..

a few infected people you could just do it, and he called those the good old days. i said, you know you're talking to a reporter, right? i'm going to write this. he was sincere. the good old days. now at the cdc you have to infect monkeys and they were

difficult and expensive and they tried to bite him, and multiplayer didn't extrapolate that well to human malaria and had to run the new vaccine studies off on the monkeys first. he did limit the good old days. ya roomful of archives no one had ever seen before from world war ii and the years following world war ii and used the data that was collected from these inform today's vaccine researchers. the data that they of light infections remains valuable to this day. eat and one of his colleagues. so he actually got me thinking like i came to the star with a little more objectivity and not as much judgment and i tried to let the story speak for itself. this is blood slide taken from an american soldier during world war ii. this is the blood stage of malaria. what the parasite does is it enters through the mosquito bite, stick shaped, and this is

a shape shifting parasite. it immediately gets into your liver and their it integrates and it hides from your immune system until it's ready to launch an attack on your red cells. and when it does that your red cells end up looking like this. when you trillions of these parasites in your body you get sick of than you ever been ever been. it is a terrible weeklong infection. at some point during the time when you're feeling the most sick, some of these parasites mature and become sexually distinct. they deem it a chemical that attracts mosquitoes. the mosquitoes drink them in, then the mosquitoes, about a week or two later burst with these sticklike -- saliva and they infect again. i chose to tell the story about the world war ii project through

this man for several reasons. one, i really like him and i didn't want, i'll time researching this book on one of the scientists who i felt that the biological child of love it too much without really having enough empathy for the patients. he had that empathy is identified with him. after the war he was the dean of the university of chicago medical school, vice president and he advised the eisenhower administration on medical education he said we're teaching our medical students to specialize come to focus on body parts and pakistan say. we should be focusing on whole body. we as medical professionals here he was called economy to support in the 1950s. before the war he was a malay expert. you start out as a graduate student, the rockefeller foundation as part of a large network of americans, american researchers trying to get a handle on the terrible pandemic

alert. in some areas leesburg georgia the infection rate was 80%. he worked in places that looked like this was a cypress trees were being ripped up to keep up with the development going on in northern states, and southerners were left with these gaping holes of longer producing swamps that filled the skies with mosquitoes that carry malaria. so throughout the course of the 1920s and '30s, he worked with, this is samuel darley, the brains behind the effort to build the panama canal. samuel darling was responsible for leaking malaria there. which almost shut the american attempt to shut the panama canal, as well as the french. next to him is paul russell, one of malaria's most favorite sons. through the new deal,

anti-poverty programs, building dams in a way that eliminated the ski-doo alarm but instead of producing mosquito larvae, bringing electricity to committees in the south, and attracted industry which brought jobs, people could get out of shacks and into homes with screens. essentially by 1940 most of america's military had been completely dried up. while we're working on malaria in this way, this man won a nobel prize because he figured out how to give malaria to -- share them of insanity. in 1927 he won a nobel prize because syphilis was rampant. a late stage of syphilis is an infection in the brain that causes erratic behavior, insane behavior. most people ended up in the asylum or state hospitals and a year or two later they would

die. he figured out he could save 30% of them if he gave them a malaria. malaria fevers, if you can control them with quinine, would increase the body's immune system to a point where it could actually fight off that difficult stage of syphilis which gets into the brain. but because you can't grow parasites, malaria parasites in a petri dish, he kept two strains of malaria going i taking blood from his infected patients and giving them a new patients. this became the new way of treatment for neurosyphilis it. state hospitals all over the world said they could afford it. but if you are lucky you could take malaria and you could potentially be cured of the. this is a major breakthrough. is only one of two psychologists to win the nobel prize in

history that the germans were clever. became his they were trying to come up with a synthetic drug for malaria recover they said well, we don't need to go and get our studies in africa and in places where malaria is endemic. we will run our drug studies on these patients were undergoing malaria therapy. we get to study the disease, test for drugs. they came up with two drugs. the dye attached to the parasites. to add a side chain that is lethal, carries the drug to the target and whites of the infection to go to prom is a pretty toxic so they never broke into the market. when was the only drug made from the tree of comes the bark of a tree that grew on plantations that the dutch had a monopoly on.

