James Corbett

[[File:7096C720-6B1F-436A-8028-693F78301CC5.jpeg|thumb|right|165px|Even planet Earth looks down on them.]]{{conspiracynav|1}}

'''James Corbett''' is a [[Canadian]] [[anarcho-capitalist]]/anarcho-voluntarist (former) [[YouTube]]r, [[conspiracy theorist]]. He performs amateur analysis of 
[[politics]]
 [[conspiracy theories]] and purported [[propaganda]] in '''The Corbett Report''', [[YouTube]] (formerly),<ref>Corbett, J. (2021, April 11). ''Mission Accomplished: The Corbett Report Removed From YouTube.'' The Corbett Report. https://www.corbettreport.com/mission-accomplished-the-corbett-report-removed-from-youtube/</ref> [[Global Research]] TV, [[RT]] news and other shows and websites such as the Boiling Frogs Post, NewsBud, [[5G]] summit and other such occasional events, despite having no credentials in any of these fields, such as [[9/11]] and the [[John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory|JFK assassination]] being [[false flag]] attacks, [[government]] [[mind control]], [[water fluoridation]] and [[chemtrails]] lowering [[IQ]] to make it harder to [[wake up]] [[sheeple]], the “[[Clinton body count|Clinton Body Count]]”, [[5G]] sends toxic EMF, Bill Gates is a [[Nazi]] eugenicist, [[GMO]]s cause tumours, [[Climate change]] is a [[hoax]], [[vaccines]] never worked and are also a [[hoax]], [[moon landing]] is hoax,<ref>[https://www.corbettreport.com/the-kubrick-question-video/ The Kubrick Question (Video)] Corbett Report (07/02/2012). Jump to “How Stanley Kubrick faked the Apollo Moon Landings: Alchemical Kubrick II”</ref> [[eugenics]] is still alive, [[America]] is secretly a [[socialist]] country,<ref>[https://www.corbettreport.com/earth-to-trump-america-is-already-a-socialist-country/ Earth to Trump: America Is ALREADY A Socialist Country] (02/10/2019)</ref>  [[pizzagate]] is real,<ref>[https://www.corbettreport.com/reddit-bans-pizzagate-investigation-the-corbett-report-continues-it/ Reddit Bans #Pizzagate Investigation. The Corbett Report Continues It.] Corbett Report</ref> [[Donald Trump|Trump]] wants to establish a [[New World Order]], among many, many others.

Anytime anything interesting happens anywhere on the planet, there's a very high chance James has found [[PIDOOMA|"proof"]] it is either a [[false flag|false flag operation]] by the [[New World Order]] or a "massive [[coverup]] operation" run by the [[New World Order]] to implement the [[New World Order]] and has already discussed about it on one of his episodes on YouTube or a podcast on his channel. No exceptions. You would think the [[New World Order]] would've eliminated this widely-known bearer of all their secrets, but no, for some reason they see fit to let him continue.

==The Corbett Report==
{{cquote| A refreshing detail about Corbett is that he is generally not  merely [[JAQ]]-ing off but firmly asserting some wonderfully insane, totally [[reality]]-independent claims.|||[[Encyclopedia of American Loons]]<ref>{{cite web|title=James Corbett |url= http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/06/584-james-corbett.html}}</ref>}}

Founded in 2007 by Canadian expatriate James Corbett, a former English teacher 
who was fired when it became clear he had mental illnesses.
 “The Corbett Report”, an “independent, listener-supported alternative news source” (podcasts, interviews with other [[cranks]], articles, [[YouTube]] videos) “about current events and suppressed history from an independent perspective” (batshit lunacy Corbett has made up) which operates on the principles of "open source intelligence" (surfing the internet in the comfort of his home and sharing what he found on [[NaturalNews]]). Corbett sure doesn’t get his news from "[[Rothschild]] Reuters". Supported by subscriptions of his [[webshite]], he discusses statism, [[9-11 conspiracy theories]], [[chemtrails]], [[climate change denial]]<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huKY5DzrcLI Climate Change is Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience] by CorbettReport (December 8, 2015) ''Youtube''.</ref> and anti-[[dogma]] [[conspiracy theory|conspiracies]] 
that [[mainstream media]] would never want you to know,
 as well as making claims about 
[[Obama]]'s
 [[Donald Trump|Trump]]'s [[New World Order]].<ref>https://www.corbettreport.com/how-to-herd-your-tax-cattle-transcript/</ref> The most [[clickbait]]-y articles of his are, unfortunately, locked behind a paywall, which probably gets him away with [[brainwashing]].<ref group=note>The most clickbaity titles are locked, and in order to see them, you need a membership to the site. For example: [https://www.corbettreport.com/how-to-become-a-bajillionaire/ How to become a bajillionare the Clinton way!] or [https://www.corbettreport.com/4-signs-the-world-is-not-ending/ 4 signs the world isn’t ending (by climate change)] and [https://www.corbettreport.com/category/articles/newsletter/page/24/ all of these articles] including [https://www.corbettreport.com/category/articles/newsletter/page/25/ these ones] Unfortunately, for those who haven’t drunk the [[Kool-Aid]], it shows: <i>This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register here.</i></ref>

In addition to the history of [[oil]], power, and [[economics]], alleged [[false flag]] events like the {{wpl|Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories||,}} the [[9/11 conspiracy theories]], and {{wpl|Operation Gladio||.}} Corbett claims to detail scandalous corruption, injustices, and expose conspiracies, psy-ops, black-ops, and the covert "[[Deep state|deep-state]] secret", "ghost politics", [[globalization|globalist]] control, and domination agendas of the NWO advocating a "[[revolution]] of the mind" to counter-cultural [[brainwashing]] dogmas to ultimately foil all centralized [[government]]s' monopolistic use of violence, often by using unfunny mockery. Ultimately, however, all he achieves is talking to an [[echo chamber]] of other dangerous morons about the same nonsense. He is also a vigorous denier of [[climate change]] and doesn't like the {{wpl|Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change|Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)}},<ref>[https://www.corbettreport.com/pay-up-or-the-earth-gets-it-propagandawatch/ 'The Corbett Report', October 17, 2018]</ref> [[Agenda 21]] or Bill Gates.<ref>{{cite web|title=Who is Bill Gates?|url=https://www.corbettreport.com/gates/|website=corbettreport.com}}</ref>

