All Episodes
Previous Next
June 19, 2013 - InfoWars Nightly News
52:18
20130619_Wed_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Transcription by CastingWords
I'm David Knight.
It's Wednesday, June 19th, 2013, and here are our top stories.
Tonight, on the InfoWars Nightly News, the Russian cyberspace head calls for the internet kill switch.
Then, will the EPA allow even more toxins to reach your dinner plate?
And the official TWA 800 story comes crashing down.
All that and more coming up on the Info Wars Nightly News.
I mean, just over the top, authoritarian scum!
Well, when government fails, or when it acts criminally, they always use that as an excuse to make government bigger.
And that's true of other governments as well.
The Russian government now is using the U.S.
snooping as an excuse to extend a Internet kill switch.
In an article by Paul Joseph Watson on InfoWars, Russian cyberspace head calls for Internet kill switch.
The head of Russia's cyberspace policy today called for global governments to react to the NSA spy scandal by creating a UN-style body that would have regulatory control over the Internet, including a web kill switch.
During a speech at a specially arranged meeting initiated by the upper house of the Russian Parliament, Information Society Development Commission head Ruslan Gatirov called for a newly created group to control the World Wide Web, quote, so that everyone, not only the U.S., has access to the master switch.
As Alex Newman reported, the controversial plan discussed at the conference would allow governments to shut down the web if they claimed it could interfere with the internal affairs of other UN member regimes.
Now, this is nothing new.
For several years now, every few months, the UN has been pushing for just this sort of thing.
They just had a conference in May, 14th through 16th, in Geneva.
It was the 5th World Telecommunications Policy Forum, and it was run by the UN's ITU.
So they've been trying to get the internet under UN control where they could shut it down at any time for quite some time.
But who needs a kill switch when you can just go in and accuse people of a copyright violation as they did with Mega Upload and take everything that they've got?
And now they have deleted that.
In an article from RT, Kim.com says, all Mega Upload servers are wiped out, have been wiped out without warning in a data massacre.
Kim Dotcom has accused the U.S.
government and LeaseWeb, one of the hosting providers of former file sharing site MegaUpload, of deleting millions of personal files without warning.
This is the largest data massacre in the history of the Internet, Dotcom wrote on Twitter.
Lawyers representing his former company have repeatedly asked LeaseWeb not to delete mega-upload servers while court proceedings are pending in the U.S., he said.
My goal is, within the next five years, I want to encrypt half of the Internet.
Just re-establish a balance between a person, an individual, and the state.
He said in an interview, because right now, we're living very close to this vision of George Orwell, and I think it's not the right way.
It's the wrong path that the government is on, thinking that they can spy on everyone.
And that's a key thing, because in this situation, his case is still before trial.
And so, what they've essentially done is destroy the evidence.
They still have to prove their case that he's violated their copyright, and there's a lot of information that's there, a lot of personal information, that is of course not copyrighted.
That all has been destroyed.
Right down the memory hole.
But the encouraging thing is that there are a lot of internet entrepreneurs, a lot of people who are tech savvy like Kim Dotcom, who are now working to try to reestablish, as he said, a balance between the individual and the state.
Now of course, The Internet is part of a battle.
It's part of the war for your mind.
It's actually part of a kind of a Cold War.
This Cold War is really not between nation states.
It's between the individuals and the governments who seem to be teaming up, as we saw from the first article, with Russia and the UN against individuals everywhere.
Yeah, a world government, a new world order.
And as part of that Cold War, there is a strategic high ground.
That high ground is your privacy and your data.
If you don't own that privacy, you don't own that data.
The government has a much easier time of controlling you.
But in a Cold War, people still die.
And we just learned today that Michael Hastings, a journalist who was very instrumental in bringing General McChrystal's career to an end, and exposing things that were happening in Afghanistan, died in what was called a fiery crash.
Rolling Stone Magazine called Michael Hastings a fearless journalist who refused to cozy up to power.
His death at 33 came by way of a fire-fueled and explosive crash.
It sounded like a bomb went off in the middle of the night.
My house shook.
The windows were rattling.
Couldn't have written a scene like this for a movie where the engine flies from the car, which was about, I don't know, 50, 60 yards up, right down here to this telephone pole.
Yeah, he couldn't write a scene like that for the movies.
Why?
Because nobody would believe it.
You have to have a certain amount of credibility, even in a fictional movie.
But the story that's being sold by the mainstream media, that he was going at a very high rate of speed, and his car burst into flames, just doesn't make any sense, if you look at the evidence.
First of all, look at that engine that he had there.
He's pointing to the engine.
It's not scathed at all by a fire.
And it also, if you look at the pictures of the car, It is not deformed.
It's up against a tree, but there's not anything there that the car is not smashed up.
And there's a lot of questions about this.
But first, let's take a look at some of the statistics about how likely is it that someone's going to die in a fiery crash.
