Dave Smith and Robbie the Fire dissect 2,000 leaked Fauci emails revealing early knowledge of the lab leak hypothesis and a March 2020 statistical error inflating COVID mortality to 2% versus influenza's 0.1%. They expose conflicts of interest involving Christian G. Anderson and Facebook fact-checkers, argue the "apples and oranges" comparison justified unjustified lockdowns, and claim redactions protect government interests while scapegoating Fauci to shield the broader medical-industrial complex from accountability. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Support Fucking Good Soap00:02:03
Fill her up.
You are listening to the Gas Digital Network.
All right, guys, let's take a quick second to thank our brand new sponsor, Fucking Good Soap.
Yeah, you heard me right.
Fucking Good Soap.
Look, everyone's talking about supporting local and small businesses right now.
And trust me when I tell you, you want to support this one.
Fucking Good Soap launched in 2018 in Portland, Oregon.
They sent me a bunch of bars, and it's legitimately really great.
It's really fucking good soap, just like they tell you.
Their soap comes in a variety of fantastic scents like espresso, cucumber melon, cherry almond, and their super popular man bar.
That's the perfect mix of mahogany and musk.
It'll make your partner think they're finally dating a lumberjack.
But seriously, let's face it, we're all getting ready for the summer after the pandemic.
Maybe you've been alone all year long and you're finally getting ready to go on your first post-pandemic date.
The last thing you want to do is show up smelling bad.
You need some fucking good soap.
Not only does the soap smell great, it's super soft, it's smooth, and the bars just look really cool.
They look incredible.
It looks like the manliest, cooliest soap you've ever had.
They also make lit balms, charcoal scrubs, and more.
Everything is affordable too.
The bars of soap start at seven bucks.
Plus, each one is handcrafted and made entirely out of natural and organic ingredients.
So if you want a super affordable way to support the show while supporting an incredible small business who we know have been hurting over this last year, go check out fucking good soap.
Fuckinggoodsoap.com.
You can't forget that one.
And use the promo code P-O-T-P at checkout.
That'll get you 10% off your order.
Seriously, check these guys out.
They're not made of money.
So they're taking a shot at sponsoring our show.
I appreciate their support, especially since their products are awesome.
FuckingGoodSoap.com.
Use the promo code P-O-T-P.
That'll get you 10% off your order.
Get ready to get back out into the world with fucking good soap.
Exclusive Sponsor Discount Code00:14:16
We need to roll back the state.
We spy on all of our own citizens.
Our prisons are flooded with nonviolent drug offenders.
If you want to know who America's next enemy is, look at who we're funding right now.
Every single one of these problems are a result of government being way too big.
You're listening to part of the problem on the Gas Digital Network.
Here's your host, Dave Smith.
What's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
I am Dave Smith.
He is Robbie the Fire, the king of the caulks, in the studio, looking good.
Unlike last time we tried to do this, looking very good.
How are you, my brother?
I'm good.
And unlike you, I actually show up for work.
So, you know, this is cool.
I have showed up for work.
This is where I'm supposed to be.
You have in-person work is very 2019, Rob.
Oh, you're more cultured and developed.
You're more with the times than I am.
That's right.
Yes, absolutely.
That is correct.
We, before we get into our show for today, we have some live dates coming up.
Me and Robbie the Fire are going to be doing some stand-up comedy in Brooklyn.
We booked this gig not very far out, okay?
So we got to sell some tickets for this one.
There's still some tickets available.
June 6th and June 13th, 8 p.m. shows at what's it, Old Man Hustle?
In Brooklyn, yeah.
Great venue.
Great venue in Brooklyn.
Go check us out there.
June 19th will be in Norwalk, Connecticut, 7 and a 9 p.m. show.
Check us out there as well.
Very much looking forward to getting out there with Robbie and doing some stand-up shows.
So please come out if you're in the Brooklyn area or the Connecticut area.
Of course, Freedom Fest, I'll be hosting the whole week.
Pork Fest is sold out.
If you didn't get tickets, I told you that thing was going to sell out.
Anyway, me and Rob will be up there doing a live show, live stand-up show and a live podcast.
So looking forward to all of that stuff.
All right, let's get into it today.
So we're recording a little bit later in the day than usual.
The big story of today is that this morning, all of the Fauci emails got dropped.
And I wanted to try my best to go through them, which was kind of impossible to do.
There's evidently a freedom of information request was.
just went through today.
So there were somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000 emails or 2,000 pages of emails of Dr. Anthony Fauci that were released.
They span from January in 2020.
Some of them go as far as June.
The BuzzFeed got a bunch of them.
The Washington Post got a bunch of them.
CNN got a bunch of them.
It's been very difficult to go through all of them.
I don't know if there's any journalist out there who in one day has effectively gone through 2,000 plus emails, but I thought we would talk about this a little bit.
I think that's a hot take because CNN did and they concluded, look how hard Fauci is working and how overwhelmed he is and how good of a job he is in, you know, trying to protect the American people.
So CNN, they did full journalism on this.
Well, I'll tell you the thing I find even more disturbing than like CNN is that I see people, like real people, you know, on social media and stuff like this saying, there's no scandal here.
And you're like, look, dude, I mean, I don't know.
I'm not like, by the way, just a little spoiler alert of the episode.
I'm not claiming that there's some major smoking gun here.
I don't think there is.
And I try to call these things down the middle.
There's some interesting emails that I've seen so far that kind of certainly point in the direction of what we've been saying for this whole time.
And there certainly are some things that suggest that Fauci has been less than honest, but it's not as if there was like a major smoking gun like, oh my God, this just blew the whole thing wide open.
But there are some that are worth talking about, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
It's quite possible that there's something more major than what I've seen.
And I just didn't find it.
It's very difficult to parse through 2,000 pages and figure out every detail.
So you kind of, you're reading as many as you can and then relying on other reports that have picked out the ones that they think are of interest.
I will, let me say this.
There's a couple that a lot of people are sending around that I think are being overplayed.
Let me be fair to the other side.
There's one email particular where someone emails Fauci talking about the origins of the COVID and how it's a Chinese bioweapon.
