Yes, Richard is doing great work and what an interesting journey Richard to get a medical
degree then a law degree.
I got my law degree in 1973.
I didn't bother getting my medical degree.
I got a bachelor of practical health, no other than public health.
Anyway, let's get this show on the road.
Stephen will be with us in a moment.
We'll do the intros and welcome everybody to Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International
and today's discussion.
This group was founded by Dr. Stephen Frost over three years ago with the desire to pursue
truth, ethics, justice, freedom and health.
Stephen has stood up against government and power over the years and has been a whistleblower
and activist.
His medical specialty is radiology.
We remember Ryan Ofulmik at this time.
So whilst Jerry lost his license, Ryan Ofulmik has lost his liberty since October last year
in a corrupted German legal system and an illegal collusion and conspiracy between the
Mexican government and the German government to kidnap Ryan and to take him to Germany
and still have him incarcerated for a show trial.
We need everyone to shine a light on the Ryan Ofulmik case.
I'm Charles Coviss, the moderator of this group.
I'm Australasia's passion provocateur and I urge all of you to remain passionate about
our fight for freedom.
I practiced law for 20 years before changing career 31 years ago and over the last 14 years
I've helped parents and lawyers to strategize remedies for vaccine damage and damage from
bad medical advice.
I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company.
Industrial hemp is going to be one of the saviours of humanity in this attack on us.
We comprise lots of professions here and we're from all around the world.
Many of us thought that vaccines were okay.
Now many of us proudly say yes, we are passionate anti-vaxxers and I urge all of you to check
out the recent article by Stanley Plotkin, the so-called godfather of vaccines, who has
acknowledged that no vaccines ever in history have been properly tested for safety or efficacy.
If this is your first time here, welcome and feel free to introduce yourself in the chat
and where you're from.
If you publish a newsletter or a podcast or you have a radio or TV show or you've written
a book, put the links into the chat so we can follow you, promote you and find you.
Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War III and that the medical science
battle is only one of 12 battle fronts.
The legal battle front is another of the 12 battle fronts.
There's no time to be tired.
I assess that we're four and a half years into a seven year war and now is the time
not to be tired.
Most of us understand the development of science and that the science is never settled.
One of the great quotes is that if you can question it, it's science.
If you can't question it, it's propaganda.
Some of us believe that viruses exist.
Some of us believe that viruses are a hoax and some of us sit on the fence.
Others consider that having a debate about that issue is a distraction while the attacks
on humanity continue.
This meeting runs for two and a half hours after which for those with the time, Tom Rodman
runs a video telegram meeting.
Tom puts the links into the chat if you're able to join.
We will listen to our guest presenters today, Dr. Richard Fox, for as long as Richard wishes
to speak and then we have Q&A.
Stephen Frost, by long established tradition, asks the first questions for 15 minutes.
This is a free speech environment.
Free speech is crucially important in our fight to preserve our human freedoms.
In Australia right now where I live, where it's 5am in the morning, the Australian government
has introduced misinformation and disinformation legislation that is designed to shut down
free speech.
That's the classic communist playbook.
Every one of us must resist these attempts to suppress what you want to say on the grounds
that might be misinformation or disinformation.
If you're offended by anything, be offended.
We're lovingly not interested.
We reject the offence industry that requires nobody to say anything that may offend another.
And we similarly reject the triggering industry.
Don't you dare say anything that may trigger somebody.
We call BS on that.
We come with an attitude and perspective of love, not fear.
Fear is the opposite of love.
Fear squashes you and enslaves you.
Love on the other hand expands you, liberates you.
These twice weekly meetings are not just talkfests.
An extraordinary range of actions and initiatives have been generated from linkages made by
attendees in these meetings.
One of those is that Dr Jerry Waters has supported financially Albert Benavides, the VS aware
guy whose work in research was enabled by Jerry, which wouldn't have happened if Albert
hadn't met Jerry on these calls.
If you have a solution or a product or links or resources that will help people put the
details into the chat, the meeting is recorded and is uploaded on the Rumble channel.
Another matter on which the light has been shined in these meetings is the work of Hans
Benjamin Braun and proving that the Nord Stream pipeline destructions were caused, were actually
done by the American government and the mainstream media siders on those Nord Stream pipeline
is also telling.
Charles, he also proved that it was a thermonuclear explosion, which is very important, of course.
Yes, thank you.
Thank you.
And now we've got Keir Starmer wanting to urge British troops to be on the ground in the Ukraine,
firing rockets into Russia.
What a great idea.
The meeting is recorded, is uploaded on the Rumble channel.
All the previous meetings can be found there.
Now welcome to our guest presenter, Richard Fox.
We thank you, Richard, for giving us your time, wisdom and insights and a formal introduction
of Richard and his amazing background is going to be given to us by Alex Mayer, chairman
of the Free Now Foundation.
We also thank Shasta Erickson for helping or ensuring Richard to be here.
Thank you, Shasta and Alex.
Over to you.
Well, thank you so much, Charles, for that great introduction.
And it's my honor today to introduce Dr. Fox.
Dr. Fox is a board member on my charity, which is called Free Now Foundation.
We're one of the leading medical freedom law nonprofits in California.
So let me jump in.
This, I have to give props to Ron Owens for writing this incredible bio on Dr. Fox.
And I had the pleasure of reading it.
So here we go.
California attorney and pediatrician, Dr. Richard Fox, has filed a 154-page lawsuit
against the state of California.
The federal Centers for Disease Control and two California school districts late last month.
Named as defendants in the complaint are a long list of officials.
We have the state public health officer, California Department of Public Health Director,
Dr. Tomas Aragon, California Department of Education, state superintendent of public
instruction, Tony Thurmond, medical board of California executive director,
Rahi Varghese, and I apologize for any pronunciation problems there,
California attorney general, Rob Bonta, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
director, Mandy Glowup Cohen, Brentwood Union School District Superintendent, Dana Eaton,
and Gilroy Unified School District Superintendent, Alicia Munshi.
So there are a lot of defendants in this case all the way from California to the CDC.
Dr. Fox is representing Free Now Foundation, one of the leading medical freedom law
nonprofits in California, and Brave and Free Santa Cruz, a freedom advocacy group.
Six unnamed minor plaintiffs and their parents plus Dr. Douglas Halstead, a Monterey pediatrician.
In the complaint, which he's going to talk about today, Dr. Fox asserts that the state's
school immunization requirements are unconstitutional under the first and 14th
amendments and asks defendants to prove all 10 of the vaccines on the required schedule
to attend school actually stop transmission. The complaint also asserts that special education
students, otherwise known as individualized education plans or IEP students, are legally
exempt from those requirements. Furthermore, the complaint asserts that Dr. Halstead had his
medical license revoked for giving informed consent around vaccination. Dr. Halstead's
First Amendment rights were infringed upon and according to the complaint, his medical license
should therefore be reinstated. Paragraph 315 of the complaint is the cornerstone of the complaint.
That graph reads, under our Declaration of Independence, our government derives its just
powers from the consent of the governed. This only works when that consent is informed consent,
both as to public affairs as well as personal affairs such as medical care. Denial of informed
consent for medical care is an infringement of both our First Amendment right to speak
and hear freely and our 14th Amendment right to give or withhold consent for medical treatment.
The 154-page complaint was filed on August 26 with the U.S. District Court, Eastern District
of California. Dr. Fox was conferred a Juris Doctor degree from Santa Clara University Law School
in Santa Clara in 2009. He's been a member of the California State Bar since 2012. Dr. Fox earned
a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from Michigan State University in East Lansing in 1968.
He was conferred a Doctor of Medicine from the University of Minnesota Medical School in
Minneapolis in 1975. He completed his post-doc training residency at the University of Minnesota
Hospitals in 1978. Possessing more than 30 years of medical teaching experience, Dr. Fox served as
an instructor and assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado in Denver for two
years. He was also appointed assistant professor at Harvard Medical School's Department of Pediatrics.
Furthermore, he taught at Denver's National Jewish Hospital, Boston's Children's Hospital,
San Jose's Good Sam Hospital, and Los Gatos' Community Hospital during his medical practicing
and teaching career. In addition to his more than three decades of teaching, Dr. Fox published 24
medical research papers and peer-reviewed journals. He has also authored numerous medical abstracts
and presentations. Dr. Fox has belonged to several medical organizations. He's received numerous
awards and honors for about four decades, and Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International is
absolutely fortunate to hear from such an esteemed attorney and physician about this
complaint against the state of California, a federal agency, and the two school districts.
It's an honor for me to get to introduce Dr. Fox, an honor for me to get to have him on my
board at Free Now Foundation. We welcome you, Dr. Fox. I'll turn it over to you right now.
Thank you very much, Alex. Thank you very much, Stephen and Charles. It's a pleasure and an honor
to be with you today. I very much agree with the statement that were it not for COVID,
we probably wouldn't be in this exact spot, although it's frightening to think that it
may have happened anyway. But COVID opened the eyes of many of us to the undercurrents of
of corruption and self-interest that we've probably had in medicine for a long time,
but just didn't realize it. I think for many of us, the first clues came very early on
when we were told that if you think you might have COVID, don't seek treatment,
just go hide in a closet somewhere. We've never done that in medicine before.
It was always the case that you are supposed to get treatment as early as possible,
not as late as possible. So there was something about COVID that didn't seem right from the very
beginning. And it's only, as you know, gotten a lot worse ever since. Early on, President Trump was
encouraging people to take hydroxychloroquine for their COVID, but he got squashed on that by Dr.
Fauci and, as many of you know, the fraudulent Lancet paper. But there were some of us who
thought there was merit to early treatment anyway. And in California here, the pioneers were George
Fareed and Brian Tyson down in the Imperial Valley. I went down there to learn from them how they
treated COVID. They treated upwards of, I don't know, 15 or 20,000 COVID patients. I treated
about 600 COVID patients here in Silicon Valley. I would appear in front of various public groups
and give my little talk. And then I had a website where people could go and sign up for early
treatment, get the forbidden drugs, that is the drugs that Dr. Fauci forbade, like hydroxychloroquine
and ivermectin. Of my more than 600 patients, the oldest was 98 years old, several others in their 90s,
a number in their 80s. None of my COVID patients ever died, which was not a tribute to me. It was
a tribute to the work that Dr. Fareed, Tyson, Dr. Corey, Dr. McCullough, all of those brave people
who pioneered the actual proper treatment of COVID. As the COVID problem wound down,
of course, we also, Alex and I appeared jointly several times during the 2022 California election
campaign to talk about the harms of the COVID vaccines. I ran for U.S. Congress that year
just so I could get a ballot statement that was published and sent to all the voters
in the Silicon Valley congressional district talking about the harms of the vaccines.
