our viewers feel the same way.
So thank you so much for joining us today.
I'm just going to close out with a couple announcements for our viewers of big shows to come up next.
So tomorrow, you're definitely going to want to tune in at 11 a.m.
Eastern Time, 8 a.m.
Pacific Time.
We have Doctors for COVID Ethics in the UK column.
They're going to be hosting the 5th COVID Disciplinary Symposium entitled, In the Midst of the Darkness, Light Prevails.
So you can watch it right here on CHDTV.
It's going to be a host of amazing panel speakers, eminent physicians, scientists, and experts, including Dr. Bakari, Katherine Austin-Fitts, Polly and Meryl and Brian will all be on, along with Patrick Wood and many other people.
So again, that's tomorrow a.m., 11 a.m.
Eastern Time, 8 a.m.
Pacific Time.
Also tomorrow, you will see Good Morning CHD at 10 a.m.
Eastern Time, 7 a.m.
Pacific Time, where we're going to have two Australian lawyers on, Peter Pham and Julian Gillespie.
They're going to be discussing a really important case, the Australian babies case, which is against the use of Moderna's Spikevax, and it's used in babies at six months old up to five years old in Australia.
And then next week, you're going to be right back here for Friday Roundtable.
We're going to have Toby Rogers back on, everyone's favorite.
We're going to be talking all about Fauci, his deposition, all of his lies, his flip-flopping over the span of his career, and especially over the last few years with his failed policies and response to COVID.
So thank you so much, everyone, for tuning in today and joining us.
We'll see you back here tomorrow where we're bringing you more of the truth.
We hope everyone has a great weekend.
▲
Export Selection