People of Praise: Former Member of Group Tied to SCOTUS Front-Runner Amy Barrett Calls It a "Cult"

As President Trump appears poised to announce a nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, we speak with a former member of the secretive Catholic group People of Praise, known for its rigid gender roles and lifelong loyalty oaths, which apparent front-runner Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a member of. “Many call it a community, but I describe it as a cult,” says Coral Anika Theill, who was a member of People of Praise from 1979 to 1984 and is now speaking out against the organization.

Headlines for September 22, 2020

  • GOP, Trump Charge Forward with Effort to Replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Supreme Court
  • DOJ Designates New York City, Seattle, Portland as "Anarchist" Cities
  • CDC Again Retracts Information About Coronavirus on Website; HHS Head Azar Exerts Control Over FDA
  • 150+ Countries, Not Including the U.S., Join U.N.'s Effort to Fairly Distribute COVID-19 Vaccine
  • House Report Finds Immigrant Prisoners Denied Access to Essential Care, Forced into Labor
  • Mexican National Dies in Georgia Immigration Prison
  • One Week into Peace Talks, Scores Killed in Bloody Day of Fighting Across Afghanistan
  • 6 People Killed in Colombian Massacre as Rampant Violence Has Claimed Over 240 Lives in 2020
  • Calls Mount for Release of Sudanese Filmmaker and Activist Hajooj Kuka
  • Global Heating Sees Arctic Sea Ice Shrink to Second-Lowest Level on Record
  • Trump Admin Taps Climate Change Denier Ryan Maue for Top Position at NOAA
  • Tropical Storm Beta Makes Landfall as Record-Breaking Atlantic Storm Season Continues
  • Kumeyaay Land Defenders Arrested During Peaceful Border Wall Demonstration
  • Tohono O'odham Land Defenders in Arizona Protest Border Wall Construction on Sacred Land
  • Gov't Watchdog Probing Pentagon Use of Force and Interest in Deploying "Heat Rays" Against Protesters
  • Florida Governor DeSantis Announces Legislation to Suppress Protests
  • White Bar Owner in Omaha Who Killed Black Protester Dies by Suicide
  • Louisville Police Announce State of Emergency Ahead of Breonna Taylor Grand Jury Decision

“Belly of the Beast”: Survivors of Forced Sterilizations in California’s Prisons Fight for Justice

Revelations about forced hysterectomies at an ICE facility in Georgia have forced a reckoning with the long history of sterilizations in the U.S. — particularly of Black, Brown, poor and disabled people — and the way this procedure has continued in jails and prisons to the present day. We speak with Kelli Dillon, who was sterilized at the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla in 2001 and who is featured in the documentary “Belly of the Beast,” which tells the stories of women subjected to unwanted sterilization behind bars in California. She says incarcerated women are “punished” for simply requesting medical records. “If we begin to press … we are reprimanded and sometimes put in lockdown,” says Dillon, who in 2006 became the first survivor of sterilization abuse to sue the California Department of Corrections for damages. Between 2006 and 2010, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sterilized nearly 150 women without required state approval. “Forced sterilization is genocide,” notes filmmaker Erika Cohn, who directed “Belly of the Beast” and spent nearly a decade making it. The film opens in theaters on October 16 and will premiere on PBS’s “Independent Lens” on November 23.

Headlines for September 21, 2020

  • Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies at 87, Sparking a Deluge of Tributes and a Fierce Succession Battle
  • U.S. COVID-19 Death Toll Poised to Top 200,000
  • U.N. Says 150 Million More Children May Face Poverty as Global Coronavirus Death Toll Nears 1 Million
  • California Grapples with Evacuations, Toxic Air as Record-Breaking Wildfires Continue to Blaze
  • Trump Announces $13 Billion for Puerto Rico, as Elections Near and 3 Years After Hurricane Maria
  • Leaked Docs Show Major Banks Helped Criminals Launder Billions of Dollars
  • International Community Counters Trump over U.N. Iran Sanctions
  • Peru's President Survives Impeachment Attempt
  • Belarus Protests Continue Amid Mass Arrests, Leak of Police Officer Data
  • Thai Youth Call for General Strike as They Ramp Up Anti-Gov't, Anti-Monarchy Protest
  • Cameroonian ICE Prisoner Who Was Subjected to Forced Sterilization Granted Humanitarian Release
  • NYPD Arrests 86 Anti-ICE Protesters in Times Square
  • Climate Activists Unveil Climate Clock in NYC Ahead of Global Climate Strike
  • TikTok Ban Averted After Oracle-Walmart Deal Approved; Judge Blocks Trump WeChat Ban
  • Stephen Cohen, Noted Author and Historian of Russia, Dies at 81

“RBG”: Film Director Reflects on Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Lifelong Fight for Gender Equity

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, as we continue to look at the life and legacy of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who, by the end of her life, was internationally known simply by her initials — RBG — or, as one best-selling biography put it, “The Notorious RBG.” And a 2018 documentary film about her legal career, personal history and unexpected celebrity premiered at Sundance and became a surprise smash hit. It’s called RBG. This is the film’s trailer.

JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: “I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.”

ANNOUNCER: We welcome today Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

NINA TOTENBERG: She’s become such an icon.

FAN: Would you mind signing this copy?

JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: I am 84 years old, and everyone wants to take a picture with me.



GLORIA STEINEM: When you come right down to it, the closest thing to a superhero I know.

NINA TOTENBERG: Ruth Bader Ginsburg changed the way the world is for American women.

JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: I became a lawyer when women were not wanted by the legal profession.

NINA TOTENBERG: Thousands of state and federal laws discriminated on the basis of gender. She was following in the footsteps of the battle for racial equality. She wanted equal protection for women.

RUTH BADER GINSBURG: Men and women are persons of equal dignity, and they should count equally before the law.

NINA TOTENBERG: She captured for the male members of the court what it was like to be a second-class citizen.

RUTH BADER GINSBURG: The point is that the discriminatory line almost inevitably hurts women.

JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: I did see myself as kind of a kindergarten teacher in those days, because the judges didn’t think sex discrimination existed.

JUDGE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: I have had the great good fortune to share life with a partner, truly extraordinary for his generation.

JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: He was the first boy I ever knew who cared that I had a brain.

ARTHUR R. MILLER: She is a center of power, on and off the court.

IRIN CARMON: Every time Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissent, the internet would explode.

AMINATOU SOW: I came up with a couple slogans. “You can’t spell truth without Ruth.”

JUDGE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: I surely would not be in this room today without the determined efforts of men and women who kept dreams alive.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s the trailer for the Oscar-nominated documentary RBG. In this clip from the film, Justice Ginsburg talks about the first time she argued before the Supreme Court, in the case Frontiero v. Richardson in 1972, centering on a female Air Force lieutenant who had been denied the same housing and medical benefits as her male colleagues. Ginsburg argued the Air Force’s statute for housing allowances treated women as inferior, and the Supreme Court ruled in her favor 8 to 1.

JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: There was not a single question. I just went on speaking. And I, at the time, wondered, “Are they just indulging me and not listening, or am I telling them something they haven’t heard before, and are they paying attention?”

BRENDA FEIGEN: The justices were just glued to her. I don’t think they were expecting to have to deal with something as powerful as a shear force of her argument, that was just all-encompassing. And they were there to talk about a little statute in the government code. I mean, it was just — we seized the moment to change American society.

RUTH BADER GINSBURG: In asking the court to declare sex a suspect criterion, we urge a position forcibly stated in 1837 by Sarah Grimké, noted abolitionist and advocate of equal rights for men and women. She said, “I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.”

AMY GOODMAN: Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And we’re joined by Julie Cohen, who, along with Betsy West, is director and producer of the Academy Award-nominated documentary RBG.

Julie, welcome back to Democracy Now! We had you on when the film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. We had you on through the health challenges that Justice Ginsburg has faced, and now, sadly, today, in the aftermath of her death. Can you talk about what we don’t know about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, how she was shaped, her early years and those cases she argued before the Supreme Court?

JULIE COHEN: Sure. I need to gather myself a bit, because, actually, listening to that, those clips of Justice Ginsburg, feel a bit emotional in this context. I haven’t been able to watch the film again since hearing of her death on Friday evening. And just listening to that quiet but centered and super-determined voice is — I found it moving in life, and now that she’s passed away, is moving, as well.

