Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 12, 2020 - American Countdown - Barnes

01:47:04

20200512_Tue_Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The British are coming, the British are coming.
	You are about to be on the break today.
	And then all the prayer.
	America first.
	And the clock, what's on the clock?
	Tonight, welcome to American Countdown, Tuesday, May 12, 2020. - 2020?
	Resolve that Bill Gates' final solution of a vaccine for COVID-19 is not the solution we should be waiting for.
	It would be like waiting for Godot.
	We'll get an answer that will never come and that will never be satisfactory in the end.
	Later on, we will have an interview with Joey Gilbert, a lawyer who has filed suit in Nevada over the Nevada governor's prohibition on doctors providing the medical therapeutic treatment requested by their own patients, as well as businesses unable to function, churches unable to open, and political groups unable to petition.
	But first, an update tonight on the Aubrey case from Georgia.
	We have with us the Office of the District Attorney's Office of Waycross Judicial Circuit, George Barnhill, the prosecutor who initially chose to decline prosecution.
	What is significant in his letter articulating why he declined prosecution is several key facts.
	He identified, he went through the autopsy records, went through the blood forensic records, went through the videotape records, went through still photograph records, and went through witness statements and other available evidence including 911 calls and other evidence that was available to him.
	He also examined the Georgia laws concerning no duty to retreat, a right to self-defense, including a right to use reasonable force, including even deadly force to defend mere trespass against property.
	That's the scope and scale of Georgia law.
	The right of a citizen's arrest, which importantly reads as follows.
	If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.
	All that is required is reasonable suspicion that a felony has been committed.
	And the person is attempting to escape the commission of that felony in Georgia.
	Notably, if you conduct criminal trespass by being in a place you're not legally allowed to be and you have the intent to commit theft, you don't have to actually commit the theft to be convicted of burglary.
	So someone seeing you leave a house you're not supposed to be in and suddenly running and taking off.
	Would be evidence of a reasonable suspicion of burglary, which is a felony.
	And if you're escaping from it, that can be additional grounds to conduct the private arrest under the Citizens Arrest Statute in Georgia.
	As the details go on from the prosecutor's report, he notes several critical facts.
	He goes, the first shot, there's some suggestion that when Arbery went and went around the truck, that the gun was pointed at him and that that's why he tries to attack.
	However, that's not consistent with what the physical forensic evidence showed.
	The first shot is through Arbery's right hand palm, which is consistent with Arbery grabbing and pulling the shotgun at the barrel tip.
	The second and third wounds are consistent with the struggle for the shotgun, as depicted in the video.
	Of note, the angle of the second shot, with the rear of the buttstock being pushed away and down from the fight, are also consistent with the upward angle of the blood evidence shown in the video, and that Mr. McMichael was actually attempting to push the gun away from Arbery, while Arbery was pulling it toward himself.
	This appears to be reflected in the third shot as well.
	Indeed, as the prosecutor notes, given that the video evidence and the forensic evidence is consistent with Arbery initiating the fight, Arbery would, then there was not a basis to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that either McMichael could be convicted of homicide.
	He goes further to note significantly that Arbery would only have had to pull the shotgun approximately 1 1 16th of an inch to 1 1 8th of an inch to fire the weapon himself and that in the height of the altercation this is entirely possible given the available forensic evidence video evidence and testimonial evidence and forensic evidence.
	Given what the legal statutes provide for in Georgia, given the known facts and evidence to the prosecutor, that is why the prosecutor initially concluded there was no basis to pursue the charges.
	And the prosecutor's duty and obligation is to not pursue charges if he does not believe someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge.
	Or if he believes that a jury would not convict beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge.
	That is his professional obligation.
	In this context, flight can also be used evidence of itself as reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
	This goes back to the Supreme Court case Illinois v. Wardlaw.
	You can find it online at 528 U.S.
	119.
	That's the citation.
	And here was critically the holding of the Supreme Court in that decision.
	Notice they said, quote, in this case, Wardlow's unprovoked flight aroused the officer's suspicion.
	Nervous evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion.
	Indeed, headlong flight is the consummate act of evasion.
	And what they said is evasion simply in a high-crime neighborhood could by itself constitute reasonable suspicion of a felony sufficient to permit an arrest under the Terry standards.
	At least an arrest for temporary purposes like the kind that was attempting to be executed here in Georgia by the McMichaels according to their defense.
	So the additional available legal evidence and factual evidence continues to support the innocence of the people that are being legally lynched by the media and the press in the name of a race-baiting narrative that does not appear to be supported or substantiated by the evidence developed to date or by the law that exists currently.
	Meanwhile, we have increasing attempts by the... Oh, in addition, we also have additional video footage.
	Not only is there new video footage showing that Arbery had been at the house that he was found and spotted and that led to the 911 call on the day of the incident.
	He, in fact, apparently, according to video surveillance footage, had been at that house on multiple occasions before, going all the way back to October 2019.
	There's a reasonable inference he may have been there before because apparently the video footage was put in because there had been prior thefts at that house not reported to the police but likely reported to the McMichaels and that that may help explain in part their course of conduct and as well Mr. Arbery's course of conduct.
	In addition, there's a video footage that shows what happened before the shooting.
	This wasn't a case of Mr. Arbery simply jogging down the street in a neighborhood that was far away from his own home, that did not have any sidewalks, and that didn't really appear to be a jogging neighborhood.
	Instead, it shows him walking up to the house, going into the house, and then when he sees someone calling and spotting and identifying him, him suddenly taking off in quick flight.
	Let's take a look at video clip number one.
	A newly surfaced video now showing us what happened minutes before Ahmaud Arbery was shot and killed in Brunswick, Georgia.
	And now his family's lawyers and the GBI are weighing in on what this could mean for this case.
	Troy Kless has the latest developments for us tonight.
	A video showing the last moments of Ahmaud Arbery's life.
	It's caused outrage around the country with many asking why it took so long before shooter Travis McMichael and his father Greg McMichael were arrested.
	New video appears to be what a former prosecutor in the case referred to in an email sent after his recusal on April 7th, Ware County DA George Barnhill wrote there was, quote, video of Arbery burglarizing a home immediately preceding the chase and confrontation.
	At 208 in the video, you see a man in a white shirt and shorts walk into a home under construction on Satilla Drive.
	Moments later, a person can be seen in the top left frame observing what's going on.
	A 911 call from that day has audio of a man saying there's someone in a house that's under construction.
	At 2.13, the first man appears to run out the front door and down the street.
	Six minutes later, a police car drives down the road.
	Multiple first responders arrive minutes later.
	Investigators have not said there is any evidence Arbery burglarized the home.
	Police reports following the shooting did not know anything stolen on Arbery.
	Greg McMichael told police the day of the shooting there had been several break-ins in the neighborhood and that a suspect was caught on surveillance video.
	Police records show only one report, a weapon stolen from a vehicle in January.
	It's also not clear why the police dispatch log and the video timestamp reflect times one hour apart.
	First Coast News has reached out to attorneys for Ahmaud Arbery's family asking if they've seen the video.
	We are waiting to hear from them.
	The Georgia Bureau of Investigation says this, they reviewed this video at the beginning of their investigation before Travis McMichael and Greg McMichael were arrested.
	And just moments ago we heard from the attorney, the family attorney, Lee Merritt.
	He told us in a statement, quote, the video is consistent with what has already been released, that Arbery was out for a jog, potentially stopped for about three minutes outside a home under construction, continued on his run, and then was shot and killed moments later.
	It does not show any property damage or evidence of a theft.
	You can read his full response on 11Live.com.
	Let's face it, that's a bogus story.
	Out for a jog miles away, just happened to stop at a house he's been filmed at stopping at at night for multiple occasions going back months.
	There's been thefts reported from the house homeowner to other people in the neighborhood just because it wasn't reported to the police.
	Why do you think that homeowner had video surveillance inside his house?
	Why do you think he suddenly put it in around in the fall of 2019?
	So what the government and the prosecutors have to prove in this context, in this instance, is they have to prove that the father, who was in fact a ex-law enforcement officer, a long-standing police officer, who knew all of the following facts, which we'll get into, did not have any reasonable suspicion that the Arbery had committed a felony and was fleeing it.
	And in order to prove that, they have to prove that fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
	So the question that a prosecutor evaluating the case is, is will a jury determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that no one, including someone in the ex-officer's position, could possibly have a reason to be suspect of the behavior of Aubrey on that day?
	If, as it appears to be the case, that in fact the former officer knew all of the following facts, this would be very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that there was no reason to have any suspicion or for him to have any suspicion.
	You start off with the first fact.
	He's a 20-year-or-so law enforcement officer who's the head of the district attorney's office, familiar with Aubrey's family, Aubrey's older brother being in and out of jail and prison.
	Aubrey himself being under police, being arrested having a juvenile record and then apparently a later record.
	We don't know all the details of the juvenile record because those tend to be sealed.
	But we do know that he was arrested when he was 19 for having a gun at a high school, trying to escape and flee, trying to get rid of the gun, trying to obstruct the officer in that context.
	Put on probation, years later caught again, apparently stealing a television, apparently pled down to shoplifting, apparently didn't face meaningful consequence for that for that second crime in a relatively short time period.
	And we also know from other evidence that's now been released that it was in fact the father who was the lead officer who investigated that case in 2018.
	So we have someone who can say his reason to suspect Aubrey was, first of all, he knew him.
	Second, he knew that he had committed theft before.
	He knew that he had been involved in gun-related possession before.
	Let's assume that, in fact, he had seen the videotape, as there is evidence he is, from that homeowner.
	He had seen him on tape located inside the house, casing it out on at least three prior occasions, according to the videotape evidence, dating back to October.
