Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 26, 2020 - American Countdown - Barnes

01:47:10

20200526_Tue_Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The British are coming, the British are coming!
	You are about to be marked among the great debates.
	And the world is all around America first!
	Yeah, it's hot!
	What's your honey?
	The British are coming, the British are coming!
	You are about to leave.
	Welcome to another edition of American Countdown, the day after Memorial Day, where we could hold a lot of things in memoriam, including the economy we once had and the civil society we once had just months ago.
	As we are months into this pandemic era of politics and economics, we are also just months away from the presidential election that can be impacted by it.
	Increasingly, several issues are becoming hot issues currently, aside from the issue of whether a mandatory vaccine should be the solution to COVID-19.
	The other question that arises is the increasing requirement of mandatory mask wearing, this sort of medical sharia law that is being imposed by employers, by restaurants, businesses, and in some cases, increasingly by cities, counties, and states.
	In addition, there is increasing talk of tracing and tracking, contact tracing and tracking, as it's called in various contexts.
	Basically, it's a way of permanent surveillance on individuals, knocking on people's doors, asking them to disclose intimate information, traditionally private information about their health and well-being, that then can be used against them, depending on their answers, in terms of employment, in terms of social activity, in terms of even being able to stay in their home or keep custody of their children.
	That's the world in which we are currently residing and the kind of environment that people increasingly see as threatening to their core civil rights as well as economic liberty.
	Well, let's start with the face mask debate and the mandatory mask debate.
	Now, from a legal perspective, the U.S.
	Supreme Court has recognized that there is a First Amendment right and a Fourth Amendment right in how you choose to dress yourself publicly.
	There can be association issues, freedom of speech issues, freedom of expression issues, religious expression issues.
	There can also be issues related to privacy and personality that are protected under the Fourth Amendment.
	And in that context, they have never addressed the question of whether a city, county, or state can mandate masks.
	Indeed, most courts have addressed this question in a different context, which is the anti-masking laws that still exist on many states' books, dating back to the days of the Klan, that many thought should also apply to Antifa.
	Which is, those are rules that don't allow you to wear masks in public.
	And those cases have gone in different directions.
	Some courts have found it unconstitutional to limit a person's expression through wearing a mask.
	The V for Vendetta mask comes to mind as one form of political expression.
	So different groups have won suits in some cases.
	In other instances, the courts have struck it down.
	The only other place this has really been adjudicated much is in the school dress code context, but there are specific issues unique to the school setting that changes what the constitutional analysis would be.
	So the reality is we are in a situation or scenario where we don't know how the courts would address masking requirements either for employers in the private sector, restaurants or businesses, or more importantly where governments are making it mandatory as the governor of Virginia did it today.
	But what is clear, in fact what the legal question would ultimately turn on, is whether or not there is medical evidence to support its requirement.
	Does it in fact make people safer for you to be wearing masks?
	There it often depends on the context of the mask wearing.
	Some rules only require mask wearing if you cannot avoid a certain degree of social distance from someone indoors.
	By contrast, other rules are requiring people to wear masks outdoors, wearing masks by yourself even when not near anyone.
	That is much more medically questionable and scientifically dubious.
	Indeed.
	Let's take an article from Wired, which is more of a liberal establishment kind of publication, but this was back when the establishment was saying, don't wear masks and you don't need masks.
	So then you had more honest discussion and dialogue and debate in the country about the nature of masks.
	The name of the article was, the face mask debate reveals a scientific double standard.
	They went through and looked at all the different surveys and studies, and I've looked at many of these same surveys and studies myself from the medical literature.
	And what you will find is that the medical literature does not provide a substantiated basis for wearing masks as a means of preventing COVID.
	Indeed, if you look at the warning sign that's listed on any sort of mask product these days that employers are giving employees and others are giving people, it will say right on the warning label, by the way, this mask will not prevent you from getting COVID-19.
	Indeed, the CDC has only slightly changed their position on masks, from the Surgeon General saying they're totally unnecessary and unproductive, to now saying, well, maybe, if COVID-19 spreads by droplets, There's a big amounts, not nanoparticles, as is assumed mostly.
	Then maybe it will stop people who have covid-19 from spreading it to others.
	There's some suggestion that asymptomatic people can spread it through a viral load, even though they don't have a viral load because they're not symptomatic.
	And I'll get into the literature that disputes that presumption.
	But basically, that's the only reason that even the CDC has identified.
	The CDC has not made the claim that wearing a mask will prevent you from getting COVID-19.
	So wearing a mask is mostly to protect others in case you're symptomatic with COVID-19, which is a very, very increasingly small percentage of the population.
	There are also assumptions about the length of time you can be infected with COVID-19.
	The medical literature increasingly does not support.
	But let's go to the mask issue in general.
	Do masks prevent nanoparticles from being spread?
	As we referenced previously, surgeons and others have come out and said no, it does not.
	It doesn't prevent a nanoparticle, which is usually the way that influenza-type, coronavirus-type viruses spread, from either spreading out by you wearing the mask.
	It doesn't stop it from getting out of the mask.
	It doesn't stop it from coming into the mask.
	After all, you have to breathe oxygen, so a mask is not a permanent physical structure to prevent anything from coming in.
	It only prevents things of a certain size from coming in or coming out.
	And so, in that context, the question has been, well, how does it work for nanoparticles?
	There, the literature is pretty clear that there's no definitive evidence of any kind that supports the medical basis for wearing a mask.
	Indeed, as this Wired article details, there are no large-scale clinical trials proving the personal use of masks can prevent pandemic spread.
	Indeed, it goes further.
	The trials do not prove that masks are useful.
	It doesn't prove that they're dangerous or a waste of time either, but it doesn't prove that they are medically beneficial to the degree that you could mandate them or require them.
	Indeed, further studies found no definitive effect.
	of wearing masks in terms of preventing pandemic spread of influenza or coronaviruses.
	Indeed, there's quote, not convincing proof from randomized trials that it protects anyone, including people in hospitals.
	Indeed, there aren't any clinical trials also proving that a six foot social distance prevents infection.
	So neither the social distancing rules nor the mask rules have any basis in actual medically peer-reviewed clinical trial literature.
	They are simply suppositions and presumptions.
	And one could argue an experiment, kind of a Milgram Live experiment, in how much social control you can impose by telling people just months ago that in fact masks won't help you at all to suddenly reversing and saying you have to wear them even to take a jog outdoors or to buy groceries at a grocery store.
	In that same context, an additional article that was published at the University of Minnesota, from the Benson Foundation, goes into detail.
	It says, masks for all for COVID-19 is not based on sound data.
	It goes through all of the details about, quote, there is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of COVID-19 transmission.
	Indeed, it goes through, it says, their use may result in those wearing the mask to relax other efforts that do actually provide protection.
	In addition, it does also limit the use of surgical masks for surgeons to prevent them from infecting patients for things that are unrelated necessarily to COVID-19.
	Indeed, respirators have been the only thing to be shown to be helpful even in the medical context.
	So in that regard, the medical literature does not support the contention that masks are either necessary or even beneficial in the COVID-19 context.
	In the same way, much of the presumption behind mask wearing is for everybody to have their little mini Klan mask on.
	Is to basically, is that asymptomatic people are spreading COVID-19.
	This was an issue that goes all the way back to the beginning of the debate about the data concerning this pandemic.
	Several of us, Jordan Schachtel has been on this show, will be again.
	Myself and others pointed out that historically, asymptomatic carriers of a influenza-like disease, which the coronavirus is spread in a similar manner by all available evidence, Do not have a history, asymptomatic people do not have a history of a high transmission rate.
	In fact they have a history of a very low transmission rate.
	Well the modelers claim that the asymptomatic people would spread this as as much as symptomatic people or even or at least as half as much as symptomatic people when traditionally that rate was much lower.
	Well now we have studies and literature on COVID-19 specific to COVID-19.
	A study on the infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2, what's called SARS-CoV-2, sort of second version of SARS is how COVID-19 is being defined in the medical literature, of those carriers.
	We report here a case of asymptomatic patient and present clinical characteristics of 455 contacts.
	So here's someone that was asymptomatic, had COVID-19, they knew it.
	They tracked and traced him.
	He interacted with 455 people.
	How many of them ended up actually getting infected?
	In summary, all the 445 contacts did not have COVID-19.
	So the idea that COVID-19 can spread easily and effectively through asymptomatic people, which never made much sense.
	Remember, it's the viral load that you have that increases the rate of infectability to other people.
	And that that is typically transmitted most predominantly indoors by coughing or sneezing.
	There's evidence of other forms of transmission, but those tend to be very small risks of that happening.
	So instead, the key evidence is asymptomatic person Even when infected, interacts with 455 people, including in close continuous contact in confined quarters with some of those people, and they found he didn't infect a single one over weeks.
	This conforms to the data that we came out of Wuhan initially, which is that China found that 95% of the people who were around other infected people, if they were asymptomatic, did not get it.
	This corroborates the evidence from both the Navy carrier and from the Military carrier and from the cruise ship, the Diamond Princess, which in both cases found that more than 80% of the people, even in tight confined quarters, close continuous contact with infected people never got infected.
	Why?
	Because asymptomatic people don't spread it.
	Also because a lot more people are probably turning out immune than they originally assumed.
	Now there was historical evidence to believe this would be the case and that historical evidence is rooted and predicated upon the fact that most viruses in the last century plus of this kind and type simply do not reach most people.
	That even most people that are exposed to it don't get it.
	For example, in the Spanish flu, even though it came back three different times over three different years, more than two-thirds of the people exposed to it potentially never got it.
	And the same is true for the Asian flu of 1958, Hong Kong flu of 1968.
	The historical record is that flus of this kind and type, even a seasonal flu, doesn't end up infecting most people.
	And there's various reasons they speculate as to why or how that is.
	Some suggest that the flu dies of its own accord because of a sort of evolutionary biological thesis that in order to survive it needs to be less deadly.
	The more deadly it is, the more it dies off quickly.
	There's others that believe that we simply carry a lot of immunities with us that end up being effective even against novel viruses because there's some aspect of that virus that corresponds to some immunity we may have.
