family. i would encourage her to make that the focus point of your work as well. thank you summit for having me. thank you so much. gave us a new profession and the children's rights there presented with the debates and for discussions regular watching book tv on cspan2. every weekend with the latest nonfiction books and authors

today brought to by these television companies as a public service sncc i want to welcome you to today's, tonight's, special program with harriet washington and her new book, carte blanche. the erosion of medical consent. get that book at a website nyc.org. political economist, i write for rev,.us. i am an advocate with the new communism developed by, and i am on the staff of revolution books here in harlem.

we have a sister store in berkeley. and behalf of revolution books, we welcome you all to this program. we are very honored and excited to have harriet washington with us. harriet is a claim booked our side which documents the use and abuse of black bodies by the medical system and the u.s. since its founding from slavery to the present time. and in her new book, she details how black people in particular, but the broader population as well, being experimented upon without their consent in the medical system in the united states. when i say something about harriet, harriet has been a research fellow at harvard medical school where she

studied political the center for ethics at tuskegee university. in terms of the juncture withholding this program in the revolution books, the very sharp. on the one hand, this is whole ugly history. obey the method system the

real pendulum for covid-19 pandemic the real virus their communities of color disproportionately. there is a real vaccine that can help solve this crisis. but the people do not have access to it. much of what we are talking about tonight. that is there is a fight for real science. there is a fight for medical ethics that harriet has been at the forefront of. and there is the fight for the liberation of black people. and a central and crucial component of the revolution to put the end to all

exploitation to emancipate all of humanity. so with that as backdrop, i just want to tell you what our format is going to be tonight. harriet is going to make a powerpoint presentation. we've all gotten so much out of those powerpoint presentations i encourage all of you to send in your comments and questions. they will be coming in, you can do this through facebook. you can send them into revelation books, nyc.org. we will put those questions and comments. here we are on the screen, revit books nyc@yahoo.com. or you can send them to

youtuber facebook chat. you have the opportunity to engage with. that way. after our conversation we said will bring you and and mostly a few words about revelation books calling upon you for support and involved with the store. and, i want to let people know that the book, carte blanche, the erosion is available at our website you can come to the store to get a copy as well. so with that, i turned the program over, very excitedly to harriet washington with her new book. >> thank you for that very good introduction pre-thank you to all of you who come to hear what i have to say.

i have some rather disturbing thing to say about american healthcare and medicine. these are all things that are correctable. i think knowledge is power print so i'm going to try to impart to you what i have learned and hopes that we can join together and make for more equitable healthcare system. give me one second, there's a slide i would like to share the up. even though i'm going to talk about this very american problem, it is important to realize it's in the global south in the developing world. that is because, that is where we have seen evidence, more than evidence actually prove of a wide spread abandonment of conform consent. the format but the practice of informed consent. there's a lot of reason for that i will get into later. first, it's a really good idea to explain to you what is informed consent. i think they'll have a vague notion of it.

and we all know or think that we know that in this country, nobody can be brought into medical research unless one get your permission. that was true for very long time. but as i'm learning tonight that's not true any longer. but permission is not enough in this country. we do not consider enough to get someone to consent, we want to have informed consent. informed consent learns to very specific information but has to be shared with some who is a potential research subjects. the idea is to get them all the information a person would need to make an intelligent and wise choice about whether or not they want to be in the study. so you tell them all about the study. you tell them what you're looking at what you're trying to find out. how you propose to do it. wyatt is important. and you tell them in detail what is going to happen part of the going receive in experimental vaccine? are they going to be given

some other therapeutic or medicine? are they going to be asked to put curtail their lifestyle somehow like change their diet? all of this information has to be given to the person. also you have to tell them what the known risks are of the study. notice i said known risks. it's in the nature of medical research. even when it is conducted very ethically and the design is really superb, it is always risky. you can never separate risk from research. because we simply do not know what is going to happen. we may certainly help the drug we are testing is going to help people and not cause serious side effects. but the only way to know for sure is to actually test it. so the known risks have to be told. and you also have to tell them what you think the benefits of this will be. what is it you're trying to do for them? are you trying to get them a vaccine that's going to protect them against an infectious dig sees that is raging? i you trying to give them some other medication say for their diabetes that will harm the

progression and physical changes that are causing them to be at high risk for kidney disease and heart disease? all the information has to be shared with the person. and as the study progresses, you continue to share information. what you've learned to the course of the study for example redheads have a high rate of some kind of side effects, then you tell everyone who studied that. everything a person needs to know to decide whether staying in the study is in his or her best interest has to be told them. you have to let them know they can leave the study at any time. you have to let them know that no matter what they have signed, no matter what they have been paid, they always have the option of leaving pretty also the tell the person all of their other options. if you would say for example artificial blood, and jehovah's witnesses, who do not want to accept natural blood because of religious beliefs but it got to tell and the options of being in the study per the option is to

change their mind to accept national blood. the option to talk to surgeon about the things that might be done to make the surgery bloodless for the option is to take your chances by simply having surgery without blood available. you cannot present to the people he study as their only option. this is all codified in u.s. law in the code of federal regulations. they basically take some type of medical research and say you no longer have to do informed consent. in fact one point to talk about is how this happened, what effects they're having on tens of thousands of americans. and how to happen without anyone seeming to know about it, very few laypeople know this, all these troubling questions arise and start

their produce headlines may look familiar so afraid of them. it's keeping african-american for signing up for trials and towards the end of the member i was reading truly alarming articles both in newspapers and in medical journals, postulating that if african-americans continue to avoid the clinical trials, we might not end up with a vaccine that works being laid at the feet of african-americans, african-american negative behaviors being broadcast, but where was the proof? i kept looking for data to bolster the claim african-americans were not signing for these trials but i could not see any numbers. that made me suspicious, i

like data. so finally is able to obtain numbers and very generous research at john hopkins who does not know me at all but immediately said and sent me the original data for two major clinical trials for the two vaccines about 10% african americans make up 12.3% of the u.s. population. the memes african-americans were signing up for clinical trials very close to the percentage of the population. they are not inviting the clinical trials they're not refusing to sign it. having headlines every day saying they were. this demonization of african-american behavior something that is unfortunate and has been with us for a long time. during the coronavirus on pandemics, we frequently seen

blame the victim narrative around the behavior of african-americans. my question had also been as i read these headlines, why pick on african-americans? what are other ethnic groups. were they not avoiding them? we do not know no one was looking at them even though most people in this country are white and most of the people who would be avoiding clinical trials is the case would be white which would dictate the development of the vaccine and yet silence, no one was worried about their participation. it's very troubling picture of medical bias and a blamed victim mentality. so, what the arguments that was used to urge african-americans to sign up in high numbers was, you have a higher infection risk. you have a higher death rate.

you will benefit the most of a vaccine develops, so you should sign up eagerly. you should sign up at higher numbers but that's actually not a good argument. if you could argue we have an improved safe therapeutic and so it would benefit you to sign up that would be one thing. but it is being tested but we did not know it was safe. we would not know its effectively hoped it would be and it turns out it was. which was wonderful. but, when you sign up for the trials you are signing up for risk. hopefully it will benefit you, almost definitely some risk there. you cannot present that as a benefit to african-americans. now, another really interesting thing is that there is today that we have the vaccine we are seeing a very similar narrative about african-american behavior. every day were being un- ingenuous stories about how african-americans are refusing the vaccine.