Justice Ginsburg was shaped hugely, like many of us are, by her mother. You know, both her parents were from immigrant families, both from extremely modest backgrounds. And RBG’s mom — at the time she was Ruth Bader, obviously — got cancer when Ruth Bader was in high school, and was quite ill for a period of time. And RBG was so close to her mother and so saddened by her mom’s impending death. But her mother really used the opportunity to impart a lot of life lessons to a young Ruth Bader, to really instill in her a deep, deep ambition, a desire to put her all into education. You know, her mom told her, like, “Go find love. For sure, that’s important. But, like, don’t rely — you need to be independent. Like, don’t rely on a man to bring you what you need in your life. You actually need to make sure you can fend for yourself.” And she also had sort of some life philosophies, which were, you know, basically, “Don’t waste your time on useless emotions — anger, envy, like, guilt. You know, forget those things.” And RBG really took that advice to heart. I’m not saying she never got angry. Surely she did. Everyone does. But her inclination, based on what her mom said, was always to moderate that anger and really to try not to show it, to look for peace and conciliation and stability wherever she could find it.

You know, we spoke to her — in our documentary, we had a number of clips of her arguing those early cases for gender equality before the Supreme Court in the 1970s. She’s arguing at this point before this group of nine male justices, who — you have to put yourself in the context of back at that time. Like, women’s rights, when it first came out, people really didn’t get it. Like, “I don’t understand. What are women complaining about? We open the door for them. We treat them very politely. We give them rings when we propose to them. Like, we just don’t — we just don’t see why a woman would be complaining about her treatment in any way.” And they often not only were obtuse about her arguments, but were also quite condescending to her while she was — you know, here she is, an esteemed lawyer, arguing cases before the highest court in the land, and they’re kind of like making fun of her at times. And she just took it, you know, like water off a duck’s back. She never let that condescension get her down.

She told us that she liked to think of herself as a kindergarten teacher — you know, not just a teacher, but a kindergarten teacher. And that’s how she — she looked at these Supreme Court justices as kindergarten students who just needed to be schooled. And she did indeed school them and, I think, moved on, later in her career and as she’s become this public figure of “The Notorious RBG,” to kind of schooling a lot of us, not only about legal and constitutional principles, but about how to handle the tricky emotional challenges that come up for all of us, particularly people that are fighting for their rights.

AMY GOODMAN: And the case United States v. Virginia, the cases also where — and we’re going to talk about this in a minute — where she used a man to demonstrate what inequality was all about?

JULIE COHEN: Yeah, I mean, such a clever — you know, she was a deeply strategic person. She was not choosing what cases to pursue just on a whim or, like, that sounds like a good, cool case. She was thinking, like, “How might I win?”

And, by the way, she was very consciously modeling her strategy after one that had happened 10 or 15 years before she was arguing her cases, with the string of Supreme Court cases argued by a young Thurgood Marshall, before he was a justice, when he was a young lawyer taking cases for racial equality. Thurgood Marshall, I believe, argued more than 30 cases before the Supreme Court, had an extraordinary win record. And the reason that he achieved so much for racially equality and for forwarding the idea of racial equality under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, particularly, was by being strategic. He did not take every case. He looked at cases that he thought were winnable and, like, incremental, like one little step at a time. Justice Ginsburg was a student of what Supreme Court jurisprudence — she was aware of what Thurgood Marshall had achieved. And when she started to look into gender equality cases, she wanted to be like Thurgood Marshall in terms of picking cases very strategically.

And it occurred to her that there were a number of ways having to do — I mean, Stephen Wiesenfeld is going to tell you about his own case having to do with the death benefits that a man gets as a widower versus what a woman would get as a widow — that there were instances where — like, you know, say, a man having leave for child care, that kind of thing, that there were instances where men also were victimized by gender discrimination. And her view was like, people should be taken on their own terms. Like, let’s view people as individuals, not as representatives of their gender. And she thought that was going to be a point that would — that might be able to sink in to some of these male justices, who just hadn’t thought through the idea about women’s rights at all.

AMY GOODMAN: And finally, 30 seconds, Julie, on your thoughts on her passing and what happens next?

JULIE COHEN: I am incredibly sad about her passing. I would hope, as I know Justice Ginsburg hoped, that some of these fiery dissents that she’s been writing, particularly over the past 10 years, would ultimately become the basis of later Supreme Court majority opinions, where her thoughts and her legal ideas become the law of the land.

AMY GOODMAN: Julie Cohen, thanks so much for being with us, co-directed and produced the Academy Award-nominated film RBG.

When we come back, we hear from the man Ginsburg once called her favorite plaintiff. Stay with us.


AMY GOODMAN: “The Daughter of the Regiment,” performed by Luciano Pavarotti. Ruth Bader Ginsburg loved opera, reportedly spent her final weeks, right up until her death, visiting with family, exercising, working and listening to opera. And she also performed in one.

