Dr. Anthony Fauci rose from obscurity during COVID-19, clashing with Trump while defending U.S.-funded Wuhan lab research—$600K via EcoHealth Alliance—despite emails hinting at engineered claims and collaborations with Chinese scientists like Xi Zengli. His book’s Amazon removal and evasive stance on Communist Party ties fuel skepticism. Meanwhile, Rebel News exposed secretive British Columbia court bans shielding a child’s forced gender transition from media scrutiny, proving publication restrictions stifle transparency. Both cases reveal elite control over narratives, whether health or legal, often at the expense of public truth. [Automatically generated summary]
I'm going to take you through a few of those emails that were released from Anthony Fauci.
He's the public health guru in the United States.
Very curious, and especially about this concept called gain of function.
Have you ever heard that phrase before?
It's very new to me.
It means to weaponize viruses on purpose.
And I want to talk about that and use these emails as a backdrop for that.
Before I do, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebnews Plus.
That's the video version of these podcasts.
It's eight bucks a month, but in addition to my daily video, you get shows from Sheila Gunrid and David Menzies, Andrew Chapatos.
This week he interviews Zubi, which is amazing.
And the eight bucks a month, hopefully it's not too much, too big a pill to swallow for you, but it actually really adds up for us if enough people get together and chip in eight bucks.
That's how we pay the bills around here.
So please do go to RebelNews.com and click subscribe.
Okay, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, do you actually know who Anthony Fauci is?
I wonder if any of us do.
It's June 2nd, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government is because it's my bloody right to do so.
You know who Dr. Anthony Fauci is, right?
Three Things Were Happening00:15:07
Well, you can't really avoid him.
A year and a half ago, he was an obscure bureaucrat like most of the medical, industrial complex, the public health side of things, but he became famous because of the virus.
He would host press conferences alongside Donald Trump, sometimes even spar with Trump.
He was so friendly, though.
He had a friendly accent.
He was a little bit of a garden gnome.
He became a real media hound, so the press loved him, especially when he disagreed with Trump.
Here he is on the cover of Instyle magazine.
Oh, he's a celebrity, really.
In fact, he just rolled out a new book about himself and the wonderful year he's had.
Although, surprisingly, today it looks like Amazon took that book down.
I wonder why he's being canceled.
That's strange.
To me, Anthony Fauci is perfectly summed up in this.
When the celebrity was asked to throw a pitch, it was probably one of the worst pitches ever thrown, but he wore his mask until he thought the cameras weren't looking.
That's how so many politicians do it.
And Fauci is nothing but a politician.
He was doing five media hits a day, and he managed to survive the transition from Donald Trump to Joe Biden so far.
But like Canada's version of Anthony Fauci, Teresa Tam, Fauci lied.
Here's an example of him changing his viewpoint with the political winds.
Stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that it evolved in nature and then jumped species.
One of the issues of saying, could that virus that was in first of all, if you accept the premise, which is very strongly supported by scientific evidence, that it was not deliberately mutated and deliberately changed.
And you say, if it was in the wild and evolving, the likelihood it jumped species naturally.
Someone will say, well, maybe somebody took it from the wild, put it in the lab, and then it escaped from the lab.
But that means it was in the wild to begin with.
There's a lot of cloudiness around the origins of COVID-19 still.
So I wanted to ask, are you still confident that it developed naturally?
Oh, I'm not convinced about that.
I think that we should continue to investigate.
what went on in China until we find out to the best of our ability exactly what happened.
Now, Teresa Tam does that too.
She uses the phrase, the science is evolving.
I think Fauci says that too from time to time, but he's more candid other times.
He says, yeah, I lied.
I lied because I want to control people.
Listen to this.
Okay.
At the time, three things were going on.
We were told very clearly at the coronavirus task force, including by the surgeon general, who's a good person all the way, that there was a clear shortage of masks.
And if we went around recommending masks, the healthcare providers who were putting themselves in harm's way every single day would not have enough.
Point number one.
Point number two, there was no evidence at the time that masks outside of the setting of the hospital worked.
There were no data to show that.