As you know, you couldn't get that kind of thing published anywhere in the mainstream media,
but under California law, if I made it a ballot statement and paid my fees for that,
they had to send it to all the voters. So for many people in the Silicon Valley, that's the first
that they ever knew that there were actually harms to those vaccines. And as I said, Alex and I went
around and gave that talk all over the valley in that time. And of course, subsequent experience
has only confirmed that the COVID vaccines have done far more harm than good. And in fact,
it's not at all clear that they've ever done any good. I have a, one of my patients was telling me
recently based on their personal experience, they had some connections with the Stanford
Children's Hospital here in Palo Alto, that they've had a rash of myocarditis in young men
like they've never seen before. They've never seen anything like the myocarditis
that they've had since the COVID shots came out. So that really made us question the scientific
integrity of the CDC. And as a pediatrician, I then started to wonder about the vaccines that
we've always recommended for children. If the COVID vaccine could be so badly
offered to the public, what about the children's vaccines? And fortunately, we had the work of
Robert Kennedy and especially Brian Hooker, he is the chief scientific officer,
a number of others who have worked on that. And the evidence was pretty clear that they had a lot
of studies to show the harms of the childhood vaccines. The thing that was also striking about
it was that the CDC did not have any studies to rebut those studies. You would think if the CDC
were being scientifically honest about all this, they would have done their own studies first.
But then if there were other people who did studies, they certainly would have gone and done
themselves and done so in a very open, transparent way so that everybody could be confident of their
results. But they not only haven't done them in an open, transparent way, they haven't done them at
all. The CDC has never done any placebo controlled trials of any of these vaccines.
So that's a big tip off. As an attorney, you're always looking for incongruous behavior,
incongruous statements. They often tell you a great deal. And for the CDC to not do any of these
studies was a big tip off. It just did not comport with a scientifically valid and transparent
enterprise. But then as we went back and looked at this, this isn't something that was recently
discovered. It turned out that people have been onto this CDC vaccine problem since the 1980s.
And there were a lot of vaccine injured children that far back. And they made such a fuss about it
in the Congress that the Congress actually, the US Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act, which was promoted heavily by the vaccine industry because they didn't want to be
sued for all the harm they were causing. So that vaccine injury act provided the vaccine
manufacturers legal immunity. They didn't have to pay damages to the children that were hurt.
But in the process, as a legal matter, the federal government was thereby admitting
that vaccines cause injury. And in fact, they set up an injury fund so that the children who were
harmed by the vaccines could be compensated out of that fund. And it's paid out many thousands of
claims and millions of dollars in damages. So this causes a big problem when you go to the CDC's
website and they say vaccines are safe and effective and unqualified safe. Well, if so,
why do we need a Childhood Vaccine Injury Act that pays out millions of dollars in damages?
So the CDC is being transparently dishonest in making that statement.
One of the other things that came out of the Vaccine Injury Act was a requirement that there
be ongoing studies of vaccine safety. And so the Congress directed the CDC to utilize the Institute
of Medicine, which is one of the three branches of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences,
and to do those vaccine safety reviews. They did one comprehensive review in 1994 and the second
one in 2012. The 2012 study looked at all of the CDC approved vaccines and all of the potential
adverse effects, which amounted to about 180 or 185 different
potential adverse effects of about 10 different vaccines.
The conclusion that they came to was that in almost all cases there was not enough evidence,
scientific evidence to show that the vaccines were safe. They found that it appeared that the
measles vaccine they thought did not cause autism. There were three or four others that they concluded
did not cause adverse effects. There were several where they found that there were definite adverse
effects, but in about 90% of the adverse effects they looked at, they said the data was inadequate
to say one way or the other whether they're safe or not safe. So that was in 2012. It's now 12 years
later. The Institute of Medicine has never done a follow-up to that study. I assume that's because
the CDC never wanted them to do any more studies of that, probably because they would have had to
come to the same conclusion that the data is still inadequate. So 12 years ago the agency mandated by
Congress to review vaccine safety said that there was not enough evidence to show that they were
safe and yet neither the CDC, the FDA, nor anybody else has wanted to do those studies. So again,
as an attorney, I look at that and say, well, I think there's probably a good reason why they
don't want to look at that. It's sort of like the killer doesn't want you to look in the closet and
find the murder weapon. So having done all that research, it then seemed to me that the next step
that we had to consider was some kind of litigation. We've had a lot of groups doing a lot of great work
in the public education sphere. Certainly Robert Kennedy's group, Children's Health Defense, has
been tireless in their efforts to get the word out. Alex's group, Finau Foundation, the same.
Steve Kirsch has done great work getting out all of the good information both on COVID and then
subsequently on the childhood vaccines. But the CDC, particularly under this Biden administration, has
quite diligently ignored all of that, all the public outcry.
The Congress, the US Congress hasn't really paid much attention to it. Granted, they've got a lot
of other serious problems to deal with. But this is a very serious problem and they should have been
looking at it. But one of the ways that we in the law, one of the tools that we have is filing lawsuits
that can bring the judicial process to bear on these kinds of issues. It can give us tools to
fair out information that people don't want to disclose. And then we can put it in front of a
decision maker that actually has power to do something about the problem. And so that is one
of the great tools of litigation. So I worked on this for about six months or so. One of the
conclusions I came to early on, I looked at some of the previous lawsuits that had been
brought in this area and they've been brought by very able attorneys. The interesting thing is the
courts look at those lawsuits, you know, challenging vaccine mandates and so forth.
And the judges are very, very reluctant to get involved in those cases. We certainly saw that
with COVID. It took the U.S. Supreme Court quite a long time to get around to addressing
COVID even early on. Just the restrictions on people going to church took almost a year
for the Supreme Court to decide that that was not allowed. And then as far as all these vaccine
mandates that were imposed on people in the workplace, students, pilots, armed forces,
again, the courts were very reluctant to look at those. And when you look at this, this goes back
about 100 years. The first vaccine case was in 1905, the Jacobson v. Massachusetts case.
In that case, there was an epidemic of, or an outbreak at least of smallpox in the city of
Cambridge, Massachusetts. They passed a town ordinance that all the adults in Cambridge had
to get vaccinated against smallpox or pay a $5 fine. Mr. Jacobson objected to it because he thought
it would be harmful to his health. He also objected to it because he didn't think the
government had the power to mandate that people had to get vaccinated. So as you can see, the
controversy has been with us since 1905. That case ultimately went to the U.S. Supreme Court,
which decided that it was okay for Massachusetts and particularly the city of Cambridge
to mandate vaccination. And Jacobson makes very interesting reading because when you boil it down
what the Supreme Court said, and this is in 1905, I mean, medicine was in a very early
stage at that time. It was pre-Flexner. Most medical education was actually
just done by practicing doctors, training associates. We didn't have much of the way
of even medical schools back then. So in that sort of pre-scientific era, the Supreme Court
looked around and just said, well, everybody knows that vaccine, that smallpox vaccine works.
In other words, they said it's a matter of common knowledge. And the court said we can
take cognizance of common knowledge. And so we're going to use common knowledge to say that it's
okay to mandate vaccines. Not that much has changed in all these years. We had a case in the
California Court of Appeal a few years back, the Love case. And there were a lot of good legal
arguments that were deployed in that case. But when it came right down to it, it was a
the court said, everybody knows that vaccines are one of the great advances in medical science of
the 20th century. And we're not going to get in the way of that. That's what it boiled down to.
So my conclusion was that you can make a lot of legal arguments about the First Amendment,
the 14th Amendment, and they're very valid arguments. But the judges, the courts,
are very reluctant to rule against vaccines when it is the common knowledge that they're a miraculous
development by medical science. In other words, you would have to convince the court that there
is some good reason to doubt that vaccines are really the universal miracle that they're
touted to be by the CDC. In other words, a successful lawsuit would not only have to attack
the legal underpinnings of vaccines, but also the medical and scientific underpinnings.
In fact, I came to the conclusion that no judge probably wants to put out a decision
throwing out vaccine mandates, and then six months later, pick up the paper and read that
there's now an outbreak of measles. And it's all due to the judge so-and-so ruling against
the measles vaccine. So we had to have a lawsuit that included both the legal arguments and the
medical arguments. So that's what we did with this. That's why the lawsuit is several times
the length of an ordinary lawsuit. We talked a lot about the studies that Brian Hooker reviewed in
his great book that he wrote with Robert Kennedy called Vax Unvax. In fact, we plagiarized
shamelessly from his book. We just photoshopped the graphs from his book into our lawsuit.
We did that with some of the work of Suzanne Humphries, some of Neil Miller's work, and
all these things that showed that vaccines were not all that they were cracked up to be.
And as I said, after going through all that, then we pointed out that these studies have been out
all these years, and the study that we did was a study that was published in the New York Times,
been out all these years, and the CDC has done nothing to rebut them to do their own studies.
That's very, very telling. So let's turn to a moment to the legal issues and structure of all
this. Well, let me give credit also to Dr. Mawson, who in 2017 published a great study.
He was able to do finding enough cases of unvaccinated children to be able to compare them
with those who were vaccinated, and again showing that the unvaccinated children were actually much
healthier, that the vaccinated children have much higher incidences of learning disability,
asthma, eczema, and particularly in African American children, the findings were even more
striking. So on the legal part of this, this is actually sort of what I would call a vaccine
injury lawsuit, but it has sort of three separate suits within it. The first is a challenge to the
constitutionality of California's vaccine mandate. Well, what is that mandate?
California has about the most stringent school vaccine requirements of any jurisdiction.
In order to go to not only public school, but private school, even preschool, even daycare,
the child has to comply with the CDC's vaccine schedule, except they have not yet adopted the
COVID vaccine in California's mandate. So right now that amounts to, I don't know, something like
60, 70, 75 different shots altogether in that CDC schedule. Any child who doesn't have all those can't
go to any of those schools or preschools. It used to be, excuse me, the case that California allowed
a religious exemption and a personal belief exemption, but those were eliminated in 2015,
supposedly because there were too many exemptions being given out, and the measles vaccine coverage
rate dropped into the low 90s, and at that level, wild type measles will start to circulate.
And in fact, there was an outbreak of measles at Disneyland in late 2014 and early 2015,
and that became the justification for this stringent tightening of the requirements in California.
They eliminated the personal belief exemption, the religious exemption.
The only medical exemption that is allowed now would be in the case of a child who had an actual
anaphylactic reaction to a vaccine, which would have to occur within the first 15 minutes after
administration of the vaccine. And even in that case, the child is only exempted from that vaccine,
but not any of the others. So it's about as tight as tight can be.
