Speaker 1: From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
Speaker 1: riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
Speaker 1: learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
Speaker 1: production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
Speaker 2: name is Nol.
Speaker 3: They call me Ben. We're joined as always with our
Speaker 3: super producer Andrew Treyfort's Howard. Most importantly, you are you.
Speaker 4: You are here.
Speaker 3: That makes this the stuff they don't want you to know.
Speaker 3: If you are hearing this the evening it comes out, folks,
Speaker 3: we are almost at the end of the calendar year,
Speaker 3: a time for reflection, a time when we look back
Speaker 3: and think, holy crap, how much stuff has happened over
Speaker 3: just the past couple years.
Speaker 5: Everything's fine a couple last couple of weeks.
Speaker 6: It.
Speaker 3: Says, says the dog in the Burning Room, the cartoon dog.
Speaker 3: We're relevant, We're on point. What memes We're a going
Speaker 3: to come back?
Speaker 4: Actually, it's very releant since the NL just did it.
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, just so. And like the rest of the world,
Speaker 3: we your faithful correspondents, are in the wake of an
Speaker 3: ongoing pandemic, something that fundamentally rocked the planet. Everyone is
Speaker 3: still trying to figure out what happened, how it happened,
Speaker 3: what it means for the future. And there's this continuing
Speaker 3: war of narratives and theories, And as we've discussed previously,
Speaker 3: people still argue to this day about the origins COVID nineteen.
Speaker 3: Was it naturally occurring zoonotic infection from a wet market
Speaker 3: in Wuhan. Was it a lab experiment gone wrong? This
Speaker 3: is a heavy sensitive subject even now at the end
Speaker 3: of twenty twenty four. Luckily, guys, we are joined this
Speaker 3: evening by one of the world's foremost researchers on this case,
Speaker 3: these dilemmas, these questions, the award winning director, executive producer,
Speaker 3: studio exec and creator of Thank You, Doctor Fauci. Folks,
Speaker 3: we proudly welcome Jenner first to the show. Thanks for
Speaker 3: coming on, man.
Speaker 7: Thank you for having me, guys.
Speaker 4: Just as a real Jenner first for the show.
Speaker 5: Get it, because boy, I'm really sorry, sorry.
Speaker 7: I really wish that was the first time.
Speaker 5: Of course saying the first Noel to me and I say,
Speaker 5: they're so creative and clever. It's true that, you know, Ben,
Speaker 5: I couldn't help when you were doing that fantastic intro,
Speaker 5: just thinking about how I haven't thought about this stuff
Speaker 5: because it has not really been in the news a lot,
Speaker 5: you know, since the you know, it was almost like
Speaker 5: overloaded when it was first kind of happening to us,
Speaker 5: and then all of the kind of post mortem, but
Speaker 5: no one's really talking about this stuff as much as
Speaker 5: you think they should be in general. I can only
Speaker 5: imagine that that perhaps led to your exploration to some degree,
Speaker 5: or you know, at least a moment when we need
Speaker 5: to hear about some of them, this kind of stuff,
Speaker 5: what may have actually happened.
Speaker 7: Yeah, it's interesting you say that. I think we hear
Speaker 7: about a lot of things, and then we don't hear
Speaker 7: about a lot of things, And I don't think that's
Speaker 7: a coincidence, and I think therein lies the story. Guys,
Speaker 7: It's a lot more than meets the eye. Let's just
Speaker 7: say that.
Speaker 3: Hey, you you have a track record too for anybody
Speaker 3: somehow unfamiliar. You are a two time Peabody Award winning,
Speaker 3: four time Emmy nominated director, and you have this cavalcade
Speaker 3: of diverse, impactful explorations of society that we could argue
Speaker 3: go across genre with one thing in common, telling us
Speaker 3: the stuff they don't want you to know about a
Speaker 3: given subject.
Speaker 6: Oh, dude, the pharmacist right hotly crap.
Speaker 4: Fire for.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, but I'm just the pharmacist, Jenner. When I
Speaker 6: saw that for the first time, I was like, oh
Speaker 6: my gosh, this dude is my hero. Like I immediately
Speaker 6: connected with the subject of that documentary. If you have
Speaker 6: not watched The Pharmacist, go watch it right now and
Speaker 6: then immediately watch Thank you, Doctor Fauci.
Speaker 3: And I can confirm by the way Jenner, Matt is
Speaker 3: telling the gods honest right there, because when Matt saw
Speaker 3: The Pharmacist, he reached out to us and said, guys,
Speaker 3: we got to check this out.
Speaker 2: We talked about it on the show. It was so good.
Speaker 7: Yes, ironic. The Pharmacist came out in February of twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: So are you serious?
Speaker 7: Well, circle right there.
Speaker 2: There we go.
Speaker 3: Now with that, let's like, now we're talking a little
Speaker 3: bit about context. So before we dive into the deep water,
Speaker 3: and we do have quite a few things we'd like
Speaker 3: to glean your insight on here, Jenner, can you tell
Speaker 3: us what where you were at in life, what was
Speaker 3: going on in your head, what first led you to
Speaker 3: the creation of Thank You, Doctor Fauci.
Speaker 7: Well, I think it's very interesting because actually when I
Speaker 7: had finished and premiered The Pharmacist, I had been contacted
Speaker 7: by these producers who wanted to attach me as a
Speaker 7: director to this film about Anthony Fauci's work in Africa.
Speaker 7: So this is twenty twenty. He's just becoming a household
Speaker 7: name as the pandemic is starting to pick up, and
Speaker 7: I developed this project. I had his contact, I had
Speaker 7: done my initial research. We took the project out. This
Speaker 7: was about Pepfar, an initiative in Africa which tried to
Speaker 7: stop the AIDS pandemic. It involved President Bush and Bono
Speaker 7: and it was a pretty crazy story and no one
Speaker 7: bought it. And so I went on and directed I
Speaker 7: believe three during the pandemic. So I was very busy,
Speaker 7: and I was very lucky. And my personal life and
Speaker 7: all the different things that we all experienced and suffered
Speaker 7: through I experienced. But I was busy, and like I said,
Speaker 7: fortunate because the industry, my industry supported remote working, and
Speaker 7: I was able to keep directing and people wanted content.
Speaker 7: And in late twenty twenty three, my attorney contacted me
Speaker 7: and said they're these independent television producers. They have raised
Speaker 7: their own personal finances and they want to attach you
Speaker 7: to this project. They're looking for an accomplished director who
Speaker 7: will independently investigate a story. And before I tell you,
Speaker 7: I just want to warn you it's controversial. You may
Speaker 7: find them crazy. I promise they're good guys, and you should.
Speaker 7: You should hear them out. And so I take a
Speaker 7: call and these producers, Lewis Fenton and Scott Saint John,
Speaker 7: they tell me that they believe that Anthony Fauci has
Speaker 7: done terrible things and that he lied, and he lied repeatedly.
Speaker 7: And you know, this wasn't a big shock to me. Unfortunately,
Speaker 7: I'm a very cynical person. I can't say I skipped
Speaker 7: a beat in the beginning of the pandemic when conversations
Speaker 7: about Wuhan began, because it's logical, right, there's a laboratory
Speaker 7: in the same city where the outbreak happened. I believe
Speaker 7: that governments lie, that the media lie, all those things.
