1
0:00:00 --> 0:00:11
Yes, Richard is doing great work and what an interesting journey Richard to get a medical

2
0:00:11 --> 0:00:12
degree then a law degree.

3
0:00:12 --> 0:00:15
I got my law degree in 1973.

4
0:00:15 --> 0:00:18
I didn't bother getting my medical degree.

5
0:00:18 --> 0:00:23
I got a bachelor of practical health, no other than public health.

6
0:00:23 --> 0:00:27
Anyway, let's get this show on the road.

7
0:00:27 --> 0:00:29
Stephen will be with us in a moment.

8
0:00:29 --> 0:00:36
We'll do the intros and welcome everybody to Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International

9
0:00:36 --> 0:00:37
and today's discussion.

10
0:00:37 --> 0:00:42
This group was founded by Dr. Stephen Frost over three years ago with the desire to pursue

11
0:00:42 --> 0:00:44
truth, ethics, justice, freedom and health.

12
0:00:44 --> 0:00:48
Stephen has stood up against government and power over the years and has been a whistleblower

13
0:00:48 --> 0:00:49
and activist.

14
0:00:49 --> 0:00:51
His medical specialty is radiology.

15
0:00:51 --> 0:00:54
We remember Ryan Ofulmik at this time.

16
0:00:54 --> 0:00:59
So whilst Jerry lost his license, Ryan Ofulmik has lost his liberty since October last year

17
0:00:59 --> 0:01:09
in a corrupted German legal system and an illegal collusion and conspiracy between the

18
0:01:09 --> 0:01:14
Mexican government and the German government to kidnap Ryan and to take him to Germany

19
0:01:14 --> 0:01:17
and still have him incarcerated for a show trial.

20
0:01:17 --> 0:01:22
We need everyone to shine a light on the Ryan Ofulmik case.

21
0:01:22 --> 0:01:25
I'm Charles Coviss, the moderator of this group.

22
0:01:25 --> 0:01:30
I'm Australasia's passion provocateur and I urge all of you to remain passionate about

23
0:01:30 --> 0:01:33
our fight for freedom.

24
0:01:33 --> 0:01:38
I practiced law for 20 years before changing career 31 years ago and over the last 14 years

25
0:01:38 --> 0:01:43
I've helped parents and lawyers to strategize remedies for vaccine damage and damage from

26
0:01:43 --> 0:01:44
bad medical advice.

27
0:01:44 --> 0:01:49
I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company.

28
0:01:49 --> 0:01:54
Industrial hemp is going to be one of the saviours of humanity in this attack on us.

29
0:01:54 --> 0:01:59
We comprise lots of professions here and we're from all around the world.

30
0:01:59 --> 0:02:01
Many of us thought that vaccines were okay.

31
0:02:01 --> 0:02:07
Now many of us proudly say yes, we are passionate anti-vaxxers and I urge all of you to check

32
0:02:07 --> 0:02:13
out the recent article by Stanley Plotkin, the so-called godfather of vaccines, who has

33
0:02:13 --> 0:02:20
acknowledged that no vaccines ever in history have been properly tested for safety or efficacy.

34
0:02:20 --> 0:02:24
If this is your first time here, welcome and feel free to introduce yourself in the chat

35
0:02:24 --> 0:02:25
and where you're from.

36
0:02:25 --> 0:02:30
If you publish a newsletter or a podcast or you have a radio or TV show or you've written

37
0:02:30 --> 0:02:35
a book, put the links into the chat so we can follow you, promote you and find you.

38
0:02:35 --> 0:02:39
Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War III and that the medical science

39
0:02:39 --> 0:02:41
battle is only one of 12 battle fronts.

40
0:02:41 --> 0:02:47
The legal battle front is another of the 12 battle fronts.

41
0:02:47 --> 0:02:48
There's no time to be tired.

42
0:02:48 --> 0:02:55
I assess that we're four and a half years into a seven year war and now is the time

43
0:02:55 --> 0:02:58
not to be tired.

44
0:02:58 --> 0:03:03
Most of us understand the development of science and that the science is never settled.

45
0:03:03 --> 0:03:07
One of the great quotes is that if you can question it, it's science.

46
0:03:07 --> 0:03:13
If you can't question it, it's propaganda.

47
0:03:13 --> 0:03:15
Some of us believe that viruses exist.

48
0:03:15 --> 0:03:20
Some of us believe that viruses are a hoax and some of us sit on the fence.

49
0:03:20 --> 0:03:27
Others consider that having a debate about that issue is a distraction while the attacks

50
0:03:27 --> 0:03:30
on humanity continue.

51
0:03:30 --> 0:03:33
This meeting runs for two and a half hours after which for those with the time, Tom Rodman

52
0:03:33 --> 0:03:35
runs a video telegram meeting.

53
0:03:35 --> 0:03:38
Tom puts the links into the chat if you're able to join.

54
0:03:38 --> 0:03:42
We will listen to our guest presenters today, Dr. Richard Fox, for as long as Richard wishes

55
0:03:42 --> 0:03:44
to speak and then we have Q&A.

56
0:03:44 --> 0:03:49
Stephen Frost, by long established tradition, asks the first questions for 15 minutes.

57
0:03:49 --> 0:03:53
This is a free speech environment.

58
0:03:53 --> 0:03:57
Free speech is crucially important in our fight to preserve our human freedoms.

59
0:03:57 --> 0:04:03
In Australia right now where I live, where it's 5am in the morning, the Australian government

60
0:04:03 --> 0:04:09
has introduced misinformation and disinformation legislation that is designed to shut down

61
0:04:09 --> 0:04:11
free speech.

62
0:04:11 --> 0:04:15
That's the classic communist playbook.

63
0:04:15 --> 0:04:22
Every one of us must resist these attempts to suppress what you want to say on the grounds

64
0:04:22 --> 0:04:26
that might be misinformation or disinformation.

65
0:04:26 --> 0:04:28
If you're offended by anything, be offended.

66
0:04:28 --> 0:04:30
We're lovingly not interested.

67
0:04:30 --> 0:04:36
We reject the offence industry that requires nobody to say anything that may offend another.

68
0:04:36 --> 0:04:39
And we similarly reject the triggering industry.

69
0:04:39 --> 0:04:43
Don't you dare say anything that may trigger somebody.

70
0:04:43 --> 0:04:46
We call BS on that.

71
0:04:46 --> 0:04:49
We come with an attitude and perspective of love, not fear.

72
0:04:49 --> 0:04:51
Fear is the opposite of love.

73
0:04:51 --> 0:04:55
Fear squashes you and enslaves you.

74
0:04:55 --> 0:05:00
Love on the other hand expands you, liberates you.

75
0:05:00 --> 0:05:02
These twice weekly meetings are not just talkfests.

76
0:05:02 --> 0:05:07
An extraordinary range of actions and initiatives have been generated from linkages made by

77
0:05:07 --> 0:05:10
attendees in these meetings.

78
0:05:10 --> 0:05:16
One of those is that Dr Jerry Waters has supported financially Albert Benavides, the VS aware

79
0:05:16 --> 0:05:21
guy whose work in research was enabled by Jerry, which wouldn't have happened if Albert

80
0:05:21 --> 0:05:25
hadn't met Jerry on these calls.

81
0:05:25 --> 0:05:28
If you have a solution or a product or links or resources that will help people put the

82
0:05:29 --> 0:05:34
details into the chat, the meeting is recorded and is uploaded on the Rumble channel.

83
0:05:34 --> 0:05:38
Another matter on which the light has been shined in these meetings is the work of Hans

84
0:05:38 --> 0:05:48
Benjamin Braun and proving that the Nord Stream pipeline destructions were caused, were actually

85
0:05:48 --> 0:05:57
done by the American government and the mainstream media siders on those Nord Stream pipeline

86
0:05:57 --> 0:05:59
is also telling.

87
0:06:00 --> 0:06:05
Charles, he also proved that it was a thermonuclear explosion, which is very important, of course.

88
0:06:05 --> 0:06:06
Yes, thank you.

89
0:06:07 --> 0:06:07
Thank you.

90
0:06:07 --> 0:06:13
And now we've got Keir Starmer wanting to urge British troops to be on the ground in the Ukraine,

91
0:06:13 --> 0:06:15
firing rockets into Russia.

92
0:06:15 --> 0:06:16
What a great idea.

93
0:06:18 --> 0:06:20
The meeting is recorded, is uploaded on the Rumble channel.

94
0:06:21 --> 0:06:23
All the previous meetings can be found there.

95
0:06:23 --> 0:06:25
Now welcome to our guest presenter, Richard Fox.

96
0:06:25 --> 0:06:29
We thank you, Richard, for giving us your time, wisdom and insights and a formal introduction

97
0:06:29 --> 0:06:34
of Richard and his amazing background is going to be given to us by Alex Mayer, chairman

98
0:06:34 --> 0:06:36
of the Free Now Foundation.

99
0:06:36 --> 0:06:42
We also thank Shasta Erickson for helping or ensuring Richard to be here.

100
0:06:42 --> 0:06:44
Thank you, Shasta and Alex.

101
0:06:44 --> 0:06:45
Over to you.

102
0:06:47 --> 0:06:50
Well, thank you so much, Charles, for that great introduction.

103
0:06:50 --> 0:06:53
And it's my honor today to introduce Dr. Fox.

104
0:06:54 --> 0:06:59
Dr. Fox is a board member on my charity, which is called Free Now Foundation.

105
0:06:59 --> 0:07:03
We're one of the leading medical freedom law nonprofits in California.

106
0:07:03 --> 0:07:04
So let me jump in.

107
0:07:04 --> 0:07:11
This, I have to give props to Ron Owens for writing this incredible bio on Dr. Fox.

108
0:07:11 --> 0:07:13
And I had the pleasure of reading it.

109
0:07:13 --> 0:07:14
So here we go.

110
0:07:15 --> 0:07:21
California attorney and pediatrician, Dr. Richard Fox, has filed a 154-page lawsuit

111
0:07:21 --> 0:07:23
against the state of California.

112
0:07:23 --> 0:07:27
The federal Centers for Disease Control and two California school districts late last month.

113
0:07:28 --> 0:07:32
Named as defendants in the complaint are a long list of officials.

114
0:07:32 --> 0:07:36
We have the state public health officer, California Department of Public Health Director,

115
0:07:36 --> 0:07:41
Dr. Tomas Aragon, California Department of Education, state superintendent of public

116
0:07:41 --> 0:07:45
instruction, Tony Thurmond, medical board of California executive director,

117
0:07:46 --> 0:07:50
Rahi Varghese, and I apologize for any pronunciation problems there,

118
0:07:50 --> 0:07:55
California attorney general, Rob Bonta, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

119
0:07:55 --> 0:08:02
director, Mandy Glowup Cohen, Brentwood Union School District Superintendent, Dana Eaton,

120
0:08:02 --> 0:08:06
and Gilroy Unified School District Superintendent, Alicia Munshi.

121
0:08:06 --> 0:08:11
So there are a lot of defendants in this case all the way from California to the CDC.

122
0:08:11 --> 0:08:15
Dr. Fox is representing Free Now Foundation, one of the leading medical freedom law

123
0:08:15 --> 0:08:20
nonprofits in California, and Brave and Free Santa Cruz, a freedom advocacy group.

124
0:08:20 --> 0:08:25
Six unnamed minor plaintiffs and their parents plus Dr. Douglas Halstead, a Monterey pediatrician.

125
0:08:27 --> 0:08:31
In the complaint, which he's going to talk about today, Dr. Fox asserts that the state's

126
0:08:31 --> 0:08:35
school immunization requirements are unconstitutional under the first and 14th

127
0:08:35 --> 0:08:40
amendments and asks defendants to prove all 10 of the vaccines on the required schedule

128
0:08:40 --> 0:08:46
to attend school actually stop transmission. The complaint also asserts that special education

129
0:08:46 --> 0:08:53
students, otherwise known as individualized education plans or IEP students, are legally

130
0:08:53 --> 0:08:58
exempt from those requirements. Furthermore, the complaint asserts that Dr. Halstead had his

131
0:08:58 --> 0:09:03
medical license revoked for giving informed consent around vaccination. Dr. Halstead's

132
0:09:03 --> 0:09:07
First Amendment rights were infringed upon and according to the complaint, his medical license

133
0:09:07 --> 0:09:14
should therefore be reinstated. Paragraph 315 of the complaint is the cornerstone of the complaint.

134
0:09:14 --> 0:09:19
That graph reads, under our Declaration of Independence, our government derives its just

135
0:09:19 --> 0:09:24
powers from the consent of the governed. This only works when that consent is informed consent,

136
0:09:24 --> 0:09:30
both as to public affairs as well as personal affairs such as medical care. Denial of informed

137
0:09:30 --> 0:09:34
consent for medical care is an infringement of both our First Amendment right to speak

138
0:09:34 --> 0:09:40
and hear freely and our 14th Amendment right to give or withhold consent for medical treatment.

139
0:09:40 --> 0:09:46
The 154-page complaint was filed on August 26 with the U.S. District Court, Eastern District

140
0:09:46 --> 0:09:52
of California. Dr. Fox was conferred a Juris Doctor degree from Santa Clara University Law School

141
0:09:52 --> 0:09:59
in Santa Clara in 2009. He's been a member of the California State Bar since 2012. Dr. Fox earned

142
0:09:59 --> 0:10:04
a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from Michigan State University in East Lansing in 1968.

143
0:10:04 --> 0:10:08
He was conferred a Doctor of Medicine from the University of Minnesota Medical School in

144
0:10:08 --> 0:10:14
Minneapolis in 1975. He completed his post-doc training residency at the University of Minnesota

145
0:10:14 --> 0:10:20
Hospitals in 1978. Possessing more than 30 years of medical teaching experience, Dr. Fox served as

146
0:10:20 --> 0:10:25
an instructor and assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado in Denver for two

147
0:10:25 --> 0:10:30
years. He was also appointed assistant professor at Harvard Medical School's Department of Pediatrics.

148
0:10:30 --> 0:10:35
Furthermore, he taught at Denver's National Jewish Hospital, Boston's Children's Hospital,

149
0:10:35 --> 0:10:40
San Jose's Good Sam Hospital, and Los Gatos' Community Hospital during his medical practicing

150
0:10:40 --> 0:10:45
and teaching career. In addition to his more than three decades of teaching, Dr. Fox published 24

151
0:10:45 --> 0:10:51
medical research papers and peer-reviewed journals. He has also authored numerous medical abstracts

152
0:10:51 --> 0:10:55
and presentations. Dr. Fox has belonged to several medical organizations. He's received numerous

153
0:10:55 --> 0:11:01
awards and honors for about four decades, and Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International is

154
0:11:02 --> 0:11:06
absolutely fortunate to hear from such an esteemed attorney and physician about this

155
0:11:06 --> 0:11:11
complaint against the state of California, a federal agency, and the two school districts.

156
0:11:11 --> 0:11:16
It's an honor for me to get to introduce Dr. Fox, an honor for me to get to have him on my

157
0:11:16 --> 0:11:20
board at Free Now Foundation. We welcome you, Dr. Fox. I'll turn it over to you right now.

158
0:11:22 --> 0:11:30
Thank you very much, Alex. Thank you very much, Stephen and Charles. It's a pleasure and an honor

159
0:11:30 --> 0:11:38
to be with you today. I very much agree with the statement that were it not for COVID,

160
0:11:38 --> 0:11:45
we probably wouldn't be in this exact spot, although it's frightening to think that it

161
0:11:45 --> 0:11:55
may have happened anyway. But COVID opened the eyes of many of us to the undercurrents of

162
0:11:55 --> 0:12:03
of corruption and self-interest that we've probably had in medicine for a long time,

163
0:12:03 --> 0:12:13
but just didn't realize it. I think for many of us, the first clues came very early on

164
0:12:14 --> 0:12:19
when we were told that if you think you might have COVID, don't seek treatment,

165
0:12:19 --> 0:12:24
just go hide in a closet somewhere. We've never done that in medicine before.

166
0:12:25 --> 0:12:32
It was always the case that you are supposed to get treatment as early as possible,

167
0:12:33 --> 0:12:40
not as late as possible. So there was something about COVID that didn't seem right from the very

168
0:12:40 --> 0:12:54
beginning. And it's only, as you know, gotten a lot worse ever since. Early on, President Trump was

169
0:12:54 --> 0:13:01
encouraging people to take hydroxychloroquine for their COVID, but he got squashed on that by Dr.

