'Thousands Died Because Fauci Ignored Natural Immunity' - With Special Guest Sen. Rand Paul
Exclusive! Senator Rand Paul joins the Liberty Report to discuss the massive errors - driven by arrogance - committed by White House coronavirus advisor Anthony Fauci. Dr. Fauci's insistence on ignoring natural immunity and his refusal to consider therapeutics have cost thousands and thousands of lives! And here's a bombshell you'll only here in today's Liberty Report: Sen. Paul's shocking explanation of why the coming mid-term elections will be Fauci's worst nightmare!
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today, we have a special guest.
He happens to be related to me.
And he's been around a bit, and he's been involved in politics.
I don't know why.
He never asked me advice about getting into politics or anything.
He just went and did it.
And when he told me a long time ago that he was going to run for the Senate, I said, just right off the bat, you're going to run for the Senate.
So that was a surprise, but most people know him as well or better than they know me now.
But he's here in Lake Jackson due to the Christmas holiday.
And we've had a wonderful Christmas weekend.
And it ended up for the Christmas dinner.
We had 51 at our family meal.
And I thought, well, is the family still growing?
And my wife Carol says, yes, it's still growing.
More babies there.
We saw a little baby and who knows.
But anyway, we had a wonderful time.
And Rand doesn't get to Texas a whole lot, but when he gets a chance, he does.
He does come.
And his three boys and his wife was with us this weekend, so it was a wonderful weekend.
Rand, good to have you on the program.
Glad to be with you.
Now, we did have to consult with Dr. Fauci about coming down here.
Dr. Fauci said that we needed to bring a vaccine passport.
And so what we did is we tweeted out and we said, you know, to come to the Paul Family Christmas, all you have to do is present verification that you've read the Constitution, but you don't really have to have any vaccine passport.
Well, do you think we're making any progress with our effort to educate Fauci?
Do you think he knows what it means to have natural immunity?
You know, I think he secretly does, but I think he lets on or pretends as if he doesn't.
In fact, I've referred to it as sort of a platonic lie, a noble lie.
He thinks that it's best that you be vaccinated, and he wants everyone to be vaccinated.
And he thinks, well, yeah, people are probably immune.
They might not need it.
We don't want people to worry their pretty little heads about it.
We'd rather just have everybody do the same thing because easier uniformity and submission is easier if everybody does the same thing.
But if he were sitting here, yes.
He's not a complete idiot.
I mean, he actually understands this, but he's not a truthful or an honest person.
But because he's made this mistake of de-emphasizing natural immunity, I think thousands of people have lost their lives.
Let's take India, for example.
They've taken his advice and they have a billion people.
Well, they have a couple hundred million vaccines.
They don't have enough vaccines for everyone.
So who should you prioritize the vaccines for?
Well, not people who have already had it.
I've already had it.
I should be at the end of the line.
The people at the front of the line should be the people most susceptible, the elderly.
But if you don't prioritize a vaccine and you don't have enough, guess what?
Many older people die and many 35-year-old people are being vaccinated.
That makes no scientific sense.
But as a consequence, literally tens of thousands of people probably lost their lives because he's ignored natural immunity.
You know, I want to ask you something, and I don't think we've ever talked about it.
It has to do with conspiracies.
And I heard it said once, and I like to quote, well, yes, I believe in conspiracies, all the truthful conspiracies.
And then I decided everybody conspires.
You know, when you do philosophy, you're conspiring and planning.
But I want to ask you about Fauci.
I imagine two, maybe three years ago, how many people in this country would really know who Dr. Fauci?
I don't think I would have known.
When he first came on, I didn't know.
Okay, do you think there was a plan to bring this about and Fauci was there and part of the plan with Gates?
Or do you think something was happening at a more modest rate and they jumped on it and they were able to take it and twist it and make a big deal of it?
I was kind of in the midst of this and hearing about it on a day-to-day basis when this started.
So the pandemic comes, there's this natural worry, media plays up worry because it sells.
It's sort of like journalism of crime, journalism of extreme events sells.
So they were playing it up.
