Speaker 1: Welcome. In his verdict was Senator Ted Cruz ben Ferguson
Speaker 1: with you the headline, Senator, and I want to get
Speaker 1: your reaction to this. It's something you've been talking about,
Speaker 1: literally now for years, the lab leak and that theory
Speaker 1: of the Wuhunt Insuit of virology they're now admitting is
Speaker 1: most likely the origin of the COVID nineteen pandemic. I
Speaker 1: wish I could say that we're shocked. Were not, And
Speaker 1: anyone that said this early on you were included, was
Speaker 1: a conspiracy theorist. Give me your initial reaction to this. Well,
Speaker 1: we now have yet another part of the Biden administration
Speaker 1: admitting what I think has been blazingly obvious for a
Speaker 1: long time, which is that the COVID virus very likely
Speaker 1: escaped from a Chinese government lab. Just in the last
Speaker 1: twenty four hours, the Biden Energy Department, the news has broken,
Speaker 1: has concluded that that is the likely source of COVID. Now,
Speaker 1: you didn't have to wait until twenty twenty three to
Speaker 1: find that out. This podcast has been laying out the
Speaker 1: facts that connect the COVID virus to the Wuhan Institute
Speaker 1: for Virology, to the Chinese government labs in Wuhan, China,
Speaker 1: laying out the facts and fighting against the deliberate disinformation
Speaker 1: from democrats, from the media, from big tech, and from
Speaker 1: the Chinese government itself, with the American government often arm
Speaker 1: in arm in spreading disinformation and trying to squash what
Speaker 1: the facts actually demonstrate. I want to play for people
Speaker 1: something that is probably not going to be played anywhere else,
Speaker 1: and it's something that we wanted to do today. To
Speaker 1: go back in time to remind you of this narrative.
Speaker 1: And if you go back to February the ninth of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, the defense that was taking place by China
Speaker 1: was if you point the finger at us, if you
Speaker 1: point the finger at the Wihan suit of virology, you
Speaker 1: are a racist. You are trying to turn people against
Speaker 1: people that are Chinese, and you are a bigoted individual.
Speaker 1: This happened on Face the Nation February the nine, twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: The ambassador from China was a guest, and I want
Speaker 1: everyone to hear this. Take a listen. And in fact,
Speaker 1: this week Senator Tom Cotton, who sits on the Senate
Speaker 1: Intelligence and Armed Services Committee, suggested that the virus may
Speaker 1: have come from China's biological warfare program. That's an extraordinary charge.
Speaker 1: How do you respond to that. I think it's true
Speaker 1: that a lot is still unknown, and our scientists, Chinese scientists,
Speaker 1: American scientists, scientists of either country are doing that best
Speaker 1: to learn more about the virus. But it's very harmful.
Speaker 1: It's very dangerous to still up suspicion rumors and spread
Speaker 1: them among the people. For one thing, this will create panic.
Speaker 1: Another thing is that it will fend up racial discriminations, eniophobia,
Speaker 1: all these things that will really harm our young efforts
Speaker 1: to combat the virus. Of course, there are all kinds
Speaker 1: of speculations and rumors. There are people who are saying
Speaker 1: that these virus are coming from some military lab not
Speaker 1: of China, maybe in the United States. How can we
Speaker 1: believe all these craziest things? Do you think it's crazy?
Speaker 1: Where did the absolutely crazy? Where did the virus come from?
Speaker 1: We still don't know yet. It's probably, according to some
Speaker 1: initial outcome of the research, probably coming from some animals,
Speaker 1: but we have to discover them all about it. We
Speaker 1: know that to lie now, and we know the entire time,
Speaker 1: not only to China, lie to the rest of the world,
Speaker 1: but many within our own media center we're trying to
Speaker 1: sell the lies on the behalf of China and their propaganda.
Speaker 1: How damning of this is it of an indictment of
Speaker 1: the media just not doing their jobs. Well, look that
Speaker 1: was February of twenty twenty. That was right at the
Speaker 1: outs outbreak of the pandemic. And it is striking how
Speaker 1: many of the Democrat talking points, and how many of
Speaker 1: the media talking points, and how many of the big
Speaker 1: tech talking points are literally word for word being dictated
Speaker 1: by the Chinese government. You know, that whole diatribe about
Speaker 1: xenophobia and racism because you know, the government of China
Speaker 1: is very concerned about xenophobia and racism when they're running
Speaker 1: concentration camps with a million hiaguers and torturing and murdering them.
Speaker 1: It is shameless, but they know that Democrats in the
Speaker 1: media will happily parrot it. And let's go back to
Speaker 1: two months later. So in April of twenty twenty, Glenn Kessler,
Speaker 1: who is the Washington Post fact checker, which means he
Speaker 1: is charged. He is their lie in chief. His record
Speaker 1: is so bad, he is so partisan that it becomes laughable. Well,
Speaker 1: on April thirtieth, twenty twenty, Glenn Kessler tweeted out, quote,
Speaker 1: watched this amazing video by two people. Was the new
Speaker 1: coronavirus accidentally released from a Wuhan lab. It's doubtful, and
Speaker 1: he has this whole elaborate video that the Washington Post
Speaker 1: put together. Now at that same time, I responded the
Speaker 1: next day, and I had a ten thread, a ten
Speaker 1: tweet tweet thread. Just taking this apart. I'm just going
Speaker 1: to run back through it because it's worth noting. This
Speaker 1: is at the outset. This is on May one, twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Amazing is definitely the right word for this video. The
Speaker 1: Washington Post quote abandoning all pretenses of journalism to produce
Speaker 1: CCP propaganda would be another way to put it. If
Speaker 1: this reporter sub did this video in a freshman logic class,
Speaker 1: it wouldn't receive a passing grade. Let's review the facts.
