Dave Smith and Robbie the Fire Bernstein dissect Senator Rand Paul's Senate hearing exposing Dr. Anthony Fauci, highlighting Paul's challenge regarding booster efficacy for children over five lacking hospitalization data. They scrutinize Fauci's evasive "I doubt it" response to questions about pharmaceutical royalties, noting NIH paid $193 million to 1,800 employees between 2010 and 2016, information only revealed after a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Ultimately, the discussion frames these financial conflicts and policy assumptions as evidence of systemic corruption within the pandemic response apparatus. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Government Too Big00:03:28
Fill her up.
You are listening to the Gash Digital Network.
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 Gash Digital Network.
Here's your host, Dave Smith.
What is up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
I'm Dave Smith.
He's Robbie the Fire Bernstein, the king of the caulks.
COVID Jesus.
We are on our way to Chicago this weekend.
Looking forward to going doing some sold-out shows out there.
We're going to try our best to not become corrupt politicians or murder victims or whatever else happens in Chicago.
Looking forward to that.
Looking forward to this episode today.
How are you, Rob?
I was happening to have more of a cultural experience in Chicago than what you just said.
I mean, why would you go to Chicago and not do Chicago-y things?
That is true.
That is true.
I don't want to come in there with my outside prejudices.
I should go in there, you know, when in Rome.
Yeah, experience the culture.
What are the other really stupid stereotypes about Chicago that I didn't hit?
Well, they like deep dish pizza, which is more of a lasagna.
I feel like they just shouldn't call it pizza.
I'm not saying it's not good, but I don't think I don't.
No, right, exactly.
I don't hate pasta, but we're not going to consider that in the realm of pizza.
Yeah, they should just call it something different.
They also put poppy seeds on the outside of their hot dog buns.
I don't like that either.
Looks like mold.
Makes no sense.
I don't see the appeal.
Are you sure it's not just moldy hot dog buns?
I mean, it could be.
I was pretty hammered when I watched BK Chris eat one, but I'm pretty sure that that's the gimmick.
It's poppy seeds on the outside.
I didn't get it, though.
I have not been to Chicago in quite a while.
I don't remember the last time I was in Chicago, but it might be maybe I'm forgetting a trip, but I think it was like 2018 or something like that.
I think the wins a little bit much.
I don't know why they don't stop that also.
It's like constant.
Well, we're going at a good time.
Yes.
We're going at a good time for Chicago.
Chicago in the winter is a little bit brisk, but I think we picked a nice June Chicago date.
So we'll have some fun.
Anyway, looking forward to seeing everybody out there.
And Rob, I know you got other stuff, a bunch of stuff coming up.
Let them know.
Hell yeah.
Summer porch store, party at people's houses.
Come out.
There are mini festivals.
You hang out.
You drink.
You bring your own booze.
It's a good time.
What do I got?
Atlanta, Texas?
No, Texas already did.
I don't know why I said Texas.
Seattle?
Couple locations.
Denver, just click the link.
I don't know.
Hell yeah, absolutely.
And I also, I have a, my, my website has been redone finally.
I know that was long overdue, but comicdavesmith.com.
I'm going to update that regularly and have all of our gigs up there.
So go on over there.
Fortfest this week or next week.
I mean, it's coming right next week.
Next week.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's coming up soon.
The 23rd will be up there.
Live stand-up show and a live part of the problem.
So also you guys listening who aren't in the areas, you'll have some of these live part of the problem episodes, which I think are very good episodes usually.
Always fun to mix it up with people, take questions, kind of feed off the energy of the crowd.
Ron Paul vs Trump00:15:12
All that's always good.
All right.
So you sent to me, Rob, and I had heard people buzzing about this, but had not had a chance to watch it yet.
But earlier today, there was another one of what has to be one of our favorite things over the last two, two and a half years, which is Senator Rand Paul grilling Fauci, Dr. Anthony Fauci.
By the way, he shouldn't get to be called a doctor.
He should be called some lowly title, like senator.
And we should call Senator Rand Paul doctor.
Doctor's a much more, you know, honorable position than senator.
Well, I think for Fauci, I mean, he's supposed to be the god of science.
So I feel like doctor almost diminishes.
Yeah, it diminishes his accomplishments.
I almost feel like it.
Doctor Truth Science, Anthony Fauci.
And look, I understand some people can give me pushback on this, and I get it.
Where they'll say, look, what does any of this really accomplish?
It's just talking.
And no matter how many times Rand Paul wins the exchanges, Fauci wins a lot more of the policy, you know, like what actually gets enacted than he does.
And that's, that's fair enough.
Although, you know.
What does your favorite TV show accomplish?
All right.
When you go watch a soap opera, what are really the stakes there either?
Why are you going to shit on what I enjoy?
That is part of it.
Part of it is that I just think I don't care.
I just love it.
I just love watching Rand Paul rip this guy apart.
But the other thing is that I actually do think it's a little more complicated than that.
And I do think that Fauci, if he had his way, would still have so many of the draconian policies in place today that were in place at the height of this insanity.
And they're not there.
And at least part of that is that people just don't believe this guy anymore.
And part of that is that he was so exposed by Rand Paul.
Like, I think it's just like, it's foolish to downplay how important that is.
Like, you know, this is a message that I've sent out to a lot of people who are kind of critical of what I'm doing in the Libertarian Party in general.
And they're like, okay, yeah, you get into the Libertarian Party and you say some true things and you introduce ideas to people.
What does that really do?
You know, you're not really seizing power and rolling back the state or anything like that.
But my thing is like, never underestimate the power of ideas.
That's like my, you know, I think, and, and, you know, obviously the authoritarians that run our society, they also believe that.
That's why they propagandize people so much, you know, like that's why they're so into propaganda.
It's not just the state authoritarianism.
They also need to propagandize people in order to be in the right mindset where they will allow this authoritarianism to persist.
And so I think it's, it really is like invaluable when someone like Rand Paul just tears up Fauci and makes him look so foolish.
Like, I think that's really important.
And look, as I've mentioned before on the show, I have a, I guess, a mixed history with Rand Paul.
And I was somebody who was very critical of him in 2016 when he ran for president.
