Thank you for listening to Pictures Media Radio. Welcome to Policy and Rights,
the show about the government policy and human rights. My eyes are on the
fire where the cries of innocent echoing the rabbil. My eyes are on Kashmiri
pandit's fighting for their lost homes. My eyes are on the Hindus in Pakistan
facing daily fears and uncertainties. My eyes are on the Hindus in Banglad.
They're seeking safety and dignity. My eyes are on every death, every act
of ethnic cleansing, every war, and every genocide. It breaks my heart
to see some people using religion as a tool of division. I believe humanity
should always come first. But if true religion teaches us to put humanity above
all, we fail to understand that we're all tiny creatures on a tiny piece
of rock going around the sun. Let's make that experience bed for everyone else.
My welcome back to Paul Saying Rach Here in Depictions of Media Radio,
I'm your host, Michael Klogs. You know it's I'm trying to sound more
and more like this angry podcaster who has to slam every pece of of mass
media that comes across my desk. This it's it's becoming a little bit.
I don't know, it's just way out there. Things do not need to
be as polarized as what they are. Things do not need to be This
one is completely right and that one is completely wrong. That is not how
our world works. Our world works on a balance. And at this point,
right now, when I look out and I see all the polarization is
out there, it tells me that our world is completely out of whack and
that the common people need to take some sort of action to help set things
right. Our world is is at this point, is on fire. We
have war brewing and destruction happening in Eastern Europe with Ukraine and Russia. We
have in the Middle East a over a one hundred year of fire burning in
Palestine and Gaza is It's just about leveled. Even while I'm actually saying this,
hundreds of hundreds and hundreds of innocent people are being shot and killed because
of an imbalance between the Hamas and Israel. Neither side is absolutely correct,
and the mass media wants you to think that one side has to be absolutely
correct and the other side has to be absolutely wrong, and that isn't true.
You heard that ahead of all this it. Yes, the speaker there
is being a bit poetic, but when we look around the world, look
at what we're seeing. Just look at what we're seeing, all the hatred
that is being brewed up and thrown as the big corporations are trying to keep
us under control. We're going to listen to a congressional hearing in the United
States with doctor Fauci as they're trying to discover what went wrong in some areas
with the pandemic, and they're going to actually slam podcasters. Hey, I'm
a podcaster. You're listening to a podcast right now, and I'm trying to
teach you to one think for yourself and think about the balance that is actually
happening. Okay, So you're going to hear doctor Fauci say that the vaccine
that was created during the pandemic to combat against COVID nineteen absolutely most emphatically saves
lives. And there is a big question mark on that does that vaccine save
lives? It is possible that at one point it could save lives, but
because the pharmaceutical companies were allowed to break so many protocols into bringing that virus
to fruition and bringing it to the public. There is a lot of questions
about it safety that the science community brought up, that hey, something went
haywire with medicine and because well we have to the big corporations say that we
have to keep science separated, that physicists have to only speak about physics,
chemists can only speak about chemicals, which I'm going to get back to,
back to my old profession chemistry. In a second, biology can only speak
about biologists and medicine, well, they have to be the top of the
heap because they save people's lives. It couldn't be a bigger croc The protocols
that were put in place years ago for vaccines were broken. The science community
said, hey, flag on the play we have. We have a foul
that we can't have. How can we have a vaccine come out in less
than eleven months and proclaim that it is safe when it usually takes the shortest
the shortest pharmaceutical I ever heard of before that coming out into the public saying
that it will save lives took at least five years. That it takes that
long to actually release something to the public because of the studies that need to
be done to make sure that it's not going to kill people. Now,
there are a lot of conspiracy theories out there. It's off the rails.
If they they're so they are so out of touch with reality, it's ridiculous.
Yes, and listen to them for entertainment value. Gather whatever bits of
information you can from them to find other ways to look for what you want
to believe is true. Okay. At the same time, we have the
flip side to that that the pharmaceutical industry is also off the rail. There
used to be laws against advertising any type of pharmaceutical on television or in public
unless it went through a group of doctors first. And okay, most recent
one, OSMA, it's out there. It's going to save you if you
have diabetes, because it's gonna make your blood sugar drop like a stone.
So now you have people being now bombarding, Oh, I have diabetes,
I need asmonic, and they're going to their doctor and they're demanding this new
life saving drug because they've been programmed to think that it's going to work when
reality is that in a lot of respects, if we were to curb ourselves
from the genetically modified foods and the white sugars and white flowers that are out
there, then maybe we wouldn't find our pankers is dying from over work.
There's a lot of things happening out there that are being done simply to control
us. Let's try not to make independent media via podcasts one of those things.
Let's try to come to an understanding that we all find an enlightened path
and that we question what is being told us because we want to understand.
We don't want the information spood fed to us. We want information that is
given to us so that we can make up our own minds. This is
what we have today is mass media telling us part of the story so that
they can control what it is that we're thinking. They have us so that
we're at each other's throats over what is happening in areas like Ukraine, Kashmir.
Wait, most of us don't even know what Kashmir is. We don't
know about the ethnic cleansing that is happening in the western part of China.
We don't know about that because, well, simply put, there's no profit
to it. So the corporations don't even want to be bothered with it.