	For example, there's some evidence in the medical medical literature currently that people who have had prior colds have had versions of coronaviruses may, in fact, be more immune than others.
	There's other suggestions that certain populations are simply more immune for either reasons of biology or reasons of culinary habits or taking vitamins or things of that nature.
	It's mostly speculative at this point, but at a minimum, there's simply no evidence.
	That any virus has been radically infectious throughout an entire population over the globe in a compressed time period.
	It just hasn't happened in the last century.
	And there was no real reason to believe that was going to be true here.
	especially once the data from Wuhan and then later from the Diamond Princess and then later from the USS Jefferson all conformed and confirmed the original data and the historical literature and the patterns available in the available data that this was a virus that simply would run out of speed when it did not reach the people who were highly vulnerable or susceptible to it.
	That is why it had an early exponential rise, then a flattening, then a precipitous decline in almost every place it had been regardless of the mitigation tactics or techniques utilized by the local region or government.
	In the same context, one of the fascinating things this weekend is a few folks went out and decided to enjoy Memorial Day and they got socially shamed for it on Twitter and other places in social media.
	So in the Lake of the Ozarks, made a little bit famous by a TV show, Ozark, about money laundering, which is actually quite a good TV show if you want to understand that industry.
	I don't necessarily recommend it as an employment opportunity, but it is educational in what's detailed in it.
	But they decided to have some fun out of the Lake of the Ozarks, like most people do on Memorial Day weekend.
	They did in the boardwalks in New Jersey, they did in the beaches of California.
	And in that context, Karens were complaining all across the media, and other media folks were complaining about folks getting together outdoors, outside, in the sunshine, in the heat, in the humidity, in the chlorinated pools, saying they weren't wearing their masks and they weren't socially distancing enough.
	Again, both the mask and the social distancing background literature do not have any scientific substantiating support at this point that we could say that it is undisputed or undoubted that the medical opinion should be that it would provide any preventative protection.
	But putting that aside, the reality is what we do know.
	Well, what we know about influenza for a long time, there's a reason why we call it the seasonal flu.
	The same with most coronaviruses, which form the common cold frequently.
	Those, too, die off in summer.
	And while we haven't always known why, increasingly over the last several years, people have started to figure it out.
	First of all, that influenza-type viruses, like COVID-19, are indoors-related diseases.
	That's part one.
	Part two is they die in sunlight, they die in humidity, they die in heat.
	And they struggle to spread outdoors.
	So let's just look at this article.
	What was amazing is, in discussing with people on social media, many people in the media, many of the blue checkmark crowd, are completely uninformed of this.
	They're shocked to hear that humidity has been effective at defeating the flu.
	They're shocked to hear that sunlight has been effective at defeating COVID-19.
	They think that just couldn't possibly be true.
	Clearly you just have to social distance everywhere.
	You have to mask everywhere.
	After all, Matt Owens at MSNBC said so.
	Well, here's an article from Scientific American.
	Humidity helps fight flu.
	It's not the only article of that type.
	It's why they use humidifiers sometimes inside schools during a colder flu season to try to undermine the spread of the flu, and they've had success with it.
	Here's an article from Harvard.
	And even you had Harvard epidemiologists publicly stating on Twitter that none of this could be true, even though Harvard itself had published articles saying it was true.
	The reason for the season?
	Why flu strikes in winter?
	Why?
	Because it turns out sunshine, heat, humidity make it difficult, and open air make it difficult to transmit.
	Now, there are some people on social media that thought that that meant if you lived in a warm, humid environment that you could not get COVID.
	And so they were responding that these statements in medical literature could not be true, because after all, people in Miami have COVID-19.
	The point is, even in Miami, they have indoors.
	Also, people can travel to Miami that have COVID.
	The sunshine doesn't kill COVID once it's inside your body.
	It doesn't kill COVID when you're at indoors.
	That this indoors transmitted disease simply has struggles when people are outdoors more often and indoors less often.
	When the windows are open, when they're out in the sunlight, when they're out in the humidity, when they're out in the heat, there's people who still get the flu in summertime.
	It's just much, much lower rate of transmission because so many people are outdoors.
	And because outdoors, it struggles to transmit from one person to another because of the sunshine, because of the open air, because of the humidity, because of the heat.
	Indeed, An additional article on this regards early on about COVID-19 was the indoor transmission of COVID-19.
	That almost every outbreak they found happened indoors.
	It was very rare for it to ever be transmitted outdoors.
	Meanwhile, the CDC itself is now acknowledging that the fatality rate of COVID-19 is substantially less than what they were originally projecting, and particularly the modelers were forecasting.
	As we said on here months ago, we believe that the COVID-19 lethality rate would be something approximating the Asian flu or the Hong Kong flu.
	said it about a month ago in discussing the issue with Scott Adams, said it two months ago in various social media formats, that this had the hallmarks of another Asian flu and another Hong Kong flu.
	We did not shut down anything during the Asian flu.
	We did not shut down anything during the Hong Kong flu.
	Indeed, Woodstock took place during the middle of that, quote-unquote, pandemic.
	And now the CDC confirms the same.
	They confirmed that the COVID-19 fatality rate could be as low as 0.26%.
	When adjusted by the age demographic profile of this, it means that if you're under 60, you have about the same risk from COVID-19 as you do from a severe flu season.
	What we have is something, the Asian flu was about three to five times more dangerous than the average seasonal flu.
	The same is true of the Hong Kong flu.
	This is turning out to be two to three times more dangerous.
	So it may end up even less lethal than the Asian flu and the Hong Kong flu, even though we may have exacerbated deaths around the world by our shutdown approach, particularly forcing infected people into nursing homes in the Northeast.
	Meanwhile, in the same respect, as we've been saying, the historical data supports the idea that a large percentage of the population, for whatever reason, simply will not get COVID-19, including information that many of us may have pre-existing immunity from it.
	This goes back to a thesis of a different kind, reflecting a broader statement of history, from the book by Jared Diamond called Guns, Germs, and Steel.
	Indeed, many people to this day, particularly on the left, believe that Native Americans were deliberately killed in mass genocide when the United States was initially colonized and populated.
	In fact, that's not what happened.
	90-95% died because they did not have immunities from the diseases that Europeans had from the domestication of wolves and tigers into dogs and cats.
	Indeed, it was that domestication that led to a higher, higher level of being immune, that degree of interaction and engagement that did, such that when we traveled to places like Europe, when people from the West traveled to places like North America, we had many more immunities than Native Americans did.
	By contrast, the many people from the West struggled when they went down to Africa because Africa had a lot of viruses we were not immune from, and that is why colonization efforts in Africa mostly failed.
	Mother Nature protected the African continent from the would-be empire builders in ways that Native Americans were not protected here.
	Well, now we're seeing a similar data and studies reporting the same about COVID-19.
	A study, a majority of the population may have at least some degree of pre-existing immunity to COVID-19.
	Not a big surprise given the history of viruses.
	Not a big surprise given these are developed populations.
	Not a big surprise given that COVID-19 is a coronavirus and that consequently many people having got coronaviruses in the past may have developed the antibodies that make it less likely that they will get COVID-19 now.
	This may also explain why more than 80% of the people on the two ships, the aircraft carrier and the cruise ship, never got it.
	More than 90% of the people that were tracked and traced from Wuhan, who were exposed to it, never got it.
	And why in fact it has limited its spread and transmission rate everywhere it has gone.
	In the same context, more and more doctors and medical professionals are condemning these policies and these shutdown politics as ruining the medical healthcare system, endangering lives, and killing people.
	As this report is, Dr. Atlas, on the coronavirus lockdowns, the shutdown policy, the lockdown policy is literally killing people.
	Dealing with people not getting cancer treatments, not getting diagnostic treatments, not getting heart care treatments, not getting liver treatments, not coming in when they have a medical emergency because they don't think it's a sufficient medical emergency or they think the hospital is dangerous or they think the hospital is overcrowded.
	All of these panic-driven policies by the various politicians, aside from and independent of the nursing home debacle by the Northern Democratic governors, is increasingly leading to more and more deaths.
	And that doesn't even get to the suicides, that doesn't get to the increased drug abuse, that doesn't get into child abuse and domestic violence, all of which has been on the rise during this time period.
	Indeed, 600 physicians signed a letter saying the lockdowns are, quote, a mass casualty incident.
	That it is a little casualty incident using the sort of the insurance literature, the medical literature, that basically it has caused a lot of unnecessary deaths around the country and around the world.
	Meanwhile, more and more studies continue to document that the shutdowns have had no evident deterrent effect on the development of or transmission or spread of COVID-19.
	Indeed, from the U.K., a shock study shows what they call the curfews, the lockdowns, didn't slow the coronavirus spread and just destroyed livelihoods in its place.
	Indeed, a study of U.S.
	states came to the same conclusion as published in the U.K.
	Daily Mail.
	U.S.
	states see a lower infection rate after the lockdowns end.
	Indeed, if you've been following the data from Florida, Georgia, or Texas, you've seen that all three have been experiencing declines in the lethality rate of COVID-19 since they reopened their states in ways that the states that have continued lockdowns have not experienced the same degree.
	Another article that talks about how humidity kills the flu virus.
	You can find this a wide range of political and public and medical literature sources.
	Another study of course from JP Morgan that we referenced that is increasingly being substantiated is the Daily Mail reports lockdowns fail to alter the course of the pandemic either in the United States or in Europe.
	It has no evidentiary effect at reducing the spread of COVID-19.
	That has led to more European politicians recognizing they made a mistake, including the Denmark Prime Minister.
	And as Daniel Horowitz reports, European politicians are now blaming each other for the insane lockdown idea, while some U.S.
	politicians continue to double down.
	In addition, in Brazil, as protests expand, as President Bolsonaro leads the protests against the lockdowns taking place by the regional governors there, Brazilian scientists and academics write an open letter on the quote, science of the coronavirus pandemic.
	What they go through is, in fact, there is no science to support the shutdown policies, no science to support the degree of social distancing imposed, no science to support the mask wearing imposed, no shutdown, no science to support the shutdown period.