In conclusion, he is your typical [[kook]], his web design better than most [[conspiracy]] lunatics, his writing less so, although skillful in being [[Willful ignorance|impervious to the truth]]  and presenting [[Gish Gallop|allegations based on weak reasoning]] that purposely [[Occam's razor|avoids reflection and alternative explanations]], [[Lying by omission|avoiding anything that could damage and challenge the narrative he creates]].

==Views==
Corbett is your usual conspiracy theorist spreading the classics in conspiratorial [[bullshit]]…

===Bill Gates===
{{main|Bill Gates}}
[[File: ECCA2D58-53A5-4E6E-B841-3AEC6B55BB60.jpeg |thumb|right|300px|Where do you even get such pictures of Bill Gates?]]

Corbett believes that Bill Gates is manipulating this [[2019-20 COVID-19 outbreak|COVID pandemic]] with lockdowns etc. so as to push untested vaccines for economic benefit, establish population control with microchip implants, and [[depopulation]] as he is an alleged [[eugenicist]]. The entire documentary is filled with poor analogies to [[Rockefeller conspiracy theories]], comparing his actions to them. He implies that anyone who is working for a company or any foundation even remotely sponsored by Bill Gates cannot be trusted. That includes any medical professionals or other people who have studied their claims far more than Corbett.

Despite the numerous scientific studies conducted that conclude the virus is not human-made, the fact that many other fact checkers that are not sponsored by Bill Gates have debunked his claims, they are all wrong and somehow secretly paid by his foundation’s [[PR]] to engage in semantics in Corbett’s mind.

====Miscellaneous====
The documentary [[cherry pick]]s certain viewpoints of Bill Gates that were supposedly before he started charitable work, including a lawsuit and footage of him getting hit with a pie on his face. Turns out, all of them happened after 1994, when Bill Gates formed the “William H Gates Foundation” when he donated some of his stock, which would be later converted to the “Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation”.

The ‘report’ goes on to say how he funds every news organisation in the world by linking to some of Bill Gates’ grants to non profit organisations such as {{wpl|Our World in Data}} and {{wpl|NPR}}, hence everything you know about him is wrong and the video you are seeing is right. But how a charitable grant given to a nonprofit helps Bill Gates literally control the entirety of the organisation is left unexplained.

After this, the viewer is forced to listen to the list of everything Bill Gates has done in the field of vaccines, but with ominous music in the background. And how Tedros is related to Gates, so you shouldn’t trust him either.

The report keeps cherry-picking everything that has gone wrong with vaccine trials that were in any way related to Bill Gates. Most repeated are:-

*Gates’ funded PATH violated human rights while conducting trials (with very huge emphasis on “violation of human rights” — The actual violation in question is left unexplained. The violation of ethics was that the trial documents were filled “very carelessly” and mismatched guardian signatures. The justification was that the parents were “unreachable”. Furthermore, The ICMR, India’s highest medical research authority, reviewed and approved the protocol for this project, including its design and methodology. Bill Gates had nor has any control over PATH, and merely provided funding for it. The project was not directed by Bill Gates in any way. The report also left the actual successful trials of PATH in India which received.<ref>[https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanonc/PIIS1470204513704765.pdf Addressing questions about the HPV vaccine project in India]</ref><ref>[https://www.path.org/media-center/statement-from-path-cervical-cancer-demonstration-project-in-india/ Statement from PATH: cervical cancer demonstration project in India]</ref>
*490,000 people developed paralyses from Bill Gates’ oral polio vaccine — Bill Gates also had no role in organising or dictating how the trial should take place, he merely gave grants to GPEI organisations.
*MenAfriVac lead to 40-500 children being paralysed.

====‘Documentaries’====
{{main|Schlockumentary}}
Corbett's videos on Bill Gates are like a tangential thought process in narrative form, but each tangent is not a new fact to consider: The tangents are suggestions of explaining Gates' actions or words, tangents are on second-guessing motives, he reinforces those ideas with stories and opinions related to the gruesome topics of 'Bill's master plan'. He builds on the previous guessing by using crafty language to omit reflection, and incomplete unchallenged reasoning. The process results in painting those explanations into a smear with a huge question mark afterwards, as if he was just asking questions and not making allegations. There is no proof that Gates is planning a mass murder or [[genocide]] in line with an evil [[worldview]], and no evidence he plans to microchip the public without consent and lord over them like they were slave. These ideas are implied by the detailed and captivating picture that Corbett paints.

===GMOs===
{{main|GMO}}
Corbett believes GMOs cause tumours, do not feed millions of people, and that all studies not saying so are sponsored despite the plethora of independent scientific documentation. He also insists that there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMO, and points out that many European nations have banned GMOs.

As usual, he is reckless in spreading misinformation about it by making claims such as…

====GMOs do not increase crop yield====
{{main|Union_of_Concerned_Scientists#Promotion_of_Agroecology}}
The report<ref name=gmo>[https://www.corbettreport.com/5-gmo-myths-busted/ 5 GMO myths (facts) busted (refuted with more [[bullshit]])]</ref> cited a 2009 article from the [[Union of Concerned Scientists]] (UCSUSA)<ref>[https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/failure-yield-evaluating-performance-genetically-engineered-crops Failure to (not) yield]</ref> (who are, quite ironically, famous for debunking climate denialism<ref>[https://www.ucsusa.org/climate  Scientists are concerned about climate! (shocker)]</ref> which Corbett has indulged in, hence the name).