Number three, we did not know that at least 50% of the infections were being spread asymptomatically, namely by people that had no symptoms.
That's the reason why at that time, we, I, and others, made that statement.
That's him saying he lied to control you because you can't handle the truth.
Is that a good thing for a public health CSA to do?
Well, now hundreds of emails from his government position have been released under American Freedom of Information Laws.
And over the last, I don't know, 18 hours, the media has had a frenzy going through them.
Now, it's sort of a Rorschach test, an inkblot test.
You know what those are.
What does this inkblot look like?
It really is about you, not the inkblot.
So for example, here's the mainstream media.
If you Google Fauci emails, you'll get dozens of stories like this.
This is People magazine about what a celebrity he is.
Here's People magazine.
One of his emails was sending around a story that he was one of America's sexiest men.
And he said, people are so nutty and Trump is so mean.
Yeah, it's a Rorschach test.
That's what the mainstream media focused on in these hundreds of emails.
But is that really the most telling thing?
I've been learning in recent days about a phrase I'd never heard before, gain of function, gain of function.
Have you ever heard those words before?
It means weaponizing a virus, taking a naturally occurring virus and making it function differently by engineering it.
Let me show you three videos in a row from, well, two of them are recent, one is older, of Dr. Anthony Fauci talking about gain of function.
And the reason why gain of function, and it's a strange phrase, is important, is because there are two competing theories about where this virus came from.
One was it was from nature and it made the leap from a bat to a person.
Maybe someone was eating bat soup.
The other theory is, no, no, this was engineered in a lab at the Wuhan Virology Institute.
Well, one of the doctors, sorry, one of the senators in the U.S. Senator happens to be a doctor, Rand Paul.
And here he is asking Anthony Fauci about gain of function research and specifically if Fauci's public health office in the United States was taking American tax dollars to give to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to have them do gain of function work, weaponizing virus work.
I'm going to play four minutes of this clip, and I think it's very important.
Dr. Rand Paul explains it pretty well.
Take a look.
Senator Paul.
Dr. Fauci, we don't know whether the pandemic started in a lab in Wuhan or evolved naturally, but we should want to know.
Three million people have died from this pandemic, and that should cause us to explore all possibilities.
Instead, government authorities, self-interested in continuing gain of function research, say there's nothing to see here.
Gain of function research, as you know, is juicing up naturally occurring animal viruses to infect humans.
To arrive at the truth, the U.S. government should admit that the Wuhan Virology Institute was experimenting to enhance the coronavirus's ability to infect humans.
Juicing up super viruses is not new.
Scientists in the U.S. have long known how to mutate animal viruses to infect humans.
For years, Dr. Ralph Barrick, a virologist in the U.S., has been collaborating with Dr. Xi Zengli of the Wuhan Virology Institute, sharing his discoveries about how to create super viruses.
This gain of function research has been funded by the NIH.
The collaboration between the U.S. and the Wuhan Virology Institute continues.
Drs. Barrick and Xi worked together to insert bat virus spike protein into the backbone of the deadly SARS virus and then use this man-made super virus to infect human airway cells.
Think about that for a moment.
The SARS virus had a 15% mortality.
We're fighting a pandemic that has about a 1% mortality.
Can you imagine if a SARS virus that's been juiced up and had viral proteins added to it to the spike protein, if that were released accidentally?
Dr. Fauci, do you still support funding of the NIH funding of the lab in Wuhan?
Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute.
Do they fund Dr. Barrick?
We do not fund Dr. Barrick's gain of function research.
Dr. Barrett does not doing gain of function research, and if it is, it's according to the guidelines and it is being conducted in North Carolina.
I don't think insuring a bat virus spike protein that he got from the Wuhan Institute into the SARS virus is gain of function.
That is not in the minority because at least 200 scientists have signed a statement from the Cambridge Working Group saying that it is gain of function.
Well, it is not.
And if you look at the grant and you look at the progress reports, it is not gain of function, despite the fact that people tweet that.
So do you not report sending money to the Wuhan Virology Institute?
We do not send money now to Wuhan virology.
We report sending money.
We did under your tutelage.
We were sending it through EcoHealth.