"A National Tragedy": Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Friend & "Favorite Client" Remembers the Legal Icon

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg first gained fame in the 1970s when she co-founded the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union and argued six gender discrimination cases before the Supreme Court. One of those cases was Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, which centered on a widower who was refused Social Security benefits after his wife died during childbirth. We speak with Stephen Wiesenfeld, who was told his gender made him ineligible and that only women were entitled to survivor’s benefits. Ginsburg argued in the Supreme Court that denying fathers benefits because of their sex was unconstitutional, and won a unanimous 8-0 decision in the case. Wiesenfeld, who would become a lifelong friend to the late Supreme Court justice, says she “took their very conservative court and taught them that the stereotypes when they hurt one gender, hurt the other gender, as well.”

Headlines for September 18, 2020

  • White House Scuttled Plan to Mail 650 Million Face Masks to U.S. Households
  • NYC Schools Delay In-Person Classes Amid Staffing Shortages and Coronavirus Fears
  • CDC Watered Down Coronavirus Testing Guidelines Over Objections of Scientists
  • Trump Coronavirus Adviser Threatens to Sue Stanford Doctors over Criticism
  • WHO Warns of "Alarming" Coronavirus Transmission Rates Across Europe
  • U.S. Billionaires Added $845B to Net Worth Since March as Pandemic Exposed Racial Inequities
  • Court Halts "Drastic Operational Changes" at USPS, Warning of Widespread Disenfranchisement
  • Ex-Coronavirus Task Force Aide Endorses Biden, Citing Trump's "Disregard for Human Life"
  • Bolivian Leader Who Seized Power in Military Coup Drops Presidential Bid
  • Aides of Kremlin Critic Alexei Navalny Say Banned Nerve Agent Found on Hotel Water Bottle
  • Amy Dorris Becomes 26th Woman to Accuse Trump of Sexual Misconduct
  • Lawsuit Alleges Rampant Sexual Violence Against Women in Florida Prison
  • Report Finds Pattern of Abuses Against Pregnant Asylum Seekers at ICE Jails
  • House Passes Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
  • Utah Officer Charged with Assault for Ordering K9 to Attack Black Man
  • Trump "Patriotic Education Plan" to Counter "Left-Wing Indoctrination" in Schools
  • Condemned Federal Prisoner Asks Americans to Rethink Death Penalty

Trump vs. Masks: Attacks on CDC, Doctors & Scientists Undermine a “Pillar of Pandemic Control”

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman. As the official U.S. death toll from COVID-19 approaches 200,000, with more than 6.6 million reported cases, The Washington Post has revealed the White House scuttled a plan to distribute 650 million cloth face masks to every residence in the United States during the early weeks of the coronavirus pandemic. Vice President Pence and other officials rejected the proposal because, quote, “receiving masks might create concern or panic.” A draft press release about the plan from the U.S. Postal Service reads, “The first shipments are expected to reach U.S. households as early as April xx” — with the date left incomplete.

One study by the Center for Economic Policy Research found widespread mask use across the United States would have saved 40,000 lives in the months of April and May alone.

This comes as the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned Wednesday U.S. residents should not expect to receive a vaccine for the coronavirus until at least mid-2021, contradicting President Trump’s claim at least 100 million doses could be distributed by the end of 2020. Dr. Robert Redfield was speaking at a Senate hearing on the federal government’s response to the pandemic.

DR. ROBERT REDFIELD: The face masks, these face masks, are the most important, powerful public health tool we have. And I will continue to appeal for all Americans, all individuals in our country, to embrace these face coverings. I’ve said that if we did it for six, eight, 10, 12 weeks, we’d bring this pandemic under control. These, actually, we have clear scientific evidence they work, and they are our best defense. I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine, because the immunogenicity may be 70%, and if I don’t get an immune response, the vaccine is not going to protect me. This face mask will.

AMY GOODMAN: President Trump lashed out at Dr. Redfield’s testimony, telling reporters in the White House press briefing room the top U.S. public health official misspoke.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I think he made a mistake when he said that. It’s just incorrect information. And I called him, and he didn’t tell me that. And I think he got the message maybe confused.