It is worth noting that it is not rare for UCSUSA to publish unverified studies on GMOs, hence gaining criticism from many scientists such as Harvard microbiologist Kevin Bonham.<ref>{{cite web|title=Kevin Bonham on UCSUSA|url= https://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/2013/05/14/union-of-concerned-scientists-failing-on-farming |website=scienceblogs.com}}</ref> By applying Corbett's own methodology, the study is wrong because UCSUSA has invested a lot in [[organic farming]] and is paid by them.

The non-[[peer review]]ed study was debunked by the Genetic Literacy Project (GLP),<ref name=yield>{{cite web| title=Does GMO corn increase crop yields? 21 years of data confirm it does...| url= https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/19/gmo-corns-yield-human-health-benefits-vindicated-21-years-studies/ |website=geneticliteracyproject.org}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Genetic Literacy Project on UCSUSA|url= https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/union-concerned-scientists-advocacy-group-promotes-unscientific-views-gmos/ |website=geneticliteracyproject.com}}</ref> which has been rated as a pro-science resource with high factual reporting by [[Media Bias/Fact Check]]. It is also worth noting that the GLP has been accused many times of accepting funding from corporations that are involved in the agriculture genetics business due to their acceptance of the [[Scientific consensus|consensus of science]] as it relates to GMOs. On the GLP website they offer a full disclosure of their funding disproving the fact that they receive funding from pro-GMO companies such as [[Monsanto]].

The GLP claims that there are over 6000 studies that disprove this claim. A selection of them can be found on their article about it.<ref name=yield></ref>

2017 research led by Jayson Lusk, professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Oklahoma State University, suggests that the UCS analysis showing no difference in yields between GE and non-GE corn was wrong because it did not control for weather. “Once temperature and precipitation controls are added, GE adoption has significant effects on corn yields,” the study found.<ref>[https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/04/03/new-york-times-danny-hakim-claimed-gmos-havent-increased-crop-yields-heres-hes-wrong/ New York Times’ Danny Hakim claimed GMOs haven’t increased crop yields; Here’s why he’s wrong]</ref><ref>[https://static1.squarespace.com/static/502c267524aca01df475f9ec/t/58de47701b10e3ddf31d4878/1490962300971/NBER_CornGBO_Manuscript_NBER.pdf Adoption of Genetically Engineered Corn on Yield and the Moderating Effects of Weather, Soil Characteristics, and Geographic Location]</ref>

A completely independent study conducted in Italy published in the reputable and peer reviewed journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' disproves this claim.<ref>{{cite web|title=Italian study from Nature: Impact of genetically engineered maize on agronomic, environmental and toxicological traits: a meta-analysis of 21 years of field data |url= https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21284-2 |website=nature.com}}</ref>

For even more refutations to this massively flawed study, see the main article on this topic: [[Union_of_Concerned_Scientists#Promotion_of_Agroecology|Union of Concerned Scientists § Promotion of Agroecology]]

====It is impossible for independent studies on GMOs to take place without consent====
{{main|Genetically_modified_food#Lack_of_independent_testing}}
:''See the more in depth article on this topic at Wikipedia: {{wpl| Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Restrictive_end-user_agreements ||.}}''

While the claim<ref name=gmo/> has a little bit of truth in it, it is misleading.

Before 2009, some scientists really did have some trouble doing their work, due to [[patent]] restrictions. But the same scientists who protested the limitations now say the problem is largely fixed.<ref>{{cite web|title= Genetically modified seed research: What’s locked and what isn’t |url= https://grist.org/food/genetically-modified-seed-research-whats-locked-and-what-isnt/ |website=grist.org}}</ref>

A good portion of the research on GM foods is funded by the companies developing these products. But there’s also a lot of independent research, as well. For instance, the Genetic Engineering Risk Atlas (GENERA) has documented more than 2000 scientific studies looking into the safety of GM foods. Of those, independently funded studies make up about one-third of the list.<ref>{{cite web|title= Who conducts research on GMOs? |url= https://www.vox.com/2014/11/3/18092762/who-conducts-research-on-gmos |website=Vox.com}}</ref>

Most companies freely allow research of their GMOs with no questions asked.

====GMOs do not reduce chemical usage====
:''See the more in depth articles on this topic at Wikipedia: {{wpl|Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Secondary_pests||}} and {{wpl|Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Resistant_insect_pests}} ''
The report<ref name=gmo></ref> cited an article from Reuters<ref>{{cite web|title= GMOs ramping up pesticide usage |url= https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-study-pesticides/pesticide-use-ramping-up-as-gmo-crop-technology-backfires-study-idUSBRE89100X20121002 | website=Reuters.com}}</ref>(who have also, ironically, debunked many of Corbett’s Bill Gates claims).

Yes, there are problems like herbicide resistant "superweeds", but this is not a problem unique to GMOs — any strategy to stop pests, be they insects or weeds in agriculture, or infectious microbes in humans will lead to resistance. The mechanism is different but the end result is the same.

Critics of crop biotechnology often point to the growth of “superweeds” in corn and soybean fields over the past 20 years as illustrative of the ecological problems posed by crops genetically modified to be resistant to herbicides like [[glyphosate]] (trade name Roundup). But superweeds — so named because of their ability to withstand specific herbicides—predate the introduction of GMOs in the 1990s and glyphosate in the 1970s.