	They go through a long letter that details each aspect of it, while talking about how certain medications, therapeutic medications, that the World Health Organization, Anthony Fauci and others, and the media are trying to be dismissive of, have in fact been effective in what they've seen in their daily medical lives.
	Another study from Business Insider that reports that COVID-19 is a lot like the flu as it regards to sunshine, humid weather, and high temperatures.
	As this headline from Business Insider records, high temperatures and muggy weather make the new coronavirus less contagious, a group of experts says.
	Meanwhile, the length and incubation period of the infection has been one of the bases for all these contact tracing and tracking and masking laws.
	And what have we found?
	Well, they were suggesting it could go for months, that you could be infected without knowing it for a long period of time.
	Well, now a new study shows that COVID patients are not infectious after 11 days.
	So that, in fact, this idea that they could have it for months, asymptomatic for a long period of time, not backed up by the medical literature that is increasingly coming out.
	Meanwhile, as Julie Kelly writes, and as we mentioned at the beginning from the WIRED publication, talking about the failed experiment of social distancing in the American Greatness publication, went into detail how mostly this was based on a high school study, and this was not based on any detailed clinical trials or medical literature, a fact confirmed in the WIRED publication.
	So you have cross-ideological agreement that in fact there is no effective deterrent Protocol from these kind of you see these pictures of people where they're drawing circles outdoors And you have to stay within your circle and away from the other circle.
	There's no evidence that that actually works This is outdoors in heat in humidity in sunlight and yet people think they have to be distant and wearing masks There's no medical literature that supports or substantiates or could compel that as a matter of constitutional law Another article that talks about how sunlight and humidity kill coronavirus the fastest according to US scientists
	Additional data about the implications for antibody testing and the high level of seroactivity against COVID-19, detailing how more and more people appear to be immune from this, and this is from the medical literature in the pre-published, pre-peer-reviewed publications.
	Meanwhile, people have tried to praise and celebrate New Zealand for being somehow a great example because they did a crazy shutdown.
	But you dig into the data?
	New Zealand has a higher excess fatality rate than Sweden does.
	So how is it New Zealand is some great example of doing this correctly when their death data shows a much higher growth rate in excess deaths than Sweden does that didn't impose any lockdown?
	And meanwhile, New Zealand's currency has dropped 10% against the dollar, while Sweden's currency has stayed steady.
	New Zealand has experienced spikes in unemployment, while Sweden's unemployment actually went down in March.
	So we've seen examples of where the studies are, and the evidence does not support what this is.
	Instead, you get more and more people like the former Israeli health minister, who says the COVID-19 lockdown response was based on, quote, monstrous hysteria.
	It was not based on solid science.
	So, that's what the evidence and data show.
	And indeed, finally from the Hill, a group of scientists and professionals came together and said the COVID-19 shutdown will cost Americans millions of years of life collectively, by life expectancy standards, far more than any of this could have done.
	And as Spike also reports, nothing can justify this destruction of people's lives.
	So when we come back, we'll be discussing with a nurse who outed information concerning this, and who was then removed entirely from even having a Skype account.
	That's the reality of big tech censorship we live in, as that kind of truth they don't want reaching you, the public.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	The age of big tech censorship, the age of big tech replacing Big Brother is clearly upon us.
	And they've used the pandemic as a perfect pretext to accelerate their censorship and social control plans, not only discussing a Chinese social credit type system in terms of digital currency, but imposing it through contact tracing and tracking.
	Well, in the same vein, just today, the Twitter decided that they were going to censor even the President's accounts.
	There was discussion and debate, and even from the New York Times, demanding that the President not even have access to Twitter, and that the public not have access to the President's statements on Twitter.
	And Twitter, even today, decided that they were going to start effectively censoring the President's accounts by putting in links that Dispute or controvert what the president had said, often making claims that frankly are not factually supported or would not be won out in a trial.
	Well in the same context, we're going to soon have a guest, Josiah Dan, who is a registered nurse, has a decades of experience in the medical profession, in the medical field, who simply spoke out about what he had witnessed, he's an ER nurse, had witnessed on the Alex Jones Show just this past Sunday.
	And yet what happened after that?
	What happened after that is he got notice from Microsoft that he shouldn't be allowed to even use a Skype account or have a Skype account for the purposes of voicing his opinions on this kind of field.
	This reflects and represents a continuation of what led Joe Rogan to voicefully complain about the censorship of doctors on the social media site YouTube and repressing and suppressing independent information from people who come from the medical field contesting the conventional narrative.
	As we've just seen and witnessed going through the data, the data does not even support many of the medical claims being alleged by the various politicians.
	They claim they're relying on science and data, when in fact they're relying on power and control without the foundation of science and data behind it.
	So in that respect, let's take a look at what he had to say previously that led Microsoft Who is it that has a big share ownership of Microsoft?
	I forget.
	But let's take a look at what that video got someone at Microsoft so upset.
	I stand before you as a practicing medical professional that questions the validity of the claims leveled about this pandemic.
	I stand with many of the doctors, PAs, nurse practitioners, and a host of other medical professionals who dare to question the narrative as it has been presented to us by the media.
	I have taken care of many patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 and have assisted to intubate them, manage their medications, and get them to whatever level of care they need to get to.
	As I have cared for these patients and attempted to keep up with the latest information as best I can, I have discovered that much of what is stated by the media outlets and state leaders does not match up with reality in the workplace and according to the scientific peer-reviewed literature.
	So what do the experts say?
	Is the view of the sciences and the healthcare community a consensus as seems to be portrayed by the media and state governments?
	The answer to this question is a resounding no.
	I stand here as proof that the healthcare community is not of one mind.
	I have had many conversations with my colleagues who have expressed dissenting opinions from the apparent mainstream view.
	Should we mask?
	Should we open businesses?
	Should we be in fear of our lives?
	If we listen to the media and the governor, like our own, the answer to this question actually stands in defiance of the data and history.
	Our country has largely shut down its workforce and hidden in fear from an invisible enemy that has claimed in the ballpark of as many lives as a bad, severe flu season.
	Today, we collectively suffer from broad business closures, violating both the Constitution and our individual rights.
	Mandatory masking policies are in large part a spurious attempt at best to gain PR for the state officials seeming to act as if they are doing something to protect us as individuals, while in fact may very well be putting us at higher risk for illness.
	Wearing masks outside of enclosed spaces, i.e.
	in nature, is ridiculous and asinine.
	Quarantining the healthy has never been mandated on a mass scale such as this.
	And we are seeing the profound economic effects with record unemployment levels.
	We are being told that we need to start contact tracing to limit exposure and track those who have been infected or affected by COVID-19.
	Now listen to me very clearly.
	Listen clearly.
	Just, let's just cut the PC's speech out and call it what it is.
	This is Big Brother.
	I don't know about you, but I don't want the federal or state government meddling in my affairs any more than they already are.
	My home is my own, and the government tracers are not welcome to come into it.
	They're not welcome to come to my home, nor to come into it.
	Say no to contact tracing laws, and don't comply when they push you to do so.
	These programs ultimately are driving to control you at your most foundational level, your body.
	The Contact Tracing Bill, HR 6666, seeks to destroy these protections, ultimately opening the door to mandated tracking, which violates our right to privacy, and forced vaccination, which ultimately is forced medical experimentation.
	These oversteps and tyranny do not go unnoticed.
	We are a freedom-loving people and we abhor tyranny.
	We will not back down when threatened.
	Cease and desist of your current course of action!
	And this is for all of us.
	We stand at a precipice and have before us a choice.
	From behind comes a torrent of destruction.
	A new normal that threatens the very freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and by the Bill of Rights.
	This torrent is actively washing over all that we hold sacred.
	Our families, our heritage, our faith, and our freedom.
	By God, our very way of life!
	Will we allow ourselves to be washed over the edge into the fathomless, desolate pit of tyranny, oppression, degradation, and moral decay?
	Or do we fight the flowing current and grasp others along the way to get back to the shores of liberty, justice, and the American way?
	With the great almighty Lord in heaven as my witness, I will not go plunging over the edge without fighting with every last breath, striving with every ounce of my being to arrive on the other side for the sake of my child, my wife, my family, my people, my nation, and my God!
	Open now!
	One place you can continue to go to get the videos that are, to get free, sensor-free videos, those that have been suspended or suppressed in any way from the institutional media, whether it be on YouTube or Google or anyplace else, whether it be on YouTube or Google or anyplace else, is band.video.
	Indeed, if you go to band.video, there's an American Countdown section.
	And if you put comments in there, I'm going to be answering Some of you can ask questions in the comment section, and I'll be answering those questions on Thursday, or as many of them as I can.
	In addition to that, I'm also going to be putting in the comment section various links to other videos and articles and information that we reference on this story, on this page, on this site.
	So go to Band.Video and enjoy the benefit of what's there.
	Enjoy the participation and we will be providing additional information so that videos like this from Josiah Dan never get censored or suppressed completely from public space, no matter what YouTube or Google or the Big Tech Big Brother censors are going to do.
	We would like to have Josiah Dan with us by Skype tonight, but his Skype account has apparently been suspended unilaterally just for voicing his free opinion.
	But we do have him available by phone.
	You can find Josiah Dan's website, CTLibertyRally.org, or CTLibertyRally on Facebook, or Josiah Dan on Facebook, and follow various information and activities related to what he's doing.
	Josiah, glad you could be with us.
	Thanks for having me.
	So can you give folks just how extensive your background is in the medical profession?
	Alright, I've been working in health care at a hospital for almost 21 years.
	I started from the ground up.
	I worked from environmental services, which is housekeeping.
	Up to my current position, I've held multiple positions in the hospital doing things like plant operations, managing facilities, and doing shipping and receiving.
	I've worked in psych doing sitting.
	I've also been part of the decon team and hazmat team at the hospital during the 9/11 catastrophe as people were concerned with bioterror.
	I've been a nurse now for eight years.
	I've worked in psych nursing, in medical surgical nursing.
	I currently work full-time in emergency nursing and I also do ambulatory care or same-day surgery nursing.
	And as part of that experience, did you anticipate anything like what we've witnessed currently in terms of what's being said as being medically based, but doesn't really have support from the traditional way we handle viruses like this?