AMY GOODMAN: Trump also contradicted the CDC director over masks, saying a vaccine would be much more effective than facial coverings at stopping the spread of the coronavirus. His comment came after Dr. Redfield estimated a potential coronavirus vaccine might only be 70% effective at generating an immune response, making widespread mask use critical to ending the pandemic. During a town hall event Tuesday on ABC hosted by George Stephanopoulos, Trump again downplayed the use of masks.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: There are a lot of people think the masks are not good. And there are a lot of people that — as an example, you have —

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But what are those people?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I’ll tell you who those people are: waiters. They come over, and they serve you, and they have a mask. And I saw it the other day, where they were serving me. And they’re playing with a mask. I’m not blaming them; I’m just saying what happens. They’re playing with a mask. So, the mask is over, and they’re touching it, and then they’re touching the plate. That can’t be good.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, for more, we’re joined by Dr. Monica Gandhi, an expert in infectious diseases, professor of medicine and associate division chief of the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases and Global Medicine at UCSF, San Francisco General Hospital.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Dr. Gandhi. It’s great to have you with us.


AMY GOODMAN: If you can respond to what President Trump is saying and how important you think masks are?

DR. MONICA GANDHI: Yes, I think this is great that you’re talking about this on this program, because masks are a pillar of pandemic control. They’re incredibly important. And there is no country in the world right now who has been fighting masks like this, especially at the presidential level. And if we could have started mask wearing, consistent mask wearing, at the beginning, we would have averted deaths and cases.

And, you know, one thing I do have to say, because I remember this day very well, the day that the CDC recommended population-level mask wearing, which was April 3rd, and the way it was told to us as the American public was by the president of the United States. And he came out at a press conference and said — held it up and said, “I think these are optional. I think it’s voluntary. And I’m not going to wear it.” And that way of messaging to the American public, including what you just said, over the last couple of months, has been very detrimental to our attempt to get universal mask wearing.

AMY GOODMAN: Why is it so critical what Trump has failed to do, and in so doing, puts out a very strong message? He refuses, consistently, to wear a mask, only a few times in all of the months of the pandemic. And the last time was in a hospital, so, you know, people do wear masks in hospitals. President Trump refuses to wear a mask. When questioned about whether he was endangering the thousands of people who come to see him at a rally who are largely maskless, he says, “Look at me. I’m socially distancing. I’m fine up here,” which is probably true. But they are not. They are not social distancing. They are not wearing masks. Explain, though it may be intuitively obvious to people, why masks make a difference, and when you came to this conclusion.

DR. MONICA GANDHI: You know, masks make a huge difference. I really — I don’t think I could stress how important I think this is as a pillar of pandemic control.

So, there are two reasons that masks work so very well. One is that, you know, when this started spreading, the coronavirus, so quickly, at January, February, March, people were like, “What could be happening?” People started talking about surfaces, fomites. You know, there was such confusion. And then really what happened is that it turns out — and we haven’t seen this for a long time in infectious diseases — that even though you feel well, you can shed the virus at high rates from your mouth and nose, even when you feel fine. And by definition, that asymptomatic spread means that if you cover your mouth and nose, which is where it’s coming out, that you can protect others. That’s one point about masking, that you protect others.

I think there was a problem at the beginning of the pandemic that we just messaged that these can protect others. We are not in a stage in our country that civic duty is working out really well for us. And to be honest, we should have probably messaged that it protects others and protects yourself. And where did we get the idea that it protects yourself? From decades of literature with other respiratory viruses that putting on a mask protects you. We had actually — totally, completely commonsense, actually. But the idea that it protects you is that you block the areas in which you’re most likely to imbibe the virus: your nostrils and your mouth. And so, we’ve actually started messaging in California, in San Francisco, where I live — we’ve changed our messaging to say “protect you, and protect others.”

So, there’s two huge imports of masks, which is that it protects others, it protects you. And if we could just wear this — and I really commend Dr. Redfield for saying it so forcefully, the clip that you just played on your program, two days ago to the Senate. If we could just do this consistently, we can get through this pandemic. There are other strategies, of course, but this is a pillar of pandemic control.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, this is quite amazing, what Dr. Redfield said. He said this could be more effective — not just a supplement, more effective — than a vaccine. Talk about the effectiveness of masks —


AMY GOODMAN: — and why it matters, the whole issue of asymptomatic versus people who die.

DR. MONICA GANDHI: Yes, it means so much to mask. Now, there’s another theory that’s being propounded that it also helps decrease the severity of disease, because if you mask up, you get less viral particles in, and if you get less viral particles in — say that you are unlucky to get infected — you get less viral particles in, there is evidence from animal models and outbreak investigations and even country-level data that you’re less likely to get sick.