once again because their freighted tuskegee. i get calls literally every single day, e-mails flood my ear box, for outlets a limited going tv and radio and talk about the fact that african americans are afraid and therefore will not send for the vaccine. i say cannot do that because i'm not going to lie on television and radio. it is not at all tuskegee. the reason why it's public aided as the reason for african-american residents is that unfortunately, even experts in the history of medicine tend not to know the history of african-american treatment of medicine. tuskegee is the only study they know of. so it's trotted out whenever they want to explain some sort of negative behaviors african-americans. but we know better. we know it's not it's actually century reviews the medical arena that makes african-americans logically weary of many types of

healthcare. i document this fully in my book. incense in there for other books focusing on one or two studies a book about henrietta lacks draws on the mistreatment of african-americans. and yet it gets the vote consistently even though thomas at johns hopkins did a series of studies showing it's not this but for centuries of abuse. the interesting thing is he went to one study in which it emerged that people who had never heard of it, african-americans who had never heard of it, were more likely to have medical research. it's not that steady. and why does it matter, why does it matter that people are erroneously dragging out this one study to bring out african-american bit matters because it's a big difference. if you say african-americans are overreacting to a single study, again you're

criticizing their behavior pray there something wrong with the way they think. they are being too fearful, their fears don't have any logical basis, its overreaction to one study. for you acknowledge its fourth centuries of abuse, one has to admit there's a logical basis for their fear. and, what is the real reason why african-americans aren't receiving back the less frequency? the fact that they have vaccine less frequently just not mean there are avoiding it pretty can also mean they cannot have equitable access. and indeed we know this could be the case. we have policies in place that operate against african americans accessing the vaccine. and you know, one of them seems very logical and moral on the face of it. one of our policies as we prioritize access to very elderly people. people over 85 years old. most of whom are in their 90s. that makes sense on the face of it, right?

we have higher risk there are fewer old americans. as a fact there young population but the lower life expectancy in these groups. bedded by the poor healthcare we get, means that we got younger and fewer of us live to joint that high access group. in fact, if you look at people over 90 in this country, there are twice as many whites over 90 as there are african-americans over 90 feet look at the rates. so, we have to change this policy. yes, protector elders that is right. but also protect african-americans. craft a policy that respects the elders without consigning african-americans to access to the medication.

and the other thing we do in terms of policy, we tend to conflate social status but we ought to assign the access by risk. but we also have a social status. the front line healthcare workers as we should. that same prioritization could extend to people of color who work in hospitals keeping them clean and keep them going. having patient contact everyday as clerks i mentioned originally starting and a developing world cruel and

quite simple cheaper to do research in the developing word. it's cheaper to high-quality research there. the nurses and experts in the global south places like africa, most of africa as well as tylan, brazil, so when companies and medical centers went to test they go to the global south looking for fda approval you give a few years. also, although i think a few people will admit this, the truth is that even though these doctors are supposed to conform to u.s. laws about conducting research, there is no oversight. and it's easy to cut corners.

in fact, just last year we had two french doctors who spoke openly about taking ethically troubled research that would not be callous in france with a live. and would not be accepted in this country. so we should do in africa. we can do research on prostitutes that's been done in the past. basically, they were proposing going to africa or you find people who are medically naïve, who did not have access to healthcare, and will be crass but research draws. and when they openly said this, there's a lot of pearl clutching and outreach as there should've been. i've also read these sentiments in medical journals. i've been reading them for decades but not signified an article saying that there should be one article saying this but it is a mentality that existed before this began speaking. they've been a series of abuses pfizer had an epidemic in their loss connt forms, there's a falsified permission

form from the nigerian hospital. a lot of them ethical violations and children died. children had horrible side effects like deafness. in the end pfizer paid a very large settlement. all of the case files were closed. so is hard to find out what had exactly happened but we know is unethical only no it's not good. we often we learn about abuses in the world by u.s. and western doctors with the conspiracy theories it's a myth we basically aren't being very disrespectful about these fears. we are saying the people in the global south are believing negative things about western doctors. everyone knows is not true. they believe them simply because they are paranoid. or because they are uneducated. the implications are not too smart, they believe anything.

i have become the sort of ate many expert in conspiracy theories. i've spoken at several conferences, one in england, one in ireland, i've written for conspiracy theories one aspects of needs to be acknowledged is when people of color have a belief that the healthcare system, does not count in it. they often dismiss it as conspiracy theory. but they forget you both conspiracy theory and their also real conspiracies. and sometimes, years intervene between the times the dismiss of the conspiracy there in the time we discussed was a real actual conspiracy. i can member 1975 when i first started with the study those conducted by the public health service. and documented institutions tell me that's a myth, that's

an urban myth of conspiracy theory. also the black panthers who had democratic society as radical groups in the 70s, they also found the study and decried it, now we know it actually happened. so things like the watergate that was real conspiracy, conspiracies exist. it's important to not dismiss things as a conspiracy theory simply because you do not want to believe it. because sometimes, truth can be stranger than fiction. i wrote a peace in your times in 2007 documenting some of the doctors who have white turn entrap white western trained doctors have gone to africa and literally got away with murder. one dr. i believe from new york originally who went to jail for killing three patients. he was basically a serial killer. he went to jail for killing three american page. : :

the stated purpose of the unit was to eliminate, kill. black people. he did indeed kill many soldiers, they put poison in the home and they spotted. their main project was to develop a contraceptive that would sterilize africans that could be given to them without their knowledge. they would call it a vaccine. the problem is, of course, we are talking about a small minority of doctors. even a few doctors in a

continent, doing these kinds of things and getting away with it, even where they have not practiced. so, these things have happened even though american media has not paid any attention to them. they feed the fears of people. is this really a program to help me or some notorious plot to harm me. it is a real fear. it is very disrespectful to people that hold it. it is discovered that the cia mounted the vaccine campaign. pretending to vaccinate people against polio. i believe the vaccine required two doses, maybe three. they only gave people one dose.

the whole point was not to protect them from polio, it was to take dna samples from people that they injected and see if there were relatives of osama bin laden. they were trying to find him at that point. they abandoned that campaign and when people found out what had happened, there was a great deal of anger and distrust of vaccination programs. many countries began banning polio vaccinations in the wake of this. several people trying to vaccinate people were killed. the rates of polio grows in places like nigeria. these kinds of events explain why people are distrustful of the vaccines and don't want to engage in trials. they are not things to dismiss. they are things we need to acknowledge and engage in. talking about this pattern,

doing things that people aren't aware, not warning people what they are actually doing. testing experimental medication did not tell people it was experimental. they set up their tent right next to doctors without borders who were giving out and approved they vaccine that is already been tested. the people that already live there could not distinguish between who was pfizer into what's doctors without borders. they were not giving an informed consent. thinking that people in this country don't know about this. there is some mainstream ones, but there is also the final call. muslim population. people are well aware.

