Oct. 5, 2023 - Rubin Report - Dave Rubin
18:54
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| When I read the Freedom of Information Act, a judge ordered the release of emails of Fauci and these virologists on January 31st. | ||
| So about 10.30 at night, Fauci begins exchanging emails. | ||
| He exchanges them until 3 in the morning. | ||
| you can tell by the tenor that he's worried and he's concerned, | ||
| not only about the origins, but that the origins could boomerang and come back | ||
| and that he could be exposed as the one who approved the funding. | ||
| I'm Dave Rubin and joining me today is a senator from Kentucky, | ||
| an author of the new book, Deception, the great COVID cover-up. | ||
| Senator Rand Paul, welcome back to The Rubin Report. | ||
| Thanks for having me, Dave. | ||
| Good to be with you. | ||
| It's good to be with you. | ||
| Before we dive into the book and COVID, and I have a feeling you don't really like this Anthony Fauci fella, there is chaos in the House. | ||
| Of course, you're in the Senate, but what do you make of this lunacy at the moment? | ||
| Well, you know, I'm sympathetic to the argument that we should do individual spending bills, that we should try to use the power of the purse to bring down spending. | ||
| Just the last three months, we've accumulated over a trillion dollars in new debt. | ||
| We've never added a trillion dollars in three months before. | ||
| The spending is out of control. | ||
| There is some blame to go around. | ||
| I mean, there's no budget. | ||
| The Republicans passed no budget in the House and the Democrats | ||
| passed no budget in the Senate. | ||
| Neither party seems to be too concerned with what's going on. | ||
| So no budget. | ||
| And then the fiscal year ends on September 30th. | ||
| They didn't pass any appropriation bills. | ||
| Zero. | ||
| The House passed one, and now we're laboring over trying to stick three or four together. | ||
| But it's utter incompetence, and it's been going on for 40 years. | ||
| You know, it makes me tempted to want to vote for none of the above. | ||
| I was gonna say, does it, like, particularly a guy like you who actually cares about math and carrying the wand and making sure our bills are paid, it's sorta gotta, like, particularly stick in your craw, but I guess you've become accustomed to this kind of thing. | ||
| Well, it's kind of a false debate, too, that we're having, because we're voting and examining spending bills that comprise 16% of the budget. | ||
| So two-thirds of the budget's entitlements, and they said, oh, no, we're afraid. | ||
| We don't want to reform the entitlements. | ||
| There's no money to save. | ||
| Two-thirds of the budget, we're not going to look at. | ||
| And then the remaining third, half of it's military, and they said, oh, we want to give the military an increase of 3%. | ||
| So, entitlements are going up at 5%, military is going up at 3%, and then they left 16% of the budget. | ||
| This is about $700 billion, and they said, oh, we're going to try to hold the line on this and maybe not increase it that much or maybe spend what we spent last year. | ||
| You could eliminate The budget, the money we're looking at, the non-military discretionary spending, and you still don't balance a budget. | ||
| You'd still have an $800 billion deficit if you eliminated all the spending, and none of them are talking about eliminating it. | ||
| They're talking about like a 1% cut on 16% of the budget. | ||
| So these people don't recognize the severity or the significance of the debt problem we face. | ||
| I think that's what we call Swamp 101, but we'll hold that conversation to next time I have you on. | ||
| But let's talk about the book. | ||
| I love the cover. | ||
| The fact that you put Fauci on in a mask, a guy who I've been saying should really be hiding in a cave at this point, instead of being on all the Sunday shows, which he's still on. | ||
| What do you think, let's start just briefly on Fauci, and then we'll get to sort of the whole thing. | ||
| What do you think should happen to Fauci at this point? | ||
| Like, do you actually want him to be prosecuted? | ||
| I mean, I know he's not running the NIH anymore, but what do you think should happen to him if we're ever gonna get past all the damage that was done? | ||
| Well, you know, we referred him twice to the Department of Justice. | ||
| We haven't gotten a lot of action. | ||
| We barely can even get a letter back saying they've received the referral. | ||
| But we sent him for a criminal referral for lying to Congress. | ||
| That is a felony, and you face up to five years in prison for that. | ||
| But above and beyond that, and I think he deserves that, but above and beyond that, he also deserves the culpability basically for funding the research that became the pandemic. | ||
| And this is a big deal. | ||
| This is no small mistake that he made. | ||
| It may be one of the worst mistakes made in modern history or in recorded history to fund a totalitarian government that created a virus that leapt into humanity and spread like wildfire and killed millions of people. | ||
| All because Dr. Fauci's opinion is that even if a pandemic were to occur, gain-of-function, this juicing-up-of-viruses research, is worth it. | ||
| And frankly, I think the millions of Americans who died, if you ask their families, was it worth it? | ||