Of course it’s important to drive up the proportion of those who have asymptomatic infection. This is a deadly disease for some, and then, for others, they’re completely well. It’s actually really confusing and protean in its manifestations. Dr. Fauci has said this many times. How do you get people being completely well and some people being so ill? And so, anything that we can do to drive up the proportion of people who feel well, that’s exactly what we should be doing. And the important part about that is they can also spread it if they feel well. So masking is so incredibly important for the response.

There has never been a country where mask guidelines are announced by someone with reluctance, by someone who doesn’t model mask wearing. I can’t really stress the importance of modeling by public health leaders, by presidents, by mayors, by governors, to convince the populace that this is important. Raising questions on masks six months into the pandemic, when we have been the epicenter of the pandemic since March 26 — we have not moved from that dubious position. Literally, the pandemic actually was declared by the WHO on March 11th, because, before that, it was called a “global health emergency.” March 11th, pandemic; March 26th, the United States becomes the epicenter. And we haven’t budged from that position. We’re clearly doing many things wrong. But this mask wearing, if we could have just modeled it from the beginning — I’ve seen Trump and Pence in mask, I think, twice or thrice — it is so important. I really don’t know how to stress how important it is to model that for people in the country.

AMY GOODMAN: So, you mentioned other countries. Can you talk about what has been done in other countries and the proof that masks make a difference?

DR. MONICA GANDHI: Yes. I mean, actually, it’s so interesting, because no other country, hands down, has fought mask wearing like we have in the United States. And so, I give you two good examples, because I really like these examples. Taiwan, March 6, very early in the pandemic, they have a country near them in which the pandemic is still raging, which is China. They literally pull out all the stops and make factories and industry convert to mask wearing, because they knew about mask wearing since SARS, which was the pandemic in 2003. They mass-produced masks, and the populace wears them without debates like this, because it’s such an important pillar of control. And they have had a handful of deaths in a country of 23 million people. They hand out masks. They provide masks. They model mask wearing. They message mask wearing. They have billboards with mask wearing. It just wasn’t an issue. Same with actually many Asian countries — Vietnam, Thailand, Japan, Singapore, South Korea. From SARS, they knew how to mask.

And then, I like talking about the Czech Republic, because they weren’t affected by SARS in 2003, but they just figured it out, put out a mandate for mask wearing on March 23rd, also quite early in the pandemic. And they got through their pandemic so quickly. Everyone wore cloth face coverings. And by May 11th, they were like, “OK, we’re done. You can start taking off your face coverings.” They had such low death rates and such a good response. No one has fought it, though, like the United States. No one. So I can name many, many other countries where it’s not an issue.

AMY GOODMAN: So, your family is from India.


AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about what’s happened in India, both the catastrophic numbers of cases and how that compares to the death toll — for example, in Mumbai?

DR. MONICA GANDHI: Yeah, that’s a very interesting question about India. And India is — it is catastrophic in terms of number of cases, because it is a very dense population, and it is a transmissible virus. It is very transmissible. The one cheap, easy thing we have available to us is mask wearing. And when we think about Mumbai — and, of course, Mumbai has the largest slums in the world — there is an ability not to socially distance, unfortunately, not to test and treat our way out of the pandemic. There is an ability to wear masks.

And there is a hypothesis that the relatively lower death rate compared to other places is that simple modality of taking a piece of cloth, which is very available to us in India, but — I mean, it’s part of the national costume — but taking the cloth and covering the face and nose. I think that places that have had lower death rates, there’s lots of hypotheses, because we thought it would be higher. And one is that there’s possibly cross-reactivity from other coronaviruses that people have been exposed to. And the other is this simple act of covering the nose and mouth.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you recommend certain kinds of masks?

DR. MONICA GANDHI: Yes. I mean, this is a great question about what kind of masks. The way that I think about it is that N95 masks are very tight-fitting. Those are the ones that we wear in the hospital. They are most effective at blocking out viral particles, but they’re very uncomfortable. I wore one the other day for like two hours, and it’s, like, really uncomfortable. They are very comfortable, and they do not lend themselves to wearing all day. We actually have to change our strategy, where we start thinking it is a piece of our clothing. And beyond that, we really do ask for N95 masks to be preserved for personal protective equipment for healthcare workers.