As weed scientist Andrew Kniss puts it:<ref>{{cite web|title=Stop calling it Superweeds!|url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130605093902/http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2013/05/superweed}}</ref>
{{Quotebox| If GM crops have contributed significantly to the development of herbicide resistant weeds, we would expect the number of unique instances of these superweeds to increase following adoption of GM crops. … In the eleven-year period before GM crops were widely grown, approximately 13 new cases of herbicide resistance were documented annually. After GM crop adoption began in earnest, the number of new herbicide resistant weeds DECREASED to 11.4 cases per year. |||}}

Scientists say weeds will eventually develop resistance to any chemical, including those used by organic farmers, through repeated exposure. Glyphosate resistance has gotten so much attention in recent years largely because of the popularity of the herbicide, which has helped farmers realize substantial yield improvements and lowered farming costs. But there is a consensus among weed scientists that GMOs do not uniquely cause the development of hardier weeds; other non GMO crops have more serious weed problems; and various technologies and management strategies can adequately manage the challenge.<ref>{{cite web|title= Herbicide diversity in crops. |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160416202922/http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/02/herbicide-diversity-trends-in-us-crops-1990-2014/ }}</ref>

====GMOs cause tumours====
{{main|Seralini#"GMO_causes_cancer"_study}}
:''See the more in depth article on this topic at Wikipedia: {{wpl|Séralini affair||.}}''
Corbett cites a now redacted study<ref>[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637 RETRACTED: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize] Food and Chemical Toxicology, ISSN: 0278-6915, Vol: 50, Issue: 11, Page: 4221-4231</ref> that fed rats GMOs and they developed tumours.

For refutations to this massively flawed study, see the main article on this topic: [[Seralini#"GMO_causes_cancer"_study]]