| The knowledge from gain-of-function research, was it worth it? | ||
| I think you'd find that most American families, and frankly, worldwide, would be upset, you know, that this actually came from government-funded projects at the behest of Anthony Fauci. | ||
| Are you ever sympathetic to the arguments that if we don't do these things, gain of function as potentially dangerous as it might be, and sort of leaping these viruses into new territory, that if we don't do it, well, the Chinese are still gonna do it. | ||
| Other bad countries are still gonna do it, and we'll still end up here, but we'll just sort of be behind the eight ball when it comes to dealing with them. | ||
| Does that vibe with you at all? | ||
| There's a real scientific debate over whether there's any value to these experiments. | ||
| Think about the experiments we're talking about. | ||
| So Ebola has a 50% mortality. | ||
| It comes out of Africa most of the time. | ||
| It's spread through bodily fluids like AIDS, so it's not contagious through the air, and that's fortunate. | ||
| It's not as contagious as it could be. | ||
| Would it be worthwhile to do an experiment to see if we could make Ebola aerosolized? | ||
| If we could allow, or AIDS, or some kind of disease, would it be worth it to try to create a disease and make it aerosolized? | ||
| Well, is there some kind of knowledge you could get for that? | ||
| Maybe, but it could also escape and infect the whole world. | ||
| So, I mean, no, it's a death wish, and there are many, many, many career scientists, even the virologists who work with Fauci, On the papers to justify what happened, many of them in private have said they don't see the importance or the benefit of gain of function. | ||
| And then some people say it's not worth it at all. | ||
| But it takes a refined look at what the definition is, because the other side will say, oh, you don't want to allow bacteria to create insulin, you know, where we make a bacteria so it can produce insulin. | ||
| That's not true at all. | ||
| What we don't want is to monkey around with things that can be aerosolized and we don't want to genetically create them to be more transmissible or more lethal. | ||
| So the title deception, I think also was the right word because so many people were deceived by these people and continue to be deceived. | ||
| I keep saying, you know, when they come back with the next thing, whether it's the next COVID or it's climate lockdowns or whatever, we're gonna be really disappointed with the amount of people who will be deceived again. | ||
| What would be your message to the people when whatever the next thing is, quote unquote thing, to not fall for, you know, these mid-level management people and the bureaucracies and the institutions and all of that? | ||
| Well, it's actually how I became intrigued in this book and in the subject period. | ||
| When I read the Freedom of Information Act, a judge ordered the release of emails of Fauci and these virologists on January 31st. | ||
| So about 1030 at night, Fauci begins exchanging emails. | ||
| He exchanges them till 3 in the morning. | ||
| You can tell by the tenor that he's worried. | ||
| And he's concerned, not only about the origins, but that the origins could boomerang and come back and that he could be exposed as the one who approved the funding. | ||
| And to be clear, you're talking about January of 2020. | ||
| Of 2020. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| At 3 a.m., he sends an email to somebody who's in charge of the committee that's supposed to review dangerous research. | ||
| So this discussion had been going on for years before this. | ||
| They had actually had a pause, they had stopped all funding for this research, and then they created a committee that was a safety committee. | ||
| It was called the P3CO committee. | ||
| What turns out, the head of that committee, Fauci, is emailing him at 3 in the morning, the first night he becomes alarmed, saying, nothing to see here, we think this probably came from nature. | ||
| But what wasn't explicit, and I didn't learn until I got into this book and developed it, is that The research was never reviewed by the Safety Committee. | ||
| Fauci gave them an exemption and went around. | ||
| And when I challenged Fauci on this committee, I said, this is gain of function. | ||
| He says, all my experts have said, up and down, 12 experts have told me this is not gain of function. | ||
| But if that happened, let's see the paperwork. | ||
| Let's see the discussion. | ||
| Let's see the debate over this. | ||
| Because we know for one thing, Fauci allowed this research to happen in Communist China without any review by the Safety Committee. | ||
| That alone is malfeasance and he should be punished for as well. | ||
| What would reforming these institutions look like? | ||
| You know, everyone says, okay, fine, or everyone, let's say on our side, basically says we have to reform these things or blow them apart or whatever, the CDC, NIH, et cetera, et cetera. | ||
| What would it actually look like if you had the power to do that? | ||
| Well, we have a group of 33 scientists who have written an open letter to Congress and to the public on this, and they've come up with a series of ideas. | ||
| We actually go through this in the book. | ||