170
0:13:01 --> 0:13:12
Fauci and, as many of you know, the fraudulent Lancet paper. But there were some of us who

171
0:13:12 --> 0:13:21
thought there was merit to early treatment anyway. And in California here, the pioneers were George

172
0:13:21 --> 0:13:31
Fareed and Brian Tyson down in the Imperial Valley. I went down there to learn from them how they

173
0:13:31 --> 0:13:39
treated COVID. They treated upwards of, I don't know, 15 or 20,000 COVID patients. I treated

174
0:13:40 --> 0:13:49
about 600 COVID patients here in Silicon Valley. I would appear in front of various public groups

175
0:13:49 --> 0:13:56
and give my little talk. And then I had a website where people could go and sign up for early

176
0:13:56 --> 0:14:04
treatment, get the forbidden drugs, that is the drugs that Dr. Fauci forbade, like hydroxychloroquine

177
0:14:04 --> 0:14:13
and ivermectin. Of my more than 600 patients, the oldest was 98 years old, several others in their 90s,

178
0:14:14 --> 0:14:22
a number in their 80s. None of my COVID patients ever died, which was not a tribute to me. It was

179
0:14:22 --> 0:14:32
a tribute to the work that Dr. Fareed, Tyson, Dr. Corey, Dr. McCullough, all of those brave people

180
0:14:32 --> 0:14:41
who pioneered the actual proper treatment of COVID. As the COVID problem wound down,

181
0:14:44 --> 0:14:52
of course, we also, Alex and I appeared jointly several times during the 2022 California election

182
0:14:52 --> 0:15:01
campaign to talk about the harms of the COVID vaccines. I ran for U.S. Congress that year

183
0:15:02 --> 0:15:10
just so I could get a ballot statement that was published and sent to all the voters

184
0:15:10 --> 0:15:17
in the Silicon Valley congressional district talking about the harms of the vaccines.

185
0:15:20 --> 0:15:26
As you know, you couldn't get that kind of thing published anywhere in the mainstream media,

186
0:15:26 --> 0:15:33
but under California law, if I made it a ballot statement and paid my fees for that,

187
0:15:33 --> 0:15:38
they had to send it to all the voters. So for many people in the Silicon Valley, that's the first

188
0:15:39 --> 0:15:44
that they ever knew that there were actually harms to those vaccines. And as I said, Alex and I went

189
0:15:44 --> 0:15:54
around and gave that talk all over the valley in that time. And of course, subsequent experience

190
0:15:54 --> 0:16:00
has only confirmed that the COVID vaccines have done far more harm than good. And in fact,

191
0:16:00 --> 0:16:09
it's not at all clear that they've ever done any good. I have a, one of my patients was telling me

192
0:16:09 --> 0:16:17
recently based on their personal experience, they had some connections with the Stanford

193
0:16:18 --> 0:16:25
Children's Hospital here in Palo Alto, that they've had a rash of myocarditis in young men

194
0:16:26 --> 0:16:30
like they've never seen before. They've never seen anything like the myocarditis

195
0:16:31 --> 0:16:42
that they've had since the COVID shots came out. So that really made us question the scientific

196
0:16:42 --> 0:16:53
integrity of the CDC. And as a pediatrician, I then started to wonder about the vaccines that

197
0:16:53 --> 0:16:58
we've always recommended for children. If the COVID vaccine could be so badly

198
0:17:05 --> 0:17:12
offered to the public, what about the children's vaccines? And fortunately, we had the work of

199
0:17:12 --> 0:17:17
Robert Kennedy and especially Brian Hooker, he is the chief scientific officer,

200
0:17:17 --> 0:17:27
a number of others who have worked on that. And the evidence was pretty clear that they had a lot

201
0:17:27 --> 0:17:35
of studies to show the harms of the childhood vaccines. The thing that was also striking about

202
0:17:35 --> 0:17:46
it was that the CDC did not have any studies to rebut those studies. You would think if the CDC

203
0:17:46 --> 0:17:52
were being scientifically honest about all this, they would have done their own studies first.

204
0:17:53 --> 0:17:58
But then if there were other people who did studies, they certainly would have gone and done

205
0:17:58 --> 0:18:06
themselves and done so in a very open, transparent way so that everybody could be confident of their

206
0:18:06 --> 0:18:11
results. But they not only haven't done them in an open, transparent way, they haven't done them at

207
0:18:11 --> 0:18:19
all. The CDC has never done any placebo controlled trials of any of these vaccines.

208
0:18:21 --> 0:18:28
So that's a big tip off. As an attorney, you're always looking for incongruous behavior,

209
0:18:28 --> 0:18:36
incongruous statements. They often tell you a great deal. And for the CDC to not do any of these

210
0:18:36 --> 0:18:45
studies was a big tip off. It just did not comport with a scientifically valid and transparent

211
0:18:45 --> 0:18:52
enterprise. But then as we went back and looked at this, this isn't something that was recently

212
0:18:52 --> 0:19:00
discovered. It turned out that people have been onto this CDC vaccine problem since the 1980s.

213
0:19:01 --> 0:19:09
And there were a lot of vaccine injured children that far back. And they made such a fuss about it

214
0:19:09 --> 0:19:17
in the Congress that the Congress actually, the US Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine

215
0:19:17 --> 0:19:26
Injury Act, which was promoted heavily by the vaccine industry because they didn't want to be

216
0:19:26 --> 0:19:33
sued for all the harm they were causing. So that vaccine injury act provided the vaccine

217
0:19:33 --> 0:19:40
manufacturers legal immunity. They didn't have to pay damages to the children that were hurt.

218
0:19:42 --> 0:19:51
But in the process, as a legal matter, the federal government was thereby admitting

219
0:19:52 --> 0:19:59
that vaccines cause injury. And in fact, they set up an injury fund so that the children who were

220
0:19:59 --> 0:20:06
harmed by the vaccines could be compensated out of that fund. And it's paid out many thousands of

221
0:20:06 --> 0:20:15
claims and millions of dollars in damages. So this causes a big problem when you go to the CDC's

222
0:20:15 --> 0:20:24
website and they say vaccines are safe and effective and unqualified safe. Well, if so,

223
0:20:24 --> 0:20:30
why do we need a Childhood Vaccine Injury Act that pays out millions of dollars in damages?

224
0:20:31 --> 0:20:41
So the CDC is being transparently dishonest in making that statement.

225
0:20:45 --> 0:20:52
One of the other things that came out of the Vaccine Injury Act was a requirement that there

226
0:20:52 --> 0:21:02
be ongoing studies of vaccine safety. And so the Congress directed the CDC to utilize the Institute

227
0:21:02 --> 0:21:09
of Medicine, which is one of the three branches of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences,

228
0:21:09 --> 0:21:20
and to do those vaccine safety reviews. They did one comprehensive review in 1994 and the second

229
0:21:20 --> 0:21:33
one in 2012. The 2012 study looked at all of the CDC approved vaccines and all of the potential

230
0:21:33 --> 0:21:39
adverse effects, which amounted to about 180 or 185 different

231
0:21:40 --> 0:21:45
potential adverse effects of about 10 different vaccines.

232
0:21:48 --> 0:21:55
The conclusion that they came to was that in almost all cases there was not enough evidence,

233
0:21:55 --> 0:22:03
scientific evidence to show that the vaccines were safe. They found that it appeared that the

234
0:22:03 --> 0:22:12
measles vaccine they thought did not cause autism. There were three or four others that they concluded

235
0:22:12 --> 0:22:19
did not cause adverse effects. There were several where they found that there were definite adverse

236
0:22:19 --> 0:22:27
effects, but in about 90% of the adverse effects they looked at, they said the data was inadequate

237
0:22:27 --> 0:22:35
to say one way or the other whether they're safe or not safe. So that was in 2012. It's now 12 years

238
0:22:35 --> 0:22:42
later. The Institute of Medicine has never done a follow-up to that study. I assume that's because

239
0:22:42 --> 0:22:49
the CDC never wanted them to do any more studies of that, probably because they would have had to

240
0:22:49 --> 0:22:58
come to the same conclusion that the data is still inadequate. So 12 years ago the agency mandated by

241
0:22:58 --> 0:23:04
Congress to review vaccine safety said that there was not enough evidence to show that they were

242
0:23:04 --> 0:23:13
safe and yet neither the CDC, the FDA, nor anybody else has wanted to do those studies. So again,

243
0:23:13 --> 0:23:19
as an attorney, I look at that and say, well, I think there's probably a good reason why they

244
0:23:19 --> 0:23:23
don't want to look at that. It's sort of like the killer doesn't want you to look in the closet and

245
0:23:23 --> 0:23:40
find the murder weapon. So having done all that research, it then seemed to me that the next step

246
0:23:40 --> 0:23:47
that we had to consider was some kind of litigation. We've had a lot of groups doing a lot of great work

247
0:23:47 --> 0:23:52
in the public education sphere. Certainly Robert Kennedy's group, Children's Health Defense, has

248
0:23:52 --> 0:24:00
been tireless in their efforts to get the word out. Alex's group, Finau Foundation, the same.

249
0:24:01 --> 0:24:09
Steve Kirsch has done great work getting out all of the good information both on COVID and then

250
0:24:09 --> 0:24:19
subsequently on the childhood vaccines. But the CDC, particularly under this Biden administration, has

251
0:24:22 --> 0:24:25
quite diligently ignored all of that, all the public outcry.

252
0:24:28 --> 0:24:35
The Congress, the US Congress hasn't really paid much attention to it. Granted, they've got a lot

253
0:24:35 --> 0:24:40
of other serious problems to deal with. But this is a very serious problem and they should have been

254
0:24:40 --> 0:24:47
looking at it. But one of the ways that we in the law, one of the tools that we have is filing lawsuits

255
0:24:48 --> 0:24:56
that can bring the judicial process to bear on these kinds of issues. It can give us tools to

256
0:24:56 --> 0:25:03
fair out information that people don't want to disclose. And then we can put it in front of a

257
0:25:03 --> 0:25:09
decision maker that actually has power to do something about the problem. And so that is one

258
0:25:09 --> 0:25:20
of the great tools of litigation. So I worked on this for about six months or so. One of the

259
0:25:22 --> 0:25:27
conclusions I came to early on, I looked at some of the previous lawsuits that had been

260
0:25:27 --> 0:25:35
brought in this area and they've been brought by very able attorneys. The interesting thing is the

261
0:25:35 --> 0:25:41
courts look at those lawsuits, you know, challenging vaccine mandates and so forth.

262
0:25:42 --> 0:25:52
And the judges are very, very reluctant to get involved in those cases. We certainly saw that

263
0:25:52 --> 0:25:57
with COVID. It took the U.S. Supreme Court quite a long time to get around to addressing

264
0:25:58 --> 0:26:04
COVID even early on. Just the restrictions on people going to church took almost a year

265
0:26:05 --> 0:26:11
for the Supreme Court to decide that that was not allowed. And then as far as all these vaccine

266
0:26:11 --> 0:26:19
mandates that were imposed on people in the workplace, students, pilots, armed forces,

267
0:26:20 --> 0:26:31
again, the courts were very reluctant to look at those. And when you look at this, this goes back

268
0:26:31 --> 0:26:42
about 100 years. The first vaccine case was in 1905, the Jacobson v. Massachusetts case.

269
0:26:42 --> 0:26:49
In that case, there was an epidemic of, or an outbreak at least of smallpox in the city of

270
0:26:49 --> 0:26:56
Cambridge, Massachusetts. They passed a town ordinance that all the adults in Cambridge had

271
0:26:56 --> 0:27:07
to get vaccinated against smallpox or pay a $5 fine. Mr. Jacobson objected to it because he thought

272
0:27:08 --> 0:27:13
it would be harmful to his health. He also objected to it because he didn't think the

273
0:27:13 --> 0:27:20
government had the power to mandate that people had to get vaccinated. So as you can see, the

274
0:27:20 --> 0:27:27
controversy has been with us since 1905. That case ultimately went to the U.S. Supreme Court,

275
0:27:27 --> 0:27:33
which decided that it was okay for Massachusetts and particularly the city of Cambridge

276
0:27:34 --> 0:27:44
to mandate vaccination. And Jacobson makes very interesting reading because when you boil it down

277
0:27:45 --> 0:27:53
what the Supreme Court said, and this is in 1905, I mean, medicine was in a very early

278
0:27:54 --> 0:28:00
stage at that time. It was pre-Flexner. Most medical education was actually

279
0:28:00 --> 0:28:08
just done by practicing doctors, training associates. We didn't have much of the way

280
0:28:08 --> 0:28:13
of even medical schools back then. So in that sort of pre-scientific era, the Supreme Court

281
0:28:13 --> 0:28:21
looked around and just said, well, everybody knows that vaccine, that smallpox vaccine works.

282
0:28:21 --> 0:28:27
In other words, they said it's a matter of common knowledge. And the court said we can

283
0:28:27 --> 0:28:32
take cognizance of common knowledge. And so we're going to use common knowledge to say that it's

284
0:28:32 --> 0:28:46
okay to mandate vaccines. Not that much has changed in all these years. We had a case in the

285
0:28:46 --> 0:28:51
California Court of Appeal a few years back, the Love case. And there were a lot of good legal

286
0:28:51 --> 0:28:56
arguments that were deployed in that case. But when it came right down to it, it was a

287
0:28:57 --> 0:29:03
the court said, everybody knows that vaccines are one of the great advances in medical science of

288
0:29:03 --> 0:29:11
the 20th century. And we're not going to get in the way of that. That's what it boiled down to.

289
0:29:13 --> 0:29:22
So my conclusion was that you can make a lot of legal arguments about the First Amendment,

290
0:29:22 --> 0:29:28
the 14th Amendment, and they're very valid arguments. But the judges, the courts,

291
0:29:29 --> 0:29:37
are very reluctant to rule against vaccines when it is the common knowledge that they're a miraculous

292
0:29:39 --> 0:29:46
development by medical science. In other words, you would have to convince the court that there

293
0:29:46 --> 0:29:55
is some good reason to doubt that vaccines are really the universal miracle that they're

294
0:29:55 --> 0:30:01
touted to be by the CDC. In other words, a successful lawsuit would not only have to attack

295
0:30:01 --> 0:30:07
the legal underpinnings of vaccines, but also the medical and scientific underpinnings.

296
0:30:08 --> 0:30:14
In fact, I came to the conclusion that no judge probably wants to put out a decision

297
0:30:14 --> 0:30:20
throwing out vaccine mandates, and then six months later, pick up the paper and read that

298
0:30:20 --> 0:30:27
there's now an outbreak of measles. And it's all due to the judge so-and-so ruling against

299
0:30:27 --> 0:30:33
the measles vaccine. So we had to have a lawsuit that included both the legal arguments and the

300
0:30:33 --> 0:30:40
medical arguments. So that's what we did with this. That's why the lawsuit is several times

301
0:30:40 --> 0:30:49
the length of an ordinary lawsuit. We talked a lot about the studies that Brian Hooker reviewed in

302
0:30:49 --> 0:30:57
his great book that he wrote with Robert Kennedy called Vax Unvax. In fact, we plagiarized

303
0:30:57 --> 0:31:06
shamelessly from his book. We just photoshopped the graphs from his book into our lawsuit.

304
0:31:06 --> 0:31:13
We did that with some of the work of Suzanne Humphries, some of Neil Miller's work, and

305
0:31:13 --> 0:31:19
all these things that showed that vaccines were not all that they were cracked up to be.

306
0:31:25 --> 0:31:32
And as I said, after going through all that, then we pointed out that these studies have been out

307
0:31:32 --> 0:31:40
all these years, and the study that we did was a study that was published in the New York Times,

308
0:31:40 --> 0:31:47
been out all these years, and the CDC has done nothing to rebut them to do their own studies.

309
0:31:49 --> 0:32:02
That's very, very telling. So let's turn to a moment to the legal issues and structure of all

310
0:32:02 --> 0:32:20
this. Well, let me give credit also to Dr. Mawson, who in 2017 published a great study.

311
0:32:21 --> 0:32:27
He was able to do finding enough cases of unvaccinated children to be able to compare them

312
0:32:28 --> 0:32:38
with those who were vaccinated, and again showing that the unvaccinated children were actually much

313
0:32:38 --> 0:32:44
healthier, that the vaccinated children have much higher incidences of learning disability,

314
0:32:45 --> 0:32:56
asthma, eczema, and particularly in African American children, the findings were even more

315
0:32:56 --> 0:33:09
striking. So on the legal part of this, this is actually sort of what I would call a vaccine

316
0:33:09 --> 0:33:21
injury lawsuit, but it has sort of three separate suits within it. The first is a challenge to the

317
0:33:22 --> 0:33:31
constitutionality of California's vaccine mandate. Well, what is that mandate?

318
0:33:32 --> 0:33:39
California has about the most stringent school vaccine requirements of any jurisdiction.

319
0:33:41 --> 0:33:50
In order to go to not only public school, but private school, even preschool, even daycare,

320
0:33:51 --> 0:33:59
the child has to comply with the CDC's vaccine schedule, except they have not yet adopted the

321
0:33:59 --> 0:34:08
COVID vaccine in California's mandate. So right now that amounts to, I don't know, something like

322
0:34:08 --> 0:34:21
60, 70, 75 different shots altogether in that CDC schedule. Any child who doesn't have all those can't

323
0:34:21 --> 0:34:31
go to any of those schools or preschools. It used to be, excuse me, the case that California allowed

324
0:34:32 --> 0:34:39
a religious exemption and a personal belief exemption, but those were eliminated in 2015,

325
0:34:41 --> 0:34:49
supposedly because there were too many exemptions being given out, and the measles vaccine coverage

326
0:34:49 --> 0:34:55
rate dropped into the low 90s, and at that level, wild type measles will start to circulate.