Speaker 7: But I had been whisked away like everybody else, and
Speaker 7: you know, caught up in the craze and the dividing
Speaker 7: nature of this topic. I was vaccinated. I saw my
Speaker 7: own friend group kind of get fractured around that issue
Speaker 7: my own family. I saw the politically charged nature of
Speaker 7: the story, and I found myself subconsciously align with a
Speaker 7: side of this story, you know, regardless of the fact
Speaker 7: that I've been conditioned to accept everything that I would
Speaker 7: soon discover. I was manipulated into kind of just going
Speaker 7: with the herd, so to speak. And so I listened
Speaker 7: to them and I said, look, I don't do head pieces,
Speaker 7: I don't do witch hunts. If you want to just
Speaker 7: do a takedown of Anthony Fauci, I'm probably not the
Speaker 7: right guy. Give me a couple of days. Let me
Speaker 7: go and see what is out there as far as
Speaker 7: evidence is concerned, because I don't, you know, I don't
Speaker 7: just want to jump in. I want to see where
Speaker 7: the reporting is to date, and I want to get
Speaker 7: back to you guys. I spent about three hours on
Speaker 7: the Internet and immediately saw that there were almost two
Speaker 7: hundred thousand pages of evidence that had been released over
Speaker 7: the last two years since I was looking. And it
Speaker 7: wasn't the substance of this material that shocked me the
Speaker 7: most was that I had lived in a bubble where
Speaker 7: every major media outlet that I trusted like the New
Speaker 7: York Times, the Washington Post, you know, other major outlets
Speaker 7: like that, had avoided this story. They had avoided not
Speaker 7: just the reporting of the grants and the funding and
Speaker 7: all the different connections that Anthony Faucci and the United
Speaker 7: States government had to WUHAN. They had even avoided the
Speaker 7: bombshell grant proposal from twenty eighteen, which is before the
Speaker 7: pandemic happened, to do work on coronaviruses and essentially create
Speaker 7: a virus that looked identical to COVID before the pandemic
Speaker 7: started in the same city that the pandemic originated. And
Speaker 7: so I was, you know, I felt like a sucker.
Speaker 7: And that's what really got me looking deeper. And that's
Speaker 7: how I'm here right now.
Speaker 6: And just to be clear, that is that is ever
Speaker 6: that you found. That is not somebody on social media
Speaker 6: talking about this thing. This is research that you did
Speaker 6: in an actual piece of like primary documentation that you
Speaker 6: can find this proof that correct.
Speaker 7: Yeah, that's what's so shocking is that you of course,
Speaker 7: we know there's a lot of talk on social media,
Speaker 7: and I think a lot of social media gets dismissed
Speaker 7: as just conjecture or you know, opinion, but this evidence,
Speaker 7: this actual source material, verified grant proposals, verified emails, freedom
Speaker 7: of information lawsuit materials that had been released drip and
Speaker 7: drab for three years straight, even that had been discussed
Speaker 7: on social media. And so, first of all, I was
Speaker 7: mortified that the paper of record, the you know, democracy
Speaker 7: dies in darkness, you know, the Fourth Estate, had avoided
Speaker 7: this story. And even more shocking to me was that
Speaker 7: they continued to promote a natural origin. And I started
Speaker 7: to see that a lot of these scientists who are
Speaker 7: out in front talking about the pandemic in this stratified
Speaker 7: landscape where if it's blue, you know, it's natural, and
Speaker 7: if it's red, it came from a lab, and Faucy
Speaker 7: is evil, and you know, just a very very black
Speaker 7: and white story. But I started to see that who
Speaker 7: I had previously associated, who had been conditioned to associate
Speaker 7: with as a progressive, was getting the story completely wrong
Speaker 7: and in fact was potentially propagating a lie and doing
Speaker 7: so in a way that was absolutely horrifying to me.
Speaker 7: And the more I looked into it, the more I
Speaker 7: saw that it was way worse than I even thought.
Speaker 3: General, we got to get to it, you and your
Speaker 3: tea have in depth at interviews with multiple experts, and
Speaker 3: one thing that I greatly appreciate, I think we all
Speaker 3: greatly appreciate about this exploration is that we're not introduced to,
Speaker 3: you know what false dichotomies and media would call whack
Speaker 3: jobs or wing nuts or anything like that. One of
Speaker 3: the first folks that you introduce us to in this
Speaker 3: piece is and you reminded me of this when you
Speaker 3: talk about seeing all these experts come up and make
Speaker 3: speeches adhering to a narrative. You introduce us to doctor
Speaker 3: Robert Redfield, one of the guys who is not making
Speaker 3: a lot of universally propagated conversations about COVID, despite the
Speaker 3: fact that he is the director of the Center for
Speaker 3: Disease Control from twenty eighteen to twenty twenty one. For
Speaker 3: a lot of us watching the film, doctor Redfield seems
Speaker 3: to have some surprisingly strident differences of opinion and perspective
Speaker 3: from those of doctor Fauci. Could you tell us a
Speaker 3: little bit about his contentions and a little bit about
Speaker 3: how you guys got connected.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I mean, what I discovered was there was a
Speaker 7: community of people who had been on the inside of
Speaker 7: this story who had investigated it and who within the
Speaker 7: scientific establishment had fought Anthony Fauci not just about COVID,
Speaker 7: but about a lot of things, about this really controversial
Speaker 7: form of research called gain of function. And doctor Robert
Speaker 7: Redfield happened to be one of those people, and he
Speaker 7: happened to be in a very very important role during
Speaker 7: the pandemic, at least when the pandemic started, and I
Speaker 7: was introduced to him from a very unlikely person. So
Speaker 7: as I began to fall down the rabbit hole, one
Speaker 7: person would introduce me to another person, to another person,
Speaker 7: and so, you know, you get in touch with Richard Ebright,
Speaker 7: and Richard Ebright says, you know, you need to talk
Speaker 7: to these people, and you need to talk to Jeffrey Sachs.
Speaker 7: And so I talked to Jeffrey Sachs, who's a you know,
Speaker 7: renowned progressive, left leaning economist, and he says, you know,
Speaker 7: you must talk to doctor Robert Redfield, who was a
Speaker 7: Trump appointee and the CDC director. And so right off
Speaker 7: the bat, everything went against the political conditioning that we
Speaker 7: are all you know, supposed to have, and these people
Speaker 7: were united not about you know, some kind of commentary
Speaker 7: or opinion, but about the hard, cold evidence, and Redfield
Speaker 7: had been ostracized. And if you look at the press
Speaker 7: of the CDC director at the time of the original outbreak,
Speaker 7: at the time that the pandemic began to spread around
Speaker 7: the world, the CDC director and the CDC were blamed
Speaker 7: for a lot of the problems. And if you even
Speaker 7: look at Anthony Fauci doing press, he will say things like,
Speaker 7: I'm just following the guidance of the CDC, And what
Speaker 7: I learned was it was the complete opposite, and that
Speaker 7: the CDC director, Bob Redfield, was essentially powerless, and that
Speaker 7: within that agency HHS, you have the FDA, you have
Speaker 7: the CDC, and you have the NIH. And at the
Speaker 7: time the HHS director was Alex Azar. But the person
Speaker 7: with the most seniority, who had been in HHS for
Speaker 7: the longest, who had understood that bureaucracy better than anyone,
Speaker 7: was Anthony Fauci. And I think for anyone on the inside,
Speaker 7: they knew that Anthony Fauci was the most powerful person.
