Speaker 1: Tessy around. This is the seventy seven w ABC Mini cast.
Speaker 2: Doctor Siegel, thank you so much for joining us. I
Speaker 2: have so many questions. I want to start by bringing
Speaker 2: up Rand Paul. He dropped over a thousand pages of
Speaker 2: doctor Fauci's private notes, and suddenly, out of nowhere we
Speaker 2: all see the doubts that he hid behind closed doors
Speaker 2: on NASK school closure and the m RNA. Now right
Speaker 2: before he pled the fifth it was one hundred and
Speaker 2: eleven times on the hill. I mean, if the guy
Speaker 2: running the narrative didn't even buy his own unanimous consensus,
Speaker 2: why should the American public I view him?
Speaker 1: I view this a little differently, I don't. I don't.
Speaker 1: I want to look at it from the from the
Speaker 1: perspective of who doctor Fauci is, who I knew him
Speaker 1: to be, what his goal might have been, and what
Speaker 1: he might have done differently, and not so interested in
Speaker 1: number of things that are released or disclosed or anything
Speaker 1: like that. You know, I don't like witch hunts. I
Speaker 1: think that the question is regarding COVID origins. After two
Speaker 1: thousand and three, doctor Fauci was part of an effort
Speaker 1: to build a global consortium of scientists that felt they
Speaker 1: could trust each other in order to pursue viral research
Speaker 1: because he didn't like what happened with Sarswan. We're trying
Speaker 1: to hit everything, and he felt he could trust these
Speaker 1: scientists and they worked internationally. Ralph Barish here in the
Speaker 1: United States worked with Shi Jing Lee and the Wu
Speaker 1: Hunt Institute of Virology. The Wu Hunt Institute of Virology
Speaker 1: had multiple as multiple labs, but at the onset of
Speaker 1: the of the pandemic, I asked some basic questions and
Speaker 1: I wasn't alone, but I and I wouldn't say that
Speaker 1: doctor Fauci sidelined me because I had access to him
Speaker 1: and I interviewed him multiple times. But I asked a question,
Speaker 1: why isn't China allowing CDC boots on the ground In
Speaker 1: January of twenty twenty, and Robert Redfield, the CDC director,
Speaker 1: asked the same question, why can't I get in there?
Speaker 1: And nobody really got in there? And the narrative that
Speaker 1: was sold that this virus came from the Wuhan wet
Speaker 1: market never really held much water because if you look
Speaker 1: at if you actually look at the wet market, it
Speaker 1: isn't some kind of zoological thing, you know, like some
Speaker 1: kind of third world thing. It's actually in the middle
Speaker 1: of a city, and it's not a likely place for
Speaker 1: this kind of event to occur, Whereas the Wuhan Institute
Speaker 1: of Virology, with all of its safety violations, is busy
Speaker 1: studying back coronaviruses, and so I'm not surprised to see
Speaker 1: that doctor Fauci was asking the same questions at the
Speaker 1: beginning of the pandemic. But what I'm concerned about is
Speaker 1: the possibility that, since he had helped to build that
Speaker 1: consortium of sciences, maybe he was too willing to trust
Speaker 1: them when you consider that some of them are under
Speaker 1: the direct supervision of the Chinese Communist Party. That would
Speaker 1: be you know, George Gatto, the CDC director in China,
Speaker 1: the World Health Organization, who I've come to know better
Speaker 1: in recent months at the time, had as the lead
Speaker 1: of emerging infectious diseases, someone that had been a Chinese
Speaker 1: Party official for twenty years.
Speaker 2: And yet doctor, We're all told to take the vaccination.
Speaker 2: And look, I didn't mind. I was told, I was
Speaker 2: given assurances. I rolled up my sleeve, my wife, my children,
Speaker 2: my family, my friends. We rolled up our sleeves. And
Speaker 2: what we did was we accepted the narrative to be
Speaker 2: true and honest. Now I'm just curious to know exactly
Speaker 2: what it is I have in my body. That's all.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying he's a good guy. I'm not saying
Speaker 2: he's a bad guy. I'm just saying that what he
Speaker 2: said publicly is what's now come out in these documents
Speaker 2: seemed to be very different.