It was a sub-agency and a sub-grant.
Do you support that the money from NIH that was going to the Wuhan Institute?
Let me explain to you why that was done.
The SARS-CoV-1 originated in bats in China.
It would have been irresponsible of us if we did not investigate the bat viruses and the serology to see who might have been infected.
Perhaps it would be useful to send it to the Chinese government that we may not be able to trust with this knowledge and with this incredibly dangerous viruses.
Rand Paul's one of my favorite senators.
He's just great.
There's another senator with the name John Kennedy.
And of course, don't be confused with the other Kennedys.
This John Kennedy, you'll detect immediately from his accent is from Louisiana.
And he asks questions of Anthony Fauci.
Do you actually trust the scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
And the answer is incredible.
Take a listen.
Dr. Fauci, I believe you have testified that you didn't give any money to the Wuhan lab to conduct gain of function research.
Is that right?
That is correct.
How do you know they didn't lie to you?
Excuse me, sir.
How do you know they didn't lie to you and use the money for gain of function research anyway?
Well, we've seen the results of the experiments that were done and that were published, and that the viruses that they studied are on public databases now.
So none of that was gain of function.
How do you know they didn't do the research and not put it on their website?
There's no way of guaranteeing that, but in our experience with grantees, including Chinese grantees, which we've had interactions with for a very long period of time, they're very competent, trustworthy scientists.
I'm not talking about anything else in China.
I'm talking about the scientists.
That you would expect that they would abide by the conditions of the grant, which they've done for the years that we've had interaction with.
So you don't think the Chinese would lie to you?
Well, when you say the Chinese, the Chinese are a rather broad group.
I know the scientists that we've dealt with have been trustworthy.
You think all the scientists have told the truth in terms of the origin of the Wuhan virus and not been influenced by the Communist Party of China, do you?
I don't have enough insight into the Communist Party in China to know the interactions between them and the scientists, sir.
Right.
All right, I want to show you one more video about gain of function.
You're probably saying, what's this got to do with the emails?
I just want you to see this, the different answers that Anthony Fauci gives.
Here he is saying if you want to do research on viruses, you've got to go to where the action is.
He says that, and the action is in Wuhan.
Take a look at this.
We had a big scare with SARS-CoV-1 back in 2002, 2003, where that particular virus unquestionably went from a bat to an intermediate host to start an epidemic and a pandemic that resulted in 8,000 cases and close to 800 deaths.
It would have been almost a dereliction of our duty if we didn't study this.
And the only way you can study these things is you've got to go where the action is.
So I often say somewhat tongue-in-cheek, you don't want to study bats in Fairfax County, Virginia to find out what the animal-human interface is that might lead to a jumping of species.
So we had a modest collaboration with very respectable Chinese scientists who are world experts on coronavirus.
And we did that through a sub-grant from a larger grant to EcoHealth.
The sub-grant was about $600,000 over a period of five years.
So it was a modest amount.
And the purpose of it was to study the animal-human interface to do surveillance and to determine if these bad viruses were even capable of transiting infection to humans.
That's pretty incredible.
Even those three videos, he changes his story.
Well, after the release of the emails, Rand Paul tweeted simply this.
He told us.
I'm just going to show you three emails.
And I want to start with one from a virologist called Christian Anderson.
And it was very early in the pandemic.
It was February 1st, 2020.
So like a week into the emergency.
And this was a letter.
It actually started with an article in the magazine Science called Mining Coronavirus Genomes for Clues to the Outbreak's Origin.
So where did this virus come from?
And Anthony Fauci wrote a letter to Christian Anderson saying, this just came out today.
You may have seen it.
If not, it is of interest to the current discussion.
Discussion On Virus Origins00:04:43
Best Tony, oh, really?
Were they having a discussion about the origins of the virus?
Well, yes, they certainly were.
And this virologist, Christian Anderson, wrote back, hi, Tony.
And I'm going to skip ahead.
The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome.
So one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features potentially look engineered.
Look engineered?
Well, Fauci writes back to Anderson and says, thanks, Christian.
Talk soon on the call.
So they had a phone call about the fact that Science magazine was saying the virus might look engineered.