They ignore it. And if it's ignored it and it doesn't exist. They
don't want us to know about how the mining companies are causing the unrest in
parts of Africa. Oh wait, could that means Syria and in the DRC
that are forever having uprisings. They don't want us to know about those sort
of things because hey, if we found out about them, we might protest
against and therefore their profit goes out the window. And oh wait, then
they can't sell us the newest, the greatest, latest, greatest tesla or
the latest greatest cell phone. Oh wait, we don't even buy them anymore.
We leased them so that they can keep looping us looping the new the
newest one at us. Well that your least is expired on that, so
here's the new one. It's all designed to give the corporations more profit.
And at this point, the average person, the average working class individual out
there, is starving just to put food on their table and to keep a
roof of their heads. It's time to push it back. Buy less.
Of course, it's so expensive that kind of starting to make more and more
sense by less. Listen before you leap and question every piece of information that
is put in front of you, including what I just said. So why
don't we listen to that congressional hearing. We're going to listen to some clips
from that as Yeah, doctor Valsci should have some defenders. There's nothing absolutely
wrong about the work that he did. He did it in the name of
trying to save people's lives against an invader. That invader was the coronavirus COVID
COVID nineteen. So why don't we listen to some of that and start to
make up your own mind about what it is that is happening in our world
and what you can do to spread a better world around for our future generations.
But every single day I was mayor during the time of the pandemic,
I remember how painful it was to close businesses, to shut down schools,
But how quickly we forget the pain and how scared we were as a country.
We were washing our groceries as they were coming in. We were keeping
seniors at a distance the tragedy that was happening in our nursing homes. Thousands
of people were dying a day. And you and your team are the best
and the brightest scientists in this country in the world. We're doing everything that
you could and working night and day to save more and more of those lives.
A lot of my colleagues know that my mom was a healthcare worker during
the pandemic. My mom died of COVID. My stepfather died of COVID.
I lost both of my parents during the pandemic. So I take this very
personally, especially when other members of this body who are tasked to be responsible
and actually help the American people attack medical professionals like you and across the world.
Vaccines, the vaccine that you and your team helped foster, have saved
millions of American lives. These attacks are ridiculous. Now, even before this
committee started, and I'm going to point a few out, Even before this
committee started, this same member that just went on this rant introduced the fire
Fauci Act and promoted on a podcast seeing that COVID was a bioweapon. That
is how insane some of these comments are. And I want to quote this.
This is a quote from the same member. I don't believe in evolution.
These viruses were not making people sick until they created them. They weaponize
these viruses to be able to attach to ourselves and make us sick. It's
a bioweapon. The they created them, sir, is you. They are
attacking you in our medical community for actually creating COVID that has caused the deaths
of millions, and we know that these extreme comments are targeting public health officials
across the country. I also want to show you this other comment, same
member who just attacked you, the FAUCI funded Wuhan lab created the virus.
This is so crazy and irresponsible. In this post, the same member this
committee is accusing you of orchestrating a global conspiracy to create COVID on purpose just
to make people get vaccines. That you've done this, sir. The same
member routinely promotes complete misinformation about vaccines and actually has encouraged the routine prevention of
vaccinations that even eliminate diseases like the measles. Doctor Froggy, you've brought together
our nation and the world's best and brightest scientists take on COVID and create a
vaccine that works. I want to ask you a question. I want to
be crystal clear for the public. You brought together the world and America's best
scientists. Do you believe that the vaccine that you all helped create and ensure
is safe and effective for the public. Yes, and it's track record has
proven that. And do you also agree that it's saved hundreds of thousands and
possibly millions of lives in America and across the world. That is absolutely correct,
and it's very clear that it's saved millions of lives here and throughout the
world. The Europeans have done the same studies that we have, and the
data are incontrovertible that they save lives, sir. And do you think the
American public should listen to America's brightest and best doctors and scientists or instead listen
to podcasters, conspiracy theorists, and unhinged Facebook memes. Now, listening to
people who you've just described is going to do nothing but harm people because they
will deprive themselves of life saving interventions, which has happened. And you know
some have done studies. Peter Hotez has done an analysis of this and shows
that in people who refuse to get vaccinated for any a variety of reasons probably
responsible for an additional two to three hundred thousand deaths in this country. Thank
you, sir, and your entire team for saving lives in this country.
And I'm sorry you have to continue going on with these attacks. I go
back. Oh, thank you, You're not allowed to Thank you very much,
Chairman. Could you ever remove from Yes? Thank you ever removed?