Well, according to FEMA statistics, there's only about 70 to 80 vehicle fires a year.
And they say that there's only 2 out of 1,000 of the vehicle fires that people die in.
That's a 0.2% chance of dying.
Of course, as Darren McBreen pointed out, if you're an honest journalist pointing out things that the government or powerful men are doing that are wrong, your chances go up significantly higher than 0.2%.
But this is a very, very unusual case.
If you look at the pictures, if you look at what was said, First of all, the woman said it sounded like a bomb.
Now, one of the reasons why so few people die in a fiery crash is because usually a crash, the people that die are pinned in a car that has crashed into something and they can't get out and the engine starts to catch fire with leaking gas.
That was not the case here, because you can see the car, the picture of the car is not deformed.
It's not deformed, it was not struck in the back, it is up against a tree, but very little of the car is deformed, and as he said, the engine was thrown 50 to 60 yards away.
Now, in an article by Jim Stone, freelance journalist at jimstonefreelance.com, he points out some of these issues.
And he talks about how the rear passenger door is blown open and shredded with the rest of the car nicely intact.
And he says, unlike the so-called single eyewitness report that says the car did not impact a tree.
And you can look at that picture of the car against the tree and you can tell that it was not smashed flat.
It would be smashed flat if it hit that tree and of course the engine would not be ejected.
He said, look at where it stopped.
There's not much damage to it.
And of course, there's no damage to the rear part of the car.
And he points out from those pictures that it looks like the rear part of the car, the very first pictures that were taken, show paint still on the car.
As you see the last picture there, pretty much all of the paint has been burned off.
But the fire is concentrated towards the back of the car.
And that just isn't what happens in a fiery crash.
Typically, it's some kind of an engine malfunction.
Usually, it's such a low death rate with fiery crashes.
Usually, it's because somebody has time to pull over.
Their engine catches fire.
They pull over.
They get out of the car.
They call the fire department.
They come there.
It's only when they get pinned in a crash.
But the car is not smashed up that way.
So, very, very unusual circumstances with that crash, and frankly, it just doesn't look like the narrative makes any sense.
Only one person said he was going at a high rate of speed.
And certainly if he was going at a high rate of speed, you would expect to see much more damage done to the chassis of the car.
Now, his last article that Michael Hastings wrote was why Democrats love to spy on America.
He was a reporter for BuzzFeed at the time.
And he says, besides Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, most Democrats have abandoned their civil liberty positions during the age of Obama.
With a new leak investigation looming, Democrat leadership is now being forced to confront all the secrets that they've tried to hide.
And he says, Glenn Greenwald's exposure to the NSA's massive domestic spy program has revealed the entire cast of current Democrat leaders as a gang of civil liberty opportunists.
Couldn't have said it better.
Whose true passion, it seems, was in trolling George W. Bush for eight years on matters of national security.
Not wanting to do anything on their own.
They've completely changed the narrative.
So, as he points out, with the exception of just a couple of senators, Ron Wyden and Udall, the Democrats have been as bad, if not worse, than George Bush.
They're just using it for political advantage, as we see.
And they're locking arms with their war-mongering Republican colleagues, as we see with this next article from Dianne Feinstein and Mike Rogers.
Now, of course, Feinstein is the Senate Intelligence Committee head, and Mike Rogers is her correspondent in the House, and he has been pushing over and over again CISPA.
And they're trying to make a case That the spying is necessary.
They're trying to make a case that they've actually stopped terrorist events.
And they're having a very hard time doing it, because the facts are somewhat contradictory.
As Kurt Nemo points out in InfoWars, he says on Tuesday, Feinstein said there are no hearings currently planned on the NSA scandal, and nothing will happen until the intelligence community decides, quote, what can be said, unquote, about the massive and unprecedented violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Obama also said that the NSA program has the oversight of the court.
He refrained from mentioning that the court involved is a secret FISA court, itself an unconstitutional aberration created as a response to decades of constitutional abuse by intelligence agencies.
And on Wednesday, Obama tried to defend the Stasi state with its unwarranted intrusion.
He said, lives have been saved, he claimed, speaking in Berlin, where he met with his counterpart, German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Well, you know, I'm reminded of the Newsweek March 2009 it was when Obama took office and they came out with the headline that said we are all socialists now.
Well I guess more specifically the kind of socialists that we are are East German Stasi socialists.
That's the kind of state we've set up except we have technology and the government has power that the East German Stasi could only dream of.
It gives them a chance to look into every aspect of your life and put together an entire picture of you and Basically, keep that information forever so they can go back and blackmail people with it.
They can blackmail, let's say, Supreme Court judges.
People have suggested that maybe that happened with the Obamacare decision.
They can take down directors even of the CIA with information that they gleaned from their personal account.
What can they do with you?
Well, time will tell.