Speaker 1: So let's switch tears now of the Ron Johnson thing.
Speaker 1: What I was talking about was Ran Paul. Now Ron
Speaker 1: Johnson is looking at the issue of the COVID vaccine.
Speaker 1: Here's my view on that. To answer your question, doctor
Speaker 1: Fauci has a lane that he's an expert at. His
Speaker 1: lane is immunology, in vaccinology. His lane is not lockdowns,
Speaker 1: His lane is not school closures, his lane is not masks,
Speaker 1: and it's not ventilation. So he gave a lot of
Speaker 1: advice about things that are outside his usual lane. He's
Speaker 1: not an epidemiologist, he's not a public health specialist. He's
Speaker 1: a virologist, an immunologist, and a vaccine expert. So I'm
Speaker 1: much more interested in what he had to say about
Speaker 1: the vaccine. And I interviewed him about the vaccine way
Speaker 1: before it ever came out in March of twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: and he said, at best, it's going to be as
Speaker 1: good as a flu shot. But when it actually came out,
Speaker 1: it look from the early trials that it was ninety
Speaker 1: to ninety five percent effective at preventing spread, and Israel
Speaker 1: seemed to have the same response with that. It causes
Speaker 1: a lot of local reaction, and it's been given to many, many,
Speaker 1: many millions of people around the world, and there are
Speaker 1: some concerns I have about it, but overall I happen
Speaker 1: to think it's safer than COVID. And so if you
Speaker 1: go back to the early days when President Trump actually
Speaker 1: came up with Operation Warp Speed and got this vaccine
Speaker 1: out there, you know within nine months after the pandemic started.
Speaker 1: He allowed us the ability to create a blanket of
Speaker 1: immunity towards COVID that I believe to this day you
Speaker 1: get with less expense in quotes expense than COVID itself.
Speaker 1: For example, we worry about myocarditis from this vaccine, but
Speaker 1: you're ten times more likely to get it from COVID,
Speaker 1: and COVID risk of myocardia his decreases with the vaccine.
Speaker 1: The vaccine decreases your risk from COVID.
Speaker 2: But all I wish, then, doctor, is that he would
Speaker 2: have not played the fifth one hundred and eleven times.
Speaker 2: They would have given us the But you know, you
Speaker 2: bring up something interesting.
Speaker 1: It's a really good attorney, Michael, And I'm glad you
Speaker 1: said that, because I have that same feeling I'm trying
Speaker 1: I would agree with that. I want him to participate
Speaker 1: in a public dialogue here what the hell happened, what
Speaker 1: he knew about and and how and how he changed
Speaker 1: his mind or didn't, because the point that you were
Speaker 1: getting to was the issue of miscarriage. And what happened
Speaker 1: is that initially studies didn't show a correlation with miscarriage
Speaker 1: and the COVID vaccine. At the time that the COVID
Speaker 1: vaccine was no longer effective at preventing spread to the
Speaker 1: same extent, and it was still an emergency use authorization,
Speaker 1: and we were still using it to decrease severity and
Speaker 1: prevent hospitalizations, and pregnant women at being at particular risk
Speaker 1: because they're immunal compromise, and we might have wanted to
Speaker 1: make an argument to give them the vac A study
Speaker 1: came out that appeared to show an increased miscarriage risk
Speaker 1: I knew about it. He knew about it, it was published,
Speaker 1: it was public information. The idea that he was debating
Speaker 1: whether this was something he should speak to the public
Speaker 1: or not or keep from the public's attention is very
Speaker 1: disturbing to me. I don't think that public officials should
Speaker 1: be talking about what the public should know and what
Speaker 1: they shouldn't know. That's problematic. I do think the decision
Speaker 1: about whether to take a vaccine should be between you
Speaker 1: and your obstetrician, or you and your physician, not you
Speaker 1: and a public health official who doesn't practice medicine necessarily.