I was, I was really big on Rand Paul way before that.
So I found Rand Paul before he ever talked about running for anything.
He wasn't in politics at all.
He was just an eye doctor.
He was just Ron Paul's kid.
And Ron Paul was, this is back in like 2008 when Ron Paul was running for president.
And Rand was his son.
And he would come out to Ron Paul events and he would speak every now and then.
A couple of times, I think he introduced his father.
And it was really interesting just hearing him speak.
And back then, by the way, I don't know if you can even find any of this stuff on YouTube or whatever.
Maybe you can, but he used to be before he even got into the Senate.
He was really like good.
He was not trying to be a politician at all.
He was just letting it rip.
And he was like really good.
He was really good on everything.
And he really knew his shit.
It was very clearly just like very smart, very well read, very well-educated.
Like it was, you would have been really impressed, Rob.
I'm going to look later and see if I can find some of these things that I'm referring to.
But he was just like knew everything about economics, about government corruption, about foreign policy.
And it was, and when I saw him, I was like, oh, that's so cool that like Ron Paul's kid is so into all this shit.
And then I remember, I think it was in 2009.
So this is when Ron Paul was running for president in 2008 that I saw this.
And then I think in 2009, maybe early 2010, I heard that he announced that he was running for Senate.
And I was like, what?
That's awesome.
That's so awesome that Ron Paul's kid is running for Senate.
Because also I've heard this guy speak before.
I'm like, he's really good.
And like now Ron Paul, not Ron Paul in the House of Representatives, but in the Senate.
We're going to have Rand Paul, you know, but it still seemed like a real long shot that he would actually win and become a senator.
And then the like the Tea Party wave thing just got so huge.
Like the momentum from the Ron Paul campaign went into this Tea Party thing.
And then he kind of rode it in and he won.
And it was just so crazy.
It was like, fucking Rand Paul's a senator.
This is insane.
This is like so cool.
Now for the next generation, we're going to have a Ron Paul, but in the Senate.
Like, you know, it's not like in the House where there's like fucking a thousand of them.
It's in the Senate, but there's only like, you know, a hundred of them.
Like, this is so fucking cool.
And I was so excited at, you know, 2012, Ron Paul ran again.
And then, and Rand Paul was doing real good.
And then there were some things where he started to be not quite as good as his father.
But in 2016, I was really holding out hope that he'd be great.
I was very critical of the presidential campaign.
And at times I was even kind of pissed off at Rand Paul.
But I got to say, man, you know, watching this today and just all the stuff over the last two and a half years that, you know, I was, I was critical of his 2016 campaign.
I think that I didn't, I didn't love how much of a Trumpian he became under Donald Trump.
You know, I understand like supporting Donald Trump.
I understand the argument of being like, he's the Republican guy and he's against all the people Trump's against.
But there were just too many things bad about Trump that I felt like Rand Paul became just a little bit too much, maybe a lot too much of like, I support this guy and not, you know, not loudly enough criticizing him where he was fucking up on so many things.
Sorry, you were going to say.
I think, and I don't have perfect proof of this theory, but it seemed like Rand influenced Trump in a very positive way when it came to foreign affairs, most specifically in disengaging and not having wars in the Middle East.
And I think maybe the compromise was that publicly he couldn't be slamming Trump and then keeping that influence behind closed doors.
I think I okay.
So I think more or less you're right about that.
What I disagree with is that he actually influenced him that positively on foreign policy.
I think you're right.
I think my guess, again, this is like speculation.
I don't know Rand Paul.
I've met Rand Paul like twice.
You met him?
Yeah, we just said a couple words to each other.
I met him once at Kennedy at her show backstage.
And then once when I worked at CNN or at Turner in that building there.
And we just like talked very briefly.
Both times we talked very briefly.
I want to hang out with Room.
I want to hang out with Thomas Massey real bad.
He's been killing on Twitter.
Yeah, I don't know.
You had him on once.
I had him on the podcast.
I had him on the podcast.
I don't think I've ever met him in person, but yeah, I had him on the podcast.
He's great.
Thomas Massey is amazing.
I'm going to try to get him back on.
But Rand, I, so anyway, to my point, I'm not saying this with any type of knowledge of the situation.
I'm just speculating purely.
I think that Rand thought, and some degree understandably, that Trump was like meeting with him regularly.
They had like a good relationship.
And he'd talk to Trump about how he should end all these wars.
And Trump was very receptive to that when they talked.
This is what I've heard from people and what I deduce.
Right.
And so I could understand where from Rand Paul's perspective, he'd be like, look, dude, like I have the ear of the president of the United States of America and he is really in.
Like he agrees with me, you know?
So fuck, I'm not going to fuck that up.
And then you become a little bit more, you know, okay, well, I don't, I can't be out there blasting him because I got to protect this relationship so that I can really influence him.
The problem is that he really never did.
And maybe like on a few things, maybe I don't know.
Maybe Trump would have been worse on foreign policy if Rand Paul hadn't have been in his ear.
That's quite possible.
But still, it wasn't that much of an influence.
And also Lindsey Graham had his ear and all these other like terrible people on foreign policy.
And he made John Bolton his national security advisor.
He didn't make like someone Rand Paul would have, you know, supported.
And then Rand Paul, it just, it just felt like even though Rand Paul would have, no question, I think his voting record on spending and stuff like that would have always been good.
And he would have blasted, he would blast the other Republicans in Congress for passing the high spending bill or something, you know, talking about a completely Republican controlled Congress passing a higher spending bill than Obama had ever passed, which all of this seems dwarfed by today's spending, but still.
But the fact that he would, you know, I remember, by the way, this is, I'm just like thinking of random things now, but I remember in one of those old speeches that I was talking about when I first found Rand Paul before he was even in politics, and he was talking about Ron Paul.
And I remember he told this story before he introduced Ron Paul to speak at this event.
And again, not a politician, not running for anything, just a doctor who was Ron Paul's kid.
And he goes, he said that he goes, you know, my father, Ron Paul, was one of the first, he was one of the only three members of Congress to endorse Ronald Reagan in the primary, to endorse him for president of the United States.