What did they say?
Was it true?
I don't know.
It's not disclosed in the emails, was it?
I want to take you to a second email.
And this is an exchange between Anthony Fauci and Peter Dashak.
He was the middleman that Rand Paul asked about, sending American tax dollars to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, purportedly or allegedly, to do gain of function research.
And I want to read a little bit from this email from Dashak to Fauci.
The subject is, thank you for your public comments for COVID-19's origins.
I just wanted to say a personal thank you on behalf of our staff and collaborators for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID-19 from a bat to human spillover, not a lab release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
And then as you can see, an entire paragraph is deleted.
Are you just a tiny bit curious of what's deleted?
And then it says, from my perspective, your comments are brave and coming from your trusted voice will help dispel the myths being spun around the virus's origins.
And as you can see at the top of the email, Fauci writes back, Peter, many thanks for your kind note.
Best regards.
What was redacted?
Was Dr. Senator Rand Paul right?
Was America actually funding military research on the gain of function weaponization of these viruses?
And then there's one more email I'd like to read to you.
It's this one between George Gao.
He's the head of China's version of the Centers for Disease Control.
He's China's guy.
And apparently he was on very friendly terms with Anthony Fauci.
And Gal writes to Fauci and Fauci writes back, very friendly.
Let's work together to get the virus out of the earth.
Okay.
And Fauci writes back, George, thanks for the note.
I understand completely.
No problem.
We will get through this together.
Best regards, Tony.
Okay, so you've got the absolute boss. for disease control in China writing you a personal note.
And you don't have any questions for him.
Where did it come from?
Can we talk?
You're not curious at all.
And we're going to get through this together.
We're on your side.
You ling.
I don't think Fauci's even that deferential to American presidents.
Now, look, a lot of this is not secret.
I mean, those videos of him talking about gain of function, they weren't released just last night.
But Fauci's been on our TV sets for almost a year and a half.
Did you know about the fact that money was flowing from the U.S. government through Fauci, through this Dash Act, to the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
Did you know that Fauci said China is where all the action is, if you want to study the weaponization of viruses?
Did you know about that?
Again, those weren't hidden.
Did you know about the connection between Fauci as he was standing by Trump, of Fauci's connections to China, both the lab itself and their public health industrial complex?
Do you know who Anthony Fauci is actually working for?
And every question I've just put about Fauci, could it not be put to Teresa Tam, Justin Trudeau, and Bill Gates, too?
Bans and Court Cases00:11:24
I don't know why Fauci's book was kicked off Amazon today.
Maybe there were too many stories that were just proved false by this release of emails.
I don't know.
Just a theory, just speculation.
I don't know what the truth is, but I don't trust Fauci, Tam, Biden, or Trudeau to tell us either.
I'm just worried saying so will get me deleted from the internet.
Stay with us for more.
Though last week we released our latest book, this one written by Coach Linda Blade and Barbara Cairns.
It's called Unsporting, How Trans Activism and Science Denial Are Destroying Sport.
It's part of a trend of stories since transgenderism has really taken the world by storm in the last five years.
And by world, I mean, I think the decadent West.
I mean, whether it's Caitlin Jenner or Jonathan Yaneev, a male-to-female transgender who has literally harassed so many immigrant women to Vancouver, demanding that they wax his private parts and then taking them to the human rights tribunal when they won't touch them.
So many crazy stories.
And one of the themes is you're not allowed to talk about it.
You're not allowed to dispute it.
You're not even, in some cases, allowed to know about it.
And that's the subject of our interview today, because there is a case in British Columbia dealing with a father and his own born female daughter who has transitioned to calling herself a boy.
And we can't even tell you the name of the man.
The name of the case is AB and CD.
That's all the courts will say.
The father himself is not allowed to even call his daughter a daughter.
And here's the crazy part: the rest of us have been banned from talking about it under pain of contempt of court.
Now, this just isn't right.
We believe in open courts in a free country.
I think other journalists might have been miffed by it, but only Rebel News did something about it.
Our reporter on the ground, Drea Humphrey, joins us now.
Coming home from the court there, Drea, we challenged the nature of the publication bans.