Speaker 1: Fact number one Washington Post admits two separate labs in Wuhan.
Speaker 1: We're studying coronaviruses derived from bats. One lab was just
Speaker 1: three hundred yards from the Wuhan wet market. Fact number
Speaker 1: two Washington Post admits bats with similar coronaviruses quote live
Speaker 1: in caves one thousand miles away. Fact number three, Washington
Speaker 1: Post admits both labs had serious safety concerns, resulting in
Speaker 1: multiple US State Department wires before this crisis warning that
Speaker 1: shoddy safety protocols could lead to a global coronavirus pandemic.
Speaker 1: Fact number four, Washington Post admits China destroyed the lab
Speaker 1: samples after the pandemic started, raising the natural inference that
Speaker 1: they were afraid what the samples, if examined, would show.
Speaker 1: All of these facts strongly suggests the virus escaped from
Speaker 1: one of these CCP labs. At this point, the evidence
Speaker 1: is circumstantial because the CCP is hiding and blocking any
Speaker 1: direct evidence. But what is the Washington Post conclusion quote?
Speaker 1: The balance of the scientific evidence strongly suggests the conclusion
Speaker 1: that the new coronavirus emerged from nature, be it in
Speaker 1: the Wuhan market or somewhere else. This is a non sequitor.
Speaker 1: None of the aforementioned evidence leads to that conclusion. What
Speaker 1: is the Washington Post basis? Well, Washington Post counterfact number one,
Speaker 1: the CCP and the lab director who initially wrote quote
Speaker 1: could the pandemic virus have come from our lab? End? Quote?
Speaker 1: Now deny it? Quote. This is the Washington Post, she
Speaker 1: her team and the Chinese government have adamantly denied that
Speaker 1: it could have come from this lab. Washington Post takes
Speaker 1: that denial from the Chinese communists as true. Washington Post
Speaker 1: counterfact number two they quote doctor Peter Dazik, the head
Speaker 1: of the Eco House Eco Health Alliance, as saying, quote,
Speaker 1: China has been incredibly open. I believe it's because it's
Speaker 1: a scientific collaboration. And in China they're really proud of
Speaker 1: their science. They do good work, especially in virology. That's it.
Speaker 1: Those two counterfacts form one hundred percent of the basis
Speaker 1: for Washington Post quote fact check. In number two. The
Speaker 1: claim that quote China has been incredibly open end quote
Speaker 1: is laughably absurd. They destroyed the lab samples, they punished,
Speaker 1: and they silenced the pandemic whistleblowers. And who is this
Speaker 1: objective source? Doctor Dazek, Well, his organization, Eco Health Alliance
Speaker 1: was receiving now canceled US taxpayer dollars to support bat
Speaker 1: coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Why does
Speaker 1: the Washington Post not disclose his enormous bias, litigation, exposure
Speaker 1: and conflict of interest? And then Finally, and is it
Speaker 1: relevant that the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos,
Speaker 1: the richest man in the world, who stands to make
Speaker 1: billions in China if he pleases the communist overlords. Whatever
Speaker 1: Washington Post is doing, this is not journalism. It is
Speaker 1: apologizing for the CCP, trying to cover up their culpability.
Speaker 1: You go back and you think about how long ago
Speaker 1: this was, and it was a time when there were
Speaker 1: people that were literally canceled from social media, silenced by doctors,
Speaker 1: silenced by the CDC if you said anything that was
Speaker 1: out of sorts with what the narrative was. And then
Speaker 1: we find out that all the conspiracy theories theorists are
Speaker 1: now well, we were right, and we were right all along.
Speaker 1: And there were many in the world of research that
Speaker 1: also were pointing to this and saying, hey, we think
Speaker 1: this came from the Will Hunt instu virology. Many of
Speaker 1: their careers were either stifled or ruined for just saying that.
Speaker 1: And I want to get your reactionent Before we get
Speaker 1: to that, I want to remind you about our friends
Speaker 1: Augusta Precious Metals. You've seen what's been going on in
Speaker 1: Wall Street. You see what's going on in the economy,
Speaker 1: and you've seen what's happening with the FEDS with inflation.
Speaker 1: If you are close to retirement, you know right now
Speaker 1: that you don't have time to make up losses. And
Speaker 1: that is where a gust of Precious Metals come in.
Speaker 1: They can help you understand that what can happen and
Speaker 1: what can work for you with your money with a
Speaker 1: gold ira or a four oh one k. I use
Speaker 1: a gust of precious metals. They're different because they will
Speaker 1: even tell you if a gold Ira isn't your answer,
Speaker 1: they give you just the facts. Gust of Precious Medals
Speaker 1: is all about protecting your iras and four one ks
Speaker 1: and this crazy economy, and it's so important the closer
Speaker 1: you get to retirement. So if you've saved one hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars or more, take a look and not only
Speaker 1: get their free guide, but sign up for their web conference.