	It was his son's car that had a gun stolen from it during around that same time period around New Year's, about six weeks, seven weeks prior to this incident.
	And on top of all of that, on the day of, someone witnesses Aubrey committing criminal trespass incident.
	And because the criminal trespass could have been reasonably suspected to be with an intent to commit theft, it's actually a felony of burglary.
	And then he witnesses Aubrey running out of the house.
	As soon as Aubrey witnesses the person calling 911, walking out and pointing at Aubrey, that's when Aubrey starts to take his jog.
	The Aubrey isn't jogging up and down the street.
	He walks up to the house casually, goes back, goes in, inspects it, comes out, sees that someone has called the cops on him and is looking at him.
	And by the way, look at that house.
	Does that look like a construction site to you?
	That isn't a construction site.
	That's a home that's mostly under development in a residential neighborhood.
	He was casing him.
	The reasonable inference, the reasonable suspicion, at least reasonable suspicion that you couldn't disprove beyond a reasonable doubt, is that he was casing out the properties.
	So when his lawyer's saying, ah, he was just out for a jog, we all know that's a lie.
	That's the reality of it.
	And whatever else you think about the confrontation that occurred, the legal issue, the big legal issue in the case is, was there any reasonable suspicion or any reason for the father to have suspicion of Aubrey?
	Given what he knew about Aubrey's history, criminal history in particular, personal investigation of it, seeing him on videotape at that particular house before, seeing him run from that house when someone else is calling the police, seeing the flight, seeing the likely felony that he had committed as a reason to flee.
	And remember, this is an officer trained in law.
	And since 2000, almost during probably during the entire period, this, the father was a Law enforcement officer, he would know the Supreme Court law is that you can use the mere fact of flight, plus any other unusual context, criminal trespass would probably fit that context, to mean the person has committed a crime that gives you a reasonable suspicion to stop him, at least for an initial stop.
	And so if in fact the stop is legitimate, then everything Aubrey does after that makes him the initiator and instigator of the conduct.
	If they simply trapped him randomly with no basis in law to detain him, then they've created an emergency context that may in fact under Georgia law make them subject to potential liability.
	But if the stop is legitimate, then under those circumstances, the burden shifts to show that they were unreasonable in their reaction to Aubrey's behavior.
	Aubrey is the one who makes the rush at him.
	Aubrey is the one who continues to punch him.
	Aubrey is the one who continues to pull the gun in a way that likely The evidence will show was the cause of the death, or at least you can't exclude it under a reasonable doubt standard.
	So these are a father and son who are being lynched by the media and by the press in the name of accusing them of doing some Klan-style lynching of the 1960s.
	It is a mistaken case.
	It is a case of a rush to judgment of a father and son who do not appear to be guilty of what they have been alleged.
	This is another instance of media bias more than public bigotry and explanation of what happened.
	And the political motivation is simple.
	It's threefold.
	They pick cases where first that it's going to lead to division, not unity.
	So by picking a case with bad facts, but with good hysteria, good hysterics, the one side will always see the case as the Aubrey is purely innocent and the father and son is purely guilty through the racial filter of the racial glasses that many decide to wear these days.
	Second, because the facts are bad, because when you dig into the facts, you kind of know that the family and the lawyers are lying when they say, or at least they're representing facts that the evidence isn't going to support or substantiate when they say, hey, they were just going, he was just going for a jog.
	Indeed, there's less and less evidence that they knew, in fact, what he was doing at that time.
	So that's their attempt to explain it, understandably.
	That's the nature of family, a civil rights lawyer trying to do the best he can for his client.
	But I don't think that's the best strategy when the evidence is not likely to support or substantiate it, and increasingly, as forecast before, the evidence continues to mount in the opposite direction.
	But it achieves the benefit of divisiveness, because people who look at the facts come to one conclusion, people who look at the hysterics come to an opposite conclusion, they bash each other incessantly, and it increases antagonism between people in the community at large.
	The third objective, so the first objective of divisiveness is achieved.
	The second objective is to basically stereotype African-American men in a negative way.
	The amazing aspects of these cases is that the reason why they don't choose good cases, cases that are uniting cases, cases that portray African-American men in a positive light and as the victims of injustice, which often happens in America,
	Is because those cases will not propagate the myth of dangerous African American men by choosing bad cases of people who have criminal records and criminal histories and exaggerating and lying and misleading people about what their behavior was, such as hands up, don't shoot, such as he was shot just because he had a hoodie and had some Skittles.
	Or he was just sitting in a park eating a sandwich.
	Just to use three high-profile cases over the past decade or so, by choosing cases where those facts weren't really borne out by the evidence, where many people would come to doubt that evidence and also come to fear the individuals involved.
	So cases like Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where they celebrate a case with a guy that had like 36 arrests on his criminal record.
	They portray African-American men in the negative stereotypical caricatured light that again increases the divisiveness in American society.
	So the third objective is achieved by the first two because it achieves that, in fact, if you live in fear and you are motivated by that fear, motivated by fear of the other, motivated by fear of your neighbor, the effect of it is that, in fact, you will resort and reach out to political parties to protect you as the sole source of protection from the other side.
	This achieves the political objective that is being sought in these instances.
	That is why cases that, in my view, Are exaggerated cases, cases that do not have the facts that support and substantiate the original narrative are consistently propagated in the United States.
	And in this case, they want to make an example of a father and son who are likely innocent of the allegations of lynching, murderous lynching that they have been accused of.
	But by that time, who knows if they can ever recover their reputation by the end of it.
	In the same context, we continue to live in an environment of the pandemic politics, where various culprits are lined up on either side of the aisle.
	In a particular instance, we have what Bill Gates proposes and propounds as his final solution, which is an interesting choice of words.
	Let's take a look at the clip in which he's describing to Mr. Colbert his final solution.
	Let's look at clip number 17.
	It's rather brief.
	And then the final solution, which is a year to two years off, is the vaccine.
	So that's his suggestion.
	His suggestion is that the final solution, last time that terminology was used, was when the Nazis were thinking about it and using it to try to terminate and end Jewish people on the European continent.
	So there's Bill Gates' interesting choice of terminology under the circumstances and context.
	But he's saying we must wait for a vaccine to have any solution.
	And we have mayors and governors propounding the same political position today.
	Well, let's look at the problem of relying upon a vaccine to COVID-19 as any solution at all, least of all the quote-unquote final solution.
	First, there's looking at what are the odds of actually the influenza-related virus.
	One of the core problems with a COVID-19 vaccine is there's a good chance it never comes about, and there's a good chance due to the evolution of coronavirus-type viruses, it will never be meaningfully effective.
	So, for example, if we look at the estimates of the number of people who get the flu each year and we compare it to the number of people who get the flu shot and yet still get the flu, it will be very informative and educational.
	For example, according to WebMD, anywhere from 5 to 20 percent of the U.S.
	population will get the flu on average each year.
	Indeed, meanwhile, there is a large percentage of the population that never gets the flu shot, the flu vaccine.
	They estimate that 73% of Americans between 18 and 50 don't get the flu shot in a given year, and that almost 40% of Americans that are elderly do not get the flu shot each year.
	Well, what's significant in that context is that the flu vaccine is notoriously ineffective.
	Anywhere from 40 to 90% of the people who get a flu vaccine shot, it will be ineffective against getting the flu.
	Indeed, if you compare it to people who never get the flu vaccine shot at all, it appears no evidence of meaningful effectiveness between the two.
	Indeed, there's a wide range of explanations for that, but the simplest and easiest one is that, in fact, the flu vaccine simply is of a kind, the flu itself, influenza, evolves and mutates at such a high rate in order to survive as a flu, that the more infectious it gets, the less deadly it gets, but the more infectious it gets often requires mutations, and those mutations make any vaccine ineffective.
	Often the people defending vaccines act like one vaccine is the same as all vaccines.
	It's like if you challenge or contest a flu vaccine, or a coronavirus vaccine, or a COVID-19 vaccine, then that must mean you don't like any vaccine ever anywhere in the history of humanity.
	That's not the argument.
	That's like saying because you don't like one form of medical treatment for one disease, it means you don't believe in any medical treatment for any disease.
	That's never the argument.
	That's a straw man argument that is not rooted or predicated on actual facts.
	Indeed, if we look at the issues related to the vaccines, there was an extensive study of the flu vaccines done a few years ago and an actually informative TED interview went into details about the conclusions that they were able to reach about the effectiveness of the flu vaccine over time based on all of the available surveys and studies.
	Let's take a look at clip number eight.
	We narrowed that down even further to 31 papers.
	What we consider the very best information about how well flu vaccines work today.
	So when you look at this in populations, for the adults over the age of 65, 90% of our mortality, we didn't find a single study for the flu shot, the trivalent inactivated vaccine, that showed it worked in this population.
	Live attenuated, we found one.
	It was mixed results and it's not licensed for this population in the U.S.
	We didn't do too much more on that.
	18 to 64 years of age, we found several studies.
	Average vaccine efficacy of 59% in healthy adults.
	For the live attenuated, the flu mist, we didn't find any studies that were statistically significant to show protection.
	Children 8 to 17 years of age, we didn't find any studies.
	All the studies in young kids were under the age of 7.
	We found one study for the flu shot, it worked one year, didn't work the next year.
	You can't really summarize that.
	So there's a long history of flu vaccines being ineffective, influenza vaccines being ineffective, because the virus evolves and mutates too quickly and too easily.
	And indeed, what they've recommended instead is an mRNA vaccine or a DNA vaccine, but there are problems with those at all.
	In fact, there's very little evidence that those have ever been successful, period.
	If we look at a newsletter from Johns Hopkins University, it noted that no mRNA-based vaccine has ever made it to market.
	And yet this is what they're talking about being developed as the solution in COVID-19.