Excuse me? I asked the capital please to escort. Yeh think you she
can be removed. Yeah, you can be removed. Actually not allowed to
speak. Think your Starbucks with you, mister Garcia, mister Reskin, You're
out of line. Your times have expired. Now recognize doctor Jackson from Texas
for five minutes of questions. Thank you, mister Chairman, Doctor Fauci,
I have to say I, as so many Americans, am deeply disappointed in
your actions during your critical time in our nation's history, while you were in
key leadership roles as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease
and as the chief medical advisor to President Biden. Put quite simply, you
felt miserably. In my opinion, based on all we have learned during the
pandemic and all that we have since learned through this committee's work, I believe
you're failures stem from both an effort of self preservation manifested by a series of
lives and cover up and by a total failure of leadership. It was obvious
to everyone that you and your organization NIH had a lot to lose if the
American people were to discover that COVID nineteen was most likely leaked from a lab
in Wuhan, China, and that you, via Eco Health Alliance in Peter
Dazac, actually funded this research, and that this lab was actively and recklessly
conducting gain of function research. As such, you did everything in your power
to deflect and cover up this possibility. You even recruited others to help you
in this effort. Unfortunately, this cost our country and the world valuable time,
time that may have led to answers regarding the origin, may have blunted
the spread and would have almost certainly saved lives. While I think most of
us have known all along what I just described, what I have been appalled
to discover through sworn testimony to this committee is the level of which you and
those that worked for you went to cover up the obvious. Just a few
examples and another these have been touched on, but they're important for everyone to
hear. Doctor Lawrence Taybak, former acting Director of NIH, testified that under
the generic definition that NIH did in fact fund gain a function research. This
was based on a definition that was initially used by NIH, and a definition
that was abandoned and removed from the website in October of twenty twenty one and
replaced by a new, much more detailed definition with a much higher bar that
you have since conveniently used to define gain of function testing and to deny what
doctor Tabak has since confirmed. He also said that EcoHealth Alliance failed to properly
and promptly report that their research violated the terms of the grant, something that
went completely unaddressed under your watch. Doctor Moranz, your senior advisor, whom
you have tried today to distance yourself from, but whose large volume of emails
clearly demonstrate that you had a very close and personal relationship with, and who
reported to you directly, has openly bragged about how he subverted Foyer request.
I remind you that the law requires you and your former organization to comply with
Freedom of Information Act request. It is not optional if you, or your
employees, or your organization that you oversaw were systemically avoiding transparency and illegally hiding
or destroying documents that rightfully belong to the American people, then you should be
criminally charged, and they should as well. In addition, doctor Gregory Folker's
your chief of staff, also engaged in illegal practices in which he crafted messages
using symbols instead of letters to avoid Foy exposure. In an email April twenty
twenty from doctor Moran's to Peter Dazak, he says, quote, there are
things I can't say. Well, I wonder what he couldn't say. He
also went on to say, quote, except Tony is aware, and I
have learned there are ongoing efforts within NIH to steer through this with minimal damage
to you, Peter and colleagues, and to NIH and Naid end quote.
And then a few days later he said quote, I have reason to believe
that there are already efforts going on to protect you in quote. In February
of twenty twenty one, doctor Moranz wrote to Boston University scientist Gerald Kirsch,
saying quote, I learned from our foil lady here how to make emails disappear
after I'm foyed, but before the search starts, so I think we are
all safe. End quote. Doctor FAUSTI I want to know what we were
being protected from and what you needed to be safe from. I'm going to
go on because I have a little time here. He went on to say,
quote, Plus, I deleted most of the earlier emails after sending to
Gmail. Once again illegal and an actual crime. Doctor Moranz noted in another
email to doctor Kirsch, saying, quote, I learned the tricks of the
I learned the tricks last year from an old friend, Marge Moore, who
heads our foil office and also hates Foya's end quote. It is absolutely amazing
to me that doctor Moranz and Marge Moore still have jobs entered taxpayers are still
paying their salaries. Doctor Moranz wrote to doctor Dazzik in April of twenty twenty
one. One quote, ps, I forgot to say. There is no
worry about foys. I can either send stuff to Tony on his private email
or hand it to him to work or at his house. He is too
smart to let colleagues send him stuff that could cause trouble apparent end quote.
Apparently you neglected to surround yourself with equally smart individuals, doctor Morans wrote to
another collaborator, Peter Hotitz, in June twenty twenty one at Baylor College,
of Medicine that he had deleted all his emails related to COVID origin when quote
the shit hit the fan end quote, he said quote, I feel pretty
sure Tony were two. The best way to avoid Foy hassles is to delete
all emails when you learn the subject's pretty sensitive. In October twenty twenty one,
doctor Moran's wrote to Peter Dazzik. Quote Peter, from Tony's numerous recent
comments to me and from what Francis has been vocal about over the past five
years, we are trying to protect you, and they are protecting their own
reputations as well. End quote. I'll just jump ahead. The American people
can rest assured that we are going to continue to pursue answers and we continue
to push for full accountability from you and your colleagues, despite continue efforts to
try to cover this up, Doctor Fauci, History will not be kind to
you, and you will be known as the man who put his personal interests
before the interest of the American people, the very people that you were supposed
to be protecting. Your actions, along with several others we have had before
this committee, have completely eroded America's trust in our public health system and the
agency that you represented for half a century with that ideal. Back Gentleman's time
is expired, and now recognize mister Kudah from Hawaii for five minutes of questions.
Thank you, mister Chair, and I hope I'll have an additional thirty
seconds like the previous gentleman and doctor Fauci, I have allowed that today.