Fauci, there's no Fauci responding to this guy.
It's just one guy emailing Fauci this thing.
All that's proven by this is that this guy had Fauci's email address.
There's really nothing else that's there.
So people jumping on that one, slow down.
Unless you find out who this guy is and what his connection is to Dr. Anthony Fauci, you really have nothing here.
It's just, you know what I mean?
It's like if Rob, if you got a hold of Fauci's email address and emailed him some crazy shit that doesn't prove anything.
So I would just say that.
By the way, now you mentioned that, that would be a really fun thing to do.
Like, hey, Fauci, I just spoke to the other vampires and I got noticed that they want you to continue saying that it's not a bioweapon and that children need to wear masks because if they can't breathe properly, it makes their blood into better conditions.
You just keep sending, hey, I just spoke to Nancy Pelosi and some of the other demon creatures.
Because they say you're doing a great job.
They say we're really happy.
Like you totally got these humans fooled.
They still believe in AIDS.
So obviously, you've been doing incredible work for decades.
Yeah, just, you know, anyway, so this, this is all just silly.
But there are some things in the emails that I did find very interesting.
So to me, my biggest takeaways so far from reading through these things, and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this as well, Rob.
So I'd say, number one, Fauci is very close with the Chinese and they were working in tandem right from the very beginning.
Right from the very beginning, when one of the, I don't know if you saw this email when one of the Chinese doctors was critical of how America was handling the situation.
And he's then emailing Fauci to apologize, like, hey, I didn't mean to offend you.
I'm sorry if this came off the wrong way.
And Fauci's like, don't worry, we're in this together.
We're going to get through this.
Now, not to say that there's a huge scandal there right away, but it does kind of speak to the not so fully disclosed relationship between the government scientist apparatus in America and the government scientist apparatus in China, which obviously has bigger implications about this whole COVID situation.
But there's several emails like that with between Fauci and his Chinese counterparts, where they are quite chummy, let's say.
I think that's worth noting.
The other thing, which is probably to me the biggest go.
I got to ask on that one.
What are the other emails?
Because I only had seen that one, which I didn't think was that flagrant.
The guy basically said, I wasn't, I wasn't saying that you were making a big mistake.
It was a bad translation.
So that email is not standalone, it's not crazy, but I didn't see any other Chinese Fauci correspondence.
There were a couple other correspondents with China that were very early in January and in February.
Fauci, just wants to give you a heads up.
We might have just nuked the entire population with the deadly virus, and we're going to need you to say.
Yes, yes.
No, but nothing, nothing.
I just, it's not that anything there was super scandalous, just that it did establish this kind of relationship, which is almost like a groundwork to start looking at some of these other things through.
To me, the probably the biggest, most scandalous one was the one about the lab leak theory or the lab leak hypothesis.
So Fauci, let me see if I can pull this up here.
He recognized early on that there was a slight variation in this virus that could, I mean, in his own words, he basically said it is unlikely that that was could have been done without some sort of a human guiding hand or someone manipulating the virus.
He said that straight up in an email, basically.
Well, there's an email between him and Jeremy Farrar, or no, I'm sorry, Jeremy Farrar is CC'd on the email, but I guess no, the email is from Christian G. Anderson.
And they're going back and forth.
And here's the email.
The email says, Hi, Tony.
Thanks for sharing.
Yes, I saw this earlier today.
Both Eddie and myself are actually quoted in it.
It's a great article, but the problem is that the only cyclogenetic analysis aren't able to answer whether the sequencing are unusual at individual residues, except if they are completely off.
So he's just talking about, you know, like the trying to figure out the origins of the outbreak.
He says the unusual features, these are the quotes to pay attention to, the unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome.
So it has to look so one has to look really closely at the sequences to see that some of the features look engineered.
We have a good team lined up to look very critically at this.
So we should know much more at the end of the weekend.
I should mention that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.
So that's the quote in the email.
So this is another epidemiologist emailing Dr. Fauci, telling him that we have this team that's looking at the origins of COVID.
And all of us, just saying right now, find this to be inconsistent with the origin being evolutionary, like just that it, the idea that it just naturally evolved and went from bats to humans.
So this is pretty big.
This is a pretty big deal.
Fauci has been out there pretending that the lab leak hypothesis is conspiracy theory stuff, or at the very least, not pushing back when that is the mainstream narrative for over a year.
And this now we're finding out that not only was this something that Fauci had heard of before, but actually other experts who he's emailing back and forth with have been telling him that lots of experts are looking at this, thinking this is the case.
Now, I'm sorry, that is not a small deal.
That's a very, very big deal.
Like, I don't know how anyone could live through the last, you know, 14 months, 16 months, whatever, since it first originated in China, and not think that figuring out the origins of COVID is a big deal.
And the idea that Fauci has this close relationship with these, the, you know, the Chinese, his Chinese counterpart, some of whom, counterparts, some of whom are working at the Wuhan lab, that he's got this close relationship with them, and also that he was aware that many experts believed that this virus came out of the lab.
That's big.
Like, I don't care how you try to spin it.
That's a really big deal.
So there, Rob, maybe that answers your question a little bit about why I wanted to start with the close relationship with the Chinese, because I do think you have to put those two things together.
No, you're also right.
I thought that that line of some of the features potentially look engineered was from Fauci, but it's from Christian Anderson to Fauci.
So I actually misread that.
Yes, okay, but it's in, but just to be clear, it is, he is responding to an email that Fauci sent to him.
So it is, it's not as if this is just a guy emailing him like the other stuff I was saying.
This is somebody who he's going back and forth with.
The email starts with thanks for sharing.
So they're, you know what I mean?
Like they're, they're messaging back and forth.
So the point here is that Fauci is aware of the lab leak hypothesis and he's been aware of it.
I mean, this is the thing that's the most damning about it is that this was in January of 2020.
So this is back before any, you know, of the hysteria has started here in America, before any of the lockdowns, anything from the very beginning, Fauci is aware that there are experts who think this came from the lab.