Speaker 7: And so in talking to Bob Redfield, it was immediately
Speaker 7: clear that everything about this man, about this doctor, about
Speaker 7: this scientist, about his opinions, about the actual things that
Speaker 7: transpired in the early days of COVID was wrong, and
Speaker 7: that there had been some cover up. There was a
Speaker 7: series of events that the public had no idea happened.
Speaker 7: And Bob Redfield is the most inside person. And not
Speaker 7: only is an inside person to the outbreak and to
Speaker 7: the early days of the pandemic, he's someone who knew
Speaker 7: Fauci for forty years. He was on the ground during
Speaker 7: the AIDS pandemic in the very beginning. In fact, he
Speaker 7: did a lot of very important work. And when we
Speaker 7: look back at history, it's very ironic because Anthony Fauci
Speaker 7: takes credit, you know, as one of the heroes of
Speaker 7: the AIDS pandemic, but it was actually the opposite when
Speaker 7: the pandemic happened, and people like Redfield represented really good, honest,
Speaker 7: ethical science. He was one of the first people to say,
Speaker 7: this isn't a gay disease, this is transmitted by bodily fluids.
Speaker 7: He was treating people in the army, and I think
Speaker 7: that I immediately understood that Bob Redfield had no interest
Speaker 7: in fame. He had no interest in parleying his experience
Speaker 7: into a platform. He didn't have a lot of social
Speaker 7: media followers, and he didn't create a lot of wealth
Speaker 7: after the pandemic. He had no endorsements, he didn't work
Speaker 7: for a pharmaceutical company, he doesn't worked for a powerful
Speaker 7: lobbyist group. He's just a doctor who was on the
Speaker 7: front lines of the pandemic as the CDC director, and
Speaker 7: everything he did and everything he thought was covered up.
Speaker 5: Well, you know, in the documentary, Redfield goes so far
Speaker 5: as to even express more than mild annoyance that Fauci
Speaker 5: kind of seemed to take it upon himself to become
Speaker 5: the spokesperson more or less.
Speaker 4: That he doesn't.
Speaker 5: Phrase it as though he's stealing his thunder. He just
Speaker 5: kind of says that was a little interesting. He was
Speaker 5: very aggressive about putting himself forth to being the kind
Speaker 5: of poster child for this wet market theory, which is
Speaker 5: kind of the prevailing theory they were pushing that would
Speaker 5: go against this idea of a lab leak in Wuhan. Instead,
Speaker 5: it was the idea that this zoonotic you know, virus
Speaker 5: was created naturally, I guess, for lack of a better
Speaker 5: way of putting it, at one of these web markets
Speaker 5: in Wuhan. Why do you think Fauci was such a
Speaker 5: good poster child. I guess of this.
Speaker 7: Theory, well, I think that Anthony Fauci has an incredible
Speaker 7: bedside manner. And in addition to having an incredible bedside manner,
Speaker 7: he has a lot of experience in Washington and has
Speaker 7: weathered many different news events, scandals, movements, and time presidential administrations.
Speaker 7: He is someone who's you know, butter doesn't melt in
Speaker 7: his mouth, or at least that's what it looks like.
Speaker 7: And the reality is that Fauci has been the frontman
Speaker 7: for an aggressive biodefense agenda for the last twenty years.
Speaker 7: And contrary to what liberal progressive Democrats may believe, the
Speaker 7: man who gave him the most power in his career
Speaker 7: was Dick Cheney. And in the wake of nine to eleven,
Speaker 7: when all of these different rights and regulations and structures
Speaker 7: were being taken apart of yeah right with the excuse
Speaker 7: of terrorism, biodefense had the same filter. And it was
Speaker 7: the anthrax attack that put Anthony Fauci on a direct
Speaker 7: course to become the number one person in biodefense. The
Speaker 7: problem was there was no real regulation and that Cheney
Speaker 7: had taken biodefense out of the Pentagon in the Defense Department,
Speaker 7: where it was heavily regulated, where there was a lot
Speaker 7: of compliance review, and he had given it to an
Speaker 7: agency where there was none of that. And billions of
Speaker 7: dollars went into this research, and there had been scientists
Speaker 7: fighting that, and even scientists like Redfield who witnessed this
Speaker 7: whole transition, who were very skeptical and who felt like
Speaker 7: the research that was being done was not research that
Speaker 7: was going to make the planet safer that in fact,
Speaker 7: it was the opposite. It was research that was going
Speaker 7: to create more and more risk for everyone because.
Speaker 5: It's dangerous to contain or some of these labs were
Speaker 5: not set up in such a way to have a
Speaker 5: robust protection against these potential leaks.
Speaker 7: Biological weapons or weapons of mass destruction, and unlike nuclear weapons,
Speaker 7: a biological weapon that could wipe out the human race
Speaker 7: can be created in a high school chemistry lab. And
Speaker 7: that is just a scary reality that anyone who knows
Speaker 7: about biological weapons knows is true. And so there were
Speaker 7: these technological advances that made this field of biological weaponry
Speaker 7: and biodefense a lot more sophisticated. And we all know
Speaker 7: about Crisper, and you know genetic sort of editing. This
Speaker 7: was happening in viruses, and you know, this has the
Speaker 7: potential to take a common cold and mix that cold
Speaker 7: with HIV, or mix you know, a bird flu with
Speaker 7: a bola, or take some characteristics of one virus that
Speaker 7: transmits in a respiratory way with a virus that was
Speaker 7: never you know, airborne. And this type of research was
Speaker 7: popularized by Anthony Fauci. A lot of people were arguing
Speaker 7: that this was a Pandora's box and that once you
Speaker 7: open it, you can't close it again, and that once
Speaker 7: you know, one mistake could wipe out the human race
Speaker 7: or could create a pandemic that you know, the world
Speaker 7: had never seen.
Speaker 6: And with that, we're going to take a quick break.
Speaker 6: Hear a word from our sponsors. Will be right back.
Speaker 3: We've returned. Let's dive back in, Jenner. What you just
Speaker 3: explained in very approachable terms for anyone unfamiliar is the
Speaker 3: idea of gain of function, right, giving new abilities to
Speaker 3: life forms, be they viral or something else that ordinarily
Speaker 3: did not exist in the wild. And I want to
Speaker 3: go back to something that you mentioned here because it's
Speaker 3: definitely a sticking point, not just on a scientific level,
Speaker 3: but on a deep philosophical level for a lot of
Speaker 3: the scientists and experts you interview, which is the binary
Speaker 3: or purported binary difference between bioweaponry research and biodefense research.
Speaker 3: At more than one moment, we see experts that you're
Speaker 3: speaking with to seem like almost righteously indignant about the
Speaker 3: idea that how did they put it? In one in
Speaker 3: one conversation, the idea that the best way to protect
Speaker 3: against bioweapons is to research into how we make bioweapons.
Speaker 4: Which is just making bioweapons.