	No, this is, this is craziness.
	And the, at what point, like, so in what you're seeing, witnessing firsthand, what has happened to the way that COVID-19 is being handled in your hospital, in your location?
	I gave an interview earlier today and kind of talked a little bit about this.
	It said that we were very concerned initially about everything that was told to us.
	So, we basically did what we could to be as conservative as we could with resources and making sure we're taking care of patients adequately and effectively, as well as making sure that we were protected.
	So, we were told that we needed all these, you know, PPE.
	So, making sure we had gowns, gloves, And in that context, you cited in your speech and in other statements, research of medical literature.
	neighborhoods because not everybody fits in a 95 mask.
	So in terms of the care, making sure that we were protected as effectively as we could and making sure we were taking care of our patients as effectively as we could by protecting them wearing what we needed to.
	And in that context, you cited in your speech and in other statements, research of medical literature, where did you learn how to research information like that relevant or relative to COVID-19?
	Well, I think I learned more about research when I was a history major than I did necessarily when I was in nursing school.
	I think I learned more about research when I was a history major I didn't have to do a whole heck of a lot of digging for my courses in nursing school.
	By comparison to what I had to do when I was a history major.
	So when I was a history major, we had to do primary source document hunting.
	So we had to go to the library and look up microfiche and all this other stuff to try and find primary sourcing.
	And with scientific literature, there's a fair amount of resources now online that we can access, like NCBI, which is a national database that's warehoused, I believe it's by the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health.
	Uh, so if you want to look stuff up, there's a good resource there.
	I also get a lot of information because I sign up for emails and Informational things that come from multiple different sources from mainstream stuff like I get literature from the American Nursing Association, from the ENA because I'm an emergency nurse and I'm a certified emergency nurse.
	So when you do that, you get access to that material.
	But other than that, like GreenMedInfo is an excellent source.
	I actually get quite a bit of information from GreenMedInfo.com.
	A health journalist that categorizes and warehouses peer-reviewed literature on health and on how to take care of your body the best way using natural resources, essentially.
	So, what comes to us from nature, what's the best practice, all that kind of stuff.
	And so, I've gotten a very large amount of my repertoire of information from GreenMedInfo and from NCBI.
	When did you start to realize that the institutional narrative about COVID-19 was exaggerating and trying to create hysteria?
	Probably maybe a month-ish and just kind of watching what happened and hearing what was happening in China.
	I was a little bit skeptical at the beginning anyways with what was happening in China and then when I heard about the Wuhan Institute of Virology and started to learn more and more and more about the connections between Anthony Fauci and the Wuhan Institute and Anthony Fauci's connections to Bill Gates and how all that kind of funding was a giant circle.
	Going around and around and around.
	It was kind of an interesting endeavor to dig all that up.
	But, you know, there's a lot of people out there that do a lot of great digging.
	And I can definitely throw some shout outs to GreenMedInfo, to Sayer G, and the Corbett Report.
	I mean, he does a lot of great digging there.
	Yeah, no doubt about that.
	Were you concerned about any risk to yourself about speaking out about what you understood to be the case?
	I spoke out not expecting what happened.
	When I spoke, my wife talked to me.
	And encouraged me to speak about what I had seen after we attended a Connecticut Liberty rally, because we heard a couple of good speakers there.
	I agreed with what they were saying.
	And my wife said, oh, you're a really great speaker.
	You should, you know, put something together and present something here.
	And so I was like, all right, I'll check it out.
	So I went and talked to the guy that organized it and decided that I would do something.
	And I didn't expect that my, what I put together was going to do anything other than just, you know, express my opinion.
	Gathered there, which the first one was probably around 75 people.
	I didn't expect around 200 to be there the second time, which is when I actually spoke.
	I also didn't expect there to be a mainstream media outlet there that was recording everything, which was Connecticut, NBC Connecticut, who actually refused to air anything that we presented.
	They took the counter protest that was standing in front of ours by a group of dental hygienists that didn't want to go back to work because they were scared.
	So in it, one of my friends or acquaintances Wow.
	told me on Facebook that they heard my speech in the background that was then censored out and they didn't get to hear the whole thing.
	They just heard the beginning of it as they were interviewing the people who were the dental hygienists.
	Wow.
	And then what happened from there in terms of the reaction to your speech?
	Interestingly enough, people that I work with and people on Facebook, I had a very positive reaction.
	I live in a fairly conservative area of Connecticut.
	Most of Connecticut is, I would say, fairly liberal.
	the area that I live in is more on the countryside.
	We may have momentarily lost a moment.
	We'll see if we can get him back.
	What happened next is that after he made public appearances and his video went viral from his excellent communication and articulation skills and his background and experience as a registered nurse who knew how to interpret medical information, knew what resources to look at to look at the medical literature, was that Skype, Microsoft, decided to unilaterally suspend his account.
	Well, I don't know if Microsoft interfered with the phone call.
	That might be something else altogether.
	Just simple lack of life, most likely.
	But that is the nature of what happened.
	You lost full access.
	Imagine if... That's the problem of Big Tech Big Brother in the modern era.
	Imagine if someone could shut off your access to, say, the news entirely.
	They could shut down any cable service, satellite service, or internet service to your home based on you now being politically disfavored or disliked.
	Imagine if they could shut down phone access.
	No cell phone for you, no cell phone minutes for you, no landline phone minutes for you.
	If the utilities of our modern public square have that degree of capacity, they can effectively completely suppress, censor, control and manipulate speech and political opinion in the United States.
	That's the great risk.
	That's the great danger.
	That's the great threat.
	And we're seeing it more and more and more on a daily basis.
	Indeed, the net effect of it is you're seeing in the pandemic context what they always intended.
	What has shocked people like the Joe Rogans of the world is that the big tech censorship has escalated to the point that nurses, registered nurses with long-standing experience in the medical profession and field, are not allowed to speak out without suffering censorship as a consequence.
	Doctors, like the film Plandemic, I've had various emails of various people saying, well, we disagree with different parts of a pandemic.
	I'm not vouching for a pandemic.
	What I'm saying is that you should get to decide what's true and not true.
	Investigate it for yourself.
	Make a determination for yourself.
	It should not be withheld from the audience's view on the grounds of social control and public censorship.
	That kind of reality is the kind of reality that is Orwellian in its orientation.
	That is why Big Tech very much deserves the Big Brother label it is increasingly given.
	And when you have people like Twitter willing to start to censor the President of the United States, Then you understand the scale and scope of the risk.
	And what's most intriguing is that this comes after news developed this past weekend that all of Big Tech is under major antitrust investigation by both the United States Attorney General's Office and Department of Justice, as well as a range of state attorney generals across the country for their monopolistic, manipulative practices of the public market economy.
	Indeed, in the same context, in the same framework, these social media have increasingly announced a willingness and readiness to be able to suppress and censor speech in a wide range of contexts.
	That makes it a consistent and continuous threat to the rest of us.
	In the same time frame, let's take a look at what real fake news is.
	Let's take a look at a video from MSNBC and a doctor talking about how somehow breathing out a mask could protect you from inhaling in someone else's breath.
	When in fact, even the CDC does not claim you wearing a mask will protect you from someone else's breath.
	But that's the kind of mandatory mask logic that they're utilizing.
	They're using the anti-smoking campaign as a pretext, as a predicate, as a preamble As a preface to more social control.
	Let's take a look at video clip number four.
	Would requiring masks across the board help?
	Is that even, is that feasible?
	Craig, I'm going to say this for the benefit of your family.
	I know you have young kids from my family and for all Americans.
	We should make masks mandatory in public.
	Just like we ban indoor smoking because you know what nobody should you shouldn't have to breathe somebody else's I can't smoke.
	I shouldn't have to breathe exhaled COVID-19 in somebody's breath.
	Nobody should.
	And so we should institute mandatory masks in public when you can't guarantee social distancing.
	That means retail stores.
	That means public transportation, workplaces.
	That's absolutely where we should be headed.
	Makes no sense why we're not already there.
	We're encouraging it.
	People are flouting the rules.
	A security guard at a retail outlet in Michigan died trying to encourage a customer to wear a mask.
	They shot him.
	They didn't like the way in which it was trying to be enforced, that policy.
	We need to not put the onus on security guards at local outlets to enforce this policy or to encourage Americans to abide by it.
	It's all in our best interest that we wear masks.
	The evidence is overwhelming.
	We just need governors to do their job.
	That's just fake news.
	That's a doctor from the University of Washington, heavily funded by Bill Gates.
	His family has sat on the board at the University of Washington going back generations.
	And we'll get into that in a little bit in the latter half of the episode about some of the history of Bill Gates in greater detail.
	But it is not true to say there is overwhelming evidence that mandatory mask wearing will substantially reduce COVID-19 when worn outdoors.
	That's just, there's none, there's zero, there's zilch, there's zunka, there's nada.
	That's just a doctor on MSNBC lying to the world to create hysteria to justify social control.
	And it's led to things like this.
	Let's take a look at video clip number two, where police brutally assault a man in Germany for not wearing a mask.
	Why do we have to wear masks and you don't?
	Who do you think we are?
	You don't understand.
	You can read it all on the internet, right?
	You know, I told you, you leave me the place.
	If you don't, I'll take you straight to the cell.
	Is that clear?
	Yes, of course.
	Then go now.
	Now!
	I want to see you again!
	Where?
	Where do you want to see me?
	Do you want to ask me or what?
	Hey!
	- Hey, hey.
	What's going on? - Hey, hey.
	Where are you? - Hey, hey.
	Where are you? - Hey, hey! - Hey! - Hey! Hey! - Hey! - Hey! - That's right, stay! - Hey, hey, hey. - Hey, hey, hey. - All right, stay. - Stay, stay. - Stay. - Don't put it. - Hey, that's stay. - Stay. - Don't put it. - Hey, that's what? - Hey.
	That's just what happens in Germany, where they end up beating a guy up.
	In a Staten Island, they end up socially shaming and censoring him like it was a scene from Game of Thrones.
	Let's take a look at clip number three when a woman made the mistake of not having her socially mandated mask on.