Speaker 1: Now I've done this one on one web conference. It
Speaker 1: is amazing. You actually talk to the people with a
Speaker 1: gust of Precious Medal face to face and you'll learn
Speaker 1: about what it can do for you with your four
Speaker 1: one k and your ira with gold and silver. Call
Speaker 1: them eight seven seven four gold Ira eight seven seven
Speaker 1: four the number four gold IRA or visit them online
Speaker 1: August of Precious Metals dot com. Use my promo code
Speaker 1: Ben and you can get your fees covered for up
Speaker 1: to ten years August of Precious Medals dot com. That's
Speaker 1: Agust of Precious Medals dot Com center. I go back
Speaker 1: to the people that tried to and I don't even
Speaker 1: think they looked at themselves at the time as whistleblowers.
Speaker 1: I think they just thought they were doing their jobs
Speaker 1: getting the facts out, and they were treated like they
Speaker 1: were basically anarchists. They were crazies. They were to be silenced,
Speaker 1: shut down, their lives to be ruined, well, their careers
Speaker 1: to be risked. The press felt no accountability, that they
Speaker 1: were confident they could lie with impunity. You know the
Speaker 1: ten tweet thread that I just reviewed a moment ago.
Speaker 1: Do you know how Glenn Kesler responded to that ten
Speaker 1: tweet thread that actually went through the facts that were
Speaker 1: obvious then three years ago. Yeah, you would be public
Speaker 1: enemy number one at that point because you were asking questions. Well,
Speaker 1: he responded with the following quote, I fear ted Cruz
Speaker 1: missed the scientific animation. Ah the animation in the video
Speaker 1: that shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus
Speaker 1: jump from the lab. I think he's missing the word too,
Speaker 1: or the many interviews with actual scientists. We deal in
Speaker 1: facts and viewers can judge for themselves. So he is
Speaker 1: pompous and self satisfied he has opined these are the facts. Well, Glenn,
Speaker 1: I rate your video and your tweet with four hundred
Speaker 1: and thirty nine pinocchios and a pants on fire, and
Speaker 1: you're full of crap. At the same time, don't worry,
Speaker 1: They're gonna now fact check you on everything for the
Speaker 1: next six months of punishment. They did that anyway, and
Speaker 1: the problem is they're laughably bad at it because they
Speaker 1: just what they call facts are nothing more than left
Speaker 1: wing editorial views. They view it as an absolute fact.
Speaker 1: So this tweet and what Washington Post claimed were the
Speaker 1: objective facts. Now the Biden Department of Energy has concluded
Speaker 1: is false, that what they said is virtually impossible is
Speaker 1: in fact what the Biden Department of Energy and the
Speaker 1: Biden FBI both believe is the likely explanation for what happened. Now,
Speaker 1: I will confess I'm not exactly holding my breath waiting
Speaker 1: for the Washington post to issue a retraction. I'm not
Speaker 1: expecting them to fact check themselves because they believe the
Speaker 1: rules don't apply to them, and I do think there
Speaker 1: are serious questions to ask about why is it that
Speaker 1: the media engaged in a concerted effort to silence the
Speaker 1: vious inference. Look, we were making this point on the
Speaker 1: podcast in the first couple of months of the pandemic,
Speaker 1: because the facts were clear even back then, and yet
Speaker 1: the corporate media had, I believe, a financial interest, a
Speaker 1: political interest, a partisan interest in silencing the facts and
Speaker 1: covering up for the Chinese communist government, and in labeling
Speaker 1: anyone who pointed out those facts a tinfoil had conspiracy theorists,
Speaker 1: and also using the power of big tech to suppress them. Listen,
Speaker 1: we know that doctor Fauci asked Mark Zuckerberg in writing
Speaker 1: an email to suppress people on Facebook posting that the
Speaker 1: COVID virus came from a Chinese lab. So big tech,
Speaker 1: and presumably, by the way, all the rest of big
Speaker 1: tech was equally complicit in silencing those views. It's an
Speaker 1: example of quite simple, lee relentless mediaize. Let's talk about
Speaker 1: the here and now and what the fallout could be
Speaker 1: or maybe should be from this compared to what's probably
Speaker 1: going to happen the lab leek. And again I'm going
Speaker 1: to read this because it's important. Most likely origin of
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen pandemic. Energy Department now says came from Wuhan.
Speaker 1: US's agency has revised their assessments quote based and this
Speaker 1: is coming from the Wall Street Journal on new intelligence.
Speaker 1: Do we know, Senator what that new intelligence is? Because
Speaker 1: again I go back to Fauci here. Fauci dismissed the
Speaker 1: Wuhan lab leak theory as a shiny object. Those were
Speaker 1: his exact words, and in April twenty twenty email he
Speaker 1: called it a shiny object. So at that point you
Speaker 1: got to ask jof why was he helping basically trying
Speaker 1: to cover this up so much? So I don't know
Speaker 1: what that new intelligence was. And one of the reasons
Speaker 1: why I'm speaking so freely about it now on this
Speaker 1: podcast is I haven't seen the classified briefing at issue.
Speaker 1: This broke. Somebody leaked the classified briefing. I haven't gotten it.
Speaker 1: I will be back in Washington this week in the Senate.
