Speaker 1: Six fifty on this Monday morning. Dan Carroll for Brian Thomas.
Speaker 1: I've been teasing it all morning. The brad Winstrop is
Speaker 1: going to be here in the seven o'clock hour. But
Speaker 1: I should not be surprised that a military man is
Speaker 1: here early, showing up early here army time, oh seven hundred.
Speaker 1: But you're here early, Brad Weinster. How are you? I'm
Speaker 1: doing all right? And in the seven o'clock hour we're
Speaker 1: going to talk about your report, which is good, but
Speaker 1: this gives me a little time to what to talk
Speaker 1: about you and your time in DC is coming to
Speaker 1: an end. You announced that you were not going to
Speaker 1: run for re election and what's that process been like.
Speaker 2: Well, it's been different, I mean, byron large, it didn't
Speaker 2: feel any different until after the election. Yeah, after the
Speaker 2: election in November, then you suddenly felt that.
Speaker 1: That's when you feel the finality of it.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, and you feel that, like you know, for
Speaker 2: a lot of things, you just don't matter anymore. And
Speaker 2: you start to see all these new people showing up
Speaker 2: because a lot of the new members are around and
Speaker 2: they haven't been sworn in yet. But there's just a
Speaker 2: lot of things. But by and large. I had things
Speaker 2: that I've been working on trying to get into our
Speaker 2: final packages, which, of course, it would be a whole
Speaker 2: lot easier if we just didn't throw everything into one
Speaker 2: big pale at the end of the year. Instead did
Speaker 2: things a little by little. But wrapping up this two
Speaker 2: years of the pandemic Select Subcommittee has really been all encompassing.
Speaker 2: I mean, we put together a five hundred and twenty
Speaker 2: page report, you know, but other than that, it's been
Speaker 2: kind of business as usual, except you know, now for
Speaker 2: this last month or so, you have no office. They
Speaker 2: give you a cubicle in the basement, and you know,
Speaker 2: you've still got some staff around. Some have moved on,
Speaker 2: but most of ours have said I'll take my next
Speaker 2: job when we're finished, and so that's been good. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but it's different. And since I had the Select Subcommittee,
Speaker 2: I have an office to go to where there's you know,
Speaker 2: it might not, but you know, it's it's bittersweet, for sure.
Speaker 2: I have no regrets. At the twelve years of serving
Speaker 2: in Congress. It's been a huge honor. It's it's messier,
Speaker 2: messier than it needs to be by far. But in
Speaker 2: a lot of ways, we quietly got a lot of
Speaker 2: things done that never made headlines, and I'm proud of that.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean that's usually the case. You know. I've
Speaker 1: been to Washington a handful of times and spent a
Speaker 1: little time walking around the halls of Congress and some
Speaker 1: of the office buildings there, which are just I mean,
Speaker 1: it really is just being there and seeing all that.
Speaker 1: It really is a special place. And and I think
Speaker 1: so many people get the wrong idea about DC because
Speaker 1: we talk about it in such negatives way in negative ways,
Speaker 1: but I mean in so many ways. I mean, it
Speaker 1: really is a swamp. It really is so despicable the
Speaker 1: way things are run in this government these days. But
Speaker 1: there's got to be aspects of it that when you
Speaker 1: when I mean when you when you look at how
Speaker 1: just how how great it is and how meaningful it
Speaker 1: is to it to really be there on a daily basis, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it absolutely is.
Speaker 2: And you know, the American people don't get the full
Speaker 2: perception because, uh, you know, I was asked at a
Speaker 2: little roundtable whether it was departing members three of US,
Speaker 2: one Democrat, two Republicans, and they moderator said, what can
Speaker 2: be done to calm some of the chaos? I said,
Speaker 2: I think it would make a difference if the media
Speaker 2: paid more attention to those that actually got things across
Speaker 2: the finish line than those that never do. Because truthfully,
Speaker 2: by and large, the people that you see day in
Speaker 2: and day out that are rowdy, et cetera, they really
Speaker 2: they don't usually get something done. They don't pass bills,
Speaker 2: they don't take away bills, they don't stop regulations there
Speaker 2: you know, and that that is a problem. But I
Speaker 2: think the bigger problem we have today is something that
Speaker 2: didn't exist with our with our founders. When our country
Speaker 2: was founded, we had three agencies, State, Treasury, and war.
Speaker 1: That was it.
Speaker 2: I changed my mind on term limits because if you've
Speaker 2: just if you're only their two terms, you never establish
Speaker 2: enough street cred if you will to do things right.
Speaker 2: But in the agencies, those are the people that never
Speaker 2: leave and they're not elected. That's where we need to
Speaker 2: make change. It should be like the military, you get
Speaker 2: if you don't get promoted, you're out, and when you
Speaker 2: reach the top, you're term limited. We have people that
Speaker 2: nest there forever and they're controlling way too much.
Speaker 1: And see when I look at at DOJE, Okay, the
Speaker 1: Department of Government Efficiency theak Raamaswami and Elon Musk When
Speaker 1: I hear them talk, that's what I hear them concentrating
Speaker 1: on the bloat in the federal government and they're talking about,
Speaker 1: you know, there's what two hundred and summer five hundred
Speaker 1: some agencies right now. They're talking about, we can take
Speaker 1: this down to ninety nine. And essentially they're talking about
Speaker 1: the apparatus of government that spends so much money. All
Speaker 1: you hear in the media is, Oh, they want to
Speaker 1: cut Medicare, they want to cut Social Security, they want
Speaker 1: to cut you know, all these entitlement programs. I haven't
Speaker 1: heard them talk about that at all. They're talking about
Speaker 1: govern an efficiency, and that's a great place to start.
Speaker 1: If you can streamline things and make things more efficient, right,
Speaker 1: efficiencies right there in the name. I think that's an
Speaker 1: important first step.
Speaker 2: It's not bad to have some of the things, but
Speaker 2: are they working and what does success look like? You
Speaker 2: go to just go to the website and look at
Speaker 2: Health and Human Services and all the sub agencies that
Speaker 2: are part of that, and you look at that and say,
Speaker 2: what are these people doing that are making us a
Speaker 2: healthier nation? Because that's really what that agency should be
Speaker 2: about and work with Congress that we put things in place. Look,
Speaker 2: I'm glad to have a country with safety nets, but
Speaker 2: success means fewer people needing them. That's what success looks like,
Speaker 2: not putting more people into problem.
Speaker 1: I agree with that. And you even in your report
Speaker 1: you talk about the billions of dollars that got wasted
Speaker 1: during the whole the whole COVID episode. Absolutely, when when
Speaker 1: we look at that and act like that, you know,
Speaker 1: there's a few billion here, a few billions, they're not
Speaker 1: that big of a deal that that mindset needs to change.
Speaker 1: And I think you know what, what the work you
Speaker 1: did on that may be one of the first steps
Speaker 1: in the sort of change in that mindset.
Speaker 2: This should be a roadmap. This should we'll talk about
Speaker 2: it more, but this should be a roadmap to the future.
Speaker 1: All right, get it to a break here, news coming
Speaker 1: up top of the hour, and then we will continue
Speaker 1: on with Congressman. Can I still I'll always be able
Speaker 1: to call you Congressman or Brad during the entire seven
Speaker 1: o'clock hour, and we invite you to stick around for
Speaker 1: that and maybe maybe we'll take a call or too,
Speaker 1: maybe later on. That'll be great. Five three seven, five hundred,
Speaker 1: Dan Carroll for Brian Thomas, fifty five KRC, The talk Station,
Speaker 1: Your Voice freshing your country for Reasonable American fifty five KRC,
Speaker 1: the talk Station. This report is sponsored by Staples Story
Speaker 1: fifty five KRC, the Talk Station. Rainy Monday Morning, Dan
Speaker 1: Carroll in for Brian Thomas. Brian Thomas is back tomorrow,
Speaker 1: so we are all looking forward to that. And as
Speaker 1: promised earlier in this show, we are going to spend
Speaker 1: the seven o'clock hour with Congressman brad Winstrip and he
Speaker 1: and his Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic have just
Speaker 1: wrapped up a two year investigation into COVID nineteen, or
Speaker 1: as I like to refer to it, the Wuhan and
Speaker 1: brad Winstrip is here and brad winsterp how are you.