In my pediatric practice these days, parents come to me quite regularly to see if they can get an
exemption from California's vaccine mandate. And I have to tell them that legally, there's nothing
much I can do for them because the doctors who write those exemptions get their licenses revoked.
And we'll talk more about that in just a little bit. So parents have become quite desperate,
some quite innovative. A major alternative they have is not to send their children to
school at all. They have to do what we call home school. I have a friend whose child I think is now
in her sophomore year in high school. And I think she's been home schooled the whole time
on this account. I think children can learn probably every bit as much homeschooling these
days as they can in California public schools, but they certainly missed out on all the
social contacts and extracurricular activities. Some parents actually leave California and
simply relocate to other states that don't have such tight requirements.
I had one father call me recently. He was very, very adamant that he had to find a way to get his
daughter out of this. And in sort of so many words, he pretty much offered me any amount of
money I had in mind to do what we call a sham shot, which is you stick a needle in the arm,
but there's nothing there. And then you sign off on the vaccine card. So you can see people are
desperate. Needless to say, I did not take him up on his offer. And I'm sufficiently paranoid about
California now that it was not beyond the realm of possibility that he was an agent of some kind.
Anyway, so the first lawsuit is to say that these mandates are unconstitutional. First of all,
under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was passed after the Civil
War, it's often called the Equal Protection Amendment. But it states that no one is to be
deprived of their rights of due process, their rights without due process of law.
The 14th Amendment has been held by the Supreme Court to have a component of the due process
rights that are what we call the substantial due process rights. There are certain rights that are
procedural rights, the right to trial by jury and no taking of your property without due process,
things like that that are explicit procedural protections. But there are what we call substantial
due process rights. And those are rights that are so fundamental that they didn't even bother to
write them in the Constitution because everybody understood that you have such a right.
So for instance, you would have a due process right to earn a living. Now, it doesn't say that
in the Constitution, but at the time that the Constitution was adopted, it was understood that
people had a right to work for pay. So we didn't need to put that in the Constitution because
everybody understood that. Similarly, everybody had a right to get married. Everybody had a right
to have children. So these are examples of the rights that arise under the substantial due process
clause. One of those rights is to be free from battery. That is somebody can't walk up to you
and punch you in the face. One of the subdivisions of battery, it turns out, is someone imposing
medical treatment on you that you didn't consent to. So you can't have your appendix taken out
without your consent because that would be a battery. It's an unconsented touching.
The first U.S. Supreme Court case on that issue was in 1891. So it's been around a long time,
and in 1891, the Supreme Court recognized the right to be free from unwanted medical care,
an unwanted touching of your body for medical treatment. Somehow, the Jacobson Court seemed
to miss that right. But it's been upheld numerous times since then. The most recent U.S. Supreme Court
case on that was the Cruzon case, which involved a woman in a persistently vegetative state,
and the family wanted to discontinue her life support because their view was that she would
never have consented to this. And the U.S. Supreme Court validated that the patient herself had such
a right to refuse unwanted medical care. It also held that that right could be exercised on her
behalf by her family if she were unable to exercise it, although they could not do so unreasonably.
So this is a fundamental right that you have to refuse medical treatment. So
how do we square that with Jacobson? Well, it's never really been successfully squared,
and yet to this day, we see even the Love case as recently as 2015 cited Jacobson for the principle
that the state can mandate COVID shots, excuse me, can mandate vaccines. So recently in a 2020
U.S. Supreme Court case, Supreme Court Justice Garsich brought up Jacobson and questioned whether
Jacobson was still good law because it intruded on this fundamental right to refuse medical care.
What he pointed out was that when Jacobson was decided in 1905,
the standard of review that the court used was, was it reasonable or not? And Jacobson,
the court said it was reasonable. In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Skinner v. Williamson,
well, Skinner v. Oklahoma case that addressed, well, what if what we're talking about is a
constitutionally protected substantial due process right? Shouldn't we have something more demanding
than just that it's reasonable? And in that case, the court said yes. And when it's a fundamental
right, the legal test is not just that is it reasonable, but is it strictly necessary,
what they call strict scrutiny. The 1942 case actually involved medical treatment, so to speak.
Oklahoma at that time had a law that certain people, if they were convicted of three or more
felonies of a certain type, that they could be surgically sterilized. This was back during the
time of eugenics movement. The Skinner appealed that to the U.S. Supreme Court and the court held
that where it involved a medical procedure that was serious, life altering and irreversible,
that the state had to prove that it was a lot more than reasonable, that it was strictly necessary.
And that Oklahoma couldn't prove that. So ever since 1942, these fundamental right cases now have
to pass strict scrutiny. And what Justice Gorsuch pointed out in 2020 was that Jacobson has never
been decided on, never been reviewed, never been revisited under a strict scrutiny standard of
review, and that it was probably about time to do that. So what he's basically doing there,
I think, is inviting somebody to bring a federal suit to challenge vaccine mandates
to see whether Jacobson is still good law. He's the only voice on the Supreme Court that has spoken
out on that issue so far. And so it's not clear that there are five votes on the Supreme Court to
overrule Jacobson. But Jacobson is the major precedent that is always used to justify these
vaccine mandates. And so we've got to overcome Jacobson. So here we're arguing that Jacobson is
no longer good law since Skinner, that the right to decide whether you want to be vaccinated or not
is a fundamental right. And people need to be able to decide that for themselves and not have
that imposed upon them. The other fundamental right under the 14th Amendment is the other side
of this, which is the right of children to go to school. That was a fundamental right
that has been recognized repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. The principal cases are from, I
believe, 1922, the Meyer v. Nebraska case, and in 1925, Pierce v. Oregon. So it's now called the
Meyer-Pearse right. Meyer-Pearse right is the right of parents. It's a right of parents to
send their children to school. It's not a right to a free schooling. It doesn't create a property
right. But it just says if you can pay the tuition, you can send your child to whatever school you
want to send them to. So obviously, since California applies its vaccine mandate to private
schools as well as public schools, we argue in our suit that that mandate violates the Meyer-Pearse
right of parents to send their children to the school that they want to attend.
The Meyer-Pearse right is a right of the parents. We also argue here that the children themselves
have a right to be educated so that they can become proper productive citizens in society,
that that is also a fundamental right of the child to an education, or at least to not be prevented
from being educated. And that right also actually arises under the First Amendment, interestingly.
Everybody thinks of the First Amendment as a free speech right, but under the First Amendment,
you have also the right to listen, and you have the right to peacefully assemble so that you can
speak and listen. And the right of children to go to a school that is willing to take them in,
and have them as peacefully assembled to speak and learn and listen, that we argue is fundamental
under the First Amendment as well. So I think I'm going to stop here for just a minute, and
we can have some comment on this first part of the case, what I call the mandated vaccine case.
So Charles, go ahead.
Yes, Richard. So you said there were three elements, I think is the constitutional
aspects of this. So happy to do those. And then there were two other aspects of the litigation,
correct? Yes. They're not so much constitutional, but yes, two others.
Good. So we have got, are there any questions on constitutional matters? So Rose, let's go
through the questions. And then if they're going to be dealt with in subsequent elements, then we can
go back to those questions. Rose.
Hey, sir. Great work. You hit a great term. The, how did you call it? Strict scrutiny.
One of the arguments that I give is that you can't prove a negative. So put any child in front and
say, prove that they would have been exposed to it. Prove that they would have been exposed
and become sick. Prove that they would have been exposed and died. You cannot prove a negative.
So I wanted to throw that out if that's an element of strict scrutiny. And as a sidebar,
one of the things I've done is written a proper legal definition for informed consent,
because I know it was established in the 1974 National Research Act with the Belmont report,
that there is no proper comprehensive definition of informed consent. So I would love to send that
to you. And then this isn't constitutional, but it does fall under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act that's being violated. So those are my three points for you.
Okay. I just realized I forgot to bring a pen so that I could make some notes. Let me just reach
over here and grab a pen for a second. Sure. Charles knows I can talk for hours. So
she can. She can. There are many people on this call who can talk for hours, Rose, including me.
Just a second. I got the informed consent. What was the first one again?
Well, when you said strict scrutiny. Yes, thank you.
You know, I think that's a wonderful term because I always throw out to people,
you cannot prove a negative. So when they say that vaccines have, you know,
stopped transmission or saved millions of lives, you can't take one individual and prove,
oh, because they got the shot, they didn't get infected. They didn't get infected and got sick
or got infected and died. You can't prove a negative.
So on the strict scrutiny thing, that is, as you can see, a very important concept here because
it, first of all, I think it disposes of the Jacobson precedent. And once you dispose of that,
then you've got to have a new precedent. And they don't have any other Supreme Court precedent to
fall back upon once Jacobson is found to be not applicable. So I think the Supreme Court is going
to have to take some case along these lines at some point because I just Jacobson is no longer
viable. So they're going to have to have a case that they decide under strict scrutiny.
So the big problem that the vaccine people have is they have resolutely refused to do any placebo
controlled studies. So you're exactly right. They can't prove the negative because they refuse to
even study it. And so we're going to be arguing probably in the earlier part of the case
that the mandate has to be set aside until they do such placebo controlled studies because
they will not be able to pass strict scrutiny without placebo controlled studies.
Yep. Yep. So there's sort of two ways that you can show causation from a scientific
point of view. By the way, as you say, it's impossible to prove a negative. All you can
say is we just haven't found yet. But with placebo controlled studies, that's one way. And the other
way that you can look at this is proximity and time studies. That is, let's say the adverse effect
that you're looking at is childhood autism that occurs between the ages of one and three when
children are getting various vaccines. So if the onset of the autism is unrelated to the vaccine,
then if you plot the onset versus the time of the vaccination, it should be, there should be any
bump around the time after the vaccination. Those onsets should be randomly distributed over that
whole time period. But what we know is that autism, the regressive autism that we see in one to three
year olds in the majority of cases occurs within the first 24 to 48 hours after vaccination.
So that's pretty strong evidence of causation. So I don't think they'll be able to pass strict
scrutiny. On the informed consent, I'd be happy to see what you've written. In California, the
California Supreme Court has addressed that issue. In 1972, they decided the case of Cobb v. Grant.
And I find it to be a very useful approach. What they noted was that the degree of informed consent
depends a lot on what it is that you propose to do. If it's something very minimal, like we're
going to draw some blood for a lab test, the consent process for that is pretty simple.
If we're going to do a heart, lung, kidney, liver transplant, well, the consent process for that is
going to be very detailed. So what Cobb v. Grant determined or decided was that it's a reasonable
test. What would a reasonable person want to know about this particular procedure?