There were many of them.
Can you explain for our viewers a little bit of the background?
First of all, did I get my facts right when I explained ABCD and what was going on there?
Yeah, the only thing I would add is that I believe the order that did prohibit him from, you know, misgendering his own child and referring to his own child as a daughter is no longer an order that's in stand date.
Got it.
So that was an order, but you, am I correct?
So, I mean, to me, that's just nutty, nutty, shows how crazy things are.
Now, we went to court.
We hired a lawyer in Vancouver because we were just trying to talk about this and we couldn't even find out about the publication bans.
The publication bans themselves were secret.
Isn't that crazy?
They were secret.
There was way too many of them.
You know, it was quite a tangled mess.
You have this case that is of international interest.
Everybody and their dog is reporting the facts across, you know, whether it be in the U.S. all the way to Japan.
Then you have me right here, boots on the ground, getting the last interview with the father just before he's arrested in courts.
And I have to tiptoe and walk on eggshells on how much of the other side I can even give to you guys.
Otherwise, I'm going to end up, I could end up behind bars myself.
So that was the reality of just how stringent these secret bans have made it to be able to bring you guys the other side of the story.
So we had to do something about it.
Even though, as you mentioned with the Yaniv case and other reports that I've done, it seems like these bans conveniently get used in cases where transgender people, in this case, a child's transitioning without the consent of their parent.
Whenever there's activist lawyers involved and things like that, these bans tend to get used and it's harder to get the story out for sure.
Yeah.
Now, other reporters have talked about this case.
I think in other cases, media companies much bigger than ours, much richer than ours, in many cases owned by billion-dollar companies or getting huge payouts by the Trudeau government, they go to court to fight publication bans when it's something that their liberal worldview demands.
We were the only media company in all Vancouver, and there's a lot of media out there.
Is it true that we were the only news outlet that went to court and said, Your Honor, this doesn't make sense.
You've got to figure this out.
You've got to clear this up.
You've got to make sense of this.
You can't have secret publication bans.
Were we the only people in court asking for this?
Absolutely.
And you might be shocked to hear it, but Justice Taman actually thanked us for bringing this matter to the court.
So that's what Rebel News did on behalf of all media, the media that you mentioned that, you know, gets funded or I should say funds from the government didn't take the stand, but we did.
So you're saying the judge who heard our request actually thanked us for bringing, he wasn't aware.
This was a judge, I presume, who wasn't aware of all the problems.
Is that what you're saying?
No, Justice Taman has been involved, you know, heavily involved in the reelings.
And I have seen him be asked by CD's former counsel to make things more understandable for the media.
So I don't think it's that he's necessarily was unaware of this, but he was basically thanking us for going ahead and trying to do something about it because it was problematic.
And he did acknowledge how important this issue was for both the public as well as for the media.
Well, that's great.
You know what?
There's certain kinds of praise I don't want from the government.
I don't want the government saying, you're a good boy.
You're asking the kind of questions I like to hear.
Like, I don't want to be a pet of the government.
I don't want the government to give us money.
But if there's a judge who says, there was a problem here, you brought it to my attention.
Your lawyer had some suggestions and we fixed it.
And now there's more freedom of the press.
There's more transparency in the courts.
That's one of the few kinds of praise that I will accept from a judge.
And I'm glad he said it.
I understand also that the government of British Columbia was represented in this court battle by the Attorney General and that they filed a brief that sort of said the same thing, that they thought there was a mess here.
And I understand that they filed a brief saying that they agreed with us.
We had to fix the problem.
Again, I would not expect a new Democrat government in BC to like rebel news, but they had to admit there was a problem here too.
Did I get that right?
Absolutely.
There was so much back and forth in this case.
Like I said, it was so tangled.
There was many negotiations.
And the AG took no position on our application to vary the publication bans.
But the AG did, in fact, acknowledge that there is an issue here and stated that to the courts as well.
And in fact, the child's lawyer, AB, also acknowledged how important this was, which is just, I mean, this is insane.
Really?
Yeah, the other side.
Now, just to be clear, and people can see we're still using ABCD.