happening to people without color. logical fears about how they will be treated here in this country. i want to give you an example of one of the things that happens when people, when doctors use a blame the victim model to talk about these rates. 2014. i was really dismayed to find out that all of these doctors were explaining why, even though we had a new medication, it should not be given to africans. a lot of reasons were given. none of them were faintly logical or ethical. they said, well, these people in africa, they are afraid of medical researchers. they would not take it anyway.

there is no point on wasting the medication on them because they would not take it anyway. researchers used the suppose it fear to explain why they were not going to give any medication after these black americans are afraid of medication, they would not take it anyway. there is no point in taking it. this position of being the only person that i knew that was saying of course we need to give these people the medication. one white western healthcare worker from the u.s. was given, he recovered, came back to the u.s. and said, no, you cannot give it to africans. i am a doctor, i am a scientist, i can understand informed consent. those africans cannot understand informed consent.

a fictitious belief that africans are less intelligent and they will reject all medication. even lou marcon who was a chief expert, treating people, when ie available, known -- i had quite the debate on cnn about why i think the people in africa should receive the medication. >> herriot, there is no sound. >> thank you for letting me know the gist was, the arguments i gave often, you know, you cannot give people in the developing world, testing it in monkeys,

testing it in black people, now they will say that it is racist. very often, it involves not keeping people informed consent, not letting them know what was being done. not letting them know what they were taking was actually a experimental therapeutic. that was the issue. people arguing during the outbreak. african should not receive the medication. so, during the pandemic, emergencies, like pandemics and warfare, tend to escalate the informed consent. the cutting of corners is more frequent. because there is fear about having resources, to view resources, too few medications.

people going into emergency mode they don't have the time. it will not jive well with their mission to make sure people receive vaccines or get basic care. exactly like the one we find ourselves in. as a result, we have had a lot of cases where people have been having treatment withheld from them, without anyone explaining this was the case or force them to take drugs that were presented them to them as approved drugs that were actually experimental. before that happened, we had artificial blood that was tested a laboratory wanted to test artificial blood. the military was behind it. if it worked well and it was safe, soldiers who found

themselves in the field there may be hours or days away from medical care, could be kept alive by artificial blood. the vast majority of us come up for civilians, it did not really present any benefits. even if it worked in this country, almost everybody is no more than 20 minutes away from emergency care. during that 20 minutes, saline, saltwater, which is the standard of care will keep you out of shock and alive to get to the hospital as well as blood will. it works perfectly well. it was not tested on soldiers. it was tested on civilians who it would not help. they were not told they were being given artificial blood. they would pull up and before they started to treat you, no matter whether you had a heart attack, a gunshot wound or a stroke, with an open envelope

that told them whether to give you the standard of care or the artificial blood. they would do what the print out said. then they would take you to the hospital where blood was available, but they would not give you blood. they would keep giving you the artificial blood for 12 hours. this violates the law. you can only give people an unapproved therapeutic when there is nothing better available. blood is better and blood was available. that is how they conduct the study. 720 people in medical centers around the country and canada were drawn into the study, never told they were in the study, some of them died, of course and some of them lived. i had a chance to speak with one of them at length. her name was martha. she told me that when the ambulance came to her house and

picked her up, she was unconscious. she woke up in time to see them giving her this therapeutic. she did not know what it was. she thought that it was blood. her daughter told her. no medical person told her that she was enrolled in this trial of artificial blood. it was a very troubling situation. it was all across the country and canada. the publicity, what people were told about this was not that we are trying this new artificial blood, if successful, will make a lot of money. no, people were told we had this new cutting edge treatment for people. you are lucky you live in this area. if you are sick, this is what you will get. they were lied to. it is not a treatment.

artificial experimental substance. the language can be very important here. they talked about giving it to patients. to treat them. the research subjects, it is a big difference. the focuses on maximizing your wellness, your health, your chance of survival. the focuses not on you. it's on the successful study. not to say researchers are coldhearted or cruel, but if they can, it will help you, they will. that is not the focus. the focus is on conducting the study. it may run counter to your own health. you have rights as a patient that you don't have as a research subjects.

this company consistently referred to these people as patients. it worked against them in north carolina. a lawyer pointed out that, wait a minute, conducting a study where you are not telling people you are involving them in research, that violates the bill of rights. there is also confusion around the word consent. when we think about consent, you do not need a dictionary to know that consent is something that has to be elicited for a meal. you cannot do something and then afterward say, oh, do you agree to this? can i get your consent? it is too late. a lot of the terminology is confusing.

the word consent is in the term. there is no consent associated with it. it means we are conducting a research study and we presume that if we ask you to be in it, you would say yes. we will place you in it without asking you. if that makes no sense to you, i cannot help you because it makes no sense to me either. it is used in order to get around people's consent. and then community consent used in these settings like artificial blood, instead of asking individual's permission, the company and the researchers decided to just tell people the area what you were doing. you know, they have some protection and they could actually try to opt out. they provide a way of people opting out. if you don't want to be in this study, you can obtain these

plastic bracelets, you have to wear seven days a week. you have to wear them all the time. they say things like i decline the study. if you are wearing a bracelet, they won't put you in the study. but what is the catch of that? clearly, you have to know that the study is taking place. i document in communities that they have done this kind of research, they have not done a good job saying that this is taking place. they had like 8 million people in the area. they only had like 500 people who seem to have been informed by that. it is a failure on many, many fronts. offering any kind of consent and a failure to be honest about the facts. pretending they were offering consent by using terminology that had nothing to do with consent.

during the pandemic, some of the things that happened, when people seem to be agitated, say someone calls the ambulance because they have someone who is either ill or someone who is acting out and they decide that person seems really agitated. they actually had a check sheet. if the person were educated enough, they would give them the drug ketamine. they did not ask their permission. experimentally they would administer. in places like minneapolis, there were complaints that the police were actually urging or coercing the attendance to give it to people. it is a very potent drug. many people developed breathing problems and have to go on

ventilators. not at all unusual to have an ambulance come to your house, maybe the police urging, you are given ketamine. then you would have to be on a ventilator. next year a hospital bed is a form. that form as a permission form. you have been enrolled in the ketamine study, but if you don't want to be in it, just sign the form and we will take you out. how can you remove somebody from the study when they have already given them ketamine. if you don't want to be in the study, find the form. we will not use your data. people do not object to their data being used. they object to waking up in the hospital on a ventilator. this is a very nightmare

scenario. it is happening in minneapolis, in cities in colorado, it's happening across the country. you may have heard elijah mccain, the young man who died after being stopped by police. they gave him ketamine and he died. he died in this research study that he never knew he was in. so, these are frankly -- they are becoming more and more common. here is michael hixson who fell ill with covid-19. became quite ill. ended up in the icu, but recovered. he was doing quite well. his wife got a phone call. your husband is recovering from covid-19, but we are putting them in hospice care.