the world just kept using quinine. is is one of the leading people in germany. he said why stop there? why not run studies on prison? the war is coming about to find a drug. e-border proposal to do studies on prisoners. give malaria to prisoners, and then we can test our drugs on them. they thought there's a great idea and gave him a concentration camp or he infected 1000 parishioners of most of them were russians. prisoners got an extra ration of food and the slept on clean sheets and they were given their fiercely contest his drugs come his theories and given quinine cured and sent back to the barracks where they died. a lot of them because of typhus and cholera.

this is him trying to explain to american lawyers who liberated the camp that he was just doing therapy. that this was standard, that he wasn't doing anything wrong and they didn't understand malaria therapy, and he can't. meanwhile, we are back before the war, and schilling knows the leading malaria all adjust in germany. it is a working and testing of drugs and state hospital patients and their making progress in building drugs. a mastermind to plan for the americans to do the same thing. he is temporarily he is psychotic to africa because an aircraft we created to supply the british in egypt and the russians with guns and planes was completely shut down because

of malaria in west africa. supplies are flowing out of miami down to the elbow of brazil across africa and then stop because the airfields, the workers were all completely infected with malaria, and so the u.s. air command asked if he would go over there and would go over the enclave would go over there and click the. he got there and he found this. he found airfields that were being carved out of the jungle and creating massive mosquito production, massive mosquito breeding. and this was the reason why the pilots and mechanics and the construction people were all getting malaria. he had quinine but he realized under these conditions it didn't work. he had the german drug. under these conditions it didn't work. so he tried to screens. they would screen of all the barracks and you guys rolled underpants come rolled on your sleeves, he was netting over

your elements. into the best of your ability you will wear bug spray. you guys will prevent yourself. he had sessions every day. he made education the most important part. he told if you go to the sex villages you have to go during the day, not at night because the malaria carrying mosquito bites at night. in the course of six months the infection rates in liberia, which were about 100%, and they were about 50% and the gold coast, now kind of, were brought down to 1%. he was completed successful without, the quinine use as a backup to save him from his african for malaria can kill you in a day. he brought that back to the u.s. military and said, the war department had said, it's not just drugs. you need a multipronged approach. and they said we don't have time for you.

we are training our troops in this pristine cams down in the south belly sanitizer mosquitoes and we will talk to you later. and then came baton. after the japanese attacked pearl harbor they went and attacked the philippines. macarthur strips were forced out of manila and down the peninsula and within a month when the quinine ran out, they started falling with malaria to 80% of malaria at the time of surrender their commanders said we had rifles, bullets and put their mission but nobody could lift her head. everybody was sick with mother we had no quinine. that will go to war department and open the spigot for the they plan and a lot of other scientist in together to argue for. while 10,000 marines landed on guadalcanal, their first meetings of the blue project took. they were recruiting scientist top scientists into malaria.

many of these men had never learned about malaria but they were needed for this project. it was the number one medical priority of the war department. they started working on drugs as the marines on guadalcanal ripped up the landscape. the waters pooled, the mosquitoes bred, they can start into mud holes at one point a medical departments into a battle commander, we have got to do something about all the mosquitoes breeding in this landscape because we will have terrible malaria. and the commander said, we are here to kill japanese and to hell with mosquitoes. the week that was recorded in a report sent back to headquarters, everybody in malaria does this quote but the week the first cases of malaria landed in the field hospitals. by january of 1943 the infection rate on guadalcanal and on new

guinea and on some of the other islands with 3000 infections per 1000 man per animal. so they were going to get three times a year. so the war department said we don't have a drug it. the malaria project, the scientists are doing the best. they are screening drugs using burglary which doesn't extrapolate the human malaria. they are doing toxic city tests on dogs which doesn't translate very well. they are fighting a lot with each other. the war department said stop and just make this a drug, the show children were. so they did and the american drug companies start making it dictated not a different look at wind overdosing our troops on the pacific and atlantic site. they were sweating the bands in the middle of battles because uncontrolled diarrhea. they were vomiting up the russians. some of them had psychological episodes because this is a neurotrophic drug and it affects

certain people that way. and so the men refused to take it. the war department turned on its propaganda machine, which happened to have theodore tyson dr. seuss, he drew cartoons. he made posters. the troops, these posters were so ubiquitous that it could start calling the mosquito tranthree. they listen to the commanders come to the commanders, the rolled underpants and the war the mosquito without and protected themselves from mosquitoes, that they wouldn't get this disease malaria. the war department was encouraging me to take the drug. clearly they thought sex would help get the message out.