====There is no scientific consensus for the safety of GMOs!====
{{main|Genetically_modified_food#Scientific_consensus}}
:''See the more in depth article on this topic at Wikipedia: {{wpl|Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Health||.}}''
One of the primary arguments of James Corbett is that there is no scientific consensus on the topic of GMOs, which is blatantly false.<ref>[https://gmoanswers.com/scientific-consensus-and-gmos The Scientific Consensus and GMOs] GMO Answers</ref><ref>[https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2016/05/gmo-safety-debate-is-over/ GMO safety debate is over] by Mark Lynas (May 23, 2016) Alliance for Science</ref><ref>[https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/29/pewaaas-study-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety-stronger-than-for-global-warming/ Scientific consensus on GMO safety stronger than for global warming] by Jon Entine, Rebecca Randall (Jan 29, 2015) Genetic Literacy Project</ref> Given below is an excerpt from a [[Wikipedia]] article that contains citations of the scientific consensus regarding GMOs.
{{collapse|From Wikipedia}}
There is a [[scientific consensus]]<ref name="Nicolia2013">{{Cite journal|url=https://www.pps.net/cms/lib/OR01913224/Centricity/Domain/3337/peer%20reviewed%20meta%20study%20on%20GMOs%20copy.pdf|title=An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research|first1=Alessandro|last1=Nicolia|first2=Alberto|last2=Manzo|first3=Fabio|last3=Veronesi|first4=Daniele|last4=Rosellini|journal=Critical Reviews in Biotechnology|volume=34|issue=1|date=2013|pages=77–88|doi=10.3109/07388551.2013.823595|pmid=24041244|s2cid=9836802|quote=We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.<br><br/>The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.}}</ref><ref name="FAO">{{Cite web|url=http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y5160E/y5160e10.htm#P3_1651The|title=State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops|publisher=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations|accessdate=August 30, 2019|quote=Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU).}}</ref><ref name="Ronald2011">{{Cite journal|title=Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security|first=Pamela|last=Ronald|journal=Genetics|date=May 1, 2011|volume=188|issue=1|pages=11–20|doi=10.1534/genetics.111.128553|pmid=21546547|pmc=3120150|quote="There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010)."}}</ref><ref name="Also"><p>But see also:</p><p>{{Cite journal|url=http://gaiapresse.ca/images/nouvelles/28563.pdf|title=A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants|first1=José L.|last1=Domingo|first2=Jordi Giné|last2=Bordonaba|journal=Environment International|date=2011|volume=37|issue=4|pages=734–742|doi=10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003|pmid=21296423|quote=In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.}}</p><p>{{Cite journal|title=An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment|first=Sheldon|last=Krimsky|s2cid=40855100|journal=Science, Technology, & Human Values|volume=40|issue=6|pages=883–914|doi=10.1177/0162243915598381|date=2015|quote=I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.}}</p><p>And contrast:</p><p>{{Cite journal|title=Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons|first1=Alexander Y.|last1=Panchin|first2=Alexander I.|last2=Tuzhikov|journal=Critical Reviews in Biotechnology|volume = 37|issue = 2|pages = 213–217|date=January 14, 2016|issn=0738-8551|doi=10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684|pmid = 26767435|s2cid=11786594|quote=Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm. <br><br/> The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.}}</p><p>and</p>{{Cite journal|title=Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health|first1=Y.T.|last1=Yang|first2=B.|last2=Chen|journal=Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture|volume=96|issue = 4|pages=1851–1855|date=2016|doi=10.1002/jsfa.7523|pmid=26536836|quote=It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA ''(citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011)''. Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.<br><br/>Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome.}}</ref><ref name="AAAS2012">{{Cite web|url=http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf|title=Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods|publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science|date=October 20, 2012|accessdate=August 30, 2019|quote="The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques."}}<br><br/>{{Cite web|url=https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf|title=AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers"|first=Ginger|last=Pinholster|publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science|date=October 25, 2012|accessdate=August 30, 2019}}</ref><ref name="ECom2010">{{Cite book|url=http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf|title=A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010)|publisher=Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Commission, European Union.|doi=10.2777/97784|isbn=978-92-79-16344-9|accessdate=August 30, 2019|date=2010}}</ref><ref name="AMA2001">{{Cite web|url=https://www.isaaa.org/kc/Publications/htm/articles/Position/ama.htm|title=AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (online summary)|publisher=American Medical Association|date=January 2001|accessdate=August 30, 2019|quote="A report issued by the scientific council of the American Medical Association (AMA) says that no long-term health effects have been detected from the use of transgenic crops and genetically modified foods, and that these foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. ''(from online summary prepared by [[International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications|ISAAA]])''" "Crops and foods produced using recombinant DNA techniques have been available for fewer than 10 years and no long-term effects have been detected to date. These foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. <br><br/>''(from original report by [[American Medical Association|AMA]]: [https://web.archive.org/web/20010610122221/http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/2036-4030.html])''"}}{{Cite web|url=http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120907023039/http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf|url-status=dead|title=REPORT 2 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods|publisher=American Medical Association|date=2012|accessdate=August 30, 2019|quote=Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.|archive-date=September 7, 2012}}</ref><ref name="LoC2015">{{Cite web|url=http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php#Opinion|title=Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion|publisher=Library of Congress|date=June 30, 2015|accessdate=August 30, 2019|quote="Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Medical Association. Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations, organic farming organizations, and consumer organizations. A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US's approach to regulating GMOs."}}</ref><ref name="NAS2016">{{Cite book|url=http://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/7#149|title=Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects|publisher=The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US)|page=149|date=2016|accessdate=August 30, 2019|doi=10.17226/23395|pmid=28230933|quote="''Overall finding on purported adverse effects on human health of foods derived from GE crops:'' On the basis of detailed examination of comparisons of currently commercialized GE with non-GE foods in compositional analysis, acute and chronic animal toxicity tests, long-term data on health of livestock fed GE foods, and human epidemiological data, the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts."|isbn=978-0-309-43738-7|last1=National Academies Of Sciences|first1=Engineering|author2=Division on Earth Life Studies|author3=Board on Agriculture Natural Resources|author4=Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience Future Prospects}}</ref> but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.<ref name="WHOFAQ">{{Cite web|url=http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/|title=Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods|publisher=World Health Organization|accessdate=August 30, 2019|quote=Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.<br><br/>GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.}}</ref><ref name="Haslberger2003">{{Cite journal|title=Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects|first=Alexander G.|last=Haslberger|journal=Nature Biotechnology|volume=21|issue=7|pages=739–741|date=2003|doi=10.1038/nbt0703-739|pmid=12833088|s2cid=2533628|quote=These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects.}}</ref><ref name="BMA2004">Some medical organizations, including the [[British Medical Association]], advocate further caution based upon the [[precautionary principle]]:<br><br/>{{Cite web|url=http://www.argenbio.org/adc/uploads/pdf/bma.pdf|title=Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement|publisher=British Medical Association|date=March 2004|accessdate=August 30, 2019|quote=In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available.<br><br/>When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.<br><br/>Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects.<br><br/>The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.}}</ref> Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.<ref name="PEW2015">{{Cite web|url=http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/|title=Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society|first1=Cary|last1=Funk|first2=Lee|last2=Rainie|publisher=Pew Research Center|date=January 29, 2015|accessdate=August 30, 2019|quote=The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points.}}</ref>
<ref name="Marris2001">{{Cite journal|title=Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths|first=Claire|last=Marris|journal=EMBO Reports|volume=2|issue=7|pages=545–548|date=2001|doi=10.1093/embo-reports/kve142|pmid=11463731|pmc=1083956}}</ref><ref name="PABE">{{Cite web|url=http://csec.lancs.ac.uk/archive/pabe/docs/pabe_finalreport.doc|title=Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe|date=December 2001|author=Final Report of the PABE research project|publisher=Commission of European Communities|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170525042822/http://csec.lancs.ac.uk/archive/pabe/docs/pabe_finalreport.doc |archive-date=2017-05-25|accessdate=August 30, 2019}}</ref><ref name="Scott2016">{{Cite journal|url=http://yoelinbar.net/papers/gmo_absolute.pdf|title=Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States|first1=Sydney E.|last1=Scott|first2=Yoel|last2=Inbar|first3=Paul|last3=Rozin|journal=Perspectives on Psychological Science|date=2016|volume=11|issue=3|pages=315–324|doi=10.1177/1745691615621275|pmid=27217243|s2cid=261060}}</ref> The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.<ref name="loc.gov">{{Cite web|url=http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/|title=Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms|publisher=Library of Congress|date=June 9, 2015|accessdate=August 30, 2019}}</ref><ref name="Bashshur">{{Cite web|url=http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_1302_bashshur.html|title=FDA and Regulation of GMOs|first=Ramona|last=Bashshur|publisher=American Bar Association|date=February 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180621044554/https://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_1302_bashshur.html|archive-date=June 21, 2018|accessdate=August 30, 2019}}</ref><ref name="Sifferlin">{{Cite journal|url=http://time.com/4060476/eu-gmo-crops-european-union-opt-out/|title=Over Half of E.U. Countries Are Opting Out of GMOs|first=Alexandra|last=Sifferlin|journal=Time|date=October 3, 2015|accessdate=August 30, 2019}}</ref><ref name="Council on Foreign Relations">{{Cite web|url=http://www.cfr.org/agricultural-policy/regulation-gmos-europe-united-states-case-study-contemporary-european-regulatory-politics/p8688|title=The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics|first1=Diahanna|last1=Lynch|first2=David|last2=Vogel|publisher=Council on Foreign Relations|date=April 5, 2001|accessdate=August 30, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160929200540/http://www.cfr.org/agricultural-policy/regulation-gmos-europe-united-states-case-study-contemporary-european-regulatory-politics/p8688|archive-date=September 29, 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref>