Speaker 1: I'm certainly going to press to see I want to
Speaker 1: see this Department of Energy report that has now been leaked.
Speaker 1: But since I haven't seen it, I'm not revealing classified information.
Speaker 1: I don't know what's in it. What I do know
Speaker 1: is what the press did was so comprehensive. So let
Speaker 1: me let me run through several examples and actually comfortably
Speaker 1: smug Who is a friend and who is great on
Speaker 1: Twitter put together a thread of just some of the
Speaker 1: most egregious media lies trying to cover up the origins
Speaker 1: of COVID. So, for example, PolitiFact gave a Tucker Carlson
Speaker 1: guest a pants on fire for the quote debunked conspiracy
Speaker 1: theory that COVID came from a lab. Now I would
Speaker 1: to Politifacts credit. They've since withdrawn that blatantly false fact check,
Speaker 1: but they started with pants on fire and debunked because
Speaker 1: their view is well, the Chinese communists tell us, so
Speaker 1: it must be true. Here's another example, Media Matters said,
Speaker 1: influential podcast hosts Joe Rogan spread an unfounded claim that
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen quote comes out of a lab in Wuhan,
Speaker 1: And of course they haven't corrected that. The New York
Speaker 1: Times reporter, right, this is a New York Times reporter,
Speaker 1: a poor vub Mandevilli, who tweeted in May of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one, someday we will stop talking about the lab
Speaker 1: leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But
Speaker 1: alas that day is not yet here. So that's a
Speaker 1: New York Times reporter who what does she doing repeating
Speaker 1: the talking points from the Chinese Communist Party. How about
Speaker 1: another time, after Trump and Pompeo had floated the lab
Speaker 1: leak theory, CNN's Don Lemon, who we talked about a
Speaker 1: lot in our last PAP podcast, asked on air, quote,
Speaker 1: how far off are the president's claims compared to what
Speaker 1: your sources are telling you? CNN Senior reporter Alexander Markhart. Well, Don,
Speaker 1: they're pretty much the exact opposite. And how about this
Speaker 1: MSNBC's Nicole Wallace quote, Donald Trump is turning his intelligence
Speaker 1: community to now investigate a conspiracy theory about COVID coming
Speaker 1: from a lab in Wuhan. Here's another example from the
Speaker 1: editor in chief of Scientific America. This is March twenty six,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one. Quote on CNN. Former CDC director Robert
Speaker 1: Redfield shared the conspiracy theory that the virus came from
Speaker 1: the Wuhan Lab. Epidemymologists and virologists are doing heroic and
Speaker 1: urgent work on social media debunking everything he said. Thanks
Speaker 1: so much to them, and a pause to reflect on
Speaker 1: that the former director of the CDC had the guts
Speaker 1: to speak out and say say the truth, and what
Speaker 1: happened the left universally hammered down and decided we're going
Speaker 1: to try to discredit the former director of the CDC,
Speaker 1: just like they went after doctors at Stanford and Harvard
Speaker 1: Yale who dared take them up. This was a concerted
Speaker 1: effort at lying and every person who engaged in these
Speaker 1: lies should be held accountable. And it goes back to
Speaker 1: even seeing it now, trying to cover themselves. And I
Speaker 1: want to play audio from today where they actually came
Speaker 1: out and tried to somehow port this news while downplaying
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna play that for you in just a moment.
Speaker 1: I want to remind you about our good friends over
Speaker 1: at Chalk. If you're a guy and you're getting older
Speaker 1: and you might feel like you're losing some of that
Speaker 1: strength and vitality, well you're not alone. It's a real
Speaker 1: problem and the loss of testosterone levels are off for
Speaker 1: many men as they get older. It's a historical cliff,
Speaker 1: and right now for many men, it's an all time low. Thankfully,
Speaker 1: the patriots at Chalkhoq are here to help real American
Speaker 1: men take back their right to proudly maximize their masculinity
Speaker 1: by actually boosting testosterone. Now that's not approved by the Left.
Speaker 1: Just want to be clear about that. They can help
Speaker 1: you boost your testosterone out to twenty percent over ninety days.
Speaker 1: Now I've been taking chalk. I'm actually using something you
Speaker 1: ought to check it out. It's great, the Male Vitality Stack,
Speaker 1: and you can go online right now Choq dot com,
Speaker 1: Atoq dot com. Use a code and you'll get thirty
Speaker 1: five percent off any Chuck subscriptions for life. Now. Subscriptions
Speaker 1: are canceable anytime, so you're gonna save a lot. So
Speaker 1: get back to the way you used to fill. Go
Speaker 1: online to choq dot com, check out the Mail Vitality Stack,
Speaker 1: and there are other great products chalkhoq dot com. Use
Speaker 1: promo code ben you'll get thirty five percent off any
Speaker 1: Chalk subscription. Now, Senor CNN this morning they come out
Speaker 1: want to you know, cover the quote breaking news. The
Speaker 1: US Department of Energy is assessing that COVID nineteen likely
Speaker 1: resulted from a lab leak, but they still want you
Speaker 1: to know they think the chances of this being right
Speaker 1: are still low, but they're reporting it as fact. Listen
Speaker 1: carefully updated classified intel report saying that the US Department
Speaker 1: of Energy has a sess that the source of the
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen pandemic likely came from a China lab leak,
Speaker 1: but there is one major caveat source is at the
Speaker 1: Department of Energy, and tell CNN that the report has
Speaker 1: quote low confidence center low confidence. I mean the US
Speaker 1: Department Energy assess is that this happened. And then they
Speaker 1: come back and they're like, well, it's low confidence of
Speaker 1: the COVID nineteen likely resulted from a China lab league.