Speaker 7: Yeah, that's actually Redfield who says that.
Speaker 3: Right, It's a lot. Yeah, it's a lot like the
Speaker 3: fire department saying, you know, guys, as the fire department,
Speaker 3: what we need to do is start more house fires
Speaker 3: because that'll help us figure out how to put them
Speaker 3: out later.
Speaker 7: Yeah, except you know, imagine that with you know, h bombs,
Speaker 7: because you know these are fires. Viruses have arguably billions
Speaker 7: of years more evolution than humans, and they evolve faster
Speaker 7: than we can even understand. I mean, obviously a virologist
Speaker 7: than a microbiologists molecular biologists could tell you how fast
Speaker 7: these viruses evolve. But within days, within weeks, a virus
Speaker 7: can completely change and so we're playing with organisms that
Speaker 7: arguably do things that we can't necessarily predict. And like
Speaker 7: many people have said, where these scientists were playing God
Speaker 7: or playing master of the universe, or you know, playing
Speaker 7: master of evolution. And I think that that is a
Speaker 7: dangerous concept and really an archetype in science for years.
Speaker 7: I mean, this is one of those stories that is
Speaker 7: so essential mythological. It's a fable, it's a parable. You know,
Speaker 7: it's when you fly, you know, it's icarus. You fly
Speaker 7: too close to the sun, your your wings melt. And
Speaker 7: that's essentially the type of work that Faut she was
Speaker 7: doing while enjoying incredible celebrity and enjoying the power he
Speaker 7: gained from being the largest funder of biomedical research in
Speaker 7: the world and someone who had a secret parallel budget
Speaker 7: with the Defense Department to shell out even more billions
Speaker 7: that were not recorded. And you know, it's ironic that
Speaker 7: after all that time, a pandemic happens arguably from this research,
Speaker 7: and we are completely unprepared for the pandemic, which was
Speaker 7: the reason why this research happened in the first place.
Speaker 7: In fact, a lot of this research was connected to
Speaker 7: an mRNA vaccine for coronaviruses, which you know, the initiative
Speaker 7: sprung from the original Stars outbreak years ago in the
Speaker 7: early odds, and for years, this idea that a Stars
Speaker 7: virus could be another pandemic or biological weapon, or simply
Speaker 7: something to focus on in vaccine technology actually propelled a
Speaker 7: lot of the research that resulted in the pandemic at
Speaker 7: and so you couldn't have a more ironic and tragic
Speaker 7: closed loop system where the research that was supposed to
Speaker 7: prevent a pandemic ended up causing a pandemic for which
Speaker 7: society was not prepared for. And then now we are
Speaker 7: actually more at risk for another pandemic like the one
Speaker 7: that just happened because we never told the truth about
Speaker 7: how it happened. We never regulated a damn thing, And
Speaker 7: in fact, the lie about natural origin led to even
Speaker 7: more funding around researching viruses that come out of nature,
Speaker 7: when in fact these viruses don't come out of nature,
Speaker 7: and that the next killer is not going to be
Speaker 7: a natural virus, it's going to be the result of
Speaker 7: the same research that caused the last one.
Speaker 6: So one of the things we always like to do
Speaker 6: on this show is follow money trails, which is something
Speaker 6: you do here, and that's what we're talking about right now.
Speaker 6: Who were the individuals and companies that were inside that
Speaker 6: web of profiting like to a ridiculous amount off of
Speaker 6: this terrible thing that happened.
Speaker 7: You have a cottage industry of scientists who their whole
Speaker 7: careers were financed by Fauci's grants and by the other
Speaker 7: accomplishments and accolades created from this type of research. And
Speaker 7: of course those scientists on an individual level, they want
Speaker 7: the research to continue. And then you go up the
Speaker 7: ladder and you have different biomedical and biotech companies that
Speaker 7: provide pieces of a vaccine or provide pieces of technology
Speaker 7: that is very much benefited from this type of research continuing,
Speaker 7: and you have them on the food chain. And as
Speaker 7: you continue to go up, you have pharmaceutical companies specifically
Speaker 7: in vaccine development, who almost all of their search is
Speaker 7: subsidized by Anthony Fauci in the United States government. You know,
Speaker 7: they're getting money from the United States government to do
Speaker 7: this research and ultimately they profit from this research and
Speaker 7: all of it is subsidized, so of course they're incentivized
Speaker 7: to want this research to continue. And then you have
Speaker 7: sort of an aspect of this equation that involves a
Speaker 7: lot of money but is not meant to be seen
Speaker 7: by the public. And that's the involvement of the intelligence community,
Speaker 7: and that there's actually a connection between the intelligence community,
Speaker 7: venture capital, this research, vaccine development, and biotech companies. And
Speaker 7: so you have to ask yourself, how the hell is
Speaker 7: that food chain all connected ethically and without raising extreme
Speaker 7: suspicion from the average person, And there isn't a good
Speaker 7: answer for.
Speaker 3: It, And what else does it tell us about the
Speaker 3: larger context. We're so glad you're bringing this part up
Speaker 3: because this is a heck of a wrinkle. There is
Speaker 3: an alleged devil's bargain. Or let me step back for
Speaker 3: a second and just highlight the note you made their
Speaker 3: Jenner about the funding and the origin of the funding.
Speaker 3: Fellow American listeners, that means you paid for it. Just
Speaker 3: a side note for that one. When we're talking about
Speaker 3: intelligence agencies in Thank you, doctor Fauci, there is this
Speaker 3: concept of what we could call a Faustian bargain, a
Speaker 3: devil's bargain, the idea that the United States, through various
Speaker 3: Matroshka dolls of interaction gave the nation of China incredibly
Speaker 3: sophisticated technology and funded research. Tell us what you think
Speaker 3: as a way of aiding their goal of spying on
Speaker 3: Chinese labs.
Speaker 4: Is that correct?
Speaker 7: Well, yeah, of course that isn't the story that makes
Speaker 7: the news. The story, sorry, that makes the news is
Speaker 7: usually a story that doesn't even talk about that. But
Speaker 7: if you look back at the news that was happening
Speaker 7: around the time that the United States government was endorsing
Speaker 7: and supporting this research, around twenty fourteen twenty fifteen, you'll
Speaker 7: see this idea that science brings nations together, that science
Speaker 7: is the great uniter, that like the International Space Station
Speaker 7: for example, this is something that all of our great
Speaker 7: scientists around the world can do benevolently, and this can aid,
Speaker 7: you know, international relations. And the reality is one that
Speaker 7: is far more sinister than that, and that when it
Speaker 7: comes to the greatest threats to humanity, it isn't nuclear weapons.