And then Trump would come out and he would have a press conference and people would say, well, he doesn't sound very informed on science and we're worried about him being out there in front of this thing.
What if millions of people die and Trump's not completely got all the data straight?
They said, we need a scientist out there.
And it was mainly the big government Republicans who run the committees.
All of the establishment Republicans in the Senate, they all said to a person, we love Dr. Fauci after one press conference.
They loved him.
And even Trump wasn't certain at first.
He said, well, he sounds so reasonable.
And actually in the first couple of weeks, he was somewhat reasonable, but he got worse and worse and worse as time got on.
But then he became a force of his own and so prominent that his edicts and then this other Dr. Burke's, they basically created the lockdown scenario, the idea that everyone should have to be tested whether they have any symptoms or not.
We've never in the history of medicine called a disease something where people have no symptoms.
We've never tested people who have no sickness and called them ill.
So it looked like two events were coming together and then they build on themselves.
It wasn't like 10 years ago Gates and Fauci and a few others said, you know, because some people will claim that Gates was involved.
I would call it less of a conspiracy and more of a philosophy.
I think Fauci is of the philosophy that vaccines are incredibly successful and are the way to go versus therapeutics, for example.
So with regard to AIDS, he was involved in the, as the AIDS epidemic came up, he wanted to develop a vaccine.
There's nothing wrong with that.
He wanted to develop a vaccine.
Vaccines can be great for polio or smallpox.
They're wonderful.
It didn't actually work for AIDS.
We still don't have an AIDS vaccine.
But some people say that it hindered the therapeutic.
And right now we treat AIDS pretty well.
You can prevent people from having AIDS.
People have HIV positives.
They're on like five or ten different drugs.
But the therapeutic angle ended up being the best.
But he was biased towards the vaccine.
And it's the same way now.
I would venture to say that thousands of people die in our country every month now from COVID because he's de-emphasized the idea that they're therapeutics.
And the one thing I say in every speech, and I'll say on this interview, is if you get sick with COVID, there's a window of time when you can be treated.
Almost all the treatments work the sooner you get it.
So if you are, you know, particularly over 65 or overweight at any age, you're at risk for this disease.
And at the early stages in it, the first several days of symptoms is when you need to get either monoclonal antibodies, steroids, something that lowers your inflammation.
But have you ever heard Fauci once on television say, there's a window of time and if you miss it?
So for example, I know a young man, he was in his mid-40s, overweight.
He got COVID, but he just stayed at home and he waited till day nine or 10 and he was sick as a dog.
He went to the hospital and they put him on the ventilator.
It's just too late.
None of the medicines will work.
But I blame Dr. Fauci for that because he was never on TV saying, if you get sick, there is a treatment because it's everything about the vaccine.
And then if you're not vaccinated, you're unclean.
You're a terrible, you're like a leper.
And instead of saying, all right, I wish you had been vaccinated.
I'm for the vaccine.
You didn't.
You're sick.
Here's the treatment you should get.
It's as if they really despise and discount and want these people to be treated as less than human.
And it's awful.
I've seen them, they jump up and down and glorify and clap their hands when someone dies from COVID.
If you haven't been vaccinated and you die, they will jump up and down and somehow think it's a celebration.
You know, one thing that you've brought attention to throughout the country, and this is whole issue of natural immunity, the way I see it, natural immunity is nothing new.
It's been around for a long time.
It was naturally understood about how it worked.
And when I was small, you know, we got exposed to the contagious diseases, that sort of thing.
But then all of a sudden, it was practically ignored or demonized and it had no benefits.
And then they came up and what they've worked in here is something I'm very concerned about, and that is a vaccine passport.
You can't do anything unless you have the passport.
And then it turns out that they want to ignore natural immunity, yet they're probably the safest people to be around.
I think you're one of those people.
irony is that the immunology, the immune response you get from a vaccine, is based on what we understood, that people got a disease naturally, they developed an immune response.
So when you take a vaccine, you're trying to simulate what the body does naturally.
Now the left says, oh, you want people to get COVID.
And it's like, no, I don't.