Speaker 1: I'm doing all right, it's good to see.
Speaker 2: How about those Bengals, Well, we have an offense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's fact. I mean think about that. You got
Speaker 1: to go out there and they're saying that, look, you
Speaker 1: guys got to score forty points every game if you
Speaker 1: want to have a chance to win it, and it's unbelievable.
Speaker 2: Well, they got some work to do in the off season. Yes,
Speaker 2: oh it's not off season yet.
Speaker 1: Darn it. Well when the all season good. That can't
Speaker 1: get here faster though, And January twentieth can't get here
Speaker 1: fast enough either. But you know what, thanks for coming in.
Speaker 1: It's great. It's great to see you again. It's been
Speaker 1: a little while. But I mean you look good. You
Speaker 1: look like you've got a little bit of weight. Take
Speaker 1: them off your shoulders.
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, this two year's log is really not just
Speaker 2: a two year's log of the Select Subcommittee. But it's
Speaker 2: been five years. You know, I sit on Intelligence Committee,
Speaker 2: and I can remember during lockdown, another doctor in Ohio
Speaker 2: was calling me and he was calling infectious disease doctors
Speaker 2: in China. We were looking at how do we treat this?
Speaker 2: What's going on? You know, this thing's novel called that
Speaker 2: for a reason, no one knew quite what to do.
Speaker 2: We were learning what we could learn from from lab work,
Speaker 2: from cts and you know, what's the best way to
Speaker 2: try and treat this. But in the process we started
Speaker 2: sharing other things that we were discovering online. And one
Speaker 2: of the things was an article from twenty fifteen. He said,
Speaker 2: take a look at this, and it was Ralph Berrick
Speaker 2: in North Carolina, Zengli She and Wuhan, China, and they
Speaker 2: had created chaimeras in the lab. They had taken parts
Speaker 2: of different viruses, made new viruses and made them more
Speaker 2: pathogenic to human beings. I mean, this was unbelievable. And
Speaker 2: my first thought is bioweapons. That was when I saw that.
Speaker 2: That was my first thought. I'm on intelligence committee. I've
Speaker 2: been looking at our adversaries bioweapons for some time before
Speaker 2: covid Our State Department in two thousand and five said
Speaker 2: that China has a bioweapons program. In twenty fifteen, they
Speaker 2: published a book in China about making coronavirus bioweapons.
Speaker 1: I mean, what more do you need?
Speaker 2: And public statements by Chinese scientists about, you know, the
Speaker 2: possibility of coronaviruses being bioweapons. It was all there. So
Speaker 2: my concern went way up in this situation. And then
Speaker 2: you know, you start to uncover things that like we're
Speaker 2: actually doing gain of function research in Wuhan, China, which
Speaker 2: is the idea of making something more infectious to humans.
Speaker 2: It's unbelievable. How did we get here? And and so you know,
Speaker 2: I've been looking at all this stuff and several people
Speaker 2: on Intelligence Committee especially, and you know, we got a
Speaker 2: five hundred and twenty page report that's the unclassified version.
Speaker 2: You know, we've got more on the other side and
Speaker 2: on the classified side. But let me the overarching thing
Speaker 2: to all of this is one China's cover up so obvious.
Speaker 2: They got rid of sequence as samples, they wouldn't let
Speaker 2: people in THEIRS was a very clear cover up. They
Speaker 2: sent me a letter when we started the Select Subcommittee
Speaker 2: saying they have grave concerns that we're even looking into
Speaker 2: the origins of COVID. You know this is this has
Speaker 2: already been settled by that you were doing your own investigations.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they frowned on that. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I wrote them back and I said, I don't think.
Speaker 2: I don't think you're going to dictate what we investigated
Speaker 2: on your land states.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 2: But but then they said this is already done by scientists.
Speaker 2: I said, well, we have seven physicians on here, and
Speaker 2: we're bringing in scientists. And I named five of theirs
Speaker 2: that I'd like to see and one of them, I said,
Speaker 2: if still alive, if you get my drift there. But
Speaker 2: that's how they operate. But it wasn't just their cover up.
Speaker 2: It was a cover up within our own government.
Speaker 1: And to me, that's I mean. And I looked at you,
Speaker 1: look at all the elements of this, and it is
Speaker 1: one scandal after another. I mean, each one of these
Speaker 1: things by itself is a huge scandal unto itself. But
Speaker 1: you pile one on top of the other, on top
Speaker 1: of the other, and the American people hear about this
Speaker 1: and their eyes start to glaze over because it's just
Speaker 1: so much. It really, I mean, it really is. And
Speaker 1: each one of these it is absolutely jaw dropping the
Speaker 1: way you put it in the report. But before we
Speaker 1: get too far down this road, let's let's go back
Speaker 1: to the beginning. I think there was a sense in
Speaker 1: Congress from the very beginning that we want to have
Speaker 1: an investigation, we want to look into this. This investigation
Speaker 1: two years you spent on it would not have happened
Speaker 1: but for Republicans taking control of the House in twenty twelve.
Speaker 2: That's absolutely true. And as a matter of fact, the
Speaker 2: minority during this said we were spending a lot of
Speaker 2: time on things that we shouldn't be looking into. And
Speaker 2: I called this from the very beginning, using my military background,
Speaker 2: this is an after action review we're looking at lessons learned,
Speaker 2: and we're going to plan out a path forward so
Speaker 2: that we are ready equipped and able to go the
Speaker 2: next time this something like this happens, and there will
Speaker 2: be a next time. The other cover up though, of
Speaker 2: the three, if you will, we're international scientists that wanted
Speaker 2: to steer everyone away from a lab leak theory and
Speaker 2: only look at the possibility of nature. And in their
Speaker 2: internal documents they're saying, all right, we're going to write
Speaker 2: this article and our job is to disprove the lab
Speaker 2: leak theory. They don't even talk about the lab leak
Speaker 2: as the theory. They only talk about nature. And in
Speaker 2: their internal documents they're saying, we can't rule out that
Speaker 2: it's engineered. This thing sure looks engineered. We started to
Speaker 2: get all that information through Freedom of Information Act and
Speaker 2: then our subpoenas.
Speaker 1: But so many times when you have and one of
Speaker 1: my big issues, when you have uh when you government
Speaker 1: in general, but when you when you have a committee,
Speaker 1: when you have an investigation like this, far too often
Speaker 1: before the work even begins, there's a there's an outcome
Speaker 1: or a destination that seems predetermined. And this happened so
Speaker 1: many Times in Washington. My sense is with this committee
Speaker 1: that you did not start with a desired result, and
Speaker 1: you wanted your work to lead you to that result.
Speaker 1: Am I right about that? I wanted to this committee
Speaker 1: with the idea of finding fact and exposing what what
Speaker 1: really took.
Speaker 2: Place and then present a path forward. And so you know,
Speaker 2: as I went through this, this was important to me.
Speaker 2: I never mentioned political party one time in any of
Speaker 2: our writings or in a conversation. We did not mention
Speaker 2: political party on our side because it was about finding facts.