Thank you, Thank you, mister Chair. Doctor Fauci, you deserve better
than this. The other side suddenly cares about poppy is ironic given recent book
publications versus the millions of people that you have kept safe and alive over your
lifelong commitment to public health. I'd like to use my time to dispel some
of the myths about you that have circulated in right wing circles. We can
all acknowledge that, yes, suspension of in person activities during the early days
of COVID it was necessary to save lives and to stop the spread, and
it was not without its challenges. It was difficult, particularly for our nation,
students like my two sons, and public schools and our business owners.
But to completely blame these policies on you, doctor Fauci is absolutely ridiculous.
I'd like to make the record clear on something the decision to suspend in person
learning, dining, and other activities, that was not a decision that you
were somehow solely responsible for including in your role as NIA director. Is that
correct? In fact, these decisions were actually made at the state and local
level in communities across the country like mice home state of Hawaii, which was
particularly aggressive in part is a response to the Trump administration's early failure to contain
the initial outbreak of the virus. Is that not correct? I'm sorry,
I didn't ma'am. I'm not really hearing you very well. Could you just
put your We'll put it a little bit closer, but to be clear that
the decisions were actually made at the state and local levels in communities across the
country. That is correct, Okay, thank you. Now I'd like to
shift topics and turn to the allegation that you sought to suppress opposing viewpoints about
the pandemic response. Over the past fifteen months, majority members of this subcommittee
have levied the allegation that federal health official censored proposals like the Great Barrington Declaration,
which were inconsistent with the overwhelming consensus of the scientific and medical community.
Much attention has been paid to an email doctor Francis Collins sent you regarding the
Great Barrington Declaration where he called for a quick and devastating published takedown of its
premises. To be clear, this was not doctor Collins suggesting that you suppress
or censor the Great Barrington Declaration. Rather, he was suggesting that the points
you just explained be memorialized to substantively refute the scientific premises of the Great Barrington
Declaration. Is a correct yes, and there was good reason for doctor Collins
to have substantive concerns. The Great Barrington Declaration proposed lifting mitigation measures for the
vast majority of society and preserving them only for certain populations, including the elderly
and people with underlying health conditions. This was months before a vaccination was available,
and public health systems are already being overwhelmed and thousands of Americans were dying
daily. Doctor Fauci, what percentage of the population did we estimate needed to
be infected with COVID before we would achieve so called herd immunity. Herd immunity
was very elusive with COVID, and the Great Barrington Decoration was flawed both conceptually
and in practice. Conceptually that you could shield vulnerable people as if the only
vulnerable people of those in nursing homes, we have tens and tens of millions
of vulnerable people that you couldn't possibly shield people with underlying conditions the elderly.
Those would be the individuals, so it would be conceptually impossible to do that.
Herd immunity, as we know means if you have a virus that doesn't
change, and the virus which when you get infected or vaccinated, you have
highly durable, perhaps lifelong immunity. That's not the case with COVID. We
know immunity wanes and we have multiple variants. So in practical purposes, the
Great Barrington Declaration was invalid both conceptually and practically. Thank you, doctor Fauchi've
answered a few of my other questions in terms of the fact that for many
of us that live in multigenerational communities, thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions
more lives would have been impacted by this so called approach, and given the
fact that the virus is rabbit evolution that we have since seen since twenty twenty,
herd immunity approaches would be absolutely ineffective against COVID. If you would answer
one more question, considering the mortality rates at the time, how many more
deaths might we have seen just briefly, I mean, if we had done
that, just let it rip, there very likely would have been another million
people would have died. I would imagine. Thank you, doctor Fauci.
So it wasn't the federal government suppressing the Great Barrington Declaration. Rather, it
was about protecting and saving millions of American lives. The COVID nineteen pandemic wasn't
some academic exercise. It was real. It was in real time. It
was about saving lives in real time. Theories like herd immunity may seem plausible
on paper, but we have to remember that it is based upon the assumption
that enough people would have to be infected, and that would likely have meant
that our family members, our friends, our neighbors, are constituents, especially
those in our most marginalized, multi generational rural communities, would have died.
So thank you, doctor Faucha. I want to thank you, not blame
you. Thank you for your science. Thank you for your science that have
saved millions of American lives, kept us safe. Including my children, many
of our families right here on this diis and thank you for clarifying these points
for the record, and for all of your efforts to keep us safe during
the pandemic and so many other health crisises we have faced over the decades that
you have served. Muhallo sear cheer, I yield back now recognized doctor McCormick
for five minutes of questions. Thank you, Doctor Winstrop. Chairman. It's
been insinuated that politicians only politicians only, bloggers only conspiracy theorists are disagreeing with
you. I want to point out that I'm probably the only member of Congress
that actually treated patients during the pandemic from the very beginning to the very end
of the pandemic during night shifts in the er thousands of patients during that time.