It can be a deadly disease.
I don't want anybody to get sick.
But 50 million people have officially had it.
But if you do the antibody studies, it's probably 150 million Americans.
So almost half of America has already had COVID.
To discount 50% of the equation and say it doesn't count is unscientific and wrong-headed.
But yeah, the studies now show, and this is what's hilarious, if you watch CNN, which I don't recommend, but if you happen to accidentally turn CNN and you're watching CNN, and they'll say, oh, I fear going to a restaurant, and I might sit next to an unwashed Republican who's not vaccinated.
And it's like, do you realize if that person has had COVID, I've had COVID, but have not been vaccinated.
Let's say you've been vaccinated.
That's probably not true.
But let's say a person I'm sitting next to has been vaccinated.
I'm unvaccinated, but I've had it.
It's actually safer to sit next to me because I'm less likely to get it again.
But I'm not advocating people get it.
All I'm advocating is that we acknowledge if you've had it, let's look at the science and the science shows that you do have significant immunity.
And I've also said, look, I might get vaccinated someday.
Just right now, I've already been vaccinated by nature.
Okay, I want to ask you about where we are on this understanding of natural immunity.
There was a scientific understanding which was reasonable in the past.
And then at the beginning of this epidemic, they deliberately have demonized this whole concept because you need vaccines.
You don't need anything natural.
You don't need treatment like you're advocating and get your own immunity.
But lately, I sense, and I want to get your opinion about this, is I sense that it's almost permissible to talk about natural immunity again.
It's coming back, which is, I think, very good.
So they went from a more normal state, then they became horrible.
And now, I think, due to your work and some others, they're starting to say, you know, natural immunity, people are making the point on TV, actually, and saying, you know, how can these people, they're safer people, and why can't they go to the store too without getting a shot and all that nonsense?
I was reading today that, and this was by Martin Kulldorf.
He's a Harvard epidemiologist, really good.
He, Scott Atlas, Jay Bhattacharya, and a few others, Ionidus, have been really great with this.
But he said they knew about immunity from the plague of 430 BC.
That's when they started learning, wow, this person got it and they don't get it again.
But even during George Washington's time, they developed the smallpox vaccine in the 1720s.
By the time you get to 1776, in the Revolutionary War, more people died from infectious disease than bullets, camp fever, all of those things.
So Martha wanted to fidget George Washington in the camp, and George said, you can't come unless you're vaccinated.
But people are like, well, was George vaccinated?
No, he had pox.
You could tell he'd had smallpox.
They knew if you'd had smallpox, you didn't need to be vaccinated.
We've known this for hundreds of years.
For them to deny it is to deny all science.
And usually what they say is, well, we don't know.
And I get the reporters coming up to me in the halls of Congress, they're like, well, you don't know how long.
I said, well, I don't know how long your vaccine is going to work either.
I don't condemn you for being a very good thing.
You sort of know they don't last very long.
Exactly.
But I don't say, oh my goodness, you've been vaccinated and it's been six months.
Mandates vs. Freedom00:15:11
I'm going to shun you and stay away from you.
But if I've been infected, they're all assuming my immunity no longer works.
The reason why the infection may be better is when you get infected, you get immunity to a broad array of proteins on the surface of the virus.
Vaccine is to the S protein.
So it's to one particular protein and they've isolated that.
When you get infected, you've been infected by the whole thing and you get immunity to a variety of the proteins on the surface and it may well be more robust.
But the bottom line is it really isn't about the science.
It should be about individual freedom.
Is it your choice or my choice to decide what we inject into our body?
Who ever thought that that wouldn't be an individual choice?
Our audience is very much aware of corporatism, the mixture of big business and big government, and they know what's going on right now.
But corporatism and this money-making machine should have gotten us more allies.
Like right now, we're disappointed because all of a sudden I've over the years worked with the ACOU and other liberal progressive organizations.
And then, but they're not with us anymore.
Have you noticed that with some of the members?
Because we work with senators, I'm not going to name them, but they were pretty open-minded to at least talking to libertarians.
But all of a sudden, it seems like they've lost their way.