Speaker 2: But what actually happened, Dan is every time we looked
Speaker 2: under a rock, there was another rock to look under it,
Speaker 2: and another lie rock to look under. So yeah, we're
Speaker 2: going to look at EcoHealth Alliance, who was doing gain
Speaker 2: of function research in China. Well, as we're looking through
Speaker 2: their stuff and their internal documents, we hear from doctor
Speaker 2: David Moorins, who was doctor Fauci's deputy, and he's saying
Speaker 2: things like, hey, write me on my Gmail because these
Speaker 2: blankety blanks are foyering me in other words, requesting documents
Speaker 2: which belonged to the American people. He goes, and I'll
Speaker 2: delete anything I don't want showing up in the New
Speaker 2: York Times. Clear intent to deceive the American people was
Speaker 2: right there. So now we look into him and it just.
Speaker 1: Kind of thing is, people like Rand Paul were exposing
Speaker 1: this in real time, and when all this was going on,
Speaker 1: there was no sense that any of this needs to
Speaker 1: be investigated, none of this needs to be looked into.
Speaker 1: And again, we wouldn't be here today had it not
Speaker 1: been for a change in what happened in leadership.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Ram Paul asked the you question, were you doing
Speaker 2: gain of function research in China?
Speaker 1: Doctor Falci said no.
Speaker 2: Then later he said, I was thinking of the different
Speaker 2: definition suddenly that suddenly appeared on their website. I was
Speaker 2: thinking of a different definition. That's that's why I said
Speaker 2: it that way.
Speaker 1: You know. So he told him, you don't know what
Speaker 1: you're talking about, That's what he said. Did you ever
Speaker 1: say that to you, You don't know what you're talking No,
Speaker 1: he didn't know. He did not, because by the time
Speaker 1: I had him. By the time I had him, we
Speaker 1: had a pretty idea what we were talking about, and
Speaker 1: he knew and understood that and respected that. I think throughout.
Speaker 2: And you know, look, we got him going from where
Speaker 2: he had publicly said, you know, it's a conspiracy theory
Speaker 2: if you say it came from the lab to No,
Speaker 2: it's not a conspiracy theory. Doctor Collins, the same thing,
Speaker 2: but look, here's the motive. In twenty eleven and twenty twelve,
Speaker 2: you know, you got articles by Fauci and Collins bragging
Speaker 2: about gain to function research being a great tool, and
Speaker 2: their idea was that they could create a virus and
Speaker 2: that they think will come out of nature eventually, and
Speaker 2: if we already have it and can create a vaccine
Speaker 2: for it, then we're ahead of the game. But they
Speaker 2: were asked in twenty twelve doctor Fauci specifically, well aren't
Speaker 2: you concerned about it getting out lab and creating a pandemic?
Speaker 2: This is in twenty twelve, and he said, well, I
Speaker 2: think the benefits out weigh the risk.
Speaker 1: Oh, for God's sake, all right, yeah, and how many
Speaker 1: million dead? That's what would maybe you know, frown on that.
Speaker 1: So wouldn't you want to say that it came from nature? Well? Yeah,
Speaker 1: wash your hands. Look look at the shiny object over there.
Speaker 1: Don't look at me. All right, we got to get
Speaker 1: to a break. But when we come back, I want
Speaker 1: to start walking through some of the specific points that
Speaker 1: you make in the report, and we'll go through those
Speaker 1: one by one as we spend the seven o'clock hour
Speaker 1: with Congressman Brad Westerner up here on fifty five KRCV
Speaker 1: Talks to fifty five KRCD Talk station. Dan Carroll for
Speaker 1: Brian Thomas and Brad weinstervis here today talking about the
Speaker 1: Select Subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic. To your investigation has done,
Speaker 1: the report is out. You had a markup that happened.
Speaker 1: I believe it was Thursday last week. Wednesday, Thursday last week.
Speaker 1: And what exactly was that about.
Speaker 2: The markup was just we had unanimous consent from both
Speaker 2: sides of the aisle OK to move the reports, our
Speaker 2: report forwards.
Speaker 1: So a procedural thing more more than anything else. That's
Speaker 1: all I was. Yeah, no fireworks. Let's start with some
Speaker 1: of the things that jumped out at me. And when
Speaker 1: we talk about the origin of the COVID nineteen, which
Speaker 1: I called the Wuhan virus. So the committee finds COVID
Speaker 1: nineteen most likely emerged from a lab in Wuhan, China,
Speaker 1: And you provide some of the five strongest arguments in
Speaker 1: favor of the lab leak theory. One that resonates with
Speaker 1: me is that the virus possesses a biological characistic not
Speaker 1: found in nature, and if there was evidence of a
Speaker 1: natural origin, it would have already surfaced. So when we
Speaker 1: look at these this sort of evidence, why can we
Speaker 1: not say definitively that the virus came from a lamb?
Speaker 2: Because China didn't cooperate at all, and so that's always
Speaker 2: going to be the unknown. And if somebody from China
Speaker 2: were to speak up and tell the whole story and
Speaker 2: tell the truth and say, you know what they thought,
Speaker 2: we destroyed the samples, I actually have them, that person
Speaker 2: probably wouldn't be around very long. But that's the biggest obstruction.
Speaker 2: But as John Radcliffe, who was Director of National Intelligence
Speaker 2: and now will be CIA director, what he said was true.
Speaker 2: He said nobody had more intelligence in front of them
Speaker 2: than he did. You know, from across the board, and
Speaker 2: if you were to put together the forensics the evidence,
Speaker 2: if you will, on one side you had arguments for nature,
Speaker 2: and the other side you had arguments for LAB. I mean,
Speaker 2: the list goes on and on for LAB and it's
Speaker 2: very short in nature, and you've never found it, which
Speaker 2: usually we have at some points you find the animal.
Speaker 2: And the article that was written called proximal Origins was
Speaker 2: by a group of scientists that Fauci, Collins and a
Speaker 2: guy named Jeremy Farrar put together, and they even said
Speaker 2: in their emails that their focus was to disprove the
Speaker 2: lab leak theory when they wrote their article. And the
Speaker 2: very day that doctor Fauci went on the White House
Speaker 2: lawn and acted surprise, like, whoa, look, here's this article,
Speaker 2: which he knew was being written. He said, this article
Speaker 2: by these brilliant evolutionary virologists are saying that this came
Speaker 2: from this came from nature, This came from nature, and
Speaker 2: that should settle it right. The very day one of
Speaker 2: the authors of that was writing an email and he said,
Speaker 2: we still can't rule out this thing as engineered.
Speaker 1: There's just too much there.
Speaker 2: This is what they were saying, but not what they
Speaker 2: presented to the public, and not what doctor Fauci presented
Speaker 2: to the public. And when we had doctor Fauci in
Speaker 2: for interview, you know, I said, well, you tellted this
Speaker 2: article proximal origins, I said, but you now say that
Speaker 2: it's not a conspiracy theory that it could be a
Speaker 2: lab leak theory. He said, did you ever talk to
Speaker 2: the authors of or read these articles? And I went
Speaker 2: through litany of scientific articles by actual virologists that were saying,
Speaker 2: here's how you can make this in the lab, and
Speaker 2: how we believe it was made in the lab COVID
Speaker 2: nineteen I'm talking about. And he said, no, never talk
Speaker 2: to them. Well, you said you had an open mind,
Speaker 2: But how can you say you have an open mind
Speaker 2: if you never looked into the other side and all
Speaker 2: that was out there, and so but we did, But
Speaker 2: we did, and we talked to them all. We talked
Speaker 2: to people from both sides. We talked to the people
Speaker 2: that said they thought it came from nature, who all
Speaker 2: had skin in the game because they do this type
Speaker 2: of work. And these were people involved that said things like,
Speaker 2: imagine the s show that will happen if people think
Speaker 2: this came from the lab. And I'm paraphrasing here, right,
Speaker 2: but also imagine what this will do to international harmony
Speaker 2: and our research if it's concluded it came from the lab.