Speaker 1: Later studies appear to show that that vaccine does not
Speaker 1: cause miscarriages, but at the time there was a real
Speaker 1: question about that, and that question should not have been
Speaker 1: submerged any more than the other question about where COVID
Speaker 1: came from. If we're not knowing what the hell we're
Speaker 1: being hit with here, and we're being hit with an avalanche,
Speaker 1: we need full disclosure. We don't need bait and switch,
Speaker 1: we don't need to be managed as there were children.
Speaker 2: So doctor, you brought up that Trump was actually the
Speaker 2: one that created the movement for the vaccination through operation
Speaker 2: warp speed. Well, just the other day the Trump administration
Speaker 2: put out in executive order and it's made people apoplectic
Speaker 2: in it where people are now claiming that it bans
Speaker 2: childhood vaccines. It does not. In fact, what it does
Speaker 2: is it restructures the timeline. It breaks up the combination
Speaker 2: shots like the MMn R, and it spreads them over
Speaker 2: multiple visits to lower the single day biological load, bringing
Speaker 2: the United States in fact, closer to the way Europe
Speaker 2: does it, to the European standard. So the question this again,
Speaker 2: because there's all sorts of claims that it's now causing
Speaker 2: that these large quantities of the vaccination causing things like autism.
Speaker 2: The question I want to ask you is why has
Speaker 2: the establishment media intentionally conflated spacing out doses for safety
Speaker 2: and parental choice with anti vaccine extremism, And why do
Speaker 2: you think that they're so damn afraid of parents literally
Speaker 2: asking for a modified schedule.
Speaker 1: That's a mouthful. Here's my answer, and it's not exactly
Speaker 1: what you expect me to say. President Trump said two
Speaker 1: things that I agree with that are scientifically correct in
Speaker 1: the press conference on Monday. One is he said that
Speaker 1: parents should be given the right to space out vaccines
Speaker 1: as he did with his children. I mean, look how
Speaker 1: smart they turned out. And I think my personal favorites Ivanka,
Speaker 1: but they turned out amazingly. And the other point he
Speaker 1: made was bundling vaccines can lead to more fevers. He's
Speaker 1: actually right about that. That's scientifically correct. The other thing
Speaker 1: that he didn't say that I would add is that
Speaker 1: we're and you just hinted at this, is that we're
Speaker 1: at a time of great distrust and consternation and people
Speaker 1: feeling ambushed or maybe beat over the head coming out
Speaker 1: of the pandemic. So that we want to have parents
Speaker 1: feel more comfortable. Here's the way to do that. I'll
Speaker 1: give you some science, Michael, some of which you're not expecting. One,
Speaker 1: the MMR vaccine has been studied versus no vaccine no
Speaker 1: vaccine in six hundred and fifty thousand Danish children, and
Speaker 1: there is not an increased risk of autism. I believe
Speaker 1: that autism occurs in the womb. I don't believe that
Speaker 1: it occurs from childhood vaccines. I think the President's right
Speaker 1: that the increase that we're seeing in the world right
Speaker 1: now is enormous and it's not something to be ignored,
Speaker 1: and I think it's environmentally induced in addition to genetic predisposition.
Speaker 1: But I'm more worried about organophosphates than I am worried
Speaker 1: about vaccines early childhood vacases. Having said that, I also
Speaker 1: think the MMR vaccine is probably one I wouldn't decouple
Speaker 1: because it doesn't have an increased risk of fever or
Speaker 1: side effects, and it's a way to do it efficiently.
Speaker 1: But I might not give it with another six shots,
Speaker 1: to his point, and I wouldn't give it with vericella.
Speaker 1: That's what he probably was referring to, because the studies
Speaker 1: show that the MMR vaccine plus varicella the v MMR
Speaker 1: V doubles your risk of fever, increases your risk of
Speaker 1: febril seizures. And I don't want my kid having a
Speaker 1: febrill seizure, So the decoupling of verseella makes a lot
Speaker 1: of sense. I think MMR is fine, but I think
Speaker 1: some of these other vaccines should be spaced out. And
Speaker 1: guess what, Michael, parents are all coming to me saying,
Speaker 1: can I delay a bit? Can I delay a bit?