And in twenty twenty I was censored, my medical license was threatened because
I disagreed with bureaucrats literally taking off the Internet as a person who is treating
patients with leading edge technologies, developing theories, but doing my very best,
but being censored by the United States government for the first time, stepping in
and taking the place of medical professionals as the experts in healthcare. Any dissent
surrounding COVID nineteen treatments, mass mandates, and any public policy surrounding the pandemic
was immediate labeled as anti science. I watched as public health officials and politicians
told my patients what treatment options were best for them, regardless of their combobidities
or their medical history. Despite my education and my training and my experience,
my opinions were relegated to conspiracy and misinformation by so called health care experts who
had never treated a patient throughout the entire pandemic. This has been a black
eye in the medicine and as highlighted why government should never never insert itself in
between patients and their health care providers. The American people deserve to make medical
decisions through conversations with their physicians rather than politically motivated mandates. Doctor Fauci,
did you ever treat a patient for COVID during the pandemic? I was part
of a team that was at the NIAH that took care. We didn't take
care of many of them in case, so not hands on, got it?
Thank you? Why would I be criticized by a bureaucrat for doing my
very best as a healthcare This is a rhetorical question, But why why would
their government who has never treated a patient for COVID? You can read all
the things you want, but you're not there. You're not seeing patient,
watching people die, intubating patients right there with that disease in your face,
watching it happen, watching the development of this disease, and actually learning from
it. But I being told by bureaucrats what's right and wrong, and what's
funny? Is everything I was censored on I was proven to be right.
Pretty crazy, isn't it. You said in an interview that you gave as
part of an audiobook written by Michael Specter that you believed an institutional should make
it hard for people to live their lives so they'd feel pressured to get vaccinated.
Can we run the audio clip on that police? Do you think can
be done about it? I have to say that I don't see a big
solution other than some sort of mandatory vaccination. I know federal officials doing to
use that term. Once people feel empowered and protected legally, you were going
to have schools, universities and college is gonna say you want to come to
this college. Buddy, you're gonna get vaccinated. Lady, you're gonna get
vaccinated. Big corporations like Amazon and Facebook and all of those others are gonna
say you want to work for us to get vaccinated. And it's been proven
that when you make it difficult for people in their lives, they lose their
ideological bullshit and they get vaccinated. Thank you. Are all objections to COVID
vaccinations ideological bullshit, doctor Pacci, No, they're not, and thank you
not what I was referring to. Well, in reference to making it hard
for people to get education, traveling, working, I'd say it very much
was in context, and I take great offense to this. Miss Alice and
Williams testified before this committee about losing her job because she sought an exemption for
ESPN's vaccine mandate, which came from recommendation from bureaucrats like yourself. She and
her husband were actively working with a fertility expert a physician on how to get
pregnant and agreed with the premise that she was young, healthy, wanted to
get pregnant, and shouldn't get the vaccination for medical purposes. But she was
fired because you made it hard, just like you said in your statement,
because you didn't want to make sure that the ideological bullshit got in the way
of her working, of living her life, of making a medical decision with
her healthcare professional. I think America should take great offense to this. That's
exactly what you meant when you said making it hard for people to live without
getting a vaccination. You affected people's ability to work, travel, be educated,
to actually flourish in American size, to self determine as well given God
given rights. You, doctor Fauci, you've become doctor fear. Americans do
not hate science. I don't hate science. The American people hate having their
freedoms taken from them. You inspired and created fear through mass mandates, school
closures, vaccine mandates that have destroyed the American people's trust in our public health
institutions. This fear you created will continue to have ripple effects over generations come.
You have already seen its effects in education, in the economy, and
everything else. Quite frankly, you said, if you adream, if you
disagree with me, you disagree with science. Doctor Fauci. I disagree with
you because I disagree with fear and with that I yield. I now recognize
mister Moscowitz from Florida for five minutes of questions. Thank you, mister Chairman.
Doctor Fauchi could be with you here today. I was not here,
but I saw a member of this committee questioned whether or not you represent science
and tried to make that in some offensive way. I just want you to
know most Americans don't think she represents Congress. So one of the things I've
learned, so I hear now you double Fauci, So I don't want you
to be offended offended by that. I actually similar to represent McCormick, who
was serving in the field as a doctor during COVID. I was running the
logistics operation and the Florida response as the director of Emergency Management for the State
of Florida for Governor DeSantis. So I was deploying masks and gowns and gloves.
We were setting up field hospitals, we were setting up testing sites,
we were setting up vaccine sites throughout the pandemic. And the one thing that
became clear to me as a country is we were not prepared. In fact,
we actually had many preparations for a pandemic, but both this states collectively,
and the federal government threw that out and kind of was just making it
up as we go. One of the things I wanted to ask you,
and I understand you're not in the response field, but do you feel since
you've left, that we are better prepared today than we were several years ago
when COVID hit In some respects, excuse me, in some respects, we
are, but in others I'm still disappointed. And I think one of the
things that was really a problem with the response was the degree of divisiveness that
we had in the country about a lack of a coherent response, where we
were having people for reasons that had nothing to do with public health as science,
refusing to adhere to public health intervention measures. What I think that we
will do better, hopefully, is that the cd I believe is now recognized
some of the failings of the lack of communication and interaction between the federal response
and the local public health officials. One of the weaknesses that we had in
the United States that other countries didn't have was a disconnect between the healthcare system
and the public health system. Whereas the CDC can't demand information from local public
health individuals, they have to volunteer to give it to them, and it
isn't given to them in real time, so we were at a disadvantage.
Oh, no question, I saw that. I saw how the lack of
investment in technology, right, we had states trying to share information with the
federal government using you know, Windows two thousand or fax machine fax machines exactly.