Speaker 7: It isn't what you see on the news about Iran
Speaker 7: and its nuclear program. It's biological weapons. And the new
Speaker 7: arms race that was taking place was between the United
Speaker 7: States and China to world powers, one that was very
Speaker 7: dominant in this space and another that wanted to catch
Speaker 7: up China and wanted to advance an agenda and become
Speaker 7: a leader in this space, and did not have the
Speaker 7: same regulations as the United States and did not have
Speaker 7: any interest in being compliant to the Bioweapons Treaty or
Speaker 7: any of these other safeguards, and that they essentially the
Speaker 7: intelligence shows that they set very ambitious goals. And this
Speaker 7: was known in the intelligence community for years. And there
Speaker 7: was sort of this problem in China where they didn't
Speaker 7: have certain aspects of technology, they didn't have certain aspects
Speaker 7: of intellectual property or talent who understood how to use
Speaker 7: this technology. And they called that the stranglehold problem. And
Speaker 7: they ended up partnering with the French to build out
Speaker 7: the wuhanans to the Virology's Biosafety four lab. This was
Speaker 7: the most sophisticated lab in China to handle the most
Speaker 7: dangerous pathogens on the planet, and the French lent most
Speaker 7: of their knowledge and a lot of the technological expertise
Speaker 7: to build this lab, to train the Chinese on how
Speaker 7: to operate the lab, and ultimately the French were kicked
Speaker 7: out at the last second before the lab was ready
Speaker 7: to be functional, and the Chinese assumed control of the lab,
Speaker 7: and this sent signals I think in the intelligence community
Speaker 7: that the Chinese intended to use the lab for bioweaponry
Speaker 7: and for research that was adversarial in nature. And this
Speaker 7: is around the same time that you see the funding
Speaker 7: to that lab from the United States increase, and where
Speaker 7: you see scientists who are highly suspicious individuals who run
Speaker 7: quote on profits like Peter Dashik and Eco Health Alliance
Speaker 7: start to do more research at Wuhan as a pass
Speaker 7: through right, as essentially something that can receive money from
Speaker 7: the United States government and then distribute it with even
Speaker 7: less regulation than the government had at the time, which
Speaker 7: was scammed.
Speaker 5: So it's a way of conducting this kind of research
Speaker 5: without being directly tied to it, or it's almost like
Speaker 5: a loophole to get around like the Biological Weapons Convention,
Speaker 5: which essentially prohibited development, production, acquisition, stockpiling of biological and
Speaker 5: toxic weapons. Like is that the idea that this sort
Speaker 5: of gives this layer of plausible deniability or what?
Speaker 7: Yeah, that's exactly what it is, and that's what it
Speaker 7: was from day one. So even before you have what
Speaker 7: is going on in Wuhan around twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen.
Speaker 7: You go all the way back to two thousand and one,
Speaker 7: around the time of the anthrax attack, when you know
Speaker 7: we began to do this research aggressively to make a
Speaker 7: quote vaccine or to stock pile vaccines for potential weapons agents.
Speaker 7: The loophole is by design in order to make a countermeasure,
Speaker 7: you have to create the agent itself. And so as
Speaker 7: long as your research is defensive in nature, it's permitted
Speaker 7: in the Bioweapons Treaty. Or you can make defensive measures,
Speaker 7: but those could involve the creation of an offensive agent
Speaker 7: and that is kosher.
Speaker 6: So let's talk about a very specific instance of this
Speaker 6: that it's a proposal there comes to us in the
Speaker 6: form of a proposal that was sent to DARPA in
Speaker 6: twenty eighteen by EcoHealth Alliance. It was a proposal that
Speaker 6: was rejected. I think you mentioned it in the documentary
Speaker 6: as the Diffuse Proposal or what are they called DC
Speaker 6: sign I believe.
Speaker 7: No, it's the Yes, it's the Diffuse Proposal, which was
Speaker 7: drafted by EcoHealth Alliance with the contryributions of Shijing Lie
Speaker 7: at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ralph Barrick at
Speaker 7: UNC Chapel Hill, and these are really the main players
Speaker 7: in this story. Underneath Anthony Fauci is this web of
Speaker 7: scientists who were doing research at Wuhan or who were
Speaker 7: connected to Wuhan, And this proposal predates the pandemic and
Speaker 7: outlines essentially a blueprint for how to create a virus
Speaker 7: that looks identical to COVID nineteen in its sort of effect.
Speaker 7: And of course plausible deniability is to you know, look
Speaker 7: at every little nuance of the actual virus, which has
Speaker 7: evolved countless time since it was released, and you know,
Speaker 7: for people like Fauci to say that, well, this has
Speaker 7: no connection whatsoever, and of course it was never funded,
Speaker 7: which we also believe is a lie.
Speaker 2: Exactly.
Speaker 6: So this whole, this recent arch was meant to insert
Speaker 6: fer and cleavage sites in SARS viruses, like, as you're saying,
Speaker 6: a blueprint for what SARS cove two became. And I
Speaker 6: can we just hit really quickly on why that fer
Speaker 6: and cleavage site is so important to the genome organization
Speaker 6: of this virus and.
Speaker 4: What that is and what it might indicate.
Speaker 7: Right, So, the what gain of function does over time
Speaker 7: is identify different aspects of a virus or an organism
Speaker 7: that contribute to a key function, and if you want
Speaker 7: to add that function, if you want to gain a function,
Speaker 7: you use certain attributes and fur and the fur and
Speaker 7: cleavage site is very complex and something that I think
Speaker 7: a layman may have trouble understanding. But the simplest way
Speaker 7: to explain it is that this is a component that
Speaker 7: was well known and understood to make viruses airborne, inspiratory
Speaker 7: and very very infectious. So if you took a virus
Speaker 7: that maybe didn't have an easy time transmitting in humans,
Speaker 7: if you added a fer and cleavage site, you would
Speaker 7: have a very infectious virus. And that I think is
Speaker 7: really the first smoking gun in the story, because as
Speaker 7: the outbreak is happening and as it's becoming a global pandemic,
Speaker 7: the genetic sequence is released by the Chinese and it
Speaker 7: has this immediate sore thumb sticking out, which is the
Speaker 7: fer and cleavage site. Many scientists pointed to that, and
Speaker 7: they looked at the genetic comparison of other coronaviruses that
Speaker 7: were similar, and there were a lot of anomalies. The
Speaker 7: most striking one was this fern cleavage site. It had
Speaker 7: not existed in this way in any other virus and
Speaker 7: essentially made a virus that would spring loaded to infect humans.
Speaker 7: And so the whole logical, you know, explanation for this
Speaker 7: being a natural virus started to fall away for a
Speaker 7: lot of people, including doctor Bob Redfield, because you have
Speaker 7: a virus that immediately is infecting humans, when if it
Speaker 7: was natural, there would be several evolutions and there would
Speaker 7: be a way to track those evolutions in other animals,
Speaker 7: other host species, and ultimately into humans. And instead you
Speaker 7: had a virus that wasn't even infecting bats, that was
Speaker 7: being blamed on bats, but was essentially transmitting like wildfire.
Speaker 7: Bob Redfield says he believes it's the second most infectious
Speaker 7: virus in history, and it's being blamed on a bat
Speaker 7: in a wet market and there isn't even evidence of
Speaker 7: where that incident occurred. Meanwhile, by the time we were
Speaker 7: reporting it, little did the world know this had spread
Speaker 7: around the globe probably three times. That by January of
Speaker 7: twenty twenty, this virus had most likely gone around the
Speaker 7: globe multiple times. And so the fir and cleavage side
Speaker 7: to kind of tie it all together. The reason why
Speaker 7: this virus was so infectious, the reason why it was
Speaker 7: an airborne virus, and the reason why it was so
Speaker 7: suspicious is because it used this thing, this tool, this attribute,
Speaker 7: which was well known and gain a function to make
Speaker 7: it that way, and scientists on the inside knew that.