why are we putting them into hospice if he is doing well. her husband was complying. he has quadriplegic and basically said he had no quality of life. they were going to withhold medication, food and water. he is in a wheelchair so he has no quality of life. the doctor says that is correct. he died six days later. during the pandemic when hospitals became close institutions and we cannot go to see our loved ones in the hospital and cannot monitor what is happening, many people -- his wife says she is going to sue. invoking quality of life is very frightening. it is very eugenic. susan, an internist complaint

about the same thing. i hear daily from many people making the same accusations. most of them are not physicians, however. we are left wondering how often this is happening. this whole mentality of suspension of treatment, suspension of, you know, normal treatment is certainly a betting our fears of research without our permission. i did some pieces about how common it has become, terms of a legal research that violates the law. the problem that we are facing today is that it is perfectly legal. already talked about the artificial blood that was legally given and all of those studies. at the end, when the data was analyzed, after all the glowing descriptions of how artificial

blood was going to be a great thing, et cetera, it turns out that the people that got the artificial blood had a higher rate of heart attacks and death then the people that got the standard of care. again, it turned out to be not safe. people died in the study. there been many others. i am sure that there are some that i missed. i will talk in more detail about them. i need to point out that these are legal. there were two laws passed in 1996 that made it legal. frankly, anything. there actually was a waiver test that year that said you can waive getting consent if you are testing something that has more

than minimal risk. that language is so bag, i don't know what it means. by the way, you do not know everything about the risk. you do not know what the risks are. these two laws have catalyzed an explosion and research without getting people's permission. targeted majority city and towns they had very unusual cities and towns. they had more minority group people than white people. and then, even in areas where there were more whites than blacks, there were policies where more people of color were tested. they only put it on the

ambulance that serve the black and hispanic areas of town. even though this was a risk for everybody, people of color were the ones who suffered the most. a nonconsensual research. in 2008, publishing all types of artificial blood. they found that in every single case, people that got them were more likely to have heart attacks and to die. it was very consistent and more studies were being done. northfield laboratory's own testing. showing that if you look at the figure, 47%, most of the people tested were people of color. the military, they have also been victims of this.

a waiver by president bill clinton permitted the military to test shoulders with anthrax vaccine. it was described by fda approved it is not as dangerous as the inhalation anthrax. it is almost certain to recover. they were lied about whether it had ripped actually been approved. in reality, the bio port vaccine that was given to them had a lot of problems from the very beginning. many soldiers got sick. some died. many try to reject the shot. saying i don't want to have

these shots. when they did, they were punished severely. dishonorable discharges. they went to jail. they were stripped of all their titles and money earned. i read about one woman who was a private in the army who said they wanted a family. there were not any testing or guarantees that it would be safe for pregnant women. she decided to ask for a reassignment to a unit where she would not have to take the shot. she said her commanding officer wanted to make an example of her and blocker reassignment. the commanding officer punished her. by making her stay in the barracks as she was the only person there.

he describes how he would bring other soldier. she said, as i describe in the book, after she had been here by herself for weeks, she'd jumped out of a second floor window. eventually, thrown out of the army with a less than honorable discharge. fortunately, after a decade of fighting it legally, she finally got her honorable discharge. other soldiers were crippled and injured severely. these included military

personnel who were doctors and nurses who complained about accepting a shot and then became very ill. many people left the armed forces during this time, many more than would normally leave during this time. he is a lowering of people signing up for the army and other armed forces because they wanted to avoid the shot. of course, the shots were harmful. there was more going on than that. it became truly strange. at the same time, we were having a crisis among civilians. remember the anthrax being mailed to politicians and movie stations and going to the post office. people were sickening and dying

from anthrax around the country. many people were sickened by it. a lot of fear about this anthrax terrorism. the person that was responsible was this man, he was a high-ranking scientist who actually had designed the anthrax vaccine. he was upset because he was afraid the vaccine was going to be withdrawn from testing. he wanted people to understand that it was important to have a an anthrax vaccine and he did it by sending it around the country. making them supportive of the vaccine. it was worthy of a science fiction movie. the fbi was quite adamant that this is exactly what happened. today, already mentioned elijah

mccain death from ketamine. this is one of the many people who have been given ketamine by the police or by ambulance attendants against their will and have been harmed by it. we know that ketamine is a dangerous drug. it was recently used as a horse tranquilizer. it has been used only under various medical observation. now you have this injecting people who are little too agitated. a prescription for disaster. they are been four studies conducted. why is this being done? i expect that it has to do with money. the potential with ketamine to be marketed is very high. if you could find large groups of people that could be good, who would become a market for

ketamine, if you could okay it for example -- they could sell a great deal of ketamine. it is patented and it would be very lucrative. money is awesome. important emphasis in testing drugs without permission. we should be very vigilant about too many researchers having a financial interest in the outcome of the studies you are doing. here is a good example. a study that could prove quite lucrative. hypothermia is something that is familiar.

if you are going to be exposed to cold for a long time and your core temperature falls below a certain level, you are very likely to die. it is very dangerous. you still may not survive. most people do not survive. only 5% are able to survive after intense care. there is a research team that wants to, that is inducing hypothermia intentionally. the article that i read about this spoke of young black men as good subjects. their rationale was, young black men who have gunshot wounds, they are very likely to have gunshot wounds.

we are focusing on that kind of an injury care. they may benefit from this. very unlikely. very unlikely. there is not any proof. not one person has been documented to be helped by this therapy. hypothermia is something that we try to avoid, not induce. when i read the original description of the protocol, it talks very vaguely about how it is true. some toddlers have survived drowning situations that people would fear they would diane. it depressed their metabolism long enough. that may be true, it does not mean it will be true in an adult. why are you focused on black men? they are likely to have a high rate of gunshot wounds. i immediately am looking at the

rates of gunshot wound deaths in 2016. immediately found white men, 9000 white men died from gunshot wounds. only 6000 black men. if suffering a gunshot wound where an indication for this, you would be white men, not black men. the article describes how the only people who will, at the meeting where they described this complained about this so they would never be in something like that where two young black men. it is very disrespectful. they are writing often in a very objective way. deeply troubling. the racial targeting. the idea that you know you'll take something known as the triad of death and use it in people. you have not produced a single person that has been helped by that. also, in 2016, they said that

they would have a medical report on their progress in two years. i called the doctor repeatedly. i e-mailed him. i called the press office. i talked to the press officer that gave me some information. he did speak to a scientist magazine, it was suspended animation. it is not suspended animation. it implied that you are taking someone into a state that you can reverse, that you can bring someone back. most of the people died. it is troubling on every issue. the thing that bothered me the most when i began reading the discussion, he has a financial interest from development of the emergency procedure.