And that sounds very nebulous, but it is a practical thing to do because what they said was
that we're going to leave it up to the jury to decide what it would a reasonable person want to
know. Well, one of the biggest things that I see missing that I see being abused all the time is
the time period. They're not distinguishing between emergent, urgent, and something elective.
So what's going on now in hospitals is, oh, they're having them sign the informed consent,
the permission form as they're being wheeled into surgery. No, no, no, no, no, especially after
you've already given them a sedative. So that's part of what I've incorporated in and also too is
laying out that you have to go over risk reward with all alternatives.
Yeah, that's one of the biggest problems, of course, is that the person who's obtaining the
permission is typically the person who's proposing to do the procedure. So on the one hand, they've
already recommended that you get this, but then we're asking them to also talk about the downside
of it. And in the law, we would call that being in a conflicted position.
Oh, yeah, that's an excellent point.
I don't think you want to have the permission process being undertaken by a conflicted person.
We would never allow that in the law, and I don't know why we would in medicine.
I'm reminded about a home loan that I got a year or two ago, and they had a huge
consent form that we were supposed to read and sign. The interesting thing was that
you actually had to be, the informed consent process had to be under the supervision of a
neutral party that had no financial stake in it. So the informed consent form was a
different entity than the bank that was handling the loan. Well, I think that would be a good
model for medicine. That's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to incorporate that in my definition.
But yeah, I'll throw it up in the chat. We're going to keep moving, Rose. So the third one,
remind Richard of the third one, your third point. It's not constitutional, but it is federal law.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII. And a lot of people are using that.
That's what they're using against the illegal mandates. I'll throw it up in the chat.
Okay. And then the Belmont Act, as you mentioned. Yeah, the 1974 National Research Act, which is
forcing people into research because these things have not gone through clinical trials at all.
That I'm not familiar with, but go ahead. Oh, no, that's huge. Then you need to know about that.
Because Brian Ward is using that around the country in numerous, numerous cases.
So the Belmont report was written because of the Tuskegee scandal. And it's basically written that
you can't be forced into medical research. And a lot of these shots fall under medical research.
They have not gone through clinical trials. Rose, if you can put that link.
Yeah, they also violate the exemption because they're showing that they were supposed to be
exempt from liability, but they were supposed to be exempt from liability. And they're not.
They're not going to be able to get that exemption. They're not going to be able to get that
exempt from liability. But they were supposed to be submitting like yearly or bi-yearly safety
studies, which they have violated, I think, since that law has been passed.
And we've lost Richard, it looks like. Okay. I'll throw that stuff up in the chat.
That'd be great. That would be great. All right, Anders, wait till we get, there's Richard is back.
Yeah, sorry. Some reason I lost my internet connection, but go ahead.
Rose will put those links into the chat, Richard. They're very valuable. Note that
1974 legislation as well. So check that out that you can't force research onto people.
Okay. Yeah. Let me just comment quickly on that.
I've seen that the difficulty is that we have something similar in California,
but in many of these settings, the vaccines are being given not under a research protocol,
but just under the authority of the FDA. Yeah, but they haven't gone through research,
ergo, they haven't gone through clinical trials. Yeah, but once the FDA approves them,
that's kind of irrelevant. They don't have to go through clinical trials at that point.
That's the problem. Yeah. Okay. Worthy of contemplation. Thank you,
Rose. Great points. Anders is next. FDA is completely corrupted, but that's another side.
And Jacobson, Richard, I studied that half a year ago or so, and I went really into the rabbit hole.
And what most people don't realize is that, okay, it is smallpox. It is the
eastern part of USA. Some states, they were pushing this legislation for mandatory vaccination.
The story is that this vaccination, if you go into the detail of it, it was by introducing
I would say cow blood or cow material into humans. The claim was it was a cowpox
kind of vaccine, which would be causing that the smallpox of another type of disease would go away.
And this is all BS, basically. But, okay. This is history. I have made 125 years of research
into all of this. I would love to share all of it with every one of you. It's free available.
I can share it to your emails. What I will say is that the US Constitution does not cover health.
And that is why Roe Way was thrown out. That's another side issue. What I will say is that
you've done a great work, Richard. I really hear what you've done. I'm listening to you.
You may not know about the great work of Martin Paul. He has connected,
he was in the camp of I would say vaccines. No, EMF. Meaning 3G, 4G, 5G. And he was seeing,
he has this theory of calcium channel, which will cause, let's say COVID, because of the,
say the pollution or radiation, radiation disease from radiation.
Radiation. Okay. But he has very recently, as early as April this year, connected
all of this historical research, 12 years. You said 2012. Something similar. He came out about
2012 with his calcium channel, which were destroyed by the 3G, 4G, 5G later.
And then he find that this is only half the truth. You have good, one eye, Richard,
really one good eye. The second good eye is to see what Martin Paul has seen, which is the connection
to that these, yeah, two points of attack of the human biology is the combination of
these vaccines in a way, and the radiation. Because the vaccines includes, let's say,
nanometals, aluminium, iron, many, many more. And these are going into your body. They're going
into your brain, into your nervous system. And these are causing these autism, ME diseases.
Almost all of these new diseases are correlated double. If you go to Olle Johansson, 19,
let's say, 64 study of the introduction of the TV, of the microwave, it was studied from 64 to
2000, 1234. You find that he only see half. He see the EMF connection. He didn't see that at the
same time, the virus was, let's say, the idea of the virus, the vaccination, the harm from all these
interventions through the blood, through the body caused the double story. So I'm just challenging
you, please look at Martin Paul. He has the double knowledge connecting both what you talk about
and let's say, vaccination and EMF, combined both. And the combined both is probably much worse and
a single part of it. All right, I would say-
And to stop there, because it's very long, but Richard, it's an important point, because Mark
Steele comes on here and says that the 5G towers are weapons, are attack weapons. So that is an
interesting legal point because we're entitled to self-defense because we're talking, what was the
term you use in the States? You are entitled not to be assaulted. What's the term you use in the
States? Due process, that's right. You're entitled to self-defense. That's right, but you're entitled
to self-defense, correct, in the US? And so if the electromagnetic radiation issued by these 5G
towers is harming us, which the evidence, Anders' evidence is clear, then suddenly you've got another
angle of attack against the system. We'll stop it there, Anders, but I think it's a relevant point
and we can get your information to Richard and to Alex Meyer with the Free Now Foundation. I think
you guys have been talking anyway, Anders. Thank you, Anders. We're going to keep moving. Good job.
I think this attack, these weapons that can cause harm, we're entitled to self-defense
against them. And the definition of these jabs, of course, is bioweapons. So there's another element
that perhaps gives certain legal rights against being jabbed with these bioweapons. All right,
thank you, Anders. Julie, Julie's doing some great work in California. Yeah, it's really a pleasure to
be on and to meet you, Mr. Fox. I'm up here in Butte County in Chico and spent 24-7 fighting against
primarily first the COVID vaccine. I was a healthcare worker injured by two shots,
worked for public health and saw a lot of what happened and went wrong on the inside,
and then got fired for not taking the booster. And my mom died of four shots and she's from
Santa Clara County. So I want to go after Sarah Cody. I want to go after everybody here in Butte
County. And I've got Butte County dead to write. So I sent Alex a text and I'm meeting Ron Owens,
actually tomorrow night in Chico because we're screening Bax 3. So I'll cover everything we've
got going for our criminal complaint we filed, the FOIA request. Javier Becerra came here in
March of 22 and he paid Butte County $225,000 to go hunt down kids, 5-17 year olds, and they rolled
out little vaccine clinics through the Butte County Office of Education. So we've got all those
materials. But here's my question. So first off, the VAERS report. So Albert and I partner a lot
on these VAERS reports. And I produce these numbers every day for Dr. Thorpe or whoever needs
them. And in fact, I sent Alexis Lorenz, that poor young girl in Southern California, the VAERS
reports for those three vaccines. So if you need any of that information by time zone, by, you know,
as much as we can bear down on these VAERS reports, Albert and I can partner on that.
But here's my question. So state of California, I've heard we have the only state with the Nuremberg
code language built into our health and safety code. I don't know if that's part of our state
constitution or if that's just in our health and safety code. So is that something you're factoring
in? And again, as a mom, as a grandmother, who is absolutely, I live with the fact that I shot my
daughter with an HPV vaccine in eighth grade, that to this day, she's 29 and struggling to have kids,
is my greatest regret. And she went to a private school. And I let them talk me into that damn HPV
vaccine. So I greatly commend you and appreciate you from going after this criminal cabal,
especially here in California. But yeah, can you talk to the Nuremberg code in California?
So I'm not sure exactly if you could give me a code section site. I'll be happy to look it up.
But the one I'm familiar with has to do with the rights of research subjects. And there is a health
and safety code issue on the rights of medical research subjects. As I say, I don't think that
hits the nail on the head, shall we say, because they'll just scoot out from under that and say,
well, this isn't medical research. This is just medical practice. But I find the grant
decision to be a much better hammer to use to hit that nail, because it is the law and it applies
to everybody. What is informed consent? And one of the things I really like about it is it
leaves it explicitly leaves it for the jury to decide. The significance of that, from a legal
point of view is this, that let's say we wanted to sue some hospital or medical organization,
because we say that they were doing all these shots and they weren't getting informed consent
for them. So when you're a lawyer defending that kind of case, the first thing you're looking for
is some kind of legal immunity. So for instance, the COVID shots that have been that were utilized
so widely, as you may know, there were two versions of the COVID vaccine. There was the
FDA authorized vaccine and the FDA approved vaccine. And most people got the FDA authorized
vaccine. And the reason for that was that the Pfizer and Moderna didn't allow anything else
to be used in the United States because it was authorized under the PREP Act. And under the PREP
Act, that gave blanket immunity to all the not only drug manufacturers, but also the people who
gave the shots. So if you're defending a case, you're always looking for some kind of legal
immunity that will get the case dismissed right off the bat. But with the other vaccines,
the DTAP, the MMR, those that are FDA approved, the PREP Act immunity, I don't believe,
applies to those. And so therefore you can't get that case dismissed. And ultimately it ends up
going to the jury. So then the jury has to decide, well, do I think the consent process here was
reasonable? And in a lot of cases, if you've got a really bad injury, a child who died or was badly
harmed by it, a lot of those jurors are going to look at the consent forms that the CDC puts out
and say, well, there's no informed consent here. So it takes the decision away from the judge and
the law and gives it to the jury. And I think you could have a much easier time proving a lack of
informed consent to a jury. So that's why I like Cobb v. Grant, as opposed to any kind of statutory
thing that might be based on the Nuremberg Code or something like that, because it's a lot easier
to convince a judge to dismiss the case. And then you don't ever get to the jury. So that's why I
like Cobb v. Grant. That's really helpful. And really quick, Charles, to your point about the 5G.