| What would the bipartisan type reform be that shouldn't be controversial? | ||
| One, they say that the people funding this research should not be the same people receiving the money. | ||
| You need to separate the people analyzing this from the people receiving it. | ||
| So one of the big problems is that Fauci's inner circle, the guy who writes the paper that says everybody's a kook and a conspiracy theorist that believes this came from a lab in China, he got an $8 million grant in the middle of all this that had to be approved by Fauci. | ||
| And these are all scientists who, in private emails, are all saying, Holy, you know what? | ||
| This looks like it came out of the lab. | ||
| It looks like it was manipulated. | ||
| And, this is in Fauci's words, we know that we're doing gain-of-function research in Wuhan. | ||
| Which is exactly the opposite of what he told me in committee. | ||
| He says, we are not funding this. | ||
| We are not doing gain of function in Wuhan. | ||
| And yet in private in 2020, a year before I interviewed him, he's admitting privately that he's very worried that this came from the lab because he knows they're doing gain of function research in that lab. | ||
| So there's never been so much, I don't think there's ever been a cover up so thoroughly exposed. | ||
| And yet not one person from the mainstream media has reported on this at all. | ||
| They still have him. | ||
| He still gets million-dollar prizes from these left-wing foundations. | ||
| He's still being paid. | ||
| You know he still works for the government. | ||
| He still has a full security detail. | ||
| We've been asking questions. | ||
| He said he retired. | ||
| How come he still has a detail? | ||
| Are they going to defend him legally if he is indicted by the House? | ||
| So there are all kinds of questions, but there's been virtually no interest from the mainstream media on this. | ||
| Can you at least get his pension cut? | ||
| Isn't he still getting 400 grand a year? | ||
| Is there somebody you could talk to at least on that? | ||
| I mean, throw us a bone here. | ||
| We have a hard time even finding out what his pension is, much less getting his pension cut. | ||
| His security details have been hiding under a rock and passing the rock around government. | ||
| HHS, which oversees NIH, Health and Human Services, has hidden the grants and the non-classified documents more than the CIA on this. | ||
| We get 250-page tranches of pages that are completely blacked out, completely redacted, and they're not classified. | ||
| We voted unanimously in the Senate and the House to declassify all of this. | ||
| Senate to Biden's desk, unanimous in both House and Senate, and still we get no information. | ||
| We are fighting them tooth and nail. | ||
| I have to basically use leverage to get a Democrat to sign any letter asking for information. | ||
| They'll do one letter, this much information, and then we don't get it for three months, and then we get another letter, only if we extort them by blocking nominations or blocking their legislation. | ||
| I think I know the answer to this, but I mean, does it blow your mind in any way how partisan this has become? | ||
| The fact that you'd think that now, knowing what we know, more people on the other side would want to help you with this, but I'm pretty sure you're getting stonewalled at every turn. | ||
| Yeah, I'm amazed by it, that no Democrat has stepped forward, that a million people die. | ||
| Look, these are the same Democrats who think that the plastic in your bottles and your glasses is causing cancer. | ||
| We've had ten hearings on the plastic in glasses and in babies' bottles causing cancer, which it probably doesn't, but we've had ten hearings on it. | ||
| We haven't had one hearing on the origins of the virus. | ||
| I had one in a subcommittee and the Democrats boycotted it. | ||
| I spent two years trying to get one subcommittee hearing and now I'm the ranking member of an entire committee, meaning I'm in the minority and I don't get to control the agenda. | ||
| We've had no hearings on the origins of COVID. | ||
| Would you say that the best way for people to inoculate themselves from, again, whatever the next thing is, would be to just live in a state that's gonna offer them those protections? | ||
| Obviously, you know I'm here in Florida, where we've done a lot to make sure that next time it comes back, you're not gonna be forced to be locked down or mandated anything. | ||
| I think you've done some things in Kentucky, but basically, we're just gonna see this red-blue divide on this, and it'll just increasingly go that way. | ||
| This is the beauty of the state system or the federalist system where power is supposed to be devolved to the states. | ||
| And I do think that Republican governors did learn from this. | ||
| Some of them did initially participate in lockdowns, and I think they thought better of it. | ||
| In my state, we have a Democrat governor. | ||
| And he ruled by emergency edict and almost every one of his edicts, I think everyone was eventually struck down by courts. | ||
| But eventually our state legislature came back in power and we've now said that you can't have an emergency last longer than 30 days and less approved by the legislature. | ||
| We should do that in Washington too. | ||
| There are rules on the books that allow a president in an emergency to shut off the internet. | ||