Speaker 3: On day one, will pause here for a word from
Speaker 3: our sponsor, and then we'll be back with more from Jenner.
Speaker 8: First, and we've returned, let's jump right back into our
Speaker 8: conversation with Jenner.
Speaker 3: And this is where this is where we get to
Speaker 3: the idea of narrative war. Right, you mentioned you mentioned
Speaker 3: Dasik or Pete. Know him well enough to call Pete.
Speaker 7: So it's a lot of different pronunciations. They have called
Speaker 7: him doctor Evil. Yes, I believe the actual Foyas. There
Speaker 7: are scientists who are making essentially a fraudulent science paper
Speaker 7: who call him the Grand Wizard of phylogeny. He is
Speaker 7: a quite a a interesting guy.
Speaker 3: From the word right, sorry, and yeah, that that was
Speaker 3: what you're referring to. There is a statement from Neil Harrison,
Speaker 3: a PhD, who didn't want to use the F word, uh,
Speaker 3: the F word being fraud. This is interesting, Jenner, because
Speaker 3: we've we've already sort of alluded to this idea of
Speaker 3: again narrative war of experts in their field, world class
Speaker 3: experts who are somehow sidelined in the race to figure
Speaker 3: out what the f is going on. With our guy
Speaker 3: Pete here, I'm particularly interested in the role he played.
Speaker 3: It seems like there are may be multiple roles in
Speaker 3: getting together a group of scientists who would march in
Speaker 3: lockstep with the wet market conclusion or the wet market theory.
Speaker 3: And there's a lot of time spent in I mean,
Speaker 3: you and your team and your partners find some pretty
Speaker 3: disturbing internal communications. I'm thinking specifically about folks like the
Speaker 3: investigative reporter Emily Copp leading so many charges on Foyer requests.
Speaker 3: Could you tell us a little bit about why some
Speaker 3: scientists felt they were excluded from this quote unquote inner
Speaker 3: circle and why other scientists seemed to be totally fine
Speaker 3: jumping on things like that open letter from the Lancet
Speaker 3: in February of twenty twenty.
Speaker 7: Well, I think that people like doctor Peter dash were
Speaker 7: really the ones that were so compromised that it was
Speaker 7: others who had to do the work of covering up
Speaker 7: their mistake. Yet people like Dashik, of course, were out
Speaker 7: in front with this natural origin theory, never disclosing to
Speaker 7: anyone the work he had done at Wuhan, never disclosing,
Speaker 7: of course, the proposal that outlined creating a virus that
Speaker 7: looked identical to the one that was infecting people around
Speaker 7: the world. And I think it's pretty obvious that the
Speaker 7: folks on the inner circle, when you do the actual
Speaker 7: digging on these folks, they all had conflicts of interest.
Speaker 7: They either received money directly from Anthony Fauci's agency in
Speaker 7: the United States government to do research involving gain of function,
Speaker 7: which was of course the most controversial aspect of this
Speaker 7: research that people like Fauci did not want to talk about.
Speaker 7: And many of these people who signed the Lancet letter,
Speaker 7: for example, have direct ties to even vaccine technology, biotechnology research,
Speaker 7: pharmaceutical companies. And so you see this media campaign essentially
Speaker 7: for three months straight, and this is while the virus
Speaker 7: is continuing to spread around the world, and this is
Speaker 7: while we are confounded by the virus's attributes and we
Speaker 7: don't know what it's doing and we don't know how
Speaker 7: to treat it. And of course that is a horrible,
Speaker 7: horrible misleading idea here that we don't know about this virus,
Speaker 7: because there was research into this virus and aspects of
Speaker 7: this virus and the virus's attributes for close to a decade,
Speaker 7: and if there had been an honest conversation amongst all
Speaker 7: of these scientists, and if they had been willing to
Speaker 7: acknowledge what was staring them right in the face, which
Speaker 7: was evidence that this had and manipulated in the lab,
Speaker 7: evidence that many of the grants, I mean many grants,
Speaker 7: like over twenty grants to the Wuhan Institute of Virology,
Speaker 7: to doctor Ralph Barrick at UNC, to a lot of
Speaker 7: other scientists who were actually involved in these teleconferences would
Speaker 7: tell you how this virus behaves and would give you
Speaker 7: a leg up for treating this virus, including countermeasures which
Speaker 7: were somewhat successful at treating the virus that were not vaccines.
Speaker 7: And yet for months, there's one story that's hitting the airwaves.
Speaker 7: The virus is natural. It just hit us and you know,
Speaker 7: out of the blues, smacked us in the face. And
Speaker 7: we've been warning you about this type of you know,
Speaker 7: natural phenomenon for decades now, and it's exactly why we
Speaker 7: do this dangerous research so that we can understand these
Speaker 7: things that are just going to come out of nature,
Speaker 7: like you know, a bolt from above, and we're just
Speaker 7: scrambling to figure it out. So please be patient and
Speaker 7: trust the science because we're just trying to figure it
Speaker 7: out right now. And it was actually the opposite. The
Speaker 7: only thing they were trying to figure out was how
Speaker 7: to carry out a cover up which would essentially obscure
Speaker 7: or hide all of the connections that these individuals had
Speaker 7: for years to this work and all of the culpability
Speaker 7: that they had for the pandemic happening. But the problem
Speaker 7: is unlike a traditional fraud or a traditional crime, where
Speaker 7: you can really narrow down a set of suspects and
Speaker 7: you can, you know, put culpability down to you know,
Speaker 7: who drove the getaway car and who held the gun.
Speaker 2: And you know rode proximal origin, right, you know.
Speaker 7: Who who covered for who? And you know you can
Speaker 7: you know, get people in even a rico case like
Speaker 7: in the mafia. You know, you can put a bunch
Speaker 7: of things together. This makes the average mafia case, you know,
Speaker 7: look like child's play. I mean, this is levels and
Speaker 7: levels of culpability, of connection, of benefit, of potential harm
Speaker 7: to sectors that or lobbies that have extreme power in
Speaker 7: the United States. You have a lot of people all
Speaker 7: standing to lose something from telling the truth, and you
Speaker 7: have a lot of people all standing to gain something
Speaker 7: from telling a lie. And so you just have a
Speaker 7: perfect storm and ultimately a crime that becomes too big
Speaker 7: to prosecute. And that's where we are now. But these
Speaker 7: individuals did the early work, and these individuals set the
Speaker 7: stage and created the master narrative, the big lie that
Speaker 7: would get repeated for years and ultimately got the media
Speaker 7: in line and got even the United States government under
Speaker 7: Donald Trump in line to enact this cover up and
Speaker 7: to essentially launch warp speed and to give these pharmaceutical
Speaker 7: companies complete and total protection, no liability for damage, and
Speaker 7: all of it, all of it was based on a lie.
Speaker 7: And if we are to really step back and look
Speaker 7: at that, the damage is inconceivable.
Speaker 6: I'd love to name some of those guys, just put
Speaker 6: it like, do we have a list of people from
Speaker 6: like those early slack communications and those early connections that
Speaker 6: we could just say their names here where people should
Speaker 6: start looking up.