So here in Chico, probably all of California, during 2020, they rolled out all of this 5G
and surrounded the schools, gave every kid a notebook, a wireless notebook. So we're having
all sorts of seizures and all sorts of problems near all these schools because they've surrounded
them now with more and heavy duty wireless for all their wireless applications. So I think, Charles,
you make a good point to really look into that. What did Gilroy do? What did those unified school
districts that are in your lawsuit do with all these wireless products that just add to the
problem? So thank you so much. I'm looking forward to the rest of your call.
By the way, could I ask a favor of you? Can you tell me how to get a hold of Albert?
Oh, yeah, he's actually on here, but I'm sure he will keep him. He'll put his phone number in the
chat. Albert's on the call. There he is. Albert, say hello.
Hi, Dr. Fox. It's me, Albert, the VAERS guy.
Yes, I think we may have met briefly at the MIMNO Forum one time.
Yeah, we've met. I've shook your hand before.
Thank you. See, I want to try to get some data from the California Department of Health,
and if I get it, I need somebody to do the statistics on it.
I'd love to help. You know, since I'm here, I just put with Ernesto Ramirez, we got an amicus brief,
Supreme Court amicus brief filed in there, and it's going to be the same people who are putting
together John Baudwin's amicus brief coming out soon. But basically, my part in there is that I've
been trying to expose the fraud that's being perpetrated on the VAERS system. The VAERS system
should be a great system. It's just that the people entrusted to maintain the system are the
very same ones that are obfuscating and colluding with Big Pharma. They're using VAERS to run cover
for Big Pharma by purposely throttling or delaying the publication of reports.
That's why we're still getting COVID death reports where the victim died in 2021,
and we're still getting the reports new today as if, you know, they're new reports, but you see that
the date of death is in 2021. So whether it's by timestamp and the VAERS people themselves
have held the report in their possession for 600 or 900 days, that's one form of the throttling,
and the other half of the throttling is the manufacturer themselves that automatically
crosswalk the report into VAERS. The manufacturer, Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, we're still getting J&J debts.
If the manufacturers are holding on to the claim or the report, wait entirely too long
and then submitting it to VAERS. And, you know, the VAERS system, nobody is being held accountable.
So anyways, that's my plea, and I don't know how that would fit in a little piece of the pie in
any of these lawsuits that, you know, our own government is perpetrating fraud on us
using the VAERS system. It should be a pharmacovigilant system. I call it a pharmacofraudulant
system. So let me just comment on it. I talked about the constitutional aspect of the case.
There's a sort of a side package to that part of the case because we have a cause of action in there
for what we lawyers call common law fraud, and that claim is directed against the CDC.
Now, I won't spend the next day or two going through all of the CDC fraud, but you know it
well. But I very much wanted to be able to bring the CDC into this case because California, their
shot mandate is based on the CDC. In other words, California doesn't have its own data to show that
shot is safe and effective. So when we challenge their mandate that it's not safe and not effective,
they just look over their shoulder and say, well, the CDC says it's safe and effective. That's what
we're relying upon. So we had to put the CDC in the case because that's who California relies on
for their science. But as you know, the data, the science from the CDC is questionable at best.
And as Charles, I think, pointed out early on, we have this recent statement by Dr. Plotkin
that, as I recall, his exact words were that the science wasn't all that rigorous,
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,
and I struggled for a while to try to figure out what legal theory were we going to come up with
because you have to have something you can use to sue the government.
And so the federal government can be sued under a statute called the Federal Tort's Claims Act.
So let's say that the Secret Service motorcade runs over your grandma who's trying to cross the
street at the crosswalk with the light. Well, grandma can sue the federal government for
running her down. Ordinarily, the federal government has statutory immunity, but the
Congress waived that statutory immunity when it passed the Federal Tort's Claims Act.
So you have to find something that is what we call a tort. A tort is some kind of a legal claim
for an injury of some kind. And fraud is one of the common law torts. Somebody
sold you a pig in the poke. That's a fraud. And now I'm not aware that the CDC or
maybe any other government agency has ever been sued under the Tort's Claims Act for lying to
the public. I mean, as we know, the government lies to you 24 hours a day. And whether there
are legal remedies for that, I think will be disputed heavily, no doubt, by the federal
government. Can they be sued for lying to the public? But we put a little more meat on those
bones because we pointed out that here the CDC gets 42% of its annual operating budget for
promoting vaccines. So the people working at the CDC, they take home a lot of money in their own
pocket by promoting these vaccines. So I'm hoping that we can get the court to say that that's enough
to show that we can bring a claim against the CDC for fraud. If we can bring such a legal claim,
then we will get discovery. And Lord only knows what kind of discovery we could get once we get
in that door. So if we can pry that door open, you and a lot of other people are going to be delighted,
I'm sure, at what we find on the other side of it. Anything that Julie and I can do to help,
just let me know. I'm ready. Yep.
All right. Great job, Albert. And Richard, on the issue of tort, negligence is a tort.
And negligently, when the CDC is negligently speaking, that's causing harm. And I urge you
to look into that negligence issue because I hadn't heard of the Federal Tort Claims Act.
And we haven't got that legislation in Australia, but negligence is a tort and negligently
speaking. Now, my other question before you continue is, does the, I can't remember,
does the US Constitution give right to trial by jury?
You know, it's funny, you read my mind or I read yours because that was the next point I was going
to make. The US Supreme Court just decided a case just in June, in the most recent term. I think it
was called, I've forgotten, J-A-N something. But it had to do with when are you allowed to
have a trial by jury? And yes, that is, I believe it's in the Seventh Amendment.
And so the question for the Supreme Court was, well, in what kind of cases are you allowed to
have a trial by jury? So we have a lot of cases that are administrative law. And in the US,
in many of those cases, they're simply tried to the judge, tried to the bench.
But what the Supreme Court held in June was that if it's an administrative case, which is analogous
to a common law tort, and I think here it was a Securities Exchange Commission case,
but it was analogous to a common law tort, which I think was fraud. The Supreme Court said if it
involves a common law tort or is analogous to a common law tort, you get a trial to a jury.
And so that's a huge help because, as I said, it's a lot easier to convince a jury
of moral outrage than it is a judge, you might say. So that's what we're aiming for.
Excellent. So Alex might have the case reference for those who are interested.
And the last question on the jury issue, remember the phrase, a jury of your peers?
Now contemplate that who are the peers? We don't go into it, but I urge you to have a look at that
because there is an argument that's been badly misinterpreted and that if you're a doctor,
for example, then the jury of your peers should only be doctors and arguably so. So it might be
useful to look into that question as well. Richard, we're going to keep moving because
we're going to run it. We're going to keep moving with the rest of your presentation.
Glenn, have you got a quick question on constitutional matters?
Or is it next stage? Mine's rather short. It's a piece of information for Richard.
Wasn't sure whether he's familiar with it. Hold that thought. Let's get Richard to go through
to the end and then you'll be the first question. Okay. Okay. Richard, on you go.
Do I get to ask questions? Sorry, when Richard stops, yes, you,
Stephen, then Glenn will be first after that. Right. Okay.
Stephen, how could you ask? Well, I didn't get a chance then anyway, but go ahead.
Well, I was sort of waiting. I have got some important points. Actually,
I've just run through them. Thank you so much for coming on very quickly. The Nuremberg Code
is about human experimentation. And that's exactly what was going on in 2021. And indeed in 2020,
when they locked down people, when everybody in the world, certainly doctors should have known
that human beings are highly social animals and they should never have been locked down.
It seems to me, I'm sorry to say, I'm not criticizing you personally,
but I think that the law is used by our enemies to muddy the waters. And we have to be honest
and admit that lawyers and the law have not done very much since 2020. Human rights in the UK,
for example, there's a very good law firm, which I won't name, very well known for human rights.
They have been absolutely silenced about COVID, silenced about everything to do with COVID,
with gross violations of human rights in the United Kingdom. So another thing that I observe
as a doctor is that there was no pandemic in my view, medical view as a doctor, there was no
pandemic. And indeed, very likely, there was no novel respiratory disease called COVID-19.
So the point I'm trying to make is that lawyers wittingly or unwittingly maybe,
play into the narrative necessarily because they're trying to convince a judge in particular,
a jury less difficult to convince, but still difficult to convince, especially in these
circumstances, because everybody has deliberately been mind controlled and brainwashed in schools.
So I just wanted to say, pass those comments, because everybody's agreeing about the
small points, but my job is to kind of look at the big points. We all knew in 2020 that everything
that was happening was wrong. And unfortunately, lawyers have failed in their duty to the public,
in my opinion. They have not gone for criminal charges. And that's what they should have done.
Instead, they're going for trying to convince judges that they have standing. And it's pathetic.
It's consenting to small versions of themselves, being viewed as small versions of themselves.
And that's exactly what Gail McCrae was talking about on Sunday. I recommend Gail McCrae's video
to you, Richard. It's absolutely brilliant. And she is brilliant too. She may or may not realize
it, but she is a leader. And she's just wonderful. She's a wonderful speaker. And every word she
utters is loaded. She was home schooled for the whole time that she could have been at school,
state school. And if that's how one can turn out when one is home schooled by good teachers,
because obviously it depends who's teaching you at home, then I think it's something that we need
to aim for, because the brainwashing is the problem and the mind control, it seems to me.
If we're looking at everything through the lens of brainwashing and mind control,
then we're not going to get a very good society. And so thank you so much.
Sorry about that speech.
Just a brief comment. As you know, Robert Malone has talked quite a bit about this
mind control and weaponization of COVID as a Psi-op, you might say. And I think there's a lot of merit
to that view. One of the amazing things that I learned, and I think a lot of other people learned
from COVID, was the mind control that could be exerted by this sort of thing. You had people
doing all kinds of things that one would have never thought anyone in their right mind would do,
and going along with it and even supporting it and getting behind it.
Robert Malone, of course, uses the term of mass historical psychosis or something like that.