Yeah, and so you know, we spent seven trillion dollars in two
packages and two administrations. And one of my concerns is is that I feel
that, especially in supply chain, I feel like we're not that much better
off than we were before COVID. Am I wrong in that? Yes?
Yeah, I don't think you're wrong, But I hope that the CDC has
made it very clear that they are trying to change that and correct that deficit
of a separation between the local and the federal CDC so that we can get
information in real time. It was very frustrating for us that often we had
to go to the UK, or South Africa or Israel to get real time
information because they had a connection between what was going on in the ground and
their public health system, so they knew right away what was happening. We
didn't Doctor Foute. You talked about how, you know, we live in
partisan times, a lot of misinformation, and you know, colleagues on this
body said, you know you should be you know, charged and found guilty.
Of course, the only one that's happened to is your former boss.
But you know, the question I have is when you saw a lot of
that disinformation, whether it was you know, we can use a disinfectant to
do like a cleaning, or do light in the body, or that you
know, China's working super hard. President Sheese got it contained all of the
stuff that was being put out. Were you concerned, you know, what
was your feeling at that time working in the administration seeing that come from the
podium, Well, I was very frustrated by that. It was very clear
I was put in a very difficult position that I didn't like, of having
to contradict publicly the President of the United States. I took no great pleasure
in that, but I felt it was my responsibility to preu You must have
thought you did a great job. He gave you a commendation right before he
left. Well, I felt it was my responsibility, you know, as
to preserve my own personal integrity and my major responsibility to the American public to
tell them the truth. And if I could take this opportunity. When I
was saying that if you attack me, you attack science, I didn't mean
that I am science. What I meant was that when the data showed that
hydroxychloroquin does not work, and there are people saying, oh it does,
I'll give it to people and we know it can be hurtful to them.
Then when you're attacking what I'm saying that the science shows it doesn't work,
and the science shows that bleach doesn't work, that when you attack that,
you really are attacking science because science has shown that it doesn't work. That's
what I meant. When you're attacking me, you're attacking science. Thank you,
doctor, thanking chairman. I'll back m's time's expired and now recognize mister
Jordan from Ohio for five minutes. Hey give mister chairman. Doctor. Why
was it so important that the virus not have started in a lab? Uh?
We don't know where it started. And that's the reason why I keep
an open mind. So I don't know what you mean by why was it
so important? It wasn't important because you still don't know where it used to
I don't know where it started. The guys you gave money to figured out
in three days. No, no, no, they mister Anderson said on
January thirty first, twenty twenty, virus looks engineered virus, not consistent with
evolutionary theory. The very next day, doctor Gary said, I don't know
how this happens in nature. Would be easy to do in a lab.
And then three days later, shazam, they switch and say it it has
to be nature. So they figured out in three days. But you still
don't know. No. In fact, if you look at what they were
saying Congressman Jordan, they were saying that it was not a manufactured virus.
It still could have evolved out of a lab. Let me read something here
to you. They're not incompatible in our study on the censorship of the Biden
administration working with big tech. I want to read you WhatsApp message from Mark
Zuckerberg. Can we include at the White House put pressure on us to censor
the lab leak theory. So this is a communication on July sixteenth, twenty
twenty one. Nick Klegg, Joel Kaplin, Sheryl Sandberg, Mark Zuckerberg.
They're certainly feeling the pressure to downplay any lab leak theory and go with the
natural origin theory. Is there a question? There, he's coming, There,
one's coming. Here's another email to Mark Zuckerberg that says, subject line
COVID misinformation wuhan lab league theory. In response to continued public pressure and tense
conversations with the new administration, we started removing five COVID claims, including the
lab leak theory. Mister Zuckerberg responds, This seems like a good reminder that
when we compromise our standards due to pressure from an administration in either direction,
we often later regret it. Why was it so important the virus not have
started in a lab? Wasn't so important that the virus not we don't know,
We know it was important to someone in the Biden administration. Is so
much so that the top people at Meta, the top people at Facebook are
asking why are we getting all this pressure to downplay the lab leak theory.
And we have an email from June of the same year, June fourth,
twenty twenty one, saying the same thing. If it was certainly important to
somebody, well, what does that got to do with me? I'm asking
you, because you're the expert on corona virus. I'm saying, why why
was the administration so pushing not to have the labilique theory as something that was
viable. I can answer that I've kept an open mind throughout the entire kept
an open mind, doctor Fauci, opened mind, that's correct. What happened
in those three days? Why did doctor Anderson and uh, excuse me,
mister Anderson and doctor Gary, why did they change their mind in a one
hundred and eighty degrees Because what Christian Anderson says three days later, after he
said virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory, three days later
he says, the main crackpot theory is going around at the moment relate to
this virus, virus being somehow engineered, and that is demonstrably false. How
did they how do they figure all that out in three days, doctor Fauci,
you can they'll have an open mind. Well, what they did is
that that you know that they testified before this committee. What they did they
went back and looked at the sequences and realized that their initial concern was unfounded
about that and it did not look at all like it was manufactured. But
as they said in their paper, even though they feel it was more likely
three days figured. That's exactly you could do that in three days. You
can scan sequences in a day. You don't need three days. Okay,
who's Robert Redfield, the former director of the CDC, Doctor Redfield? Right?