{{collapse end}}

===New world order and deep state===
{{cquote|The bitter truth is that in a surprising number of cases, NGOs are the Deep State’s Trojan Horses.|||James Corbett justifies his stance on [[GMO]], [[vaccines]], [[climate change]] etc. by labelling all charitable work certain organisations have done which are against him as covert [[deep state]] agents and [[government]] [[shill]]s.}}
He believes that Trump wants to establish some [[New World Order]], and he is one of the many leaders in history since [[World War I]] who is trying to establish it. He has devoted an entire series of shows named #FLNOW (Film, Literature and New World Order) how nearly every movie in existence is specially designed to spread propaganda and misinformation brainwashing the masses. From the films Contagion,<ref>{{cite web|title=Contagion is propaganda!! |url= https://www.corbettreport.com/contagion-film-literature-and-the-new-world-order/ |website=corbettreport.com}}</ref> to the Rambo trilogy,<ref>{{cite web|title=Rambo is also propaganda!! |url= https://www.corbettreport.com/rambo-iii-flnwo-37/ |website=corbettreport.com}}</ref> to Daredevil from Netflix,<ref>{{cite web|title=Marvel is bought by Disney, which spreads propaganda.|url= https://www.corbettreport.com/daredevil-flnwo-028/ |website=corbettreport.com}}</ref> to even poetry and stories from writers such as F. R. Scott, Charles Dickens, the ''Catcher in the Rye'' and even more. Basically, don’t believe or don’t be inspired by any form of media imaginable or you will become a sheep in the NWO, unless Corbett talks about it of course, like the books on NWO he told you to read.<ref>{{cite web|title=Books on NWO you should believe|url= https://www.corbettreport.com/a-new-world-order-reading-list/ |website=corbettreport.com}}</ref>

He is even writing an entire book on the NWO, ''Reportage: Essays on the New World Order''.<ref>[https://www.corbettreport.com/anatomy-of-the-new-world-order-transcript/ in the way that you use it in your book, Reportage: Essays on the New World Order?...]</ref>
{{Quotebox| Now, from a conventional, historiographical point of view, the term ‘New World Order’ tends to be seen as just... not a World Government or anything like that. So my question is:<b> How do you understand the term ‘New World Order’, in the way that you use it in your book, Reportage: Essays on the New World Order.?</b> How do you mean it as you use it there?

JaC: <b>My <i>forthcoming book</i>, I should stress to the audience.</b> You have broadly outlined the two main definitions for this term. I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive; that we have to pick one... so I think it’s just part of that same old idea that has gripped would-be rulers of all sorts.}}

===Fact-checking sites===
{{More sources}}
They use ‘psychological techniques’ like semantics to [[brainwash]] [[sheeple]] and just because the foundation gave a grant to a fact-checking website sometime 4 to 5 years ago means that all the fact checking websites currently in existence are sponsored by Bill Gates and hence totally wrong (unless they haven’t debunked one of Corbett’s outlandish claims of course).

Even though there are many fact-checking organisations that have not been funded by Gates' foundation, that doesn’t stop Corbett from openly ranting about anything that has tried to debunk one of his claims, and spreading more moronic [[bullshit]] in the process.

It is notable that he doesn’t actually debunk any of the fact checkers, just poorly performed circumstantial [[ad hominem]]s.

===9/11===
{{main|9/11|9/11|Osama Bin Laden}}
One of the first conspiracy theories on his independent ‘news’ site was [[9/11]]. He believes that its investigation was intentionally stopped for economic gain. Did you know that the shooting of [[Osama bin Laden]] was a [[hoax]]?<ref>[https://www.corbettreport.com/osama-bin-laden-pronounced-dead-for-the-ninth-time/ Ah, yes, of course, he supposedly died of kidney failure and did not do anything in 9/11]</ref> According to Corbett, there is a consensus that bin Laden died years ago. He was not involved in 9/11 either, and the [[US]] [[government]] is in an intimate conspiracy with the bin Laden family (Obama himself ensured that many of the bin Laden family members were transported safely out of the US after 9/11 where they had been in various shady meetings with American government figures).

While the 9/11 rhetoric is often presented by James Corbett, it is noteworthy to detail how he accomplishes this. His work relies on purposefully omiting other sides of an argument. Meaning that one would be unable to gain new knowledge to win an argument against another even after watching any of his documentaries in its entirety.

====It must have been impossible for the hijackers to hit the 9/11 targets!====
This was briefly debunked by Mike West and TLO of [[Metabunk.org]]<ref>[https://www.metabunk.org/threads/how-hard-is-it-to-hit-the-the-9-11-targets.11346/ How hard is it to hit the 9/11 targets?] — Metabunk (Aug 6 2020)</ref> using simulation software and elementary physics by a man completely inexperienced in flying aircraft. The major flaws in his theory are:<ref>[https://www.metabunk.org/threads/9-11-how-hard-is-it-to-hit-a-building-at-500mph.1153/ 9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph?] — Metabunk</ref>

*The pilots (Hanjour, Pentagon) had significant training and a commercial jet pilot's license.<ref>[https://www.abc15.com/news/crime/old-time-crime-arizona-was-a-training-ground-for-the-september-11th-attackers Old Time Crime: Arizona was a training ground for the September 11th attackers] (4:53 PM, Sep 12, 2019) by Courtland Jeffrey, ABC</ref>
*The targets were all wide, and wider than even the runway. KPHX's three runways are all 150' wide, and the towers were over 200' wide each, the Pentagon larger still.
*The targets were obviously stationary. In the various naval ship/air battles in WWII, and a moving target (even at 30 kt) is quite hard to hit, even when it's a carrier.
*They had no airborne or ground flak defense to avoid. This cuts even a poor pilot a lot of slack in acquiring and hitting a target, especially when it's with the plane you're flying. 
*The biggest challenge likely would have been any crosswinds to compensate for.
*Once the plane is in the air, and in stable flight, and you're not trying any radical maneuver, not worried about air traffic control, and your target is as big as each was, it's not so difficult.