	Others are talking about a DNA vaccination, but as this article in Nature discloses, tolerant individuals are expected to be more susceptible to infection and or may become carriers with a DNA vaccine.
	This is part of the reasons for concerns with development of a DNA vaccine.
	The NIH has gone into the safety and efficacy of DNA vaccines and notices a lot is simply unknown and uncertain in this context due to the lack of success with them.
	Indeed, Harvard went into RNA vaccines and it noted, who is it that's obsessed with developing these RNA vaccines despite evidence from Johns Hopkins that in fact no RNA vaccine has ever been successful?
	Well, according to the Harvard article, Have you heard about RNA vaccines?
	Well, this technology recently made the news when the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invested $53 million in the German company CureVac, which specializes in the development of these vaccines.
	As they note later on in the article, these are in fact difficult to implement vaccines against certain pathogens and don't have the degree of successful history that would warrant it in the first instance.
	All of this leads us to the context of the problems with rushing to vaccines.
	Let's take a look at clip number 13 and remind us the last time we did this in a pandemic political context.
	Let's look at clip 13.
	The flu season is upon us.
	Which type will we worry about this year?
	And what kind of shots will we be told to take?
	Remember the swine flu scare of 1976?
	That was the year the U.S.
	government told us all that swine flu could turn out to be a killer that could spread across the nation.
	And Washington decided that every man, woman, and child in the nation should get a shot to prevent a nationwide outbreak, a pandemic.
	Well, 46 million of us obediently took the shot.
	And now 4,000 Americans are claiming damages from Uncle Sam amounting to $3.5 billion.
	Because of what happened when they took that shot, by far the greatest number of the claims, two-thirds of them, are for neurological damage or even death, allegedly triggered by the flu shot.
	We pick up the story back in 1976 when the threat posed by the swine flu virus seemed very real indeed.
	This virus was the cause of a pandemic in 1918 and 1919 that resulted in over half a million deaths in the United States as well as 20 million deaths around the world.
	See how easy it is to... Thus, the U.S.
	government's publicity machine was cranked into action to urge all America to protect itself against the swine flu menace.
	Influenza is serious business.
	During major flu epidemics, millions of people are sick, and thousands die.
	Well, this year you can get protection.
	The vaccines are safe, easy to take, and they can protect you against flu.
	So roll up your sleeve.
	Protect yourself.
	One of those who did roll up her sleeve was Judy Roberts.
	She was perfectly healthy, an active woman, when in November of 1976, she took her shot.
	Two weeks later, she says, she began to feel a numbness starting up her legs.
	I joked about it at that time.
	I said, I'll be numb to the knees by Friday if this keeps up.
	By the following week, I was totally paralyzed.
	So completely paralyzed, in fact, that they had to operate on her to enable her to breathe.
	And for six months, Judy Roberts was a quadriplegic.
	The diagnosis?
	A neurological disorder called Guillain-Barré Syndrome, GBS for short.
	These neurological diseases are little understood.
	They affect people in different ways.
	As you can see in these home movies taken by a friend, Judy Roberts' paralysis confined her mostly to a wheelchair for over a year.
	But this disease can even kill.
	Indeed, there are 300 claims now pending from the families of GBS victims who died, allegedly as a result of the swine flu shot.
	I'm right back after the break, and we'll have a discussion with attorney Joey Gilbert, who's having to file suit in Nevada because the Nevada governor is denying patients and providers the ability to do something who's having to file suit in Nevada because the Nevada governor is denying patients and providers the ability to do something other
	Thank you.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	We're gonna be up in a minute with attorney Joey Gilbert who's had to bring suit in Nevada over the issues that we discussed about a month or so ago on this show in terms of the availability and accessibility of informed consent and patient provider driven medical care rather than politician driven medical care in the pandemic era.
	In that same context, we encourage you to go and support our sponsor that makes this show possible, that makes this platform accessible and available to you at InfoWarsStore.com.
	Currently offering a wide range of sales of a wide range of products.
	Look at it and see what you like.
	It has, in the particular context that's been useful in the last month or six weeks or so, things like vitamin C and vitamin D and various vitamin mineral fusion products that are available to you that have been denied people all around the world because they've been shut in rather than being allowed out when, in fact, all the evidence is increasingly that vitamin C and vitamin D is essential and critical for you, particularly in times like these.
	It has a wide range of other products, including Alexa Pure Breeze, which is a you can get hand sanitizers.
	obviously helpful in this kind of context Protein bars, even your own face mask, if that's the approach that you need to take in your employment or daily life.
	So make the choices that you want, get the products that you like, and get them at 50 to 60 percent off as they're available and accessible to you, and support a platform that makes shows like this available and accessible to you to challenge the gated institutional narrative that the mainstream press would like to impose upon us, just as politicians would like to monopolize the control of medical care rather than letting patients and providers make their own choice.
	Indeed, so Attorney Joey Gilbert brought suit a class action claim in Nevada.
	We have a copy of the suit here, a civil rights class action claim that goes through the first, fourth and fifth and 14th amendment rights that are being violated in the state of Nevada by the various emergency orders of the governor.
	It includes a doctor who is one of the plaintiffs, an osteopathic medical physician with a medical license who is not being allowed to provide the medical care that FDA authorized drugs would approve and that his patients want under informed consent provisions.
	In fact, patients also brought suit because they are prevented from receiving approved treatment including chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in treatment of COVID-19 despite a wide range of studies and surveys and available evidence that it can be helpful and at least as much more helpful than hurtful in terms of the risk reward ratio in this particular context.
	They note this violates the 1st and 14th Amendment and 4th and 5th Amendment rights in different contexts.
	There's privacy medical record issues involved.
	There's access of essential businesses and non-essential businesses to operate effectively.
	There's the right of the patient-provider relationship.
	There's the right of the provider to do what is necessary or what he considers beneficial.
	All of which are implicated by various Thank you.
	Thank you for having me, man.
	provisions, particularly for drugs that have already been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and have 80 plus years of successful treatment in malaria and other items.
	So we're happy to have Joey join us and discuss this case amongst others.
	Joey, happy you could be with us.
	Thank you.
	Thank you for having me, man.
	I appreciate it.
	It's extraordinary.
	I mean, last time we were here, there was some hope that the governor was going to do the right thing.
	Ultimately, the governor appears to have sort of reversed course.
	Could you give us sort of a crash course in the history of how Nevada's governor has decided to gamble with people's personal health rather than protect the operations of medical providers in the state?
	You know, it's really so unfortunate.
	It started out with, you know, here I am all along thinking it's just confusion.
	Maybe he just wasn't aware of what really was out there, you know, just really hoping that it was just an accident until I really started putting it all together.
	And at the end of the day, the governor actually banned He put a limitation and banned the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine which to date have provided the most effective Treatment of the coronavirus.
	So why he did that, I didn't think I knew.
	I was trying to stay away from politics, but it's now become apparent that pain and suffering and anguish and financial, you know, disaster is what was the course from the very beginning.
	So it's been extremely disheartening because I honestly got in this just with the idea of saving lives.
	I just wanted to make sure That people in this state that needed access to this medicine, if they had a positive COVID-19 test, had access to it.
	And we went from a ban on the 23rd of March, which if you think about it now, is just insane.
	And in the same time that that ban happened in Nevada, the governor up above us in Utah, widely expanded the use of hydroxychloroquine.
	And they have six times less the death rate.
	It's just, it's unconscionable to think that unknown medicine, and when I say that, here we are with Dr. Fauci, 2005, Virology Today, he goes in there to say, Dr. Fauci, that the Dr. Fauci that everyone's talking about is the expert, goes on to say that chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of the SARS coronavirus infection and spread.
	Flip over, so HCQ functions as both a cure and a vaccine.
	In other words, it's a wonder drug for coronavirus.
	Said Fauci's NIH in 2005, it said that concentrations of 10 UM completely abolished coronavirus and that his researchers went on to say that chloroquine can effectively reduce the establishment of infection and spread.
	Of the coronavirus.
	So why would you limit it or ban it to only inpatient off a chart or chart order use when we have nursing homes assisted care facilities and veterans homes being decimated across the country that could have this easily introduced by the doctors at the nursing home by their prescribers?
	It's cruel, and I just ask people, doesn't it seem a little unusual?
	Mr. Barnes, doesn't it seem a little unusual that we would put this in place?
	I mean, again, and the last thing I'll say is, I could understand if it was hydroxychloroquine, which is used for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, but Governor Sisolak went ahead and banned both, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine.
	Why would someone do that?
	It's extraordinary.
	There's like an old TV show, I think in the early 2000s, where they talk about the solution to a coronavirus-type virus in the TV show being chloroquine.
	So, I mean, this has been around for a while.
	There's been established tests of it.
	You have the French doctor, other doctors that have promoted it.
	You have countries like Paraguay and Portugal.
	How about this?
	How about this?
	Not to cut you off, but this gentleman right here, everyone has now seen.
	His name is Dr. Vladimir Zelenko.
	Dr. Vladimir Zelenko is at a 100% cure rate.
	Well, he contacted me off Twitter today, just like how you and I linked up.
	He contacted me.
	I asked him for a declaration based on what he's been doing down there.
	He's doing it for me.
	I'm going to be using it.
	He's even offered to testify.
	This guy is the guy.
	What did he do?
	He simply duplicated the dosing protocol from South Korea and France.
	So, I just, 90, look at that, 100% success rate.
	Okay, I mean it's just, it's just, it's just tough.
	Tough to stomach what's going on out here and why I'm going to stay in the trenches and keep fighting.
	What's the perception of your doctor client in this case?
	What did he go through to evaluate it?
	Why does he want to provide it?
	And what's his sort of interpretation of what the governor is doing and what he's up to?
	Oh, Dr. Fong is a true believer, and most importantly, the doctor-patient sacred relationship.