327
0:34:55 --> 0:35:02
And in fact, there was an outbreak of measles at Disneyland in late 2014 and early 2015,

328
0:35:03 --> 0:35:12
and that became the justification for this stringent tightening of the requirements in California.

329
0:35:13 --> 0:35:18
They eliminated the personal belief exemption, the religious exemption.

330
0:35:19 --> 0:35:26
The only medical exemption that is allowed now would be in the case of a child who had an actual

331
0:35:26 --> 0:35:32
anaphylactic reaction to a vaccine, which would have to occur within the first 15 minutes after

332
0:35:32 --> 0:35:39
administration of the vaccine. And even in that case, the child is only exempted from that vaccine,

333
0:35:39 --> 0:35:45
but not any of the others. So it's about as tight as tight can be.

334
0:35:48 --> 0:35:58
In my pediatric practice these days, parents come to me quite regularly to see if they can get an

335
0:35:58 --> 0:36:03
exemption from California's vaccine mandate. And I have to tell them that legally, there's nothing

336
0:36:03 --> 0:36:10
much I can do for them because the doctors who write those exemptions get their licenses revoked.

337
0:36:11 --> 0:36:18
And we'll talk more about that in just a little bit. So parents have become quite desperate,

338
0:36:18 --> 0:36:24
some quite innovative. A major alternative they have is not to send their children to

339
0:36:24 --> 0:36:31
school at all. They have to do what we call home school. I have a friend whose child I think is now

340
0:36:32 --> 0:36:36
in her sophomore year in high school. And I think she's been home schooled the whole time

341
0:36:37 --> 0:36:44
on this account. I think children can learn probably every bit as much homeschooling these

342
0:36:44 --> 0:36:49
days as they can in California public schools, but they certainly missed out on all the

343
0:36:50 --> 0:37:01
social contacts and extracurricular activities. Some parents actually leave California and

344
0:37:01 --> 0:37:05
simply relocate to other states that don't have such tight requirements.

345
0:37:10 --> 0:37:17
I had one father call me recently. He was very, very adamant that he had to find a way to get his

346
0:37:17 --> 0:37:25
daughter out of this. And in sort of so many words, he pretty much offered me any amount of

347
0:37:25 --> 0:37:32
money I had in mind to do what we call a sham shot, which is you stick a needle in the arm,

348
0:37:32 --> 0:37:39
but there's nothing there. And then you sign off on the vaccine card. So you can see people are

349
0:37:40 --> 0:37:47
desperate. Needless to say, I did not take him up on his offer. And I'm sufficiently paranoid about

350
0:37:47 --> 0:37:54
California now that it was not beyond the realm of possibility that he was an agent of some kind.

351
0:37:55 --> 0:38:05
Anyway, so the first lawsuit is to say that these mandates are unconstitutional. First of all,

352
0:38:05 --> 0:38:14
under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was passed after the Civil

353
0:38:14 --> 0:38:27
War, it's often called the Equal Protection Amendment. But it states that no one is to be

354
0:38:27 --> 0:38:35
deprived of their rights of due process, their rights without due process of law.

355
0:38:35 --> 0:38:52
The 14th Amendment has been held by the Supreme Court to have a component of the due process

356
0:38:52 --> 0:39:00
rights that are what we call the substantial due process rights. There are certain rights that are

357
0:39:01 --> 0:39:13
procedural rights, the right to trial by jury and no taking of your property without due process,

358
0:39:13 --> 0:39:21
things like that that are explicit procedural protections. But there are what we call substantial

359
0:39:21 --> 0:39:27
due process rights. And those are rights that are so fundamental that they didn't even bother to

360
0:39:27 --> 0:39:32
write them in the Constitution because everybody understood that you have such a right.

361
0:39:32 --> 0:39:40
So for instance, you would have a due process right to earn a living. Now, it doesn't say that

362
0:39:40 --> 0:39:47
in the Constitution, but at the time that the Constitution was adopted, it was understood that

363
0:39:47 --> 0:39:53
people had a right to work for pay. So we didn't need to put that in the Constitution because

364
0:39:53 --> 0:39:58
everybody understood that. Similarly, everybody had a right to get married. Everybody had a right

365
0:39:58 --> 0:40:05
to have children. So these are examples of the rights that arise under the substantial due process

366
0:40:06 --> 0:40:15
clause. One of those rights is to be free from battery. That is somebody can't walk up to you

367
0:40:15 --> 0:40:26
and punch you in the face. One of the subdivisions of battery, it turns out, is someone imposing

368
0:40:26 --> 0:40:32
medical treatment on you that you didn't consent to. So you can't have your appendix taken out

369
0:40:33 --> 0:40:39
without your consent because that would be a battery. It's an unconsented touching.

370
0:40:39 --> 0:40:46
The first U.S. Supreme Court case on that issue was in 1891. So it's been around a long time,

371
0:40:46 --> 0:40:54
and in 1891, the Supreme Court recognized the right to be free from unwanted medical care,

372
0:40:54 --> 0:41:03
an unwanted touching of your body for medical treatment. Somehow, the Jacobson Court seemed

373
0:41:04 --> 0:41:16
to miss that right. But it's been upheld numerous times since then. The most recent U.S. Supreme Court

374
0:41:16 --> 0:41:23
case on that was the Cruzon case, which involved a woman in a persistently vegetative state,

375
0:41:24 --> 0:41:33
and the family wanted to discontinue her life support because their view was that she would

376
0:41:33 --> 0:41:43
never have consented to this. And the U.S. Supreme Court validated that the patient herself had such

377
0:41:43 --> 0:41:50
a right to refuse unwanted medical care. It also held that that right could be exercised on her

378
0:41:50 --> 0:41:58
behalf by her family if she were unable to exercise it, although they could not do so unreasonably.

379
0:41:58 --> 0:42:08
So this is a fundamental right that you have to refuse medical treatment. So

380
0:42:11 --> 0:42:17
how do we square that with Jacobson? Well, it's never really been successfully squared,

381
0:42:17 --> 0:42:26
and yet to this day, we see even the Love case as recently as 2015 cited Jacobson for the principle

382
0:42:26 --> 0:42:41
that the state can mandate COVID shots, excuse me, can mandate vaccines. So recently in a 2020

383
0:42:41 --> 0:42:53
U.S. Supreme Court case, Supreme Court Justice Garsich brought up Jacobson and questioned whether

384
0:42:53 --> 0:43:00
Jacobson was still good law because it intruded on this fundamental right to refuse medical care.

385
0:43:02 --> 0:43:07
What he pointed out was that when Jacobson was decided in 1905,

386
0:43:09 --> 0:43:16
the standard of review that the court used was, was it reasonable or not? And Jacobson,

387
0:43:16 --> 0:43:26
the court said it was reasonable. In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Skinner v. Williamson,

388
0:43:26 --> 0:43:33
well, Skinner v. Oklahoma case that addressed, well, what if what we're talking about is a

389
0:43:33 --> 0:43:41
constitutionally protected substantial due process right? Shouldn't we have something more demanding

390
0:43:41 --> 0:43:49
than just that it's reasonable? And in that case, the court said yes. And when it's a fundamental

391
0:43:49 --> 0:43:57
right, the legal test is not just that is it reasonable, but is it strictly necessary,

392
0:43:58 --> 0:44:07
what they call strict scrutiny. The 1942 case actually involved medical treatment, so to speak.

393
0:44:08 --> 0:44:16
Oklahoma at that time had a law that certain people, if they were convicted of three or more

394
0:44:16 --> 0:44:23
felonies of a certain type, that they could be surgically sterilized. This was back during the

395
0:44:23 --> 0:44:33
time of eugenics movement. The Skinner appealed that to the U.S. Supreme Court and the court held

396
0:44:33 --> 0:44:40
that where it involved a medical procedure that was serious, life altering and irreversible,

397
0:44:41 --> 0:44:46
that the state had to prove that it was a lot more than reasonable, that it was strictly necessary.

398
0:44:49 --> 0:45:00
And that Oklahoma couldn't prove that. So ever since 1942, these fundamental right cases now have

399
0:45:00 --> 0:45:08
to pass strict scrutiny. And what Justice Gorsuch pointed out in 2020 was that Jacobson has never

400
0:45:08 --> 0:45:18
been decided on, never been reviewed, never been revisited under a strict scrutiny standard of

401
0:45:18 --> 0:45:30
review, and that it was probably about time to do that. So what he's basically doing there,

402
0:45:30 --> 0:45:37
I think, is inviting somebody to bring a federal suit to challenge vaccine mandates

403
0:45:39 --> 0:45:47
to see whether Jacobson is still good law. He's the only voice on the Supreme Court that has spoken

404
0:45:47 --> 0:45:53
out on that issue so far. And so it's not clear that there are five votes on the Supreme Court to

405
0:45:55 --> 0:46:03
overrule Jacobson. But Jacobson is the major precedent that is always used to justify these

406
0:46:03 --> 0:46:12
vaccine mandates. And so we've got to overcome Jacobson. So here we're arguing that Jacobson is

407
0:46:12 --> 0:46:21
no longer good law since Skinner, that the right to decide whether you want to be vaccinated or not

408
0:46:21 --> 0:46:29
is a fundamental right. And people need to be able to decide that for themselves and not have

409
0:46:29 --> 0:46:38
that imposed upon them. The other fundamental right under the 14th Amendment is the other side

410
0:46:38 --> 0:46:44
of this, which is the right of children to go to school. That was a fundamental right

411
0:46:45 --> 0:46:55
that has been recognized repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. The principal cases are from, I

412
0:46:55 --> 0:47:07
believe, 1922, the Meyer v. Nebraska case, and in 1925, Pierce v. Oregon. So it's now called the

413
0:47:07 --> 0:47:16
Meyer-Pearse right. Meyer-Pearse right is the right of parents. It's a right of parents to

414
0:47:17 --> 0:47:24
send their children to school. It's not a right to a free schooling. It doesn't create a property

415
0:47:24 --> 0:47:30
right. But it just says if you can pay the tuition, you can send your child to whatever school you

416
0:47:30 --> 0:47:42
want to send them to. So obviously, since California applies its vaccine mandate to private

417
0:47:42 --> 0:47:52
schools as well as public schools, we argue in our suit that that mandate violates the Meyer-Pearse

418
0:47:53 --> 0:47:57
right of parents to send their children to the school that they want to attend.

419
0:47:58 --> 0:48:05
The Meyer-Pearse right is a right of the parents. We also argue here that the children themselves

420
0:48:05 --> 0:48:16
have a right to be educated so that they can become proper productive citizens in society,

421
0:48:16 --> 0:48:23
that that is also a fundamental right of the child to an education, or at least to not be prevented

422
0:48:23 --> 0:48:28
from being educated. And that right also actually arises under the First Amendment, interestingly.

423
0:48:28 --> 0:48:36
Everybody thinks of the First Amendment as a free speech right, but under the First Amendment,

424
0:48:36 --> 0:48:41
you have also the right to listen, and you have the right to peacefully assemble so that you can

425
0:48:41 --> 0:48:48
speak and listen. And the right of children to go to a school that is willing to take them in,

426
0:48:49 --> 0:48:58
and have them as peacefully assembled to speak and learn and listen, that we argue is fundamental

427
0:48:58 --> 0:49:11
under the First Amendment as well. So I think I'm going to stop here for just a minute, and

428
0:49:12 --> 0:49:25
we can have some comment on this first part of the case, what I call the mandated vaccine case.

429
0:49:25 --> 0:49:27
So Charles, go ahead.

430
0:49:27 --> 0:49:33
Yes, Richard. So you said there were three elements, I think is the constitutional

431
0:49:33 --> 0:49:40
aspects of this. So happy to do those. And then there were two other aspects of the litigation,

432
0:49:40 --> 0:49:47
correct? Yes. They're not so much constitutional, but yes, two others.

433
0:49:47 --> 0:49:53
Good. So we have got, are there any questions on constitutional matters? So Rose, let's go

434
0:49:53 --> 0:49:58
through the questions. And then if they're going to be dealt with in subsequent elements, then we can

435
0:49:59 --> 0:50:00
go back to those questions. Rose.

436
0:50:01 --> 0:50:10
Hey, sir. Great work. You hit a great term. The, how did you call it? Strict scrutiny.

437
0:50:11 --> 0:50:19
One of the arguments that I give is that you can't prove a negative. So put any child in front and

438
0:50:19 --> 0:50:26
say, prove that they would have been exposed to it. Prove that they would have been exposed

439
0:50:26 --> 0:50:34
and become sick. Prove that they would have been exposed and died. You cannot prove a negative.

440
0:50:35 --> 0:50:43
So I wanted to throw that out if that's an element of strict scrutiny. And as a sidebar,

441
0:50:43 --> 0:50:48
one of the things I've done is written a proper legal definition for informed consent,

442
0:50:49 --> 0:50:54
because I know it was established in the 1974 National Research Act with the Belmont report,

443
0:50:55 --> 0:51:02
that there is no proper comprehensive definition of informed consent. So I would love to send that

444
0:51:02 --> 0:51:11
to you. And then this isn't constitutional, but it does fall under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights

445
0:51:11 --> 0:51:17
Act that's being violated. So those are my three points for you.

446
0:51:17 --> 0:51:26
Okay. I just realized I forgot to bring a pen so that I could make some notes. Let me just reach

447
0:51:26 --> 0:51:32
over here and grab a pen for a second. Sure. Charles knows I can talk for hours. So

448
0:51:35 --> 0:51:41
she can. She can. There are many people on this call who can talk for hours, Rose, including me.

449
0:51:41 --> 0:51:51
Just a second. I got the informed consent. What was the first one again?

450
0:51:52 --> 0:51:57
Well, when you said strict scrutiny. Yes, thank you.

451
0:51:57 --> 0:52:01
You know, I think that's a wonderful term because I always throw out to people,

452
0:52:01 --> 0:52:08
you cannot prove a negative. So when they say that vaccines have, you know,

453
0:52:08 --> 0:52:15
stopped transmission or saved millions of lives, you can't take one individual and prove,

454
0:52:15 --> 0:52:21
oh, because they got the shot, they didn't get infected. They didn't get infected and got sick

455
0:52:21 --> 0:52:26
or got infected and died. You can't prove a negative.

456
0:52:27 --> 0:52:34
So on the strict scrutiny thing, that is, as you can see, a very important concept here because

457
0:52:35 --> 0:52:43
it, first of all, I think it disposes of the Jacobson precedent. And once you dispose of that,

458
0:52:44 --> 0:52:51
then you've got to have a new precedent. And they don't have any other Supreme Court precedent to

459
0:52:51 --> 0:53:01
fall back upon once Jacobson is found to be not applicable. So I think the Supreme Court is going

460
0:53:01 --> 0:53:09
to have to take some case along these lines at some point because I just Jacobson is no longer

461
0:53:09 --> 0:53:14
viable. So they're going to have to have a case that they decide under strict scrutiny.

462
0:53:15 --> 0:53:23
So the big problem that the vaccine people have is they have resolutely refused to do any placebo

463
0:53:23 --> 0:53:30
controlled studies. So you're exactly right. They can't prove the negative because they refuse to

464
0:53:30 --> 0:53:40
even study it. And so we're going to be arguing probably in the earlier part of the case

465
0:53:42 --> 0:53:49
that the mandate has to be set aside until they do such placebo controlled studies because

466
0:53:50 --> 0:53:56
they will not be able to pass strict scrutiny without placebo controlled studies.

467
0:53:57 --> 0:54:08
Yep. Yep. So there's sort of two ways that you can show causation from a scientific

468
0:54:08 --> 0:54:13
point of view. By the way, as you say, it's impossible to prove a negative. All you can

469
0:54:13 --> 0:54:21
say is we just haven't found yet. But with placebo controlled studies, that's one way. And the other

470
0:54:22 --> 0:54:30
way that you can look at this is proximity and time studies. That is, let's say the adverse effect

471
0:54:30 --> 0:54:37
that you're looking at is childhood autism that occurs between the ages of one and three when

472
0:54:37 --> 0:54:47
children are getting various vaccines. So if the onset of the autism is unrelated to the vaccine,

473
0:54:48 --> 0:54:56
then if you plot the onset versus the time of the vaccination, it should be, there should be any

474
0:54:58 --> 0:55:05
bump around the time after the vaccination. Those onsets should be randomly distributed over that

475
0:55:05 --> 0:55:13
whole time period. But what we know is that autism, the regressive autism that we see in one to three

476
0:55:13 --> 0:55:21
year olds in the majority of cases occurs within the first 24 to 48 hours after vaccination.

477
0:55:22 --> 0:55:28
So that's pretty strong evidence of causation. So I don't think they'll be able to pass strict

478
0:55:28 --> 0:55:35
scrutiny. On the informed consent, I'd be happy to see what you've written. In California, the

479
0:55:35 --> 0:55:44
California Supreme Court has addressed that issue. In 1972, they decided the case of Cobb v. Grant.