	"F**k you!
	Fk you! Fk you!
	Get the f**k out of your foot!
	Josiah, are you there?
	Yes sir, I'm here.
	So then apparently now your Skype account has been suspended.
	What do you think?
	And we have Josiah back that we can wrap up with.
	Josiah, are you there?
	Yes, sir.
	I'm here.
	So then apparently now your Skype account has been suspended.
	What happened?
	I went to do an interview today.
	I just signed up for Skype on Saturday or Sunday to be able to do the Alex Jones Show because I don't have Skype on my phone and I'm not really a text-heavy kind of guy because I don't usually do video conferencing.
	And I did my interview with him which seemed to go fine.
	I didn't have any technical issues with Skype really.
	And then I went to use it again today to do my interview at 1 p.m.
	today.
	with Jay Cherry, who is a blogger.
	And when I went to do the interview, I got a link from her to click on the link and to access the Skype call.
	And it brought me to a page where I had to use my user and login.
	And then when I did that, it brought me to another page saying that there was problems with the account.
	I had to go to another page and try and fix the problem When I went and did that, it said that my content that I had presented in prior Skype interviews or Skype use was in violation of their user agreements.
	I can't remember exactly the terminology, but it was like a Facebook notification, like, you know, you're violating our community standard.
	Wow.
	We'll be right back with Josiah with one last question right after the break.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	Josiah, have you ever experienced that kind of censorship before?
	The only time is on Facebook.
	I try to post things that are more conservative.
	What is your message to people out there that come across the same information, that want to make a public statement, but may face these kind of consequences?
	What is your message to them?
	Share.
	Just share any way you can.
	Stand up.
	This is a time for us to not be sitting down.
	We need to stand up against tyranny.
	We need to stand up against government overstep and constitutional destruction.
	And we need to share with any means we can via text message, email listings, because they can't block those things.
	If you can share it on Facebook and it's not blocking you or Twitter, share the information because the truth needs to be heard.
	All of this suppression and augmentation of the truth is going to destroy our country.
	Exactly.
	It's sort of like the X-Files message.
	The truth is out there.
	You just got to keep searching for it, looking for it, and sharing it.
	Thanks for being with us.
	Thank you very much.
	You can find him at CTLibertyRally.org, or CTLibertyRally on Facebook, or JosiahDan at Facebook.
	Someone willing to make a brave stand no matter the consequences, even if Big Brother is looking over his shoulder and trying to tap on it from now and then.
	In the same context, we should look at the increasing data, like truth about social distancing, that is being shared by medical professionals, but often being suppressed by Big Tech Big Brother in the same way that Josiah did.
	Let's take a look at the truth about social distancing from a doctor from Kiwiland, from New Zealand.
	Let's look at clip number 7.
	Hey guys, my name is Dr. Sam.
	Today I wanted to talk about the evidence for social distancing, especially in regards to COVID-19.
	Now, just so you know, I am not being paid to talk about this.
	What I'm going to say is just my personal opinion as a medical doctor.
	However, you are entitled to your own opinion and I would strongly encourage you to do your own research on this topic so that you can make up your own mind.
	I will link the references that I've used in the description below.
	Now, I don't know what your personal situation is in regards to being in lockdown, as everyone is under a lot of strain.
	But let me tell you about what is going on in my home country, New Zealand.
	We have to remain at home in our social bubbles.
	We can leave our house if we need to go to the supermarket, pharmacy, if you are an essential worker, or to exercise.
	You cannot go swimming, hunting, tramping, or do anything that may put extra strain on emergency services.
	You cannot talk to anyone outside of your social bubble at a distance of less than two meters, which includes family, friends and co-workers.
	And lately, when I've gone for a walk or run, I notice people don't even want to make eye contact and they often cross the street or act panicked and move away from you like you have leprosy.
	The first time I went to the supermarket after we went into lockdown three weeks ago, I saw someone wearing a gas mask.
	Now, why would someone want to wear a gas mask at a supermarket?
	I'd presume that it's either a practical joke or it's because they are scared and think that they might die from an infection that is hanging around in the air.
	I don't blame that person for feeling scared as most people don't understand what the medical risks are to them.
	We're bombarded every day by the media about how dangerous it is when people don't practice social distancing.
	So I decided to look into this myself as I wanted to understand what scientific literature is behind social distancing.
	Before I get into the interesting stuff, I thought I'd quickly recap on how infectious diseases used to be dealt with when there was no treatment available for a disease.
	One word.
	Quarantine.
	The practice of separating the diseased from the healthy has been around for a very long time.
	In the Old Testament, for instance, rules existed for isolating lepers or people who have leprosy.
	It wasn't until the Black Death of the 14th century where Venice established the first formal system of quarantine where they made ships lay at anchor for 40 days before landing.
	Should we quarantine people with COVID-19?
	Leslie, go home.
	You're sick.
	I'm not sick.
	It's just allergies.
	Come on, guys.
	Just let me in there.
	No, you can't come in here.
	You're not coming in.
	Leslie, you look tired and you're all sweaty.
	You look tired and you're all sweaty all the time.
	What's your excuse?
	You want to go there, Jerry?
	No.
	One of the problems with COVID-19 is the fact that seemingly there are many, many people who have tested positive for it, but are completely asymptomatic, meaning they have no symptoms and don't go on to develop symptoms.
	Apparently up to 30% of people with coronavirus are asymptomatic and never show symptoms.
	This figure may be much higher, even as high as 80%, as there have never been any studies comparing rates of positive tests in a controlled population.
	Therefore, it's not as easy to quarantine individuals with COVID as many are completely well, and unlike leprosy where people mostly have symptoms.
	On the flip side, there are no lasting disfigurements or health concerns with coronavirus for the average person.
	Once you are recovered, you are back to normal.
	I made another video on how lethal COVID-19 actually is.
	If you're interested, please check it out in the description.
	Yeah!
	So what's the science behind social distancing?
	There's one systematic review article that looked at how effective social distancing is in reducing the spread of influenza.
	It looked at 12 modelling and 3 epidemiological studies.
	Unfortunately all 3 epidemiological studies were highly biased and therefore the results are not usable.
	And if you have Any familiarity with computer modelling, you will understand how highly unreliable these results can be.
	You have to plug in hundreds if not thousands of variables and the end result can be manipulated by changing the variables that are included in the study.
	Examples of recent computer modelling gone wrong.
	It's from the Imperial College of London, who estimated the risk of infection and death from coronavirus to be 131 times greater than it actually has turned out to be.
	In this systematic review, the modelling studies support social distancing in non-healthcare workplaces, but I am highly dubious that these models play out in reality.
	There have been no observational studies in real human beings to determine if social distancing works.
	Please let me emphasize that I am not talking about the evidence for quarantine or self-quarantine, which is different to social distancing and physical distancing.
	Prior to COVID-19, social distancing was a term that was hardly used or advised by doctors, and now everyone seems to be an expert on this.
	And the definition of what constitutes a safe distance changes by the day.
	No!
	Back in your tent, sickie!
	What is the evidence for wearing facial masks?
	To summarise, all the studies have only looked at healthcare workers and mask use.
	Specifically, if healthcare workers wear masks, does it prevent them getting sick from an infectious disease?
	Despite widespread use of masks in healthcare workers, there is very little clinical evidence that these prevent infection with airborne infectious diseases.
	And what was quite disappointing is there was a really good study called the RESPECT study that was originally going to answer how well do respirators, aka masks, prevent airborne infectious diseases.
	But then they changed the outcomes when it was published and only compared two different types of masks and asked which one was better.
	Unfortunately we don't have one study looking at whether wearing masks and gloves in the community does anything to prevent catching respiratory infections.
	What I personally believe is far more troubling is social isolation and the generalised suspicion we have for our neighbours, our friends, co-workers and strangers in the street.
	Many studies have been done on social isolation and long term it increases the risk of premature death.
	Well, short periods of isolation can cause increased anxiety or depression that start within days.
	We are social creatures that have evolved over millennia to be in family structures and groups and we rely on that interaction with other human beings.
	I believe more is needed than just social media which can never replace a cup of coffee in person with a friend.
	Now, I'm not asking you to break the law in regards to social distancing and wearing masks.
	I totally hear you.
	I also don't like what you're saying.
	So if you say no, I will start a fire in the bathroom.
	But please think about what the emotional cost of these measures are as a society.
	I believe there is no evidence for social distancing, and in time we will be able to compare real-world infection rates and deaths in countries like Sweden and Denmark, who have very different policies in place on social distancing.
	Like I said in my original COVID video, I still believe the death rates from coronavirus will be similar to the ordinary flu, and most countries have overreacted so that their cures are much worse than the disease.
	As always, please give this video a like if you found it helpful, hit the subscribe button for new videos every single week, and hit the bell to get notified when I post new videos on Tuesdays.
	Please let me know in the comments what you want to learn more about and feel free to check out some of my other videos on infections.
	Thanks for watching!
	So indeed, the inanity of this insanity is not predicated in medical science.
	It's not predicated in medical history.
	It's not predicated in either mathematical or medically verified or vouched for data or information.
	Instead, as we've been talking about in this show, that was in fact the initial reaction.
	If we took a look at quote number seven from one professional who was examining this, he talks about if you look at the 1950s, we had the Asian flu.
	In the 1960s, there was the Hong Kong flu.
	These were worse than this pandemic.
	If we look at the swine flu in 2009, there was no vaccine, it spread all over the world, it infected one billion people, a quarter of a million people died, but no lockdown.
	Why?
	No Ferguson.
	Indeed, as this person goes on to say in chart six in the quote, it is the first epidemic in history which is accompanied by another epidemic, the virus of the social networks.
	These new media brainwashed entire populations.
	What you get is fear and anxiety and an inability to look at real data and therefore you have all the ingredients for monstrous hysteria.
	Who helped bring about this monstrous hysteria?
	Well, the one and only, if you look at the evidence, Bill Gates.
	Who was it that was saying COVID was a unique pandemic threat that required a lockdown?
	Bill Gates.
	Who were the institutions that were heavily relied upon for the Western world, for the models predicting doom and gloom?