Speaker 2: They had all the motive, Dan and and now, and
Speaker 2: but we discovered it. We discovered their motive it's it's
Speaker 2: sitting right there. But they didn't think anyone would ever
Speaker 2: see what they were saying.
Speaker 1: But but but this, this gave rise to this, this
Speaker 1: bigger notion that the only narrative that we are supposed
Speaker 1: to accept, the only narrative that is uh that that
Speaker 1: we will allow to be on the news, is the
Speaker 1: one that we want that and and and I think
Speaker 1: that was one of the most dangerous things that come
Speaker 1: out of this, the notion that we can only accept
Speaker 1: the approved government narrative of a of a particular Yeah,
Speaker 1: and think about this, and that gets into a whole
Speaker 1: lot of, you know, bigger things in general society.
Speaker 2: I think everyone will remember when Donald Trump said we're
Speaker 2: going to restrict travel. Okay, we asked doctor Fauci, were
Speaker 2: you in favor of that? Did you recommend that we
Speaker 2: restrict travel? And he said yes, it was a good idea.
Speaker 2: And I'm thinking, well, where were you when all that
Speaker 2: was on the news and everything out of the politicians
Speaker 2: from the other side of the aisle, which none of
Speaker 2: this should have been political started saying, oh, that's racist
Speaker 2: and xenophobic.
Speaker 1: So I asked doctor.
Speaker 2: I asked doctor Fauci, was restricting travel racist. He said no,
Speaker 2: was it xenophobic? He said no, Well, why didn't you
Speaker 2: say that when that became the narrative to the public.
Speaker 2: You're supposed to be a public health leader, then clear
Speaker 2: the record of what is actually what you recommended, by
Speaker 2: the way, and and so that's just another example. But
Speaker 2: we saw things FDA rush for full of approval of
Speaker 2: the vaccine. Look, I believe the vaccine saved hundreds of
Speaker 2: thousands of lives of the most vulnerable. And I was
Speaker 2: for the emergency Youth authorization authorization for those that we
Speaker 2: knew were dying.
Speaker 1: Well the state to hold that dot because I want
Speaker 1: to get into the vaccine as we continue, we got
Speaker 1: a ton of stuff to get to here, but we
Speaker 1: got to get to a quick break and we'll continue
Speaker 1: on with brad Redstrip right after this on fifty five KRC,
Speaker 1: the talk station. Right now, you can save up to
Speaker 1: twenty seven twenty eight time from the nine first morning
Speaker 1: forecast rain today a high of fifty six, then cloudy tonight,
Speaker 1: some fog as well. The other night low fifty one
Speaker 1: and some more showers on top four tomorrow forty seven
Speaker 1: for the high fifty two. At fifty five KRC, the
Speaker 1: talk stage from the UCF Tramphing Center.
Speaker 3: When it comes to stroke, every second count. So that's
Speaker 3: why the uc Health Comprehensive Stroke Center is a clear
Speaker 3: choice for RAPPID life saving treatment.
Speaker 1: Learn more at you see health dot com.
Speaker 3: They've walked off east found Reagan the Highway at the
Speaker 3: Gabreth due to an accident, and then it's backing traffic
Speaker 3: cup quickly to Hamilton Avenue. There's a wreck on southbound
Speaker 3: seventy five s ramp to eastbound two seventy five in
Speaker 3: erl Ainger, as well as river at Bender Chuck Ingram
Speaker 3: On fifty five krc DE talk station.
Speaker 1: Fifty five kr CD talk Station seven twenty nine, we
Speaker 1: continue our conversation with Congressman brad Winstrip. So the lab leak,
Speaker 1: and one more thing on the lab leak, and then
Speaker 1: I'll want to move on. But in the fall of
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, months before COVID nineteen was discovered at the
Speaker 1: Wet Market or I guess at least that narrative was
Speaker 1: out there, China chose not to disclose this information that
Speaker 1: there was a couple of researchers at the Wuhan Lab
Speaker 1: who came down sick with with COVID nineteen. They didn't
Speaker 1: tell the United States, didn't tell the CDC, NIH World
Speaker 1: Health Organization. So this is where things really start to
Speaker 1: unravel in our relationship with China as it relates to
Speaker 1: this issue. Is that accurate?
Speaker 2: Yes, And for those in the arena, people were starting
Speaker 2: to see rumors of a new type of pneumonia developing
Speaker 2: in China. They also as time went on, they changed
Speaker 2: their ventilation system in the woman lab to be one
Speaker 2: that filters better. They had reports over time of accidents
Speaker 2: in their labs, and they were using for this a
Speaker 2: BSL two, which is a lower level of security. And
Speaker 2: even Ralph Berrick, who does this type of research in
Speaker 2: North Carolina, he said needs to be done at a
Speaker 2: level three or four, nothing less. But there that's what
Speaker 2: was being done. And then their military took over the lab.
Speaker 2: I mean, all of these things are pretty good indicators
Speaker 2: of what was going on. But the bottom line is
Speaker 2: President She lied. He said things were in the controller
Speaker 2: light to the who he manipulated, the who he lied.
Speaker 2: You know, I would hear people say Donald Trump lied,
Speaker 2: I suddenly lied. He just believed President She was being
Speaker 2: honest and he wasn't. And quickly. I think President Trump
Speaker 2: figured that out pretty quickly.
Speaker 1: One of the least surprising things to me is that
Speaker 1: federal and state governments were not coordinated and were unprepared
Speaker 1: to oversee the allocation of WUHAN Relief Funds paycheck protection
Speaker 1: program supposed to help working Americans. At least sixty four
Speaker 1: billion dollars was lost to chislers and criminals. There another
Speaker 1: one hundred and ninety one billion went down the drain
Speaker 1: through fraud and federal government unemployment system. So all this
Speaker 1: money that was wasted when you talk about these programs
Speaker 1: that were supposed to help people out, this is another scandalous,
Speaker 1: unbelievably scandalous aspect of this that all this money went
Speaker 1: out the door and there was essentially no accounting for
Speaker 1: any of it. And then there were some half hearted efforts,
Speaker 1: I think, to recoup some of that money, but by
Speaker 1: and large, we just you know, flushed, you know, hundreds
Speaker 1: of billions of dollars down the drain, and no one
Speaker 1: seems to care.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're trying to incentivize states by being able to
Speaker 2: maybe keep some of what they recover to do that,
Speaker 2: and that really was was held up. But the biggest thing.
Speaker 2: The one that was the most egregious dand through the
Speaker 2: whole thing is with unemployment and you and what was
Speaker 2: put in place against our wishes on Ways and Means
Speaker 2: committee was this self attestation. In other words, you just
Speaker 2: say you're unemployed. You know, we weren't asking for verifying data,
Speaker 2: which was easy to get. And actually Horowitz, who also
Speaker 2: was the inspector General for Faiza, going back to the
Speaker 2: fake Russian collusion narrative, you know, he pointed that out
Speaker 2: that this was absolutely the worst thing that we could
Speaker 2: do is just let people do that, and he pointed
Speaker 2: out how easily it could have been done. So again,
Speaker 2: solutions oriented as well, but it was there from the beginning.
Speaker 2: It should have been able to be done that way.
Speaker 2: But the theft is absolutely appalling at a time when
Speaker 2: we are so far in debt and now we're just
Speaker 2: aiding a bend people that hate us, that are stealing money,
Speaker 2: because a lot of it were foreign adversaries that were stealing.