they trained about 10,000 men in new orleans to form mother units attached to come combat industry is looking at his rifles to learn how to use dipsticks so they could catch the larva in waters and study the mosquito larvae. you look for the -- once they were attached to the combat units they hired thousands of local men to clear the waterways. running water kills. stagnant water produces mosquitoes. they sprayed tired tracks and comes with kerosene to kill the larvae. they study the problem in their tents. they have the own little locations. they would take blood from local people and figure out how seated the locals were and how large the malaria problem they were going to have. the doctors had to go to malaria

school, on the difference between the kind used in malaria therapies, the one she could control quite easily with quinine and it's not that he versus the kind that you get in africa which is quite deadly. they had to know the difference between nk and malaria. -- dandy. everyone at the chain was achieved on what malaria was and how it worked. the army air command had to spray the flooded areas in italy after the germans retreated and destroyed all the pumps so that they could flood the landscape of reduce mosquito larva and slow the fifth army down with malaria. it was about this time when italy looked like this, that the malaria project at home had a major breakthrough.

again, they have made almost 7000 compounds, and then nothing had been produced that was worth anything. they were fighting, and it ended up with a report on the desk that had been captured in tunisia. it was a report that showed some results from studies that were done in the villages of tunisia using this drug. it was the most advanced in coming up with these potential synthetic quite nice. and the study showed that the award as a prophylactic but that it was a chore and that it was nearly 100%. the malaria project finally have something to work with but the use of all the state hospital patients because they were not that many state hospital patients and so they didn't have clinical material. many of them just referred to

the patient's clinical material, including james shannon who was in the 1950s would become the head of the nih. so they decided that they should go into prisons. that they could have plenty of men to do the research on in the prisons. so and goldwater memorial hospital would have been what malaria studies, this is on what was then well for island roosevelt island. than in coming home from the war, they grew them in goldwater memorial and manhattan state hospital in boston psychopathic hospital, in georgia, south carolina state hospital, and the blood from them, of these different kinds of parasites that we need to build arms against were sent to this man. he ran the most successful project in figure out how to use this a drug in statesville

prison. he said i do need to go into state hospital. i don't need to use those people at all. i have plenty oppressors who will volunteer to be part of a project. he grew his malaria in prisoners and detested his drugs on the prisoners had infected with his malaria, and even use prisoners as technicians. among the most famous was nathan leopold, automotive or member the leopold and loeb crime case, the crime is intricate in the foreground is mr. barrow he saved the to go and get these two boys were brilliant, from wealthy families and they picked upup a neighbor off of their mansion lined streets and killing just to see if they could get away with a big -- get away with it.

he worked in the lab and helped turn this drug into -- skip that -- after the war was used like aspirin in the tropics. before the war the approach to eliminate malaria was the wrong long-term, it was hard. it cost money. it meant creating jobs. putting screens on homes. after the war because with this drug in ddt which is another product that came out of the were, sadly the policymakers that we can use these projects. we've got these magic bullets. the world health organization use them in its gold global effort to eradicate malaria. in 1957, resistance developed against this, into parasites. so by 1970 it had spread throughout africa. you could change the dates and

replace the drug him and the same route would hold true. every drug that has been made to fight malaria has suffered the same fate. the last reigning drug that we have come in fact the only drug that we use that wasn't created during or the parent molecule wasn't created during this wartime project, that is also going down the same route, resistance is developed in asia, and it's spreading. the reason why i find this story so important and i wanted to tell that is because it is instructive. i think we have these global health programs that focus on drugs. we need drugs. we need vaccines but we need to do the hard work. thank you. i think i've gone over my time. [applause]

>> thank you both so much for fantastic presentations. i'll just ask one question and then we will open up for questions. so be ready with your questions. so your final words a better, and that pink and green map that shows the development of resistance almost as soon as a magic bullet is developed, and sonia come in your book you talk about the development of resistance to multiple different kinds of pathogens. that is, a pattern these pathogens it all with us and around us. i'm wondering, it's a political year, what would you recommend in terms of the paradigm shift necessary to move between this dominant paradigm of searching

for a magic bullet in the context of the germ theory, to wading into the complex intersections of commerce and politics and war and the environment that actually led to the emergence of these pathogens to their spread and to their success. so how should we be thinking about the? >> i think that's a great question. i think there's a big sort of taliban in the room that we never get to when we talk about this problem which is that if we aim our public health goals toward furthering biomedical interventions, that really dovetails with economic interest. there's powerful private interests that benefit from that. drug companies and others. when we talk about public health