	The both Imperial College and IHME in Washington, state of Washington, that doctor we saw earlier in MSNBC, also coming from the University of Washington, those studies heavily backed by institutions that receive large donations, like the WHO itself, from Bill Gates.
	In addition, who as it was talking about we have to do contact tracing and tracking from the get-go?
	Bill Gates.
	Who was it that said we had to do lockdowns?
	Bill Gates.
	Who was it that said we had to do social distancing of this type, even though there was no medical literature behind it?
	Bill Gates.
	Who was it that has relationships, close relationships, with Fauci and Birx?
	Bill Gates.
	Who was it that was saying masks and going inside and shutdown policies would work?
	Bill Gates.
	Who was saying that the only solution ultimately would be a digital certificate that would basically be in your body to track and trace you and to monitor your vaccine use?
	Bill Gates.
	Said so on a Reddit discussion at the very beginning of this.
	And who was it that was making the rounds, promoting this and propagating this?
	Bill Gates.
	In the same vein, who was it that said we have to wait until a vaccine before we can open up anything?
	Why Bill Gates?
	And in the same context, what is the intellectual ancestry of Bill Gates?
	What is the idea lineage of Bill Gates?
	What was he tutored on?
	What was the culture that he was around and his family and his community that instructed him on what ideas to share and believe in?
	Was, in fact, the genetics of the Gates family an intellectual history of eugenics, for example?
	Well, if you dig into his history, you find someone that came from the upper crust of Seattle society.
	You come with someone whose great-grandfather was one of the founding members of the Federal Reserve Board of Directors in Seattle.
	You have someone whose father was a founding director of Planned Parenthood, which itself had intellectual roots and associations with the eugenics movement that run deep.
	You dig deep and you find someone who had been very comfortable in a world of monopolistic politics, monopolistic economics, monopolistic philanthropy, as Politico Europe discussed it and described Bill Gates' activity just two years ago.
	That is the context in which Bill Gates grew up.
	That is the culture in which he inhabited.
	As a young, privileged member of the upper crust of Seattle society, born into generations of privileged people, used to believing that social control was the means by which they should exercise their political and economic influence.
	In that respect, the Corbett Report has its fourth in its quartet of documentary films.
	We'll be discussing and reviewing that tonight.
	Let's begin and look at the Meet Bill Gates section of the Corbett Report video.
	Let's look at clip number nine.
	Computer whiz kid.
	Talented software developer.
	Shrewd businessman.
	Benevolent philanthropist.
	Global health expert.
	There could be no doubt that Bill Gates has worn many hats on his remarkable journey from his early life as the privileged son of a Seattle-area power couple to his current status as one of the richest and most influential people on the planet.
	But, as we have seen in our exploration of Gates's rise as unelected global health czar and population control advocate, the question of who Bill Gates really is, is no mere philosophical pursuit.
	Given that we are currently living through a crisis that has been predicted by Bill Gates, which is triggering a response from the global health organizations that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has bankrolled, and driving us toward a vaccination and biometric ID solution which Bill Gates has been working on for years, the answer to the question, who is Bill Gates, is quickly becoming one of the most important questions of our lives.
	That answer will not only tell us about the world that we are living in, but about the one that we are being thrust into, and how we can avoid it.
	Today we will attempt to answer that question as we examine the motives, the ideology, and the connections of this man who has been so instrumental in shaping the post-coronavirus world.
	Meet Bill Gates.
	You're tuned into The Corporate Report.
	So who is Bill Gates?
	Some argue that he's a genius who leveraged his natural computer savvy into a billion-dollar fortune.
	You're called a genius, and I will... Well, no, I don't think that embarrassed you at all.
	They call you a genius.
	Part of your genius is that you are a computer whiz, and the other is that you did have the business acumen to turn it into a working company.
	Are you a business genius, too?
	Well, I wouldn't say genius.
	Others insist that he is a visionary who has changed our lives with his foresight and bold imagination.
	Bill had a vision, and I understand it went back even then.
	That computing would be ubiquitous.
	It would be part of all of our lives.
	And indeed, as you all know, he executed on that vision.
	And the world today has changed so dramatically in large part due to the work that Bill has done throughout the years.
	He has been hailed as a shrewd executive who built the Microsoft empire with his remarkable talent for business.
	When the biographers and historians write the history of the 20th century, Bill Gates is going to go down as the best businessman of our century.
	And Microsoft is one of the greatest companies of the 20th century.
	And he has been praised as a philanthropist who is selflessly devoting his wealth to improving the lives of people around the world.
	Bill, even your harshest critic would have to admit that your philanthropy work is planet-shaking, incredible, and could be, if you make it a second act so amazing that it would dwarf what you've actually done at Microsoft.
	But, like anyone of his status, he has his detractors.
	In the 1990s, he was often portrayed as the greedy head of the evil Microsoft monopoly.
	Bill Gates isn't content with his Windows system running just a few PCs.
	He wants it to run the world, spreading like a computer virus into our faxes, our phones, our TV sets, and yes, even our toasters.
	But in the age of the coronavirus crisis, he is most often treated like some sort of epidemiologist or leading health researcher.
	Back here with us once again to talk about this, as well as testing, treatments, and more, Bill Gates, co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
	Bill, thanks so much for being back with us.
	It's been a little over a month since you were here, and at that time, you said the U.S.
	had not hit its peak.
	So at this point, do you think we have peaked?
	And where do you think we are right now in kind of the arc of the pandemic?
	But in truth, none of these perspectives are accurate.
	Microsoft's big break famously came from a deal to provide software for IBM as they moved into the personal computer market.
	But the deal was not the result of Gates' technical genius or amazing business acumen.
	As has been quietly admitted by IBM executives in the years since, Microsoft was given their shot at the chance to work with Big Blue as a result of Gates' mother's relationship with IBM CEO John Opel.
	You remember your partnership of IBM and Bill Gates.
	How did it break up?
	I do remember very well, actually.
	Bill Gates, at the time, at the beginning of our relationship with him, was living on pizza and Pepsi-Cola in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and his mother happened to be on the United Way board with our chairman, and asked our chairman to help him.
	And you know, when the chairman comes in and tells you to go help this kid, 900 people get on the plane Monday morning and they all go down to try to help Bill Gates.
	So I don't see Bill Gates as this great creative person.
	I see him as an opportunist.
	And in fact, in those days, there was a lot of sharing of software code.
	People gave it away.
	In Silicon Valley, they would share everything.
	He came in and he tried to control everything and put a price on it.
	Computer historians have long known how the basis for what became MS-DOS was not Bill Gates's brilliant imagination, but Q-DOS, a quick and dirty operating system that had been thrown together by Tim Patterson, a worker at Seattle Computer Products, as a placeholder until he could sell a proper operating system to his customers.
	And as even Gates himself admitted, the breakthrough graphical user interface that became the basis for Windows was ripped off from the researchers at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.
	As Bill would say after Apple unsuccessfully sued Microsoft for copyright infringement over Windows GUI, Hey, Steve, just because you broke into Xerox's house before I did and took the TV, doesn't mean I can't go in later and take the stereo.
	And, as Gates also admits, it is not a spirit of selfless generosity that motivates his interest in vaccines and other lucrative health interventions.
	I'd like to talk to you about your approach to vaccinations.
	You wrote something recently, and like you always do, you kind of looked at the problem from a scientific and business perspective on things.
	You've invested $10 billion in vaccinations over the last two decades, and you figured out the return on investment for that, and it kind of stunned me.
	Can you walk us through the math?
	You know, we see a phenomenal track record.
	It's been $100 billion overall that the world's put in.
	Our foundation is a bit more than $10 billion, but we feel there's been over a 20 to 1 return.
	So if you just look at the economic benefits, that's a pretty strong number compared to anything else.
	As we have seen, Gates' philanthropic investment scheme has paid off well, with his $50 billion net worth having ballooned to over $100 billion after his decade of altruism in the vaccine market.
	As critics of his foundation have repeatedly pointed out, the 9 million people who die every year of hunger would be best served by securing food supplies, running water, and other basic necessities, not costly medical interventions for rare diseases.
	But there is no return on investment to be made from that kind of charity.
	No, this is not about charity.
	It is about control.
	The population control grid that Gates has been quietly funding into existence for the past decade, a biometric identification system tied to a digital payments infrastructure that will be used to track, catalog, and control every movement, every transaction, and every interaction of every citizen, is just now coming into view.
	But the real question is, why is he doing this?
	What drives a man like Bill Gates, a man rich beyond the wildest dreams of avarice, to spend his time and invest his fortune in schemes to control the population?
	To find the answer to that question, we have to examine Gates' family background.
	Bill Gates, it should not be surprising to learn, was born into money.
	His great-grandfather, J.W.
	Maxwell, was the president of National City Bank in Seattle.
	His grandfather, Willard, was also a banker, and his grandmother, Adele, a prominent Seattle civic leader.
	Bill Gates' mother, Mary Maxwell Gates, was a scion of the Maxwell banking family and, by all accounts, as hard-driving as her forebears.
	She served as a director of several companies, including First Interstate Bank Corp.
	and KIRO-TV of Seattle.
	She served as a regent at the University of Washington, and she was appointed to the board of the United Way of America, where, as we have seen, she persuaded IBM CEO John Opel to help her son in his fledgling software development career.
	Bill's father, William H. Gates Sr., was a prominent Seattle-area lawyer.
	He co-founded a powerful law and lobbying firm, helped Howard Schultz in his bid to buy Starbucks, served on the boards of numerous companies and organizations, and, along the way, had a profound influence on his son's life and career.
	My dad was a large presence, both physically and in terms of his wisdom.
	He worked very hard, so he'd leave in the mornings, often before we had breakfast, and get home in time for dinner.
	You know, I always looked up to my dad in terms of how hard he worked at the dinner table.
	My dad would go through various lawsuits and expect us to follow along.
	He had high expectations.
	The young Bill Gates, technically William H. Gates III, although his card-playing family dubbed him Trey, learned much from his parents.
	From his mother's banking family, he inherited a nose for the dollar, as one childhood friend's father called it.
