Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

June 5, 2021 - The Dan Bongino Show

09:31

The Bongino Brief - June 5, 2021

Taking on Fauci's comments about science evolving by presenting arguments based on evolving science. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Dan Bongino.
	Welcome to the Bongino Brief.
	I'm Dan Bongino.
	Folks, I'm just here to tell you, if Dr. Fauci... I know ScrewTube and the communists at Fakebook.
	I understand they'll probably try to ban this episode, and I get that, and that's okay.
	I really don't care.
	That's why I'm on Rumble, a free speech platform.
	But understand, I'm just using Dr. Fauci's own words.
	He says the science is dynamic and evolving.
	So I'm giving you some of the science and some of the research right now so that you can make decisions based on evolving dynamic science.
	Anthony Fauci said is dynamic and evolving.
	So if he's suggesting to you, he's sure lockdowns work, surely there's some science out there.
	Well, of course there is.
	Gonna show you a Wall Street Journal piece.
	Quite interesting.
	Donald Luskin.
	Is this science we're allowed to look at?
	Are we not allowed to look at this?
	Is this... I thought science was evolving.
	Donald Luskin, the failed experiment of COVID lockdowns.
	New data suggests that social distancing and reopening haven't determined the spread.
	Is that acceptable science or is that unacceptable science?
	Is science evolving only when it's acceptable and you have a narrative?
	Here, from the Wall Street Journal piece about lockdowns.
	Again, is this acceptable?
	Am I allowed to read this on the air?
	I'm only citing a researcher who's looking at the evidence.
	Is that okay?
	Or is it only okay when Fauci says science is evolving?
	He says, quote, Measuring from the start of the year to each state's point of maximum lockdown, which ranged from April 5th to April 18th, it turns out that lockdowns correlated with a greater spread of the virus.
	States with longer, stricter lockdowns also had larger COVID outbreaks.
	The five places with the harshest lockdowns, D.C., New York, Michigan, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, had the heaviest caseloads.
	It could be that strict lockdowns were imposed as a response to already severe outbreaks, but the surprising negative correlation, while statistically weak, persists even when excluding states with the heaviest caseloads.
	Is that not science?
	I mean, it's clearly a data analysis set done to find out if there is a correlation, positive or negative, between the severity of the lockdown and the severity of the spread.
	And as it turns out, the data appears to show where the heaviest lockdowns occurred, the heaviest spread happened.
	Hey, science is dynamic.
	It's evolving.
	That's what he said.
	Really?
	They told us the science was settled on climate change and stuff.
	That's really weird.
	Now science is dynamic again.
	Tomorrow it'll be settled.
	Then the next day it'll be dynamic and evolving.
	Then it'll be settled, settled, evolving, settled, evolving, settled.
	Depends on what argument they want to make at any given day, because liberals are total frauds.
	We already knew that.
	Again, I don't understand.
	I'm genuinely curious why it's okay for Fauci to go on the air and not be banned by fakebook and screwtube and others and say things like, well, the science is evolving, my mind changes, new data came in, and yet when data comes in like this that I showed you back in September, we still have liberals and people like Fauci advocating for things like lockdowns.
	Even though he says the American public are tired of it.
	Maybe they're tired of it, Dr. Fauci, because the evidence clearly shows that they may not work.
	I thought the science was evolving.
	Here's the science on masks.
	We covered this the other day in this town hall piece by Spencer Brown.
	Again, are we interested in this at all, folks?
	People are walking around with face diapers, their businesses are being shut down, their jobs are being terminated.
	Are we allowed to look at the science?
	Here, Town Hall.
	Masks didn't slow COVID spread.
	New study.
	From the Town Hall piece.
	It's pretty crystal clear, folks.
	The evidence is right there.
	University of Louisville study reports that, quote, mask mandates and use are not, are not associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 spread among U.S.
	states.
	It's right there, guys, ladies.
	It's right there.
	Why doesn't Fauci talk about this?
	I thought the science was dynamic and evolving.
	Is he interested in this?
	Or is he only interested in talking points and studies that make his point?
	Here, even worse.