in other words, if he is successful, he will make money. the conflict of interest, i cannot understand why he is allowed to proceed like that. having a financial interest in the outcome of the study, obviously, the responsibility to be objective of that. it has been shown that studies tend to find results in line with the financial interest of the people that fund it. it is being carried out right now and the doctor, he won't speak with me. very often researchers have found who are conducting research will not speak to people who they suspect will not right pieces. you tend to write a lot of things at the studies. all of the great things that

they may do for people that kind of ignore the death rate. someone calls who sounds like me, sounds like they may be more critical, they don't want to speak with you. i think that that is a big problem. it tends to increase the ability to avail these studies. the reason why people don't know about these studies and the dangers about them is because researchers can avoid hard questions. the late jay katz said something important about this trend towards ignoring informed consent. the problem like i mentioned before is very often described as some wonderful cutting edge treatment we will give you. a therapeutic delusion. encouraging subjects of research

he said they were never clear distinctions made between the two. the waiver of informed consent becomes problematic. some subjects are being recruited. and that is true. one difficulty was the people that assumed the risk would have been the people of color who are targeted in the studies. the people that enjoyed the benefits would be other people, including many other people that could have afforded it. it violates the justice which simply means that it is not ethical and right to have people suffer and them get all the benefits. the research outcome is the confederation of research

projects united by their refusal to offer informed consent. no subject in these programs know that they are subjects. they do a wide variety of things they have tested things like a patented valve. supposed to help you do cpr. i do not know which valve this is, but there was another similar idea, and improvement that would benefit people, it was found to contribute to people's death rather than keep them alive. the people, again, had not been informed they were in the study. did not have a chance to say yes or no to it. very concentrated saline solution. i find that bazaar. we know that that is dangerous.

it was being tested as a possible treatment for trauma. infusing hot saltwater in people's blood. also quite troubling. these are things that i cannot imagine people agreeing to which is perhaps why they are only being tested on people that do not have the chance to say yes or no. it is worth pointing out that in seattle when they were testing artificial blood, they were doing so pretty widely and usually people that conduct these studies do a pretty good job of only having news accounts that are very positive. very unrealistic successfully touting this as some cutting edge beneficial therapy that you are lucky to have access to. in seattle, somebody wrote an article talking about risk

benefits and immediately the research group was flooded for requests for bracelets. well, the team said that they ran out of bracelets. they ran out of bracelets for one year. it completely obliterated people's chance to get out of the study. now the language has changed. earlier from 2006 it said that if you wear the bracelet, that is an indication you do not want to be in the study. they will not use you. now they say we will make every effort not to use you. he stopped short. he would not guarantee people wearing bracelets would not be used for the study. there is no foolproof way to opt out. semantics. already talked about the fact

that a lot of the race that used informed consent do not offer consent. that is very misleading. one of the things that i noticed quite a wild ago was i would give lectures around the country and sometimes when i would use the terms of medical experimentation there would be a scholar in the audience that would say you should not use that term. that is very alarmist. don't say medical experimentation. what has happened is that many people in the research arena don't want to say medical experimentation because laypeople react differently. making people feel like it means i will be in danger. critical trials. being much more an oculus.

you look at these scholars any find that many of them use it. when they are talking to us, they want to shy away from it. there is also the use of us. terms that are stigmatizing like paranoia. it is not only disrespectful, it is wrong. it is not paranoia, it is a real actual fear. it is a real actual risk of being forced into medical research. also, you often, if you bring up a troubled medical experiment, you are often to get a response that the past reviews are terrible. i am talking about what happened today. if you say past abuses, you are basically communicating your thoughts that there is no basis

for fear today. one should not use language to try to elide the fact that there are continuing ongoing abuses. we have to remember the conspiracy theory is a label that is not always accurate. there are things, too, a little bit more subtle. jargon itself is very problematic. researchers have their own jargon. very useful to talking to each other beforehand. you can actually militate against laypeople understanding what is going on. it is nature jargon. excluding experts and laypeople. randomization which we know what it means to do something

randomly. they will not always understand that if you are randomized, it is a computer and not a profession who decides who goes into what study. terms like coercion. i was a bit surprised to find out that coercion is defined so narrowly that it is hard to find that anybody has been coerced and less you're talking about holding a gun to their head. it is quite easy to be coerced. medical research because they are very ill, for example. if you have terminal cancer, you do not have to hold a person's gone to their head to make them so fearful they will go along with almost anything. if you were to apply the study may be the only thing standing between them and their death, that is inciting a lot of fear.

using the word coercion even when it applies as a bit of a problem. even the acronyms that they are so fond of, they can be troubled spirit one research said it's a big problem. we should not be using these upbeat acronyms. they are studies where we do not know what the outcome will be. we are telling people that are desperately ill, join the miracle study, joined the hope study. i said we would not get away by saying we have a surefire cure for cancer. we should not get away by saying we have this miracle study that you need to join. they are very important in describing research. they can impede information and

the kind of way that will be accurate and fair and balanced and really impart to the subject what they need to know. it can actually impede communication. i am very much looking forward to engaging in your questions. >> okay. thank you for that presentation. highly informative. i want to remind that you can get her book the erosion of medical consent at our online book shop. we are offering to viewers in the audience today a 10%

discount. we really encourage you to get this book. i wanted to have a little exchange with you, harriet. and then we have some questions from the audience that we will bring in. first thing that i wanted to say was i think that a lot of what you are pointing to is an indictment of this whole medical system. as i said at the outset, you know, we have this very, very dire situation right now. there is that whole legacy of the use and abuse of black bodies by the medical system. under this system of capital it is him and if you emphasize a continuing abuse of black bodies in black lives, very important.

i didn't want to emphasize here that, what we are really talking about is a system that is an utter failure on every dimension. we have lived through these emergencies, these crises, katrina and now covid. we had a president of the united states who denied that there was even this, you know, this virus and was blocking, as you point out in your book, even the use of evidence-based, they were actually banning language of science as a part of did nihilism of the reality of this covid pandemic and the need for science to be applied for solving it.

the points that you are making are extremely important. how this system functions and operates. the function of your book. the question of medical experimentation and all the ways that it is conducted. you mentioned conflicts of interest. research getting 10 or $20,000 for so-called volunteer in a medical trial. that is very, very true. it goes even deeper than that. this whole medical system, you know, whether were talking about the pharmaceutical companies, the hospitals and how they are structured, this is all driven and governed by profit. if you look at even the vaccine,

i want to come to this point a little later, the vaccine now, though covid vaccine, this is protected by intellectual property rights. these companies have received funds to do that research and they are privatizing the benefits of that research and it is actually limiting the amount of people to get the vaccine because it is protected by patents and i am speaking to this because we did get a question from someone about patents that prevent access to needed medicine and the data that is covered about the harmful effects of medicine. the nature ring and functioning of the business based on profits white supremacy and racism from everything you have documented in your work to the fact that

there is only 5% of physicians in the united states that are african-american. we can go through these specialties and the ways in which their resources are allocated to different communities. >> these equities that you are speaking about. not only does it use the third world using it as a testing ground for these clinical trials without any protections, in the midst of this pandemic, the functional hoarding of the vaccine by the rich capitalist countries in the front of the line. i did want to start by really sort of emphasizing a deep cause

of this. the whole history of the practice of medicine in this country and the ways in which this system is not only able to reap the needs of people but the obstacle to confront these crises. it takes the form of what is happening in the emigration concentration camps on the border. this whole system has no respect for human life. the bottom line is the bottom line of profits. it reflects not just the economic nature of this system and is embodied in the very ways