Now, we also have an article on InfoWars that says, no, the NSA spying did not prevent a terror attack on Wall Street.
This article from InfoWars, it says, in response to the revelation that the NSA has been illegally spying on all Americans for more than a decade, NSA Chief General Keith Alexander claimed that the spying prevented a terrorist attack on Wall Street and the New York subway.
However, Mr. Ozani pleaded guilty to providing material support.
This is the guy that they're using as an example.
In his case, money to Al Qaeda and not to terror planning.
His May 2010 plea agreement makes no mention of anything related to the New York Stock Exchange or to any bomb plot.
And his defense attorney said Tuesday that the stock market allegation was news to him.
So all he did was he gave money.
And how much money did he give?
Well, $23,000.
That is far less money than the CIA has given to Al Qaeda.
Far, far less.
Just a few of the weapons that we give them continuously would be many times more than that.
And it bears repeating to say that the first time that Feinstein and Mike Rogers got together the Sunday news show after the first revelations about PRISM and data mining.
They were trying to make a case, again as they're still trying to make a case, trying to find something that they prevented by illegally and unconstitutionally spying on people.
And in that particular case they were talking about Najibullah Zazi.
Uh, and that failed attempt.
And actually, that guy, who really was a terrorist, was caught by standard detective work.
And it wasn't even American detective work, it was out of the UK, where that case was broken.
Now the question is, if no one is watching the watchers, and they aren't, then how do you keep the watchers from watching you?
You know, we've got Google Glass coming online, and a lot of people are concerned about increased invasions of privacy, because it won't just be the surveillance cameras that are everywhere.
It's going to be people walking around with Google Glasses on, feeding this up to the Internet, to Google servers, which we have now learned are being tapped and analyzed and stored by the NSA.
Now a lot of people are angry about that.
They're calling these people who might wear Google glasses, glass holes.
I guess we could say that.
But there's another way that you can fight this besides just ridiculing people who are doing it and trying to make it a socially unacceptable practice.
We've got this report out of Japan and these people are actually, they're working on a way to confuse face recognition even with infrared cameras.
This is the world's first pair of glasses which prevent facial recognition by cameras.
They are currently under development by Japan's National Institute of Informatics.
Photos taken without people's knowledge can violate privacy.
For example, photos may be posted online, along with metadata including the time and location.
But by wearing this device, you can stop your privacy from being infringed in such ways.
As you can see in that video, they have people looking into a computer monitor at the same time they're being face scanned.
And when the computer monitor can recognize their face and lock in on it, they get a green bar or a green square around it.
And as soon as they turn on the infrared LEDs, that goes away.
It confuses it.
Now, he's saying that, of course, there are other types of cameras that can be used to identify you, do face recognition, and they're working on alternative ways to defeat that as well.
And I think they're going to have a really strong market for that, especially if they put them in, let's say, a Guy Fawkes mask.
We'll see how that develops.
Now, our next two stories are about whistleblowers.
And it turns out that these are two new whistleblower stories, actually, that we haven't covered before.
Turns out that whistleblowers are turning out to be some of our best defense against criminal actions by the government.
It is really necessary and very welcome.
We're all very grateful to people who come forward and speak out when they see the government doing criminal things, things that are unconstitutional.
In this particular case, this is reported, this is exclusive from Foreign Policy, they say that a Whistleblower says that the State Department is trying to bully her into silence.
The State Department investigator who accused colleagues last week of using drugs, soliciting prostitutes, and having sex with minors.
Oh, maybe these pedophile networks that Alex is constantly telling everybody about.
Says that Foggy Bottom is now engaged in an intimidation campaign to stop her.
After the CBS News made inquiries in the State Department about the charges, Shulman says investigators from the State Department's Inspector General promptly arrived at her door.
They talked to both kids and never identified themselves, she said.
First the older brother, then the younger daughter, and a minor asking for their mom's place of work.
Cell phone number and they camped out for four to five hours.
Shulman says the purpose of the visit was to get Fedinism to sign a document admitting that she stole State Department materials such as the memos leaked to CBS.
Shulman says it was crucial that she did not sign the document because her separation agreement with the State Department includes a provision allowing for disclosures of misconduct.
And she said none of the materials were classified.
Now this is exactly what they did to the NSA whistleblower that we talked about on Monday.
There were three major whistleblowers and Jim Drake was one that they came after and tried to get him for improper handling of documents.
They said they found documents at his apartment that were classified, although it turned out that he didn't have any classified documents.
And some of the documents had been retroactively classified after they found them at his apartment.
So, in both of these cases, they're trying to use very tenuous means to try to persecute these people, and they were very intimidating with her.
They threatened her children, camped out there for four or five hours, and said that they would be coming after her for criminal charges, threatening criminal charges.
And that brings us to our quote of the day, and this quote is from Bill Moyers, and he says, Secrecy is the freedom tyrants dream of.