480
0:55:46 --> 0:55:56
And I find it to be a very useful approach. What they noted was that the degree of informed consent

481
0:55:56 --> 0:56:05
depends a lot on what it is that you propose to do. If it's something very minimal, like we're

482
0:56:05 --> 0:56:11
going to draw some blood for a lab test, the consent process for that is pretty simple.

483
0:56:12 --> 0:56:18
If we're going to do a heart, lung, kidney, liver transplant, well, the consent process for that is

484
0:56:18 --> 0:56:30
going to be very detailed. So what Cobb v. Grant determined or decided was that it's a reasonable

485
0:56:30 --> 0:56:37
test. What would a reasonable person want to know about this particular procedure?

486
0:56:39 --> 0:56:50
And that sounds very nebulous, but it is a practical thing to do because what they said was

487
0:56:50 --> 0:56:57
that we're going to leave it up to the jury to decide what it would a reasonable person want to

488
0:56:57 --> 0:57:05
know. Well, one of the biggest things that I see missing that I see being abused all the time is

489
0:57:05 --> 0:57:12
the time period. They're not distinguishing between emergent, urgent, and something elective.

490
0:57:13 --> 0:57:19
So what's going on now in hospitals is, oh, they're having them sign the informed consent,

491
0:57:20 --> 0:57:27
the permission form as they're being wheeled into surgery. No, no, no, no, no, especially after

492
0:57:27 --> 0:57:35
you've already given them a sedative. So that's part of what I've incorporated in and also too is

493
0:57:35 --> 0:57:42
laying out that you have to go over risk reward with all alternatives.

494
0:57:42 --> 0:57:49
Yeah, that's one of the biggest problems, of course, is that the person who's obtaining the

495
0:57:49 --> 0:57:54
permission is typically the person who's proposing to do the procedure. So on the one hand, they've

496
0:57:54 --> 0:58:01
already recommended that you get this, but then we're asking them to also talk about the downside

497
0:58:01 --> 0:58:06
of it. And in the law, we would call that being in a conflicted position.

498
0:58:07 --> 0:58:08
Oh, yeah, that's an excellent point.

499
0:58:10 --> 0:58:17
I don't think you want to have the permission process being undertaken by a conflicted person.

500
0:58:18 --> 0:58:22
We would never allow that in the law, and I don't know why we would in medicine.

501
0:58:24 --> 0:58:33
I'm reminded about a home loan that I got a year or two ago, and they had a huge

502
0:58:33 --> 0:58:40
consent form that we were supposed to read and sign. The interesting thing was that

503
0:58:42 --> 0:58:52
you actually had to be, the informed consent process had to be under the supervision of a

504
0:58:52 --> 0:58:59
neutral party that had no financial stake in it. So the informed consent form was a

505
0:59:00 --> 0:59:06
different entity than the bank that was handling the loan. Well, I think that would be a good

506
0:59:06 --> 0:59:12
model for medicine. That's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to incorporate that in my definition.

507
0:59:12 --> 0:59:18
But yeah, I'll throw it up in the chat. We're going to keep moving, Rose. So the third one,

508
0:59:18 --> 0:59:25
remind Richard of the third one, your third point. It's not constitutional, but it is federal law.

509
0:59:25 --> 0:59:33
The 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII. And a lot of people are using that.

510
0:59:34 --> 0:59:39
That's what they're using against the illegal mandates. I'll throw it up in the chat.

511
0:59:40 --> 0:59:50
Okay. And then the Belmont Act, as you mentioned. Yeah, the 1974 National Research Act, which is

512
0:59:50 --> 0:59:55
forcing people into research because these things have not gone through clinical trials at all.

513
1:00:00 --> 1:00:05
That I'm not familiar with, but go ahead. Oh, no, that's huge. Then you need to know about that.

514
1:00:05 --> 1:00:09
Because Brian Ward is using that around the country in numerous, numerous cases.

515
1:00:10 --> 1:00:15
So the Belmont report was written because of the Tuskegee scandal. And it's basically written that

516
1:00:15 --> 1:00:21
you can't be forced into medical research. And a lot of these shots fall under medical research.

517
1:00:21 --> 1:00:26
They have not gone through clinical trials. Rose, if you can put that link.

518
1:00:26 --> 1:00:31
Yeah, they also violate the exemption because they're showing that they were supposed to be

519
1:00:31 --> 1:00:37
exempt from liability, but they were supposed to be exempt from liability. And they're not.

520
1:00:37 --> 1:00:42
They're not going to be able to get that exemption. They're not going to be able to get that

521
1:00:42 --> 1:00:50
exempt from liability. But they were supposed to be submitting like yearly or bi-yearly safety

522
1:00:50 --> 1:00:54
studies, which they have violated, I think, since that law has been passed.

523
1:01:01 --> 1:01:05
And we've lost Richard, it looks like. Okay. I'll throw that stuff up in the chat.

524
1:01:05 --> 1:01:11
That'd be great. That would be great. All right, Anders, wait till we get, there's Richard is back.

525
1:01:13 --> 1:01:16
Yeah, sorry. Some reason I lost my internet connection, but go ahead.

526
1:01:17 --> 1:01:21
Rose will put those links into the chat, Richard. They're very valuable. Note that

527
1:01:21 --> 1:01:29
1974 legislation as well. So check that out that you can't force research onto people.

528
1:01:31 --> 1:01:34
Okay. Yeah. Let me just comment quickly on that.

529
1:01:34 --> 1:01:44
I've seen that the difficulty is that we have something similar in California,

530
1:01:45 --> 1:01:53
but in many of these settings, the vaccines are being given not under a research protocol,

531
1:01:53 --> 1:02:00
but just under the authority of the FDA. Yeah, but they haven't gone through research,

532
1:02:00 --> 1:02:07
ergo, they haven't gone through clinical trials. Yeah, but once the FDA approves them,

533
1:02:07 --> 1:02:11
that's kind of irrelevant. They don't have to go through clinical trials at that point.

534
1:02:13 --> 1:02:18
That's the problem. Yeah. Okay. Worthy of contemplation. Thank you,

535
1:02:18 --> 1:02:27
Rose. Great points. Anders is next. FDA is completely corrupted, but that's another side.

536
1:02:27 --> 1:02:41
And Jacobson, Richard, I studied that half a year ago or so, and I went really into the rabbit hole.

537
1:02:43 --> 1:02:51
And what most people don't realize is that, okay, it is smallpox. It is the

538
1:02:51 --> 1:03:06
eastern part of USA. Some states, they were pushing this legislation for mandatory vaccination.

539
1:03:08 --> 1:03:19
The story is that this vaccination, if you go into the detail of it, it was by introducing

540
1:03:21 --> 1:03:34
I would say cow blood or cow material into humans. The claim was it was a cowpox

541
1:03:34 --> 1:03:52
kind of vaccine, which would be causing that the smallpox of another type of disease would go away.

542
1:03:52 --> 1:04:06
And this is all BS, basically. But, okay. This is history. I have made 125 years of research

543
1:04:06 --> 1:04:13
into all of this. I would love to share all of it with every one of you. It's free available.

544
1:04:13 --> 1:04:27
I can share it to your emails. What I will say is that the US Constitution does not cover health.

545
1:04:29 --> 1:04:40
And that is why Roe Way was thrown out. That's another side issue. What I will say is that

546
1:04:43 --> 1:04:49
you've done a great work, Richard. I really hear what you've done. I'm listening to you.

547
1:04:52 --> 1:05:02
You may not know about the great work of Martin Paul. He has connected,

548
1:05:02 --> 1:05:20
he was in the camp of I would say vaccines. No, EMF. Meaning 3G, 4G, 5G. And he was seeing,

549
1:05:21 --> 1:05:32
he has this theory of calcium channel, which will cause, let's say COVID, because of the,

550
1:05:33 --> 1:05:43
say the pollution or radiation, radiation disease from radiation.

551
1:05:43 --> 1:05:52
Radiation. Okay. But he has very recently, as early as April this year, connected

552
1:05:53 --> 1:06:02
all of this historical research, 12 years. You said 2012. Something similar. He came out about

553
1:06:02 --> 1:06:11
2012 with his calcium channel, which were destroyed by the 3G, 4G, 5G later.

554
1:06:13 --> 1:06:21
And then he find that this is only half the truth. You have good, one eye, Richard,

555
1:06:21 --> 1:06:30
really one good eye. The second good eye is to see what Martin Paul has seen, which is the connection

556
1:06:30 --> 1:06:43
to that these, yeah, two points of attack of the human biology is the combination of

557
1:06:44 --> 1:06:54
these vaccines in a way, and the radiation. Because the vaccines includes, let's say,

558
1:06:54 --> 1:07:04
nanometals, aluminium, iron, many, many more. And these are going into your body. They're going

559
1:07:04 --> 1:07:16
into your brain, into your nervous system. And these are causing these autism, ME diseases.

560
1:07:17 --> 1:07:27
Almost all of these new diseases are correlated double. If you go to Olle Johansson, 19,

561
1:07:28 --> 1:07:37
let's say, 64 study of the introduction of the TV, of the microwave, it was studied from 64 to

562
1:07:37 --> 1:07:47
2000, 1234. You find that he only see half. He see the EMF connection. He didn't see that at the

563
1:07:47 --> 1:07:56
same time, the virus was, let's say, the idea of the virus, the vaccination, the harm from all these

564
1:07:57 --> 1:08:06
interventions through the blood, through the body caused the double story. So I'm just challenging

565
1:08:06 --> 1:08:16
you, please look at Martin Paul. He has the double knowledge connecting both what you talk about

566
1:08:16 --> 1:08:25
and let's say, vaccination and EMF, combined both. And the combined both is probably much worse and

567
1:08:26 --> 1:08:29
a single part of it. All right, I would say-

568
1:08:29 --> 1:08:34
And to stop there, because it's very long, but Richard, it's an important point, because Mark

569
1:08:34 --> 1:08:43
Steele comes on here and says that the 5G towers are weapons, are attack weapons. So that is an

570
1:08:43 --> 1:08:49
interesting legal point because we're entitled to self-defense because we're talking, what was the

571
1:08:49 --> 1:08:56
term you use in the States? You are entitled not to be assaulted. What's the term you use in the

572
1:08:56 --> 1:09:02
States? Due process, that's right. You're entitled to self-defense. That's right, but you're entitled

573
1:09:02 --> 1:09:14
to self-defense, correct, in the US? And so if the electromagnetic radiation issued by these 5G

574
1:09:14 --> 1:09:21
towers is harming us, which the evidence, Anders' evidence is clear, then suddenly you've got another

575
1:09:22 --> 1:09:29
angle of attack against the system. We'll stop it there, Anders, but I think it's a relevant point

576
1:09:29 --> 1:09:34
and we can get your information to Richard and to Alex Meyer with the Free Now Foundation. I think

577
1:09:34 --> 1:09:39
you guys have been talking anyway, Anders. Thank you, Anders. We're going to keep moving. Good job.

578
1:09:40 --> 1:09:45
I think this attack, these weapons that can cause harm, we're entitled to self-defense

579
1:09:46 --> 1:09:53
against them. And the definition of these jabs, of course, is bioweapons. So there's another element

580
1:09:53 --> 1:10:01
that perhaps gives certain legal rights against being jabbed with these bioweapons. All right,

581
1:10:01 --> 1:10:12
thank you, Anders. Julie, Julie's doing some great work in California. Yeah, it's really a pleasure to

582
1:10:12 --> 1:10:18
be on and to meet you, Mr. Fox. I'm up here in Butte County in Chico and spent 24-7 fighting against

583
1:10:19 --> 1:10:23
primarily first the COVID vaccine. I was a healthcare worker injured by two shots,

584
1:10:23 --> 1:10:27
worked for public health and saw a lot of what happened and went wrong on the inside,

585
1:10:27 --> 1:10:31
and then got fired for not taking the booster. And my mom died of four shots and she's from

586
1:10:31 --> 1:10:36
Santa Clara County. So I want to go after Sarah Cody. I want to go after everybody here in Butte

587
1:10:36 --> 1:10:41
County. And I've got Butte County dead to write. So I sent Alex a text and I'm meeting Ron Owens,

588
1:10:41 --> 1:10:47
actually tomorrow night in Chico because we're screening Bax 3. So I'll cover everything we've

589
1:10:47 --> 1:10:53
got going for our criminal complaint we filed, the FOIA request. Javier Becerra came here in

590
1:10:53 --> 1:11:01
March of 22 and he paid Butte County $225,000 to go hunt down kids, 5-17 year olds, and they rolled

591
1:11:01 --> 1:11:06
out little vaccine clinics through the Butte County Office of Education. So we've got all those

592
1:11:06 --> 1:11:12
materials. But here's my question. So first off, the VAERS report. So Albert and I partner a lot

593
1:11:12 --> 1:11:17
on these VAERS reports. And I produce these numbers every day for Dr. Thorpe or whoever needs

594
1:11:17 --> 1:11:23
them. And in fact, I sent Alexis Lorenz, that poor young girl in Southern California, the VAERS

595
1:11:23 --> 1:11:29
reports for those three vaccines. So if you need any of that information by time zone, by, you know,

596
1:11:29 --> 1:11:33
as much as we can bear down on these VAERS reports, Albert and I can partner on that.

597
1:11:33 --> 1:11:39
But here's my question. So state of California, I've heard we have the only state with the Nuremberg

598
1:11:39 --> 1:11:45
code language built into our health and safety code. I don't know if that's part of our state

599
1:11:45 --> 1:11:49
constitution or if that's just in our health and safety code. So is that something you're factoring

600
1:11:49 --> 1:11:58
in? And again, as a mom, as a grandmother, who is absolutely, I live with the fact that I shot my

601
1:11:58 --> 1:12:04
daughter with an HPV vaccine in eighth grade, that to this day, she's 29 and struggling to have kids,

602
1:12:04 --> 1:12:09
is my greatest regret. And she went to a private school. And I let them talk me into that damn HPV

603
1:12:09 --> 1:12:15
vaccine. So I greatly commend you and appreciate you from going after this criminal cabal,

604
1:12:15 --> 1:12:18
especially here in California. But yeah, can you talk to the Nuremberg code in California?

605
1:12:20 --> 1:12:29
So I'm not sure exactly if you could give me a code section site. I'll be happy to look it up.

606
1:12:29 --> 1:12:37
But the one I'm familiar with has to do with the rights of research subjects. And there is a health

607
1:12:37 --> 1:12:46
and safety code issue on the rights of medical research subjects. As I say, I don't think that

608
1:12:47 --> 1:12:52
hits the nail on the head, shall we say, because they'll just scoot out from under that and say,

609
1:12:52 --> 1:13:02
well, this isn't medical research. This is just medical practice. But I find the grant

610
1:13:03 --> 1:13:12
decision to be a much better hammer to use to hit that nail, because it is the law and it applies

611
1:13:12 --> 1:13:22
to everybody. What is informed consent? And one of the things I really like about it is it

612
1:13:22 --> 1:13:31
leaves it explicitly leaves it for the jury to decide. The significance of that, from a legal

613
1:13:31 --> 1:13:43
point of view is this, that let's say we wanted to sue some hospital or medical organization,

614
1:13:43 --> 1:13:50
because we say that they were doing all these shots and they weren't getting informed consent

615
1:13:50 --> 1:13:59
for them. So when you're a lawyer defending that kind of case, the first thing you're looking for

616
1:13:59 --> 1:14:11
is some kind of legal immunity. So for instance, the COVID shots that have been that were utilized

617
1:14:11 --> 1:14:18
so widely, as you may know, there were two versions of the COVID vaccine. There was the

618
1:14:19 --> 1:14:27
FDA authorized vaccine and the FDA approved vaccine. And most people got the FDA authorized

619
1:14:27 --> 1:14:37
vaccine. And the reason for that was that the Pfizer and Moderna didn't allow anything else

620
1:14:37 --> 1:14:45
to be used in the United States because it was authorized under the PREP Act. And under the PREP

621
1:14:45 --> 1:14:53
Act, that gave blanket immunity to all the not only drug manufacturers, but also the people who

622
1:14:53 --> 1:15:01
gave the shots. So if you're defending a case, you're always looking for some kind of legal

623
1:15:01 --> 1:15:15
immunity that will get the case dismissed right off the bat. But with the other vaccines,

624
1:15:15 --> 1:15:23
the DTAP, the MMR, those that are FDA approved, the PREP Act immunity, I don't believe,

625
1:15:23 --> 1:15:30
applies to those. And so therefore you can't get that case dismissed. And ultimately it ends up

626
1:15:30 --> 1:15:37
going to the jury. So then the jury has to decide, well, do I think the consent process here was

627
1:15:37 --> 1:15:47
reasonable? And in a lot of cases, if you've got a really bad injury, a child who died or was badly

628
1:15:47 --> 1:15:55
harmed by it, a lot of those jurors are going to look at the consent forms that the CDC puts out

629
1:15:55 --> 1:16:03
and say, well, there's no informed consent here. So it takes the decision away from the judge and

630
1:16:03 --> 1:16:09
the law and gives it to the jury. And I think you could have a much easier time proving a lack of

631
1:16:09 --> 1:16:17
informed consent to a jury. So that's why I like Cobb v. Grant, as opposed to any kind of statutory

632
1:16:18 --> 1:16:25
thing that might be based on the Nuremberg Code or something like that, because it's a lot easier

633
1:16:25 --> 1:16:32
to convince a judge to dismiss the case. And then you don't ever get to the jury. So that's why I

634
1:16:32 --> 1:16:37
like Cobb v. Grant. That's really helpful. And really quick, Charles, to your point about the 5G.