So, there’s two options, really, that — at least, again, from modeling from other respiratory viruses. We can never take people, you know, put masks on them and spray this virus into their face. That would be totally unethical. It’s a deadly virus. So, from other modelings, from animal studies, it really is two options, I think. One is a surgical mask, which is pretty easy to get. And then the second is a cloth face covering. And I’d recommend cotton with two ply, so not one, but two ply, that you can pull apart. Make it fit over your nose and mouth, so definitely have to bring it up over the nose, over the ears, and pretty snug fitting, if you can get it. And make it something that becomes part of your — I actually just bought, like, really pretty masks yesterday, and I was very excited that I now have masks that I’m really, like, kind of into. It’s increasing my compliance.

So, to be honest, like, we have to make it second skin for maybe a year. I mean, when Dr. Redfield said what he said about vaccines, when we think about preventative modalities for any infectious diseases, we don’t know when we’re going to get a vaccine. We have to do — we have to get to vaccines safely. We have to make them effective. They are not going to be 100% effective. Some vaccine trials have 50% as their vaccine efficacy standpoint. Seventy percent is what Dr. Redfield said, that we may have some that are 70%. You may need two doses. It may take a while to get to immunogenicity. You need some time. And we’re going to be wearing a mask that entire time. So make it comfortable. Make it cotton or a cloth.

AMY GOODMAN: Some researchers suggest that people who come into contact with infected people while wearing masks may receive a lower inoculum or dose of the virus, which could make them less likely to develop a severe case of COVID-19.

DR. MONICA GANDHI: Yes. That is really based on — it’s a theory, but I think it’s gaining a lot of observational evidence behind it, that the lower — that because a mask filters out the majority of viral particles, you get less in, if you do end up getting infected. And getting less in may lead to a less severe disease. So, we get that idea from animal models. Animal models, animals who get less virus in, they get less sick. Get an idea from hamsters — even when you give them less of the COVID virus, they get less sick. And then, as we’ve been watching outbreaks around the world, settings where you’re wearing a mask seem to drive down the severity of infection and drive up the rate of asymptomatic disease. More study is needed.

AMY GOODMAN: And what about how often you wear the same mask?

DR. MONICA GANDHI: Yes. I mean, they shouldn’t get wet or soiled. And really, I would wash them at least every other day. And —

AMY GOODMAN: That’s if they’re not paper.

DR. MONICA GANDHI: Yeah. Yes, exactly. So, paper, you can’t. You can’t wash them. So, take your, like, five or six cloth masks and wash them every day, keep them clean. And make it part of your day. Like, make it part of your costume.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, I wanted to ask you — this was that town hall meeting held by ABC, President Trump repeating his claim that the coronavirus would just go away.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We’re going to be OK. And it is going away. And it’s probably going to go away now a lot faster because of the vaccine. It would go away without the vaccine, George. But it’s going to go away a lot faster with the vaccine.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It will go away without the vaccine?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Sure, over a period of time. Sure, with time, it goes away.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And you’ll develop — you’ll develop herd — like a herd mentality. It’s going to be — it’s going to be herd-developed.

AMY GOODMAN: A “herd mentality,” he said. That was President Trump, speaking with George Stephanopoulos, appearing to reference herd immunity.

And so, I wanted to go then to what’s happening in your neck of the woods, nearby at Stanford. President Trump’s personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, has threatened to sue scores of Stanford professors, epidemiologists, infectious disease docs, researchers, after they published an open letter denouncing the qualifications of Dr. Scott Atlas, a colleague at Stanford who is now advising Trump on the pandemic. Atlas is a neuroradiologist with no expertise in infectious diseases. He has pushed on Fox News for the controversial herd immunity strategy, which could result in deaths of millions of more Americans. In an open letter to the Stanford docs [sic] — the doctors wrote of Dr. Atlas, quote, “The guidance he is giving to the White House does not reflect sound epidemiological reasoning, nor is it consistent with the current body of scientific knowledge about COVID-19,” unquote.

Attorney Marc Kasowitz, who’s now representing Atlas, has threatened to sue the signatories of the open letter, has demanded a retraction by today, saying the letter maliciously defames his client. Stanford professor Michael Fischbach responded to the threat by writing on Twitter, “I stand by everything we said. More facts, more science. Less Kasowitz,” unquote.

And full disclosure: My brother, Dr. Steve Goodman, is a dean at the Stanford School of Medicine, one of the signatories of the letter.

But, Dr. Gandhi, could you respond to this? No masks and herd immunity?