That is very true.
You know, we talked about when we were covering Vildeburg how ironic it was that at the same time all these scandals are breaking that are showing people what we've been talking about, what Alex has been talking about for decades, and that is the government is collecting everyone's information, storing it, spying on everybody.
Doesn't believe that anyone has any right to any kind of privacy.
And yet, they maintain what they do in absolute secrecy.
They demand the ultimate secrecy.
And so we see as individuals lose their secrecy, lose their privacy, government continually gains more and more secrecy.
It's kind of a zero-sum game.
Just like freedom and tyranny is a zero-sum game.
Now another thing that's coming out from whistleblowers is information about the TWA 800 crash.
That it was not due to gas tank explosion.
And this is former investigators coming forward and talking about it.
These former investigators whose credentials range from the NTSB, TWA, Airline Pilots Union and forensic experts now claim that radar and forensic evidence shows the wiring was not the cause of the crash.
The explosive forces came from outside the airplane, not the center fuel tank.
The agenda was that this is an accident, make it so.
I remember this when it happened 17 years ago, and I remember there was a lot of chatter.
There wasn't an internet, there wasn't much of an alternative media at the time, but people were still communicating, let's say on bulletin boards, that sort of thing.
There was still communication going on, and much of it was in alternative news publications, hard copy.
And there was a lot of information about how the government was going around and taking information from witnesses and essentially kind of doing a, not just a perfunctory investigation, but covering up and taking data away That investigators had, and that's exactly what we see in this article.
In the article it says that producers of an upcoming documentary on TWA Flight 800, which exploded and crashed into the waters off Long Island on July 17, 1996, killed all 230 people on board.
These producers claim to have proof that an explosion outside the Paris-bound flight caused the crash, and six former investigators who took part in the film say that there was a cover-up, and they want the case reopened.
Again, whistleblowers coming forward and talking about what was covered up.
They go on to say, Jim Spear, an accident investigator at the time of the crash for the Airline Pilots Association, who shifted through the recovered wreckage in a hangar, said he discovered holes consistent with those that would be formed by a high-energy blast in the right wing.
He requested it be tested for explosives, and when the test came back positive, he was physically removed from the room by two CIA agents.
Dozens of eyewitnesses in the Long Island area also recall seeing something resembling a flare or a firework that was ascending, not descending, and culminating in an explosion, the CIA said in a 2008 report.
Had the crash been the result of state-sponsored terrorism, it would have been considered an act of war, said the CIA report.
Now listen to this recording that was part of the air traffic control chatter at the time between the air traffic control and commercial airline pilots who saw the explosions.
And we saw two fireballs go down to the, there seemed to be a light on, I thought it was a landing light on, it was coming right at us at about, I don't know, 15,000 feet or something like that, and I thought it was a landing light on, maybe it was a fire, I don't know.
So he said he saw something that he thought at first had landing lights turned on.
And he turned on his landing lights to make sure it didn't collide with him.
And then he, as he thought about it, he said, well, maybe it was a fire.
Maybe it wasn't landing lights.
And as you saw in that video roll, the supposition is that it's either a terrorist attack.
Most people, however, believe that it wasn't a surface-to-air shoulder missile from terrorists.
There was a nearby naval exercise going on at the time, and many people believe that this was a cover-up by the U.S.
government to keep people from realizing that perhaps an aberrant missile took that plane down.
Now, at the time, approximately, according to Wikipedia, approximately 80 FBI agents conducted interviews with potential witnesses daily.
Yet, listen to what they did.
No verbatim records of the witness interviews were produced.
Instead, the agents who conducted the interviews wrote summaries that they then submitted into the investigation.
And witnesses were not asked to review the summaries.
They were not asked to correct the summaries.
And included in some of the witness summaries were drawings or diagrams of what the witnesses observed, but of course, the FBI was not interested in that.
And it is also very unusual for the FBI to even investigate a crash like that.
That's usually done by the National Transportation Safety Board, the NTSB.
And so, there were a lot of questions being asked at the time.
People who asked those questions were being called, guess what?
Conspiracy theorists.
If you don't believe implausible explanations that are put out by the government, if you question those, you're called a conspiracy theorist.
But in reality, what you are is what people used to call skeptics, or maybe just journalists.
They're trying to do an honest job.
And now we see, 17 years later, we see several people coming forward because they're bothered by this cover-up.
And I think it'll be a very interesting documentary.
I think it'll be very much like A Noble Lie, which really put together, summarized so many aspects of the Oklahoma City bombing, and told the real, true story that was never told in the media.
Now, we also have a video that is being put out by the same producers of A Noble Lie.
It's a state of mind, psychology of control.
And it's pre-booking now at InfoWars.
And we have an exclusive on that for at least 90 days.
It's the only place you can get it.