And because Ronald Reagan was out there saying that socialism is evil and will never embrace socialism and, you know, government isn't the solution.
Government is the problem.
And he was saying we're going to drastically slash government spending and taxes and all of this stuff and rein in inflation and all of the 70s and Jimmy Carter and all that stuff.
And so he goes, so as soon as he was saying that stuff, my father was out there supporting him, one of the first people to support him.
He goes, do you know how long it took my father to withdraw his support from Ronald Reagan?
And he goes, his first budget, the first budget that got passed, which of course increased spending.
And Ron Paul went that said, I'm out.
I don't support you anymore.
You are full.
You know, he would never say you were full of shit.
That's my words.
But Ron Paul in his good country doctor way would have said, you know, whatever.
So that I remember him telling that story and being like, and I remember watching him being like, that's so awesome.
Isn't that so awesome?
That's the guy you want to be on.
The guy who'd support you when it was risky to support you and then throw you under the bus when it was risky to throw, not throw you under the bus, you know, and withdraw support when it was risky to withdraw support because you just weren't being principled enough.
And I remember thinking about that when Rand Paul was just blindly supporting Trump in 2020 as, you know, for his like giving speeches in Kentucky to try to get people to vote for him.
And you're like, I don't know, dude, like you bragged about your father, you know, withdrawing support because this guy had a spending bill that when he said he was going to cut spending and he raised spending.
So I won't support him anymore.
And that here you are, the guy who rode in on the Tea Party wave and you're supporting the guy who's the biggest government president in the history of the country at the time.
Joe Biden's passed him, but at the time, you know?
And anyway, it's just hard.
It's hard to see that and not be.
Now, I know he wasn't endorsing specifically the spending.
And I know there's a lot of other aspects, but there's just something about that where it's like, hey, you're just not being that what I had hoped you would be.
Anyway, my point is, so I've had these criticisms of Rand Paul in the past.
But man, you got to say that over the last couple years, I mean, what he's done, the kind of lighthouse that he's been on all this COVID stuff has just been incredible.
He's just been, and he's been there since.
Like, it seems like right now with the stuff we're about to play today, it seems like it doesn't quite take that much courage right now to really give it to Fauci.
But there were times when he was doing it.
And I know you, you know what I mean, Rob, where it was really like, oh shit, this takes some balls to do.
Like this takes like, this takes real courage to stand up to this guy the way he is.
And he's just, he's really made me, whatever things we've had in the past with how I've felt about him.
He's made me really proud of him over the last two and a half years with the way he's handled the COVID stuff.
So I really have to give him credit for that.
There's just been so many great moments, so many great moments of him just tearing Fauci up.
Remember when Fauci was wearing the mask and he just wearing two masks, I think, and he just called him out.
He goes, this is complete theater.
Protect Your IP00:02:20
You don't even believe in this.
He's like, you're not even, we've seen pictures of you without the mask on around people.
Just take it off.
You know, it's just like calling him out on it right to his face.
It's so great.
So great.
Anyway, okay.
So we're going to play.
Anything you want to add before we jump to the video?
No, I think that these things are very valid.
And I think at some juncture in time, when like the 9-11 story, I mean, you watch like, it's now you're allowed to criticize the Bush administration.
You're allowed to talk about how they were torturing people.
At some point, the wheel turns.
I mean, look at what happened to Purdue with the OxyContin.
Like at some point, the wheel turns.
And when it does, I think that these videos of Rand Paul against Fauci will be a criticism of the entire system of, well, we did know.
Actually, these questions were in plain sight.
They couldn't have been more obvious.
The entire system was ignoring it.
Like, so yeah, like it's an important record that like, no, not everyone, not everyone didn't know.
Like, yeah, here, here we are on record with someone, a U.S. senator, knowing exactly what's going on.
Yeah, I think you're absolutely right about that.
All right, guys, let's take a second and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is IP Vanish.
Very happy to have them back on the show.
IP Vanish has been a long time sponsor of ours.
Great to have them back with us.
Let me tell you about IP Vanish.
If you care about the security of your online activity, the easiest way to protect yourself is with an IP Vanish VPN.
Rated 4.5 out of 5 on TrustPilot, IP Vanish provides an encrypted connection for all of your internet traffic, helping to prevent websites, Wi-Fi providers, and even hackers from intercepting your data.
You can keep financial details, personal information, and online activity safe from threats with IP Vanish.
Get started with this limited time offer and save 50% off the monthly and annual subscriptions by going to ipvanish.com/slash problem.
One more time, that's ipvanish.com/slash problem, all lowercase.
It's really important today to protect your online privacy.
It's only going to become more and more important.
I highly recommend you check this out: ipvanish.com/slash problem.
All right, let's get back on the show.
Vaccine Risk Assumptions00:15:29
Okay, all right, let's start up.
Uh, let's start this up and we'll go through this a bit.
And this will be fun.
So, here's Rand Paul going.
Oh, by the way, we didn't even say, I guess, but Fauci's at home because he's got COVID.
He's faking COVID.
No, Rob, come on.
He didn't want to show up.
Let me have this.
How beautiful and poetic.
The virus that he made turned against him, like a son turning against its father.
Like, do you think when COVID first infected him, he was like, No, you work for me.
I made you.
I gave the grant money.
Sure, it was through a subsidiary, but still.
Anyway, supposedly, Fauci's at home with COVID.
Rob wants to fucking ruin everybody's parade.
Triple boosted, been wearing a mask everywhere.
I mean, how does a guy like that get COVID?
Right.
Well, I mean, Rob, if he wasn't triple boosted, he'd be dead.
Right.
If he was double boosted, he'd be in the hospital.
With the vaccine that works on the earlier versions and gives you antibodies you don't need while reducing other natural immunity.
Scientifically, you're correct, but still, if he wasn't vaccinated, he'd be dead.
Sorry, go ahead, Brian.
We can play.
Government recommends everybody take a booster over age five.
Are you aware of any studies that show reduction in hospitalization or death for children who take a booster right now?
There's not enough data that has been accumulated, Senator Paul, to indicate that that's the case.