635
1:16:37 --> 1:16:43
So here in Chico, probably all of California, during 2020, they rolled out all of this 5G

636
1:16:43 --> 1:16:48
and surrounded the schools, gave every kid a notebook, a wireless notebook. So we're having

637
1:16:48 --> 1:16:53
all sorts of seizures and all sorts of problems near all these schools because they've surrounded

638
1:16:53 --> 1:16:57
them now with more and heavy duty wireless for all their wireless applications. So I think, Charles,

639
1:16:57 --> 1:17:01
you make a good point to really look into that. What did Gilroy do? What did those unified school

640
1:17:01 --> 1:17:05
districts that are in your lawsuit do with all these wireless products that just add to the

641
1:17:05 --> 1:17:08
problem? So thank you so much. I'm looking forward to the rest of your call.

642
1:17:09 --> 1:17:16
By the way, could I ask a favor of you? Can you tell me how to get a hold of Albert?

643
1:17:16 --> 1:17:21
Oh, yeah, he's actually on here, but I'm sure he will keep him. He'll put his phone number in the

644
1:17:21 --> 1:17:26
chat. Albert's on the call. There he is. Albert, say hello.

645
1:17:26 --> 1:17:32
Hi, Dr. Fox. It's me, Albert, the VAERS guy.

646
1:17:33 --> 1:17:38
Yes, I think we may have met briefly at the MIMNO Forum one time.

647
1:17:38 --> 1:17:42
Yeah, we've met. I've shook your hand before.

648
1:17:42 --> 1:17:48
Thank you. See, I want to try to get some data from the California Department of Health,

649
1:17:48 --> 1:17:53
and if I get it, I need somebody to do the statistics on it.

650
1:17:54 --> 1:18:04
I'd love to help. You know, since I'm here, I just put with Ernesto Ramirez, we got an amicus brief,

651
1:18:04 --> 1:18:11
Supreme Court amicus brief filed in there, and it's going to be the same people who are putting

652
1:18:11 --> 1:18:21
together John Baudwin's amicus brief coming out soon. But basically, my part in there is that I've

653
1:18:21 --> 1:18:30
been trying to expose the fraud that's being perpetrated on the VAERS system. The VAERS system

654
1:18:30 --> 1:18:37
should be a great system. It's just that the people entrusted to maintain the system are the

655
1:18:37 --> 1:18:47
very same ones that are obfuscating and colluding with Big Pharma. They're using VAERS to run cover

656
1:18:47 --> 1:18:54
for Big Pharma by purposely throttling or delaying the publication of reports.

657
1:18:55 --> 1:19:03
That's why we're still getting COVID death reports where the victim died in 2021,

658
1:19:03 --> 1:19:07
and we're still getting the reports new today as if, you know, they're new reports, but you see that

659
1:19:07 --> 1:19:17
the date of death is in 2021. So whether it's by timestamp and the VAERS people themselves

660
1:19:17 --> 1:19:26
have held the report in their possession for 600 or 900 days, that's one form of the throttling,

661
1:19:27 --> 1:19:32
and the other half of the throttling is the manufacturer themselves that automatically

662
1:19:32 --> 1:19:42
crosswalk the report into VAERS. The manufacturer, Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, we're still getting J&J debts.

663
1:19:43 --> 1:19:50
If the manufacturers are holding on to the claim or the report, wait entirely too long

664
1:19:50 --> 1:19:57
and then submitting it to VAERS. And, you know, the VAERS system, nobody is being held accountable.

665
1:19:58 --> 1:20:06
So anyways, that's my plea, and I don't know how that would fit in a little piece of the pie in

666
1:20:06 --> 1:20:13
any of these lawsuits that, you know, our own government is perpetrating fraud on us

667
1:20:14 --> 1:20:21
using the VAERS system. It should be a pharmacovigilant system. I call it a pharmacofraudulant

668
1:20:21 --> 1:20:30
system. So let me just comment on it. I talked about the constitutional aspect of the case.

669
1:20:31 --> 1:20:44
There's a sort of a side package to that part of the case because we have a cause of action in there

670
1:20:44 --> 1:20:53
for what we lawyers call common law fraud, and that claim is directed against the CDC.

671
1:20:54 --> 1:21:02
Now, I won't spend the next day or two going through all of the CDC fraud, but you know it

672
1:21:02 --> 1:21:12
well. But I very much wanted to be able to bring the CDC into this case because California, their

673
1:21:12 --> 1:21:19
shot mandate is based on the CDC. In other words, California doesn't have its own data to show that

674
1:21:20 --> 1:21:27
shot is safe and effective. So when we challenge their mandate that it's not safe and not effective,

675
1:21:27 --> 1:21:32
they just look over their shoulder and say, well, the CDC says it's safe and effective. That's what

676
1:21:32 --> 1:21:40
we're relying upon. So we had to put the CDC in the case because that's who California relies on

677
1:21:40 --> 1:21:49
for their science. But as you know, the data, the science from the CDC is questionable at best.

678
1:21:50 --> 1:21:57
And as Charles, I think, pointed out early on, we have this recent statement by Dr. Plotkin

679
1:21:57 --> 1:22:04
that, as I recall, his exact words were that the science wasn't all that rigorous,

680
1:22:04 --> 1:22:14
I think was the term he used. It's a polite way to put it. So we have to have the CDC in the case,

681
1:22:14 --> 1:22:18
and I struggled for a while to try to figure out what legal theory were we going to come up with

682
1:22:19 --> 1:22:23
because you have to have something you can use to sue the government.

683
1:22:24 --> 1:22:32
And so the federal government can be sued under a statute called the Federal Tort's Claims Act.

684
1:22:33 --> 1:22:40
So let's say that the Secret Service motorcade runs over your grandma who's trying to cross the

685
1:22:40 --> 1:22:46
street at the crosswalk with the light. Well, grandma can sue the federal government for

686
1:22:46 --> 1:22:53
running her down. Ordinarily, the federal government has statutory immunity, but the

687
1:22:53 --> 1:22:58
Congress waived that statutory immunity when it passed the Federal Tort's Claims Act.

688
1:22:59 --> 1:23:08
So you have to find something that is what we call a tort. A tort is some kind of a legal claim

689
1:23:08 --> 1:23:15
for an injury of some kind. And fraud is one of the common law torts. Somebody

690
1:23:17 --> 1:23:28
sold you a pig in the poke. That's a fraud. And now I'm not aware that the CDC or

691
1:23:28 --> 1:23:35
maybe any other government agency has ever been sued under the Tort's Claims Act for lying to

692
1:23:35 --> 1:23:42
the public. I mean, as we know, the government lies to you 24 hours a day. And whether there

693
1:23:42 --> 1:23:51
are legal remedies for that, I think will be disputed heavily, no doubt, by the federal

694
1:23:51 --> 1:23:57
government. Can they be sued for lying to the public? But we put a little more meat on those

695
1:23:57 --> 1:24:08
bones because we pointed out that here the CDC gets 42% of its annual operating budget for

696
1:24:08 --> 1:24:16
promoting vaccines. So the people working at the CDC, they take home a lot of money in their own

697
1:24:16 --> 1:24:25
pocket by promoting these vaccines. So I'm hoping that we can get the court to say that that's enough

698
1:24:27 --> 1:24:35
to show that we can bring a claim against the CDC for fraud. If we can bring such a legal claim,

699
1:24:36 --> 1:24:42
then we will get discovery. And Lord only knows what kind of discovery we could get once we get

700
1:24:42 --> 1:24:48
in that door. So if we can pry that door open, you and a lot of other people are going to be delighted,

701
1:24:48 --> 1:24:55
I'm sure, at what we find on the other side of it. Anything that Julie and I can do to help,

702
1:24:55 --> 1:24:59
just let me know. I'm ready. Yep.

703
1:24:59 --> 1:25:05
All right. Great job, Albert. And Richard, on the issue of tort, negligence is a tort.

704
1:25:06 --> 1:25:15
And negligently, when the CDC is negligently speaking, that's causing harm. And I urge you

705
1:25:15 --> 1:25:19
to look into that negligence issue because I hadn't heard of the Federal Tort Claims Act.

706
1:25:19 --> 1:25:25
And we haven't got that legislation in Australia, but negligence is a tort and negligently

707
1:25:25 --> 1:25:30
speaking. Now, my other question before you continue is, does the, I can't remember,

708
1:25:30 --> 1:25:35
does the US Constitution give right to trial by jury?

709
1:25:37 --> 1:25:43
You know, it's funny, you read my mind or I read yours because that was the next point I was going

710
1:25:43 --> 1:25:52
to make. The US Supreme Court just decided a case just in June, in the most recent term. I think it

711
1:25:52 --> 1:26:08
was called, I've forgotten, J-A-N something. But it had to do with when are you allowed to

712
1:26:08 --> 1:26:13
have a trial by jury? And yes, that is, I believe it's in the Seventh Amendment.

713
1:26:15 --> 1:26:21
And so the question for the Supreme Court was, well, in what kind of cases are you allowed to

714
1:26:21 --> 1:26:31
have a trial by jury? So we have a lot of cases that are administrative law. And in the US,

715
1:26:31 --> 1:26:36
in many of those cases, they're simply tried to the judge, tried to the bench.

716
1:26:38 --> 1:26:47
But what the Supreme Court held in June was that if it's an administrative case, which is analogous

717
1:26:48 --> 1:26:56
to a common law tort, and I think here it was a Securities Exchange Commission case,

718
1:26:57 --> 1:27:04
but it was analogous to a common law tort, which I think was fraud. The Supreme Court said if it

719
1:27:06 --> 1:27:12
involves a common law tort or is analogous to a common law tort, you get a trial to a jury.

720
1:27:13 --> 1:27:19
And so that's a huge help because, as I said, it's a lot easier to convince a jury

721
1:27:20 --> 1:27:27
of moral outrage than it is a judge, you might say. So that's what we're aiming for.

722
1:27:28 --> 1:27:33
Excellent. So Alex might have the case reference for those who are interested.

723
1:27:34 --> 1:27:42
And the last question on the jury issue, remember the phrase, a jury of your peers?

724
1:27:43 --> 1:27:51
Now contemplate that who are the peers? We don't go into it, but I urge you to have a look at that

725
1:27:51 --> 1:27:59
because there is an argument that's been badly misinterpreted and that if you're a doctor,

726
1:27:59 --> 1:28:06
for example, then the jury of your peers should only be doctors and arguably so. So it might be

727
1:28:06 --> 1:28:11
useful to look into that question as well. Richard, we're going to keep moving because

728
1:28:11 --> 1:28:14
we're going to run it. We're going to keep moving with the rest of your presentation.

729
1:28:14 --> 1:28:16
Glenn, have you got a quick question on constitutional matters?

730
1:28:19 --> 1:28:24
Or is it next stage? Mine's rather short. It's a piece of information for Richard.

731
1:28:25 --> 1:28:29
Wasn't sure whether he's familiar with it. Hold that thought. Let's get Richard to go through

732
1:28:29 --> 1:28:35
to the end and then you'll be the first question. Okay. Okay. Richard, on you go.

733
1:28:36 --> 1:28:40
Do I get to ask questions? Sorry, when Richard stops, yes, you,

734
1:28:40 --> 1:28:43
Stephen, then Glenn will be first after that. Right. Okay.

735
1:28:44 --> 1:28:48
Stephen, how could you ask? Well, I didn't get a chance then anyway, but go ahead.

736
1:28:49 --> 1:28:52
Well, I was sort of waiting. I have got some important points. Actually,

737
1:28:52 --> 1:28:58
I've just run through them. Thank you so much for coming on very quickly. The Nuremberg Code

738
1:28:58 --> 1:29:06
is about human experimentation. And that's exactly what was going on in 2021. And indeed in 2020,

739
1:29:06 --> 1:29:11
when they locked down people, when everybody in the world, certainly doctors should have known

740
1:29:11 --> 1:29:16
that human beings are highly social animals and they should never have been locked down.

741
1:29:16 --> 1:29:20
It seems to me, I'm sorry to say, I'm not criticizing you personally,

742
1:29:21 --> 1:29:28
but I think that the law is used by our enemies to muddy the waters. And we have to be honest

743
1:29:28 --> 1:29:36
and admit that lawyers and the law have not done very much since 2020. Human rights in the UK,

744
1:29:37 --> 1:29:45
for example, there's a very good law firm, which I won't name, very well known for human rights.

745
1:29:45 --> 1:29:51
They have been absolutely silenced about COVID, silenced about everything to do with COVID,

746
1:29:51 --> 1:29:58
with gross violations of human rights in the United Kingdom. So another thing that I observe

747
1:29:58 --> 1:30:03
as a doctor is that there was no pandemic in my view, medical view as a doctor, there was no

748
1:30:03 --> 1:30:12
pandemic. And indeed, very likely, there was no novel respiratory disease called COVID-19.

749
1:30:12 --> 1:30:17
So the point I'm trying to make is that lawyers wittingly or unwittingly maybe,

750
1:30:18 --> 1:30:24
play into the narrative necessarily because they're trying to convince a judge in particular,

751
1:30:24 --> 1:30:30
a jury less difficult to convince, but still difficult to convince, especially in these

752
1:30:30 --> 1:30:38
circumstances, because everybody has deliberately been mind controlled and brainwashed in schools.

753
1:30:39 --> 1:30:44
So I just wanted to say, pass those comments, because everybody's agreeing about the

754
1:30:45 --> 1:30:51
small points, but my job is to kind of look at the big points. We all knew in 2020 that everything

755
1:30:52 --> 1:31:01
that was happening was wrong. And unfortunately, lawyers have failed in their duty to the public,

756
1:31:01 --> 1:31:06
in my opinion. They have not gone for criminal charges. And that's what they should have done.

757
1:31:06 --> 1:31:12
Instead, they're going for trying to convince judges that they have standing. And it's pathetic.

758
1:31:12 --> 1:31:19
It's consenting to small versions of themselves, being viewed as small versions of themselves.

759
1:31:19 --> 1:31:29
And that's exactly what Gail McCrae was talking about on Sunday. I recommend Gail McCrae's video

760
1:31:29 --> 1:31:36
to you, Richard. It's absolutely brilliant. And she is brilliant too. She may or may not realize

761
1:31:36 --> 1:31:42
it, but she is a leader. And she's just wonderful. She's a wonderful speaker. And every word she

762
1:31:42 --> 1:31:50
utters is loaded. She was home schooled for the whole time that she could have been at school,

763
1:31:51 --> 1:31:59
state school. And if that's how one can turn out when one is home schooled by good teachers,

764
1:32:00 --> 1:32:06
because obviously it depends who's teaching you at home, then I think it's something that we need

765
1:32:06 --> 1:32:12
to aim for, because the brainwashing is the problem and the mind control, it seems to me.

766
1:32:12 --> 1:32:16
If we're looking at everything through the lens of brainwashing and mind control,

767
1:32:17 --> 1:32:20
then we're not going to get a very good society. And so thank you so much.

768
1:32:22 --> 1:32:23
Sorry about that speech.

769
1:32:26 --> 1:32:33
Just a brief comment. As you know, Robert Malone has talked quite a bit about this

770
1:32:34 --> 1:32:45
mind control and weaponization of COVID as a Psi-op, you might say. And I think there's a lot of merit

771
1:32:46 --> 1:32:54
to that view. One of the amazing things that I learned, and I think a lot of other people learned

772
1:32:54 --> 1:33:02
from COVID, was the mind control that could be exerted by this sort of thing. You had people

773
1:33:02 --> 1:33:07
doing all kinds of things that one would have never thought anyone in their right mind would do,

774
1:33:08 --> 1:33:12
and going along with it and even supporting it and getting behind it.

775
1:33:15 --> 1:33:24
Robert Malone, of course, uses the term of mass historical psychosis or something like that.