And right now, if you pre-book, You can get a free video with that that explains in a very entertaining cartoon way how the Federal Reserve and money works.
So take a look at that.
It's a great way to wake people up.
When we cover stories in the news, we have to cover the high points.
We cannot go in depth to give the full explanation, the full background, all the investigation, all the evidence that people can uncover in documentaries.
It's a great way to wake people up.
Now, it's not just assassinations by drones.
It's not just mafia car bombings of journalists like we were talking about earlier.
Murder is really a way of life for the Washington Feds.
And we have a Pulitzer Prize winning author pointing that out in a new book.
President Obama's secret CIA hit squad is detailed in The Way of the Knife.
This is a story from The New American.
This is a story behind the development and deployment of this presidential killing corps, told in the way of the knife, the CIA, a secret army, and a war at the ends of the earth.
Latest book by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Mark Mazzetti.
President Barack Obama has converted the CIA, he says, into his personal army and granted it unfettered assassination authority.
And just as the CIA has come on to take tasks traditionally associated with the military, with spies turned into soldiers, just the opposite has also occurred.
The American military has been dispersed in the dark spaces of American foreign policy with commando teams running spying missions that Washington would have never dreamed of approving in the years before 9-11.
Prior to the attacks of September 11, the Pentagon did very little human spying, and the CIA was not officially permitted to kill.
Not officially, of course.
In the years since, each has done a great deal of both, and a military intelligence complex has emerged to carry out the new American way of life.
Now, the sad thing about this is that, as he points out, and as we learned in the Church Commission, the CIA was very much in the assassination business.
But what we're seeing now is a government that is absolutely unashamed of its criminal, unconstitutional, immoral, unlawful assassinations.
I mean, what else can you say about it?
And yet they do it in the open.
They do it without anyone going to jail.
And they're basically flaunting these murders Now, coming up after the break, we're going to have an interview with one of the plaintiffs in the recent Supreme Court case, Janae Gerrard, and this is the case about genetics.
We had a large company try to get a patent on human genes, and we're going to talk about the results of that, and we're going to talk about her activism and how they got that turned back.
But it takes a little bit more for victory against some of these things.
As that was happening just this week, the EPA is now proposing new regulations that will make breast cancer, which the gene test was all about detecting your risk of breast cancer, well now that risk is going to go through the ceiling if these new EPA regulations are going to go through.
And in an article today, Natural News pointed out that this is a time where the EPA is looking at getting public comment, and very few people are leaving public comment.
They say, this is an urgent action alert from Natural News and the Health Ranger.
Public comments are due by July 1st, that's only a couple of weeks away, to object to new EPA regulations which are already in place allowing glyphosate contamination of food crops.
Now that is Monsanto's Roundup.
That's the scientific name for it.
Glyphosate.
Allowing that to contaminate food crops, edible oils, and waterways at concentrations which are thousands of times higher.
Thousands of times higher than the amount needed to cause cancer.
It allows forage and hay tuft to contain up to 100 parts per million glyphosate.
That's over 1 million times the concentration needed to cause cancer.
It allows oilseed crops, such as flax oil, canola oil, soybean oil, olive oil, etc., to contain up to 40 parts per million of glyphosate, over 100,000 times concentration needed to cause cancer.
And the EPA says that no one even commented on all of this when it was initially filed.
And there were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
Since then, a total of only 396 people have posted a public comment at the time of this story being published today.
That's right, only 396 people had left a comment.
And of course that is something that's important to go in and comment on that from the EPA.
They take your silence as an excuse, as your approval, your silent approval.
So don't give them that approval.
Tell them that you're very much opposed to them increasing the glyphosate allowances on crops and waterways.
As the article pointed out, it's several thousand times, a hundred thousand times, a million times in some of these cases, what we know is a level that increases the rate of breast cancer and other forms of cancer by several hundred percent.
So it was five hundred percent, I believe, to a thousand percent, which is like five to ten times.
Uh, what you would normally have as risk.
So at the same time, we get some positive news from the Supreme Court saying that it is now going to be more affordable for people to do tests to assess their risk of breast cancer.
The EPA then turns around and is proposing regulation that is going to allow Monsanto to have roundup runoff that is going to send the risk of breast cancer and other forms of cancer through the roof.
Now, with our borders essentially open, how do you get an immigration bill passed?
Well, you do that with a lot of amendments. - While the NSA is busy tapping your phones and the you do that with a lot of amendments. - While the NSA is busy tapping your phones and Here's a huge example of how the bureaucracy has run our country into the ground.
To the north, we have ships sitting in seaports overnight waiting to be cleared because of so-called changed policy that keeps ships from being inspected until regular business hours.
And to the South, we have illegals crossing and not being stopped because of various reasons ranging from sequester to no more detention space or the latest, running out of gas.
Officials in South Texas are overwhelmed with illegal immigration issues.