This is, if you think about it, it's less than a month or just a little bit more than a month since the first confirmed case of COVID in China in Wuhan.
So already Fauci knows about this.
And yet now, right, this is a year and a half, almost later than that.
And it's just now being acknowledged in the corporate press that, hey, you know what?
You're allowed to say this.
We're not going to ban you off social media and label you a conspiracy theorist if you claim that this thing came from the lab.
So that's pretty crazy.
I mean, I don't know.
Tax-Free Crypto Trading Guide00:02:20
I don't think you can just dismiss that.
That's a big deal that Fauci knew about this and at no point, you know, like made that clear, even though he's been the lead guy on COVID and never once pointed out that the lab that his organization was indirectly funding was quite possibly responsible for this whole thing.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our wonderful sponsor for today's show, who I love and I'm so proud to have them as a sponsor.
That is iTrust Capital.
If you're paying attention to what's been going on over the last year with digital currencies, cryptocurrencies, you know, they have become more and more ingrained in the mainstream.
There's articles in basically every media outlet about them.
Celebrities are talking about getting involved in crypto like never before.
You can see by the news each week, crypto is only getting more and more ingrained into everyday life.
And the smartest investors are investing with their IRAs or 401k retirement accounts.
And the easiest way to do that is with iTrust Capital.
All iTrust accounts are IRAs, which means you can invest and trade your crypto and gold tax-free on their 24-7 platform.
If you have an existing IRA or another retirement account, like a 401k, you can roll those over with no penalties or taxes.
iTrust Capital makes investing in crypto safe and easy.
You can log into your account 24-7 and invest at the push of a button.
Now crypto can be traded as easily as stocks.
No keys, no complex process.
iTrust Capital also makes investing in physical gold and silver easy.
iTrust uses a blockchain ledger that gives you digital ownership over physical gold held at the Royal Canadian Mint.
So you don't own a security or a derivative or some other financial contract.
You own physical gold.
It's fully backed by physical gold that is deliverable upon request.
The best part, iTrust Capital has low transparent pricing that is 90% cheaper than their competitors.
So if you're looking for an IRA to trade crypto or precious metals tax-free, go to itrustcapital.com.
If you use the promo code P-O-T-P, they're going to give you your first month for absolutely free, plus a free crypto IRA and gold IRA investors guide.
One more time, iTrustCapital.com.
Redacted Fauci Memos Exposed00:15:26
The promo code is P-O-T-P.
That'll get you your first month free.
Plus, you will get a free crypto IRA and gold IRA investor's guide, all at no cost.
Also, if you're interested in learning more about iTrust Capital, I recorded a short conversation with the CEO.
It's posted over at the Gas Digital sponsor page.
He's a great guy.
It's a really great company.
Go check them out, itrustcapital.com, promo code P-O-T-P.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Did you see the email of who the person is who Facebook was using as their like, I don't know, their fact checker to remove things from Facebook?
No, tell me that one.
Oh, dude, that's the best part of this.
Maybe I did say this.
So the guy who sent Fauci an email to say thank you for discrediting the lab's theory.
Oh, yes, Okay.
The person who had hand was the person who had handed over the NIH money to that lab for gain of function research.
Yes.
And he was also the Facebook person who was hired by Facebook to police the inaccuracies or whatever term they like to use.
Right.
Okay.
So I didn't realize that this was the guy in charge of policing Facebook, but this was the next email that I wanted to bring up is that then we have an email from a guy thanking Fauci for pushing back against the narrative that this came from the lab.
So now I didn't realize this was the same guy from Facebook.
I'm, I'm going to say 90% positive I read article.
Well, either way, it's really something that Fauci would, and Fauci responds to this guy too, and is like, oh, yeah, no problem.
It's really something now that Fauci is out there.
Okay.
You're starting to see the web of corruption here and the web of, at the very least, conflicts of interest where Fauci has sent money to the Wuhan lab.
There are now experts that are telling Fauci we think the Wuhan lab is responsible for COVID.
And now Fauci's out there pushing back against this narrative.
And then people are thanking him for that.
So this is from Zero Hedge, and this is where I got it from.
So another interesting factoid about DeSac, I don't know if that's the way his name is pronounced, is that he was employed as an expert fact checker by Facebook when it was monitoring monitoring and removing misinformation about the origins, COVID on its platform.
He was also the head of the WHO mission that went to actually inspect the lab that he had given the money to.
So if you want to talk about conflicts of interest and that email that he sent to Fauci, I can tell you, anyone who's working in anything, you know what you can and can't put into an email.
And when he says, hey, I can't wait to see you in person.
I read that as, hey, we'll have some cash for you.
Yeah, you know, I'll make that claim.
I get what you're saying.
I mean, look, there's a little bit of speculation in what you're saying, but I do think that it is reasonable to say that once you start seeing a hint of corruption and a hint of all these conflicts of interest, that yes, of course, if it was really blatant corruption, you're not going to put that into an email.
You would speak at least somewhat coded.
And so when they say things like, hey, really appreciate this, can't wait to see you, things like that, it's not unreasonable for the imagination to wander a little bit about what could really be going on there.
But right away, we know that a major factor that would have been very like worthy of the American people knowing about it, where this virus came from, how this happened, that this was covered up by Fauci, that this was not something that he hadn't heard of.
He had clearly had experts tell him that they were leaning in this direction at the very least, and that he had been funding the direction they were leaning into.
He's then out there pushing back against this narrative where other people are thanking him for doing it.
And he's certainly not saying anything when people who claimed this were pretty viciously attacked over the last year or so.
And it would seem to me that when Rand Paul was asking, did any of our money go to this lab?
And he was kind of running around in circles to say, well, no, it was handed to this and it didn't go there and it wasn't for that.
It seems like there's actually a pretty direct line.
Yeah.
I mean, when he's saying, when Rand Paul is making this case, Dr. Fauci's response to it is, this is absurd.
I mean, what are you even saying here?
Come on, this is just absurd that you're even suggesting this.
When the reality of the situation is that you were emailing people about this in January of 2020.
This isn't absurd.