I believe that the recommendation that was made was based on the assumption that if you look at the morbidity and mortality of children within each of the age groups, you know, zero to five, five to eleven.
So let's, so there are no studies.
Yep, pause it.
Come on, let's let's take every second of this apart because it's really incredible.
I believe the recommendation was based off of the assumption is an unbelievable sentence.
I believe.
In other words, I don't know what, I don't know for fact, but I believe the recommendation was based off the assumption.
It's a lot of weasel words.
It's a lot of weasel words to fit into a recommendation that you should boost your five-year-old.
Well, the starting point is no, we have no evidence of the fact of that kids are the kids.
What was the question?
Kids that have already had the virus are being either, in other words, is natural immunity not working in kids.
Hold on, let's pull it back to the beginning.
Pull back to the beginning of this because I want to actually go through the wording of this question just to be very, very specific on what we're saying.
If you don't mind, Brian, just start from the beginning of the video.
Let's pull that, play the first question, and we'll go through this again.
Dr. Fauci, the government recommends everybody take a booster over age five.
Are you aware of any studies that show reduction in hospitalization or death for children who take a booster right now?
There's not enough data that has been accumulated, Senator Paul, to indicate that that's the case.
I believe that the recommendation that was made was based on the assumption that if you look at the morbidity and mortality of children within each of the age groups, you know, zero to five, five to eleven.
So there are no studies, and Americans should all know this.
Pause it right there.
So they're, yeah, he's saying that they're recommending boosting five-year-olds.
And Rand Paul is saying, is there any study that indicates we're talking about five-year-olds that getting a third vaccine of another booster or a booster that this does anything to reduce their chance of being hospitalized or dying?
He's saying, no, there's none.
We just don't have the data.
And then to your point, but I believe it's based on the assumption that, and has basically no words after that that mean anything.
It's just kind of based off an assumption.
There's really something unbelievable.
It was the start of this is already like insane.
So you're recommending something that you have no evidence to back up is the right thing to do.
That you would think that like if you were going to recommend that five-year-olds have some medical event, anything that is pretty new.
And there are certainly some risks with, and then there's some unknowns, you know, about like, let's not pretend anyone, even the people who are very skeptical about the vaccine, understand everything about what the risks are for taking this vaccine for little kids.
Who knows?
But the idea that you would recommend they take this without even having some evidence that it's going, that there's a reason to no, we just, I assume it, or what do you say?
I believe it's based off the assumption.
It's not a lot to go on.
I believe it's based off the assumption.
And ideal wiggle words, you know, like in there.
And there's some things you got to understand at this point with the boosters.
I think they work for about six weeks only.
And the only utility that they have is boosting the antibodies.
And it's the antibodies for the original version of COVID.
They had claimed that they were going to come out with boosters for like the new variants.
They never did.
So they're only supposed to be last month.
Right.
So they're only they said it like five months ago.
They said I think by May they would have it, but they haven't.
So at best, you're boosting people's antibodies for a um what's a falling like period of time.
Like if you look at the chart of how long the antibodies last, it seems like on each each booster, it's a little bit less.
And even though it's minuscule, you're also increasing risks for things such as myocarditis, which is particularly apparent in the younger age groups, younger boys.
Now, I'm not saying it's a high risk, but I'm saying it's more apparent in that age group than it is for like 50-year-old women.
So he's about, yeah, Rand Paul mentions here.
Let's let Rand Paul mention this.
Then I want to talk about exactly what you just mentioned.
So here, let's keep playing.
So there are no studies, and Americans should all know this.
There are no studies on children showing a reduction in hospitalization or death with taking a booster.
The only studies that were permitted, the only studies that were presented were antibody studies.
So they say if we give you a booster, you make antibodies.
Now, a lot of scientists would question whether or not that's proof of efficacy of a vaccine.
If I give you 10, or if I give a patient 10 mRNA vaccines and they make protein each time or they make antibody each time, is that proof that we should give 10 boosters, Dr. Fauci?
No, I think that is somewhat of an absurd exaggeration.
So that is the proof that you use.
Your committee.
So let's pause.
Yes, pause it, pause it, pause it.
Oh, my God.
So he says that is an absurd exaggeration.
It's like, no, what it is, is a reducto abadsurdum.
That's the point.
So you take something to its logical conclusion to disprove the logic of something.
Like, of course, it's an exaggeration, I guess, but the point is that you're saying if this is what you use to justify, it's in the same sense that if you go, they go, we shouldn't have a $12 minimum wage.
We should have a $15 minimum wage.
And then you go, well, why not $100 minimum wage?
Right?
Like, if you're just saying, oh, it's just better the higher it is, why not go much higher?
Right?
Like, and now someone go, oh, that's an absurd exaggeration.
You go, no, the point is to ask you, why?
Why shouldn't we have a $100 minimum wage?
And then if they have to admit, well, that would cause a lot of problems.
You go, okay, okay.
So you acknowledge that raising it at some point causes a lot of problems, right?
So then let's look at where the problems are caused and why the problems are caused.
That's what Rand Paul is doing here.
It's an absurdo abductum.
So you or reductum.
Anyway, so the point is that if there's no actual studies that say that this reduces hospitalization or death, and all they're saying is like, well, no, but we do have these studies that say that it increases antibodies.
And he's like, well, yeah, but like every RNA shot that we give you is going to increase antibodies.
That doesn't lead to the conclusion that it's going to like fucking reduce hospitalization or death.
So why not give you a whole bunch of them?
Why not give you a ton of them?
Why don't I give them 10 boosters?
Oh, why not?
And he goes, well, that's just absurd.
It's like, no, you just don't have a fucking response to that.
You are advocating that we do something to five-year-olds and you have no answer for why this makes any sense.
I just think about that.
It's unbelievable.
Anyway, Rob, I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
No, no, no.
That was the point to cover.
Got it.
Okay.
All right.
Let's keep playing.
Is that proof that we should give 10 boosters, Dr. Fauci?
No, I think that is somewhat of an absurd exaggeration.
So that is the proof that you use.
Your committees use that.
That's the only proof you have to tell children to take a booster is that they make antibodies.
So it's not an absurdity.
You're already at like five boosters for people.
You've had, you know, two or three boosters.