	From his hard-driving, legal-minded father, he learned the value of legalizing business arrangements.
	As a child, he even had a legal contract drawn up to grant him the use of his older sister's baseball mitt.
	These traits would not earn him many friends, but they served him well as he began to bring order to the anarchic software development community of the 1970s.
	At that time, software for the brand-new personal computer market was the realm of computer hobbyists, people whose excitement about the microcomputer revolution and love of engineering and problem-solving led them to develop and share code freely with each other.
	But this was no good for the young Bill Gates, who, even before Microsoft was off the ground, was already dreaming of commoditizing this hobby and turning it into the basis of a business empire.
	In 1976, with the ink still wet on Microsoft's first contract with Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems of Albuquerque, New Mexico, the then 21-year-old Gates wrote an open letter to hobbyists excoriating the early computer enthusiasts who represented his main market for sharing Microsoft's code for Altair BASIC.
	As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software.
	Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share.
	Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?
	Is this fair?
	The royalty paid to us.
	The manual, the tape, and the overhead make it a break-even operation.
	One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written.
	Who can afford to do professional work for nothing?
	What hobbyist can put three man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product, and distribute for free?
	The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software.
	We have written 6800 Basic and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software available to hobbyists.
	Most directly, the thing you do is theft.
	The letter was awkward and tone-deaf, as many people have described the young Bill Gates in his social interactions.
	It heaped vitriol on the very people who would be the customers of any future business, and tried to change an established culture of sharing software code merely by decree.
	Even Apple Computers, which would go on to be one of the prime purveyors of walled garden systems that restrict users' ability to control their own computers, scored an easy marketing victory by responding to Gates' angry letter with a reminder that, yes folks, AppleBasic is free.
	Indeed, we'll come back after the break with more of this and more intel and information from the Corbett Report discussing and disclosing the mindset of Bill Gates, which explains both recent past and potentially future course of public policy heavily influenced and shaped by Bill Gates' money that has been spread around over the last decade plus.
	You don't have to just look at Microsoft using Skype to censor a registered nurse to look at the scope and scale of what they may be up to in their intentions and objectives.
	We do also encourage you, if you want censor-free videos, go to Ban.Video.
	If you go to Ban.Video American Countdown, you can make comments and I'll be answering questions there.
	In the same way, if you want Big Pharma Bill Gates-free products, go to Infowarsstore.com.
	Support our sponsor of this show, where you can get products that are not controlled and manipulated by the Bill Gateses of the world or Big Pharma of the world.
	You can pick the products you like that make you healthier, wealthier, and wiser.
	Come back right after the break.
	Welcome back.
	to American Countdown.
	While Bill Gates would have us in some kind of outfit like chart number 33 is a futuristic way of walking around town, the contrast is a certain sort of American freedom that would be different independent of that.
	If we look at some of the actual data, That refutes all of the assumptions behind this Bill Gates-inspired lockdown policies, forced vaccinations, contact tracing and tracking, mass surveillance, mass social control, digital certificates, digital currency, various agenda he's been publicly associated with over the past decade.
	If we look at chart number 24, it compares in Sweden the deaths caused by the Asian flu, Hong Kong flu, and the COVID flu.
	And what do we see?
	We see it's almost identical.
	There's, in fact, been no dramatic increase in Sweden.
	Even though Sweden didn't lock down, they ended up with something just like the United States and the West did, and it was something that did not parallel the Bill Gates-backed and bankrolled models, but did support, in fact, what we had said, which would be something like the Asian or Hong Kong flu.
	If we compare it by chart 23, we see the decline in the rate of the transmission of the disease, what's called the R-naught number, or R0, in both Sweden and the United Kingdom is almost identical.
	There's been no difference and in fact both have been under the 1.0 ratio for quite some time.
	If we look at chart number 22 and look at the cumulative all-cause excess death rates in the United States and compare it to recent severe flu seasons, we see it's almost identical.
	There has been no dramatic excess death increase in the United States from COVID-19 that's distinct or unique to it.
	Meanwhile, you have the British government putting up friendly signs like this one, say on chart 21, saying controlling the virus means no visits to friends' homes.
	That's the kind of craziness that we are living in today.
	Whereas if we look at chart number 12, we'll see that in the United States, The one-third of the deaths are in a tiny little red region around New York.
	Another third in mostly the Northeast, in Chicago and Detroit.
	And otherwise, one-third of all deaths in the country are that entire green section.
	All of this section got shut down for something that was really only affecting a small part of America.
	But of course, that's where the media lives, is New York City.
	If we look at chart number 10, we see the same sort of CDC data showing that, in fact, all deaths have not taken a dramatic increase over past time periods and frameworks.
	Meanwhile, if we look at chart 15, we see what the image looks like in some grocery stores across the country that don't even have meat for sale in large parts of the grocery store because of what had taken place and transpired.
	Meanwhile, of course, Bill Gates is associated and attached with various ideas about having genetically modified Food is a potential option.
	We'll be getting to that as well.
	And lastly, in terms of the information showing that heat, humidity, sunshine, being outdoors reduces the risk of COVID.
	If we look at chart 16, they compared the COVID deaths per million by distance from the equator, and they found that the more you are closer to the equator, where there's more humidity, more heat, more sunlight, there was a lower rate of COVID transmission.
	So that is why it is significant and substantial that the data is being suppressed and censored by the heavy influence of the Bill Gates types in this world.
	So let's go back to the Corbett Report and more information about exactly who is Bill Gates.
	AppleBasic is free.
	But the gauntlet was thrown down, and Gates would have his way.
	Although freeware and other forms of open-source software development still exist, the establishment of software code as legally protected intellectual property has led to the rise of billionaires like Gates.
	A nose for the dollar and a knowledge of how to use the legal system to get what you want were not the only things to emerge from Bill Gates' childhood, however.
	His parents also encouraged discussion about the family's charity work and the causes they held close to their heart.
	As Gates revealed to Bill Moyers in 2003, those causes included the population issue, which sparked a lifelong interest in reproductive health.
	One issue that really grabbed me as urgent were issues related to population, reproductive health.
	But did you come to reproductive issues as an intellectual?
	When I was growing up, my parents were always involved in various volunteer things.
	My dad was head of Planned Parenthood.
	And it was very controversial to be involved with that.
	Gates tips his hand when he equates issues related to population with reproductive health.
	The topic is particularly controversial because population control and reproductive health have been used for half a century as a euphemism for eugenics, the discredited pseudoscience that holds that certain families are fit to be leaders of society by virtue of their superior genes.
	As we saw in Why Big Oil Conquered the World, eugenics was a field named and codified by Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin.
	Ostensibly concerned with heredity and what would later be known as genetics, the eugenicists believed that the rich and powerful were rich and powerful not because of luck or chance or happenstance, and certainly not from the deployment of cutthroat business tactics and underhanded dealings.
	No, the rich and powerful had attained their status because they came from better stock.
	Conversely, the poor were poor because of their defective germplasm.
	As transparent as it seems to us today that this ideology was a self-serving self-justification for the ruling class, it was quickly taken up as the great social crusade of the early 20th century.
	From Teddy Roosevelt, to H.G.
	Wells, to Julian Huxley, to Winston Churchill, there was widespread support for the eugenicist notion that society must strive to make sure that the rich and well-born breed as much as possible, and the poor, infirm, and feeble-minded be prevented from having children.
	A common eugenicist argument was that the scarce resources of society should not be used to support the lower classes, as that only encouraged more of their kind.
	Instead, life-saving medical care and intervention should be rationed so that those resources can be best put to use elsewhere.
	So-called negative eugenicists even took things further, with some, like famed playwright George Bernard Shaw, calling for people to be called before a state-appointed board to justify their existence or be put to death.
	But there are an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill.
	Not in any unkind or personal spirit, but it must be evident to all of you, you must all know half a dozen people at least, who are no use in this world.
	Who are more trouble than they are worth.
	And I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board Just as he might come before the income tax commissioners and say every five years or every seven years, just put him there and say, sir or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?
	But in the post-World War II era, as the name of eugenics became tarred by association with the Nazi atrocities, the talk of death penals and other harsh eugenicist notions was dropped from public conversation.
	Now, the quest to reduce the size of the poor population was spoken of as population control and reproductive health.
	Still, occasionally, these old negative eugenics ideas are revisited in moments of candor.
	You're raising tuitions at the University of California as rapidly as they can, and so the access that used to be available to the middle class or whatever is just rapidly going away.
	That's a trade-off society is making because of Very, very high medical costs and a lack of willingness to say, you know, is spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient, would it be better not to lay off those 10 teachers and to make that trade-off in medical costs?
	But that's called the death panel and you're not supposed to have that discussion.
	It is worth questioning why this man, who openly muses about death panels and the trade-offs of providing health care to the elderly, is to be taken completely at face value in his attempts to slow population growth in the third world, or to handle a coronavirus health crisis that primarily affects the elderly.
	That the Gates Agenda is being driven by a eugenicist ideology is suggested by multiple lines of evidence, both historical and current.
	As we have also seen in Why Big Oil Conquered the World, the Rockefeller family was instrumental in funding and promoting eugenics, both in America and overseas.
	The Rockefellers helped fund the Eugenics Record Office.
	The founding director of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, William Welch, sat on the ERO's board and helped direct its activities.
	The Rockefellers sponsored the studies of the eugenics researchers at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes in Germany, including Ernst Rudin, who would go on to draft Nazi Germany's forced sterilization law.
	And, when the American Eugenics Society became embarrassed of its own name, its longtime director, Frederick Osborne, merrily took over as president of the Rockefeller-founded Population Council.
	This dedication to the cause of public health did not escape the approving gaze of Bill Gates Sr., In a chapter of his 2009 book, Showing Up for Life, called Walking with Giants, he writes admiringly of the Rockefellers and their influence in the field.
	Every corner we've turned in the field of global health, we've found that the Rockefellers were already there and had been there for years.
	When we committed to childhood immunization, we found ourselves building on efforts the Rockefeller Foundation had helped launch and fund in the 1980s.
	When we became interested in fighting malaria and tuberculosis, we learned that the Rockefellers had been studying the prevention and treatment of such diseases around the globe for, in some cases, as long as a hundred years.