Yeah, the left, in some ways, are bigger advocates of big pharma than anybody.
You know, it's not the Republican corporate type, it's actually the left that has.
But when you look at sort of this, even when you look directly at government officials like Fauci, he works for the government, so he's not really corporate cronyism, and yet he kind of is.
So he makes the highest salary of all government, over $400,000 a year, but he's very intertwined with the industry, with the vaccine industry.
We don't get to see his reports because he doesn't have to fill out a report.
So I have to fill out a financial report and you get an outline of where my investments are.
He doesn't fill that out.
It'd be kind of nice to know that.
But the thing is, there really truly was a conspiracy.
There's billions of dollars of investment money.
Fauci runs it.
Every university and every professor across the country in the world is dependent on him for funding.
So the money that was going to Wuhan was going to a guy named Peter Daysk.
Well, it was over $100 million.
So you can't say money wasn't involved.
$100 million is controlled by this guy, Peter Daysak.
And I should have read this more carefully.
But when he wrote that initial letter saying that it absolutely came from nature and couldn't come to the lab, he said, anybody that says it's coming from a lab is a conspiracy theory.
And this is where conspiracy theory now has just become an accusation from the left.
If I don't like your argument, I'll just say it's a conspiracy theory.
Why?
Because I say it is.
But that's what they said: that it was the idea that this could have come from a lab was a conspiracy theory.
But the interesting thing is, at that point in time, after two months, 99% of the people trusted Fauci and thought that they were telling the truth.
We have whittled away at it, steadfastly gone after him day after day, and so have other people.
Now there's a large group of us, but I would say that we actually asked the question in our state.
We polled the question, who do you trust, me or Dr. Fauci?
And we beat him 4840, and I have all kinds of other positions I have to defend.
All he has to defend is public health, and they still said that I was more trustworthy in Kentucky than he was.
You know, we talk a lot on the program about resistance.
We encourage resistance, peaceful resistance, and the numbers are growing.
The crowds are getting bigger.
And we sense that there is an enlightenment there moving in the direction of questioning this.
But what do you notice in the Senate?
Have you noticed any shift?
Because sometimes I've been, you know, I complain about the liberal progressives not doing a good job, but I would say that from my viewpoint, that some of the conservatives could do better.
They're sort of quiet on that.
Do you think there's a shift in attitude?
Have you seen anybody come up and they're much friendlier to talk to you about this now than they were a year ago?
I would say this.
You know, I've always been pro-vaccine as a doctor, but pro-freedom.
It's your choice for your children also.
So this didn't just start with COVID.
This started with the mandates in school, which I've opposed the mandates in school, and I think parents should make these decisions.
So I've been associated with a movement.
Some of them are against vaccine, some of them are for vaccine freedom, but I meet these people.
They come to my office.
I've talked to them for years.
We have a lot in common because I'm for freedom.
Even though we might not always have the same agreement on exactly whether to take a vaccine or not, I agree.
We all agree it should be voluntary.
That group would only have maybe one or two of us that would talk to them.
Now we had 50 people, all 50 senators, 50 out of 50 Republicans signed to say we shouldn't have a vaccine mandate.
So in some ways, those of us who are for freedom from mandates have come a long way.
Because five years ago, how many people would show up in the U.S. Senate of 50 Republicans to say we shouldn't mandate on children?
Probably one, me, one or two others.
But now we have all 50 on the COVID saying this shouldn't be a COVID vaccine mandate.
Well, on our program, we're always looking for that positive thing.
And I would say what you just said is a positive thing because there is a shift and you can identify it and recognize it.
And I think that's great.
Because I think they reflect this sentiment of the people.
And you're well aware of the work that I did with auditing the Fed.
And that was we didn't go to the politicians as much as we went to the people.
And when the people started doing it, we had some votes where we got every Republican in the House to vote and pass these bills.
So this, if the members of the Senate and other places are starting to shift, they're reading something out there where the people are starting to shift.
I think the people are shifting our direction.
The establishment is becoming more and more draconian.
So for example, five years ago, no one would have ever conceived of mandating the flu vaccine.