With borders essentially open and little enforcement on illegal immigration apprehension, how does an immigration bill get pushed through?
With many amendments.
Senator Ted Cruz tweets, I'll file amendment to immigration bill that permits states to require ID before registering voters and close this hole in Fed statutory law.
Senator Rand Paul has introduced an amendment called Trust but Verify that would give the Congress power to vote and require the DHS to deliver on border security promises, including border fence and an identification system.
The Paul outline also states if the border is not secure, then the processing of undocumented immigrants stops until it is secure.
Securing the border and the vote is vital, and getting the DHS out of 7-Elevens and onto the border makes more sense.
The DHS has enough money to run their outlandish urban warfare drills in the middle of Los Angeles.
Why not take their Hollywood acting to live action on the border?
The new DVD, State of Mind, exposes the technology behind mass mind control.
For a limited time, when you order it on DVD or Blu-ray at InfoWarsStore.com, get the animated film, The American Dream, for free!
Visit InfoWarsShop.com and secure your copy today!
I'm Gigi Ornette with an InfoWars Nightly News Alert.
We'll stay tuned after the break for an interview with Janae Gerrard and find out what her victory at the Supreme Court means for the health of you and your loved ones.
Now you can watch Alex Jones live at Infowars.com forward slash show.
You'll find links to all of our content there and a free 15-day trial for Prison Planet TV.
You can also browse the network, the Infowars Nightly News, and over 60 movies and documentaries all together in one place.
You can watch the Alex Jones Radio Show live as it happens.
So check it out, InfoWars.com forward slash show.
Are we choosing our own paths, our own destiny?
Or has it been pre-selected for us?
C.S.
Lewis said, when training beats education, civilization dies.
We need to always be cognizant of, as a free society, that information can be used as a weapon.
Barrier to discovery is not ignorance, it's the illusion of knowledge.
We are seen as nothing but biological androids.
To gain control of education in America, not for a philanthropic purpose, But to change the thinking of the American people.
From the time we're very young we're taught to, you know, worship authority basically because that's our key to survival as young children.
Discover the history, the present, and the future of mind control.
From compulsory state education to the Hollywood media brainwashing machine.
We are kept in perpetual bondage to the ideas that shape our actions.
In the CIA, scientists could actually film people who had been surreptitiously dosed with LSD.
There's a brain entrainment process that takes place.
That gives the government free reign to create whatever story or narrative it wants to create.
Whatever the public face of something is, whatever they're talking about publicly, there's something else over here they're probably not looking at.
How to engineer the opinion of the American people so that they would fully endorse, not only endorse, but demand a war.
When you watch mainline establishment television, you are putting yourself in front of a barrel of a gun.
Discover the history, the present, and the future of mind control, psychological warfare, brainwashing.
Are we controlled and manipulated?
You bet!
That's mind control par excellence.
Find out how deep the rabbit hole really goes with this new groundbreaking documentary film, State of Mind.
Available exclusively at InfoWars.com.
The important thing about the Pro-1 filter today is that the material we use for removing fluoride and other heavy metals now will remove the latest form of fluoride called hydrofluorosilicic acid.
There's no other fluoride reduction filter out there that will remove that type of fluoride.
It's extremely important because Today we're hearing more and more cities are using that form of fluoride.
We've been having medication forced on us through the water system for quite a while.
Most people don't realize it.
Most people don't realize the negative effects of fluoride.
There's a wide range of health effects that are attributed to fluoride.
Bottom line, why should somebody get this new Pro-1 Pro-Pure filter?
The reason to buy the Pro-1, it's an all-in-one filter.
It's convenient, easy to use.
It doesn't require the add-on fluoride filter.
And in addition, this filter removes the latest form of fluoride called hydrofluorosilicic acid.
Well, the question is, what can be patented?
Now, we all agree that intellectual property should be protected.
You probably think of a patent as something that is very specific, a specific invention.
But patents have become something that is very broadly defined.
If you look at interface patents, for example, you'll find that there are patents for playing a video on a browser window, something that general without any specifics to it.
Now, this has come recently to affect all of our health, not just the gadgets that we buy.
And there's a Supreme Court decision, we have a plaintiff with us that was in that decision, that determined whether or not our human genes could be patented.
And joining us in the studio today is Janae Gerard.
Janae, welcome.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
Well, thank you.
We appreciate you taking this all the way to the Supreme Court.
That's not an easy fight.
I mean, you had cancer, and you had to go through that, and then you had to go through fighting the legal system.
Tell us a little bit about how you got involved in this, and tell us your story about how this testing made a difference in your cancer situation.
Well, basically, I was originally diagnosed at age 36 in 2006.
And at that time, I got the diagnosis, and so they kind of rush you in to figure out what your next steps are.
And after getting my diagnosis, I had to meet with the oncologist.
And the oncologist basically said, we'd like to determine whether or not you're predisposed for the breast cancer gene, either the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene.