It's like, where is the proof?
Now, I think there is probably some indication for older folks that have some risk factors.
For younger folks, there's not.
But here's the other thing.
There are some risk factors for the vaccine.
So the risk of myocarditis with a second dose for adolescent boys 12 to 24 is about 80 in a million.
This is both from the CDC and from the Israeli study.
It's also in the VAER study, remarkably similar for boys, much higher from boys than girls and much higher than the background.
The background's about two per million.
So there is risk and there are risks.
And you're telling everybody in America, just blindly go out there because we made antibodies.
So it is not an absurd corollary to say if you have 10.
In fact, you probably make antibodies if you get 100 boosters.
All right.
That's not science.
That's conjecture.
And we should not be making public policy on it.
So, Senator Paul, if I might respond to that, we just heard in his opening statement, ranking member Burr talk about his staff who went to Israel.
And if you look at the data from Israel, the boosts, both the third shot boost and the fourth shot boost, was associated with a clear-cut clinical effect, mostly in elderly people, but also as they gathered more data, even in people in the 40s and the 50s.
So there is clinical data, but not in children.
Well, see, here's the thing is, you're not willing to be honest with the American people.
So, for example, 75% of kids have had the disease.
Why is the CDC not including this in the data?
You can ask the question.
You can do laboratory tests to find out who's had it and who hasn't had the disease.
What is the incidence of hospitalization and death for children who've been infected with COVID, subsequently going to the hospital or dying?
What is the possibility if your kid has had COVID, which is 75% of the country's had COVID?
What is the chance that my child's going to the hospital or dying?
If you look at the number of deaths in pediatrics, Senator, you can see that there are more deaths of people who have had it.
Of people who have had the disease.
Senator, we also know from other studies that the optimal degree of protection, when you get infection, is to get vaccinated after infection.
And in fact, showing reinfection in the era of Omicron and the sub-lineages that vaccinate.
But you can't answer the question I asked.
The question I ask is: how many kids are dying and how many kids are going to the hospital who've already had COVID?
The answer may be zero, but you're not even giving us the data because you have so much wanted to protect everybody from all the data because we're not smart enough to look at the data.
When you released data earlier, when the CDC released the data, they left out the category of 18 to 49 on whether or not there was a health benefit for adults 18 to 49.
Why was it left out?
When critics finally complained, it was finally included because there was no health benefit from taking a booster between the 18 to 49 in the CDC study.
Another question for you.
Let's pause it for a second.
So there's a lot there to kind of break down.
So look, I understand that some people could say when Rand Paul goes, you know, the risk of myocarditis was with the from, what was the range?
It was like from 80 to 10 million.
Oh, no, I'm sorry, from the age range.
It was eight years old to something.
It was young boys.
That it was 80 per million, whereas typically it would be two per million.
Now, I understand where people could go, okay, these are all very low numbers, you know?
But man, if you got kids, the idea of increasing a risk of something like that from two out of a million to 80 out of a million is that's serious.
That's very serious.
Like you're telling me something that will drastically increase by 40 times increase a very bad health outcome for my kid.
I understand.
Still unlikely that it's going to happen, but you know, we're talking about recommending policy for hundreds of millions of, well, okay, not at that age, but for millions of Americans and then around the world, you know, you get to probably hundreds of millions.
That's a very serious thing when you don't have any evidence to show that it actually helps.
You know what I mean?
Like that's a very serious thing to like start talking about, increasing children's risk of very negative outcomes.
And again, this is just like what we know about.
That is, you would think to ever justify that for children, you would have to have really sound, like very strong evidence that the positives far outweigh these risks.
Crypto and Metals00:04:43
And he has nothing.
He has absolutely nothing.
And as Rand Paul continues to grill him about, you know, what evidence they have that kids who have been infected, he says, look, 75% of kids who have been infected, what is the death rate or what is the hospitalization rate for those kids who have been infected?
He doesn't even pretend to have a number for this.
Doesn't certainly sound like a pandemic then.
I mean, certainly doesn't sound like something with an emergency use authorization is needed.
I mean, if you don't even have a record of substantial amount of death, why would you use experimental technologies?
What is even the reason to be looking for a cure for something that's not a problem?
Yep.
That is, it does seem like that's the question that you would be asking.
And it's, it's, you know, again, Rand Paul asks a very simple question and he just starts beating around the bush because he doesn't have an answer for it.
You know, you would feel more comfortable if he would ever at any moment just go, look, I'll be honest, we don't know that.
We don't know that.
But here's what we do know, you know, but it's never that.
It's always just kind of like trying to play this game.
All right.
Was there anything else there that we should also say he skirts it by saying, well, the reason why we're recommending it is because we have data that one shot after having had COVID is still better.
Now, I would love to know what studies do you have that that's true in kids?
And why is one shot after natural immunity better?
And do you have any data of that one shot preventing hospital or death?
And without all that, why do you still want to stand by a recommendation?
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is I trust capital.
I don't know if you've been paying attention lately, but prices are what the kids like to say higher.
Prices are going up.
And that's because your currency is being devalued.
And that is why more people are interested in precious metals and cryptocurrency than ever before.
Every week, you can see this stuff in the news.
Look, crypto is being more ingrained in our society than ever before.
Precious metals are more important than ever to own.
And the dollar is weaker than it's ever been.
The smartest investors who are investing in crypto and precious metals, they're doing it through their IRAs and 401k retirement accounts.
The easiest way to do that is with iTrust Capital.
All iTrust accounts are IRAs, which means you can invest and trade gold and crypto 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 penalty and no 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 makes investing in physical gold and silver easy.
iTrust uses a blockchain ledger that gives you digital ownership of physical gold held at the Royal Canadian Mint.
So you're not holding a security or derivative.
This isn't a promise that gold will be owed to you.
This is fully backed by physical gold that is deliverable upon request.
And the best part of iTrust Capital, they have low transparent pricing that is 90% cheaper than their competitors.
So if you're looking for an IRA to trade crypto and precious metals tax-free, go to itrustcapital.com right now.
Use the promo code P-O-T-P.
That'll get you your first month free, and you'll get a free crypto IRA and gold IRA investors guide.