The advice was, I think, over 50, that you were advised voluntarily to take, and that's what doctors would say.
Over 50, they thought the flu vaccine was a good thing to take.
And there was never any indication of a mandate.
But now they're talking about mandates, not only just on those who are at risk, but those who are not at risk.
And really, it's probably the opposite of even the truth of the best way to get better since kids don't die from this and kids don't transmit it very well.
Here's an example.
In Sweden, there's 1.8 million kids.
They don't wear any masks.
They go to school every day.
They've gone through the whole pandemic.
Not one child has died between the ages of like 1 and 15.
Zero.
And if you say, well, gosh, they're probably infecting and killing all their teachers.
You look at the incidence of the infection in the teachers.
It's the same as every other profession.
So there you have an experiment of a country of 10 million people, and yet we're completely ignoring it.
So I think there is this understanding.
Lots of Europe actually are less draconian.
Some of Europe's terrible, and then some parts of Europe are less draconian than we are here.
You know, there is some reporting and there's some collection of opinions at the CDC about the complications from the vaccine.
And some sound pretty, pretty bad.
But there's a debate really going on there because you can't say that on regular television because then you're really way out there.
But it seems like the numbers, if the numbers are true, that is a serious problem.
And do you have a sense of that?
Do you think that the numbers lean in the direction that it's much worse than that the average person hears?
Or do you think that's sort of manufactured?
This is my opinion and not a mandate.
It's just what I would tell you if someone came to me as a doctor, that you measure your risks and benefits depending on your risks and your benefits.
So the disease is a disease primarily of older folks and overweight folks.
So if you are 80 years old, you're a thousand times more likely to die than a 10-year-old.
So if you give the 10-year-old and the 80-year-old the same advice, you're not a very good doctor.
You're not really paying attention to the facts.
So it is different.
And so I think that the risks of the disease outweigh the benefits of, I mean, the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks of the vaccine for older people, but for younger people, we don't know.
And so for younger people, and this would probably go for almost any age, if people were asking me, you came to me and they said, should you take a vaccine?
I would say, let's draw your blood first and see if you've already had the disease.
If you've had the disease, I'd be much less inclined no matter what your age is.
If you're 80 years old, and even though I'm for giving you the advice to take it, if you already had antibodies, I'd probably say, yeah, I don't know if you need to.
If you're 10 years old and you have antibodies to it, I would say absolutely don't, because my fear is that the vaccine is a heightened response to people who've already had it.
Because you already have it, you've seen the virus.
Then you introduce the virus again through the vaccine and you get this over-exuberant response, which may be why some of the kids are getting myocarditis.
I don't think we've adequately discussed that.
But it isn't real common.
The myocarditis, I think, with the vaccine is about one in 100,000.
But then again, your kids' risk of getting it is virtually non-existent if you don't take the vaccine.
Another thing I think has been positive is that there's been an emphasis in the last year or two with nutrition and vitamins and protection and good health and weight and all this and just knowledge of early treatment for a certain group versus the other.
And I know that raising kids, hey, Carol and I would say we used common sense, we ate well, we were used to eating from farms, you know, and fresh vegetables and all these things.
But we didn't do too much of this vitamin stuff.
I would say for me personally over the last maybe decade or so that I kept moving in the direction of looking for the nutritional products that may be not in our diet.
And I think there is an emphasis on that, but of course there's a lot of hype too.
But I think a lot of people, they may be, you know, we talk a lot about get out and get some sunshine now.
And so I think that's one thing that's good, but it's probably still a small number of people, but our government's not helping us on that.
They wouldn't be talking about that in prevention as much as they want to get you to sign up for the vaccine.
Yeah.
No, I take multivitamins, you know, every day.
It's harder to prove whether stuff like that works.
If you take a blood pressure medicine, we measure your blood pressure and it goes down.
We know it works.
For something more holistic, like do you feel better, is your memory better?
It's harder to tell if the vitamin caused that or your exercise caused that or your diet caused that.
But I think these things we should be open to and allow to happen.