interventions that about social and political changes, they often are going to be in conflict with the same private interests. we've already seen, and this is something i've been writing about now is how a lot of our public health agencies have become really beholden to some of his private interests, and it's partially because the event underfinanced for so long and we have the this whole movement to public-private partnerships, which i think general is a good idea. but when we have companies telling the cbc how they should you become ed markey money for the cdc and say look into this and looking to that and this is how we will sell more of our products and we will divert research away from things that will interfere with or their economic interests. and this is been happening in cdc, w.h.o. not get two-thirds or more of its budget from private donors. these are agencies that are getting their money from people who can buy control our premier

public health institutions. so i think we really need to address that before we can even, of course we will always do the more industry friendly public health interventions so long as private interests are such a huge influence on our public health factor. i think we need to reclaim the. if you look at the 19th century, sanitary movement which they didn't know that clean water would make is really that much healthier. they had these ideas and none of it was actually true. their theories were all wrong but they thought for clean water and better housing and sanitation, you know, in the face of a lot of scientific uncertainty and they said this is what we need. we need to reform our public health to protect ourselves, and it doesn't matter if it it disrupt commerce. we as a public are going to demand that. there was a social movement. i feel like that's the big missing factor. as a public we are very same going to say a new disease, okay, let's throw some money at

the drug companies and get some scientists to come up with a magic pill or drug that will fix the problem. i think what we are finding is that's not going to be enough. >> i think it's a matter of perception. we have a certain perception about how to handle anything that has to do with the disease, right? i'm a swimmer and i have a shoulder thing going on, and it's bugging me so went to the doctor and the doctor said, you have bursitis and tendinitis and she should go get a cortisone shot. and i said, this is my first time, deceit and this is my first problem with my palm and what can a cortisone shot. then i went to see my acupuncturist and he said i just need to loosen your muscle and cladistic some needles in your arm for a couple of weeks and you will not have to get a cortisone shot. but it was that medicalized immediate solution to a problem

that yeah, you are going to take longer to get it back in the pool swimming but it's going to be longer, more permanent. i will not have any side effects. i feel like this is what we as consumers are fed in our personal lives. so we take our perception to global health and these matters of pandemics like ebola, the only thing we can do is come up with a drug or a vaccine. when what we need to do is think about poverty, we need to think about surveillance and we need to think about health systems. they all need to be in countries where they are nonexistent. they need to be built if we are going to be protected from things come across our borders. we need to care about how well the surveillance systems are in these other countries. if we took a percentage of the money that we spend on global health, much of it comes back to

western labs and to scientists salaries. and decided that we should spend this on different ways of creating a better surveillance system, the products that we produce in those labs will last longer and they work better. our perception is off. the solution is always a medicalized one and it's exactly, the germ theory letters of there. we came to understand germs as the devices that cause illness and our first response was to come up with ways to prevent those illnesses using first vaccines and then stuff out of chemistry labs, but it's more than that. we need to take a broader view. >> thank youthank you very much.

i like to open up -- duet microphones for the question? i'm going to repeat the question in case anyone doesn't here. >> thank you for the presentation. i have noticed that every time there is an outbreak of whether it's ebola or zika virus, there seems to be a fringe group where there's conspiracy theorists. somebody who's not even seeking out those i was amazed by the number that just popped up my social media feed. people's bank zika virus is caused by gmo miscues or gmo crops or something else. so you have a public who is one, not taking the threat seriously and claim it's a big conspiracy and saying any vaccine that might be prevented so my question is, what our public health or positions ngos and governments doing to

tr even though this is a very fringe group with the power of the internet and everything like that, these theories are spreading almost like a virus. >> i think you're absolutely right. this is something i go into in the chapter of the book is why is it that there's so little trust of our public health authorities that when we have good evidence that seek it is being carried by mosquitoes, they originate in this place it's a virus. we have good evidence for all these things. why is it then there are groups of people who very fervently believe otherwise and come up with these alternative theories? and i think our traditional response is to say well, they're ignorant, they are not literate scientifically. let's dismiss the. the same thing we do with people who don't want to take vaccines. they are down, backwards selfish, whatever. i think that's a realistic. what i look at in the book is what if we trace that back? where does that mistrust come