====9/11 Commission member said Commission was setup to fail====
Another [[quote-mining]] technique used by Corbett, taking an expert out of context. This was debunked at the Skeptic Project.<ref>[http://skepticproject.com/articles/quotes/view/27/911-commission-member-said-commission-was-setup-t/ Quotes - 9/11 Commission member said Commission was set up to fail] Skeptic Project</ref>

===Climate change===
{{main|Climate change}}
Corbett believes the idea that the [[UN]] is intentionally deceiving, as it is funded by corrupt [[scientists]] with limited resources, that the UN wants to cause disorder in society by the creating the myth of climate change which has now been solidified by numerous studies, and that all of the studies are false and paid by the UN. Corbett fails to realise that the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming was discovered long before oil industries and the supposedly corrupt governments of the modern world. Corbett also asserts that the UN is literally pumping hot air to create the illusion of climate change.<ref>[https://www.corbettreport.com/the-ipcc-prepares-to-release-more-hot-air/ The IPCC is releasing hot air!]</ref> Given how much effort is needed to create this much deception to the point where the entirety of the world have a noticeable average temperature increase, it's probably easier to just pin the blame on human civilisation, but that wouldn’t make him money from the conspiracy junkies who follow him. Many of Corbett’s own subscribers comment in his articles about the sheer illiteracy of such conclusions drawn from [[PIDOOMA|nothing]].<ref group=note name=sub>In order to comment on his articles, you need to buy a Corbett Report mebership subscription, which also gets you access articles hidden behind paywalls and more hidden content. Really weird site.</ref><ref>[https://steemit.com/climate/@edicted/re-corbettreport-the-ipcc-prepares-to-release-more-hot-air-20181007t002522900z#@edicted/re-corbettreport-the-ipcc-prepares-to-release-more-hot-air-20181007t002522900z How did I get here again? I've been drinking and I can't quite follow you. This is a "Global warming is a hoax" post. Correct? Who benefits from making this claim? It's pretty damn obvious who benefits from making the opposite claim. So you'll excuse me if I don't jump on the whole, "humans can't kill God's Earth," bandwagon.]</ref><ref>[https://steemit.com/climate/@lunix/re-corbettreport-the-ipcc-prepares-to-release-more-hot-air-20181007t051447088z#@lunix/re-corbettreport-the-ipcc-prepares-to-release-more-hot-air-20181007t051447088z And all the hot Air from IPCC is joining over the arctic ocean right now.] Guess what the avowed fans of James had to say about this? It’s all fake!</ref>

===="Debunking" climate "myths"====
On December 2013, Corbett decided to "challenge" himself by debunking climate realist arguments in 60 seconds. Below is given RationalWiki's comment on these statements.
<table style="width:100%">
<tr>
<th>James Corbett</th>
<th>RationalWiki comment</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Myth #1. The earth is warming!
On what time scale? 16 years? 2000 years? 10000 years? 420000 years? 65 million years?</td>
<td>The Earth is warming on the time scale that is most relevant to modern civilization.
*https://skepticalscience.com/trend.php ([https://skepticalscience.com/temperature_trend_calculator.html See this before using])
*https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:ArcticEscalator2012_med.gif#Summary
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Myth #2. This year was the hottest year ever!
Was that before or after NASA and the NOAA altered the temperature record to make recent years warmer?</td>
<td>The sentence links to [http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/the-big-lie-becomes-official-at-noaa/ this blog post]. This has already been thoroughly debunked, by Climate Feedback<ref>[https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/nasa-did-not-create-global-warming-by-manipulating-data-tony-heller-steven-goddard/ NASA did not create global warming by manipulating data]</ref> and [[Snopes]].<ref>[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/global-warming-data-faked/ Was Global Warming Data ‘Faked’ to ‘Fit Climate Change Fictions’?] by Alex Kasprak (3 Oct 2019) Snopes</ref>
{{Quotebox| It should be no shock that the data shifted following 1999, as illustrated graphically in the above diagram, because NASA published multiple papers in 1999 and 2001 about these changes and why they were made. Links to these papers can be found on the NASA website, which also publicly summarizes the changes in several other places.}}
Sea level data, ice extent data, ice volume data, glacier data, sea surface temperature, tree lines moving to higher altitudes, etc, would also have to be faked by the government and NASA to fake this, which forms the basis of many technologies we use today. Furthermore, the US government and NASA would have to somehow also control the census data collected in other countries.</td>
</tr>
</table>

===5G===
{{main|5G}}
{{cquote| The truth is that the development of 5G networks and the various networked products that they will give rise to in the global smart city infrastructure, represent the greatest threat to freedom in the history of humanity!|||James Corbett on how 5G will enable the New World Order, and quite possibly enable mind control}}
Corbett also believes that the EMF radiation from 5G is harming our bodies, and is some sort of “weapon” to implement the New World Order. Even some of his own subscribers comment how stupid this is.<ref group=note name=sub/><ref>[https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1503-jerry-day-provides-an-update-on-5g-implementation/#comment-69661 As far as I listened this seems to be completely inaccurate. I was waiting for the punchline like you were with Sacha Baron Cohen.]</ref>

James Corbett is also an “expert” on 5G at the 5G Summit,<ref>[https://the5gsummit.com/ The 5G Summit, Worldwide cause for Action!] It causes cancer, and you better believe it!</ref><ref>[https://the5gsummit.com/expert/james-corbett/ James Corbett, expert on 5G.] Only at the 5G summit, that is...</ref> which offers “Adavnced Training Material” (in all caps, written in lowercase for legibility) on how 5G causes “weakened immunity, cancer, sterility, DNA damage and other harm… especially to our children”! The summit has other 
experts
 [[cranks]] such as [[anti-vaxxer]] [[Robert Kennedy, Jr.]]; [[alternative medicine]] promoter [[anti-vaxxer]] and anti-[[GMO]] [[Sayer Ji]], and many more.