So once more, go to itrustcapital.com, use the promo code P-O-T-P for your first month free, and you'll receive their crypto IRA and gold IRA investors guide at no cost.
Plus, if you're interested in learning more information about iTrust Capital, I recorded a short conversation with the CEO.
He's a great guy.
He explained everything they do.
That is up on the Gas Digital sponsor page.
So definitely go check that out.
iTrustcapital.com, promo code P-O-T-P.
Let's get back into the show.
I just want to get some like the numbers of like, well, what do you mean after one shot after like having it is better?
One Shot Survival00:07:54
Because no one, they've completely given up.
Do you remember?
By the way, we read that one guy, the Cato Institute guy, who said at one point, do you?
I don't know if you remember this.
He was making the libertarian case for lockdowns or whatever.
Or no, maybe it wasn't lockdowns.
It was some other thing, but we did a whole episode on this.
It might have been for vaccine mandates.
I can't even remember.
But he said that we know that the vaccine is more effective than natural immunity.
And me and you were like, what?
No, we don't.
No, no, we do not know that.
Yeah, it was the libertarian case for vaccine mandates.
And they were like, that is not true at all.
And that at the time, it's so weird how these things change.
At the time, that was kind of a controversial view, but we're like, no, no, no, no.
If you're actually following the shit, it's not more.
No one's even arguing that anymore.
Fauci's not arguing that.
No one's arguing that the vaccine gives stronger.
But they'll go, well, but natural immunity, now that so many more people have natural immunity, they go, but natural immunity plus the vaccine is better than just natural immunity, which, by the way, is an interesting little admission.
Because once you admit that natural immunity is stronger than the vaccine, you know, is it?
It's like, Rob, I mean, look, you know, remember there was a time not too long ago when me and you couldn't go to a restaurant in many cities across the country.
But now they'll admit that someone who hasn't had the virus, but has had the vaccine is less safe than people like me and you who have had the virus, but not had the vaccine.
So that in itself is kind of, but so now where there's, no, no, no, but having the virus and the vaccine is better.
Okay, that's what you want to argue.
But what are we talking about at this point?
For people, if you're talking about people who have had natural immunity, so that means they've had the virus, they've recovered from the virus, and you're saying, but they're better if they get the vaccine too.
Okay, fine.
But let me know, what is the death rate for people who have already had the virus?
You know, like right away, let's start with: if you've had, if you've had COVID and you have natural immunity, what's the death rate for those people?
And then tell me how it's improved by getting another, by getting a vaccine or getting another vaccine, whatever it is, a booster.
Because I'm telling you right away, the numbers at the very beginning of the pandemic.
I remember us going over this when we were just looking at the data in April of 2020, in May of 2020, where you're looking at that.
I don't know if you remember this, but back in those podcasts, at the very beginning, where we were starting to look at the death rate for ages, you know, 60 to 79, 50 to 59, 30 to 49, you know, like all these like different rates that you'd look at.
And with the original variant, it was much deadlier, a much higher death rate.
You without any vaccine, without any natural immunity, you were already for a young, healthy person, you were already talking about a 99% survival rate, you know?
So now you have these variants, these variants, the Omicron and the other Omicron variants that they have now, which are much less deadly than those variants at the beginning, have a much lower death rate than those at the beginning.
So what's the death rate just with that?
I mean, no natural immunity, no vaccine, nothing just from that.
Now, it was 99.9 for young, healthy people back then.
I don't know exactly what the number is now, but it's higher than that.
Now add in natural immunity, which by the way, as everyone acknowledges now, is stronger than the vaccine.
So for young, healthy people who have natural immunity, you're now talking about 99.999.
You know what I mean?
Like, what is the fucking the I'm sorry, I shouldn't say that's the death rate, that's the survival rate, whatever.
But you get the point I'm making, right?
Like, what are we talking about after there's these weaker variants, the more contagious but less deadly variants, and young people who have already natural immunity?
What are we talking about here?
So when Rand Paul starts saying, but adding in the vaccine takes you from just in this one, with this one thing with myocarditis, this one thing takes you from two in a million to 80 in a million.
Like if you're adding this risk factor, what the fuck are we even talking about?
You're talking about something that has almost statistically speaking, practically speaking, 0% chance of killing you.
What are we talking about here?
Anyway, it's unbelievable after to go from March of 2020 to now that this is what they're reduced to.
This is what they're reduced to arguing.
All right.
Anyway, anything you have to say about that?
I don't know.
I would also think having had COVID and surviving it makes everyone feel a lot more comfortable with the idea of getting COVID because the fear of the unknown, when it's not known, it's very scary.
And I think we all kind of had, even the first time I got COVID, I was like, ah, shit, am I about to, is God about to, you know, make me into a sucker for having been a loudmouth about this whole thing?
Like, am I, I know that feeling where you go, I'm going to look like an asshole right now if I die from COVID.
I'm like, ah, shit, is this, am I about, was I just wrong?
And I'm going to like that video that that guy put together that we were joking COVID Jesus, is that going to be a real thing?
But for anyone who's had COVID, or if you tell me there's a 75% chance your kid has had COVID and he survived it, aren't you a lot less concerned?
Isn't that kind of evidence of the fact that you're going to survive it, especially as the variants are getting less deadly?
Like it would just seem that all logic would suggest, I don't really think I need something.
And then I guess maybe it's got full authorization now, but I would go back to that point of if there's no evidence for needing something, why are you pushing it, especially if the initial authorization was only for cases of an emergency?
Like, what about we almost have to go back to the drawing table and go, does this situation constitute an emergency that we should even be pushing this?
Like, you know, I don't know.
People seem to forget about that point.
Yeah.
No, I think, I think you're absolutely right.
Absolutely right.
It's for this type of like the what the actual risk is, what people actually understand about it now versus, you know, the risks of the vaccine.
It's just, this doesn't make any sense.
State it differently.
We're also just completely discounting the long-term risk of the fact that there were no long-term studies.
So this would tie into what I'm saying with it having come from an emergency authorization.
So I guess in an emergency situation, you might go, yes, we don't have the traditional data of a long-term study.