from? it does come from something real. that people are distrustful of the corporate influence on medicine. they are distrustful of the transgressions and western medical science. it's happened all over the world. care and it tells about a great example. mistrust of chemical contaminants in the in five and its rich come into body that answers those into. those are all in my opinion real concerns. they need to be addressed in an honest way. we can't just say this this these theories, these alternate theories of conspiracies coming from modeled minds. i think they come from somewhere real and the need to be addressed in a real way. i don't think we've done that yet. >> i agree. i think it's the other side of the coin where probably the majority of people would assume that a medical response to a health problem is the most

appropriate when perhaps it's not. there's a pushback on that because the pharmaceutical industries have so much influence on how we perceive things, there's a pushback. why should i trust you when your commercial interests are not in line with my personal interest? so it's exactly what sonia said. i view it as the extremes that are coming from a public that's too trusting of the medicalized approach to our own health. >> you were talking basically i guess between the public and private interests getting all mixed in. i'm wondering if you find, i know gag laws are usually based on the way animals are treated

but do you find that the same laws are hindering getting accurate information about how much waste is on the factory farms and light how big i think you call them lagoons, the manure lagoons. from looking at the sight of thanks from an animal rights perspective i've never put it together with perhaps learning with these pathogens are coming from. >> i'm not that familiar with the laws around disclosures about these things. these are estimates that of the people put together that i'm using in the book into my research. i really don't know, but, of course, in all these areas there's a great deal of proprietary secrecy. so truly about my research methods is all but look into the gray literature and digging around in unlikely places to find some of the data, and then putting it together into a larger story.

>> on the issue of -- [inaudible] -- that doctors are casual over prescribing, and i'm sure there's truth to that but there's also the case, i lived in the middle east for a long time and you can buy antibiotics. just go to the drugstore and buy them, many places. public officials told me that the problem sometimes is not what the doctor, the doctor may do the right prescription. the patient gets the prescription, kosovo and after three days feels better so throws the way the rest. its attendant regiment. for doesn't do better and throws it away. they don't work. so no matter what happens it advances that bacterial resistance.

>> i guess i'll take that one as the physician up here. i think is a good observation. i think the questions about monitoring prescription practices for human beings, and i think more importantly for animals, the tones that tons and tons of antibiotics used in animals as a greater threat potential to us. we sing strong david in some european countries which abandoned the prescription of antibiotics for growth enhancer for animals. i think access to inappropriate use of antibiotics is incredibly important in order to try to preserve those that we do have that still function against our most dangerous pathogens. >> first, thank you for coming. this is a very interesting topic. qaeda to get at that last talk, that last question, it's

interesting, that specific issue patient's compliance is directly informed our approach to tuberculosis, directly observed therapy as a world standard regarding specific disease combating drug resistance. what i wanted to ask you about is something i found interesting in mosquito-borne illness, this new use of genetically modified mosquitoes or a bacterial leaf infected mosquitoes, which is something i had not heard of until recently. if you talk about that as a new disease control approach. >> we both would want to answer that question. spirit we were just like about this before we came on. we both talked enough to entomologist. they come up with a wonderful technology and this exciting technology on how you can genetically modified the mosquito, a male mosquito, to prevent pregnancy of a female

mosquitoes. but they stopped it there and then add what else extrapolates and starts talking about using these genetically modified mosquitoes to displace natural mosquitoes. excuse me, natural habitat. entomologists say that's pretty hard and we're pretty sure you can't do we have the technology and we are still working with it. >> and i think it's interesting that there's been so much press entities gm mosquitoes, special with ck coming out. and yet -- zika coming out. it's actually a very delicate thing to do to disrupt transmission of these. look at malaria or zika. you're lucky i don't female infected mosquitoes who are the proper. that's a subset of the population. on top of which a mosquito have to bite one person can get

infected, wait five to seven days before the they go to another person to we're talking about the grandmother of mosquitoes. those are the ones you've actually need to kill. >> geriatric mosquitoes. >> the old ladies. and the whole way we are approaching mosquito control is a very blunt tool for very delicate task. we don't need to kill all the mosquitoes. in fact, we don't even know how many, how much mosquito control you would have to do, like which up to get down to 99% control in order to actually reduce transmission? because who knows, maybe those the november the mosquitoes are really resilient we don't know their habit. because we're not spending it in an ecological way at all. i think there's a big push to use the latest technology a really huge questions as to whether it will work. all the mosquito control but they been doing for dengue for years has not worked. to diminish dengue.