The only absurd thing is that we're just now, you know, like really having this conversation, which by the way was something we had talked about on this show way back when.
Keith Knight, who I love, I think that guy is great.
He just shared a clip of when he was on the show.
And this was back in March of 2020.
And he was on the show and me and him were talking about the idea that it came from this lab because even back then, there was a lot of evidence pointing to it.
And, you know, this, it's interesting now that, you know, the corporate press is kind of caught up, but at least to some degree.
But so this was, you know, this was something that was very, it really stuck out.
There was also, you know, I found it interesting that there was many emails that were redacted.
And you do wonder exactly on what ground, I mean, it's not as if Fauci works for the CIA.
You know, like how they claim that they can, you know, redact what your national health advisor is communicating.
Like the Freedom of Information Act covers, okay, you have the right to this information, except what we decide to redact.
Who exactly decides what's redacted and what isn't.
We know, right, that there's been these moves.
I don't know if you remember, Rob, years ago when there was the Carter Page memo that came out.
And we did a whole episode on that on the show.
I think this was back before we were even in the studios.
I think this was in Ralph's apartment studio back in those days.
And it was, this might have been in 2017, 2018, maybe.
And the Carter Page memos came out.
And they basically, because the Republicans controlled enough of these, you know, like the House committees at the time, they were able to get the unredacted version of the memo, which had first come out and been redacted.
And then they got the unredacted version.
And then you see what was in all the redacted areas.
And it was nothing that had anything, even remotely to do with national security.
The things that were redacted were simply embarrassing to the FBI.
That's all it was.
And so they redacted up this whole memo.
Now, a few people who were on these, I think it was Devin Nunes who really led the charge, but a few people were able to get them like, no, we want this unredacted.
And Trump was the president at the time.
So he allowed that.
He didn't, of course, have the balls to put a lot more of the information out there.
But regardless.
So we're not seeing the juiciest parts of this.
That's what you're saying.
Well, my point is just this.
That the idea that when things are redacted, it's only because for security reasons we really needed to redact this information is just to believe that is like the height of naivete.
Like it's just that that's just not the case, that things are redacted.
And we know this from past examples, that things are redacted all the time when it's simply to protect government bureaucrats, spies, corporate interests, things like that.
So when you see these redactions, it's at least fair to wonder why exactly any of this material needs to be hidden from the American people.
The security reasons is his security, because when we realize the extent by which he lied to us, he's going to be fucking lynched.
Well, that's it.
But I'll tell you one of the other things, which might be the grander takeaway from all of this, is that it is kind of interesting, the timing of all of this, right?
Like it's interesting.
I mean, it's after it came clean.
Well, it's as the narrative is crumbling, right?
All of a sudden, it seems that Fauci is being thrown under the bus.
Now, you know, it's possible that that's coincidental to some degree.
This was not little rinky-dink operations that got this Freedom of Information Act request granted.
It was BuzzFeed in the Washington Post.
You know, pretty big corporate press players, particularly the Washington Post, but BuzzFeed as well.
And to have it kind of fall on this time right as the narrative is collapsing, this is typically a tactic that's used by the establishment.
If their narrative is what they like to do is they have a front man and everybody focuses on the front man.
And then if the whole narrative falls apart, they can go, you know what?
This front man was terrible and that's why he's got to go.
And all the people behind the front man still end up with the exact same situation.
None of them get held accountable.
And you think about Cuomo.
You know, I mean, they had no problem just throwing him to the wolves.
Like Cuomo is now open season, fair game.
Anyone can attack him for any reasons.
So I'm just saying, you know, look, a lot of this stuff is speculation, but I do think that you it's worth thinking about.
It's worth thinking about the timing with all of these things.
Were there any other emails that stood out to you, Robbie?
Yeah, so there were a couple that struck me as interesting.
One is someone in the army kind of was emailing him for guidance.
And one of the questions that he asked him was: if someone's been taking hydroxychlorine regularly for the last couple of years, is he at like, is he at risk for getting corona or transmitting corona?
And Fauci just wrote back, per hydroxychlorine, like there's no research yet to say that that would protect him or reduce transmission.
But what's interesting is he didn't say you should tell that guy to stop taking hydroxychlorine because it's dangerous.
And one of the big things that Trump got in trouble for was saying, hey, hydroxychlorine might be useful.
And then the study that they used to remove him from those posts from social media turned out to be certifiably false to the extent that they had to take them back.
So it was just interesting to me that I don't know that Fauci ever directly said hydroxychlorine is dangerous.
I would guess that if we went back in time, we would find that footage because he certainly didn't get Trump's back when he was making those claims.
And in that email, when someone told him, hey, somebody's taking it, Fauci did not say, hey, I would recommend against taking that.
So that was another little, you know, contradiction I caught in one of them.
Yeah.
There's something interesting about the fact that hydroxychloroquine, what's it, hydroxychloroquine is there's lots of doctors who were suggesting that this is doing really well for COVID patients.
Now, Trump was really pushing this hard.
And I think the main reason why Trump was pushing this was because he was fairly desperate for there to be an effective treatment as he was at this point.
This was when he's about six months out from reelection.
COVID lockdowns are destroying his economy, making him, you know, really hurting his chances to get re-elected.
And, you know, he had a white hot economy, obviously, all, you know, bubble economy, but all of that aside, had a white hot economy.
What is this, Brian?
It's not.
I don't think that that's not me.
I'm not doing that.
But so he had a white hot economy.
He's, he's, you know, on his way to reelection.
This is really throwing a wrench in the works.
I think he was desperate for there to be a treatment that worked well.
But the fact is that a lot of doctors were saying this.
I've spoken to many doctors who have said, like, yeah, this really helps with COVID patients.
Fauci really seems against this treatment and really seemed very strongly in favor of the vaccines.
So I don't know what type of incentives are going on there or if this was just his medical opinion, but it seems pretty strong.
I got to ask you on that.
Hydroxychlorine, I thought it was more of a preventative thing where if you're taking, like, I thought it's something you can take daily and offers protection.
I didn't think it was something once you got the virus you could take and then doctors were saying both.