Speaker 1: How much do you have to fall over yourself to
Speaker 1: look like you're stupid when you're announcing news from the
Speaker 1: US Department of Energy this way. Well, they're trying desperately
Speaker 1: to cover their own terrible track record because CNN and
Speaker 1: the Washington Post and the New York Times refuse to
Speaker 1: conduct actual journalism. They repeat left wing talking points, even
Speaker 1: if they come directly from the Chinese Communist government. Now
Speaker 1: it is true that at least according to the leaks
Speaker 1: that as I said, I have not seen this intelligence briefing,
Speaker 1: but according to the leaks, the Energy Department made its
Speaker 1: judgment with quote low confidence. And that's typical and an
Speaker 1: intelligence briefing that they give you the level of confidence,
Speaker 1: whether it's low or moderate or high, and so concluded
Speaker 1: this was the likely source, but it said with low confidence.
Speaker 1: You know what CNN didn't say, at least in the
Speaker 1: segment you played there. They may have acknowledged this elsewhere
Speaker 1: on CNN, which is the FBI came to the same conclusion.
Speaker 1: And the FBI has that conclusion with quote quote moderate confidence.
Speaker 1: So you've got two agencies and the Biden administration that
Speaker 1: hold this view. One the Department of Energy that has
Speaker 1: particular experience and expertise with labs, and the other the FBI,
Speaker 1: which you would think would know something about evidence. And nevertheless,
Speaker 1: just a couple of years ago, saying what the Biden
Speaker 1: FBI and Biden Energy Department are now reluctantly acknowledging would
Speaker 1: get you silence, blocked, canceled, and ridiculed. Too high heaven,
Speaker 1: because you know, this really ought to be every newsroom
Speaker 1: that lied about this head should roll. If there actually
Speaker 1: were responsible editors, if there were responsible owners of papers,
Speaker 1: the people who lied about this should lose their jobs.
Speaker 1: As it is, they'll skate by with complete impunity. What
Speaker 1: about Faucci And you think some of this maybe is
Speaker 1: actually coming out now because Fauci's there no longer there
Speaker 1: to control the information or the narrative. And I say
Speaker 1: that as a loaded question, but I want to play
Speaker 1: audio to back up that theory. Fauci. If you go
Speaker 1: back to June of twenty twenty one, he was on TV.
Speaker 1: He had the NHS background behind him from Bethesa, Maryland.
Speaker 1: He was talking on CNN, and this is what he
Speaker 1: had to say about the lab that China lab Wick theory.
Speaker 1: He said, quote, it was far out to think that
Speaker 1: China would quote endanger its own people and then went
Speaker 1: on to mock people that think that's listen, I would
Speaker 1: have time to go. So that's a mood point. You've
Speaker 1: had the distinct honor and pleasure of having some of
Speaker 1: your emails, many of your emails released to the public
Speaker 1: over the last few days, and there have been questions
Speaker 1: or controversy, some gend up, but some questions raised about
Speaker 1: some of them, and I want to get you on
Speaker 1: the record addressing some of them. There was an email
Speaker 1: sent to you from an executive an Eco Health Alliance,
Speaker 1: and this is one of the companies that funded some
Speaker 1: of the research at the Wuhan Lab, and this email
Speaker 1: thanked you for basically saying you believed that the origins
Speaker 1: of the coronavirus were natural. This email said quote, I
Speaker 1: wanted to say a personal thank you on behalf of
Speaker 1: our staff and collaborators for publicly standing up and stating
Speaker 1: that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID
Speaker 1: nineteen from back to human spillover, not a lab release
Speaker 1: from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That email was April eighteenth.
Speaker 1: There are some of your critics who say this shows
Speaker 1: you have two coesy of a relationship with the people
Speaker 1: behind the Wuhan Lab research. What do you say to that,
Speaker 1: that's nonsense. I don't even see how they get that
Speaker 1: from that email. That email was sent to me from them.
Speaker 1: I have always said, and we'll say today to you, John,
Speaker 1: that I still believe the most likely origin is from
Speaker 1: an animal species to a human, but I keep an
Speaker 1: absolutely open mind that if there may be other origins
Speaker 1: of that. There may be another reason. It could have
Speaker 1: been a lab leak. I believe if you look historically
Speaker 1: what happens in the animal human interface, that in fact,
Speaker 1: the more likelihood is that you're dealing with a jump
Speaker 1: of species. But I keep an open mind all the time,
Speaker 1: and that's the reason why I have been public that
Speaker 1: we should continue to look for the origin that email.
Speaker 1: In no way you can misconstrue it however you want.
Speaker 1: That email was from a person to me saying thank
Speaker 1: you for whatever it is he thought I said, and
Speaker 1: I said that I think the most likely origin is
Speaker 1: a jumping of species. I still do think it is,
Speaker 1: at the same time as I'm keeping an open mind
Speaker 1: that it might be a lab league there was an email.
Speaker 1: Doesn't sound like he's keeping an open mind, does it. Well.