However, it's an emergency.
But when it's no longer an emergency and there's no evidence of the fact that you have concerns, so then why would you overlook the fact that there's no long-term studies?
That doesn't make sense anymore.
Yep.
Exactly.
All right.
Let's keep playing.
Nine in the CDC study.
Another question for you.
Emergency Authorization Doubts00:14:38
The NIH continues to refuse to voluntarily divulge the names of scientists who receive royalties and from which companies.
Over the period of time from 2010 to 2016, 27,000 royalty payments were paid to 1,800 NIH employees.
We know that, not because you told us, but because we forced you to tell us through the Freedom of Information Act.
Over $193 million was given to these 18 employees, 1,800 employees.
Can you tell me that you have not received a royalty from any entity that you ever oversaw the distribution of money in research grants?
Well, first of all, let's talk about a royalty payment from a company that you later oversaw money going to that company.
You know, I don't know as a fact, but I doubt it.
Well, here's the thing is, why don't you let us know?
Let's just pause it right there.
Let's pause it right there.
Wow.
Wow.
Rand Paul asks straight up.
First of all, he gives you the numbers that there's this incredibly huge amount of money that's been paid from pharmaceutical companies to these people who are supposed to be overseeing this whole, you know, like government medical apparatus and asks Fauci, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Truth Science, straight up.
Have you ever received money from the companies that you're supposed to be overseeing?
And what's his answer, Rob?
What does he have to say to you?
I doubt it.
You know what I doubt it?
I doubt it.
You know what I doubt it is?
It's a non-answer because you're not saying no.
Because if you say no, then you can be in trouble for lying, which is the whole point of appearing before the Senate.
Right.
So he says, I doubt it.
I, I, well, I doubt it.
First off, he tried to start not answering the question.
Rand Paul held him to it, made him answer.
So that's what we'll say, I doubt it.
You go, you can't just say, you're telling me, man, with everything that this country has been through in the last couple of years, that you can't just look at the American people and go, I will release all the information.
I will let you know exactly what I was paid and what I was paid for.
You can't say that.
And then, of course, even more important than just Fauci, because Fauci is just the face man.
It's not like he's who matters, but you're like, wow, who did all this other money go to?
And as Rand Paul points out, it's not that they offered up this information, it's that they sued using the Freedom of Information Act.
They forced them to release this information.
Oh, yeah, look at that.
I'll tell you, this is one thing, and we'll play the rest of this, which gets more and more interesting.
This is something, Rob, I give you a lot of credit for because you were right on this.
You know, me and you collectively have been right on, let's just say, to be modest, everything over the last, you know, four or five years.
But you would always say this, and I really appreciate that you would always say when we were talking all about the vaccine push, you would go, there's money being made here.
There's big money being made here.
And you would say, I don't know exactly how.
I don't know exactly how they're paying them off, but there's big money being made here from Fauci and all these other like scientists, doctors in the NIH, in the CDC, all of them.
They're making a lot of money off of this.
And I always tended to go, yeah, I think you're right about that.
But now, more and more evidence is coming out that you are exactly right about that.
You're exactly right.
Your instincts were correct.
You know, your instincts to shave your head when that thing started receding were correct.
Your instincts to partner up with me for life and make sure that we fucking do.
That was correct.
And you were correct about this.
You know, I remember, you know what I'm talking about.
You always say this.
You used to always go, something smells here.
Like, it's just too weird that they're all pushing pharmaceutical products rather than like sitting here and soberly assessing the science.
It just doesn't make sense.
It just doesn't add up.
You were right.
So take your victory, lap, Rob.
Making those dollars.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Yo Kratom.
Yo, Kratom is the place to get Kratom.
Now, if you don't know what Kratom is, if you're not a fan of Kratom, then you could probably just ignore this.
But if you are a fan of Kratom, go get your Kratom at yokratom.com.
They are the marquee sponsor of SkankFest.
They're a huge sponsor of this show, a huge sponsor of Legion of Skanks.
They're the main sponsor of Yo MMA rap.
They support our brand of comedy and free speech and everything that we're about more than anyone else.
So go to yokratom.com if you're a fan of Kratom.
They're the home of the $60 kilo.
It's the best deal you'll ever get in Kratom.
It's lab tested.
It's great stuff, according to everyone who I've heard back from.
Go to yokratom.com, the home of the $60 kilo.
Please, if you like Kratom, this is where you need to get Kratom for now on.
It's the best deal and it's the best stuff, and you're going to love it.
Go check it out, yokratom.com.
All right, let's get back into the show.
All right, let's keep playing.
Why don't you let us know?
Why don't you reveal how much you've gotten and from what entities?
The NIH refuses.
We ask them.
We ask them.
The NIH, we ask them whether or not who got it and how much.
They refuse to tell us.
They sent it redacted.
Here's what I want to know.
It's not just about you.
Everybody on the vaccine committee.
Have any of them ever received money from the people who make vaccines?
Can you tell me that?
Can you tell me if anybody on the vaccine approval committees ever received any money?
Sound bite number one.
Pause it already.
I'm sorry.
Pause it right there.
Like he is getting upset that this question is being asked.
What an important question.
Like, imagine getting upset that someone's going, hey, has anyone on the vaccine approval committee taken money from the people making the vaccines?
But that's a really important question.
That's like, how are they?
And he's already, Senator, will you, will you let me answer the question?
Will you let me answer the question?
Has anyone on the committee that's telling the American people right now, as this vaccine has been pushed over the last, what is it?
How long has the vaccine been out now?
For a year and a half, almost something in that ballpark?
For this last year and a half, where millions of Americans, tens of millions of Americans have taken the vaccine.
Tens of millions Americans, tens of millions of Americans have been pressured, let's say, into taking the vaccine.
Millions have been forced into taking the vaccine.
Is it reasonable to ask, are the people, the quote, doctors and quote scientists who have been pushing this vaccine, have they been paid money by the people making the vaccine who are raking in insane profits off of this?
Is that a reasonable question to be asked?
Don't you think that you should be like, if you weren't a corrupt, lying piece of shit, that you would be happy to have that question asked and answer it and go, yeah, yeah, yeah.