that these institutions of medicine practice medicine. their relations, as you point out between experimenter and experimented. doctor and patient. this has to be utterly transformed. that is what we bring forward. in the interest, again, bringing some people's attention. it is the and the blueprint for a society in which profits are not determined. in which social need is what sets the term for how the healthcare system will function. the goal of the healthcare system is to meet the all-around health care and well-being of the population. research is being conducted in

anticipation of crises like pandemics where preparations could be made in which you are transforming the actual relations between medicine practice by experts and people. you bring the communities, you bring those that are impacted into the whole process of discovery. their metrics no more. their resources in society, medical, intellectual are being deployed for the betterment of humanity. i just want to put that bill for the audience. everything that you are pointing to is getting at the fact that

this system is completely incapable of meeting for basic health needs of the people. now with the world being so interconnected these crises interconnected with what happens in the other part of the world. this constitution, by the way, in terms of property rights, no more the knowledge shared with the people of the world. going to work. this is how dire and desperate things are. i just want to bring that right away. as i said at this very critical juncture, it is a system that is incapable of meeting these basic needs. there is the covid vaccine. there is the need right now to get that to people. it is safe. i just wanted to emphasize these

points because the lives that are on the line now, what long-term damage will affect, will result from covid, you yourself with different environmental factors and viruses and et cetera, we don't even know the longer-term effects that this will have. i want to make this point in opening. the next point that i want to say is i have to ask you, on the question of conspiracy theory, there are conspiracies and then there are conspiracy theory, as you said. it is the case, the nation of islam and the final call, i just have to be very blunt about this. they have been telling people, don't get the vaccine. they are spreading bogus

conspiracy theories. bogus conspiracy theories which is very damaging and very harmful. i cannot let that go unremarked. >> give us an example. >> in the final call -- >> tell me one of those conspiracy theories. i know what you are talking about. >> i would say that they are arguing that people should not get the vaccine. >> right. >> why are they arguing that? >> you said they are promulgating conspiracy theories. i would like to know which ones they are. >> the rider on the pale horse. i will tell people there is an article on the final call and what it is saying about the covid vaccine and what it is saying about covid.

i am simply stating that i agree with your point. someone has written in a question about missionaries in uganda pretending to be doctors. these have to be called out and condemned. then there are the harmful ways in which people are being exposed to disinformation and misinformation about this. in any case, i just wanted to bring those points into though, you know, into the discussion. you commented on the nature, the larger character of this healthcare system in the context of the system we live under. and then someone asked in the question about trustworthiness of medicine under the conditions that you prescribed.

how do you see the relationship between the economics of this system and the question of trustworthiness and you make proposals at the end of your book about how to change, you know, some of these practices. can you remain on a needs -based healthcare structure in a system that is based on and driven by the mandates. .... .... forced vaccine testing in puerto rico. >> what we take them one at a time.

a lot here to systematize and walk-through. as a few moral put before you. back i actually wrote a book about the economics of medical research and healthcare. and how it has changed dramatically since 1980. in 1980 there were several laws passed that facilitated the transfer of intellectual property from universities and corporations. before 1980, medical research was essentially driven by healthcare and university institutions. they were tied very closely, at tune to the needs of laypeople. what laypeople wanted. when we had polio, and healthcare workers, and universities were focused on needs like that. when medical discoveries molecules and patenting them,

they have their hierarchy of need which were focused not on public goods, but on maximizing price profits. it is been was been pursued now we have problems like developing drugs that will be blockbuster drugs. in making a billion dollars a year, and have very wide markets rather than drugs for needed diseases spread that snow we have 20 drugs for erectile dysfunction but nothing new for malaria. the agendas being set by profit-making corporations. we live in a country, no matter how one feels about that it is a fact. the thing is, when companies use profits to measure the success in the medical arena, the problem is that we cannot

expect the companies to care about us. we cannot expect the companies to supplement because they care about her health. they show us they don't care about her health. but our government, the people we pay we should expect to care about her health and should defend us. our government should be reining in these companies. our government should be forcing them to develop things ill for the public needs and it is not. in terms of intellectual property, companies like thailand and brazil have that a very good job in the past of circumventing western patents. and using expertise in india for example to have cheap versions of drugs aids drugs are that people can actually afford for example. when they found these wonderful things our government's reaction is to accuse them of international property theft. the wto has for support

developing countries to buy into western forms of drugs and honor western patents, which they cannot afford to do. instead of helping them our country has responded by again international property theft when they have cheaper versions of drugs. so we clearly have been beholden to corporate interest when it's not actually synonymous with corporate interest. in the government has refused to use memories that exist for their remedies actually in place. we do not new policy. for example, patents if you have a passenger drug, and you are charging a million dollars a year for it, that is a price tag of some cancer drugs. people cannot afford it. but government has the right by law to seize that patent, give it to somebody who will produce it cheaply, to people who can afford it. and paid the original tax holders and fee to go away. but our government won't do that. they want it for drugs they get for directv though. they don't do it for drugs.

we don't really need new policies when it comes to that. we need to enact the ones we have. we need a government that section would look out for our interests. and of course, in my opinion what would be ideal to revoke that acts. we proceed to dismantle medical innovation and development and distribution from corporate control. as long as corporations control it, it will always be too expensive for it will always be misplaced. the agenda is focusing on the bottom line rather than health between a real change of heart here. trustworthiness is very important i talk about often. often in context with the propensity for us to examine african-american behavior which is affecting us typically because of the

equity. what we do is we will say that african-americans are too reluctant to accept medications vaccines clinical trials that's why they are so sick. african-americans are failing to do x why i. they cannot scrutinize african-american behaviors but the real probably healthcare system is the system itself or its untrustworthy system. it has been that way for african americans since the year but it's been that way for other groups even longer. it is never focused on maintaining wellness for african americans as it reportedly does for other people. simply can't talk about african-american behavior. you have to talk by the untrustworthiness of the healthcare system. you build the trustee healthcare system people embrace it they will go to it. but it is not trustworthy can expect and when to. and ours is definitely not trustworthy pregnant on

because of history but if things are happening right now. around for example vaccine distribution. among championing unethical research and developing world. around distancing consent particular with vulnerable populations. these of the healthcare system deserve at least equal scrutiny but they're not getting it. i also want to say there some economists who are working really hard in terms of medication pricing and distribution. for people who accept that at least for now, people who accept that the capitalist system is not going away anytime soon, and try to work within it. there are solutions. health improvement program is one of them. the researchers at yale who

said that instead of allowing to maintain an exclusive patent on every medication for an average of over 20 years, what we should do is reward corporations who have it we should judge him much they are paid based on how many lives are saved. how many cases of disease or gotten rid of that should be a global assessment. right now, the health of people, wealthy people in the western world is what drives healthcare agendas. everyone wants to make drugs and treat these people because these people can pay a lot of money in return. that's why the world gets ignored they cannot afford expensive care pretend that this kind of proposal every life and be. if you save the life of people with malaria in the global celtic company company would be rewarded the same that

they'd saved lives in a million americans. that's a much more equitable plan. this kind of plans are being devised and they deserve our attention. but part of the reason why they're not getting our attention is that we permit healthcare lobbyists. we are electing officials to safeguard our medical interest by passing laws that will benefit us. but instead, healthcare lobbyists paid the same officials to pass laws that benefit their countries. lobbyists have no place in healthcare. they are circumventing the will of the american people. they are circumventing issues that would improve our health. we need to get rid of them lead to pass whatever baba need to pass and banish lobbyists and healthcare. that something we should start working on doing immediately. but until we live in the utopia will be do not have to worry about money being tied to healthcare, this to be the next best thing i think.