It is a tradition in court.
And I think you can see there's some wisdom to it, that when there's a minor child involved to protect the identity of the child, that child is often referred to by their initials.
So that has not been varied.
That part of the rule has not been changed.
But it's like it was the double secret, the publication ban, but you're not even allowed to know what the publication ban is.
It's like a double, triple top secret.
I mean, it just made no sense.
And our lawyer had trouble even finding out what the truth was, let alone how could a regular journalist or a regular citizen.
I think this is a good first step.
I don't think the problem is fixed yet.
I think that, especially when it comes to trans activists, they work the system to reduce scrutiny on what they're doing, especially when children are transitioning.
I think there's a re and I see that, by the way, with vaccines, that the government is saying to children, oh, you can consent as young as 12.
I think that we're going to have more problems like this where the government and courts and politicians are going to try and stop scrutiny of what they're doing with kids.
But I'm really proud, Drea, that you were the only journalist and Rebel was the only company fighting against just, I mean, we didn't have a total victory, but we did have a win.
And even the judge said we did a good job.
That's enough for us.
Yep.
And, you know, maybe this is going to set a huge precedent for the cases that you just mentioned in the future.
Well, Drea, we're so proud of the work you're doing.
And I think this is a moment where rebel news can hold our head high and look at all the other media and say, you did not defend freedom of the press.
We did it for our own viewers, but also for the public good.
I'm proud of what you did and I'm very grateful to our lawyer.
Dre, keep it up out there.
Thank you.
All right, there you have it.
Drea Humphrey on the beat.
Out there, Prayer, before you go, what's the website people can go to to get all your reports on this publication, Bat?
Yes, please go to letusreport.com.
We didn't quite meet our donor goal there.
So if you could go and help us out to recoup some of these costs, like I said, the negotiations went on more than we anticipated.
And these bans were buried essentially.
And it costs a lot to have our lawyer, Pal Bianca, together.
He did a good job.
I remember when I was talking to Cal and he said, this is an uphill battle.
You're probably going to lose.
That's basically what he said right at the beginning.
I said, well, we got to try.
We got to try.
And look at that.
We got to win out of it.
So that's letusreport.com.
And we did this for our viewers.
There's no two ways about it.
That's why we did it.
But the benefit redounds to all Canadians and all media.
Not that they'd ever thank us for it.
Drea, I thank you.
Take care, my friend.
Thank you.
All right, there you have it.
Dre Humphrey, go to letusreport.com to get all the details on this story.
Stay with us for that.
Hey, welcome back.
Appreciating Essential Workers00:01:56
On the show last night, Dan writes, if the vaccines work, then why do these people still have to wear masks and social distance?
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, I really, I mean, I saw that there are nine new pharmaceutical billionaires because of the pandemic.
All right, well, congratulations, guys.
You really did a great job.
But it's interesting how now that deaths are plunging and cases are plunging and things are normal, especially in America, the Canadian test for are you free isn't, is anyone sick?
Is this thing still spreading?
It's, are you getting your jab?
And who's making these decisions and what are their deals?
I wonder if we'll ever get the kind of transparency for the emails from Canada's health bosses the way we just did with Fauci's emails.
Kimberly writes, frontline essential workers get a break from TikTok videos to go watch hockey.
Aren't they lucky?
Yeah, listen, I appreciate people working in hospitals.
I also appreciate people working at grocery stores and any other place that stayed open the past year.
I also know that there was no mass death from grocery store workers.
And if they got the virus, they most likely recover from it.
This virus is deadly to people over 80 with pre-existing comorbidities.
That's a fancy way of saying they were very sick to begin with.
It simply isn't a risk for young, healthy people, or at least not any more risky than the annual flu.
That's statistics.
DJ writes, there's no more left or right, conservative, liberal.
Now there is only political elites versus the rest of us.
I think that's true.
And it's very strange.
I think it's partly true because the Conservative parties of Canada have just stopped being conservative.
The Conservative governments have been just as bad as the Liberal governments and the Conservative opposition has been too timid to oppose.
I don't know.
And maybe that's why we're so busy.
It's a show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us, to you at home, good night.