Speaker 1: But see, I think that's what I think about that
Speaker 1: this report. Then why it's important that you document all
Speaker 1: those things because during the course of your investigation you said, well,
Speaker 1: look at this element of it, and instead of just
Speaker 1: leaving that alone. You detail that in the report, and
Speaker 1: I think that's really important. This report does not reflect
Speaker 1: well on doctor Fauci. Are the dots if someone wants
Speaker 1: to go through this report and connect the dots on
Speaker 1: doctor Fauci And I don't know that there's been a
Speaker 1: referral for him to be investigated criminally on this, but
Speaker 1: are there are the dots there in this report to
Speaker 1: be able to connect if somebody wants, oh the dots
Speaker 1: are there? Maybe a legitimate media outlet wants to do that.
Speaker 2: The dots are there to connect. The question is was
Speaker 2: anything done illegal? Look, I would say this early on
Speaker 2: people were going to be subject to being what about
Speaker 2: the fund wrong?
Speaker 1: That's the fun It wasn't there already something in place?
Speaker 1: Oh let me go through that. Yeah, let me go
Speaker 1: through that that that we're not allowed to do this
Speaker 1: sort of funding and yet he was signing off on
Speaker 1: it anyway. Yeah, so let's go through that. I'm glad.
Speaker 2: I'm glad you brought that up because that, to me
Speaker 2: is one of the key findings of everything.
Speaker 1: Because he did that behind Trump's back, and this is
Speaker 1: before the WUHAN even started.
Speaker 2: Well, let me tell you all that, let me tell
Speaker 2: you about the grant process. Yeh yes. So first of all,
Speaker 2: EcoHealth Alliance wanted to do gain a function research where
Speaker 2: they are going to insert what's called receptor binding domains
Speaker 2: on a bat backbone. So from another animal, you take
Speaker 2: a receptor binding to me. In short, that makes something
Speaker 2: more infectious stickier to human cell.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: They also wanted to add a fure in cleavage site.
Speaker 2: COVID nineteen is a type of coronavirus that never had
Speaker 2: a feur and cleavage site on it in nature.
Speaker 1: Never. But now I don't know what that means. What
Speaker 1: does that mean?
Speaker 2: Well, the fure in cleavage site is if you think
Speaker 2: of like R two D two when he extends that
Speaker 2: arm and can get into a system.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: The fur and cleavage site is part of the virus
Speaker 2: that when activated does pop out okay and gets into
Speaker 2: the human cell on particular respiratory Okay, okay, So that
Speaker 2: gives that gives you some idea. So two components that
Speaker 2: you add to a bat backbone of a virus. So
Speaker 2: you start with a bat virus, you put it's like legos.
Speaker 2: Now you're putting in parts, you're moving some out putting
Speaker 2: others in. And that's as simple as I think I
Speaker 2: can I can put it. But that was their proposal.
Speaker 2: What was interesting is in an email with Ralph Berrick
Speaker 2: in North Carolina and Zengli she in Wuhan, China, Peter Dazik,
Speaker 2: the head of Eco Health Alliance, is saying, we'll just
Speaker 2: tell them we're going to do this in North Carolina,
Speaker 2: but once we get the money, we'll shift it over
Speaker 2: to Wuhan. Do it at a BSL too, a less
Speaker 2: safe lab because it costs less.
Speaker 1: We'll do that. Ralph Barrack said, no, no, no, no no.
Speaker 2: That initial proposal went to DARPA, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency,
Speaker 2: Government military agency.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: They said, no, this is this is too risky. We're
Speaker 2: not we're not issuing that grant. They go over to NIH.
Speaker 2: Now you're talking Francis Collins and Tony Fauci. They go
Speaker 2: over there, they get the grant. So we asked doctor
Speaker 2: Fauci about the grand process. Doctor Fauci, you signed off
Speaker 2: on on these grants, and uh, you know who basically
Speaker 2: who's responsible? He said, well, you know, I just I
Speaker 2: do just sign them. At one point he said, we
Speaker 2: get billions of dollars in grants. I can't know what's
Speaker 2: in all of them. I just sign them. He said,
Speaker 2: we have an advisory board that looks them over. Okay,
Speaker 2: that looks them over. And once they do that, then
Speaker 2: I just sign them. And we said, doctor Fauci, they
Speaker 2: didn't comply with the grant. They were not doing their
Speaker 2: periodic reporting. They developed a pathogen that should have been reported,
Speaker 2: they didn't do it. They were two years late with that.
Speaker 2: Does a flag go up at N I H or
Speaker 2: N I A I D that you're in charge of,
Speaker 2: to say, where's your report? He said, that's over in compliance.
Speaker 2: I have nothing to do with.
Speaker 1: You, of course, of course. Yeah. And when and when
Speaker 1: we were we were talking about Doge earlier, this is
Speaker 1: the cod this is what we're talking aboutvik Ramaswani and
Speaker 1: Elon Musk are going to be looking at that and this,
Speaker 1: this is why so many billions of dollars goes out
Speaker 1: the door and and no one, there's no account bil And.
Speaker 2: One step further on that, I said, look, you're doing
Speaker 2: dangerous research. You know it's dangerous. You've said that is
Speaker 2: from the very beginning. You're doing dangerous research in a
Speaker 2: lab of an adversary, And what's your oversight?
Speaker 1: Are you in the lab?
Speaker 2: Are you able to see what's going on every step
Speaker 2: of the way he goes. I wouldn't even know how
Speaker 2: to do that. So we know that they're working on
Speaker 2: bio weapons over there, and we allow this kind of
Speaker 2: money to go out the door.
Speaker 1: And it wasn't supposed to happen though what there was
Speaker 1: already guidelines against us.
Speaker 2: There was already there was a pause on it, but
Speaker 2: there was there was a little glitch clause that allowed
Speaker 2: them to work around it. These are these are the
Speaker 2: things you're talking about, right, These are the things we
Speaker 2: got to fix, make sure something like this can never
Speaker 2: happen again. They get its accountability and transparency that there's
Speaker 2: a lack of, and they've gone wild with this, able
Speaker 2: to cloak themselves and be blameless on many things.
Speaker 1: All right, we're way late for a break here fifty
Speaker 1: five KRC, the talk stays, Hie, Ryan, come us here
Speaker 1: for foreign extime? Fifty five KRC, the talk station. How
Speaker 1: much does that report weigh? You got a giant buying
Speaker 1: to there. Five hundred and something pages of the Select
Speaker 1: Subcommittee Coronavirus Pandemic Report two years worth of work right there.
Speaker 1: One of the biggest things to me was the and
Speaker 1: you get into this a lot, and the report was
Speaker 1: about the whole thing about misinformation. And I mean, we
Speaker 1: see how bloated, how inept, how fraudulent our federal bureaucracies
Speaker 1: really can be. But when it comes to misinformation, you
Speaker 1: talk about the spread of misinformation through conflicting messages, knee
Speaker 1: jerk reactions, lack of transparency. The most egregious examples of
Speaker 1: her basis miss information all flabel drug use, lablaque theory.
Speaker 1: And the biggest purveyor of misinformation, it turns out, was
Speaker 1: the federal government, without a doubt.
Speaker 2: And this goes to one of the things that I
Speaker 2: said from the very beginning, and I said that it's
Speaker 2: a secretary of Asar America needs to hear from the
Speaker 2: doctors treating COVID patients. Imagine the difference every day if
Speaker 2: you had a doctor all anywhere around the country stepping
Speaker 2: out to a flood of microphones, lowering his mask, saying
Speaker 2: here's what I saw today.
Speaker 1: Well, and I remember a group of doctors coming out
Speaker 1: who were treating COVID patients at the time, and this
Speaker 1: one doctor who had like a Jamaican accent. A big
Speaker 1: woman came out and said, I'm treating these patients with hydroxychloriclin.
Speaker 1: It's working, This is working, this is working. And those
Speaker 1: people got shut down. I mean they were never seen
Speaker 1: or heard from again.