Speaker 1: The FBI and the Biden Department of Energy have both
Speaker 1: concluded now that what Fauci just said there is wrong.
Speaker 1: Not only that his claim of an open mind. You
Speaker 1: know what, he didn't address the fact that he asked
Speaker 1: Zuckerberg to silence anyone that dared say anything contrary to
Speaker 1: the official line coming from the Chinese Communist government, and
Speaker 1: he tried to orchestrate people in the scientific and medical
Speaker 1: world to similarly suppress discussion of the evidence that this
Speaker 1: came from a Chinese lab. It's worth underscoring this podcast
Speaker 1: had multiple entire pods devoted to laying out that evidence
Speaker 1: early in the opening months of this pandemic, when CNA
Speaker 1: and MSNBC New York Times none of them could be
Speaker 1: bothered to report on news verdict was there. Let's talk
Speaker 1: about one other aspect of this, and that is the
Speaker 1: side of it where many people believe that Fauci lied
Speaker 1: to Congress. Do you believe that Fauci lied to Congress
Speaker 1: based on now what we know? And is there any
Speaker 1: accountability if you do lie to Congress if you're a liberal. Well,
Speaker 1: on the latter, the answer is no. The chances that
Speaker 1: the Biden Justice Department will prosecute Fauci for lying to Congress, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: I think, are zero point zero percent. I have asked
Speaker 1: Attorney General Merritt Garland whether he intended to prosecute Fauci,
Speaker 1: and he dodges those questions. He refuses to answer those questions.
Speaker 1: I've asked the FBI. They dodge those questions. Look, Fauci
Speaker 1: flat out told Congress under oath that the federal government
Speaker 1: was not funding gain a function research at the Wuhan
Speaker 1: Institute for Virology. The National Institution NIH, in writing confirmed
Speaker 1: that they were funding gain a function research. What has
Speaker 1: gain a function research? It is research that alters the
Speaker 1: characteristic of a virus, makes it, for example, more transmissible,
Speaker 1: makes it more lethal, makes it more likely to impact humans.
Speaker 1: All those are the sorts of things that gain a
Speaker 1: function research can do. It is incredibly controversial, and it
Speaker 1: is incredibly dangerous because you are creating pathogens that can
Speaker 1: be deadly. And Fauci's answer to Congress is flat out
Speaker 1: inconsistent with what the NIH has said publicly in writing.
Speaker 1: And by the way, lying to Congress as Fauci did
Speaker 1: is a felony punishable by with jail time. But you
Speaker 1: know what, you can't send him to jail if the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice, which under our constitution it is only
Speaker 1: the executive ranch that can prosecute if the Biden Department
Speaker 1: of Justice puts politics above the law and refuses to
Speaker 1: prosecute him. So I think we should and listen. The
Speaker 1: relevance of the gain of function research is worth noting.
Speaker 1: Is there are huge lessons to be learned going forward.
Speaker 1: If the entire COVID pandemic is the result of man
Speaker 1: made changes to a virus to make it more dangerous
Speaker 1: to people, that is number one, a powerful warning to
Speaker 1: stop screwing around and creating the next horrific pandemic that
Speaker 1: could result in a much much higher death toll and
Speaker 1: and potentially millions and millions dead. But number two, it
Speaker 1: goes straight to the culpability of the Chinese Communist government.
Speaker 1: And you know the tweet thread that I started started
Speaker 1: this pod reading, I pointed out one of the most
Speaker 1: damning inference at damning facts is that we know the
Speaker 1: Chinese lab destroy their samples immediately after the pandemic happened. Now,
Speaker 1: in the criminal justice system, if you destroy evidence, frequently
Speaker 1: a court or a jury can draw an inference that
Speaker 1: you are destroying evidence because it implicates you in guilt.
Speaker 1: It demonstrates destroying evidence once you know that evidence could
Speaker 1: be relevant, demonstrates a guilty conscience that you're trying to
Speaker 1: hide something. And so at this point, I don't believe
Speaker 1: there is compelling evidence that China was developing this as
Speaker 1: a bioweapon, in other words, as something delivering gely An
Speaker 1: accident is the question I was going to ask you next.
Speaker 1: You know, what I think is compelling is that it
Speaker 1: escaped from a Chinese lab. That I believe is the
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly out sources that escaped from a Chinese lab, That
Speaker 1: it was created in a Chinese lab, that they took
Speaker 1: it existing coronavirus and enhanced it in the Chinese lab.