And he was and he was also on the Coronavirus task Force. Is
that accurate? He was a member of the Coronavirus task for Here's what he
said to this committee. He said, Redfield said that Fauci and Collins left
him out because Redfield suspected that coronavirus had leaked from the Chinese lab. Is
that accurate? Well, he said that, but that's not true. That
is incorrect. Congressman, doctor Redfield's lying to the committee. When you sat
right where you sat, when he said that I kept him out, that
is an incorrect statement. The roster was on the doctor Redfield in that conference
call on February first, when you had mister Anderson and doctor Gary on that
call, he was not. And the conference call was put together by Jeremy
Farrah, So no one kept him out. He said he was kept out
because he fell did us tax dollars. You want me to answer the question.
Yeah, I would just wonder why it wasn't on the call. It
seems to me the head of CDC, part of the Coronavirus Task Force,
which was formed two days prior to that call, would have been on the
call. Well, the call was arranged by Jeremy Farrah. You should ask
him. Okay, did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the
lab in China? I'm sorry? What was Did US tax dollars flow through
a grant recipient to the lab in China? Yes? Of course it was
a sub award to the wh and who approved that award? Excuse me?
And who approved that award? What agency approved that award? National Institute of
Alogy and Infectious Disease, Your your agency approved that, right, Yes it
did. After does that have anything to do with this downplaying the LAB leak
theory? No, nothing to do with it. Nothing. What do you
do You agree that there was a push to downplay the LAB leak theory?
Not on my part? Really really? Wow? Wow, I think I
think most of the country will find that amazing. I said eleven seconds,
Well, look at the facts. I've kept an open mind throughout the entire
process. All right, I ye back and now recognize the majority staff for
no longer than thirty minutes of questions, Doctor fo Doctor Fauchia, It's good
to see you again. I want to ask a couple of questions about some
of the members' questions and then get into some follow ups. The issue of
the CIA trip was brought up, That was brought to us by a whistleblower.
That was not an allegation made by the committee. It was an allegation
made by the whistleblower. You testified at a transcribed interview back in early January.
Do you recall me asking you about that allegation about the going to the
CIA? Yes? And do you recall and you denied it then as well,
and you denied it here today. Do you recall the subcommittee publishing that
you denied it? I don't recall. We did. We did, we
put it out in a press release afterwards, that you denied the whistleblower's allegation.
And then today, during the course of the last couple hours, have
any members on the majority side of the DAIS asked you about a trip to
the CIA? Yeah, they have this. Yeah, I'm sorry Mitch,
I'm not hearing, so miss I have a point of order. Mister chairman,
what's the gentleman's point of order? I have an inquiry about whether or
not I'm hearing things, or whether or not you just yielded thirty minutes of
committee time to stay haff That is correct both sides, And the question that
the gentleman were just raised was the question that I raised. So apparently he
was not listening when I was questioning. Doctor Belchie. Thank you for your
point of order. You may continue what I What I asked was, we
asked you about this in a transcript interview, you testified that you did not
go to the CIA, we published that you refuted that allegation, and then
today no members of the Republican side of the Diace have asked you that question.
Is that accurate? Thank you. You've been asked a number of times
about your former senior advisor, doctor Morens, and have said, and I
want to make sure I characterize it correctly because it goes a little back and
forth that you didn't conduct official business over a personal email with doctor Morins.
Has doctor Morins emailed your personal email before on non official purposes? As I
mentioned we wrote scientific papers together, so he very well may have used that
quest. That's the email I use when I write a scientific paper, and
that's because NAIAD policy allows you to write on semi official time write papers,
but you just have to put a disclaimer that this is not In other words,
if you're doing something official business, you shouldn't use your emails that are
official business. So in order to be compliant with the regulations, you would
use a personal email. I appreciate it. I want to ask about some
of the public health policies enacted during the pandemic. Doctor Francis Collins, the
former NIH director, recently said in an interview, and I'm quoting, you
attach an infinite value to stopping the disease and saving a life. You attaches
zero value to whether this actually totally disrupts people's lives, ruins the economy,
and has kept many kids out of school in a way that they never quite
recovered understanding the COVID task force had a lot of voices at the table.
Is that an accurate description of the public health advisors? And then you could
fit in other advisors along the way. Well, yeah, you know,
Mitch, what I believe that Doctor Collins was saying, was that we give
a advice based on pure public health issues. It's very very clear now retrospectively
looking at the potential collateral negative effects of things like mandating it would be important
for us now since the purpose of I believe why we're here as to how
we can do better next time is to consider the balance. I think things
that we did in the beginning were in the context of horrible situation of four
to five thousand deaths per day, But that doesn't mean that you don't go
back and look and say, did everything we do at that point and the
duration for which we did it was that appropriate? And do we need to
re examine? I believe that's what doctor Collins was referring to him, and
I agree with him on that. And you got to my next question,
that we are here trying to figure out how to do better next time.