	A similar dynamic held true in the case of HIV-AIDS.
	A lesson we learned from studying and working with the Rockefellers is that to succeed in pursuing audacious goals, you need like-minded partners with whom to collaborate.
	And we learned that such goals are not prizes claimed by the short-winded.
	The Rockefellers stay with tough problems for generations.
	As Gates Sr.
	suggests, it is by working with like-minded partners that such great achievements in the field of global health can be made.
	For the Gates, these like-minded partners include the Rockefellers themselves.
	Bill Gates Sr.
	got to discuss global health, agriculture, and environment with the likes of David Rockefeller Sr.
	and David Rockefeller Jr.
	at a meeting on Philanthropy in a Global Century at Rockefeller University campus in 2000.
	And Bill Gates, as we have seen, co-hosted a meeting on Reducing the Population with David Rockefeller in 2009.
	But the most salacious hints of a deeper agenda are not to be found in the Gates' public associations, but in the associations that they have tried to hide from the public.
	Jeffrey Epstein may be dead, but this story isn't.
	A shocking new report from the New York Times sheds light on the connection between Microsoft founder Bill Gates and the late Jeffrey Epstein.
	After Gates' name came up in connection with Epstein and MIT Media Lab, Gates gave a statement to the Wall Street Journal where he insisted he did not have any business relationship or friendship with Epstein.
	But new reporting from the New York Times outlines numerous meetings between Gates and Epstein and a conversation with Bill and Melinda Gates' foundation, a connection between their foundation and JPMorgan to set up a charitable fund that would financially benefit Epstein.
	You know what I want to know?
	Why?
	Beginning in August of last year, a string of information connecting Bill Gates to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein began to emerge.
	Flight logs revealed that Gates had flown on Jeffrey Epstein's private jet.
	An email surfaced showing disgraced MIT Media Lab director Joy Ito, who resigned from his position after it was discovered that he had helped cover up Jeffrey Epstein's identity as an anonymous donor to the lab, informing his staff that a $2 million donation to the lab in 2014 was a gift from Bill Gates, directed by Jeffrey Epstein.
	As the story gained momentum, Gates tried to downplay the relationship, with a Gates spokesperson protesting that Gates didn't know it was Epstein's plane, and Gates himself insisting that,
	This was immediately contradicted by the New York Times, who reported in October of 2012 that Gates had in fact met with Epstein on multiple occasions, even going so far as to discuss the creation of a multi-billion dollar charitable fund with seed money from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and JPMorgan Chase.
	According to the Times, Gates emailed his colleagues about Epstein in 2011.
	His lifestyle is very different and kind of intriguing, although it would not work for me.
	Epstein's will even named Boris Nikolic, a Harvard-trained immunologist who served as the chief scientific advisor to both Microsoft and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and who appears in the sole publicly known photo of Epstein and Gates' 2011 meeting at Epstein's Manhattan mansion, as the backup executor of Epstein's estate.
	It is not difficult to see why Gates would try to distance himself from his relationship with a child sex trafficker.
	Epstein, after all, is suspected of ensnaring high-ranking politicians, businessmen, and even royalty in an intelligence-directed honeypot operation, recording them in the act of sexually abusing underage girls and using that evidence as blackmail.
	But, as it turns out, the attempt to suppress the Gates-Epstein story may have been an attempt to suppress the revelation of an altogether different shared interest.
	Sources say several accusers have come forward in New Mexico, where Epstein owns a sprawling ranch.
	According to a new report published in the New York Times, not verified by NBC News, Epstein wanted to use the ranch for controlled breeding, using his DNA to improve humanity.
	Citing two award-winning scientists and an advisor to large companies and wealthy individuals, the article reports Epstein surrounded himself with leading scientists.
	The already scarcely believable Jeffrey Epstein story took another bizarre turn in August of 2019, when it was reported that Epstein hoped to seed the human race with his DNA.
	As the New York Times explained, Epstein's plan to impregnate 20 women at a time at his New Mexico ranch in order to seed the human race with his DNA, a plan he told to a number of the scientific luminaries he kept in his orbit, put a modern gloss on a very old idea.
	Mr. Epstein's vision reflected his long-standing fascination with what has become known as transhumanism, the science of improving the human population through technologies like genetic engineering and artificial intelligence.
	Critics have likened transhumanism to a modern-day version of eugenics, the discredited field of improving the human race through controlled breeding.
	Epstein's interest in genetics led him to sponsor a number of scientists working in the field, including George Church, a Harvard geneticist whose lab received funding from Epstein's foundation from 2005 to 2007 for cutting-edge science.
	Church publicly apologized for his connection to Epstein, which included several meetings a year from 2014 onward.
	This was neither the first nor the last time that this unassuming Harvard biologist, whose cutting-edge science often strays into controversial areas, caused a public scandal.
	In 2019, Church proposed a genetics dating app, which was immediately denounced as applied eugenics.
	Church also acted as scientific advisor to Editas Medicine, a startup seeking to use the genome editing tool CRISPR-Cas9 to eliminate diseases by deleting the parts of a genetic code responsible for the illness.
	In 2015, the company announced it had raised $120 million from a group led by Epstein's appointed backup executor, Dr. Boris Nikolic.
	Naturally, that group of investors included Bill Gates.
	Yes, Bill Gates is certainly following his father's advice to collaborate with like-minded partners.
	So the question remains, is Bill Gates motivated by eugenics?
	Given that eugenics went underground over half a century ago, we are unlikely ever to unearth a frank admission along those lines from Gates himself.
	After all, there are no longer any card-carrying members of the American Eugenics Society.
	The society was rebranded in the 1970s when, as the society's founder noted, it became evident that changes of a eugenic nature would be made for reasons other than eugenics, and that tying a eugenic label on them would more often hinder than help their adoption.
	But there was an American Eugenics Society in the 1920s, and it just so happened to boast a William H. Gates on its member roster.
	But perhaps that is just a coincidence.
	And there was an American Eugenic Society in the 1960s, when William H. Gates II was preceded as head of Planned Parenthood by Alan Guttmacher, who simultaneously served as the director of the American Eugenic Society.
	And perhaps it was coincidence that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation organized their London Summit on Family Planning, at which the Gates recommitted themselves to funding population control in the third world, in July 2012, on the anniversary of the first International Eugenics Congress, held in London exactly 100 years prior.
	And perhaps it is reaching to compare the young Bill Gates' dating preferences to the genetic-based dating favored by modern-day eugenicists.
	I interviewed several women who had dated Bill just briefly, and one told me the very first question Bill asked her was, what did you score on your SAT test?
	You know, this is not exactly what a young woman wants to hear.
	For Bill Gates, though, he had scored a perfect 800 on his math portion of the SAT, and this was a matter of pride with him, and he wanted to make sure whoever he was dating had scored a pretty high grade.
	No, we cannot expect an answer about Bill Gates' true motives to come from Gates himself.
	By this point, the question of Bill Gates' intentions has been buried under the combined weight of hundreds of millions of dollars of paid PR spin.
	Like the Rockefellers before them, the Gates have long since learned the secret of enlarging their family fortune, not to mention their control over the human population, by donning the mask of philanthropy.
	There are many perspectives on Bill Gates.
	Depending on who you ask, he is a computer savant, a genius businessman, or a saintly philanthropist.
	But all of these perspectives have been brought to you through PR outlets founded or funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
	Bill Gates is no longer a subject for historians, but hagiographers.
	Now we must confront the question of why this man is motivated to build such a web of control.
	Control over our public health agencies, And for all 193 member states, you must make vaccines a high priority in your health systems to ensure that all your children have access to existing vaccines now and to the new vaccines that have recently become available.
	Control over our identities.
	And the lack of an ID system is a problem, not just for the payment system, but also for voting and health and education and taxation.
	And so it's a wonderful thing to go in and create a broad identification system.
	Once financial flows go underground, where you have lots of legitimate transactions mixed in with the ones you want to track, once they're going over a digital system that the U.S.
	has no connection to, it's far more difficult to find the transactions that you want to be aware of or that you want to block.
	And even control over our bodies.
	But 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.
	We must confront the possibility that this quest for control comes not from a selfless spirit of generosity that never seemed to exist before he became a multi-billionaire, but from the same drive for money, the same desire for domination, and the same sense of superiority that motivated him on his way up the corporate ladder.
	But if the answer to the question, who is Bill Gates, is Bill Gates is a eugenicist, that tells us some important things about the world that we are living in.
	It tells us that Gates is deceiving the public into supporting his takeover of the world with a false front of philanthropy.
	It tells us that the goal of the Gates, like the goal of the Rockefellers before them, is not to improve the world for humankind, but to improve the world for their kind.
	And most importantly, it tells us that Bill Gates is no comic book supervillain, single-handedly directing all of the chaos that is unfolding in the world or single-handedly bringing his own order to that chaos.
	No.
	If Bill Gates is a eugenicist, driven by a belief in the superiority of himself and his fellow wealthy elitists, then what we are facing is not one man, or even one family, but an ideology.
	This is not a trivial point.
	One man, whatever his wealth, can be stopped easily enough.
	But even if Bill Gates were to be thrown in jail tomorrow, the agenda that has already been set in motion would continue without missing a beat.
	An entire infrastructure of researchers, labs, corporations, governmental agencies, and public health bodies exists, funded more often than not by Gates, but driven by the belief of all those millions of people working for these various entities, that they are truly working in the best interest of the people.
	No, an ideology cannot be stopped by stopping one man.
	It can only be stopped when enough people learn the truth about this agenda and the world of total pervasive control that is coming into view.
	If you have watched all four parts of this exploration on Bill Gates, then you are now one of the most informed people on the planet about the true nature of this agenda.
	You have seen how the takeover of public health has been used to railroad the world into a headlong rush toward mandatory vaccinations, biometric identification, and digital payments.
	No doubt about it.
	In a world where you have questions like, can you justify your existence?
	Sort of sounds like, can you justify how you're essential, your job is essential?
	The answer is every American is essential.
	Every family is essential.
	Every life is essential.
	Every freedom is essential.

▲