DR. MONICA GANDHI: Yes. So, I don’t think those two things go together — no masks and herd immunity. So, what is herd immunity? It’s a true concept. It’s a very valid concept. The concept is that when more of the population becomes immune to the coronavirus or to any infection, that it’s — the virus is bopping around, it can’t find anyone to infect, and it will start slowing its spread.

However, there are two ways to get to herd immunity. One is letting natural infection rage. That is not something that we would do with an infection that is deadly to so many people. And the other is a vaccine that will make us immune.

And mask wearing, the reason it’s so important is, even if you get infected, if you get less of symptoms, then that would be another way that it’s possible that, with mask wearing, you have asymptomatic disease, and you can get to herd immunity. But letting — no masks and herd immunity, put together, is going to result in many more deaths. It’s just not sound.

AMY GOODMAN: And possibly millions of deaths?

DR. MONICA GANDHI: Possibly millions of deaths. It is not sound advice. I don’t understand being against masks and then being for immunity. I think you have to be for both.

AMY GOODMAN: So, and then you President Trump’s personal lawyer threatening to sue scientists who are raising this concern? How does this interfere with the scientific process?

DR. MONICA GANDHI: You know, at the moment, it is — actually, the beginning of the pandemic, I was excited that I’m an infectious disease doctor. I was like, “Wow! This is important. Like, I’m doing something that’s helpful.” To be honest, this has been so politicized and so strange to be an infectious disease doctor in the middle of a pandemic in Trump’s America, that it is — I actually used to be on Twitter, and three days ago I got off because I was getting threats about my propounding mask wearing. And I can’t — I couldn’t understand the threats.

By the way, masks don’t reduce oxygenation. Oxygen is really tiny; it can get through masks.

So, it is really difficult to be right now just like speaking clearly about a pandemic and having attacks. And so, these scientists are right that you have to just propound what’s right, what’s tried and true, public health principles, what we know about the infection. And that’s how you have to put forth knowledge. And the attacks and the conspiracy theories have been amazing. I’ve not seen anything like this.

AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Monica Gandhi, we want to thank you so much for being with us, a professor of medicine —


AMY GOODMAN: — and associate division chief of the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases and Global Medicine at University of California, San Francisco. That’s UCSF, San Francisco General Hospital.

Next up, as Hurricane Sally batters the Gulf Coast and climate-fueled wildfires continue to ravage the West, we’ll speak with David Goodrich, former climate scientist with NOAA — that’s the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Trump Calls Howard Zinn’s Work “Propaganda.” Hear the Legendary Historian in His Own Words.

In these times of elections, climate chaos and COVID-19, independent news is more important than ever. You turn to Democracy Now! because you trust that when we’re reporting on the pandemic or the uprisings against police brutality—or the climate crisis—our coverage is not brought to you by the fossil fuel, insurance or weapons industries or Big Pharma. We count on YOU to make our work possible. Today, a generous supporter will DOUBLE your new monthly donation to Democracy Now!, meaning your gift will go twice as far. This is a challenging time for us all, but if you’re able to make a monthly donation and provide us with support we can rely on all year, please do so today. Stay safe, and thank you so much.
-Amy Goodman

We rely on contributions from you, our viewers and listeners to do our work. If you visit us daily or weekly or even just once a month, now is a great time to make your monthly contribution.

Please do your part today.

Headlines for September 17, 2020

  • Trump Sidelines Science as He Contradicts CDC Director on Vaccines and Masks
  • Israeli Journalists Quarantine After White House Staffer Tests Positive for Coronavirus
  • Big Ten Football to Resume with Plans to Study Hearts of Student-Athletes Infected with COVID-19
  • Oxfam: Wealthy Nations Bought Up More Than Half of World's Coronavirus Vaccine Contenders
  • Hurricane Sally Brings Record Rainfall and Massive Flooding to Gulf Coast
  • Attorney General Barr Sought Sedition Charges for Racial Justice Protesters
  • HHS Spokesperson on Medical Leave After Rant About Left-Wing Militants Preparing for Insurrection
  • Homeland Security Secretary to Defy Subpoena, Won't Testify to House Committee
  • Senate Confirms Two More Anti-Choice Judges to Lifetime Appointments
  • Nebraska Shop Owner Indicted for Shooting Death of Black Lives Matter Protester
  • Lawmakers Demand Investigation of Reports of Forced Sterilizations at Georgia ICE Jail
  • Supreme Court to Weigh Trump's Plan to Exclude Undocumented Immigrants from Census
  • Barbados Will Remove Queen Elizabeth as Head of State to "Leave Our Colonial Past Behind"