Lose your lives next time? Would that be a better thought process going forward
of thinking about the possible unintended consequences of public health measures. Absolutely, and
you've heard from both sides of the dice today. First weeks months novel virus,
nobody knew what was going on, called for some drastic measures understanding or
once there was a better understanding of who the most affected demographics were, do
you think it would be important to more narrowly craft public health measures to specifically
favor those demographics. The answer is yes, but you have to be careful
because if you have a certain group that is being predominantly afflicted, if you're
really really clear that another group is really quite protected, then you should fashion
it demographically related. But what often happens without breaks is that they're a moving
target and you only hear about other vulnerables as you get further into the out
break. So the answer to your question is you're partially correct that you need
to do that, but you've got to be careful when you're dealing with a
moving target. And we can appreciate that You've been asked a little bit again
about the theories of natural immunity and herd immunity. Those are both real scientific
theories and infectious disease. Is that correct? Yes? And between infection acquired
immunity and vaccinated acquired immunity, did the United States hit herd immunity? The
answer is no, and I've written a paper on that. Is that when
you're dealing Just let me take thirty seconds. I don't want to run out
the clock on you, but I think it's important to make this point.
When you talk about herd immunity, it's predicated on two principles. That you're
dealing with a pathogen that's not changing. And number two, that when you
either get infected or vaccinated, the duration of the immunity is measured in decades,
if not a lifetime, so that if you have a pathogen that stays
the same, like measles, doesn't change. So I was infected with meagles
measles when I was a child. It's the same measles that's infecting people in
certain countries in the developing world. Number two, when you get either infected
or vaccinated with measles, you have immunity that's durable minimally in decades and possibly
for life. So if you get the same pathogen and you get a large
percentage of the people who have either been infected or vaccinated, then you have
heard immunity. We did not ever have that with COVID. And you've also
been asked a number of times about the vaccine and vaccine mandates. Were you
the one that recommended to the president to mandate vaccines for certain individuals. No,
do you know who did? No, it was more of a It
was a combination of a group and just saying that, you know, so
certain agencies like the labor Department or what have you would feel that this would
to be done. But it was not like I one day said, hey,
we should mandate vaccines. That did not happen. And I want to
echo the comments of the Chairman that we agree the vaccine saved hundreds of thousands
of lives. And we talked about this a little bit in January, and
I think you touched on it a little bit today. Could issuing these mandates
and removing the notion of informed consent from some certain sects of the citizenry lead
to vaccine hesitancy? Yeah, I mentioned this, and I believe in the
TI that as a matter of fact, that's something that I think we need
to go back now when we do and after the event evaluation about whether or
not, given the psyche of the country and the pushback that you get from
those types of things, we need to reevaluate the cost benefit ratio of those
types of things. And then I won't belabor the point, but we talked
about the six foot distance an awful lot today. Do you recall if it
was ever suggested to be ten feet? You know, I don't recall,
Mitch, if it was ever suggested it was ten feet. But when I
made my explanation of what it was, I was saying that there was no
trial that looked at ten versus six, versus three versus not even worrying about
it at all. And you said today that there were discussions at the White
House about the six foot rule. You don't recall if it was discussions about
whether or not it should be three, or it should be ten, or
should you know, I don't recall, Mitch, what the exact discussion was.
But as I've said, in response to multiple questions, what we had,
it was. It came the CDC was said that on the basis of
their evaluation, which was based on the droplet approach, that six foot would
be to go, and since there was no clinical trials going one way or
the other, that's why it was accepted by the group. And then it
hasn't been a large topic today. And we talked about kind of again the
many unknowns. In early twenty twenty, schools were closed through the semester.
Some schools reopened for the fallse semester, some remained closed going through into twenty
twenty one. Looking back, where there are there current academic ramifications of remote
schooling or kids not being in school? I think there have been a number
of not I think, I know that there have been a number of studies
to show that there are lasting effects, at least up to this point.
They tend to attenuate over time, but there have been substantial negative effects on
learning and on children when you keep them out of school for a prolonged period
of time. Have you seen any studies suggesting physical health ramifications. I haven't
seen physical health ramplification mental health. I believe that there are some that show
psychological issues that relate to keeping kids out of the environment, of the social
environment of the school. I'm and apologize for bouncing around. We don't have
fourteen hours with you today. I've got thirty minutes, so I'm yeah,
I'm gonna know sorry about that. I'm gonna move quickly. Yeah again.
Across the dias, both sides, they aisle a lot of questions on the
origins of COVID and finding out the origins and how that could better lead to
both protecting against spillover and wildlife trade, but also increased biosafety standards. As
you sit here today, is it possible that COVID nineteen was the result of
a laboratory related accident? Oh? Absolutely, and I keep like I mentioned
multiple times, I keep an open mind. I feel, based on the
data that I have seen, that the more likely not definitive, but the
more likely explanation is a natural spillover from an animal reservoir. But since there
has not been definitive proof one way or the other, we have to keep
an open mind that I could de either, and I'm based on that answer,
I think is the hypothesis that COVID nineteen accidentally leaked from a lab of
conspiracy theory. No. I mentioned that several times. Conceptually, the concept
of it is not a conspiracy theory. The show has been produced by Depictions
Media. Please contact us at Depictions Media for more information.