	These guys took a Hippocratic Oath.
	Their degree, what they went to school for, is licensed to practice, treat, and prescribe medicines.
	And to take an FDA approved medicine, widely studied for 70 years.
	I was just on another radio show with a Dr. James Forsythe, who in 1971 put over 500,000 troops that were over in Vietnam on hydroxychloroquine for malaria, right?
	And he said in his entire time there, he might have had a couple rashes, a couple stomach aches, and a couple headaches, maybe.
	And he said he didn't know if those people were faking or whatever was going on because they just wanted to get the heck out of there.
	And so at the end of the day, this is not something that just came about.
	We're talking patented in 1946.
	We're talking being in use since 1970.
	And just the last 20 years, the off-label use of it, it's crazy.
	I mean, it's absolutely crazy to now say that all these heart problems can be, you know what?
	Lower the dose.
	Lower the dose.
	They're even showing that hydroxychloroquine in 100 milligrams twice a day will be just... It's just a... I'm not a doctor.
	You're not a doctor.
	We're not doctors.
	All I know is I can read real well.
	I know the law school trained me to research and to apply facts.
	And based on the facts, the research, the data, the science I'm seeing, this is the most effective treatment even compared head-to-head with this Remdesivir they're talking about now.
	It's not even in the same ballpark.
	The results you can get from hydroxychloroquine in a matter of hours versus what you can get from Remdesivir over a few days is a night and day difference.
	And what I say to you, Mr. Barnes, is that some people don't have 5 to 11 to 13 days.
	They have hours.
	They have a couple days.
	Every patient is different, and when you ask me how Dr. Bruce Fong and his group feels, they feel that everybody is unique, that no one should interfere in that doctor-patient relationship, that they're best qualified and in best position to treat their patient, and that they should be allowed to prescribe the medications based on the real conditions on the ground for that patient, and that no one should come between it.
	And the most important thing to say here is the therapeutic use window.
	I have a letter from the emergency manager from the City of Reno.
	This is a 25-year veteran of the Reno Fire Department.
	He's the emergency manager for the city.
	So they're supposed to listen to him, right?
	So he sends a letter to the Department of Public Safety heads and says, I have received requests from urgent care facilities for the ability to prescribe medication for COVID-19 positive patients.
	I've also spoke with representatives from the hospitals that recommend the use of this medication as early as possible after diagnosis to prevent the patient from deteriorating from the disease.
	What more can you possibly ask for than the public health officials that we've appointed to come out and say, I don't care what Dr. Fauci's saying now in his political talk.
	I want to talk about what Dr. Fauci said back in 2005 about the SARS coronavirus.
	I want to talk about what the doctors are saying now on the ground.
	I want to talk about the doctor at the University Medical Center in Las Vegas who's saying get this drug introduced as quickly as possible because every patient is different, every case is different and the facts are different.
	So what Mrs. Smith might need on day one and what might help her on day one versus what might not Does it not matter to someone younger or someone not in a situation like her?
	It's a totally different story.
	So we've got to take people on a case-by-case basis and who better to make those determinations than the doctors that have been trained and licensed to do so.
	And in this context, what has been the evidence that the governor has cited for his decision?
	I mean, has there been a medical review?
	Has there been some formal?
	Because from what I saw from the suit and from what I've seen publicly, I haven't seen any evidence that he's done any meaningful scientific medical evaluation, that he's had any team do so.
	It appeared to be a politically motivated decision.
	It may be connected to, you know, You know, patented drugs that Big Pharma wants to push because these drugs are no longer controlled by patents, no longer have the monopolies that Big Pharma might have over competitors like Remdesivir and others.
	Has there been any formal documented explanation from the governor or his office as to the medical basis of these decisions?
	Um, the governor's office has provided no medical basis whatsoever.
	In fact, they've been painted into a corner by the medical reports and trials and results that have come out.
	It makes no sense whatsoever now what they're saying.
	What they originally said was that it was, they did what they did to prevent the stockpiling and to prevent, um, they had fewer than 10 Calls or concerns lodged with them.
	Many of them were actually practicing physicians in ERs that just wanted to protect themselves and their family.
	And so at the end of the day, there wasn't this fear of what the drug could do.
	It was fear of the drug being successful and not allowing this pandemic and this disease to do what it's done, which is instill fear, panic, and basically devastate the entire small business and entire economy of Nevada, such to the fact That we're going to be calling a special session and probably inventing a state income tax and upping property taxes.
	And at the end of the day, I have to think that there's some people that have agreed to participate in this behind the scenes because it just doesn't make sense.
	There's just no, there's no way this is happening the way it's happening, where people, I'm the only one here screaming my head off, and I've got people sure helping me, and sure willing to write a check, and willing to stand behind it as long as their name is not given, because this governor is so vindictive, but at the end of the day, where are these civil liberties folks?
	You know, on my medication alone, whatever happened to my body, my right, my body right, you remember that?
	Remember how that's all they were screaming?
	What happened to that?
	So now there's an FDA approved drug with an emergency use authorization and these are the same people calling me a charlatan and a snake oil salesman and I have no right to be, I'm not board certified, I'm not a doctor.
	You know what?
	I got a PhD in success.
	I got a PhD in results.
	I got a PhD in knowing how to do things right.
	And all I've been doing is following the science and following the data, and none of the data and none of the science calls for any business closures, let alone the draconian, unconstitutional and borderline insane business closures that this state has from Las Vegas North.
	Outside of that, they need to have their heads examined.
	Gick, because you've also filed suit not only on behalf of the providers who want to be able to provide the medical treatment that they see best, the patients who want to have informed consent for what treatment they want, not what the politicians want to dictate, but also filed suit for businesses that have been labeled quote-unquote non-essential and consequently don't have access, and many of you have more employees that don't have access to the unemployment benefits because of Of the debacle that is ongoing, Nevada governing administration, but you also have non-essential businesses.
	Could you talk about both of those aspects of what's been happening in Nevada?
	Even as we learned more and more that this pandemic was not a Spanish flu size risk, we've been seeing political remedies that we never even saw during the Spanish flu in the sense of suppression of economic activity and the suppression of civil rights.
	Can you talk about what's happening on behalf of those Nevada clients that you've also brought suit for?
	Oh, what's happening to these Nevadans is an absolute travesty.
	It is so unfair.
	Who are you to say who is essential and non-essential?
	So you're telling me you can have a packed Walmart, a packed Home Depot, a packed grocery store, a packed pharmacy, a packed liquor store, all these places.
	They're not wiping down these keypads.
	There's no hand sanitizer.
	There's a family of five, and the kids are all over the floor.
	They're kicking a ball.
	I mean, I was just in Walmart.
	I'm not afraid of this thing.
	So I'm in their shop, and I'm laughing to myself that they've got these mom-and-pop shops closed down.
	Meanwhile, they've got all these other huge, huge retail chains open, running full force.
	Makes no sense.
	So now we've got people in Las Vegas and here in Reno and other places that are going on seven, eight weeks without a check.
	Who are you to tell an esthetician, or these girls that do lashes, or these massage therapists, or these gym owners, that what they do is not essential?
	Do you know that not some, but most gyms are a form of mental health?
	For sure?
	I mean, without a doubt, these are forms of mental health.
	So you're going to try and tell me that these people have to stay closed?
	And you know what?
	We've got a real problem, Mr. Barnes.
	When you've got a donut shop, Doughboy Donuts is open across the street, and the gym right here is closed.
	There is something, the nutrition store is closed, this is open, the liquor store is open.
	You know, you tell me where the problem is.
	The churches are closed, so you can have, I mean, are you kidding me?
	You think I believe for one second that Walmart, someone's there with a door counter counting how many people are in there?
	No way, right?
	But you're telling me that a church can't have half their congregation in there?
	At the end of the day, we already know that population herd immunity is what's going to get us through this, and that the higher risk folks are the only ones that need to be protected, and that the people with the chronical medical conditions are the only ones that need to be watched.
	Everybody else should get back to business.
	The ban and limitation of hydroxychloroquine should be taken off, and that those meds should be directed towards these at-risk communities.
	That's it.
	You want me to fix this?
	Give me 15 minutes and a couple really smart people and I'll have this whipped into shape in a day.
	Okay?
	It makes zero sense.
	Even our casinos, they're worried about people showing up.
	You know what?
	You got to get them open first.
	Get them open and let's start using these casino clinics to start checking their people and anybody that comes in, taking their temperature and distributing these meds.
	All right?
	We stay closed any longer.
	It's going to take as much time as it takes for people to get comfortable with business being open than it does for them to open.
	The governor gave us two days notice to open.
	On Thursday, he came out and made an announcement.
	We're open on Saturday.
	People are so mad because they're scrambling to get open.
	They need to get open.
	It might only be 50%.
	It might only be curbside service, but they got to maximize or they're going under.
	And what I'm saying is there's no such thing as an unessential business.
	You're talking about their most sterile and sanitized businesses out there.
	Estheticians, hair salons, barbers, massage therapists.
	I know because I use these people.
	They're germ freaks, right?
	So now you're telling these people they're non-essential?
	And what are they supposed to do?
	And then on top of it, a step further, there's been over 300,000 claims for unemployment in this state.
	And the majority of those people haven't received anything.
	What is he doing?
	Sitting on this money?
	It makes no sense.
	So we are bringing suit on behalf of all these folks because it's just not fair.
	It is, as you know, arbitrary and capricious enforcement or a mandate that is arbitrary and capricious because how is it narrowly tailored?
	You tell me what about this mandate?
	Of these forced business closures as narrowly tailored, especially for these folks, when you got the big box chains open at full capacity.
	Explain it to me.
	I'll stop what I'm doing.
	I'll go back to work.