Speaker 7: Of course, so you have an initial flurry of emails
Speaker 7: between Sir Jeremy Farrar Fauci and Francis Collins, who is
Speaker 7: the director of the NIH, ostensibly Fauci's boss, although Fauci
Speaker 7: has been there a lot longer and appears to have
Speaker 7: a lot more power. These three individuals represent nearly seventy
Speaker 7: five billion dollars in funding every year.
Speaker 4: Wow.
Speaker 7: And Jeremy Farrar is like Fauci's equivalent in the UK.
Speaker 7: He was the director of the Welcome Trust and that
Speaker 7: was one of the largest funders of biomedical research in Europe.
Speaker 7: And these individuals were corresponding on emails for which you
Speaker 7: can see just Google. Emails between Anthony Fauci and Jeremy Farrar.
Speaker 4: Heavily redacted though right, I mean, isn't that well.
Speaker 7: Originally they were heavily redacted, which is something that was
Speaker 7: of course very suspicious, especially how long they were requested.
Speaker 7: In the first batch that was released was redacted, but
Speaker 7: by now these emails have been unredacted because there was
Speaker 7: no legal reason why they should have been redacted in
Speaker 7: the first place. And the essentially the NIH was engaging
Speaker 7: in obstruction of justice and essentially continuing and cover up
Speaker 7: despite the fact that they legally needed to release this information.
Speaker 7: But back to the story, So in early January, right
Speaker 7: after New Year's Eve, you see a flurry of emails
Speaker 7: and then you see scientists start to have conversations amongst
Speaker 7: each other after this genetic sequence is released to the public,
Speaker 7: and that's in early January, January eleventh, and by the
Speaker 7: twenty seventh of January, Fauci gets contacted by a scientist
Speaker 7: named Christian Anderson. And Anderson is based in California and
Speaker 7: does a lot of research on viruses like a bola
Speaker 7: and lassa. He worked for worked with a laboratory in
Speaker 7: West Africa called the Viral Hemorrhagic Fever Consortium, and he
Speaker 7: contacts Fauci and says, you know, this fern cleavage side
Speaker 7: is very suspicious and this looks like it may have
Speaker 7: come from a lab. And by the way, I I
Speaker 7: found these grants that basically show almost instructions and or
Speaker 7: components of this virus, and they were funded by the
Speaker 7: ni AID and the work happened with Ralph Barrick back
Speaker 7: in twenty fourteen, in twenty fifteen, and Fauci responds by
Speaker 7: saying something along the lines of you know, if this
Speaker 7: is true, then you know you should contact the FBI.
Speaker 7: Right Meanwhile, you know Fauci is continuing to field panic
Speaker 7: and start to do some damage control. And then on
Speaker 7: the thirty first of January, you've had all these emails,
Speaker 7: this kind of concern that this is going to get
Speaker 7: out of control and that there needs to be essentially
Speaker 7: a story right now because this could affect a lot
Speaker 7: of us, and you're not going to see them, you know,
Speaker 7: dump their guts on emails because they are seasoned bureaucrats.
Speaker 7: I mean, it's like the Mafia. They don't talk on
Speaker 7: the phone, watch the soprano, and Tony doesn't let you
Speaker 7: say anything on his house line. Fauci was the same
Speaker 7: way about his email account. I mean, if anything, he
Speaker 7: put things in his email to try to protect himself
Speaker 7: to make it seem like he had genuine concern or
Speaker 7: genuine he was genuinely trying to get to the bottom
Speaker 7: of what happened, as if he didn't know already.
Speaker 3: Oh geez, says the guy A dressed as the hot dog.
Speaker 3: It could have been anybody.
Speaker 5: That's just basic corporate training etiquette, you know, for email,
Speaker 5: like our lawyers for our company, like tell us the
Speaker 5: exact same thing. Be really careful about what you say,
Speaker 5: because that's the stuff that gets pulled in for lawsuits
Speaker 5: is usually this kind of email conversation.
Speaker 7: And imagine that times ten, because now you're dealing with
Speaker 7: American bureaucracy and the federal government and Congress and all
Speaker 7: of these things that Fauci was well aware of. So however,
Speaker 7: he you know, got there whatever. You know, however he
Speaker 7: scraped his knee in the past, he was very well
Speaker 7: aware on how to discuss things over email. Although he
Speaker 7: made a lot of mistakes. And if you hadn't made
Speaker 7: those mistakes, we wouldn't be here right now. There's still
Speaker 7: plenty in those emails that's suspicious and that raises a
Speaker 7: lot of questions. But you have this turning point, and
Speaker 7: you have these conversations happening online amongst accomplished scientists, scientists
Speaker 7: who have a background in this field and who can
Speaker 7: call it like it is and look at this genetic
Speaker 7: sequence and google and use the research databases that they exist,
Speaker 7: and go and find grants that are doing research that
Speaker 7: is very suspicious compared to the outbreak and in the
Speaker 7: location where the outbreak happened. And so this is starting
Speaker 7: to crescendo. And then on the thirty first of January,
Speaker 7: there is a number of different articles that come out,
Speaker 7: but there is a preprint of a paper, and this
Speaker 7: paper advances the original suspicion that existed and says, yes,
Speaker 7: there is a fern cleavage side, but there are three
Speaker 7: other regions of this genetic sequence that are suspicious and
Speaker 7: do not seem natural. And we have found in our
Speaker 7: crunch of the genetic sequence, in comparison to all the
Speaker 7: other genetic sequences that exist for these viruses, we have
Speaker 7: found fragments that are suspiciously similar to HIV. And this
Speaker 7: is when the panic begins to articulate and get even
Speaker 7: more frenzied, and Fauci is up late at night scheduling
Speaker 7: an emergency teleconference. And by this point Bob Redfield has
Speaker 7: had numerous conversations with Anthony Fauci. He's the director of
Speaker 7: the CDC, and he has talked to Fauci directly about
Speaker 7: his feelings about this virus. That he felt it came
Speaker 7: from the lab in Wuhan, that he felt it wasn't natural,
Speaker 7: that he felt it was spreading in a way that
Speaker 7: was uncontrollable for a natural virus, and that he also
Speaker 7: was aware of research that was funded by the United
Speaker 7: States at the lab to do work that may result
Speaker 7: in a pandemic just like this. And on that night
Speaker 7: of frenzied emails inviting scientists like Christian Anderson, who at
Speaker 7: first was somewhat of a whistleblower, who shows up saying, hey,
Speaker 7: you know, doctor Fauci, this virus doesn't look natural. And
Speaker 7: doctor Fauci goes, that's, you know, great observation, you know,
Speaker 7: doctor Anderson. Well, if it's true, let's call the FBI. Well,
Speaker 7: Anderson gets invited to this teleconference, along with a lot
Speaker 7: of other scientists that have a lot to lose if
Speaker 7: Gain of Function has another scandal. But the CDs director,
Speaker 7: doctor Bob Redfield, does not get invited to the emergency teleconference.
Speaker 7: And so you have the director of the NIH, Francis Collins.
Speaker 7: You have Jeremy Farrar, the guy who is you know,
Speaker 7: the Fauci of Europe. And you have these scientists who
Speaker 7: do this work, in fact, are famous for this work.