Speaker 2: They got shut down by people that were never standing
Speaker 2: over patients watching them die, desperate to try and save
Speaker 2: a life. And it's easy for them because people were
Speaker 2: just numbers on paper to them, and that would be
Speaker 2: the difference. That's why we had the wrong messenger. That's
Speaker 2: part of this report too, is who's going to be
Speaker 2: the messenger in a situation like this?
Speaker 1: Trust it is. It is one of the most Unamerican
Speaker 1: things that I can possibly think of, that our government
Speaker 1: was actively involved in shutting down a dissenting voices like this,
Speaker 1: not because the information was wrong, but simply because it
Speaker 1: went against the official government narrative.
Speaker 2: That that's exactly right, and that sounds pretty communists or
Speaker 2: socialist to me.
Speaker 1: And then you had people like Jay botechat and our
Speaker 1: media was cheering it on the whole time.
Speaker 2: Well, they're part of it, They're they're part of it,
Speaker 2: They're they're right in on it. They get their talking
Speaker 2: points from the Democrat Party and they go for it.
Speaker 2: And that's the administration that was leading this. And I
Speaker 2: mean within the agencies. I don't know if somebody's a
Speaker 2: Republican or Democrat, but I do know in the White
Speaker 2: House what they are. And so if that's where things
Speaker 2: are coming from with a political directive, it's a problem.
Speaker 2: And you saw people like Jay Badacheria, who you know
Speaker 2: the Great Barrington Declaration. Okay, you may disagree with parts
Speaker 2: of it, but have the scientific debate. You know, we
Speaker 2: found out there was no science behind the mask, there
Speaker 2: was no science behind six feet. Actually that was being
Speaker 2: more directed by the teachers union who wanted a trigger
Speaker 2: to close the schools. That's in the report as well.
Speaker 2: But you had these people that were actually just having
Speaker 2: a scientific debate and they were being chastised, they were
Speaker 2: being humiliated, they were really being told. The public was
Speaker 2: being told that these people don't know what they're talking about,
Speaker 2: and actually they do. And I just give you examples.
Speaker 2: So the doctor patient relationship was just destroyed. If the
Speaker 2: government's going to tell you here's the mandate, you've got
Speaker 2: to do it. They sped up approving the vaccine so
Speaker 2: the government could issue the mandate because then they made
Speaker 2: it fully approved. You had two people from the FDA
Speaker 2: walk away saying, no, this is wrong. You're speeding this
Speaker 2: process up for political purposes. The mandate, to me was
Speaker 2: one of the most obscene things. Americans want to be educated,
Speaker 2: not indoctrinated, and they.
Speaker 1: Want to start. See.
Speaker 2: Well, that came from somebody who was hesitant to take
Speaker 2: the vaccine. When I explained who's vulnerable and what it
Speaker 2: does and what it doesn't do, person said, I'm more
Speaker 2: likely to take it now. But you just educated me.
Speaker 2: I don't want to be indoctrinated. That's where I got
Speaker 2: And so this is just human nature. These are the
Speaker 2: things that we talk about in our report of how
Speaker 2: we can do things better. But you put shove these
Speaker 2: people aside. You ended scientific debate, and American people quit
Speaker 2: falling for it. By and large, even though their favorite
Speaker 2: news station might continue to spew these things, people fell off.
Speaker 2: That's why Donald Trump went overwhelmingly one of the reasons why.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's amazing how this the tentacles of this to
Speaker 1: carry on into everyday life, every day people's interaction with
Speaker 1: government every day, and it's going to continue, I think
Speaker 1: for a long time. To come seven forty six, another
Speaker 1: quick break in here, and then we'll continue on on
Speaker 1: fifty five KRC, the talking fifty five KRC, the talk station.
Speaker 1: Bred Winstrip is here talking about the five hundred, five
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty four pages.
Speaker 2: Five twenty and then seventeen pages of recommendation. Yeah, the future, Yeah,
Speaker 2: And I mean there are so many elements to this.
Speaker 2: And then I was talking earlier about how each one
Speaker 2: of these is a major scandal. I mean, why don't
Speaker 2: we deal with scandal in this country the way we
Speaker 2: used to deal with it. You know, it used to
Speaker 2: be truth justice in the American way, right. You know,
Speaker 2: even as a teenager when Watergate was going on, you know,
Speaker 2: I was proud of Republicans because everyone was just after
Speaker 2: the truth. And you know, if that meant there's ramifications,
Speaker 2: then then so be it. I had the same approach
Speaker 2: in my mind on Intelligence Committee when we were looking
Speaker 2: into the fake well we didn't know it was fake
Speaker 2: Russian collusion. I went in open minded if Trump did
Speaker 2: something wrong, and so be it. Well, we quickly found
Speaker 2: out not only did he do nothing wrong, whatsoever they
Speaker 2: did they they paid for that whole thing, and and
Speaker 2: and you know, at the end of the day, even
Speaker 2: though the Inspector General proved it and they knew it
Speaker 2: was fake, still nothing else, and.
Speaker 1: They and they continued to lie to them.
Speaker 2: They were they were part of it and unble. But
Speaker 2: because why that's media the media should be driving, like
Speaker 2: why haven't heads rolled? Why haven't heads rolled? Because if
Speaker 2: their side's the one doing the scandals, and they have
Speaker 2: a side in media, then they don't want to pursue it.
Speaker 2: And look, we saw this teachers union, the teachers Union
Speaker 2: were the Biden transition team reached out to the teachers
Speaker 2: union right away after he won and basically started asking
Speaker 2: them what they would want for schools as far as
Speaker 2: closures and the rules. The teachers union, not scientists, not
Speaker 2: the CDC. Randy Winingarten had Randy Winegarden had the head
Speaker 2: of the CDC, Willensky, director Willenskey's personal sell And you
Speaker 2: go through the Teachers' Union's documents and their internal conversation
Speaker 2: and I'm not blaming every teacher on this, I'm blaming
Speaker 2: the leadership of the union. They said, we need a
Speaker 2: trigger to close. What we're after is a trigger to close.
Speaker 2: So what they wanted was like ten feet of distancing. Why, well,
Speaker 2: you can't go back to.
Speaker 1: School in person, kids, but you look at the unintended
Speaker 1: consequences there, and so we ended up with six. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you got kids working from home and parents looking over
Speaker 1: their shoulder at what they're learning on the computer. And
Speaker 1: the parents are like, what the hell is this? Learned that?
Speaker 1: We learned that? And wait a minute, this is what's
Speaker 1: going on in the school and uh and and the
Speaker 1: rest and the rest is history. There talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about Andrew Cuomo, Yes, in New York, and you've
Speaker 1: recommended him for criminal investigations.
Speaker 2: Yes, and that criminal retro is because they issued a
Speaker 2: report that tried to play down the nursing home deaths
Speaker 2: and lower the number. And that was discovered even by
Speaker 2: the Attorney General. And he destroyed documents. Uh, he never
Speaker 2: he produced documents. He didn't really produce documents. He he
Speaker 2: often claimed he didn't know anything. So for example, God,
Speaker 2: so he wrote a book? Did he wrote a book
Speaker 2: about his great leadership during the wuy case? In point,
Speaker 2: when we asked him how he wrote his book, he
Speaker 2: pointed to his head and said it's all here. We said,
Speaker 2: what what what did you refer to? What documents? Did
Speaker 2: you refer to. He pointed to his head ghost writer
Speaker 2: up there, and he said it was all right here.
Speaker 2: But then he doesn't recall anything, so this is amazing
Speaker 2: he doesn't. So he issues a directive and I think
Speaker 2: this is something I really want the audience to hear.