| To close all communications in the country. | ||
| It's been there since the 30s. | ||
| Now it doesn't say the internet. | ||
| It says all communications, but it's interpreted, it's been interpreted now as being some so-called internet kill switch. | ||
| It's just been on the books. | ||
| I think we should get rid of all of those emergencies. | ||
| I can't think of any law or any emergency where the legislature shouldn't act. | ||
| And if you need something in an emergency like blankets or water after a tornado, those are the only emergency powers we should have. | ||
| We should never close restaurants, schools, and everything else based on one person's opinion or edict, because it turns out the science wasn't very good on this. | ||
| The masks... | ||
| 78 randomized controlled studies. | ||
| The meta-analysis of all that shows the mask didn't prevent transmission. | ||
| The vaccine doesn't prevent transmission, may help you if you're in a targeted group that's at high risk for this, but is of no value really for children. | ||
| And interestingly, the committees at the FDA, the Vaccine Committee, and the CDC, the Vaccine Committee, actually voted against giving the third vaccine to children. | ||
| It was overruled by a political appointee in the Biden administration. | ||
| All of the scientists agreed to only give it to people over 65 as a recommendation, but once it becomes part of this dogma, it gets fed down, and even the states that don't want this may be forced to put it into the school system, because the school system says, oh, we're going with best practices from the CDC. | ||
| But I can tell you there is no good science to say that your child should get a COVID vaccine. | ||
| Zero. | ||
| If your kid's already had COVID, they don't need a vaccine. | ||
| Even if your kid hadn't had COVID, they probably have anyway. | ||
| You just didn't know it. | ||
| But kids don't need a vaccine for a non-deadly disease. | ||
| And the complications from the vaccine aren't extremely common. | ||
| They're fairly rare. | ||
| About 1 or 2 out of 15,000. | ||
| But do you want to take that chance and roll the dice with your perfectly healthy kid that survives COVID like a cold? | ||
| No, there's no reason to take any chances with your children on a COVID vaccine. | ||
| I can tell you as a relatively new father, I mean, the idea that they're recommending six-month-olds get this stuff, it seems so profoundly insane. | ||
| But let me just ask you one more, because I know you got a couple things to do over there, the business of the government, even though sometimes it's a little slow. | ||
| What do you think the next You know, a lot of people sort of think, | ||
| okay, they'll just have another COVID situation before an election, or it could be climate related, | ||
| or they'll scare us with this Russia, Ukraine thing. | ||
| I mean, do you sense that there just, we'll just be in this time of every couple years, | ||
| they will gin up something? | ||
| Some have come to me from the public health sphere, people who have PhDs in virology | ||
| and are intimately involved with this, and they believe that there will be another pandemic | ||
| our lifetime, really within a few years. | ||
| Their fear is that the next one could have a mortality between 5 and 50%. | ||
| So this one, as bad as it was, was .3. | ||
| The normal school is about 0.1. | ||
| That's about a million people in the U.S. | ||
| 0.3 is about 3 million. | ||
| No, 0.3 is about a million in the U.S., so 0.1 is about 300,000 or so. | ||
|
unidentified
|
But 50%? | |
| Now we're talking about 180 million people dying. | ||
| 50% of the planet dying? | ||
| We're talking about maybe worse than the Black Plague, you know, bubonic plague. | ||
| We're talking about something so devastating that it can put civilization back thousands of years as the people who can fix stuff and create stuff and make things and invent things and teachers. | ||
| All these people are wiped out at 50%. | ||
| This could happen. | ||
| This is how big a deal this is. | ||
| There's an MIT scientist who is by no means You know, a flat earther, he does CRISPR technology, he's an amazing scientist, Kevin Esvelt, and he wrote in the Washington Post, and I have no idea what his politics are, but he wrote in the Washington Post that the next time this happens, or what could happen from gain-of-function research, is basically a gamble and a risk that civilization should encounter. | ||
| This is an issue as big or bigger than nuclear war, and it should be treated with the same gravity and Seriousness, and it is bizarre to me that the left's love of Anthony Fauci has forbidden them from even looking at the issue. | ||
| Well, Senator, that's exactly why everyone should check out the book. | ||
| We will link to Deception right down below. | ||
| And I thank you for your time. | ||
| And as I always say, being on the short list of politicians that I can say are actually sane. | ||
| So thank you, Senator Rand Paul. | ||
| Thanks, Dave. | ||
| Thanks for having me. | ||
| If you're looking for more honest and thoughtful conversations about politics instead of nonstop screaming, check out our politics playlist. | ||
| And if you want to watch full interviews on a variety of topics, watch our full episode playlist all right over here. |
Export Selection