I think the term was first used by my friend Mark McDonald as a psychiatrist from Los Angeles. I
had the pleasure of meeting him recently. And it's quite an amazing force. And we see it not only
with regard to COVID, but so many other issues of the day, whether it's climate change or gender
dysphoria or all of these sorts of things. Yeah, sure. So Richard, my view as a doctor
is that that is how human beings naturally operate in cult. And why? Well, because most people don't
want to take responsibility for their lives. They want to be led. So they join a cult. And
so the cult members are saying to people essentially, you can see it in the so-called
freedom movement, you know, that everybody's saying, and not just in the freedom movement,
we operate our lives like this. We want people to listen to us. And essentially what everybody
is saying to everyone else is join my cult. Those are the ones who want to take responsibility,
if you understand me. But many, many human beings, of course, want to hide in a group,
thinking that the group is safe when it actually reverses. True, of course. So Muhammad Ali said
that people want to be in a group because they think it's safe. I don't know whether he was
quoting someone else, but he is attributed, I saw this attributed to him. People want to be in a group
to be safe. But he said, I don't want to be in a group because I think it's unsafe. And I agree
with him. And we can agree. I think all of us can agree since 2020, that's been the big lesson.
Groups are extremely dangerous. They take you away from the truth.
And we like to think that we will be free in a democracy. But that's only half the battle.
To have freedom, you have to have democracy, but that's only the half of it.
Sure. The other thing you have to have is a very strong constitution that guarantees individual
rights. Because as Churchill once observed, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding
what to have for lunch. Absolutely. And so the sheep have to have rights that the wolves cannot
take from them. Also, a lot of lawyers saying, oh no, we can't do that because the judge will
throw it out because we haven't got standing. Whatever, you know, all these ridiculous man-made
notions, in my opinion, when actually what you need is someone to just say, well, actually,
we all think that this was wrong in 2020. We don't all of the things. But the people who are
thinking independently, hopefully. But anyway, thank you so much, Richard. Yep. I just wanted
to expand the discussion a little bit. I don't get many... But anyway. As Charles was saying,
let me try to move on briefly to those other two so we can get done within our time.
The other two are less cosmic or global, but we have a subset of the mandated vaccines
that are being mandated for, in many cases, for children who are already vaccine injured.
In California, something like 13% of all of the students in the schools, the public schools,
are in special education programs because for the most part, they have some kind of, usually
learning disability. Some of them are physically disabled. The ones who have learning disability,
the majority of those are post-vaccine learning disabilities. Some of them, they were born that
way. They had genetic defects or congenital anomalies, but the majority of them are acquired
learning disabilities that are post-vaccine. In California, at this time, the incidence of autism
is one in every 22 students. It's just a phenomenally high number. And 80% of those are
boys. So if you are a parent and the ultrasound shows that you're going to have a boy child,
the odds are something like about one in 12, 13, that that boy child, if given all of the vaccines,
will end up as an autistic child in a special education program. I mean, it's truly frightening.
So then comes California telling those parents, well, too bad your child has a learning disability,
but you still have to get all your shots to go to school to get the special education
services that you need because we injured you the first time with the vaccines.
So how I got into this, of course, was I had a mother who was in the special education program.
How I got into this, of course, was I had a mother bring her child with her to my office to see about
a medical, actually to see about getting some kind of medical exemption because she had been
notified by the school that he had to have more vaccinations. Her story was that the child had been
doing fine up to age two and a half when he was required to get several vaccines.
And within 24 hours, he lost all his speech capability and was completely, just as she said,
gibberish, couldn't understand anything he was saying. And so she had him in special classes for
speech for years. And eventually he got intelligible speech back, but he's still very
still delayed in his speech abilities. So he's in a special education program. And now they're
telling her she needs even more vaccines. As you can imagine, like most mothers, she was distraught
when she got this. She was just about in tears. What am I to do? My husband and I both have to
work because otherwise we can't afford to live. And yet he has to, I can't afford to send him to
private school. I can't afford to homeschool him. What am I to do? So he is one of the plaintiffs
in this case. Well, there are 800,000 other California students who are in the same situation.
Their special education services are funded for the most part by federal money under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. We argue in our complaint, in our lawsuit,
that the children who are under this federally funded program cannot be excluded from school
without a whole bunch of what are called procedural protections that are provided under this federal
statute. The family has to get notice that the school intends to reduce or eliminate their
their services. They get the right to a hearing. They get a right to an appeal of the hearing.
They can appeal it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And in fact, quite a number of cases
have gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. During all that time, the child still gets to
stay in school until that whole process has run its course. Yet the woman who came to my office
and all these other parents are being told if you don't get these shots, you are excluded from
school. And that's the end of the discussion. No notice to them about any right of appeal, notice,
hearings, any of the sort. So we're going to be looking for the court to give us an injunction
mandating that the schools cannot exclude any of these students without all of the federally
required legal protections and that they get to stay in school until all those protections have
run their course. And because the schools have been telling, have been wrongly telling the parents
that they have to do this and not telling them that they have any rights, we're going to ask the
court to send a letter to all those parents telling them that we were wrong before and the
truth of the matter is that your child will not have to get these shots until after all these
legal procedures have run their course. So that's what we call the individual education program,
part of this lawsuit. And as I said, it actually involves a large fraction of the California
school population. It's 13% of these children who are already vaccine injured. They should be
exempt. They should be legally exempt from these requirements. So I'm relatively hopeful that we'll
be able to get that relief in the short run because the law is quite explicit about
that they cannot be excluded from school without all this. So I'm hoping we'll have something
fairly shortly to help those students. So let me stop there for a second and see if there are
30 questions about the special education students. Very good. So Stephen first,
and one question, Richard, Del Bigtree said that just so that everyone gets these numbers in Alex,
you might have these numbers just off the top of your head that in 1986, one in 10,000 children
were autistic. He then said it was coming down to one in 32 by last year, perhaps. And now you're
saying it's one in 22 autistic kids. Is that in California or America? California.
One in 20,000. I just understand from one in 10,000 to one in 22. It is extraordinary.
And the impact on, I don't know, I haven't seen an analysis. Certainly there was an analysis
at the time of lockdowns of the, sorry, the impact on health of joblessness.
Right? You lose a job, massive negative impact. Look at the impact on not only the children,
but the families that have to look after these children. So, you know, Stephen, I don't know
what the numbers are in the UK. I haven't heard any of us talk about those numbers on autism.
But anyway, questions from, start with you, Stephen.
Yeah. So I said quite a few of the things I wanted to say in the last preamble or whatever.
But I just wondered, Richard, can you, I know you're going down the civil route,
but I just wonder whether you have thought about going down the criminal route, because it seems
to me that everything that was, so I'm a medical doctor. It just seemed to me that there was no
medical justification for any of the measures in inverted commas. And that's how I got my
children to listen to me. It took me six weeks to come up with that in 2020. I was just mystified
that they didn't agree with me immediately, because previously they had at least given me
a hearing. But I think maybe now I realise that they were, certainly my wife was watching
the BBC and I told her not to do that. I didn't quite understand the effect of the propaganda,
which had been pumped out by the British Broadcasting Corporation all over the world.
But I said to my own family that there was, in my view, there was no medical justification for
any of the measures in inverted commas being taken in a so-called pandemic. I was very doubtful
then that there was a pandemic. Well, actually, I knew the whole thing was a fraud, but it was
difficult to articulate. But the big thing that helped me was the fact that messages were coming
out, you know, the kind of messaging that was being used in just about all the countries in the world
was the same. So from New Zealand to Australia to the UK to Japan to America to Canada to France
is all the same. And I thought this must have been, this was a global coup d'etat
and they're trying to take my country away from me. So I was extremely exercised. I was very shocked
and but I couldn't get anybody around me to understand what was going on. And so,
or what I thought was going on. And so that was pretty difficult time. But I want to hold these
people responsible for these terrible crimes committed during times of COVID-19, alleged COVID-19.
And I will do everything I can till the day I die to bring these bastards to justice.
And I just want to hear from you, whether you have thought about the criminal route and
and why is it impossible to bring criminal charges against the people responsible
who have clearly lied, they've admitted they've lied.
So the short answer to that is that they should be criminally charged because of all the fraud and
injury. However, as a private citizen, I can't do that. Only the public prosecutors can bring a
criminal case. Okay, Richard. So I'll ask a question in a different way. So why are so few Americans,
in particular Americans, why do so few of them know how to report crime or a reported crime?
You know, very few Americans seem to know how to report. We know in the UK, but will the police
give you a crime number in the UK? That's the problem. But in the US people, generally Americans
seem to have no idea how to report crime. And there was crime everywhere in 2020. So I just
wondered whether so you are a lawyer, but you're also a doctor. So that gives you
a lot of influence. So I wonder whether you've thought about where would you report crime in
America? Or in California, let's say California to start with. Yeah, you won't find a public prosecutor
in California that would even listen to the case, much less bring it. California is, as you know,
heavily infected with the woke ism virus. Yeah. But that doesn't mean to say that ordinary
citizens like you and Alex and, and all the other people from California window, that they shouldn't
least try to will have much more effect on the civil side. It's kind of a feudal to try to
get the public prosecutors to do anything we you know, the civil route is our remedy. The
interesting thing though, that may occur in the United States, it all depends on the US election.
Because, as you know, Robert Kennedy seems to have come to some kind of understanding
with Donald Trump, that if Mr. Trump is elected president, that Mr. Kennedy will
have the portfolio that includes chronic disease in children. And of course, if Mr. Trump is elected
president, then he gets to change all of the US attorneys and all the jurisdictions in the country,
and put his own people in. So for instance, we are in the Eastern District of California
with our case right now. But if Mr. Trump is elected president, the Eastern District of California
will get a different US attorney. And right now, the Biden appointed US attorney, I'm sure will be
defending the CDC. But if there is a Trump appointed US attorney, after January 20,
they may take a different position on our lawsuit than the present US attorney. So
stay tuned for important developments. Richard, my point is this, that I think this is my point
anyway, that lawyers, if they never talk about the criminality, because they're never going to
get it anyway by that route, then they automatically, inadvertently possibly, do the enemies work for them.
In watering down the narrative, our narrative. And you said yourself that you consider that there was
criminality. But the point I'm trying to say is, if you don't fight on that battlefield, as well as
the civil route may be, then the public don't realize what's happened. And that's very important.
I cannot go into a court to fight that fight. So all I'm doing is out in the public sphere,
like so many others like you and so many others, I'm just one more voice. So with the hours in the
day that I have, I do have a unique ability to go into a civil court and make an argument. And that's
the more productive use of my time. Yes, okay. But you get my point. No lawyer in the world
or very few lawyers are emphasizing the criminality.
Yeah, for. Well, saying that they're not going to succeed. But that's not usually how
we come to the truth. But anyway, thank you so much. Yep. All right. We're now got Thank you,
Stephen. We're now got Glenn. Hi, Dr. Fox, I was curious if you're familiar with
Cheryl Atkinson, the journalist reporter. I don't believe so. So she she's been very
well, Cheryl Atkinson. Yes. Yes. In fact, I used her material in my lawsuit.