Speaker 2: Is what he did, and where we had biparts support
Speaker 2: from physicians to call it malpractice. CDC guidance issued guidance
Speaker 2: guidance talking about quarantining this and that. So when we
Speaker 2: came to nursing homes for some reason, Governor Cuomo issued
Speaker 2: a directive, not guidance, but a directive.
Speaker 1: That's an order, right.
Speaker 2: And he said that no nursing home will can deny
Speaker 2: someone admission to the nursing home with a diagnosis of
Speaker 2: COVID nineteen or a presumed diagnosis of COVID nineteen. And
Speaker 2: then he said, and you are prohibited from even testing
Speaker 2: them for COVID nineteen. What kind of nonsense is this?
Speaker 2: And how can the nursing home treat the patient appropriately
Speaker 2: and protect the other patients appropriately if they don't know
Speaker 2: the status, don't know who should be quarantined and can't
Speaker 2: say we can't take you because we can't quarantine you.
Speaker 2: That's what that directive did. It made no sense, and
Speaker 2: the CDC guideline said, you can refuse someone if you
Speaker 2: can't adhere to the proper protocols. You don't take someone
Speaker 2: highly contagious and put him next to the most vulnerable,
Speaker 2: which the elderly were they most and they have co morbidities.
Speaker 2: They are the absolute most vulnerable population in America. And
Speaker 2: he took highly contagious people and made them be admitted
Speaker 2: to the nursing homes. Then it's an interview months a
Speaker 2: month or so later and people asked him about it.
Speaker 2: He said, oh, I didn't know anything about that. He said,
Speaker 2: he knew nothing about it. Well, there's evidence to the contrary.
Speaker 2: But besides that, then he wanted to report put out
Speaker 2: that said that wasn't as bad as they're saying it was.
Speaker 2: You know that we didn't have all these nursing home deaths.
Speaker 2: What they ignored was people that were in the nursing
Speaker 2: home got covid, went to the hospital and died. They
Speaker 2: ignored all those deaths to lower the number. He said,
Speaker 2: he didn't have anything to do with any of this. Well,
Speaker 2: it was interesting. We asked him if he edited that
Speaker 2: report in any way, shape or form, and he said, no, Well,
Speaker 2: guess what. Whistle blowers came forward. We have emails that said,
Speaker 2: here are the governor's edits, and then we got the
Speaker 2: edits in his handwriting on the report. That's why he
Speaker 2: was referred, that's why he was.
Speaker 1: Lying in front of Congress. Is still frowned upon. I'm
Speaker 1: glad to hear it. It's frowned upon by Congress, that's
Speaker 1: for sure. Thank you very much. All right, can you
Speaker 1: do you want to hang around for another half an hour?
Speaker 2: I wish I could go, I wish I could write obligations.
Speaker 1: I do, and I head back to d C today
Speaker 1: as well. But because we literally could have done the
Speaker 1: whole show from five o'clock on. No, I agree with you.
Speaker 1: I agree with you. There's so much here and the
Speaker 1: more and the more you talk about it, the more
Speaker 1: my memory has jogged about things that I want to
Speaker 1: talk to you about. But you know what, maybe we
Speaker 1: can do it again sometimes.
Speaker 2: You know, it's so true, and even during our two years,
Speaker 2: you know, as I look back on stuff that we
Speaker 2: did in the first couple of months, it's like, gosh,
Speaker 2: I almost forgot about that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's amazing and we forgot that really that it
Speaker 1: really is. But this report is great. This is a
Speaker 1: lot of material for future talk shows for me. So
Speaker 1: I want to thank you for that. Well, and I'll
Speaker 1: be around more importantly. I'll be around, yeah, more importantly
Speaker 1: for the American people exactly, and for America going forward.
Speaker 2: And we tried to make it an easy read for people,
Speaker 2: you know, not overly scientific, and in the case of that,
Speaker 2: we're making break it down, explain it. And I think
Speaker 2: I think that we did that and people can take
Speaker 2: it one section at a time, like I'm interested in
Speaker 2: the school closures. I'm in masks. I want to see
Speaker 2: what you found about all these things.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, I got to talk to Chris Sminman
Speaker 1: after eight o'clock, so well we'll hear what he has
Speaker 1: to say. But brad Winstrop, you're looking good, brother, great
Speaker 1: to see you.
Speaker 2: Well, you know what, I can stay fifteen more minutes
Speaker 2: if you want me to fifteen minutes, I can stay
Speaker 2: another fifteen minutes.
Speaker 1: All right, sounds good. Let's do that, and uh, Joe
Speaker 1: will do that. And we got to get to the
Speaker 1: news here at the top of the hour, though, Dan
Speaker 1: Carroll for Brian Thomas with brad Winstrop on fifty five
Speaker 1: krs the talk station, Your voice, thank you for day McCall,
Speaker 1: your country. It's here at every day fifty five krs
Speaker 1: the talk station, This report, Dave Sponsor more minutes with
Speaker 1: not Greg Landsman, but brad Winstrop and brad weinst used
Speaker 1: to be my We were talking about that off the air.
Speaker 1: It used to be my congressman. But then they changed
Speaker 1: districts on me. I didn't move, but the district moved.
Speaker 1: And now and now you're you were you know, you're
Speaker 1: not my representative Ohio.
Speaker 2: A loss to seed, which you know doesn't help us anyway,
Speaker 2: that's part of it.
Speaker 1: That's thanks. But I mean we're talking about the report
Speaker 1: two years were the work from the subcommittee that you
Speaker 1: were the chairman of, and I mean you get into
Speaker 1: every single aspect of everything that was related to COVID
Speaker 1: nineteen one. That we haven't touched on a lot yet
Speaker 1: is the vaccines. You were in favor of Operation Warp Speed.
Speaker 1: Absolutely you said before that it saved lives. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of people who would probably argue with you on
Speaker 1: that that the COVID vaccines actually wound up maybe doing
Speaker 1: more harm than good. That maybe they you know, some
Speaker 1: people died because of taking the vaccine who didn't need it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's talk about that, because you know, I followed
Speaker 2: the trials closely. Actually I tried to get in the trial,
Speaker 2: but when I went over to UC, I had just
Speaker 2: given blood and that disqualified me.
Speaker 1: So I couldn't get in it. But I watched it
Speaker 1: very closely. Well, what about all the reporting that the
Speaker 1: big pharmaceutical companies withheld information about the trials that they did.
Speaker 2: What about all Well, I don't think they withheld information.
Speaker 2: I think from the trials because the trials were pretty clear.
Speaker 2: You're not going to you know, we didn't do a
Speaker 2: good job of and this is part of our report.
Speaker 2: We didn't do a good job of adverse effects of
Speaker 2: the vaccines, things like that vaccine injuries. We got to
Speaker 2: clean up that. But look, think about what was going on.
Speaker 2: Millions of people did die. People were dying, but we
Speaker 2: knew who was dying and who was most vulnerable to
Speaker 2: a large degree, you know, ndred percent, but to a
Speaker 2: large degree. What the trials showed. And I said this
Speaker 2: from Storry, here's what the trial showed that just because
Speaker 2: you get the vaccine doesn't mean you can't get COVID.
Speaker 2: It's different from the others. The mRNA technology is different
Speaker 2: from the vaccines. We grew up with that being said.
Speaker 2: That should have been something everyone was aware of.
Speaker 1: But yeah, that was part of the original narrative from
Speaker 1: this government and from the media was that if you
Speaker 1: get the vaccine totally, you can't get it, you can't spread.
Speaker 2: Fauci said it, and you know, I pointed out to
Speaker 2: him that's not true, and the trials had shown that.
Speaker 2: But people were dying and people were people did well.