Speaker 1: I believe that is more likely than not. I don't
Speaker 1: think the evidence is nearly as compelling as it is
Speaker 1: that it escaped from a Chinese lab. So I think
Speaker 1: there's some chance this was a naturally occurring virus that
Speaker 1: escape from the Chinese lab. I think it is more
Speaker 1: likely this is a man made virus that escaped from
Speaker 1: the Chinese lab. And I have not seen compelling evidence that,
Speaker 1: even if it was created in a Chinese lab, that
Speaker 1: it was created to be a weapon, that it was
Speaker 1: created to be deliberately released. I think the more likely
Speaker 1: inference is they were doing research on it. We know
Speaker 1: that their safety protocols were shoddy. The US State Department
Speaker 1: said so in wires before the pandemic happened, that they
Speaker 1: were worried about a coronavirus worldwide pandemic from these labs,
Speaker 1: and I think what is likely as they were doing research,
Speaker 1: they screwed up, They were sloppy. It was an accidental leak,
Speaker 1: and then China has desperately been trying to cover it
Speaker 1: up since that happened, and the media and big tech
Speaker 1: and Democrats have been more than happy to go along
Speaker 1: with that. I want to talk to you about trust
Speaker 1: or lack of trust and the American people that the
Speaker 1: American people may have right now with our government in
Speaker 1: the future, with other things that happened in Pandemics that
Speaker 1: could happen. Before I get to that, I want to
Speaker 1: tell you about a friends at Patriot Mobile. If you've
Speaker 1: got a cell phone and your cell phone is with
Speaker 1: big tech, you need to know that they're probably fighting
Speaker 1: against what you believe in. We're talking about fighting for
Speaker 1: freedom of speech. We're talking about the Second Amendment. We're
Speaker 1: talking about protecting the life of the unborn. That's where
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile comes in. Of you listening, you have a
Speaker 1: cell phone. Probably about nine percent of you're listening on
Speaker 1: a cell phone right now are using your cell phone
Speaker 1: to play this audio. And that means that you can
Speaker 1: actually switch Patriot Mobile and you make a difference every month,
Speaker 1: when you pay your bill, when you use your cell phone,
Speaker 1: when you text, you're actually standing up for what you
Speaker 1: believe in. Because Patriot Mobile is the only Christian conservative
Speaker 1: cell phone company. They take a portion of your bill
Speaker 1: every month and they give it back to conservative causes
Speaker 1: and organizations that you help choose to support. We're talking
Speaker 1: about setting up for our first and segment rights. We're
Speaker 1: talking about setting up for the life of the unborn.
Speaker 1: We're talking about even helping with adoptions. Patriot Mobile is
Speaker 1: a coming I've been using now literally for years. So
Speaker 1: if you've never checked them out, check them out. If
Speaker 1: you have a business or a small business, they have
Speaker 1: a business division. They can help change over all of
Speaker 1: your lines. You get to keep your same cell phone number.
Speaker 1: You get to keep your same cell phone nine nine
Speaker 1: percent of the the time. So go and see what they
Speaker 1: can offer you and how much money you may be
Speaker 1: able to save while standing up for what you believe in.
Speaker 1: Eight seven eight Patriot eight seven eight Patriot or online
Speaker 1: at Patriot Mobile dot com, slash verdict, Patriot Mobile dot com,
Speaker 1: slash verdict or eight seven eight Patriot use promo code
Speaker 1: Verdict for the best deals of the day. Let's talk
Speaker 1: about trust, Senator, there's a lot of Americans that do
Speaker 1: not trust the government when it comes to health issues.
Speaker 1: Now that worries me because there's gonna be something that
Speaker 1: happens in the future where we're gonna need to see
Speaker 1: leaders that give us intel, give us information that we trust.
Speaker 1: And it's not just now with this about face from
Speaker 1: our government saying okay, the lab leak, yeah, most likely
Speaker 1: actually came from Wuhan and it was actually out of
Speaker 1: a lab. The Energy Department is now saying that. But
Speaker 1: there's another trust issue here, and I'm going to play fauci.
Speaker 1: He went on Late Night Stephen Colbert and he said
Speaker 1: this back last year and I think it was September October,
Speaker 1: take a listen. Is the science in on whether the
Speaker 1: vaccine is safe? Oh, without a doubt. It's been given
Speaker 1: to billions of people and billions of doses, So there's
Speaker 1: no doubt. Safety is off the table. It is no
Speaker 1: doubt it's safe. But the important point is that if
Speaker 1: you reason with people and show the statistics of the
Speaker 1: number of hospitalizations and deaths among unvaccinated people compared to
Speaker 1: people who have vaccinated and up to date on the
Speaker 1: BUSTA the curves go hospitalization and death for people unvaccinated,
Speaker 1: hospitalation and deaths for people who are vaccinated. To have
Speaker 1: people just look at the data, that's not going to
Speaker 1: convince everybody. For people who at least put a little
Speaker 1: bit stock in data, they should understand that there's a
Speaker 1: lot of people asking a lot of questions now about
Speaker 1: the side effects of the vaccine. I don't think it's
Speaker 1: crazy to ask that, But when he says the way
Speaker 1: that he just said, it absolutely it's safe. There's no problems,
Speaker 1: there's no issues, there's no side effects. This is safe.
Speaker 1: And now we see people that are coming up with
Speaker 1: different things that happen after they believe they got the vaccine.
Speaker 1: There's research into it. How do you expect anybody to
Speaker 1: trust our government leaders in the future when it comes
Speaker 1: to public health and public safety issues if this is
Speaker 1: the type of rhetoric we get from guys like Fauci
Speaker 1: with no apology. Ever, I think there is no bureaucrat
Speaker 1: in the history of the country who was more damage
Speaker 1: than doctor Fauci. I think there is no scientist or
Speaker 1: doctor in the history of the country who has done
Speaker 1: more damage to the credibility of the scientific and medical
Speaker 1: community than doctor Fauci. His willingness to lie, his willingness
Speaker 1: to state things as irrefutable facts when the evidence does
Speaker 1: not back that up, and his willingness to change on
Speaker 1: a dime as the politics supported it is resulted in
Speaker 1: millions and maybe even hundreds of millions of Americans who
Speaker 1: now have deep, deep skepticism for the next thing some
Speaker 1: government doctor tells them now that could have devastating effects. Look,
Speaker 1: God forbid, we have a pandemic of something like you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know, ebola, or something that has an incredibly
Speaker 1: high fatality rate and could if it began spreading in
Speaker 1: serious numbers, could result in a massive numbers of death.