776
1:33:25 --> 1:33:31
I think the term was first used by my friend Mark McDonald as a psychiatrist from Los Angeles. I

777
1:33:31 --> 1:33:40
had the pleasure of meeting him recently. And it's quite an amazing force. And we see it not only

778
1:33:40 --> 1:33:46
with regard to COVID, but so many other issues of the day, whether it's climate change or gender

779
1:33:46 --> 1:33:54
dysphoria or all of these sorts of things. Yeah, sure. So Richard, my view as a doctor

780
1:33:54 --> 1:34:02
is that that is how human beings naturally operate in cult. And why? Well, because most people don't

781
1:34:02 --> 1:34:08
want to take responsibility for their lives. They want to be led. So they join a cult. And

782
1:34:09 --> 1:34:13
so the cult members are saying to people essentially, you can see it in the so-called

783
1:34:13 --> 1:34:19
freedom movement, you know, that everybody's saying, and not just in the freedom movement,

784
1:34:19 --> 1:34:24
we operate our lives like this. We want people to listen to us. And essentially what everybody

785
1:34:24 --> 1:34:32
is saying to everyone else is join my cult. Those are the ones who want to take responsibility,

786
1:34:32 --> 1:34:37
if you understand me. But many, many human beings, of course, want to hide in a group,

787
1:34:37 --> 1:34:44
thinking that the group is safe when it actually reverses. True, of course. So Muhammad Ali said

788
1:34:44 --> 1:34:49
that people want to be in a group because they think it's safe. I don't know whether he was

789
1:34:49 --> 1:34:56
quoting someone else, but he is attributed, I saw this attributed to him. People want to be in a group

790
1:34:56 --> 1:35:01
to be safe. But he said, I don't want to be in a group because I think it's unsafe. And I agree

791
1:35:01 --> 1:35:07
with him. And we can agree. I think all of us can agree since 2020, that's been the big lesson.

792
1:35:07 --> 1:35:13
Groups are extremely dangerous. They take you away from the truth.

793
1:35:14 --> 1:35:24
And we like to think that we will be free in a democracy. But that's only half the battle.

794
1:35:25 --> 1:35:29
To have freedom, you have to have democracy, but that's only the half of it.

795
1:35:30 --> 1:35:37
Sure. The other thing you have to have is a very strong constitution that guarantees individual

796
1:35:37 --> 1:35:46
rights. Because as Churchill once observed, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding

797
1:35:46 --> 1:35:55
what to have for lunch. Absolutely. And so the sheep have to have rights that the wolves cannot

798
1:35:55 --> 1:36:01
take from them. Also, a lot of lawyers saying, oh no, we can't do that because the judge will

799
1:36:01 --> 1:36:08
throw it out because we haven't got standing. Whatever, you know, all these ridiculous man-made

800
1:36:08 --> 1:36:14
notions, in my opinion, when actually what you need is someone to just say, well, actually,

801
1:36:14 --> 1:36:22
we all think that this was wrong in 2020. We don't all of the things. But the people who are

802
1:36:22 --> 1:36:29
thinking independently, hopefully. But anyway, thank you so much, Richard. Yep. I just wanted

803
1:36:29 --> 1:36:39
to expand the discussion a little bit. I don't get many... But anyway. As Charles was saying,

804
1:36:39 --> 1:36:46
let me try to move on briefly to those other two so we can get done within our time.

805
1:36:46 --> 1:36:55
The other two are less cosmic or global, but we have a subset of the mandated vaccines

806
1:36:57 --> 1:37:04
that are being mandated for, in many cases, for children who are already vaccine injured.

807
1:37:06 --> 1:37:14
In California, something like 13% of all of the students in the schools, the public schools,

808
1:37:14 --> 1:37:21
are in special education programs because for the most part, they have some kind of, usually

809
1:37:22 --> 1:37:31
learning disability. Some of them are physically disabled. The ones who have learning disability,

810
1:37:31 --> 1:37:38
the majority of those are post-vaccine learning disabilities. Some of them, they were born that

811
1:37:38 --> 1:37:46
way. They had genetic defects or congenital anomalies, but the majority of them are acquired

812
1:37:46 --> 1:37:53
learning disabilities that are post-vaccine. In California, at this time, the incidence of autism

813
1:37:54 --> 1:38:01
is one in every 22 students. It's just a phenomenally high number. And 80% of those are

814
1:38:01 --> 1:38:09
boys. So if you are a parent and the ultrasound shows that you're going to have a boy child,

815
1:38:10 --> 1:38:19
the odds are something like about one in 12, 13, that that boy child, if given all of the vaccines,

816
1:38:19 --> 1:38:26
will end up as an autistic child in a special education program. I mean, it's truly frightening.

817
1:38:27 --> 1:38:34
So then comes California telling those parents, well, too bad your child has a learning disability,

818
1:38:35 --> 1:38:39
but you still have to get all your shots to go to school to get the special education

819
1:38:40 --> 1:38:44
services that you need because we injured you the first time with the vaccines.

820
1:38:46 --> 1:38:53
So how I got into this, of course, was I had a mother who was in the special education program.

821
1:38:53 --> 1:39:01
How I got into this, of course, was I had a mother bring her child with her to my office to see about

822
1:39:01 --> 1:39:07
a medical, actually to see about getting some kind of medical exemption because she had been

823
1:39:07 --> 1:39:15
notified by the school that he had to have more vaccinations. Her story was that the child had been

824
1:39:15 --> 1:39:21
doing fine up to age two and a half when he was required to get several vaccines.

825
1:39:22 --> 1:39:32
And within 24 hours, he lost all his speech capability and was completely, just as she said,

826
1:39:32 --> 1:39:40
gibberish, couldn't understand anything he was saying. And so she had him in special classes for

827
1:39:41 --> 1:39:51
speech for years. And eventually he got intelligible speech back, but he's still very

828
1:39:54 --> 1:40:02
still delayed in his speech abilities. So he's in a special education program. And now they're

829
1:40:02 --> 1:40:09
telling her she needs even more vaccines. As you can imagine, like most mothers, she was distraught

830
1:40:09 --> 1:40:17
when she got this. She was just about in tears. What am I to do? My husband and I both have to

831
1:40:17 --> 1:40:24
work because otherwise we can't afford to live. And yet he has to, I can't afford to send him to

832
1:40:24 --> 1:40:32
private school. I can't afford to homeschool him. What am I to do? So he is one of the plaintiffs

833
1:40:32 --> 1:40:39
in this case. Well, there are 800,000 other California students who are in the same situation.

834
1:40:42 --> 1:40:51
Their special education services are funded for the most part by federal money under the

835
1:40:51 --> 1:41:02
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. We argue in our complaint, in our lawsuit,

836
1:41:02 --> 1:41:09
that the children who are under this federally funded program cannot be excluded from school

837
1:41:10 --> 1:41:20
without a whole bunch of what are called procedural protections that are provided under this federal

838
1:41:22 --> 1:41:29
statute. The family has to get notice that the school intends to reduce or eliminate their

839
1:41:30 --> 1:41:38
their services. They get the right to a hearing. They get a right to an appeal of the hearing.

840
1:41:38 --> 1:41:43
They can appeal it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And in fact, quite a number of cases

841
1:41:43 --> 1:41:49
have gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. During all that time, the child still gets to

842
1:41:49 --> 1:41:57
stay in school until that whole process has run its course. Yet the woman who came to my office

843
1:41:57 --> 1:42:02
and all these other parents are being told if you don't get these shots, you are excluded from

844
1:42:02 --> 1:42:09
school. And that's the end of the discussion. No notice to them about any right of appeal, notice,

845
1:42:10 --> 1:42:18
hearings, any of the sort. So we're going to be looking for the court to give us an injunction

846
1:42:19 --> 1:42:26
mandating that the schools cannot exclude any of these students without all of the federally

847
1:42:26 --> 1:42:34
required legal protections and that they get to stay in school until all those protections have

848
1:42:35 --> 1:42:45
run their course. And because the schools have been telling, have been wrongly telling the parents

849
1:42:46 --> 1:42:53
that they have to do this and not telling them that they have any rights, we're going to ask the

850
1:42:53 --> 1:43:02
court to send a letter to all those parents telling them that we were wrong before and the

851
1:43:03 --> 1:43:10
truth of the matter is that your child will not have to get these shots until after all these

852
1:43:10 --> 1:43:17
legal procedures have run their course. So that's what we call the individual education program,

853
1:43:18 --> 1:43:28
part of this lawsuit. And as I said, it actually involves a large fraction of the California

854
1:43:28 --> 1:43:37
school population. It's 13% of these children who are already vaccine injured. They should be

855
1:43:37 --> 1:43:46
exempt. They should be legally exempt from these requirements. So I'm relatively hopeful that we'll

856
1:43:46 --> 1:43:52
be able to get that relief in the short run because the law is quite explicit about

857
1:43:53 --> 1:43:59
that they cannot be excluded from school without all this. So I'm hoping we'll have something

858
1:44:02 --> 1:44:08
fairly shortly to help those students. So let me stop there for a second and see if there are

859
1:44:08 --> 1:44:14
30 questions about the special education students. Very good. So Stephen first,

860
1:44:15 --> 1:44:23
and one question, Richard, Del Bigtree said that just so that everyone gets these numbers in Alex,

861
1:44:23 --> 1:44:30
you might have these numbers just off the top of your head that in 1986, one in 10,000 children

862
1:44:30 --> 1:44:37
were autistic. He then said it was coming down to one in 32 by last year, perhaps. And now you're

863
1:44:37 --> 1:44:43
saying it's one in 22 autistic kids. Is that in California or America? California.

864
1:44:43 --> 1:44:53
One in 20,000. I just understand from one in 10,000 to one in 22. It is extraordinary.

865
1:44:53 --> 1:45:00
And the impact on, I don't know, I haven't seen an analysis. Certainly there was an analysis

866
1:45:01 --> 1:45:10
at the time of lockdowns of the, sorry, the impact on health of joblessness.

867
1:45:11 --> 1:45:16
Right? You lose a job, massive negative impact. Look at the impact on not only the children,

868
1:45:16 --> 1:45:22
but the families that have to look after these children. So, you know, Stephen, I don't know

869
1:45:22 --> 1:45:27
what the numbers are in the UK. I haven't heard any of us talk about those numbers on autism.

870
1:45:27 --> 1:45:29
But anyway, questions from, start with you, Stephen.

871
1:45:32 --> 1:45:40
Yeah. So I said quite a few of the things I wanted to say in the last preamble or whatever.

872
1:45:41 --> 1:45:47
But I just wondered, Richard, can you, I know you're going down the civil route,

873
1:45:47 --> 1:45:53
but I just wonder whether you have thought about going down the criminal route, because it seems

874
1:45:53 --> 1:45:58
to me that everything that was, so I'm a medical doctor. It just seemed to me that there was no

875
1:45:58 --> 1:46:06
medical justification for any of the measures in inverted commas. And that's how I got my

876
1:46:08 --> 1:46:14
children to listen to me. It took me six weeks to come up with that in 2020. I was just mystified

877
1:46:14 --> 1:46:20
that they didn't agree with me immediately, because previously they had at least given me

878
1:46:20 --> 1:46:27
a hearing. But I think maybe now I realise that they were, certainly my wife was watching

879
1:46:27 --> 1:46:34
the BBC and I told her not to do that. I didn't quite understand the effect of the propaganda,

880
1:46:34 --> 1:46:39
which had been pumped out by the British Broadcasting Corporation all over the world.

881
1:46:42 --> 1:46:49
But I said to my own family that there was, in my view, there was no medical justification for

882
1:46:49 --> 1:46:59
any of the measures in inverted commas being taken in a so-called pandemic. I was very doubtful

883
1:46:59 --> 1:47:03
then that there was a pandemic. Well, actually, I knew the whole thing was a fraud, but it was

884
1:47:03 --> 1:47:10
difficult to articulate. But the big thing that helped me was the fact that messages were coming

885
1:47:10 --> 1:47:15
out, you know, the kind of messaging that was being used in just about all the countries in the world

886
1:47:16 --> 1:47:25
was the same. So from New Zealand to Australia to the UK to Japan to America to Canada to France

887
1:47:27 --> 1:47:31
is all the same. And I thought this must have been, this was a global coup d'etat

888
1:47:33 --> 1:47:38
and they're trying to take my country away from me. So I was extremely exercised. I was very shocked

889
1:47:38 --> 1:47:45
and but I couldn't get anybody around me to understand what was going on. And so,

890
1:47:45 --> 1:47:52
or what I thought was going on. And so that was pretty difficult time. But I want to hold these

891
1:47:52 --> 1:47:59
people responsible for these terrible crimes committed during times of COVID-19, alleged COVID-19.

892
1:48:01 --> 1:48:07
And I will do everything I can till the day I die to bring these bastards to justice.

893
1:48:07 --> 1:48:13
And I just want to hear from you, whether you have thought about the criminal route and

894
1:48:14 --> 1:48:19
and why is it impossible to bring criminal charges against the people responsible

895
1:48:20 --> 1:48:23
who have clearly lied, they've admitted they've lied.

896
1:48:25 --> 1:48:36
So the short answer to that is that they should be criminally charged because of all the fraud and

897
1:48:38 --> 1:48:46
injury. However, as a private citizen, I can't do that. Only the public prosecutors can bring a

898
1:48:46 --> 1:48:52
criminal case. Okay, Richard. So I'll ask a question in a different way. So why are so few Americans,

899
1:48:52 --> 1:49:00
in particular Americans, why do so few of them know how to report crime or a reported crime?

900
1:49:01 --> 1:49:07
You know, very few Americans seem to know how to report. We know in the UK, but will the police

901
1:49:07 --> 1:49:13
give you a crime number in the UK? That's the problem. But in the US people, generally Americans

902
1:49:13 --> 1:49:21
seem to have no idea how to report crime. And there was crime everywhere in 2020. So I just

903
1:49:21 --> 1:49:25
wondered whether so you are a lawyer, but you're also a doctor. So that gives you

904
1:49:25 --> 1:49:34
a lot of influence. So I wonder whether you've thought about where would you report crime in

905
1:49:34 --> 1:49:43
America? Or in California, let's say California to start with. Yeah, you won't find a public prosecutor

906
1:49:43 --> 1:49:49
in California that would even listen to the case, much less bring it. California is, as you know,

907
1:49:49 --> 1:49:55
heavily infected with the woke ism virus. Yeah. But that doesn't mean to say that ordinary

908
1:49:55 --> 1:50:01
citizens like you and Alex and, and all the other people from California window, that they shouldn't

909
1:50:01 --> 1:50:11
least try to will have much more effect on the civil side. It's kind of a feudal to try to

910
1:50:12 --> 1:50:18
get the public prosecutors to do anything we you know, the civil route is our remedy. The

911
1:50:18 --> 1:50:27
interesting thing though, that may occur in the United States, it all depends on the US election.

912
1:50:28 --> 1:50:35
Because, as you know, Robert Kennedy seems to have come to some kind of understanding

913
1:50:36 --> 1:50:42
with Donald Trump, that if Mr. Trump is elected president, that Mr. Kennedy will

914
1:50:42 --> 1:50:51
have the portfolio that includes chronic disease in children. And of course, if Mr. Trump is elected

915
1:50:51 --> 1:50:59
president, then he gets to change all of the US attorneys and all the jurisdictions in the country,

916
1:50:59 --> 1:51:06
and put his own people in. So for instance, we are in the Eastern District of California

917
1:51:07 --> 1:51:13
with our case right now. But if Mr. Trump is elected president, the Eastern District of California

918
1:51:13 --> 1:51:20
will get a different US attorney. And right now, the Biden appointed US attorney, I'm sure will be

919
1:51:20 --> 1:51:29
defending the CDC. But if there is a Trump appointed US attorney, after January 20,

920
1:51:29 --> 1:51:38
they may take a different position on our lawsuit than the present US attorney. So

921
1:51:40 --> 1:51:47
stay tuned for important developments. Richard, my point is this, that I think this is my point

922
1:51:47 --> 1:51:51
anyway, that lawyers, if they never talk about the criminality, because they're never going to

923
1:51:51 --> 1:51:58
get it anyway by that route, then they automatically, inadvertently possibly, do the enemies work for them.

924
1:51:59 --> 1:52:09
In watering down the narrative, our narrative. And you said yourself that you consider that there was

925
1:52:09 --> 1:52:15
criminality. But the point I'm trying to say is, if you don't fight on that battlefield, as well as

926
1:52:15 --> 1:52:22
the civil route may be, then the public don't realize what's happened. And that's very important.

927
1:52:22 --> 1:52:29
I cannot go into a court to fight that fight. So all I'm doing is out in the public sphere,

928
1:52:29 --> 1:52:38
like so many others like you and so many others, I'm just one more voice. So with the hours in the

929
1:52:38 --> 1:52:44
day that I have, I do have a unique ability to go into a civil court and make an argument. And that's

930
1:52:44 --> 1:52:51
the more productive use of my time. Yes, okay. But you get my point. No lawyer in the world

931
1:52:52 --> 1:52:56
or very few lawyers are emphasizing the criminality.

932
1:52:58 --> 1:53:04
Yeah, for. Well, saying that they're not going to succeed. But that's not usually how

933
1:53:05 --> 1:53:11
we come to the truth. But anyway, thank you so much. Yep. All right. We're now got Thank you,

934
1:53:11 --> 1:53:23
Stephen. We're now got Glenn. Hi, Dr. Fox, I was curious if you're familiar with

935
1:53:23 --> 1:53:34
Cheryl Atkinson, the journalist reporter. I don't believe so. So she she's been very

936
1:53:34 --> 1:53:38
well, Cheryl Atkinson. Yes. Yes. In fact, I used her material in my lawsuit.

