Senator Rand Paul Discusses Fauci Hearing

Please welcome Senator Rand Paul to the show,

who has been an incessant critic

of Dr. Anthony Fauci throughout this whole coronavirus pandemic ordeal.

He has not shied away from calling Rand Paul to the carpet.

He's a doctor by profession, by the way, not just a senator.

Let's welcome Senator Rand Paul to the show.

Hello, sir, how are you? Thanks for having me,

glad to be with you.

Put into perspective what transpired yesterday with this hearing involving Dr. Anthony Fauci.

He was subpoenaed, he did show up, but he took the fifth.

He pled the Fifth Amendment 111 times.

Number one, did you expect that? And if so, why?

You know, we weren't certain.

We thought it might happen, but I didn't know until that moment that he wasn't gonna testify.

I really did want him to testify and still want some questions to be answered.

You know, the most important question is, should the taxpayer fund research where we take an animal virus and mutate it to become a human virus?

We basically create a new virus that doesn't exist in nature.

And we have the ability to do it. Scientifically, we can replace gene by gene.

In 2010, they took the bird flu and they replaced eight genes, but they made it transmissible through the air,

aerosolized it between mammals, and it wasn't before.

I think it makes no sense.

The bird flu is about 50% deadly.

If you make it more transmissible to humans, like what we think happened with COVID-19, it would be a death wish for the world.

I mean, it spreads very rapidly, respiratory virus, very deadly.

But the reason we don't, while we don't have a pandemic right now with the bird flu, is it doesn't go human to human.

We think COVID-19 started out going human to human so quickly is because it was modified in the lab.

It was pre-adapted to go human to human.

And they do this,

interestingly, with mice that have human lungs.

I know that sounds kind of science fiction,

but they've created mice that are basically human.

When the virus looks at the lung cells, they are human.

And they just culture this thing over and over.

It's called serial passage until they get a virus that can infect humans.

And it's a terrible thing. And Fauci knew all along what they were doing.

In his private notes, he says, we suspect they might've manipulated because we know they do gain-of-function research.

He says this in private, but then in public, he says,

oh, it came from nature. And that if you think otherwise, you're a conspiracy theorist.

So I wish he had answered the questions.

He has served, Dr. Fauci, we're talking about here.

He's been, in a lot of people's eyes, he's a career civil servant who spent 38 years at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease.

They think about his years of service.

And yet at the age of 85, having retired, he's on Capitol Hill. And it seemed as if you had politicians up there who wanted him in jail.

And he has said, he has called. your pursuit of him an unhinged obsession and that you want him in jail.

Speak to that for a second and whether or not,

what your feelings are about him at this particular moment in time and what they have been since the pandemic took place years ago so everybody will

understand. My questions I think have all been very serious.

A million Americans died, about 15 million people died worldwide.

Where did this come from? What is the evidence for the lab?

What is the evidence for it coming from the wet market?

So the other thing we learned recently from their investigation that I led was that in January of 2020, at the very beginning,

he was told that the earliest cases did not come from the wet market.

He acknowledges it and he says that the wet market was likely a super spreader.

It didn't originate there. It wasn't from the wild animals at the wet market.

That was a super spreader event. So he knew this in January of 2020.

But you've seen him on the media.

For the last five years, he continues to say it came from the wet market.

It came from the wet market.

The wet market's a problem. We need to ban and close the wet market.

Why? Now, if you were just a disinterested scientist

that didn't have anything to gain, you'd say,

well, he's just being honest. That's his opinion.

Why condemn him?

But what if you also know that he funded the lab that it came from?

Would he have a self-interest in protecting himself

by arguing it came from nature?

So he's not a disinterested observer.

He's not an objective person. He's a person who,

if it came from the lab, would share responsibility.

So he had every reason to hide and cover up.

And that's why his statements in private

are diametrically opposite of his statements in public.

What about the notion that he could just say,

listen, we were in pursuit of something.

We made a mistake and move forward.