OK, so I just want to make sure you're aware of it and how well it's been covered by her
in her new book, which I'm showing up here, titled Follow the Science. And how, you know,
just to give a snapshot, you're probably familiar with it already that the reintroduction of the
the the the
why am I blanking out? The the the the what's the most common vaccine known from the scab on the arm?
Smallpox. Smallpox. Yeah, the small the reintroduction of the smallpox vaccine
right after 9-11 and as part of the war with Afghanistan that her colleague David Bloom died
as a war correspondent for CBS and that it was hidden that her his death was from a outcome of
the the smallpox vaccine and that there was an enormous amount of of damage done to the the
troops that that got that vaccine. And in her case, she didn't get it because she was assigned
with the Air Force and they weren't pushing it at the time where he was assigned with the army
and he got it and then ended up dying from it and it being heavily covered up and that almost all of
the interviews, you know, people get interviewed a lot when they come out with books. She's being
blackmailed. I'm blackballed. I'm sorry. Blackballed from getting interviews from any of the mainstream
media. Yeah, she's much to be commended for her diligence and courage. That's why
I mentioned her work in my complaint, you know, uncovering some of the corruption that was involved
in all this. Okay, thanks. Thank you, Glenn. Jim? Hey, thank you. In terms of who you're prosecuting,
can you are you able to prosecute or identify the Department of Defense or the corruption of the
possibly Supreme Court and and the corruption of the prosecutors? I put in the link a document from
the New Jersey court system that identifies that we should possibly be holding the prosecutors
accountable because they're not allowed to prosecute on the basis of political bias,
but they have to prosecute ethically. So that's in the chat. The other document is from Camilla
Harris or a testimony from a lady in California who was jailed after Camilla as prosecutor or
attorney general had her arrested because of truancy of her daughter who was a sickle cell
anemia patient. So that's also in the chat and how she went to and how this mother went to jail
because her daughter was missing class, not because she was trying to miss class,
but because she was suffering from sickle cell anemia. And the reason Camilla Harris
may have been prosecuting that is because the funding, state funding is directly tied to
the attendance rates. So that's in the chat as well. But the question is, so the question is,
how do we hold the, it's increasingly, we're increasingly figuring out that the Department
of Defense and the intelligence community seems to have a lot to do with this. The intelligence
community seems to be having a hand on the scale of the elections, the voting by mail, the
the dominion heart and heart inter civics and ES and S voting. We may not have free and fair
elections. So the people who were electing, including Anthony Blinken, the secretary of state,
may not have been actually elected in a free method. And Anthony Blinken may have himself
contributed to that abnormal election by saying that a hundred Biden laptop was Russian disinformation
and getting 50 former CIA agents to lie. How do we hold the intelligence agency responsible?
And how do we hold the Supreme Court responsible? They leaked Roe versus Wade early in 2024,
in May of 2020, excuse me, May of 2022, and said, we don't know who leaked it. And that smacks of
intelligence inside the Supreme Court, because as we know, the Supreme Court justice Warren,
the Warren Commission came up with a tumbling bullet theory that was propagated by our inspector
when we know that JFK was shot from the front as to John Corsi's good, Jerome Corsi's good work.
It looks like we're, we need to prosecute the intelligence agencies and the Supreme Court for
an intelligence inside the Supreme Court as well. How are we going to do that?
By the way, Richard, we can answer that question. Jim's great at asking questions like this.
You know, but do a quick answer because it's a big question, but it's a provocative, just put the
question out there, but DOD is just a broad, then we go to Julie and then, and we've only got 25
minutes, so keep it tight. Briefly, that's prosecuting the Department of Defense is a bit
above my pay grade. So I think we're going to have to leave that to, hopefully,
we'll get an administration. I doubt it will be the Harris administration, perhaps the Trump
administration that wants to tackle that because it's going to take a lot of resources for that.
All right. Anything on the Supreme Court and infiltration and
and leaking Roe versus Wade as a political maneuver to make everything about abortion
rather than safety of our country? So the Senate can possibly investigate the Supreme Court,
but only in connection with an impeachment. So the power to investigate and prosecute the
Supreme Court rests exclusively with the Senate, I believe. And so it's really,
it's a political question that we have to leave to the political process.
Thank you, Jim. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. Julie?
Yeah, I just have to laugh. I mean, our country is the most vax addicted,
vax obsessed country on the planet. I mean, we're the only ones that give 72 shots to our children.
It's outrageous. I did put the VAERS report numbers into the chat for California children,
five to 18, not related to COVID. There's 17 dead kids. I will post all that into the chat.
But yeah, the IEPs, you guys, so I would FOIA, if you haven't done so already, all those school
districts, Gilroy, I think you mentioned in a couple others here at Chico Unified, 10 years ago,
our IEP rate, which are these are state sponsored disability plans was 3% of our 12,000 students.
Today, it's 23% of our 12,000 students. They have and there's a trend line, it shows and it's like,
you know, $30 million coming into our school district for doctors, occupational therapists,
nurses, we have teachers wearing Kevlar sleeves because they're getting bit. We have children in
fourth grade that are starting their periods. We have so much chaos because of these IEP plans
related to these vaccines. But yeah, if there's a way you can get the trend line from those school
districts, it should, you know, add to the case if you haven't done so already. But again, thank you,
thank you, thank you for your fight. Thank you. Thank you, Julie. All right, Richard, any further
comments? And then we'll go to final questions for the last 20 minutes. So Alex, give you an
opportunity to add afterward Richard finishes. I just want to briefly comment on the third component
of the case, which is the free speech of doctors such as Dr. Halstead to be able to frankly
talk to their patients about the benefits and harms of medical treatments, especially vaccines.
We touched earlier on the idea of informed consent as a basic human right, but you can't
have informed consent when the doctors are gagged. And that's what we have here in California.
Two, three years ago, the California legislature actually went so far as to pass a doctor
COVID gag order that allowed the medical board to revoke the medical licenses of any doctors who
were found guilty of disseminating misinformation about COVID, whatever that might be. They had no
actual definition of it. And to me, it was not something that was intended so much to revoke
medical licenses as it was to intimidate and coerce doctors to remain silent. That's why they didn't
bother to define misinformation. I think that was a feature and not a bug. The idea of you don't
define it, then doctors will never know for sure whether they've crossed the line or not. So they
don't want to go anywhere near the line in order to stay on the safe side of it.
Fortunately, our friends over at Children's Health Defense, Robert Kennedy's group, got a
California judge to join that. And so those of us who were providing COVID treatment
could continue to do so. In one encouraging development, there was a related case that
actually on that same statute that got up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and was argued
orally to the three judges on the Ninth Circuit panel. And the state of California was knocked
about quite a bit by that panel for all the obvious reasons. And so I think it became obvious to the
state of California that their COVID gag order against doctors was going to be struck down
as a violation of free speech rights under the First Amendment. And so two weeks after that
argument in that case, but before the decision was announced, the state quickly repealed the law
so that they could what we call moot the case. They did not want the Ninth Circuit to actually
issue a decision striking that law down, so they quickly repealed it.
So the federal courts, the Ninth Circuit, the US Supreme Court have been pretty
stout about protecting physician's speech. Here in Dr. Halstead's case, he's a pediatrician here in
Monterey. He was advising the parents of his patients not to get these childhood vaccines,
or at least to delay those until the child was older. And in one of those cases, the child's
parents were estranged such that the father was opposed to the vaccines and the mother wanted the
vaccines. So it became a divorce law kind of issue for the parents to fight about.
And so the mother eventually filed a complaint with the family court about the father. Dr.
Halstead went to court to argue the father's side of the case, whereupon it appears the mother then
filed a complaint with the Medical Board of California. And the upshot of it was that
Dr. Halstead had his license revoked. We argue in our lawsuit that his license was revoked because he
testified in court against the state mandated vaccines. The Medical Board
thinks that they have other reasons why they revoked his license, but we believe those were
pretext. So this is the First Amendment case. It's a doctor to speech First Amendment case.
And it's very important because when parents of children go into the doctor to discuss the idea of
should I get these vaccines for my child, they have to have some faith that the doctor is going to
deal with them honestly. But if the doctor feels like if they deal with, if they speak honestly
with the family that they're in danger of losing their license, then they can't do that. The doctor
simply becomes a parrot, parroting the doctrine put out by the state and by the federal CDC.
In fact, we argue that you can't make doctors simply the mouthpiece of the state. If the state
wants to say, tell parents what its position is, they can put it on a piece of paper and
require you to hand it to them, but they can't force doctors to become the mouthpieces and parrots
for the state where the state is hiding behind the doctor and the parent thinks that they're
hearing the doctor's point of view when all they're hearing is what the state has forced the doctor
to tell them. So if we can convince the court that that's why Dr. Halston's license was revoked,
was because he refused to become the mouthpiece and the parent and the parrot of the state,
then we're hoping we can get his medical license reinstated. And in the process,
provide some assurance and protection to all the other pediatricians, especially in California,
that they may have more protection if they speak honestly. I think right now all the
pediatricians in California are intimidated that they cannot say anything that doesn't conform to
the party line because they will suffer the same fate that Dr. Halston suffered. And indeed,
there are at least four or five, maybe six other pediatricians and family practice doctors in
California who've lost their licenses for the same reason. So patients cannot enjoy the right
to informed consent if they don't have a doctor who is protected, has their speech protected
in that process. So not only was Dr. Halston harmed, but all of the parents in California
were harmed, the parents who went to him, but also the parents who go to all other doctors,
because those doctors have been intimidated by the action in Dr. Halston's case. So he has been
brave enough to speak out, become a party in this case, and he's really doing this not just for his
own license, but really for the welfare of all the other doctors and children and parents in California
to have an unfettered consent process. So that's why this is important. They can't get away with
all their fraud if the doctors will be brave enough to speak out and tell both sides of the story.
So that's the third part of the vaccine case. Thank you, Richard. Now, before we go to Ron and
then final questions to Steve and Alex, would you like to add anything or the thoughts, you know,
take a couple of minutes to share your thoughts and thinking and any comments you have?