Okay.
They were saying both.
Taking it will help you if you get COVID, have symptoms not be as severe, but they also were prescribing it for people after they got COVID.
So there were a couple other ones.
The other one was he.
Well, let me just real quick before you go to your next one.
And I'm very curious to hear the other ones that stood out to you.
But one of the things that was interesting is that Fauci was really saying, look, if we have the vaccine, we have to get it out there and just give it to people.
And then we can do all of the proper studies after the fact and really figure it out.
But he didn't feel that way about hydroxychloroquine.
So there just seems to be a little bit of a like, hmm, okay, these pharmaceutical companies are making these enormous profits off the vaccines and you're hell-bent on that being the case.
And of course, Fauci does have a history of being like invested in one of the treatments for HIV and then really like trashing the other treatment for it.
So just to say there's a lot of conflicts of interest and corruption around all of this stuff.
But anyway, go ahead.
Well, on that note of the profit motive, there was also an email that he got from like a German biotech company that he didn't respond to.
And then oddly enough, like AstraZeneca, which is a non-US company, originally did get FDA approval.
And then once the other ones hit the market, they did a review on like the earlier research and said that there were some errors or other flagrant things that were done.
And so it was never, it was never actually like made available here.
So I mean, that's going to be something that's going to be interesting to take a look at over time, especially as the wheel turns against him to see how much money was in it for him to, I guess, be trying to, and oh, by the way, one more thing on the vaccines.
Questioning Vaccine Trial Data00:04:35
I recently came across some information that at least in some of the trial studies in animals that they did with mRNA vaccines, it didn't go well.
So not only did they kind of jump to giving this to everybody without doing human trials, it would seem that at least in some of the animals, like previous studies that they did, the results were pretty bad.
So it like, it's kind of shocking that they rolled this stuff out as quickly as they did.
But like you were saying, when we had these safer other options that have been around forever, like hydroxychlorine, the fact that he just trashed them right out of the bay, like, you know, without any conversation amongst the risk of taking one thing or the other, it does seem to, you know, point to some sort of a profit motive for sure.
Well, it certainly leads you to ask that question.
Why is this guy so behind these vaccines, which at the time had not even passed the preliminary required testing before they could even meet the threshold for the emergency status that they currently have, let alone actually being FDA approved?
Now, once again, just to be clear, me and Rob are not standing behind like the FDA approval, you know, like procedure.
I'm just saying that someone like Fauci certainly would.
So, the fact that he's not in this case is interesting.
It makes you wonder, you know, what's going on here.
So, another one was he had that email where he told the lady that she has no reason to wear a mask.
I believe that this predates the coronavirus, but he did say that the masks are really only good if you currently have something to limit spreading it.
But for you, unless like you're wearing like one of the good masks, if you're just picking up a mask from a store, he said it's not, it's not going to help you, which would seem to indicate that this entire mask storyline, which is particularly creepy because they force kids to wear them.
So, first is if it put you at higher risk, which Rand Paul has claimed that if you're not wearing like the N95 masks or actually at higher risk, that's extremely flagrant.
And then, also, if he had an understanding of the fact that it's not actually helping prevent yourself from illness and he recommended it, seemingly, and you saw that lady on CNN saying, Hey, we can't let people take their masks off unless they're all vaccinated because that's the carrot and the stick.
You know, it would seem like they kind of knew, Hey, we've got to torture people here a little bit so that we can get them to accept something that they otherwise wouldn't accept, which is the emergency authorization on the vaccines.
Now, I get that there's some leaps there, but there is in writing from Fauci at an earlier point in date saying that wearing a simple mask is not going to help you not pick up a virus.
Yeah, yeah.
So, just to be clear here, this is from early on.
I can't remember, was it January or February where the email where he's talking about masks are?
But and to be fair to Fauci, he was saying this publicly at the time too.
But what's a little bit more interesting about the email is he's really breaking down scientifically why masks don't work.
And there never really seemed to be an explanation for why his belief in that science had changed after March and April and May.
Um, like, why was it that all of the sudden we decided everyone needed to mask up?
Um, and so that was uh, that that was it's bizarre to see.
And in fact, most of the scientific research seemed to indicate that, yeah, masks were a good idea if you were sick to protect other people.
But the idea of masking everyone was really never based on any, you know, scientific evidence.
And the other thing that that was, I can't remember if this was the same email or a different one, but it seemed that Fauci knew very early on that children were very, I mean, before the COVID virus was here, and this is in February.
I mean, it was probably here, but before the government was telling you that it was like spreading here, he was saying that we've already seen the evidence.
It was from early on in like the cruise ships that had gotten it and stuff.
He goes, We already know kids aren't getting this and kids really aren't transmitting this.
And the few cases of children who are getting it, they're not getting very sick and they got it from adults.
The kids aren't giving it to the adults, the adults are giving it to the kids.
Man, torture kids for profit.
He stunted their development, kept them in their homes, forced them to wear masks.
Review Sheath Underwear Comfort00:02:20
Let's call it what it is.
He tortured kids for financial profit for pharmaceutical companies.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, it certainly looks that way.
And the idea that you would mask up every child, or at least attempt to, you know, not everyone, because there are some parents like myself who are not going to allow that to happen.
But the fact that you would push to mask every child and would mask tens of millions of children when you knew that the masks weren't going to help them and that they weren't at risk at all to begin with is really, I mean, that's, if that's not a scandal, I don't know what is one.
All right, guys, let's take a quick second and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Sheath Underwear.
You guys know, if you listen to the show, you already know Sheath makes the most comfortable boxer briefs I've ever worn in my life.
That's all I wear.
At this point, I got an underwear drawer full of sheath underwear.
I got a few other pairs of underwear that I never wear.
All I wear is sheath.
Go if you feel a pair of them, you can already tell these are quality, nice underwear.
They're going to feel great.
Then you put them on and you're like, this is the best pair of boxer briefs I've ever worn in my life.
They're made out of a moisture-wicking technology.
It's a stretchy fabric, super soft, keeps everything cool and comfortable right in place.