	Believe me, I got plenty to do.
	I know you got plenty to do.
	But this is something that has to be done because no one has stopped stepping up for the little guy.
	And for me, it's not about Republican, Democrat, Independent.
	I don't care if you voted for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump or the Independent.
	Your rights are being infringed upon in a big way and I got your back and I know you got people's back and your program and your advertisers got everyone's back and that's what matters.
	Zero.
	Zero.
	I can't even get a word out of them.
	given any additional explanation for what the factual basis of this is or for why and how it's narrowly tailored?
	Because I mean, all of the other- Zero.
	Zero.
	I can't even get a word on them.
	All I'm told is two things.
	Number one, supply issues, what they keep saying on the hydroxychloroquine, which is an outright lie.
	And we caught them lying in their, you know, we did our Freedom of Information Act.
	They basically got the tablets of CVS.
	And declared emergency based on that and then I talked to CVS and their upper heads of which I can't name and they said that's insane for them to try and do a pill count based on an assessment of CVS is insanity.
	They don't know our suppliers.
	They don't know how we could have gotten more.
	We could have had double that capacity in a few days because at that time on March 23rd, hydroxychloroquine wasn't All of a sudden disappearing from suppliers.
	So had he not done what he did, we'd have full access to it on top of the fact that there is there was never a request sent like the governor of Utah did request requested 800,000 extra doses from the national stockpile and received them.
	And then I find out from.
	Walgreens up in Salt Lake City that they have an excess of hydroxychloroquine and they could easily move it to the Nevada stores.
	But guess what?
	There's a ban there.
	So they can't transfer it there.
	It is, again, you see what's going on here because you're smiling and you know that this is some gamesmanship going on.
	You know what?
	I'm all for political games.
	I'm all for, you know, plain politics, but not with people's lives.
	When you elect someone, you elect them to do a job that's unbiased, and if I was in a position like Governor Sisolak was in, I would be doing everything I could to make this medicine readily available, especially in our rural counties.
	Nevada's very unique.
	You go, you know, 50 miles above Las Vegas, and you start going into rural counties, and then you get to Reno, and you've got, you know, a biggest county here, and then you go up to Elko.
	We don't have critical care in our rural counties.
	So when you want to talk about hours mattering, you want to talk about how I said my dad's fever went from 103.6 to 98 in an hour and a half, and his lungs opened up within about three hours.
	When these people test positive and they're sent home and told to come back, it's going to be hours that their lives are going to be on the line.
	So we need this medicine opened up.
	We need the limitations taken off.
	I'm absolutely confident that based on just preemption alone, federal supremacy clause, I don't know how they get around it.
	I don't know how you can get around a doctor's constitutional right and statutory right, due process, to prescribe medicine across state lines and practice medicine when a pharmacy board specifically prohibited from doing that.
	You tell me how they get around that and that's what I'm looking forward to and I think it's only a matter of time and I just say to Nevada, stand by, we're on it.
	Any update on when you think the next hearing might happen in the case?
	Oh man, well there was an order shortening time granted today and so they have until the 18th of May to respond.
	I'm trying to push things up as fast as I can.
	I'd be in court, you know me, I'd be in court right now.
	Please, give me someone on that stand.
	Let me put one of these guys in that stand right now.
	My God, dude.
	I mean, you want to see a circus act?
	Let me get one of these guys in that stand.
	And where can people follow you?
	Where can people follow you online?
	If they want to follow the suit, they want to get more details about the suit or support the suit, where can they do that?
	Go to COVID19NevadaStrong.com or I'm just at Joey Gilbert Inc.
	I-N-C like incorporated on Twitter, but at Joey Gilbert Inc.
	or COVID19NevadaStrong.
	And again, you know what, man, I don't need my picture in the paper.
	I'm not trying to get any recognition.
	Go on there to support this cause.
	That's all I ask for.
	Exactly.
	Thank you.
	Another important report or series of documentary reports has come out recently that goes into Bill Gates' strategy and why it's a problematic one.
	Let's take a look at video clip number nine.
	Ten billion dollars.
	I mean, just speak about the magnitude of that.
	That is by far the biggest commitment of the foundation, isn't it, Bill?
	I mean, this is by far the largest.
	That's right.
	We've been spending a lot on vaccines.
	With this commitment, over 8 million additional lives will be saved.
	So it's one of the most effective ways that health in the poorest countries can be dramatically improved.
	In January of 2010, Bill and Melinda Gates used the World Economic Forum at Davos to announce a staggering $10 billion commitment to research and develop vaccines for the world's poorest countries, kicking off what he called a decade of vaccines.
	Today we're announcing a commitment over this next decade, which we think of as a decade of vaccines having incredible impact.
	We're announcing that we'll spend over $10 billion on vaccines.
	Hailed by the Gates-funded media.
	For the record, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a NewsHour underwriter.
	And applauded by the pharmaceutical companies who stood to reap the benefits of that largesse.
	The record-setting commitment made waves in the international community, helping to underwrite a global vaccine action plan coordinated by the Gates-funded World Health Organization.
	But contrary to the Gates' own PR spin that this $10 billion pledge was an unalloyed good and would save 8 million lives, the truth is that this attempt to reorient the global health economy was part of a much bigger agenda.
	An agenda that would ultimately lead to greater profits for big pharma companies, greater control for the Gates Foundation over the field of global health, and greater power for Bill Gates to shape the course of the future for billions of people around the planet.
	This is Bill Gates' plan to vaccinate the world.
	You're tuned into the Corbett Report.
	Given Gates' pledge to make this a decade of vaccines, it should come as no surprise that, since the dawn of this coronavirus crisis, he has been adamant that the world will not go back to normal until a vaccine has been developed. . he has been adamant that the world will not go We're going to have this intermediate period of opening up, and it won't be normal until we get an amazing vaccine to the entire world.
	The vaccine is critical because until you have that, things aren't really going to be normal.
	They can open up to some degree, but the risk of a rebound will be there until we have very broad vaccination.
	They won't be back to normal until we either have that phenomenal vaccine or a therapeutic that's like over 95% effective.
	And so we have to assume that's going to be almost 18 months from now.
	And then the final solution, which is a year to two years off, is the vaccine.
	So we've got to go full speed ahead on all three fronts.
	Just to head off the conspiracy theorists, maybe we shouldn't call the vaccine the final solution.
	Maybe just the best solution.
	More interestingly, since Gates began delivering this same talking point in every one of his many media appearances of late, it has been picked up and repeated by heads of state, health officials, doctors, and media talking heads, right down to the scientifically arbitrary but very specific 18-month time frame.
	Realistically, COVID-19 will be here for the next 18 months or more.
	We will not be able to return to normalcy until we find a vaccine or effective medications.
	The hard fact is, until we find a vaccine, going back to normal means putting lives at risk.
	This will be the new normal until a vaccine is developed.
	The only thing that will really allow life as we once knew it to resume is a vaccine.
	Obviously, we continue to work on the vaccines, but the vaccines have to be down the road by probably 14, 15, 16 months.
	We're doing great on the vaccines.
	The fact that so many heads of state, health ministers, and media commentators are dutifully echoing Gates' pronouncements about the need for a vaccine will not be surprising to those who saw last week's exploration of how Bill Gates monopolized global health.
	As we have seen, the Gates Foundation's tentacles have penetrated into every corner of the field of public health.
	Billions of dollars in funding and entire public policy agendas are under the control of this man, an unelected, unaccountable software developer with no medical research experience or training.
	And nowhere is Gates' control of public health more apparent than in the realm of vaccines.
	Gates launched the decade of vaccines with a $10 billion pledge.
	Gates helped develop the Global Vaccine Action Plan administered by the Gates-funded World Health Organization.
	Gates helped found GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, aiming to develop healthy markets for vaccine manufacturers.
	Gates helped launch GAVI with a $1 billion donation in 2011, going on to contribute $4.1 billion over the course of the decade of vaccines.
	And so I'm pleased to announce to you that we're pledging an additional billion dollars.
	Thank you.
	All right, thank you.
	It's not every day we give away a billion dollars.
	One of the Gates Foundation's core funding areas is vaccine development and surveillance, which has resulted in the channeling of billions of dollars into vaccine development, a seat at the table to develop vaccination campaigns in countries around the globe, and the opportunity to shape public thinking about Bill Gates' pet project of the past five years, preparing rapid development and deployment of vaccines in the event of a globally spreading pandemic.
	If anything kills over 10 million people in the next few decades, it's most likely to be a highly infectious virus.
	Whether it occurs by the quirk of nature or at the hand of a terrorist, epidemiologists show through their models that a respiratory spread pathogen would kill more than 30 million people in less than a year.
	And there is a reasonable probability of that taking place in the years ahead.
	Many high-profile personalities have been gathering at this year's World Economic Forum in Davos, which aims to discuss and deal with the globe's most pressing issues.
	Amongst them is the Microsoft founder Bill Gates.
	His foundation is investing millions in the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness innovations to help combat infectious diseases.
	Here's some of what he had to say about his push to develop new vaccines.
	Unfortunately, it takes many years to do a completely new vaccine.
	The design, the safety reviews, the manufacturing, all those things mean that an epidemic can be very widespread before that tool would come along.
	And so after Ebola, the global health community talked a lot about this, including a new type of vaccine platform called DNA RNA that should speed things along.
	And so this Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Initiative, CEPI, is three countries.
	We know vaccines can protect us.
	two foundations, Welcome Trust, we work on a lot of things on our foundation, Gates Foundation, coming together to fund, actually trying to use that platform and make some vaccines, and so that would help us in actually trying to use that platform and make some vaccines, and so We know vaccines can protect us.
	We just need to be better prepared.
	So let's come together.
	Let's research and invest.
	Let's save lives.
	Let's outsmart epidemics.