>> mosquitoes are adaptable. in zambia, there was an effort to make sure that a set number of villages were using bed nets properly. so there were a lot of public health, a lot of american public health experts living in these villages, working with the villagers. it was an intense effort to make sure that these villages all used their bed nets properly. if anything about that gets you cannot use properly, in many parts of africa and all kinds of bad outcomes have developed because of that. especially, there was an excellent story in the "new york times" about bed nets if you want to look it up in these villages with the entomologists found was that when there was almost 100% bed net coverage the mosquitoes change their biting habits. they did earlier. they find a way. they are adaptable.

they are small and they can change their habits pretty quickly. africa's main malaria carrier is a rural mosquito. and as africa urbanize is, that our projections that suggest malaria will not be as large a problem because it's a rural mosquito. india's malaria carrier is an urban miscue. these mosquitoes will adapt. as africa urbanize is, there's no reason to believe that the mosquito will not adapt and become an urban mosquito. so the frustrating part of reading the news is seeing a simplistic representation of how these insects operate in nature. i know just enough to be dangerous. but i know that this is a lot harder said than done.

because if it were easy we would have done it, right? the are plenty other diseases that came before zika that screamed for mosquito elimination. it's not really doable. what we can do is work on the conditions that people live in south africa exposed to mosquitoes. we know that works, but that's politically difficult so we don't do. we try to eliminate mosquitoes as a species. >> last question. >> in addition to mosquito transmission, how many of the emerging viruses are sexually transmitted? >> so the question was, how many of these emerging viruses are sexually transmitted in addition to transmission through vectors. spent i think zika is an interesting example. as far as i know it's the only mosquito-borne virus that is also transmitted sexually.

and so that allows it to spread beyond with the mosquitoes are climatically present. so i think that's going to be a really interesting development and advocacy schools because first i know that's the only one that has been able to do that, that we know of. >> with reference to mosquito borne, of course you know ebola also and there's an interesting project going on in south africa looking at the viral population of the prostate actually. so i'll be very interested to see, because it's a clever place for a virus to hide. so we may learn more. >> i had a question. this has been fascinating, really, really fascinating thank you. i question is, so we keep on running from one part of the world to another, you know? ebola, and everyone is going to work on ebola.

zika, everybody is in brazil. when you look at the world and you look at just we think we are going next with our next run to the barn after the barn door is left open, where do you think, what do you think is coming up? >> that's what the book is about. [laughter] so maybe i should just end it there. i think you're right, that's the million-dollar question, like can we track this back so that we can look at the drivers of where these pathogens are coming rather than waiting until they erupt, waiting until we have exponentially growing outbreaks of untreatable disease and then scurrying to come up with drugs and vaccines to throw at it. i think that's been our model. and maybe that would work okay if we didn't have so many new pathogens emerging but the way we live today, we do. and so i think we're going to have to go backwards and look at

access to health care in poor communities, restoring wildlife habitat, addressing the intensification of agriculture and livestock waste, and all these things we know that are drivers. we don't know which pathogen will cause the next pandemic but we do know how happens which means we can predict where. emerging disease experts have come up with maps of hotspots of our pathogens are most likely to emerge. in those places at least, so we can't track every single micro-but in those places at least we can to active surveillance to see what all the microbes changing, where are they getting opportunities. let's analyze them and try to detect these things before they start to cause disease. i think that is a technological approach, but by doing that we will learn so much more about the underlying conditions that lead to these, and then we get this huge opportunity to address those. >> thank you so much.

thank you all. [applause] >> i'd like to thank all of you for your attention. please are number two thought the evaluations. i hope you enjoy the rest of the festival. and sonia and karen will be here until 3:30 p.m. to add additional questions and design books. thank you. [inaudible conversations] and that concludes booktv's coverage of the 22nd annual virginia festival of the book held last week in charlottesville. you can watch any of the programs we have aired this weekend online at booktv.org.

>> that's a look at some the current nonfiction bestsellers according to politics and prose bookstore in washington, d.c. many of these authors have will be appearing on booktv. you can watch them on our website, booktv.org. spent and not join us on booktv the author of a book called "son of virginia." governors douglas wilder, the uniting 89 what happened? >> my life was changed considerably. the people of virginia decided that they would change the perception of virginia by