It's particularly great for these hot summer months.
If you're working out, you're going to be cool and comfortable in a pair of sheath underwear.
And the most unique thing about sheath is they have the dual pouches.
They keep your man parts separated.
They keep them right where they're supposed to be.
I was a little skeptical about the pouches, but I'll tell you, I love them.
You got to try them.
You're never going to want to go back.
And if you don't like the idea of the pouches, you don't have to use them.
You can just wear them like regular underwear and they'll just be the most comfortable pair of underwear you've ever owned.
Plus, they have brand new materials like bamboo and mesh for even more cooling comfort.
They're incredible.
If you've already had sheath underwear, but you don't have the bamboo or the mesh ones, you got to check those out as well.
So go to sheathunderwear.com, get the most comfortable underwear you will ever own.
And if you use the promo code problem20, you'll get 20% off your order.
That sheath underwear, the promo code is problem20 for 20% off your order.
This is an awesome company.
The guy who owns it is such a cool guy.
We really appreciate having them on.
And it's the best pair of underwear you will ever own.
Sheathunderwear.com, promo code problem20 for 20% off.
Let's get back into the show.
Confusion Over Fatality Rates00:10:59
Okay, any other emails that stuck out to you?
The only other narrative that people were floating, but I didn't get a chance to read through all these emails to verify it.
But it's the only other one that came out was that when India released some indication of the fact that the virus had been augmented, and specifically the splice in there seemed to have been like something that they took from the AIDS virus to change the coronaviruses.
They were pointing out some pretty damning emails that looked like Fauci was like trying to get a handle on that situation to make sure that it wasn't going to point to the gain of function research.
But I didn't get a full handle on that narrative.
So I would just say that that's the only other thing that came out from the original batch of emails that might have been pretty damning.
Okay, yeah, I'll have to look through those ones a little bit more.
But that does sound potentially damning.
But the only one that I saw that was saying the stuff with the AIDS stuff was like the one that was the guy who he didn't respond to and was just some guy saying like, oh, there was a bio-weapon and all this.
So I kind of just dismissed that.
There was one other email.
This one is sent by Fauci that really jumped out to me that I thought was right was right at the key of this.
And there's a little bit of scientific lingo here, but it's really not that hard to understand.
But this is something that Fauci did where he just straight up makes a scientific mistake.
Now, Fauci is 80, I believe.
And so it is possible that he's just not, you know, he's just confused.
But the problem is that Fauci's made this mistake several times and it starts to seem like he's doing it intentionally.
Okay.
So the email, this is from, hold on, let me pull it up.
This is from March of 2020.
And the email is between it's from Fauci.
He's responding to Samathi Ready.
And they're asking information about the fatality rate of or the fatality rate of COVID-19.
Oh, he messed up bad, right?
Yes, he messed this up very bad.
And it's one of those things where, like, you know, when they're like, you know, the bank error is never in your favor.
Right.
You know, like they, they make these errors, but the errors always seem to go in one direction.
And Fauci made this mistake in his, when he was speaking to Congress.
He also made this mistake in an article that he wrote.
And here he's making the same mistake in an email.
And it's just, this is a blatant mistake that he keeps making over and over again.
So the only two options here are that the head epidemiologist who we've put in front of this whole COVID, you know, in front of the most important pandemic, important, you know, societal, you know, altering thing of our lifetime, either he keeps making the same mistake over and over again, and no one on his team or in the media or in the government is competent enough to correct him on that, or he's lying.
Honestly, I don't know which one is worse.
Well, like either of those are pretty bad.
But here's, let me just let people know because I've teased this enough and then you can give your comment.
But so he says, this is what Fauci says in the email, very short response.
He says, for COVID-19, the mortality rate is approximately 2%.
For the seasonal influenza, it's approximately 0.1%.
Now, this was, I just hope people understand, this narrative was a huge part of what led to all of this.
This was a huge part.
This is early, right?
This is in March.
In fact, this was the date of this is March 2nd.
Okay.
This is Monday, March 2nd, 2020.
So just keep in mind, this is before any lockdowns have happened.
All right.
This is the narrative that led to the lockdowns, the shelter in place, the strict restrictions, the social distancing, the 15 days to flatten the curve that then turned into the nightmare that many places in America are still living under today and many places around the world.
And when he says this, when he says for COVID-19, the mortality rate is 2%.
For the seasonal influenza, it is approximately 0.1%.
So here he's saying it's, and he repeated the line over and over again that he would say it's 10 times deadlier than the flu.
Okay.
This is just flat out wrong.
Now, there are two things that are, what he's confusing is the IFR and the CFR.
Okay.
Now, it's a little wonky scientific stuff, but it's not that complicated.
Okay.
So the IFR is the infection fatality rate.
The CFR is the case fatality rate.
So if you could imagine, right, when you're, if you're talking about the IFR, which is what he's presenting this as, right?
The IFR would be the rate of people that die who get infected, right?
That's the true number that we're all after, right?
If a thousand people get this, how many of them are going to die?
That's the IFR.
The CFR is the confirmed cases fatality rate.
So if you picture at the beginning of COVID, when there's not widespread testing, right?
The confirmed cases tend to be sick people, right?
So obviously the CFR number is going to be much higher than what the IFR number is.
So if you, let's just say, for example, if you're testing people who come into a hospital who are very, very sick with COVID, then those are the only confirmed cases.
So, let's say 100 people come in and 10 of those people die, then your CFR number is 10%.
But that's not the IFR number.
That's not the total infect, that's not the total infection fatality number, right?
Because there's obviously it's not just a thousand people who came in to the hospital, there's lots more people who have the virus who didn't need to be hospitalized, right?
So, this number is going to be a lot higher.
So, what Fauci does here is he confuses the IFR, to be generous, confuses the IFR with the CFR.
So, here he puts a very high COVID CFR number, which is actually higher than what the COVID CFR number is.
So, it's actually closer to 1.2%, but he puts it up to 2%, okay?
And then he has an extremely low influenza IFR number.
So, he's comparing apples and oranges when he says that COVID is 10 times deadlier than the seasonal influenza.