And I said, well, how do you do that?
And they said, well, there's one company that runs the test and we take a blood sample and we send it in and then we can determine that.
The reason that that was important is because if you're BRCA1 positive, that means that you should consider getting a double mastectomy versus a single.
And then if you're BRCA2, that means that you're at a higher chance, a five times higher chance, of not only getting breast cancer again, or a recurrence, but also ovarian cancer.
So I actually tested positive for the BRCA2 gene.
So that was in my 30s.
I was divorced.
It was very disconcerting because I didn't have children and I was going to have to make some really tough decisions.
Right.
And so I had gotten second opinions along every step of the way with my treatment, including pathology of my tumor, you know, my surgical decisions.
And so I thought it quite natural to get a second opinion on the BRCA test before I made these major decisions.
But they wouldn't let me.
Myriad Laboratory wouldn't let me.
They wouldn't let me run it again.
They wouldn't even run it again?
Yeah.
Wow.
Now, why wouldn't they run it again?
Did they give you a reason why they would not do it?
No.
No reason?
No reason.
Wow, that's amazing.
So, what did you decide to do at that point?
Well, I decided to go ahead and do the double mastectomy and also to do the oophorectomy, which is ovarian removal.
I thought it was the safest thing to reduce my chances of a reoccurrence.
Cancer runs in my family, so I had some questions about just historically with my family, what that might mean.
So I went ahead and made those choices.
Now, how did you get involved in the lawsuit?
Well, ACLU has a subset called the Women's Rights Project.
And so they take on cases that they believe are unconstitutional.
So at the time, they started looking for women that represented different facets of a lawsuit against Myriad.
So, for example, one, her insurance was not accepted by Myriad.
She's a single mom, she couldn't afford it.
Mm-hmm.
Another was... That's quite expensive.
$3,600.
Wow.
Yeah.
Wow.
And they're the only ones allowed to do it.
They patented the test.
No, the gene.
Well, the gene, exactly, which they wouldn't even let anybody else look at the gene that they had discovered this.
Ironically, there are a number of institutions that could run the test, but they would slap them with a cease and desist order saying it was illegal because they own the patent.
Wow.
That's amazing.
Yeah.
So how did you find that out?
About their monopoly, essentially, on looking at the gene?
When I tried to get my second opinion, and I couldn't find it.
So then you looked up the ACLU and you found out that they were starting this class action lawsuit?
Actually, they found me.
They found me.
I was a referral from another patient that knows me really well, and they thought, because of my status, that I would be a good fit for the case.
Now, did it lose at some lower court levels, or did you win all the way through?
This is the hard part.
It started at the state court, and we actually won in New York.
And then it got appealed, and then it went to a federal court, where they said that it was legal for Myriad to own the genes.
They declared that it wasn't a genetic patent, that it was like a static patent.
So then it went to the Supreme Court and they were in the midst of working with another gene patent case that was Prometheus and so they sent it back down to the federal court and finally it got back to the Supreme Court and they ruled on it.
So it's been a zoo.
How many years did this go on?
Two and a half.
Yeah, it's just amazing, like I said in the introduction, when you look at what's happened to the patent law.
It's got so amazingly broad that the things that nobody would imagine would be patentable.
I think there was even like a patent for watching pornography on a computer or something.
I mean, silly, incredible stuff that's so general.
And in this case, like you said, it's not the test because they can still patent a method But they had just discovered that these genes were indicative of higher risk, and they wouldn't let anybody else even look for it.
Yeah.
That's amazing.
There was a stat that I came across in this.
It said in the past 31 years, 20% of the human genome has been protected under U.S.
patents.
So that's going to be a pretty big game changer now, this court case.
It really is.
What are the implications now for people?
Talk about, first of all, people who are there for breast cancer.
They're going to be able to get second opinions and cheaper tests, but what other implications are there?
Well, first off, because the monopoly will be broken, Mm-hmm.
They believe that the price, experts believe that the price will drop to about $150 to run the test, which makes it a lot more affordable for the public.
Mm-hmm.
Also, you know... That's a big difference.
$150 to $3,700?
Yeah, it's crazy.
It's crazy.
Pretty big profit margin there.
I know.
One of the other things that a lot of people don't bring up that really scares me is that Marriott Laboratory banked all of our breast cancer data in the whole United States for quite a long time.
Now what's going to happen to that?
I don't know.
Oh, that's interesting.
Is the ACLU interested in that?
I don't know.
I don't know.
But the point is that we may be furthering research with that data or finding certain areas that might be more prone for cancer or breast cancer, certain cities, certain territories, looking more in depth at hereditary issues.
That was a big problem for me, that they have all of that data.
Yeah, and from what I saw of the Supreme Court decision, they did uphold their patents on a certain type of DNA, complementary DNA or something like that.
Synthetic.