I mean, it would seem like, you know,

I hate to put it this way, but science is not an exact science.

I mean, there's a lot of imperfections that come along with it.

You're not just a senator.

You're a medical professional.

A lot of people don't realize that they don't notice about you.

You're a medical professional. And so when you look at it for a doctor,

so when you look at it from that standpoint, it's

not perfect. Imperfections come along with this line of work one could easily

argue. Right.

Why couldn't Fauci just acknowledge that and move on?

I was open yesterday and still am open to an apology

in that he wants to modify his point of view.

The problem is this.

This didn't start in 2020.

This really starts in at least 2010.

So he funded research in the Netherlands

to mutate the avian flu in 2010.

This is when the controversy began.

I wasn't part of this controversy.

I really wasn't even aware of this until 2021.

But the controversy raged in the scientific community.

A group of scientists led by a scientist at MIT started the Cambridge Working Group,

and they criticized the publication of this because they said,

if you publish this mutation and how you did it, it'll be a roadmap for bioweapons.

And every lunatic out there that has the skills to do this will now have a roadmap as

to create biological weapons. So they argued it shouldn't be published and it shouldn't be funded.

Well, Anthony Fauci argued in 2010, this is way before the pandemic.

This isn't like he made a mistake in the pandemic. He had a philosophic belief that this research was good.

So he writes

an op-ed in the Washington Post.

And in that, he says that even if a scientist is bitten,

even if a pandemic escapes from a lab, the knowledge is worth the risks.

Now that's a philosophic position.

I don't think he wants to back away.

He could back away from that.

But he didn't decide in 2020 to do this.

He decided back in 2010.

The funding of the lab in Wuhan begins in 2014.

It's not a coincidence that his pardon starts in 2014 and goes forward,

because that's when the lab began being funded. But he philosophically agrees with this.

But this isn't just me speaking.

There's a scientist at Stanford by the name of David Relman.

He has classified clearance. He's advised the government.

He understands this science as well as Anthony Fauci or better.

He looked at this experiment that Anthony Fauci funded in the Netherlands

on the bird flu to juice up the bird flu.

And he said it never should have happened, and it never should have been published.

So like I say, this debate has raged for 10 years.

It was outside the circle of the news like you and I talk about,

or even what I was interested in.

It was outside the circle until a pandemic occurred.

And then some people say, oh, it could never happen.

This is just crazy. It still could have been nature.

Well, this isn't the first time.

In 1977, there was a Russian flu.

It was an influenza.

They're not positive exactly where it started, but they were able to sequence it.

So they looked at the DNA sequence or RNA sequence of this influenza virus from 1977.

You know what they discovered?

It was identical to a virus in 1954.

Well, how could that be possible?

Because viruses mutate a little bit every month,

and something that originated in 54 would be 20 or 30% different by the time you get to 1977.

It was identical.

And the conclusion was it had to have gotten out of a lab.

And they had vaccines for this virus.

There were a handful of labs that had it, and somebody was working with it.

And it got infected or infected somebody or an animal somebody,

and it got out of a lab. It went worldwide.

The reason you haven't heard about it or probably haven't heard about it

is it had no death rate. It was a influenza,

and maybe somebody died, but it wasn't like COVID where millions of people died.

But these accidents happen. Labs are not perfect.

But you add to this that this happened in

China where their labs were not at the level of our labs.

Their labs had never been inspected. Anthony Fauci was asked,

did your laboratory inspectors go to China before you sent the money?

You knew they were doing dangerous research there.

Did you go and inspect their lab?

Did you ask them and ascertain what kind of experiments they were doing?

I didn't even know who Anthony Fauci was before 2020.

I know he'd been prominent in certain circles here, but I just didn't know who he was.

When he first came before him, I had nothing against him.

I still have nothing against him personally.

But I do think that there has to be responsibility

for who makes the decisions on funding and whether it's dangerous or not.

If he's still not willing to admit it's dangerous,

then what if his friends and his colleagues are in charge again and they start funding this?