The other thing is, is that the early therapeutics, I think, for COVID should be allowed and people should be, I mean, we never in the history of medicine forbid you from taking one medicine that was used for blood pressure or malaria and using it for another reason until recently.
But it's gotten so bad that I have doctors every day come up to me in my own community and say, well, I spoke out against vaccine mandates and they're threatening my license.
They're threatening my credentials.
They're threatening me at the hospital.
And my partners are telling me, is it worth it?
Just be quiet.
I mean, there really is this sort of pressure and censorship against it.
And it all sort of stems from the top down.
Most of the universities lead the way and they're the biggest voices in science, all the scientists, but they're controlled, all of them, by the dollars.
And the dollars are controlled by Fauci, and they're petrified of having their money yanked.
Yeah, that's it.
It's intimidation.
It's terroristic, you know.
Boy, when you think you're going to lose your job, and I hear so many stories like that, who people who have lost their job and lost their license, kicked out of hospitals and all that.
But those stories, when we have to tell those stories on our program here, what Daniel and I will do is say, I always try to finish where I say, well, that's good news.
We just woke up another 10,000 people to some good common sense because this doesn't make any sense.
And so I think it's gradual, and I still want to remain optimistic, believing that truth will win out.
But I tell you what, it's scary at times, you know, because I really fear what I fear is this inclination to know everything about everybody all the time and with the technology available now and now with this technique of not being able to do anything unless you've obeyed some silly rule which contradicts a lot of the medicine that we learn.
There are people pushing back.
I was a big fan of Scott Atlas.
I recommended him to be hired by President Trump and that was one time President Trump did listen to me.
And he's now forming a think tank on health freedom and scientific inquiry.
And Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford and this Martin Koldorf who was from Harvard, they're all come together and it's going to be endowed through Hillsdale College.
And it's a new sort of freedom of scientific thought.
And I think we are able to push back on some of this.
Like I say, it went from Fauci being untouchable, Teflon, nobody could touch him, to now at least half the country or more thinks he's not always being honest and he's self-interested or conflicted in his interest.
Same with natural immunity.
I think we have pushed back enough.
And the internet is working to a certain extent to disseminate information to question authority.
We're going to wind this down a little bit, but I have some other questions.
How big of an issue will Fauci be in next year's election?
I think huge.
And one of the things I've told people is if I win in 2022, I'll be chairman of a committee in the Senate.
We will use the subpoena power to bring forward all the records.
Right now, they send us records.
If we ask about their discussions about covering up where the virus came from and its origins in the lab, they white it all out.
They redact all of the information and send us a blank piece of paper and they won't tell us about their conversations.
We'll get to the root of everything.
And I predict this.
If Republicans take over the House or the Senate, Fauci will retire.
And that would be the best thing for the country because he's been so damaging.
Because it's not just through force of law.
All these blue state governors listen to him and think that it's science to close a restaurant at 10 o'clock at night or to say we have to have 25% patrons.
There's no evidence that any of the mitigation, any of the rules or mandates changed the trajectory of the virus at all.
If that's the case and you're moving into that position, that's a big deal.
You think I should advise our viewers to support you?
Well, that would be good.
Yes.
And what would you tell them to do?
Well, they need to go to randfall.com and help us out.
And we have a very good chance of winning reelection, but there's a lot of money floating around on the left, and the left does a good job of raising money.
So we have to be competitive.
If we're competitive with our campaign finances, we should be able to win.
Fauci's Impact on Mitigation00:00:50
Well, very good.
You know, this has been great.
And I bet you our viewers would listen to us for a few more minutes because there's a lot of things going on in the Senate.
And it's great to get an opinion, too.
Sometimes you're not supposed to give your opinion, but that's what we want.
We want your opinion, and we know his opinion.
And we don't want the authoritarian saying, this is what you do, and you don't have the prerogative of a voluntary decision and everybody doing what they think is best for themselves.
Well, there's a lot of people that have a lot to learn about what a free society is all about.
And I'm really pleased the way you have followed through and have promoted that principle and that philosophy.
So we're very proud of that.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.