Synthetic, yeah.
It was created, right.
Right.
So they've got this large database of genetic sampling that they can look at, they can turn that over to the government if they wish because we've seen what happens with telephone records and internet records and that sort of thing that if you give it to a third party, Often, in spite of any assurances that they gave you in an agreement, they're turning that over.
That's really what CISPA was all about, was basically taking that liability away from Google and other companies so that they could turn this over without being sued by the people who had given, you know, without, because they violated their user agreements.
It's quite scary.
Yeah.
So, you know, what do you, What was the process at the lower levels when you first got involved?
Like you said, they started out at the state level.
That was in New York, but you were here in Texas?
Right.
The six plaintiffs are scattered around the country.
They're in different places.
Now there was a quote from the ACLU that said, today the court struck down a major barrier to patient care and medical innovation.
This was Sandra Park.
Do you know her?
Yeah, she's my lawyer.
Senior staff attorney.
She said, Myriad did not invent the BARCA genes and should not control them.
Because of this ruling, patients will have greater access to genetic testing and scientists can engage in research on these genes without fear of being sued.
So it's going to be pretty big, because like I said in the previous quote, there's 20% already had basically been shut off for anybody else doing any kind of testing or evaluation.
And now those are going to be opened up for people to do things.
And you know, it's got big implications as well for pharmaceutical companies and the types of patents that they have there.
And that's a big thing that we're seeing in health care costs, is the cost of drugs and them pushing this.
I know you were talking about what they Yeah, being in the oncology office, they have you watch a video on a DVD.
Tell us a little bit about that. - Yeah, being in the oncology office, they have you watch a video on a DVD.
It's required before you actually submit your blood sample.
And I didn't quite like it because it was kind of a bullying tactic.
It was very dark and scary and it was very influential to try to get you to make that decision to take the test.
And I particularly didn't like that because some people will respond to that.
Some people, you know, would just be scared when they weren't even at risk.
Well, it's amazing when you look at how much of the television advertising that, you know, the advertisers So many of them are pharmaceutical companies.
It's become, for the longest time, we didn't watch television.
We moved to an area where we got no reception of broadcast television.
And so for about a 10-year window there, I hardly ever watched television.
We would watch movies, but we wouldn't watch television.
When I came back and started watching it, I was absolutely amazed.
It was like every other commercial was a drug commercial.
That's true.
And so it is very much a, they're pushing this on people Commercials are very, very effective.
And when they have you in a situation where you're scared, you've just been diagnosed with cancer, and then they run this on you so they can make these obscene profits.
I mean, when you think about this, at $150, other people are making a very good profit to do this test for $150.
They were making, what did you say, $3,600, $3,700?
They were making, what do you say, $3,600, $3,700?
They charge $3,600 and they run 100 tests per day.
Wow.
Wow, that's amazing.
Yeah.
Well, where do you go from here?
Is there anything else?
You mean the next adventure?
Yeah, what's your next adventure?
Well, I actually run a group of 36,000 breast cancer followers in the United States.
So, you know, within my group, I run a website called Beyond the Booby Trap.
And basically it's about patient advocacy so that women can educate themselves, talk amongst themselves, and be able to know what to expect so it reduces some of the fear of treatment.
That's great.
But also helps them make decisions.
That's great.
Informed decisions.
We have our closest friend who has breast cancer and has come back a second time.
She's in the medical profession, so it's not the sort of thing where she doesn't know about some of this, but it's still a personal thing that she's got to go through.
It's great to have a support network like that.
The name of that website is BeyondTheBBTrap.com.
Well, thank you so much for doing this.
It's a wonderful thing that you would Take this on, especially when you're sick, that you would take on and fight for people's rights, everybody's rights, not just yours, but so many people now are going to be helped by this decision.
I really appreciate you doing that, and I know a lot of people are very happy with what you've done.
It's going to make a big decision, a big difference in a lot of people's lives.
Well, thank you for that.
Thank you.
Well, that's a very important case, and as Janae pointed out, it was a long process.
It took them over two years to go through the courts.
But you know, the process actually begins with waking people up.
It begins with information, with understanding what the government is doing.
Who would have thought that companies were allowed to patent your jeans and charge exorbitant, greedy prices for these tests that they're performing?
So, the process of waking up is something that you can help people do with a subscription to Prison Planet TV.
Just one subscription will help you share that with up to 10 people at a time, and it also helps to support our media operations here.
So go to PrisonPlanet.tv and sign up for a subscription if you're watching on YouTube.
We certainly would appreciate that, and it will help you to wake up other people and inform them.
Well, that's it for tonight.
We'll be back tomorrow at 7 Central, 8 p.m.
Eastern.
Now you can watch the Alex Jones show live as it happens at Infowars.com slash show.
You'll find links to all of our content there and a free 15 day trial for Prison Planet TV.
▲
Export Selection