harriet. >> yes. i wanted in terms from lewis and the idle call in december 2020 he's quoted in the final call is saying this since the nation of islam, we will not accept your vaccines so you can slow down because whenever you bring it out it is for your people part you give it to them because we are not accepting death. you are the very representative of death itself. he also has said don't let them vaccinate you with their history of treachery through vaccines through medication paired are you listening? i say to the african presidents do not take their medications. now, this is what he said about the covid vaccine. and you know, here we have the situation we been talking

about in tonight's presentation buried the real abuses that have been perpetrated against black bodies and black lives in black minds and at the same time there is this kind of nonsense that's being peddled. in this vaccine, i think you have written on this the vaccine has been vetted, is safe, and people need to get it. though we need to distinguish, or coming back as you would ask. >> i have an example you give an example we are talking about that is helpful. but, i do not understand why people are more trouble i that them by the cia and their behavior per hvac totally troubled. >> what i am trying to say is what he is saying is the vaccines are for the advantage of them and not us. quite frankly that's borne out historically grade that's actually accurate.

>> i didn't say don't take it, that's not at all what i said. >> i am saying that he is saying. >> i know he's saying, i am talking about, remember how i said we need to approach peoples spirits with respect this is the perfect example. okay? he is expressing a fear a lot of people share. i think people should take the vaccine. that is not at all into contention. but, when people have reasons for not taking the vaccine a think it's really important to meet them where they are and discuss them. and not discuss them and not reject them out of hand. it's easy to label people's behavior. but what you quoted, is he is saintly vaccines are devised for them and not us. i agree with that a notice saying for a don't agree his conclusion that people should reject the vaccine. think it's really important again, what is the utility of

rejecting someone statement is being completely wrong and then leaving it there and laughable. i think it's really important to communicate with them. might be able to find some common ground or with anything commence in your rates. and not mislabel behavior. >> on this point i want to agree with you. that given this whole history and the ongoing abuse that the concerns of the community of the oppressed community the black communities these are valid. right now, there is a system that is murdering black people. the police are murdering black people. the healthcare people is killing black people. the educational system is not serving black people and other expressed and exploited people. this is the ways in which the system functions historically

and continues to function. in this crisis it's very important. harriet maybe you can speak about this. the medical association winch professional organization of african-american physicians, they have independently vetted the vaccine as i understand it. to help people understand the science from the non- science and understanding what's going on. how to communicate, how to get this effectively into the communities. within the constraints and confines of this system. i want to affirm what you are saying about listening to people with concerns and at the same time there is the urgency of getting the vaccine. >> yes, except that it's a mistake to focus on urgency and finding a solution now. we are talking the abuses that are going on for 400 years.

in trying to do everything quickly is a problem. we are not going to solve the problem of a healthcare system that's untrustworthy and peoples logical reaction to within a few months or weeks. we would love to do that would be convenient to do that but it's not realistic. and it is not fair to put the onus on people to change their behavior to pivot change her behavior immediately. because frankly the healthcare system has changed its behavior. so again, this focus on african-american hey v or comments interesting how are expected to solve the problem even though he been the victim of the problem. looking for speed is not the most effective way of getting things done. if we company to fix the system and to fix it permanently. we don't want to be reinventing the wheel every time we have a healthcare challenge. you know? there are things we are doing

to make a lot of sense i agree with. having african-american doctors for example take the vaccine very publicly, that is social marketing and it's very appropriate and good. but it's not enough. as long as you have a system that is abusing people, people are always afraid they're going to be of use and it, then you're to have this problem. need to focus on fixing the system. it's not going to be overnight project. steve mcferrin appearing at reviewing those terms. the argument that we are making here is the we can't fix the system in this unfixable and unreformed. >> i know that your stance. >> can be empirically demonstrated your work is contributing to the white supremacy that's built into it, it's the ways in which it's governed strategy to make

this revolution's healthcare system as part of a society we could have more discussion about this. [inaudible] >> i think rank agreement help what has to happen but we disagree on how it has to happen that's okay we don't have to agree about everything.

the u.s. structure with the system does to the environment, the wars, how the u.s. empire it is an imperial empire uses medicine and abuses medicine in pursuit the work that you're doing we have to continue this dialogue and debate about whether you can fix the system or if we have to get rid of the system which i think the case is very strongly made here, then the strategy for that division that is embodied for the new

social and america we will continue this. i want to bring in some other questions are from the audience, okay? someone asked, at what point do these abuses of medical consent constitute criminal behavior? what is the role of falsification of medical records when physicians, i think it's the intention of violating informed consent. is that another aspects of criminal behavior? result in physicians willingness to violate informed consent. >> in terms of criminal behavior, what makes this so insidious that by changing the law they are actually what used to be criminal behavior. they're moving it from criminality to legality. the fact it's legal to sonic ethical, dystonic it right.

but they are indeed legal. we need to change the law, we need to revert back to ethical law. there is hope and with the trials are conducted is often violent parts of the law, can only force people to take the experiment of therapeutic when they go the hospital said that be given blood, sailing or something since actually breaking the law, nothing was done about that. i could not find anywhere in the reams and reams i wrote

about that. i could find nobody challenging the law. the one person's challenge of the law was nancy king. that was in north carolina. the study that took away conform consent was violated the north carolina patient bill of rights. reason their love to continue that study i'm very optimistic. personally i prefer for us to try to revoke the law so it would no longer be legal. you know revoke the law. there's more reasons why i think and hope that can be done, part of its transparency. the fact this was enacted re-

infected you and meet late people, nothing about it have no voice and i find really troubling. in order to change the law, when i pointed out is a be really important for lawmakers to hear from this. most urging people whatever group you're part of fraternal organization act, serra club, i don't care try to get this on the agenda. try to get people to get people involved to rollback these unethical laws they will no longer have protection of the law. but until that happens, criminal charges a be very hard to brought up or you make a good point to about falsification. because they have to give a

case. they're angry they were combative the person's lawyer or representative reflected the woman there talk about was crying pretend she did not want to go to the hospital. she did not kick or fight or whatever. that is by the attendants. they would legally be liable for that. so there is some hope in terms of looking individual cases and finding that actually broken letter of the law. rolling the law backward tech

help more people. i want to bring as many in the audience into this. member earlier member experimentation in puerto rico with vaccines and other testing and medical procedures. so back okay. so import a ricoh there is a long history of subjugating people through research without their permission, and very long history of this. a lot the studies for them the birth control pill was devised in mexico, hispanic women have been they often were not given conformed and sent for example

depo-provera was tested on women in the u.s. and in puerto rico. this is a potent carcinogen you should not be giving it to women as a counter perception, but they were but they took her to do it outside the country. there are patterns of u.s. researchers outside the country. the same thing has happened in the countries south of our borders. it is very cheap, easy, and again, the oversight is easy to elude. the law does provide for oversight of the studies. but the law does not provide much funding for it. so you end up with very little oversight. and so, the oversight is so spotty, that sometimes there's not even any policy in a

procedural guide for it. so even if you did by chance have people who were concerned about it, was no education on how to go forward. the oversight is simply not -- mix particularly and research in the developing world. they don't usually allow research in prisons. our country does new zealanders that's it. we had horrific research of horrific history in men in

masks having horrible infections chemicals erode their skin even as far back as the 1960s informed consents was taken away. giving testing on on men to become paralyzed they can't move and they can't breathe. so if you give them you have to quickly put them on a ventilator when they're testing it they would give it to prisoners.