	Given Gates' mammoth investment in vaccines over the past decade, his insistence that "Things won't go back to truly normal until we his insistence that "Things won't go back to truly normal until we have a vaccine that we've gotten out to basically the entire world" is
	What should be surprising is that this strangely specific and continuously repeated message, that we will not go back to normal until we get a vaccine in 18 months, has no scientific basis whatsoever.
	Medical researchers have already conceded that a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 may not even be possible, pointing to the inability of researchers to develop any kind of immunization against previous coronavirus outbreaks like SARS or MERS.
	But even if such a vaccine were possible, serious concerns remain about the safety of developing, testing, and delivering such an amazing vaccine to the entire world in this remarkably short time frame.
	Even proponents of vaccine development openly worry that the rush to vaccinate billions of people with a largely untested, experimental coronavirus vaccine will itself present grave risks to the public.
	One of these risks involves disease enhancement.
	It has been known for over a decade that vaccination for some viral infections, including coronaviruses, actually enhances susceptibility to viral infection or even causes infections in healthy vaccine recipients.
	Now, the issue of safety is something that I want to make sure the American public understand.
	It's not only safety when you inject somebody and they get maybe an idiosyncratic reaction, they get a little allergic reaction, they get pain.
	There's safety associated.
	Does the vaccine make you worse?
	And there are diseases in which you vaccinate someone, they get infected with what you're trying to protect them with, and you actually enhance the infection.
	This is no mere theoretical risk.
	As researchers who were trying to develop a vaccine for the original SARS outbreak discovered, the vaccine actually made the lab animals subjected to it more susceptible to the disease.
	One of the things that we're not hearing a lot about is the unique potential safety problem of coronavirus vaccines.
	This was first found in the early 1960s with the respiratory syncytial virus vaccines and it was done here in Washington with the NIH and Children's National Medical Center that some of those kids who got the vaccine actually did worse And I believe there were two deaths in the consequence of that study.
	Because what happens with certain types of respiratory virus vaccines, you get immunized, and then when you get actually exposed to the virus, you get this kind of paradoxical immune enhancement phenomenon.
	And we don't entirely understand the basis of it, but we recognize that it's a real problem for certain respiratory virus vaccines.
	That killed the RSV program For decades now, the Gates Foundation is taking it up again.
	But when we started developing coronavirus vaccines and our colleagues, we noticed in laboratory animals that they started to show some of the same immune pathology that resembled what had happened 50 years earlier.
	This specific issue regarding coronavirus vaccines is exacerbated by the arbitrary and unscientific 18-month time frame that Gates is insisting on for the vaccine's development.
	In order to meet that deadline, vaccine developers are being urged to use new and largely unproven methods for creating their experimental immunizations, including DNA and mRNA vaccines.
	For a self-described wartime president, victory over COVID-19 equals a vaccine.
	I hope we're going to have a vaccine, and we're going to fast-track it like you've never seen before.
	Adding Trump-style branding, the administration launched Operation Warp Speed, a multibillion-dollar research and manufacturing effort to shorten the typical year-plus vaccine development timeline.
	We're going to start ramping up production with the companies involved.
	And you do that at risk.
	In other words, you don't wait until you get an answer before you start manufacturing.
	You, at risk, proactively start making it, assuming it's going to work.
	You're thinking 18 months, even with all the work that you've already done to this point and the planning that you are taking with lots of different potential vaccinations and building up for that now?
	Yes, so there's an approach called RNA vaccine that people like Moderna, CureVac, and others are using.
	that in 2015 we'd identified that as very promising for pandemics and for other applications as well.
	And so if everything goes perfectly with the RNA approach, we could actually beat the 18 months.
	We don't want to create unrealistic expectations.
	So the concept of an RNA vaccine is let's inject the RNA molecule that encodes for the spike protein.
	It's making your cell do the work of creating this viral protein that is going to be recognized by your immune system and trigger the development of these antibodies.
	Our bodies won't make a full-fledged infectious virus, they'll just make a little piece and then learn to recognize it and then get ready to destroy the virus if it then later comes and invades us.
	It's a relatively new, unproven technology and there's still no example of an RNA vaccine that's been deployed worldwide in the way that we need for the coronavirus.
	There's the possibility for unforeseen adverse effects.
	So this is all new territory.
	Whether it would elicit protective immune response against this virus is just unknown right now.
	Rushing at warp speed to develop a new vaccine using experimental technology and then mass producing and delivering billions of doses to be injected into basically the entire world before adequate testing is even done amounts to one of the most dangerous experiments in the history of the world.
	One that could alter the lives of untold numbers of people.
	That an experimental vaccine, developed in a brand new way and rushed through with a special shortened testing regime, should be given to adults, children, pregnant women, newborn babies, and the elderly alike, would be, in any other situation, unthinkable.
	To suggest that such a vaccine should be given to the entire planet would have been called lunacy mere months ago.
	But now the public is being asked to accept this premise without question.
	Even Gates himself acknowledges the inherent risks of such a project.
	But his concern is not for the lives that will be irrevocably altered in the event that the vaccines cause damage to the population.
	Instead, he is more concerned that the pharmaceutical companies and the researchers are given legal immunity for any such damage.
	If we have one in 10,000 side effects, that's way more, 700,000 people who will suffer from that.
	So really understanding the safety at gigantic scale across all age ranges, pregnant, male, female, undernourished, existing comorbidities, It's very, very hard.
	And that actual decision of, OK, let's go and give this vaccine to the entire world, governments will have to be involved because there will be some risk and indemnification needed before that can be decided on.
	As we have already seen, in the arena of global health, what Bill Gates wants is what the world gets.
	So it should be no surprise that immunity for the big pharma vaccine manufacturers and the vaccination program planners is already being worked on.
	In the U.S., the Department of Health and Human Services issued a declaration that retroactively provides liability immunity for activities related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19, including manufacturers, distributors, and program planners of any vaccine used to treat, diagnose, cure, prevent, or mitigate COVID-19.
	The declaration was issued on March 17th, but retroactively covers any activity back to February 4th, 2020.
	The day before, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced an emergency $100 million to fund treatment efforts and to develop new vaccines for COVID-19.
	The plan to inject everyone on the planet with an experimental vaccine is no aberration in Bill Gates' envisioned decade of vaccines.
	It is its culmination.
	The decade of vaccines kicked off with a Gates-funded $3.6 million observational study of HPV vaccines in India that, according to a government investigation, violated the human rights of the study participants with gross violations of consent and failed to properly report adverse events experienced by the vaccine recipients.
	After the deaths of seven girls involved in the trial were reported, a parliamentary investigation concluded that the Gates-funded Program for Appropriate Technology and Health, or PATH, which ran the study, had been engaged in a scheme to help ensure healthy markets for GlaxoSmithKline and Merck, the manufacturers of the Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines that had been so generously donated for use in the trial.
	Had PATH been successful in getting the HPV vaccine included in the universal immunization program of the concerned countries, this would have generated windfall profit for the manufacturers by way of automatic sale, year after year, without any promotional or marketing expenses.
	It is well known that once introduced into the immunization program, it becomes politically impossible to stop any vaccination.
	Chandra M. Gulhadi, editor of the influential Monthly Index of Medical Specialties, remarked that it is shocking to see how an American organization used so repetitious methods to establish itself in India.
	And Samarin Nundy, editor emeritus of the National Medical Journal of India, lamented that this is an obvious case where Indians were being used as guinea pigs.
	Throughout the decade, India's concerns about the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and its corporate partners' influence on the country's national immunization programs grew.
	In 2016, the steering group of the country's National Health Mission blasted the government for allowing the country's National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization, the primary body advising the government on all vaccination-related matters, to be effectively purchased by the Gates Foundation.
	As one steering group member noted, the NTAGI Secretariat has been moved out of the Government's Health Ministry to the Office of Public Health Foundation of India, and the 32 staff members in that Secretariat draw their salaries from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
	There is a clear conflict of interest.
	On one hand, the BMGF funds the Secretariat that is the highest decision-making body in vaccines, and, on the other, it partners with the pharma industry in Gavi.
	This is unacceptable.
	In 2017, the government responded by cutting all financial ties between the advisory group and the Gates Foundation.
	Similar stories play out across the Gates Foundation's decade of vaccines.
	There's the Gates-founded and funded meningitis vaccine project, which led to the creation and testing of MenAfriVac, a 50-cent-per-dose immunization against meningococcal meningitis.
	The test led to reports of between 40 and 500 children suffering seizures and convulsions and eventually becoming paralyzed.
	There's the 2017 confirmation that the Gates-supported oral polio vaccine was actually responsible for the majority of new polio cases, and the 2018 follow-up showing that 80% of polio cases are now vaccine-derived.
	There's the 2018 paper in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health concluding that over 490,000 people in India developed paralysis as a result of the oral polio vaccine between 2000 and 2017.
	There's even the WHO's own malaria chief, Dr. Arata Kochi, who complained in an internal memo that Gates' influence meant that the world's leading malaria scientists are now locked up in a cartel with their own research funding being linked to those of others within the group, and that the foundation was stifling debate on the best ways to treat and combat malaria, prioritizing only those methods that relied on new technology or developing new drugs.
	Kochi's complaint, written in 2008, highlights the most common criticism of the global health web that Gates has spun in the past two decades.
	That the public health industry has become a racket run by and for Big Pharma and its partners for the benefit of big business.
	At the time that Kochi was writing his memo, the executive director of the Gates Foundation's global health program was Tachi Yamada.
	Yamada left his position as chairman of research and development at GlaxoSmithKline to take up the position at the Gates Foundation in 2006, and left the foundation five years later to become chief medical and scientific officer at Takeda Pharmaceuticals.