No, listen, let me clear this all up for you right now.
That's not at all what's going on.
Don't you think you wouldn't interrupt them and go, Senator Paul, let me tell you that none of that is what's happening here.
You know what I mean?
Like, don't you think you would be very quick?
Okay, so let's see.
What does Fauci have to say?
Let me answer that question.
Sound bite number one.
Are you going to let me answer a question?
Okay, so let me give you some information.
First of all, according to the regulations, people who receive royalties are not required to divulge them, even on their financial statement, according to the Buy Doll Act.
So let me give you some.
I'm going to pause again.
Because before he gets into his example, firstly, the same exact thing happened with the NIH director when they asked him, he goes, well, we don't have to.
Yeah, but that's the issue.
The issue is that, in other words, you're saying that, yes, you can potentially be taking money from the exact companies that you're then pushing to the public and you're supposed to be regulating.
Like, so you're saying that, yes, theoretically, this could happen.
And then, all right, then firstly, is it happening?
Second, what kind of regulation?
How do we oversee this?
Imagine not happening.
Imagine, let's just say, right, that there's, I don't know, let's say I have like a an account where you can fund me.
You can give me money.
And I don't have to tell you.
There's a law that says I don't have to tell you who the money comes from.
But someone, you know, I'm talking about how America shouldn't be funding and arming Ukraine in the war against Russia, right?
Like Russia invades Ukraine, and I'm saying America should stay out of it.
And someone went to me, they go, you know, you're, you have this fund where people are giving you money.
Let me ask you something.
Is like, is the Russian government giving you a bunch of money?
Are you being paid by the Russian government to tell us that we shouldn't be funding this war?
Because of course, just like anything, like if I was against the war in Iraq, that is in Saddam Hussein's interest.
If I'm against, you know, the banker bailouts, that is in the interest of the American people.
I don't know.
Like, you know, whatever policy you're going to take, it's always in someone's interest.
And I don't think that necessarily means you're corrupt if the people whose interest that's in wanted to pay you.
But if you in the example in Ukraine, Russia, if I was, if you were asking me that, and I'm not being funded by them, obviously we're not.
Don't you wish we were?
But obviously, we're not being funded by that.
If you were to ask me that, I'd go, yeah, no, I'm not getting any money from them.
It's that easy.
Go, no, the Russians aren't giving me any money.
I'm just telling you what I think about that.
And if they were, you know, you could answer it.
We'd go, yeah, they are.
But to be honest, I would tell you this either way.
Like, you could just be a real person.
You could be an honest human being and tell them that.
But if your response is, well, the regulations say that they don't have to tell you.
I don't have to tell you if they're funding me.
It's like, yeah, okay.
And that's what Rand Paul is trying to change.
But anyway, isn't that already just so fucking amazing that Rand Paul, the question Rand Paul just asked and the answer that he just received?
And the point being, yeah, that's a fucking problem.
If you're 10 or are receiving money and then you don't want to tell us about whether or not you are or aren't, this is a real issue.
But it's a fun part of my example.
Yeah.
Yes.
My example fails because the real problem with all of this is that you're fucking influencing or implementing government policy.
Like you're actually fucking enforcing this on other people.
So are you getting rich?
Are other people around you getting rich while you do this?
So anyway, okay, let's go back to what Fauci has to say from 2015 to 2020.
I, the only royalties I have was my lab and I made a monoclonal antibody for use in vitro reagent that had nothing to do with patients.
And during that period of time, my royalties range from $21 a year to $17,700 a year.
And the average per year was $191.46.
It's all redacted.
It's all redacted and you can't get any information on the 1800s.
Your time is long.
We want to know whether or not people got money from the people who made the manufacturing.
Senator Paul, your time is long over expired.
I gave you an additional two and a half minutes.
The witness has responded.
We are going to move on.
Senator Sanders.
All right.
By the way, I feel like Bowtie Guy, if you go like look at their body language, Walakinsky, whatever that lady's name is, is like so happy she wasn't asked any questions.
And I feel like Bowtie Guy, when I see him speak, he knows he's dirty.
He feels bad about it.
I get the read on him where he's like, he doesn't want to be there.
And he knows that he knows.
You know, it's crazy that Fauci can't even be like, look, like it's not he, what he answered with there almost sounds okay.
Like he went, well, look, from 2010 to 2016, I know that I, I, you know, I believe my royalties were only like a few hundred dollars.
So that's not a thing.
But you're like, okay, well, that's a six-year span.
And maybe he's telling the truth.
Six Year Wealth Span00:02:43
We don't really know.
But that's not really the broader question, right?
Like the broader question you would have to ask is like, no, but like since you've been in this, like from 1985 to 2022, what have you made?
You know, like, what have you been paid?
And he didn't answer that.
He picked, he just goes, I know from this little period of time, this is what I meant.
It's like, but what else?
What else happened in between there?
And what about the other scientists who are on the vaccine advisory board and the CDC and the fucking NIH and all this shit?
What about them?
It's like, it's not as if he went, look, none of this, he didn't sit there and go, look, none of the scientists who are recommending this stuff have gotten rich off of payments from pharmaceutical companies.
None of them.
Like, you know, he didn't even say anything like that, that you couldn't like wouldn't even be like a thing that you could like really prove or disprove.
But he didn't, he doesn't say anything like that.
He goes, well, look, in these six years, I didn't get rich off of it.
He's, it's, look, this is very clear, man.
Don't you at the least who the fuck, what, what person who's honest wouldn't think that we should know whether Fauci and all of these other people on the vaccine advisory board, on the CDC, on NH, NIH, whether they've gotten rich off of these pharmaceutical companies or not.
Who would argue that that shouldn't be public information?
Who would?
The most, I'm an anarchist telling you that that should be public information.
No, I thought he meant literally the who, like the world Horthy Organization run by Bill Gates.
They would.
They're the only people.
Excellent.
Yes, Rob.
That's right.
Besides the who, who would not be for that?
And you can see this.
Look at the squirmy shit this guy's doing.
So I'll tell you, again, just pulling back to what I said at the very beginning of the show, I think it's like invaluable that Rand Paul creates these moments.