Speaker 2: The trial has showed that if you get the vaccine,
Speaker 2: you're less likely to die and less likely to get
Speaker 2: as sick, but you can still get COVID. It was
Speaker 2: not a dead end for the virus. Like doctor Fauci said,
Speaker 2: that to me was a form of malpractice, if you will,
Speaker 2: by telling the people that, because that's not true, and
Speaker 2: you know how it is with drugs, you got to
Speaker 2: list every side effect, you guys, you got to be
Speaker 2: honest about it. This is where we went way wrong.
Speaker 2: We weren't honest about it. So it was a proved
Speaker 2: for emergency use. That should be a decision between you
Speaker 2: and your doctor, as we have data of who's dying,
Speaker 2: what's worse. Does the benefit out weigh the risk for
Speaker 2: you depending upon your health status. That's where we were,
Speaker 2: That's what it should have been. And again at the beginning,
Speaker 2: it was just for the most vulnerable. But then they
Speaker 2: wanted you know, your two your you're two month old
Speaker 2: to get vaccinated. I mean, it was ridiculous, no evidence
Speaker 2: out there to say that that should happen. And we
Speaker 2: talked before. People want to be educated, not indoctrinated, and
Speaker 2: that comes from sitting, having a chance to sit with
Speaker 2: your physician discuss your health. I'll give you an example.
Speaker 2: So I was told that before I could go to
Speaker 2: Germany for a security conference and I needed to get
Speaker 2: a booster. And I said, okay, Well listen, I had
Speaker 2: two doses of Pfizer. And months later I was cooking
Speaker 2: and I couldn't smell garlic salt and I said to
Speaker 2: my wife, I've got COVID or had it? I said
Speaker 2: maybe last week. Remember I had a chill one day,
Speaker 2: I probably got COVID. I didn't go get tested because
Speaker 2: I figured I had it OK and recovering and now
Speaker 2: you know, doing fine, and no one in my family
Speaker 2: was sick either. Now, before I was to get this booster,
Speaker 2: I said I want to get my antibodies and T
Speaker 2: cells and on that on the hill, they said, oh,
Speaker 2: we can't do T sells. Our lab can do antibodies's
Speaker 2: let's see where they are. A strong number was forty.
Speaker 2: My number was eight hundred and twenty one. If you
Speaker 2: sit with your doctor and your number is eight hundred
Speaker 2: and twenty one, your doctor's going to say, I don't
Speaker 2: see what a booster's going to do for you. Matter
Speaker 2: of fact, I'm a little concerned you might get a
Speaker 2: hyperimmune response. That's what doctor Winsterrop would say to a patient, right.
Speaker 2: But this is the environment that we were in. And
Speaker 2: it's interesting now that they don't if you see the ads,
Speaker 2: they don't call it the COVID vaccine anymore. They call
Speaker 2: it the COVID shot, COVID shot of the COVID booster. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and variants are not a new idea. That's what viruses do.
Speaker 2: So when we had COVID and then we had variants,
Speaker 2: it shouldn't be shocking. The conversation should be there's probably
Speaker 2: going to be some variants. We'll see if they're more
Speaker 2: infectious or less effect infectious.
Speaker 1: What do we have to have to do. Are we
Speaker 1: supposed to believe, because it's being put out to us
Speaker 1: now that hey, your your annual flu shot and get
Speaker 1: your COVID shot at the same time, that these two
Speaker 1: things are kind of akin to each other.
Speaker 2: And I think that's a conversation you have with your doctor.
Speaker 2: I would tell you my kids are young, eleven and seven.
Speaker 2: We're at the pediatrician's office, and the pediatrician says, I
Speaker 2: just don't see where there's benefit compared to the little
Speaker 2: risk of getting this vaccination. And not only that, we
Speaker 2: really don't know. And I said this from the very beginning,
Speaker 2: to be honest with patients. I can't tell you what
Speaker 2: we're going to know about this vaccine ten years from now,
Speaker 2: twenty years from now. I'm not certain just my own observations.
Speaker 2: We know that COVID was creating clots. People were throwing
Speaker 2: clots with COVID. Yeah, we know that people young males
Speaker 2: were getting myocarditis from the vaccine.
Speaker 1: So well, I mean, so I don't know what se
Speaker 1: So that's one of the other elements. There are so
Speaker 1: many anecdotal stories out there about young people athletes who
Speaker 1: are in good shape. People you know mari on runners,
Speaker 1: basketball players dropping dead after they get the vaccine. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I had a parent call me. He's a county commissioner,
Speaker 2: and he said, hey, my son's in high school. They're
Speaker 2: telling him he has to get the vaccine. I said,
Speaker 2: is he healthy and he said yeah. I said, well,
Speaker 2: are you worried about myocarditis from the vaccine?
Speaker 1: He said yeah.
Speaker 2: I said, well you should be. You should be. I said,
Speaker 2: but think, maybe do this at this point. I said maybe,
Speaker 2: at this point. What you do is you get one
Speaker 2: dose of pfiser, go to your doctor, talk to your
Speaker 2: doctor about it. Get one dose of pfiser, and that
Speaker 2: gives you good protection because the myocarditis is occurring after
Speaker 2: the second dose. Very few, if any had it after
Speaker 2: the first dose. Then you'll have coverage and you know,
Speaker 2: get a note from your doctor saying he's covered, he
Speaker 2: got he got the one dose, he's.
Speaker 1: Good to go. The school boards were rejecting things like this.
Speaker 1: Who were they?
Speaker 2: Do you understand where I'm saying, But we have to
Speaker 2: have a better reporting system, data system, so that doctors
Speaker 2: with their patients can make decisions this best for their patient.
Speaker 1: All right, a minute and a half left, and then
Speaker 1: I know you got to go. It seems like the
Speaker 1: melding and the overlap of politics and science and health,
Speaker 1: it seems like these things we'd be better off if
Speaker 1: we can keep these things in separate lanes. I mean,
Speaker 1: keep the politics out of health information, yes, and science information.
Speaker 1: How important is that moving forward?
Speaker 2: Absolutely? You know there's a White House pandemic Preparedness team
Speaker 2: right now and a former Air Force surgeon heads it,
Speaker 2: and he wanted to meet with the Republican Doctor's Caucus,
Speaker 2: which he did, and he said, how do we re
Speaker 2: establish trust? And I said, get it out of the
Speaker 2: White House. Get it out of the White House. And
Speaker 2: that's in our proposals that we put a con struck together.
Speaker 2: We're a team, an agnostic team that may be part
Speaker 2: of the executive branch, but is out of the White House,
Speaker 2: not sitting in the White House. And they will they
Speaker 2: will decide CDC does this, NI H does this, n
Speaker 2: I A, I D does this? F D A has
Speaker 2: to do this, and you all report to us because
Speaker 2: we got different messages from different components of our government throughout.
Speaker 2: That can't happen, and you have to not only say,
Speaker 2: here's what we think, but here's why.
Speaker 1: That's what we need to do. All right With that,
Speaker 1: brad Winstrip will let you go. Thanks for the time,
Speaker 1: great great seeing you again. Thanks for being here. You too,
Speaker 1: and I'll be around.
Speaker 2: You know, I'm leaving Congress, but I'm not not gone.
Speaker 1: I know you'll be around. But whatever your your next
Speaker 1: chapter in life holds, you're going to knock it out
Speaker 1: of the park, just like you've done up to this.
Speaker 1: Oh you're kind. Thank you. I mean, I mean I've
Speaker 1: seen you in action. Thank you know, I mean you
Speaker 1: still look great in the uniform. And I've seen you
Speaker 1: speak at that ends events and Memorial Day things and
Speaker 1: things like that, and it's been fantastic. But thanks for
Speaker 1: the time, and I have a great day, and we'll
Speaker 1: talk some more about this down the road. Thank you, God, blessure.
Speaker 1: All right on fifty five KRC Detalk Station