===Vaccines===
Apparently, James believes that “Dr. confesses Cancer & other Viruses is found in Vaccines”,<ref name=vaccinekill>[https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-066-vaccines-as-silent-weapons/ Vaccines as Silent Weapons!] They are coming for you!</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvsXrVkjyz4 Merck Dr. ADMITS Cancer & Other Viruses Found In Vaccines] Unfortunately, the original video Corbett linked to was removed, so this what it could be.</ref>  which is false for obvious reasons, but nonetheless was debunked by Snopes.<ref>[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cdc-admits-98-million-got-cancer-polio-vaccine/ Did the CDC ‘Admit’ 98 Million Americans Were Given a ‘Cancer Virus’ via the Polio Shot?], Snopes</ref>

He also cites [[NaturalNews]]<ref name=vaccinekill /> to “expose” the Gardasil vaccine “hoax”,<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wT_NvK2etk Gardasil HPV Vaccine Hoax EXPOSED (Remix)]</ref> and “the flu shot virus SCAM”<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrtbRt6gdJQ&feature=related The Flu Shot Vaccine SCAM (Sweet Remedy clip)] Featuring homeopathic practitioner telling you that flu vaccine is a SCAM, and you better believe it!</ref> which is enough to bring his credibility down to zero. The video itself implies that everyone since Pasteur has been wrong about vaccines and the entire scientific community never realized this, or did and kept silent in a 130-year-long conspiracy.

===Anthrax attacks===
According to James Corbett, the 2001 anthrax was caused by an accidentally released Bioweapon that was being manufactured by the [[US]] government.

==Regular series and specials==
* #NewWorldNextWeek with Media Monarchy
* Corbett Report Extras
* #PropagandaWatch
* 9/11 Whistleblowers
* #FLNWO (Film, Literature and New World Order)
* Who is Bill Gates?
* Well Read Anarchists
* Questions for Corbett
* Corbett Report Radio

==Special guests and interviews==
*Michel Chossudovsky, creator of the conspiracist [[Globalresearch]] website has appeared several times on his website.<ref>[https://www.corbettreport.com/page/2/?s=Chossudovsky] Corbett Report: Chossudovsky search</ref>
*[[White supremacist]] [[Stefan Molyneux]] was a guest host who discussed mental illness,<ref>[https://www.corbettreport.com/corbett-report-radio-142-with-guest-host-stefan-molyneux/ Corbett Report Radio 142 with Guest Host Stefan Molyneux] 05/29/2012</ref> and "Molyneux".<ref>[https://www.corbettreport.com/corbett-report-radio-137-with-guest-host-stefan-molyneu/ Corbett Report Radio 137 with Guest Host Stefan Molyneux] 05/22/2012</ref>
*[[Creationist]]<ref name=perloff>[https://jamesperloff.com/about-james-perloff/ James Perloff: About]</ref> [[James Perloff]] discussed a variety of alleged false flag operations going back to the [[American Revolution]]<ref>https://www.corbettreport.com/?s=James+Perloff</ref> but oddly not creationism (or his history of involvement with an unspecified [[New Age]] [[cult]] and the [[John Birch Society]]).<ref name=perloff/>
*{{wpl|James Tracy (communication scholar)|James Tracy}} claimed that the [[Mainstream media]] was [[quote mining]] him. From 12:28 on, in the Video you can hear Tracy slowly falling apart, after he was asked what kind of proof he would accept.<ref>[https://www.corbettreport.com/the-sandy-hook-controversy-james-tracy-on-grtv/ The Sandy Hook Controversy – James Tracy on GRTV] (01/29/2013) The Corbett Report</ref>
*[[Sovereign citizens]] Robert-Scott:Christy (interview 250)<ref>[https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-250-robert-scottchristy/ Interview 250 – Robert-Scott:Christy] (11/09/2010) ''The Corbett Report''.</ref> and Alfred Adask (interview 1043)<ref>[https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1043-meet-alfred-adask-sovereign-citizen/ Interview 1043 – Meet Alfred Adask, Sovereign Citizen] (05/21/2015) ''The Corbett Report''.</ref>
*Anthony Gucciardi of the conspiratorial ‘news’ site Natural Society<ref>[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/natural-society/ Natural Society Credibility]</ref> who discussed how GMO companies want you to grow a third eye.<ref>[https://www.corbettreport.com/corbett-report-radio-229-the-gmo-agenda-and-how-to-combat-it-with-anthony-gucciardi/ The GMO Agenda!]</ref>
*[[Alex Jones]], all round conspiracy theorist whom we have an entire gold class article about, has appeared multiple times on the Corbett Report.<ref>[https://www.corbettreport.com/?s=Alex+jones “Alex Jones” search]</ref>
*[[Mike Adams]] of [[Natural News]] (whom we also have a gold-tier article on) has also appeared on the 
comedy
 show.<ref>[https://www.corbettreport.com/?s=Mike+adams “Mike Adams” search]</ref>
* Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton of [[Truthstream Media]] have appeared to talk on the topics of GMO Labelling.<ref>[https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-704-aaron-dykes-and-melissa-melton-on-gmo-labeling/ Interview 704 – Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton on GMO Labeling] (05/21/2015) ''The Corbett Report''.</ref>

==See also==
*[[False flag]]
*[[9/11]]
*[[New World Order]]
*[[Sandy Hook]]
*[[Global Warming denialism]]
*[[GMO]]
*[[Deep State]]
*[[5G]]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Corbett, James}}
[[Category:9/11 truthers]]
[[Category:Anti-vaccination movement]]
[[Category:Canadians]]
[[Category:Chemophobes]]
[[Category:Conspiracy theorists]]
[[Category:Global warming denialists]]
[[Category:Internet kooks]]
[[Category:JFK conspiracy theorists]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience promoters]]
[[Category:YouTube]]

Categories: 9/11 truthers, Anti-vaccination movement, Canadians, Chemophobes, Conspiracy theorists, Global warming denialists, Internet kooks, JFK conspiracy theorists, Living people, Pseudoscience promoters, YouTube