	Yamada's replacement as head of Gates' global health program, Trevor Mundell, was himself a clinical researcher at Pfizer and Park Davis, and spent time as head of development with Novartis before joining the foundation.
	This use of foundation funds to set public policy to drive up corporate profits is not a secret conspiracy.
	It is a perfectly open one.
	When the Center for Global Development formed a working group to develop a practical approach to the vaccine challenge, they concluded that the best way to incentivize pharmaceutical companies to produce more vaccines for the third world was for governments to promise to buy vaccines before they were even developed.
	They titled their report, Making Markets for Vaccines.
	The project Making Markets for Vaccines was really designed to address a problem that's existed for a long time, which is insufficient research and development budgets as well as investment capacity in vaccine development and production for the third world.
	How do you create Better incentives to get the pharma community, the vaccine community, to produce products that are specifically dedicated for the developing world.
	Michael Kremer, a professor at Harvard, had been thinking about this problem for many years.
	He realized that if the rich countries of the world were to make a promise that they would buy a malaria vaccine if somebody produced it, that that would give an incentive to the pharmaceutical industry to go and do the research and development needed to make one.
	But this idea was unfamiliar.
	No government had made a commitment to buy a product that didn't already exist.
	When the first such advanced market commitment was made in 2007, a $1.5 billion promise to buy yet-to-be-produced vaccines from big pharma manufacturers, there was the Gates Foundation as the only non-nation sponsor.
	The Gates-founded Gavi Vaccine Alliance is an open partnership between the Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization, the World Bank, and vaccine manufacturers.
	Their stated goal includes introducing new vaccines into the routine schedules of national immunization programs, and to engage in market-shaping efforts to ensure healthy markets for vaccines and other immunization products.
	If introducing new vaccines and ensuring healthy markets for them was the aim of Gates's decade of vaccines, there can be no doubt that COVID-19 has seen that goal realized in spectacular fashion.
	Let's start the pledging.
	The EU kicked off its fundraising drive with 1 billion euros.
	In the hours that followed, pledges were beamed in from across the globe.
	The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has pledged 500 million dollars Even pop icon Madonna made a last-minute donation of a million euros.
	By combining the world's expertise and brainpower and resources, we can attack this disease in the way it's attacking us, globally.
	Our foundation is proud to partner with you, and I'm pleased to announce today that we will pledge a hundred million dollars towards this effort.
	Germany was one of the leading donors, pledging over 500 million euros.
	The money is earmarked for international health organizations and research networks, in a bid to speed up the development of a vaccine.
	And there, at the center of this web, is the Gates Foundation, connected to every major organization, research institution, international alliance and vaccine manufacturer involved in the current crisis.
	Certainly, the Gates, like the Rockefellers, have profited from their years as the most generous people on the planet.
	As curious as it might seem to those who don't understand the true nature of this monopoly cartel, despite all of these grants and pledges, commitments of tens of billions of dollars, Bill Gates' personal net worth has actually doubled during this decade of vaccines, from $50 billion to over $100 billion.
	But once again, we come back to the question.
	Who is Bill Gates?
	Is he motivated simply by money?
	Is this incessant drive to vaccinate the entire population of the planet merely the result of greed?
	Or is there something else driving this agenda?
	As we shall see next time, money is not the end goal of Gates's philanthropic activities.
	Money is just the tool that he is using to purchase what he really wants.
	Control.
	Control not just of the health industry, but control of the human population itself.
	Next week on The Corbett Report. - Whoa.
	So Melinda and I wondered whether providing new medicines and keeping children alive, would that create more of a population problem?
	Researchers are now developing a vaccine that is delivered using a dissolvable patch called a microneedle array.
	In Gates's vision, these digital identities will be tied to all of our actions and transactions.
	Once you have that digital infrastructure, the whole way you think about government benefits can be done differently.
	And so it's too bad if somebody thinks that creates a privacy problem.
	Bill Gates and the Population Control Grid.
	Fantastic report by The Corbett Report, which you can find online.
	We come back after the break.
	We'll get into a meeting.
	May of 2009 in New York City.
	A secret meeting amongst the world's leading billionaires, led by Bill Gates.
	What was the agenda?
	Set the scene.
	May 2009, New York City, a few months after the inauguration of a new president, Barack Obama.
	In a meeting, in a secret meeting, in New York City gathered some of the world's most powerful and richest people.
	Indeed, to read from the headline of the Times of London at the time, billionaire club meets in bid to curb overpopulation.
	Some of America's leading billionaires met secretly To consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world's population and change the way health and education is done around the world.
	Who are some of its key members?
	Well, it was attended on a, the summit was convened on the initiative of Bill Gates.
	Who was part of this quote-unquote good club?
	David Rockefeller, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Oprah Winfrey and Ted Turner.
	Indeed, another article in the Guardian went into further detail.
	They're called the Good Club, and they want to save the world.
	In the most elite club in the world, ordinary people need not apply.
	Indeed, there's no way to even ask to join.
	You simply have to be very, very rich on a global scale.
	The names of the members are familiar figures.
	Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey, David Rockefeller, Eli and Edith Broad, all told their members have wealth well over 100 billion dollars.
	The meeting was called by Gates and helped to be organized by Buffett and Rockefeller.
	And indeed their focus was the crises that they considered plaguing the world, particularly issues and concerns of overpopulation.
	And their goal was to overcome, quote, the objections of people that might be objecting on religious and political ground.
	As the Wall Street Journal reported, billionaires try to shrink world's population.
	The New York meeting of billionaires Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller, Eli Broad, George Soros, Ted Turner, Oprah, Michael Bloomberg, Bloomberg and others was described as an informal gathering for a few billionaires just getting together for dinner and drinks and a friendly chat about how to promote charitable giving.
	There was no agenda, we were told, and no plan for a follow-up meeting.
	It was inevitable, of course, that a secret meeting of this nature would result in controversy, and indeed details of the meetings as it leaked focused on overcoming the, quote, political and religious objections people might have in the democratic side of the world to these billionaires' control.
	As the Guardian reported, our gates in Rockefeller using their agenda to set using their influence to set agenda in poor states.
	Noting that the foundations were working together and we're getting closer and closer to governments and politicians and may in quote to the article be skewing priorities.
	Ultra-rich philanthropists and their foundations are increasing their influence on decision-making.
	In particular, setting the global health and agricultural agenda in countries around the world.
	Independent studies showed how disparate and disproportionate the influence of Bill Gates and his billionaire pals increasingly was.
	Now we actually have some history, as was documented in the documentary that we witnessed and watched, about the history of Bill Gates' influence in the vaccine context around the world.
	Consider this article from the India Times.
	Controversial vaccine studies.
	Why is Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation under fire from critics in India?
	Well, the reason is that the foundation funded two entities that played a key role in an immunization program that came under fire for conflict of interest and the health problems it created.
	Indeed, if you go to further articles and information, you find that it relates to HP vaccine deaths.
	Parliament panel indicts PATH.
	This was a group that one of the predecessors to Bill Gates current groups that Bill Gates helped form that included reported deaths of children and adolescent girls after they were given the HP vaccine and the Gates oriented project.
	Indeed, as the Daily Mail reported, judges demand answers after children die in controversial cancer vaccine trial in India.
	Indeed, the Parliament of India did an extensive and expansive report.
	Report number 72.
	It went into the alleged irregularity and the conduct of studies of the HPV vaccine by PATH in India.
	It went into the violation of certain rules, the violation of certain legal principles, the violation of the agreements that were in place, the conflicts of interest that pervaded those that were supposed to be governing and regulating the vaccine that may have led to the deaths and injuries that occurred.
	The Indian Journal of Medical Ethics also reported it, calling it, quote, trials and tribulations, an expose of the HPV vaccine trials by the 72nd Parliamentary Standing Committee Report of the Indian government.
	Going into detail about what happened in 2009 and 2010 involving the various use of the PHB vaccines, how many people ended up either dead or injured from it, and that in fact informed consent did not occur due to the various conflicts of interest that were prevalent and pervasive.
	This led to a law review article in the Annual Survey of International and Comparative Law called Accountability of International NGOs, Human Rights Violations in Healthcare Provision in Developing Countries and the Effectiveness of Current Measures.
	And who does the article focus on?
	A review of healthcare programs funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation calls into question current accountability of NGOs in the healthcare sector.
	And shines a light on weaknesses and potential areas of improvement needed in accountability in the health sector, particularly relating to vaccines and other activities by the Gates Foundation around the world, but especially in India and Africa.
	Additional articles by the Indian Journal of Method Medical Ethics would report continuous problems related to deaths in the trial of the HP vaccines and the truth about truth tests related to what was taking place there.
	Others noted that the call for a vaccine for every ailment seemed to be part of the problematic aspect of the Gates Public Policy request.
	Hence, Indian protesters wrote an article called, A Vaccine for Every Ailment.
	30,000 children from poor and marginalized communities involved in an unethical vaccine study against the HPV virus that purports to cause cervical cancer.
	It goes into details about the problems with the vaccine, how it was done, how it was administered, how it was regulated, how it was governed, and who do they focus their objection to.
	In fact, the PATH International Organization funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
	As noted in even the New York Times back in 2004, when books and movies like The Constant Gardener were popular by John Lecar, portraying the problem of drug testing in India and Africa, the New York Times reported, in drug research, some guinea pigs are now human, going into the issues and the problems of experimenting on human beings.
	But who's been buying stakes in drug makers?
	Well, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, Gates Foundation buys stakes in drug makers, purchasing shares in nine big pharmaceutical companies valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
	As the Times also reported, a separate publication in the New York Times, we are guinea pigs for the drug makers going into the problems of multiple sick South Africans from unethical trials because it's cheaper and easier to get away with it in poor countries.