Sure. I'm just really excited about this lawsuit that Dr. Fox has filed and that we've now joined
as Free Now Foundation, because it's really a three-in-one lawsuit. You know, we're in the first,
just to summarize, we're asking the state and the CDC to prove that the vaccines stop transmission,
and they've never done the studies, as you just heard Dr. Fox say. They've never done vaccinated
versus unvaccinated studies, so they can't even calculate a relative risk or an absolute risk
reduction. They just can't do it because they don't have the studies. And then the IEP case
is so interesting because there are 800,000 students in California, and that's a number I
got from Dr. Fox directly, who have an individualized education plan, and most of them are being lied to
by their schools when we fought really hard, and I think it was 2019, to make sure there was a
carve-out for IEP students. And I think they reluctantly added that carve-out to the bill,
which became law because the parents who have IEP students, the majority of them know what caused
their kids' disability, and I think they wanted to grant us that carve-out to silence some of the
loudest parent voices who would be shouting bloody murder if their kids were forced to get
more vaccines after they were already vaccine injured, so I think that was to mollify those
parents. But I mean, it is a law. It's a law in California now, and it's also a federal law
that kids in special education are not required to get those vaccines to attend school. And then
finally, I'm really excited about Dr. Halstead's case. Free Now Foundation was involved
in both of the cases against the Dr. Gag Order bill or Dr. Gag Order law. It was called AB 2098
when it was a bill, and it was interesting. I just wrote in the chat that Governor Newsom was so
scared of our cases winning, which would have meant that there was no, that free speech applied
to medical doctors in the office with their patients, and he didn't want that. So instead
of letting our cases go further to the point where there would be a judgment affirming that
doctors can have free speech, he did a runaround and he introduced a new bill in California that
undid what AB 2098 did, and so it basically overturned the Dr. Gag Order law through a bill
rather than waiting for the cases to come to a conclusion. So I think it's going to be really
interesting to see what happens with Dr. Halstead's case because it really is another case along those
lines, and I think it's going to make Governor Newsom really nervous. Dr. Fox's cases here are
so well crafted, and it's just exciting. I mean, the most exciting thing about his complaint is that
we just had two major decisions in federal courts that make vaccine cases totally different now.
I mean, we had the Ninth Circuit Court in Leslie Minuchian's case against LAUSD
rule that you can't apply that 1905 Jacobson case about smallpox to the COVID vaccine because nobody
could prove the COVID vaccine stopped transmission, and that is hugely significant for why we can
bring the science into these cases right now. And then we also have the SCOTUS decision around
Chevron. It was called Chevron deference, and because they overturned Chevron deference, it
means that our three-letter agencies can get it wrong. So we've lost a lot of these cases because
of appeals to authority of the FDA and the CDC, for example, and now that is greatly, greatly
weakened by the overturning of the Chevron deference. So that's why we're on a totally new
playing field right now, and it's super exciting that Dr. Fox was on top of those changes, and he
started writing that lawsuit right away and got it filed so quickly. I mean, he turned down a lot
of social engagements and other things to get this thing done. Well said, Alex. Beautifully said.
Thank you. All right, Ron, your last question, and then we'll go to Stephen, and we'll finish
in the next 10 minutes. Well, hang on. I need a little bit more. Okay, go ahead. Can you hear me?
Yes, we can, Ron. Okay, yeah. My mouse is not working on my desktop, so I'm improvising here.
My question is, can this lawsuit be used as a template for COVID-19?
So let me think about that just a little bit. I think some of the constitutional arguments,
you know, if we get Jacobson overturned, I think it's a whole new ballgame for the COVID shots
as well. And the same constitutional arguments, do you have the right to refuse vaccines,
you know, state-mandated vaccines? So I think it's germane in that respect.
Certainly, students going to school, they may have more protection.
Certainly, if they're going to public schools, you know, public universities.
So I think there is some potential there.
Ron, where's he gone? Ron, was that it? Was that your only question?
Yes, thank you.
Excellent. All right, Stephen.
So, Richard, I'm a little bit troubled because both you and I are doctors. And I think we need to be
honest that most doctors in the world completely fail their patients. And I think that's the
completely failed their patients. The practice of medicine throughout the world was wrong. It was,
it completely failed and doctors were stupid. They were really stupid. And now they've destroyed
their reputations. So the people you were talking about, the doctors I think you were talking about,
they were afraid to cross the line. Which line? It did cross the line. They crossed the line.
They let down their patients. And that's unforgivable. A doctor should not be a doctor
if he's thinking about his pocket rather than his patients. But that's what we saw everywhere.
And so what happened to doctors that they allowed their autonomy to be taken away from them
and just parroted protocols put down by hospitals? It's absolutely outrageous what has happened.
And I don't, as a medical doctor in the UK, I concede that there are not many doctors in the,
I know about 150 in the UK who agree with me. And the rest say, well, I had to put food on the
table or whatever. No, it's not good enough. And we need, look, for the future, in my opinion,
pandemics are not possible. We need to get to the truth. We're skating around the truth here.
The whole thing about pandemics is a construct. Pandemics were seen as the best Trojan horse
totalitarianism. And that's what we saw in 2020. So they've been gearing up for this. So the whole
thing about vaccinations and virology and evidence-based medicine was all about preparing
the world for what happened in 2020 and the decline in the influence of immunologists.
And what did immunologists do? Well, they knew about the brilliant human immune system and indeed
other animals' immune systems. And what did the virologists, well, they did the work of the
vaccinologists, if you like. So they allowed human beings, mere human beings, who can't even
understand the universe that they're in, to think that, oh, well, actually, we can do better than
God did or whomever with the brilliant immune systems that we all have. And in America,
end up with 72 shots for children by the age of five. It's just crazy. And we need to be honest.
Doctors need to be honest. And to say that doctors were afraid of crossing the line,
they did cross the line. For me, they crossed the line. And they were absolutely useless in
the so-called pandemic, which wasn't a pandemic. And indeed, in my opinion, there was no diagnosis
of COVID-19, which was safe. Why? Well, we know about the fraudulent PCR test. Kerry Mullis told
us all about that. But he was dead in August 2019. Need to look into that. And very importantly,
there wasn't a single symptom of COVID-19 or purported COVID-19, which was pathognomic for
COVID-19. All the symptoms could have been due to pneumonia, cold, flu, or a combination of all
three or two of those three. So I just am very frustrated because I think that lawyers do tend
to think about which cases are possible and end up diluting the truth. I'm not saying that's the case
with you, Richard. I can see that you're a very good human being. You're trying your best
within the confines that you think your talents. But all I'm saying is we have a responsibility
now to try to preserve the truth of what happened and to keep reminding people of what happened
and holding these bastards to account who deliberately planned it, clearly. Anyway,
that's what I think. Do you have any comments or not?
So just a couple of brief comments. So what you've identified is what seems to me to be the
reconstruction of medicine from a profession into a trade, almost an assembly line kind of
operation where you take protocols that are handed down from corrupt bureaucrats like Tony Fauci
and you just pass out those remedies on a daily basis without much further thought about it.
Without much further thought about it. You might as well be making widgets in a factory somewhere.
So can we take back our profession? Well, the profession has been greatly undermined by the
political process, by the so-called socialization of medicine. When the government becomes the
paymaster, then expect to be used for political purposes. And that's what they've done to medicine
and healthcare. So in the end, the patients are going to get what they have voted for.
If they want assembly line medicine where the average American over, I don't know,
65, 70 years of age is on something like 20 to 25 different prescription medicines,
that's what people have voted for. So it has definitely corrupted the medical profession,
but the solution, I'm afraid, is beyond the medical profession. It really resides with the public
deciding whether they want a socialistic kind of healthcare system, a socialistic kind of government
where the government collects all the money and dispenses it for its own purposes.
So that's the larger issue that we're dealing with. And I'm pessimistic that we can restore medicine
as a profession until we fix the socialism that undercurrent that we have
with our political institutions at the moment. I love always to keep in mind Lord Acton's famous
dictum from I think it's 1887 that all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
So when we give all power in the medical field to Tony Fauci and people like that,
well, you're going to get a corrupted medical product. So until we restore principles of
autonomy to medicine, to transparency, to accountability, this is what we're going to
get as a corrupt medical system. So that's my diagnosis. Yeah, I understand. Yeah. So just one
more thing which may be useful for your cases. I don't know whether you're aware of this, but in my
view, there was no possibility of informed consent from merely the fact that no doctor in the world
knew what was in the shots and still don't know actually as far as I can see. And the reasons for
that are complex. But the point about that is that the Nuremberg Code and seven doctors were
hanged on the 2nd of June 1948 in Germany for human medical experimentation. And the Nuremberg Code
includes in it the requirement for informed consent and amongst 10 points. And the doctors I've
talked to haven't even read the Nuremberg Code. They barely know what it is. They don't know about
the Nuremberg, the doctor's trial in Nuremberg. So there was a special trial for the doctors.
They have no idea about this. So and it seems to me that doctors shouldn't be doctors if they don't
know what informed consent is and they don't know about the Nuremberg trials and the doctor's trial
in particular. We were taught about it when I was at medical school and I knew about medical
ethics, but then I learned that the whole of my year don't share my views. So what were they doing
in our medical ethics lectures? I remembered what was said, so why don't they? And I know that because
there's a round robin every Christmas and so I've disturbed the peace in this round robin
every Christmas since 2020 and challenged them all. So I ended up saying last year,
what's wrong with you all? You sat in the same lectures as I, but none of you want to engage with
me even privately. These are friends of mine from when I was at medical school. They're ashamed.
They're broken because they haven't done the right thing. They know it. They're terrified of me.
It took me a long time to realize they were terrified of me, are terrified of me. Shame on
them. I just don't know how these people can be happy when they know that they did the wrong thing
as doctors. I really don't. And they talk about their grandchildren and traveling around the world
on cruises. And I just think, wow, you must be really stupid to be happy when you've done the
wrong thing. Thank you so much, Richard. Thanks. Thanks, Stephen. Hang on. Richard, Alex got a hand
up just quickly before we finish. Yeah, I just want to say that Stephen obviously is bringing up
very deep and good points. And what I've said since we got locked down is we were requiring
doctors to prioritize public health over the patient in front of them. And that's a fundamental
conflict of interest because a doctor's duty is to the individual sitting in front of them. That's
what the Hippocratic oath is. Correct. Yeah. And to force them to prioritize public health over
their own patient's health is cruel and it's criminal. And I couldn't agree more. Absolutely.
Thank you so much. It was a tyranny. It was intended to be a tyranny and it was a tyranny.
Psychologically tortured huge numbers of people around the world, including in the United Kingdom
and Australia and United States. It's just so sad what has happened, I think. All right, let's go.
Thank you, Richard. Great to have you. Thank you, Alex. Thank you, Shasta. Thank you, Ron,
roles that you have played in all of this. Thanks, Stephen. Tom Rodman's got the video
telegram meeting. The link is in there if you have the time. And thank you for the contributions to
the chat. Thank you for the insights and we'll be with you again on Sunday. Richard, keep up the
good work. Fight the fight. And Julie and Albert are there for you. Thank you, Richard, for being
so conscientious in telling us about what you know. Thank you. It's a pleasure. Thanks, everybody.
Bye. Bye, John. Thank you so much.