if you were drowning your handcuffed. you can't breathe you can't move. prisoners kept sam not going to be a study i'm going to reject it. the prison board civil give you permission for you and force them into the study. grocers no real consent. but i submit it in prisons there is no real consent anyway. persons are inherently coercive. like being enslaved. voluntary consent is that redundant? no. you can have people's consent in many ways but you can threaten them into giving consent, you can beat them into giving consent, you can

force them to give consent. and in prisons the consent is not voluntary. many people in prisons have to give consent. they have to do it for many reasons. first of all, the prison laboratory has been a safe haven. a lot of prisons are very dangerous areas. you be assaulted, raped, stabbed, the physical also prisons, the money that men earn from prison studies, it's not much money. it's much, much more than any other labor but if they make 30 cents a day working in laundry, will they can make $300 from a research study. it is often used by their freedom. get a bail bondsman to take 10% of their bail, they can earn enough money in research study to action by their freedom. they call that undo -- undue

influence and medical ethics lingo. i called coercion. again a corrosive atmosphere, a coercive and sometimes the monies are price of freedom are your price of safety. and so frankly, i don't think prisoners can give free consent. we should not allow research in prison, other countries don't. in the 1970s abuses it got so bad, so much bad publicity. next benefit prisoners. in 2005 reversed herself. it's interesting about that is somebody called about that for this and maybe we'll have this panel they said to me, what is your opinion with that wary

sharing my opinion i didn't with the affected be the truth to be that i would happen to be here, get the discussions get the information to make my decision. they did not invite me to it be on the hand panel they did decide to open prisons backup. i already wrote about some the troubling studies that were taking place after that. and i expect to see a lot more pieces in the future. it's complete insanity completely unethical. and a very, very sad thing that we permit to happen to use basically incarcerated enslaved people as guinea pigs, totally unacceptable. but we are doing it. >> parent, getting a lot of thank you's your presentation. a number of people have asked how they can get in touch with you. i don't know if these are, if you have a way in which people

can write you. >> i will give my let's see that's always problematic part i want to be in touch with people but my e-mail boxes got 14000 e-mails in it right now. [laughter] >> that's white takes a while to answer me. >> i am very busy it is true. you know, if i give you an e-mail address could you comment you have a way of disseminating it to people question expect or can they write your publisher? is there like a publisher summons asking can we write the publisher? >> that might be a good solution, short. aren't listed that's how that be? >> good question. let me look it up. their website should have an address on it.

columbia global reports. why don't we say people should write columbia a looking that up now? the interest of time, people should go to columbia global report. >> put my name on it. harriet washington in care of columbia global reports. >> what i have here columbia.edu columbia global reports at columbia gr. okay? >> think they also have a twitter account can also send a message via twitter as long as my name is on it to make sure they can easily send it to me. that's columbia global reports

attention harriet washington. right? >> sounds good. i think we will end the program now. it has been so stimulating. it is 7:00 o'clock now. i just wanted to say a few things about revolution books and then give harriet an opportunity to say any parting words she like to share the audience. i want to thank everyone for coming out to tonight's event. i want to call on you to support and be part of the community of revolution books. we are a unique bookstore here in new york. in berkeley. we are the political, intellectual and cultural center of an actual

revolution. this is a place, a space, and bookstore that values critical thinking of a poetic spirit to the unfettered search for the truth. the beating heart of this bookstore is the work and leadership. he is the most important political thinker and leader in the world today. he has developed what is called the new communism. this is a whole new framework for human emancipation. the scientific method and approach for deeply understanding world learning. from the diverse currents of thought and insight from a wide range of thinkers and people contributing in the different realms of the arts and the sciences and philosophy. to understanding the world. to be drawing from and learning from it in this new communism is a set is a scientific method approach

that deeply understand two profoundly and deeply change it. that is to make an actual revolution, to put an end to a capitalistic imperial system at all forms of oppression and exploitation. this is all for the emancipation of humanity across the planet m2 protect this planet from the environmental destruction that is ravaging it. so, that is what this revolution opens up. there is no revolution without the scientific approach. there is no revolution without the emancipation. there is no revolution without robust debate, kind of dialogue we are having here tonight. and all the more reason for people to get involved in this bookstore. to come to the bookstore. to go to our website and to

donate. we are a nonprofit, all volunteer. we count on you. we rely on you to support this bookstore with your financial donation, with your ideas, mention us in your social media. tell people about this bookstore. you can make a donation in the ways that you see on the screen here, right now. and we have been hit financially by this pandemic. the number of people who can come in, we'll have to work together to make this bookstore and even brighter begin for a whole new world. so, with that i want to thank everyone for coming out. and really send my warm thanks

to harriet for her presentation for the work she is doing. espousing the horrors of the system. in standing for ethics at a time when these kinds of concerns and this kind of compassion that she brings to the discourse is not the currency in this society and system. or to thank you for coming. if you what to say any parting words, do so. >> thank you purchase briefly what i want to say is that the right to say yes to medical research is an essential pretension. since nuremberg, since we close the books on the worst abuses on capitol research with african americans, we do not want to risk those nightmares returning. and so it's very important for you to talk to your legislature, reach out.

let them know this concerns you deeply so we can work together to rollback this horrible abuse. and, you know, free ourselves. thanks so much. >> thank you again. think the audience. we will see you soon. good night. >> you are watching book tv on cspan2. every weekend with the latest nonfiction books and authors. book tv on c-span2, created by america's cable television company. today we are brought to by these television companies who provide book tv to viewers as a public service. here are some the current best-selling nonfiction books according to bookstore in washington d.c. topping the list is dust, night, don. the guide to restoring hope and joy in our lives. then in the sum of its former

president heather mcgee examines the cost of racism for all americans. that is followed by a world without e-mail. tom newport's thoughts on what productivity would be like without constant e-mail communication. after that pulitzer prize winning wilkerson called the hidden caste system in the united states had wrapping up or look at some of the best-selling books according to washington d.c.'s politics and prose bookstore historians candi and keisha blain edited a collection of writings on african-american history from 1619 through today. in 400 souls per some of these authors have appeared on book tv for their sin watch their programs anytime @booktv.org. >> this week on the communicators we want to introduce you to colin breyer and bill carr. they are the co- authors of this book working backwards inside stories and secrets from inside amazon. mr. breyer, we