Speaker 1: Given the enormous skepticism people have because they've seen Fauci
Speaker 1: lying and lying and lying and being certain of his
Speaker 1: lies at every step. I worry about how we're going
Speaker 1: to deal with the next major threat. And I don't
Speaker 1: understand why Fauci couldn't have said, Look, in my judgment,
Speaker 1: the benefits of taking the vaccine exceed the cost. That
Speaker 1: was his judgment. That's fine to say if he wants
Speaker 1: to say that, If he wanted to say, if you're
Speaker 1: in a particularly vulnerable population, if you're very elderly, if
Speaker 1: you're immunocompromised, he could say, in his judgment, the benefits
Speaker 1: of taking the vaccine substantially exceed the costs and risks.
Speaker 1: That's actually how a reasonable scientist or doctor advises you.
Speaker 1: That's how someone who's not being a propagandist advised. Now,
Speaker 1: he would have to, at the same time say, well,
Speaker 1: the data for children, for toddlers to take the vaccine,
Speaker 1: the risks we know from the COVID virus are very
Speaker 1: low for young children, and the risks are unknown. That
Speaker 1: would actually be an honest assessment. But he wouldn't say
Speaker 1: that because he is decided not to be in the
Speaker 1: business of giving honest and fair assessments. And it's the
Speaker 1: danger of the boy who cried wolf. He's the boy
Speaker 1: who cried COVID, and the consequence the next person at
Speaker 1: the CDC, the next government scientist. The next crisis we have,
Speaker 1: we may see a whole lot of people die because
Speaker 1: our government has destroyed much of the credibility of their
Speaker 1: own medical and scientific teams. And I think Fauci is
Speaker 1: directly responsible for that. Senator, I know there's a lot
Speaker 1: of Americans that are certainly hoping that the Republicans, at
Speaker 1: least leading in the House side, will be able to
Speaker 1: look into this and investigate, get some real answers, and
Speaker 1: have some accountability for those that are working for our
Speaker 1: government that we pay with our tax dollars. They want
Speaker 1: there to be some accountability here, so they don't just
Speaker 1: we'll get to walk around and make things up as
Speaker 1: they go based on politics. Look, I think it's incredibly
Speaker 1: important that there be accountability. I think it's important that
Speaker 1: congresshold hearings. I'm on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I'm on
Speaker 1: the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Both committees ought to be
Speaker 1: holding hearings on this, examining the origins of COVID, examining
Speaker 1: the liability of the communist Chinese government for potentially creating
Speaker 1: this virus, for at a minimum, negligently allowing it to escape,
Speaker 1: and for covering up the evidence and resulting in the
Speaker 1: loss of millions of lives and trillions of dollars. There
Speaker 1: should be real liability. That means Congress needs to hold
Speaker 1: them do a out. I have no confidence Democrats in
Speaker 1: the Senate will be willing to do so, but I'm
Speaker 1: hopeful that at least the Republican majority in the House.
Speaker 1: Will you know, I'll point out one other data point
Speaker 1: which all of the media outlets that that insist, that
Speaker 1: insisted for years, this couldn't have come from from a
Speaker 1: lab leak. Just one data point, which is three researchers
Speaker 1: from the Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick in November
Speaker 1: of twenty nineteen, so before the pandemic was was known,
Speaker 1: before the outbreak had widely occurred, and they became sick
Speaker 1: enough that they sought hospital care, and at least according
Speaker 1: to public reports, the sick researchers were directly involved in
Speaker 1: coronavirus research. That's pretty compelling when you've got three researchers
Speaker 1: checking themselves into the hospital in November of twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: right before this pandemic erupts across the globe. And yet
Speaker 1: even that fact didn't cause Fouci to blink, didn't cause
Speaker 1: the media to blink, didn't cause big Tech to blink.
Speaker 1: And elevating politics above people's lives and above truth is
Speaker 1: one of the reasons that so many have died, but
Speaker 1: it's also one of the reasons why so many now
Speaker 1: deeply distrust so called government experts. Yeah, how many people
Speaker 1: may forget we were heading into a presidential election season
Speaker 1: when all of this went down, and it was a
Speaker 1: candidate and a Republican party that was thriving with their policies,
Speaker 1: and it was many saw it as an opportunity to
Speaker 1: really knock on Trump and other Republicans in that election
Speaker 1: coming up. I will say one of the thing don't
Speaker 1: forget this is why we do the show, so that
Speaker 1: we give you these clips and info that you're not
Speaker 1: going to get anywhere else. This is one of those
Speaker 1: shows I'll ask you make sure you share it with
Speaker 1: your family and your friends. Many of the clips that
Speaker 1: we played, the piece of audio here, you're not going
Speaker 1: to hear it anywhere else, so share it with your
Speaker 1: family and friends. Right. It's a five star review as well,
Speaker 1: and we'll see you back here in a couple of days.