	The University of Louisville study showed that prolonged mask use of four hours or greater of a day promotes facial alkalinization and inadvertently encourages dehydration, which can enhance barrier breakdown and bacterial infection risk.
	There is a downside.
	Am I telling you they're totally useless all the time?
	That's not what I'm saying.
	Unlike other people, I don't make declarative dispositive statements.
	I can't back up.
	Am I telling you lockdowns had no effect at all anywhere?
	I'm not telling you that either.
	I'm just telling you the data indicates that they probably didn't do what you think they did and carried with them significant economic side effects.
	I'm also telling you the mask usage didn't do what you think it did based on the research and also carried side effects.
	Maybe not serious, but worth considering.
	What about social distancing?
	Remember, Fauci in that clip defends all of it.
	Lockdowns, masks, social distancing, even though in his emails he seems very unsure.
	CNBC article, MIT researchers say time spent indoors increased the risk of COVID at six feet or 60 feet in a new study, challenging social distancing policies.
	Is this science?
	Is MIT, MIT, I'm pretty sure that's a pretty decent school, right guys?
	Last time I checked MIT, pretty decent school.
	I'm pretty sure you have to be very smart to get to MIT.
	Are we allowed to look at that science?
	Are we ignoring that?
	Is that science no good?
	Because it defeats a narrative.
	Is that science no good?
	I'm not telling you that story's conclusive on anything.
	I'm telling you it's a data point or a series of data points we should analyze before we make declarative statements like, we have to social distance at six feet.
	The fake fact checkers on Fakebook, these absolute losers, they have to come in every time and protect their gods.
	It's a joke.
	Nobody takes them seriously.
	They're not fact checkers.
	They're opinion checkers.
	It's the biggest hoax out there.
	And we just read Fauci's email, ladies and gentlemen.
	These aren't my words.
	They're Dr. Anthony Fauci's.
	Nobody is disputing the authenticity or genuine nature of the emails.
	They're clearly his emails from his government account.
	Therefore, being that he's paid by the taxpayer dollar, they are subjected to FOIA requests.
	And being that we paid him, we're entitled to see what he was doing on our time using our email.
	Fauci just keeps digging and digging and digging.
	You know, you think you just come clean, right?
	I mean, you are a public servant paid by taxpayer dollars.
	You think you just say, listen, I'm Dr. Anthony Fauci.
	Um, I screwed up.
	I messed up.
	I'm paid by taxpayer dollars.
	Um, I made some bad calls.
	The evidence is now out there.
	Forgive me.
	Uh, let's move on.
	Nope.
	So Anthony Fauci wrote to Sylvia Burwell, quote, "The typical mask you buy in the drugstore is not
	really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material."
	Well, folks, what's interesting is maybe around that time, Anthony Fauci was up and down on
	Remember in the beginning, he said we didn't need masks.
	Then he said we did need masks.
	All right, fair enough.
	But jumping to his defense with a fact check to claim that Anthony Fauci did not give contradictory advice on masks when his own email seems to express a concern that masks don't work is so ridiculous.
	And unbecoming even for fact checkers who have the most the lowest standards you've ever seen for content.
	I mean below like a celebrity gossip blog that I'm stunned they don't just admit that yes Fauci acknowledged in his email and said in his email he was questioning the efficacy of masks.
	It's right there on the email.
	So here we go.
	Dana Ford who's another Complete joker.
	At Lead Stories, June 2nd, 2021.
	Fact check!
	Fauci's private email en masse dated February 2020 does not conflict with what he was saying publicly around that.
	Notice, around that time.
	You see how they have to always rush to defend this guy?
	It is so obviously government Pravda-like propaganda that I'm stunned anyone, I mean, Dana Ford, have some personal dignity, please.
	The guy screwed up on masks.
	It's fair to criticize it.
	This is a free country.
	It's not personal.
	We pay him.
	Please have some dignity.
	My gosh, nobody takes... Aren't you embarrassed?
	And Fakebook, because it's an even bigger clown site, uses lead stories to engage in their Soviet-like propaganda campaign against the truth.
	It's precisely because of Fakebook and their allegiance with fake fact-checkers that people are just figuring out now this virus may have come from the Wuhan lab.
	Because they colluded together to suppress the truth, just like they did about SpyGate.
	They're the real disinformation specialists.
	But there you go, fact-checkers to the rescue again, folks!

▲