937
1:53:39 --> 1:53:43
OK, so I just want to make sure you're aware of it and how well it's been covered by her

938
1:53:44 --> 1:53:53
in her new book, which I'm showing up here, titled Follow the Science. And how, you know,

939
1:53:53 --> 1:53:58
just to give a snapshot, you're probably familiar with it already that the reintroduction of the

940
1:53:58 --> 1:54:03
the the the

941
1:54:05 --> 1:54:17
why am I blanking out? The the the the what's the most common vaccine known from the scab on the arm?

942
1:54:18 --> 1:54:22
Smallpox. Smallpox. Yeah, the small the reintroduction of the smallpox vaccine

943
1:54:22 --> 1:54:31
right after 9-11 and as part of the war with Afghanistan that her colleague David Bloom died

944
1:54:31 --> 1:54:40
as a war correspondent for CBS and that it was hidden that her his death was from a outcome of

945
1:54:40 --> 1:54:47
the the smallpox vaccine and that there was an enormous amount of of damage done to the the

946
1:54:47 --> 1:54:53
troops that that got that vaccine. And in her case, she didn't get it because she was assigned

947
1:54:53 --> 1:54:59
with the Air Force and they weren't pushing it at the time where he was assigned with the army

948
1:54:59 --> 1:55:05
and he got it and then ended up dying from it and it being heavily covered up and that almost all of

949
1:55:05 --> 1:55:10
the interviews, you know, people get interviewed a lot when they come out with books. She's being

950
1:55:10 --> 1:55:16
blackmailed. I'm blackballed. I'm sorry. Blackballed from getting interviews from any of the mainstream

951
1:55:16 --> 1:55:26
media. Yeah, she's much to be commended for her diligence and courage. That's why

952
1:55:27 --> 1:55:33
I mentioned her work in my complaint, you know, uncovering some of the corruption that was involved

953
1:55:33 --> 1:55:45
in all this. Okay, thanks. Thank you, Glenn. Jim? Hey, thank you. In terms of who you're prosecuting,

954
1:55:47 --> 1:55:55
can you are you able to prosecute or identify the Department of Defense or the corruption of the

955
1:55:55 --> 1:56:04
possibly Supreme Court and and the corruption of the prosecutors? I put in the link a document from

956
1:56:04 --> 1:56:10
the New Jersey court system that identifies that we should possibly be holding the prosecutors

957
1:56:10 --> 1:56:17
accountable because they're not allowed to prosecute on the basis of political bias,

958
1:56:18 --> 1:56:27
but they have to prosecute ethically. So that's in the chat. The other document is from Camilla

959
1:56:27 --> 1:56:40
Harris or a testimony from a lady in California who was jailed after Camilla as prosecutor or

960
1:56:40 --> 1:56:46
attorney general had her arrested because of truancy of her daughter who was a sickle cell

961
1:56:46 --> 1:56:52
anemia patient. So that's also in the chat and how she went to and how this mother went to jail

962
1:56:52 --> 1:56:58
because her daughter was missing class, not because she was trying to miss class,

963
1:56:58 --> 1:57:03
but because she was suffering from sickle cell anemia. And the reason Camilla Harris

964
1:57:03 --> 1:57:09
may have been prosecuting that is because the funding, state funding is directly tied to

965
1:57:10 --> 1:57:17
the attendance rates. So that's in the chat as well. But the question is, so the question is,

966
1:57:17 --> 1:57:21
how do we hold the, it's increasingly, we're increasingly figuring out that the Department

967
1:57:21 --> 1:57:25
of Defense and the intelligence community seems to have a lot to do with this. The intelligence

968
1:57:25 --> 1:57:36
community seems to be having a hand on the scale of the elections, the voting by mail, the

969
1:57:36 --> 1:57:42
the dominion heart and heart inter civics and ES and S voting. We may not have free and fair

970
1:57:42 --> 1:57:47
elections. So the people who were electing, including Anthony Blinken, the secretary of state,

971
1:57:48 --> 1:57:55
may not have been actually elected in a free method. And Anthony Blinken may have himself

972
1:57:55 --> 1:58:00
contributed to that abnormal election by saying that a hundred Biden laptop was Russian disinformation

973
1:58:00 --> 1:58:05
and getting 50 former CIA agents to lie. How do we hold the intelligence agency responsible?

974
1:58:05 --> 1:58:12
And how do we hold the Supreme Court responsible? They leaked Roe versus Wade early in 2024,

975
1:58:12 --> 1:58:19
in May of 2020, excuse me, May of 2022, and said, we don't know who leaked it. And that smacks of

976
1:58:19 --> 1:58:27
intelligence inside the Supreme Court, because as we know, the Supreme Court justice Warren,

977
1:58:28 --> 1:58:33
the Warren Commission came up with a tumbling bullet theory that was propagated by our inspector

978
1:58:33 --> 1:58:38
when we know that JFK was shot from the front as to John Corsi's good, Jerome Corsi's good work.

979
1:58:39 --> 1:58:45
It looks like we're, we need to prosecute the intelligence agencies and the Supreme Court for

980
1:58:46 --> 1:58:50
an intelligence inside the Supreme Court as well. How are we going to do that?

981
1:58:53 --> 1:58:57
By the way, Richard, we can answer that question. Jim's great at asking questions like this.

982
1:58:57 --> 1:59:07
You know, but do a quick answer because it's a big question, but it's a provocative, just put the

983
1:59:07 --> 1:59:13
question out there, but DOD is just a broad, then we go to Julie and then, and we've only got 25

984
1:59:13 --> 1:59:22
minutes, so keep it tight. Briefly, that's prosecuting the Department of Defense is a bit

985
1:59:22 --> 1:59:29
above my pay grade. So I think we're going to have to leave that to, hopefully,

986
1:59:31 --> 1:59:36
we'll get an administration. I doubt it will be the Harris administration, perhaps the Trump

987
1:59:36 --> 1:59:42
administration that wants to tackle that because it's going to take a lot of resources for that.

988
1:59:44 --> 1:59:52
All right. Anything on the Supreme Court and infiltration and

989
1:59:53 --> 1:59:58
and leaking Roe versus Wade as a political maneuver to make everything about abortion

990
1:59:58 --> 2:00:10
rather than safety of our country? So the Senate can possibly investigate the Supreme Court,

991
2:00:10 --> 2:00:16
but only in connection with an impeachment. So the power to investigate and prosecute the

992
2:00:17 --> 2:00:25
Supreme Court rests exclusively with the Senate, I believe. And so it's really,

993
2:00:25 --> 2:00:30
it's a political question that we have to leave to the political process.

994
2:00:33 --> 2:00:37
Thank you, Jim. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. Julie?

995
2:00:37 --> 2:00:41
Yeah, I just have to laugh. I mean, our country is the most vax addicted,

996
2:00:41 --> 2:00:45
vax obsessed country on the planet. I mean, we're the only ones that give 72 shots to our children.

997
2:00:45 --> 2:00:51
It's outrageous. I did put the VAERS report numbers into the chat for California children,

998
2:00:51 --> 2:00:57
five to 18, not related to COVID. There's 17 dead kids. I will post all that into the chat.

999
2:00:57 --> 2:01:02
But yeah, the IEPs, you guys, so I would FOIA, if you haven't done so already, all those school

1000
2:01:02 --> 2:01:08
districts, Gilroy, I think you mentioned in a couple others here at Chico Unified, 10 years ago,

1001
2:01:08 --> 2:01:15
our IEP rate, which are these are state sponsored disability plans was 3% of our 12,000 students.

1002
2:01:15 --> 2:01:21
Today, it's 23% of our 12,000 students. They have and there's a trend line, it shows and it's like,

1003
2:01:21 --> 2:01:27
you know, $30 million coming into our school district for doctors, occupational therapists,

1004
2:01:27 --> 2:01:33
nurses, we have teachers wearing Kevlar sleeves because they're getting bit. We have children in

1005
2:01:33 --> 2:01:38
fourth grade that are starting their periods. We have so much chaos because of these IEP plans

1006
2:01:38 --> 2:01:42
related to these vaccines. But yeah, if there's a way you can get the trend line from those school

1007
2:01:42 --> 2:01:46
districts, it should, you know, add to the case if you haven't done so already. But again, thank you,

1008
2:01:46 --> 2:01:52
thank you, thank you for your fight. Thank you. Thank you, Julie. All right, Richard, any further

1009
2:01:52 --> 2:01:58
comments? And then we'll go to final questions for the last 20 minutes. So Alex, give you an

1010
2:01:58 --> 2:02:07
opportunity to add afterward Richard finishes. I just want to briefly comment on the third component

1011
2:02:07 --> 2:02:15
of the case, which is the free speech of doctors such as Dr. Halstead to be able to frankly

1012
2:02:17 --> 2:02:23
talk to their patients about the benefits and harms of medical treatments, especially vaccines.

1013
2:02:24 --> 2:02:31
We touched earlier on the idea of informed consent as a basic human right, but you can't

1014
2:02:31 --> 2:02:39
have informed consent when the doctors are gagged. And that's what we have here in California.

1015
2:02:42 --> 2:02:49
Two, three years ago, the California legislature actually went so far as to pass a doctor

1016
2:02:49 --> 2:03:01
COVID gag order that allowed the medical board to revoke the medical licenses of any doctors who

1017
2:03:02 --> 2:03:12
were found guilty of disseminating misinformation about COVID, whatever that might be. They had no

1018
2:03:12 --> 2:03:24
actual definition of it. And to me, it was not something that was intended so much to revoke

1019
2:03:25 --> 2:03:34
medical licenses as it was to intimidate and coerce doctors to remain silent. That's why they didn't

1020
2:03:34 --> 2:03:40
bother to define misinformation. I think that was a feature and not a bug. The idea of you don't

1021
2:03:40 --> 2:03:47
define it, then doctors will never know for sure whether they've crossed the line or not. So they

1022
2:03:47 --> 2:03:51
don't want to go anywhere near the line in order to stay on the safe side of it.

1023
2:03:53 --> 2:04:00
Fortunately, our friends over at Children's Health Defense, Robert Kennedy's group, got a

1024
2:04:00 --> 2:04:08
California judge to join that. And so those of us who were providing COVID treatment

1025
2:04:09 --> 2:04:20
could continue to do so. In one encouraging development, there was a related case that

1026
2:04:20 --> 2:04:30
actually on that same statute that got up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and was argued

1027
2:04:30 --> 2:04:40
orally to the three judges on the Ninth Circuit panel. And the state of California was knocked

1028
2:04:40 --> 2:04:52
about quite a bit by that panel for all the obvious reasons. And so I think it became obvious to the

1029
2:04:52 --> 2:04:58
state of California that their COVID gag order against doctors was going to be struck down

1030
2:04:59 --> 2:05:06
as a violation of free speech rights under the First Amendment. And so two weeks after that

1031
2:05:07 --> 2:05:14
argument in that case, but before the decision was announced, the state quickly repealed the law

1032
2:05:14 --> 2:05:21
so that they could what we call moot the case. They did not want the Ninth Circuit to actually

1033
2:05:21 --> 2:05:26
issue a decision striking that law down, so they quickly repealed it.

1034
2:05:27 --> 2:05:32
So the federal courts, the Ninth Circuit, the US Supreme Court have been pretty

1035
2:05:32 --> 2:05:40
stout about protecting physician's speech. Here in Dr. Halstead's case, he's a pediatrician here in

1036
2:05:40 --> 2:05:51
Monterey. He was advising the parents of his patients not to get these childhood vaccines,

1037
2:05:51 --> 2:06:02
or at least to delay those until the child was older. And in one of those cases, the child's

1038
2:06:02 --> 2:06:10
parents were estranged such that the father was opposed to the vaccines and the mother wanted the

1039
2:06:10 --> 2:06:17
vaccines. So it became a divorce law kind of issue for the parents to fight about.

1040
2:06:19 --> 2:06:28
And so the mother eventually filed a complaint with the family court about the father. Dr.

1041
2:06:28 --> 2:06:36
Halstead went to court to argue the father's side of the case, whereupon it appears the mother then

1042
2:06:37 --> 2:06:44
filed a complaint with the Medical Board of California. And the upshot of it was that

1043
2:06:45 --> 2:06:56
Dr. Halstead had his license revoked. We argue in our lawsuit that his license was revoked because he

1044
2:06:56 --> 2:07:05
testified in court against the state mandated vaccines. The Medical Board

1045
2:07:06 --> 2:07:11
thinks that they have other reasons why they revoked his license, but we believe those were

1046
2:07:11 --> 2:07:18
pretext. So this is the First Amendment case. It's a doctor to speech First Amendment case.

1047
2:07:19 --> 2:07:31
And it's very important because when parents of children go into the doctor to discuss the idea of

1048
2:07:31 --> 2:07:37
should I get these vaccines for my child, they have to have some faith that the doctor is going to

1049
2:07:39 --> 2:07:45
deal with them honestly. But if the doctor feels like if they deal with, if they speak honestly

1050
2:07:46 --> 2:07:51
with the family that they're in danger of losing their license, then they can't do that. The doctor

1051
2:07:51 --> 2:07:58
simply becomes a parrot, parroting the doctrine put out by the state and by the federal CDC.

1052
2:08:00 --> 2:08:09
In fact, we argue that you can't make doctors simply the mouthpiece of the state. If the state

1053
2:08:09 --> 2:08:15
wants to say, tell parents what its position is, they can put it on a piece of paper and

1054
2:08:15 --> 2:08:23
require you to hand it to them, but they can't force doctors to become the mouthpieces and parrots

1055
2:08:23 --> 2:08:28
for the state where the state is hiding behind the doctor and the parent thinks that they're

1056
2:08:28 --> 2:08:34
hearing the doctor's point of view when all they're hearing is what the state has forced the doctor

1057
2:08:34 --> 2:08:45
to tell them. So if we can convince the court that that's why Dr. Halston's license was revoked,

1058
2:08:46 --> 2:08:55
was because he refused to become the mouthpiece and the parent and the parrot of the state,

1059
2:08:55 --> 2:09:00
then we're hoping we can get his medical license reinstated. And in the process,

1060
2:09:02 --> 2:09:09
provide some assurance and protection to all the other pediatricians, especially in California,

1061
2:09:09 --> 2:09:17
that they may have more protection if they speak honestly. I think right now all the

1062
2:09:17 --> 2:09:24
pediatricians in California are intimidated that they cannot say anything that doesn't conform to

1063
2:09:24 --> 2:09:30
the party line because they will suffer the same fate that Dr. Halston suffered. And indeed,

1064
2:09:30 --> 2:09:37
there are at least four or five, maybe six other pediatricians and family practice doctors in

1065
2:09:37 --> 2:09:46
California who've lost their licenses for the same reason. So patients cannot enjoy the right

1066
2:09:46 --> 2:09:53
to informed consent if they don't have a doctor who is protected, has their speech protected

1067
2:09:54 --> 2:10:01
in that process. So not only was Dr. Halston harmed, but all of the parents in California

1068
2:10:01 --> 2:10:07
were harmed, the parents who went to him, but also the parents who go to all other doctors,

1069
2:10:07 --> 2:10:16
because those doctors have been intimidated by the action in Dr. Halston's case. So he has been

1070
2:10:16 --> 2:10:22
brave enough to speak out, become a party in this case, and he's really doing this not just for his

1071
2:10:22 --> 2:10:30
own license, but really for the welfare of all the other doctors and children and parents in California

1072
2:10:31 --> 2:10:38
to have an unfettered consent process. So that's why this is important. They can't get away with

1073
2:10:38 --> 2:10:45
all their fraud if the doctors will be brave enough to speak out and tell both sides of the story.

1074
2:10:46 --> 2:10:52
So that's the third part of the vaccine case. Thank you, Richard. Now, before we go to Ron and

1075
2:10:52 --> 2:10:57
then final questions to Steve and Alex, would you like to add anything or the thoughts, you know,

1076
2:10:57 --> 2:11:01
take a couple of minutes to share your thoughts and thinking and any comments you have?