	The Lancet even admitted, a medical publication, that rights violations were found in the HPV vaccine studies in India, leading to Gates being effectively kicked out in large parts of the relationships that he had originally established there.
	Additional articles by the Manhattan Institute detail how stifling new cures, the true cost of lengthy clinical drug trials, And that's all roots and problems related to immunity for vaccine makers, as was discussed in detail in the documentary.
	The Supreme Court immunized, based on congressional legislation, what vaccine makers do.
	As the decision was issued in Bresowitz, they considered whether a preemption provision under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 barred all state law-designed defect claims against vaccine manufacturers.
	If vaccines are so universally and uniformly safe, if we're supposed to assume all vaccines are equal, then why is there this need, this demand, this call, this cry for special immunity for anything that they do?
	You don't need immunity if you're not doing anything wrong.
	You need immunity when you are at risk of doing something wrong.
	Why are they afraid of the American jury system determining whether what they've done is right?
	Indeed, in that context, where does this background of obsession over overpopulation come from that Bill Gates got the other billionaires lined up to in his secret meeting in 2009 in New York that later was followed by these influential policies being around the world and the monopolization, what they call monopolistic philanthropy, monopolistic control, this cartel control of public health care?
	Well, let's take a look at video clip number 15 and look at Bill Gates' focus and obsession on the issue of population itself.
	Now we put out a lot of carbon dioxide every year, over 26 billion tons.
	For each American, it's about 20 tons.
	For people in poor countries, it's less than 1 ton.
	It's an average of about 5 tons for everyone on the planet.
	And somehow we have to make changes that will bring that down to zero.
	It's been constantly going up.
	It's only various economic changes that have even flattened it at all.
	So we have to go from rapidly rising to falling and falling all the way to zero.
	This equation has four factors.
	A little bit of multiplication.
	So you've got a thing on the left, CO2, that you want to get to zero.
	And that's going to be based on the number of people.
	The services each person's using on average, the energy on average for each service, and the CO2 being put out per unit of energy.
	So let's look at each one of these and see how we can get this down to zero.
	Probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty near to zero.
	That's back from high school algebra.
	But let's take a look.
	First we've got population.
	The world today has 6.8 billion people.
	That's headed up to about 9 billion.
	Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.
	But there we see an increase of about 1.3.
	New vaccines, new vaccines, new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services.
	We could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.
	So that's Bill Gates?
	We have Bill Gates talking about using vaccines to lower population.
	That's his reason for his obsession with vaccines is his obsession of overpopulation.
	This is a concern that dates to Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, who Bill Gates has himself supported substantially and whose father was a leading organizer and member of back in the time period.
	Let's take a look at what Margaret Sanger described to Mike Wallace as being the greatest sin a person could possibly commit, and also listen to what kind of people she believes shouldn't be brought into the world, and we'll go into where that origin of that doctrine stems from.
	Let's take a look at clip number six.
	Do you believe there is such a thing as sin?
	I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world.
	That have been diseased from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being, practically, delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things, just mocked when they're born.
	That to me is the greatest sin that people can commit.
	She focused on certain groups of people that shouldn't be around, shouldn't be brought into the world.
	Well, where does that come from?
	Well, let's take a look at video clip number five in the history of eugenics.
	That was a influential movement at the very time that Margaret Sanger started, founded, and gave birth to Planned Parenthood.
	Let's take a look at video clip number five.
	On August 18th, 1934, 20-year-old Ann Cooper Hewitt, 1934, 20-year-old Ann Cooper Hewitt, heiress to one of the largest fortunes in the United States, was admitted to a San Francisco hospital for an emergency appendectomy.
	She later learned the surgeons not only had removed her appendix, but also a length of her fallopian tubes, rendering her incapable of ever becoming pregnant.
	The story of the sterilized heiress hit the papers just after the new year, in 1936, when Anne filed a half-million-dollar damage claim against the surgeons and her own mother for sterilizing her without her knowledge or consent.
	Anne's mother denied any wrongdoing.
	She'd done what she'd done for society's sake, she insisted, because her daughter was feeble-minded.
	It was the sort of bizarre high-society scandal that would have captured the national imagination under any circumstances.
	But that one word, feeble-minded, struck a familiar chord for Americans and linked Anne's plight to a decades-old campaign to control human reproduction, known as eugenics.
	What is the bearing of the laws of heredity upon human affairs?
	Eugenics provides the answer.
	Eugenics was proposed as the scientific solution for social problems.
	It was a combination of hope and aspiration on one side, and on the other side it was about fear, and in some cases about hate.
	They are identified early, categorized, feeble-minded, imbecile, idiot.
	It would have been better by far if they had never been born.
	People tend to think that eugenics was a doctrine that originated with the Nazis, that it was grounded in wild claims that were far outside the scientific mainstream.
	Both of those impressions are fundamentally not true.
	It was almost a mania that sort of swept through the country, and there was that kind of naive, optimistic vision of eugenics, like, hey, let's all get together and make better people.
	The eugenics movement was about having healthy children.
	About having a stronger society.
	There's nothing wrong with that.
	You have to look at the underbelly of what was implemented in the name of eugenics to see what was so problematic about it.
	The End
	In the fall of 1902, an American biologist named Charles Benedict Davenport arrived in London on a sort of pilgrimage.
	He was 36, Harvard-educated, and like many biologists of his generation, absorbed with the study of evolution.
	He'd been traveling in Europe with his wife, collecting seashells for research on species variation.
	But this was to be the highlight of the trip.
	A meeting with the world-renowned gentleman scientist Sir Francis Galton.
	A pioneering statistician, Galton had lived his 80 years by a single motto.
	Whenever you can, count.
	His obsession with measurements and patterns had led him to create the world's first weather maps, establish fingerprinting as a means of identification, and set data-backed parameters for the perfect cup of tea.
	Charles Davenport had come to discuss another matter, Galton's work on heredity.
	Francis Galton was a great quantifier.
	He liked to quantify height, hair color, you know, what's the chest size of an average man, what is the thigh length of an average man, even things like intelligence.
	Galton had a theory that talent, as he called it, what we would call intelligence, seemed to run in families.
	And so it quickly occurred to him, if we can get people with high talent to mate with each other, prevent people with low talent from mating with each other, we will, within a few generations, create this race of supermen.
	Francis Galton was borrowing ideas and kind of riffing off of the work of his half-cousin, Charles Darwin.
	Darwin believed that evolution was this natural process that was inevitably leading towards what they called the survival of the fittest.
	Galton really turns that idea on its head and says, you know, natural selection isn't working very well.
	We need to do a form of selection.
	We need to intervene.
	To name the effort, Galden had coined the term eugenics, a hybrid derived from two Greek words meaning well and born.
	Charles Davenport believed, as Galden did, that selective breeding could transform the human race.
	What was needed was a scientific understanding of how heredity actually worked.
	And over dinner at Galton's home, Davenport declared his intention to get to the bottom of it.
	Davenport said, I'm going to create a new kind of institution.
	A station for experimental evolution.
	Not Darwinian natural selection that you just go out and observe, but can we figure out how inheritance works?
	Can we do experiments and find the patterns of heredity?
	When Davenport sailed for home in December 1902, he carried with him not only a letter of recommendation signed by Galton, But also, he later wrote, a renewed courage for the study of evolution.
	Davenport and Galton really did imagine that the idea of improving human heredity was of almost religious significance, of profound moral importance.
	They also believed they were qualified to breed a better race because they believed that they were the best and the brightest.
	Scarcely more than a year later, with funding from the Carnegie Institution, Davenport opened his research station on the north shore of Long Island at Cold Davenport opened his research station on the north shore of Long Island
	Situated on 10 acres along Oyster Bay, the place had been purpose-built for the breeding and analyzing of plants and animals, complete with sprawling garden plots, an aviary, and a half-dozen tidy enclosures housing chickens, goats, and sheep.
	By mating organisms with unusual characteristics, a tailless manx cat or a rooster with a black comb, And then studying their offspring, generation after generation.
	Davenport hoped to unlock the mystery of evolution.
	But his diseased ideas did not stop there.
	Let's take a look at clip number seven that gives a good summation of the eugenics crusade.
	An American experience.
	It was almost a mania that sort of swept through the country.
	The slogans were simple.
	Things like, better babies and happy families.
	By the twenties, eugenics was a household word.
	You mean they're going to stop me from having children ever?
	When Adolf Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, he said Germans must emulate what the Americans are doing.
	The Eugenics Crusade on American Experience.
	Indeed, these infectious ideas, these viral ideas that began and were birthed and were beget by Darwin himself initially.
	So even though Charles Darwin never voiced these ideas, it was Darwinism that was its predicate, that was its philosophical premise, that was its fountain and foundation for future use and utilization.
	Indeed, what many people do not know about the Scopes Trial, tried near my hometown in Chattanooga, but tried in Dayton, Tennessee, between William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow, two of the great legal and rhetorical and oratorical minds and voices of the late 19th century and early 20th century, is that, in fact, Bryan himself had no original objection to Darwinism.
	Or evolution as a theory of biology.
	Instead, it was when he saw its ugliest manifestation, the infectious virus known as social Darwinism that manifested into eugenics, later on that he objected.
	He objected and then he realized the danger of Darwinism itself.
	And giving a replacement to religious belief as to the origin of the world created a new overarching religious theory that justified disparate allocation of well-being, that justified a horrific treatment of various people and populations around the world to benefit the privileged few.
	And it's that infectious set of ideas that led us to eugenics, that led to sterilization, that led to the Nazi experiment of the 1930s, which used public health and quarantines as the pretext for its actions in bringing about the Holocaust, that ultimately were the foundation of the Planned Parenthood movement in large part in the United States, embracing abortion, targeting poor communities, And now we're here today to Bill Gates's final solution.

▲