And so, this again, either catastrophic mistake or blatant lie, but there's no other option between those two.
And the truth is that if it is a mistake, it is blatant incompetence.
Like, this is the head epidemiologist in the country getting something wrong that, like, is, I mean, I know I'm using terms here and stuff, but that's fairly easy to understand, right?
Like, I think most people listening at home can understand that, like, yeah, like, okay, just basically, like, there's a huge percentage of people who get COVID who don't show symptoms at all.
So, those people aren't getting tests, right?
So, they're never becoming confirmed COVID cases.
If you're only counting the sick people and disproportionately testing the very sick people, of course, they're going to have a higher death rate than everybody else.
But he's comparing apples and oranges.
He's comparing the confirmed tests who die versus the flu, just the general infection rate.
And he's exaggerating the confirmed case rate.
So, this bullshit, either lie or gross incompetence, is what led to all of this.
And we have it right here in writing that he's confirmed, like he is spreading this bullshit around to people.
So, that again, no matter what it is, that's a scandal.
There's no way you can tell me that's not a scandal.
Um, all right, go ahead.
No, no, I agree with all that.
I hadn't realized the uh apples and orange aspect to it.
Uh, but what I had seen was that according to Alex Berenson on Twitter, uh, he's been great on uh all of COVID, by the way.
So, according to him, Fauci made that determination of 2% way too early to have had the data to even make that number.
And, like you said, it also didn't include all the people that weren't getting tested because there wasn't testing at that time.
So, to possibly make a determination that 2% of people were dying was just grossly inaccurate.
Uh, and I don't think that was a mistake, I think that was the figure that they started working with to shut the world down.
Uh, it's really hard.
Here's the thing, right?
It's really hard to believe that he's actually making the mistake when he says essentially inventing science, inventing a figure conveniently would get the world to shut down.
But you're, but here's the thing, right?
See, what you're talking about here is the case fatality rate.
And that what the point that Berenson is making is that he is exaggerating, exaggerating the case fatality rate, and he has no way of actually knowing that it's 2%.
But my point is that he is claiming that the case fatality rate is the infection fatality rate.
It's very hard to believe that any competent, let alone our best guy, could make that mistake.
So once you see that, once that's really hard to believe, then you wonder, why is he exaggerating this rate?
That just seems, they seem to go hand in hand.
Like the most likely answer here seems to be like, you're lying.
And so, yeah, I think, I think.
So what I'm saying is to sit down and make a determination without the data and to come to a determination, that's just flagrantly lying because you don't have the data to make a determination, which you can say, hey, we don't quite have the data to make a determination.
I'm really nervous about this thing.
And so I estimate that it's going to be blank.
And then I can't give you shit because even though you're being salesy and you're trying to present fear, you're not making a bold claim.
You're being a guy who claims, hey, we got to follow the science and I'm the chief scientist and then sitting down and pretending like you got enough data to make a determination when you clearly don't.
There's no way to put that other than lying.
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, I think, I think, I think that's fair.
Pharma Narrative Collapsing Fast00:09:09
So, you know, look, I mean, so far, again, it's not as if there was anything, at least in this, in these emails that have like drastically changed the way we're looking at this whole thing.
But it does confirm a lot of our a lot of our suspicions.
That's kind of what I'd say.
And it really pulls into focus the fact that firstly, we need to get rid of tech censorship because a lot of people were talking about this and they were right.
So if tech censorship repeatedly removes theories that turn out to be right, and in this case, might even been able to prevent death or otherwise.
I guess I would think if you actually knew the cause of this, you probably could have treated it quicker.
So that's flagrant.
And then also there seems to be an apparatus of who's getting even hired in those tech censorship jobs.
In this case, it's conflicts of interest and people who want to cover their own ass.
So I would think if nothing else, the lesson for all of humanity should be we got to get rid of this tech censorship thing where they get to make determinations about what are dangerous ideas because they have a pretty clear track record of using that for a specific agenda, which is not in the public interest.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And one of the things that becomes clear in these emails is that what Ron Paul used to call the medical industrial complex in America is a very swampy, very swampy group of people.
And isn't it funny that the trust that liberals have now in big pharma?
Like a year ago, it was all about big pharma profits and all that stuff.
And now it's like not just a year, a year ago and for my entire life up until a year ago.
Right.
Amazing how just a little bit of propaganda will just switch their entire mindset on a topic.
Yeah.
And kind of on a, maybe on a slightly different topic, but a kind of related tone.
It's like, this is in many ways what I've found concerning about the rise of the kind of woke, you know, orthodoxies.
And this is why I always say it's more helpful to view it as a plot against the left than as a left-wing plot against America.
Because really what they've been doing for the last decade is training left liberals to be conformists.
And so they can even get them to conform to, you know, the idea that you're supposed to.
I mean, you know, it's really something to think about, you know, conform, get behind the CIA, get behind big business, get behind big pharma.
Look how much the left is willing to do that now.
It's like, it's unbelievable.
It's like, these are not, these are not what the leftists were supposed to be.
And it's, it's something if you've, if you're aware of the left for more than the last 10 years, it's, it's really something to see.
But the big pharma one is particularly interesting because, yeah, that was always an enemy.
Somebody just, as long as transgender people are torturing you or big pharma is going to help you take off the mask that we told you had to wear, then it's all good.
Yeah, yeah, you know, it's really God, it is something.
So I was literally just looking at Alex Berenson's Twitter, and he's he is saying that the I'm going to read this tweet because I thought this was good.
That I just retweeted it as we're as we're recording.
But he said, This friends is what you call a smoking gun.
And he's referring to the first email or the second email that we read, where the one where he said, Today, Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.
So where they're basically saying, you know, the experts are looking at this and it doesn't look like this evolved organically.
But this was his quote, and I think this is a good tweet.
He says, This friends is what you call a smoking gun.
Not so much for St. Fauci, just the entire community of virologists and scientists who insisted for a year that the China gain of function 2019 virus couldn't possibly have come out of a lab.
I think he's got a really good point there.