1077
2:11:04 --> 2:11:11
Sure. I'm just really excited about this lawsuit that Dr. Fox has filed and that we've now joined

1078
2:11:11 --> 2:11:17
as Free Now Foundation, because it's really a three-in-one lawsuit. You know, we're in the first,

1079
2:11:17 --> 2:11:23
just to summarize, we're asking the state and the CDC to prove that the vaccines stop transmission,

1080
2:11:23 --> 2:11:27
and they've never done the studies, as you just heard Dr. Fox say. They've never done vaccinated

1081
2:11:27 --> 2:11:33
versus unvaccinated studies, so they can't even calculate a relative risk or an absolute risk

1082
2:11:33 --> 2:11:39
reduction. They just can't do it because they don't have the studies. And then the IEP case

1083
2:11:39 --> 2:11:44
is so interesting because there are 800,000 students in California, and that's a number I

1084
2:11:44 --> 2:11:52
got from Dr. Fox directly, who have an individualized education plan, and most of them are being lied to

1085
2:11:52 --> 2:11:59
by their schools when we fought really hard, and I think it was 2019, to make sure there was a

1086
2:11:59 --> 2:12:05
carve-out for IEP students. And I think they reluctantly added that carve-out to the bill,

1087
2:12:05 --> 2:12:11
which became law because the parents who have IEP students, the majority of them know what caused

1088
2:12:11 --> 2:12:17
their kids' disability, and I think they wanted to grant us that carve-out to silence some of the

1089
2:12:17 --> 2:12:23
loudest parent voices who would be shouting bloody murder if their kids were forced to get

1090
2:12:23 --> 2:12:27
more vaccines after they were already vaccine injured, so I think that was to mollify those

1091
2:12:27 --> 2:12:34
parents. But I mean, it is a law. It's a law in California now, and it's also a federal law

1092
2:12:34 --> 2:12:40
that kids in special education are not required to get those vaccines to attend school. And then

1093
2:12:40 --> 2:12:46
finally, I'm really excited about Dr. Halstead's case. Free Now Foundation was involved

1094
2:12:47 --> 2:12:54
in both of the cases against the Dr. Gag Order bill or Dr. Gag Order law. It was called AB 2098

1095
2:12:54 --> 2:13:01
when it was a bill, and it was interesting. I just wrote in the chat that Governor Newsom was so

1096
2:13:01 --> 2:13:10
scared of our cases winning, which would have meant that there was no, that free speech applied

1097
2:13:10 --> 2:13:15
to medical doctors in the office with their patients, and he didn't want that. So instead

1098
2:13:15 --> 2:13:19
of letting our cases go further to the point where there would be a judgment affirming that

1099
2:13:19 --> 2:13:25
doctors can have free speech, he did a runaround and he introduced a new bill in California that

1100
2:13:26 --> 2:13:33
undid what AB 2098 did, and so it basically overturned the Dr. Gag Order law through a bill

1101
2:13:34 --> 2:13:38
rather than waiting for the cases to come to a conclusion. So I think it's going to be really

1102
2:13:38 --> 2:13:44
interesting to see what happens with Dr. Halstead's case because it really is another case along those

1103
2:13:44 --> 2:13:50
lines, and I think it's going to make Governor Newsom really nervous. Dr. Fox's cases here are

1104
2:13:50 --> 2:13:55
so well crafted, and it's just exciting. I mean, the most exciting thing about his complaint is that

1105
2:13:56 --> 2:14:04
we just had two major decisions in federal courts that make vaccine cases totally different now.

1106
2:14:04 --> 2:14:10
I mean, we had the Ninth Circuit Court in Leslie Minuchian's case against LAUSD

1107
2:14:10 --> 2:14:18
rule that you can't apply that 1905 Jacobson case about smallpox to the COVID vaccine because nobody

1108
2:14:18 --> 2:14:24
could prove the COVID vaccine stopped transmission, and that is hugely significant for why we can

1109
2:14:24 --> 2:14:30
bring the science into these cases right now. And then we also have the SCOTUS decision around

1110
2:14:30 --> 2:14:34
Chevron. It was called Chevron deference, and because they overturned Chevron deference, it

1111
2:14:34 --> 2:14:40
means that our three-letter agencies can get it wrong. So we've lost a lot of these cases because

1112
2:14:40 --> 2:14:47
of appeals to authority of the FDA and the CDC, for example, and now that is greatly, greatly

1113
2:14:47 --> 2:14:52
weakened by the overturning of the Chevron deference. So that's why we're on a totally new

1114
2:14:52 --> 2:14:58
playing field right now, and it's super exciting that Dr. Fox was on top of those changes, and he

1115
2:14:58 --> 2:15:03
started writing that lawsuit right away and got it filed so quickly. I mean, he turned down a lot

1116
2:15:03 --> 2:15:10
of social engagements and other things to get this thing done. Well said, Alex. Beautifully said.

1117
2:15:10 --> 2:15:16
Thank you. All right, Ron, your last question, and then we'll go to Stephen, and we'll finish

1118
2:15:16 --> 2:15:23
in the next 10 minutes. Well, hang on. I need a little bit more. Okay, go ahead. Can you hear me?

1119
2:15:24 --> 2:15:30
Yes, we can, Ron. Okay, yeah. My mouse is not working on my desktop, so I'm improvising here.

1120
2:15:31 --> 2:15:37
My question is, can this lawsuit be used as a template for COVID-19?

1121
2:15:42 --> 2:15:54
So let me think about that just a little bit. I think some of the constitutional arguments,

1122
2:15:54 --> 2:16:00
you know, if we get Jacobson overturned, I think it's a whole new ballgame for the COVID shots

1123
2:16:00 --> 2:16:09
as well. And the same constitutional arguments, do you have the right to refuse vaccines,

1124
2:16:09 --> 2:16:18
you know, state-mandated vaccines? So I think it's germane in that respect.

1125
2:16:19 --> 2:16:28
Certainly, students going to school, they may have more protection.

1126
2:16:31 --> 2:16:36
Certainly, if they're going to public schools, you know, public universities.

1127
2:16:38 --> 2:16:41
So I think there is some potential there.

1128
2:16:48 --> 2:16:54
Ron, where's he gone? Ron, was that it? Was that your only question?

1129
2:16:54 --> 2:16:55
Yes, thank you.

1130
2:16:56 --> 2:16:57
Excellent. All right, Stephen.

1131
2:17:00 --> 2:17:08
So, Richard, I'm a little bit troubled because both you and I are doctors. And I think we need to be

1132
2:17:08 --> 2:17:15
honest that most doctors in the world completely fail their patients. And I think that's the

1133
2:17:16 --> 2:17:24
completely failed their patients. The practice of medicine throughout the world was wrong. It was,

1134
2:17:24 --> 2:17:31
it completely failed and doctors were stupid. They were really stupid. And now they've destroyed

1135
2:17:31 --> 2:17:36
their reputations. So the people you were talking about, the doctors I think you were talking about,

1136
2:17:36 --> 2:17:42
they were afraid to cross the line. Which line? It did cross the line. They crossed the line.

1137
2:17:42 --> 2:17:47
They let down their patients. And that's unforgivable. A doctor should not be a doctor

1138
2:17:47 --> 2:17:53
if he's thinking about his pocket rather than his patients. But that's what we saw everywhere.

1139
2:17:53 --> 2:17:59
And so what happened to doctors that they allowed their autonomy to be taken away from them

1140
2:17:59 --> 2:18:06
and just parroted protocols put down by hospitals? It's absolutely outrageous what has happened.

1141
2:18:07 --> 2:18:14
And I don't, as a medical doctor in the UK, I concede that there are not many doctors in the,

1142
2:18:15 --> 2:18:23
I know about 150 in the UK who agree with me. And the rest say, well, I had to put food on the

1143
2:18:23 --> 2:18:30
table or whatever. No, it's not good enough. And we need, look, for the future, in my opinion,

1144
2:18:30 --> 2:18:35
pandemics are not possible. We need to get to the truth. We're skating around the truth here.

1145
2:18:36 --> 2:18:43
The whole thing about pandemics is a construct. Pandemics were seen as the best Trojan horse

1146
2:18:43 --> 2:18:51
totalitarianism. And that's what we saw in 2020. So they've been gearing up for this. So the whole

1147
2:18:51 --> 2:18:57
thing about vaccinations and virology and evidence-based medicine was all about preparing

1148
2:18:57 --> 2:19:04
the world for what happened in 2020 and the decline in the influence of immunologists.

1149
2:19:05 --> 2:19:11
And what did immunologists do? Well, they knew about the brilliant human immune system and indeed

1150
2:19:11 --> 2:19:19
other animals' immune systems. And what did the virologists, well, they did the work of the

1151
2:19:20 --> 2:19:26
vaccinologists, if you like. So they allowed human beings, mere human beings, who can't even

1152
2:19:26 --> 2:19:32
understand the universe that they're in, to think that, oh, well, actually, we can do better than

1153
2:19:32 --> 2:19:39
God did or whomever with the brilliant immune systems that we all have. And in America,

1154
2:19:39 --> 2:19:48
end up with 72 shots for children by the age of five. It's just crazy. And we need to be honest.

1155
2:19:49 --> 2:19:55
Doctors need to be honest. And to say that doctors were afraid of crossing the line,

1156
2:19:55 --> 2:20:01
they did cross the line. For me, they crossed the line. And they were absolutely useless in

1157
2:20:01 --> 2:20:08
the so-called pandemic, which wasn't a pandemic. And indeed, in my opinion, there was no diagnosis

1158
2:20:08 --> 2:20:14
of COVID-19, which was safe. Why? Well, we know about the fraudulent PCR test. Kerry Mullis told

1159
2:20:14 --> 2:20:23
us all about that. But he was dead in August 2019. Need to look into that. And very importantly,

1160
2:20:23 --> 2:20:29
there wasn't a single symptom of COVID-19 or purported COVID-19, which was pathognomic for

1161
2:20:29 --> 2:20:39
COVID-19. All the symptoms could have been due to pneumonia, cold, flu, or a combination of all

1162
2:20:39 --> 2:20:47
three or two of those three. So I just am very frustrated because I think that lawyers do tend

1163
2:20:47 --> 2:20:54
to think about which cases are possible and end up diluting the truth. I'm not saying that's the case

1164
2:20:55 --> 2:21:01
with you, Richard. I can see that you're a very good human being. You're trying your best

1165
2:21:01 --> 2:21:08
within the confines that you think your talents. But all I'm saying is we have a responsibility

1166
2:21:09 --> 2:21:17
now to try to preserve the truth of what happened and to keep reminding people of what happened

1167
2:21:18 --> 2:21:24
and holding these bastards to account who deliberately planned it, clearly. Anyway,

1168
2:21:25 --> 2:21:29
that's what I think. Do you have any comments or not?

1169
2:21:30 --> 2:21:40
So just a couple of brief comments. So what you've identified is what seems to me to be the

1170
2:21:41 --> 2:21:49
reconstruction of medicine from a profession into a trade, almost an assembly line kind of

1171
2:21:49 --> 2:21:57
operation where you take protocols that are handed down from corrupt bureaucrats like Tony Fauci

1172
2:21:57 --> 2:22:06
and you just pass out those remedies on a daily basis without much further thought about it.

1173
2:22:06 --> 2:22:12
Without much further thought about it. You might as well be making widgets in a factory somewhere.

1174
2:22:15 --> 2:22:23
So can we take back our profession? Well, the profession has been greatly undermined by the

1175
2:22:23 --> 2:22:28
political process, by the so-called socialization of medicine. When the government becomes the

1176
2:22:28 --> 2:22:36
paymaster, then expect to be used for political purposes. And that's what they've done to medicine

1177
2:22:36 --> 2:22:42
and healthcare. So in the end, the patients are going to get what they have voted for.

1178
2:22:43 --> 2:22:49
If they want assembly line medicine where the average American over, I don't know,

1179
2:22:49 --> 2:22:55
65, 70 years of age is on something like 20 to 25 different prescription medicines,

1180
2:22:56 --> 2:23:06
that's what people have voted for. So it has definitely corrupted the medical profession,

1181
2:23:07 --> 2:23:14
but the solution, I'm afraid, is beyond the medical profession. It really resides with the public

1182
2:23:15 --> 2:23:23
deciding whether they want a socialistic kind of healthcare system, a socialistic kind of government

1183
2:23:23 --> 2:23:29
where the government collects all the money and dispenses it for its own purposes.

1184
2:23:30 --> 2:23:42
So that's the larger issue that we're dealing with. And I'm pessimistic that we can restore medicine

1185
2:23:42 --> 2:23:55
as a profession until we fix the socialism that undercurrent that we have

1186
2:23:56 --> 2:24:05
with our political institutions at the moment. I love always to keep in mind Lord Acton's famous

1187
2:24:05 --> 2:24:12
dictum from I think it's 1887 that all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

1188
2:24:13 --> 2:24:19
So when we give all power in the medical field to Tony Fauci and people like that,

1189
2:24:20 --> 2:24:29
well, you're going to get a corrupted medical product. So until we restore principles of

1190
2:24:29 --> 2:24:37
autonomy to medicine, to transparency, to accountability, this is what we're going to

1191
2:24:37 --> 2:24:44
get as a corrupt medical system. So that's my diagnosis. Yeah, I understand. Yeah. So just one

1192
2:24:44 --> 2:24:49
more thing which may be useful for your cases. I don't know whether you're aware of this, but in my

1193
2:24:49 --> 2:24:56
view, there was no possibility of informed consent from merely the fact that no doctor in the world

1194
2:24:56 --> 2:25:04
knew what was in the shots and still don't know actually as far as I can see. And the reasons for

1195
2:25:04 --> 2:25:10
that are complex. But the point about that is that the Nuremberg Code and seven doctors were

1196
2:25:10 --> 2:25:20
hanged on the 2nd of June 1948 in Germany for human medical experimentation. And the Nuremberg Code

1197
2:25:20 --> 2:25:32
includes in it the requirement for informed consent and amongst 10 points. And the doctors I've

1198
2:25:32 --> 2:25:36
talked to haven't even read the Nuremberg Code. They barely know what it is. They don't know about

1199
2:25:36 --> 2:25:42
the Nuremberg, the doctor's trial in Nuremberg. So there was a special trial for the doctors.

1200
2:25:43 --> 2:25:49
They have no idea about this. So and it seems to me that doctors shouldn't be doctors if they don't

1201
2:25:49 --> 2:25:53
know what informed consent is and they don't know about the Nuremberg trials and the doctor's trial

1202
2:25:53 --> 2:26:01
in particular. We were taught about it when I was at medical school and I knew about medical

1203
2:26:01 --> 2:26:10
ethics, but then I learned that the whole of my year don't share my views. So what were they doing

1204
2:26:10 --> 2:26:17
in our medical ethics lectures? I remembered what was said, so why don't they? And I know that because

1205
2:26:18 --> 2:26:25
there's a round robin every Christmas and so I've disturbed the peace in this round robin

1206
2:26:25 --> 2:26:31
every Christmas since 2020 and challenged them all. So I ended up saying last year,

1207
2:26:31 --> 2:26:37
what's wrong with you all? You sat in the same lectures as I, but none of you want to engage with

1208
2:26:37 --> 2:26:43
me even privately. These are friends of mine from when I was at medical school. They're ashamed.

1209
2:26:44 --> 2:26:50
They're broken because they haven't done the right thing. They know it. They're terrified of me.

1210
2:26:50 --> 2:26:56
It took me a long time to realize they were terrified of me, are terrified of me. Shame on

1211
2:26:56 --> 2:27:02
them. I just don't know how these people can be happy when they know that they did the wrong thing

1212
2:27:03 --> 2:27:10
as doctors. I really don't. And they talk about their grandchildren and traveling around the world

1213
2:27:10 --> 2:27:18
on cruises. And I just think, wow, you must be really stupid to be happy when you've done the

1214
2:27:18 --> 2:27:25
wrong thing. Thank you so much, Richard. Thanks. Thanks, Stephen. Hang on. Richard, Alex got a hand

1215
2:27:25 --> 2:27:31
up just quickly before we finish. Yeah, I just want to say that Stephen obviously is bringing up

1216
2:27:32 --> 2:27:37
very deep and good points. And what I've said since we got locked down is we were requiring

1217
2:27:37 --> 2:27:42
doctors to prioritize public health over the patient in front of them. And that's a fundamental

1218
2:27:42 --> 2:27:47
conflict of interest because a doctor's duty is to the individual sitting in front of them. That's

1219
2:27:47 --> 2:27:53
what the Hippocratic oath is. Correct. Yeah. And to force them to prioritize public health over

1220
2:27:53 --> 2:27:58
their own patient's health is cruel and it's criminal. And I couldn't agree more. Absolutely.

1221
2:27:58 --> 2:28:06
Thank you so much. It was a tyranny. It was intended to be a tyranny and it was a tyranny.

1222
2:28:06 --> 2:28:12
Psychologically tortured huge numbers of people around the world, including in the United Kingdom

1223
2:28:12 --> 2:28:18
and Australia and United States. It's just so sad what has happened, I think. All right, let's go.

1224
2:28:18 --> 2:28:23
Thank you, Richard. Great to have you. Thank you, Alex. Thank you, Shasta. Thank you, Ron,

1225
2:28:24 --> 2:28:28
roles that you have played in all of this. Thanks, Stephen. Tom Rodman's got the video

1226
2:28:28 --> 2:28:34
telegram meeting. The link is in there if you have the time. And thank you for the contributions to

1227
2:28:34 --> 2:28:39
the chat. Thank you for the insights and we'll be with you again on Sunday. Richard, keep up the

1228
2:28:39 --> 2:28:47
good work. Fight the fight. And Julie and Albert are there for you. Thank you, Richard, for being

1229
2:28:47 --> 2:28:53
so conscientious in telling us about what you know. Thank you. It's a pleasure. Thanks, everybody.

1230
2:28:55 --> 2:28:57
Bye. Bye, John. Thank you so much.