| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| We're not comparing EPA to the Nazis, but these rules are so sacrosanct because they come from the experience with the Nazis. | |
| They come from the experience with the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. | |
| Welcome back. | |
| I'm David Knight. | |
| If you tuned in last night, you know that we talked about some human testing that the EPA is conducting. | |
| And we've got in the studio tonight Steve Malloy. | |
| He runs a website, JunkScience.com. | |
| He is a biostatistician and he's working with the ATI Environmental Law Center. | |
| Steve, we've got a new court decision, but before we get into that, briefly tell them what the EPA is doing that you're trying to stop. | |
| Okay. | |
| There's an air pollutant. | |
| It's called PM 2.5. | |
| For the last 10 years or so, EPA has been telling the public about how deadly this pollutant is. | |
| EPA says there's no safe exposure to PM 2.5. | |
| EPA says that any exposure can kill you, and any exposure can kill you within hours or days of you inhaling it. | |
| causes premature deaths. | |
| It doesn't make you sick. | |
| So, I found out about a year ago that EPA's been conducting these human experiments with PM2.5, and so I filed several Freedom of Information Act requests, and enlisted a bunch of data, and out of all that data, thousands of pages of documents, I discovered that not only is EPA testing this deadly PM2.5 on people, but they're lying to them about the effects. | |
| Now, this court decision that came up yesterday, tell us a little bit about that. | |
| That was a temporary restraining order, right? | |
| Well, we have filed a lawsuit to get all this stopped, because this violates every rule, regulation, ethical standard set since World War II governing the protection of human subjects involved in scientific experiments. | |
| In addition to our lawsuit to get all this stopped, We filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order yesterday to get the ongoing trial stopped. | |
| Because right now there's a trial where EPA is exposing people to BM 2.5 and lying to them about it. | |
| Just to cut to the chase, the judge ruled for EPA saying that, well, it doesn't appear there's subject matter jurisdiction. | |
| But the remarkable thing about this is that here's the federal court. | |
| He hears that EPA exposed people to this deadly substance, lying to them about it, And we're worried about, you know, the Marcus and Queensberry jurisdiction rules. | |
| It's kind of crazy. | |
| Now, in the jurisdiction, was he saying that, I mean, this isn't something like you were in the wrong geographical area or something like that. | |
| I mean, when I got the, I got something here from David Schneer, who's your counsel, and he said that Judge Tringa, is that how you pronounce his name? | |
| It was uncomfortable with EPA's claim that there is no situation in which a court could review their human experimentation on the basis that research is not a final agency action. | |
| So, that was the basis on which you say you didn't have jurisdiction, right? | |
| Was that it wasn't, I mean, when it's not a final agency action, is he saying it's not final regulatory action? | |
| Is he saying that no court can oversee whatever EPA is doing on experimentation? | |
| What are you saying? | |
| Well, he was uncertain, at least. | |
| So we have to go back and do some more homework and figure out how that can be. | |
| Courts are listening to hearing people complain about regulations that have been issued, you know, final agency actions. | |
| This is not really a regulation, yet it's still agency action, and it's pretty final. | |
| It's pretty final for you. | |
| Yeah, exactly. | |
| I mean, when I saw this, it reminded me, you know, you talked about violating codes that go back to World War II, and you've talked a great length on videos, other videos, about specific ways in which this has violated the Nuremberg Codes, which were enacted as a result of medical experimentation by the Nazis. | |
| And now we have, you know, the Nuremberg trials. | |
| They didn't just try medical doctors. | |
| They also tried judges who didn't stop things, right? | |
| I mean, the whole movie... And they put judges on trial, too. | |
| Yeah, the whole movie, Judgment at Nuremberg, was about the judges going on trial. | |
| It wasn't about trying Joseph Mengele, the people who had done things. | |
| It was about actually trying the judge who had done this. | |
| And so now we've got an American judge... So now we have an American judge saying that That even when the EPA has violated at least half of the Nuremberg Code, as well as other EPA rules, as well as medical ethical rules that are in place, that he shouldn't do anything about it. | |
| Yeah, David, I've got to say, I was astounded. | |
| Because we laid out a good case of how what EPA is doing is, I don't care how you slice it, it's illegal. | |
| Yeah. | |
| It's a crime. You can't lie to people about exposing them. | |
| And when the government doesn't exercise any accountability over its agents, | |
| at some point, somebody has got to hold some of these actors accountable for what they're doing | |
| when they do criminal things or when they violate their own rules and regulations. | |
| You're going to tell me that there are these rules under which EPA has to act but nobody can enforce them? | |
| Right. | |
| Right. | |
| Exactly. | |
| Yeah, that's really crazy. | |
| Well, Steve, thank you so much for talking to us tonight. | |
| We're going to want to keep in touch with you and find out how this goes and maybe we can stop human experimentation here right in America. | |
| Well, that's it. | |
| I guess the EPA can do whatever they want as long as they call it an experiment. | |
| Thanks for tuning in tonight. | |
| That's the Nightly News. |
Export Selection