It's not just an indictment of Fauci, but it's an indictment of the whole system that you have this hypothesis about how this virus originated that now has come out.
Yeah, basically, I would say at this point, it's pretty clear that the scientific consensus is that the lab hypothesis is more likely than the wet market hypothesis.
Okay.
I think that's safe to say at this point.
And the fact that you have all of these scientists on all of these, you know, like payrolls that they're all in this web, the medical industrial complex.
And for a full year, the most important year, they were able to say this is a conspiracy theorist and straight up silence all of these people's voices.
And when now it's come out that they knew this, that the experts were saying this back in February.
I mean, that is a real, or in January, I beg your pardon.
That is a real indictment of the whole, you know, field of the whole, you know, establishment, virologists, epidemiologists, all of them.
So that's, that is, that is really something to say.
Yeah.
Well, hopefully the wheel actually turns here and people realize, my God, have they lied to me?
And I think we're getting close to it.
Yeah.
Something's happening, you know, something's happening.
We're in a shift here.
And it's hard, it's hard to say exactly what it is.
But, you know, I've been saying this now.
We've been saying this on the show now for a few weeks that you're like, oh, something's starting to change.
But it always, you know, it's like, it's a weird dynamic.
Like, I'm a little bit optimistic and happy about the shift.
And you're happy to see these narratives collapse.
But it also makes me raise an eyebrow.
Like, I get a little bit suspicious.
You know, I remember, what was it now?
It was like four or five weeks ago when the New York Times ran that piece where they were saying, you know, the outdoor masks are bullshit.
And they said there's not one confirmed case of COVID that's been transmitted from a casual outdoor encounter.
And we're kind of like sitting here.
Now, we knew this, you know, this isn't news.
We've known this for, you know, at least six months.
But you read that and you're like, huh, that's in the New York Times all of a sudden.
All right, something's changing.
Like, what's going on here?
Why are they all of a sudden?
Now, part of it might just be that they think the narrative is collapsing.
It might just be that, like, I don't know, people just saw 50,000 people at a sporting event in Texas and cases are going down.
I don't know how much longer we're going to be able to convince them to wear masks outside.
You know what I mean?
Like that might just be part of it.
But it does seem like there are these things that like something's going on amongst some powerful people who kind of make these decisions that they're like, hey, you know what?
Cuomo's fair game now.
Everyone can go after him.
And all of a sudden, after being Saint Cuomo, nah, nah, you can go after him now.
And now it seems like that's happening with Fauci.
It seems like a lot of this is happening with the entire COVID narrative.
And perhaps it's just that they're smart enough to realize they can't keep this going much longer.
So they might as well get ahead of it and throw a lot of it under the bus and then, you know, not lose everything.
Or maybe there's something that I don't, I don't see.
I'll quote an ungrounded theory here that we're still enough a way out from the next election for them to have a bad couple, maybe even a year and then have things turn around for them.
So it could be either they need to start opening up the economy because we can't afford otherwise, or they are actually predicting some sort of a bad inflation because of what they did this past year.
And so they need to get the bad year over with now so that they have an opportunity to actually climb out of it before the next election.
And that if they kind of kept us in this environment any longer, they wouldn't have their opportunity to recuperate.
That is possible.
That is possible.
And I did think that I, you know, I said this when Joe Biden got in there that I was like, you know, they can't do it right away.
Like they can't do it day one.
They can't go, yeah, COVID solved, you know, because that's too transparent, but that they were going to have to try to back out of this because at a certain point, it's Joe Biden's economy and not Donald Trump's.
And unlike the Bush years where Obama was able to blame George W. Bush for the bad economy, everyone knows this wasn't just a market failure.
You know, like there was more to it than that.
Everyone knows that this was the government deciding to shut down the economy and the governors in particular, in particular.
So maybe that's part of it as well.
It's really hard to get away from the data from Florida and Texas of opening up.
Yeah, well, that's the other point I was making.
Shout Out To Tasting Anarchy00:02:00
Yeah.
Yeah.
I think you're right.
I think I think when it's an example right in front of people's faces, that's pretty tough.
And there's only so many times that you can go, well, in two weeks, everyone's going to die.
In two weeks, everyone's going to die.
And then everything's fine there.
And I think a lot of people, even the crazy liberals, would like to live again.
I got to think, I got to hope there's a lot of people like that.
I know there's some who don't, but there's got to be more who do.
All right, look, that's our show for today.
Thank you guys very much for listening.
Can I get some plugs in?
Yeah.
Well, I just one more time, I'm going to plug that June 6th and June 13th, me and Robbie the Fire Bernstein doing stand-up comedy in Brooklyn.
BK Chris, I believe, is going to be on the shows with us as well.
June 19th in Norwalk, Connecticut, BK Chris also coming out to those shows with us.
And for Brooklyn, we'll probably get another great comic or two.
I'll let you know.
I'm sure.
I'm sure we could get a couple other guys to stop by that show.
So come check us out there.
Robbie the Fire, what do you got going on?
First is Childerberg.
I had the best time out there.
And I inspected Scott Horden's cooler.
I made sure his sandwich game was on point, which it is.
The guy eats some rye bread.
I respected what he was doing.
So props to Tasting Anarchy.
I didn't even have a conversation with him.
I just looked in his cooler, made sure it was up to speed.
I did my duty as the caw king, made sure everyone's being fed, and I moved on with my evening.
Shout out to Tasting Anarchy for putting that together.
It was an absolute blast.
Hopefully I can convince you next year because it was really fun.
I heard from a lot of people who were there that it was awesome.
All right.
I'm going to do my best to make it out next year.
Dude, it was fun.
And then Summer Porch Tour.
Gigs are coming up.
We got July 3rd and 4th is going to be a real party weekend.
Philly, July 3rd, July 4th back in Maryland.
There's going to be a Boston gig on my calendar soon, July 17th, Nashville coming up.
Some report stores in action.
You go to RobbyTheFire.com for links to any of those dates.
All right.
Go check out Robbie the Fire.
Go check out me and Robbie the Fire at our shows in Brooklyn and Connecticut.