Speaker 1: And you don't want a pediatrician who's rigid. You want
Speaker 1: a pediatrician who works with you, who works with your
Speaker 1: comfort zone, who works with information. I said to one
Speaker 1: of the top vaccine experts in the world the other
Speaker 1: day on the radio. She's in Australia. I said, what
Speaker 1: about community immunity and she said, forget that word. People
Speaker 1: now want to talk about their own child, their own risk,
Speaker 1: and that's how you speak to them the way I'm
Speaker 1: doing it right now with you. So it's not about
Speaker 1: community immunity has some value. It's how we stamped out months.
Speaker 1: It's how we stamped out rubella in the United States.
Speaker 1: It's how we stamped out polio. But we're at a
Speaker 1: stage where there's a lot of public distrust and the
Speaker 1: way to battle it is with one on one mana
Speaker 1: amana in the examination REU pediatrician and pairent.
Speaker 2: See. I'm not saying that the research proves that these
Speaker 2: vaccines cause autism. In fact, I've done some research onto
Speaker 2: it because sadly I have friends who have children who
Speaker 2: are severely autistic, and they're very much involved with things
Speaker 2: like Autism Speaks, So I've done quite a bit of
Speaker 2: reading onto it. My understanding is it has to do
Speaker 2: with some mutation in the male sperm that ends up
Speaker 2: causing it because we're seeing older men having children, you know,
Speaker 2: that's what they believe. It has nothing to do with
Speaker 2: the MM and R or.
Speaker 1: The exactly exact.
Speaker 2: So what I am saying, though, is that, and I
Speaker 2: agree with Trump in this, we still don't have enough information.
Speaker 2: We don't know enough about what's driving the rise in autism.
Speaker 2: So my question, he's one hundred percent right. So the
Speaker 2: question that I'm asking someone like yourself, a seasoned doctor,
Speaker 2: what is the harm in conducting more research, including looking
Speaker 2: at the vaccine timing, rather than just shutting the door
Speaker 2: on questions that we haven't fully answered.
Speaker 1: We have to look at the vaccine timing over and over.
Speaker 1: It should be done all the time. And but the
Speaker 1: endpoint may not be autism. It may be something else.
Speaker 1: Maybe it may be ADHD. Who knows what it is,
Speaker 1: but whatever it is, we should be looking at what
Speaker 1: we put in our children's bodies and we should be
Speaker 1: studying it. And we shouldn't just accept answers from decades ago. Right.
Speaker 2: And the reason I asked these questions, and I think
Speaker 2: the reason why the audience is so interested in this
Speaker 2: is that every single major network, especially the left leaning
Speaker 2: ones like the CNN and the MS. Now, every single
Speaker 2: one of these news panels, they reacted to the childhood
Speaker 2: vaccine schedule change with like this. I don't know this
Speaker 2: breathless claim that the administration is endangering children. Is this
Speaker 2: outrage genuinely about pediatric health? Or is it about protecting
Speaker 2: a trillion dollar pharmaceutical model that is built on forced mandates,
Speaker 2: liability shields, and rigid one size fits all schedules.
Speaker 1: I don't know the answer to that. That's more in
Speaker 1: your lane. I'm interested in fear on both sides of
Speaker 1: the equation. I don't want parents and to be afraid
Speaker 1: of life saving or life protecting vaccines, and I don't
Speaker 1: want them to feel bully either. So so yeah, industry
Speaker 1: always goes to the heart of this. It's always about money,
Speaker 1: isn't it. But I also have to say Pfizer has
Speaker 1: done a lot of great work in the world, So
Speaker 1: it depends, you know, it's both both are true at
Speaker 1: the same time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, doctor, I want to thank you so much
Speaker 2: for joining me on when you know, you know, because
Speaker 2: a lot of people actually really want to know. So
Speaker 2: thank you, my friend.
Speaker 1: You're a great interviewer.
Speaker 2: Thank you for having me, appreciate you