Speaker 6: I'm gonna put these names, Robert Gary, Eddie Holmes, a
Speaker 6: couple of dudes.
Speaker 7: Christian Anderson loops in three scientists that he works closely with,
Speaker 7: and those scientists are doctor Bob Gary, who also does
Speaker 7: a lot of work in West Africa around viruses like
Speaker 7: Abola and LASSA, and even did a lot of research
Speaker 7: around AIDS and HIV starting in the nineties. And you
Speaker 7: have Eddie Holmes and Andrew Rambo. Again, these are scientists
Speaker 7: who have been in the community for a while doing
Speaker 7: this type of work themselves, but also have ties going
Speaker 7: all the way back to the HIV research being done
Speaker 7: in the nineties to try to understand origin and understand
Speaker 7: the virus better. These were people that Fauci knew, that
Speaker 7: Fauci had funded, and whose work he was familiar with.
Speaker 7: And you have some scientists who really have no reason
Speaker 7: for being there. The only reason they maybe were there
Speaker 7: were to argue why this was or wasn't gain of function,
Speaker 7: why this was or wasn't a lab league. But they
Speaker 7: weren't doing that objectively because this scientist, for example, this
Speaker 7: guy Ron Fuchier, was one of the most controversial scientists
Speaker 7: in gain of function today. He had been funded by
Speaker 7: Fauci to make avian flu bird flu airborne, and bird
Speaker 7: flu has like a fatality rate that can be anywhere
Speaker 7: between ten percent and fifty percent. There has never been
Speaker 7: a huge human to human spread of bird flu it
Speaker 7: doesnatural right, it does, Yeah.
Speaker 4: Jenna really quickly.
Speaker 5: Fauci in a press conference references a paper or a
Speaker 5: study that is he, as far as he's concerned, is
Speaker 5: proof positive that no lab leak occurred, that this was,
Speaker 5: you know, something that supported the wuhan wet market narrative.
Speaker 5: But he's like, I don't remember the names, and it
Speaker 5: seems really so it's odd and it's just I don't know, Yes,
Speaker 5: what's very od.
Speaker 4: Does he ever actually drop what it is?
Speaker 5: Like, do you guys get to the bottom of that
Speaker 5: or is it just sort of a vague statement.
Speaker 7: Okay, you know, you rewind three months and those scientists
Speaker 7: who he says he doesn't have the names of are
Speaker 7: the ones that he summons to an emergency teleconference on
Speaker 7: January thirty. First, he begins the emails. On February second,
Speaker 7: that teleconference happens. So you're referring to a press conference
Speaker 7: in April where Trump was present and where there is
Speaker 7: a lot of concern now about this being a lab leak.
Speaker 7: And Fauci holds up a paper. It's called the Proximal
Speaker 7: Origin of Stars KOV two. That paper was written by
Speaker 7: Christian Anderson, Bob Gary Andrew Rambo and Eddie Holmes. There
Speaker 7: were a bunch of other writers, but those four guys
Speaker 7: happened to be in the teleconference. On February second, there's
Speaker 7: another teleconference that we didn't even know about that happened.
Speaker 7: It's February first that this teleconference happened, So if you
Speaker 7: have to go back, and the date is February first,
Speaker 7: Fauci is panicked on the thirty first of January, and
Speaker 7: by the first of February he gets everybody together for
Speaker 7: a teleconference. On February third, there's another teleconference, and this
Speaker 7: one actually includes some of the scientists who may be
Speaker 7: responsible for the pandemic. And this was never disclosed to
Speaker 7: the public, and these scientists were never even credited on
Speaker 7: that proximal origin paper. And essentially you had scientists who
Speaker 7: were either famous for gain of function research and or
Speaker 7: involved in the actual creation of a virus that may
Speaker 7: have caused this pandemic, who are present and who are
Speaker 7: interfacing with scientists who are writing a scientific paper to
Speaker 7: prove that this did not happen in a lab and
Speaker 7: that this was natural. And so you can't think of
Speaker 7: a more suspicious set of facts than that.
Speaker 3: And I think that's I think you put it very
Speaker 3: fairly there. At multiple points. We'd love to ask a
Speaker 3: personal question of you generate if it's all right here?
Speaker 7: Sure?
Speaker 4: All right?
Speaker 3: So what are so You're coming into this like so
Speaker 3: many other people across the planet during the let's say,
Speaker 3: the emergence of public knowledge of COVID right if we
Speaker 3: want to be technically accurate there, when you have dived
Speaker 3: into this, are there questions that you personally right now
Speaker 3: would like answered or questions that remain unanswered at the
Speaker 3: culmination of your research here? And then secondly, I just
Speaker 3: we just have to ask, man, did you ever feel
Speaker 3: that you were in danger looking into this or ever
Speaker 3: in fear of some some kind of possible reprisal.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I've been. I've told stories where I feared for
Speaker 7: my life, and I've told a few of them, and
Speaker 7: the nature of the threat was different each time. And
Speaker 7: I think when you go against the intelligence community, or
Speaker 7: you go against the pharmaceutical industry, you can find yourself
Speaker 7: in the crosshairs. But in my experience, in my you
Speaker 7: know understanding the space that unfortunately it's the bravest and
Speaker 7: the first to respond, the first to break important information
Speaker 7: or even I witnesses whistleblowers. They're the ones who die first.
Speaker 7: They're the ones who were killed first. And I was
Speaker 7: coming to this story late, but I was the aggregator.
Speaker 7: I was the person connecting a lot of this research
Speaker 7: and a lot of these sources together. And I quickly
Speaker 7: realized that I was being monitored, or at least I
Speaker 7: felt I was being monitored. There were weird things happening
Speaker 7: with my devices, and I had some very strange zoom
Speaker 7: calls that you know, I was getting thumbs up and
Speaker 7: balloons and all sorts of things on very bizarre lines.
Speaker 7: And I started to have an evolution where I understood
Speaker 7: that maybe I was being monitored, but that it appeared
Speaker 7: that who was monitoring me was in support of my thesis,
Speaker 7: and that it was a very bizarre thing that happened.
Speaker 7: And so I began to realize that I was not
Speaker 7: going to be killed, and I was not at risk
Speaker 7: of being killed, and that kind of melodramatic story that journalists,
Speaker 7: you know, like to tell case I was. I was safe,
Speaker 7: but that the greatest risk for someone like me is
Speaker 7: that there will be people who come into your life
Speaker 7: and convince you that they have a lot of evidence
Speaker 7: that you should know about, or that you need to
Speaker 7: talk to this one person because this one person has
Speaker 7: it figured out, or actually it's not Anthony Fauci, it's
Speaker 7: Francis Collins, or it's not that it's this, or you know,
Speaker 7: that is the risk because for someone like me, who
Speaker 7: you can google and who has reached, you know, over
Speaker 7: a billion people, with my work has been seen by
Speaker 7: over a billion people, It's been on major platforms. That
Speaker 7: the name of the game is not killing me because
Speaker 7: my crew is too big, and that it's too many
Speaker 7: people know I'm making this movie. The name of the
Speaker 7: game is misleading me and getting me to include information
Speaker 7: that isn't true. And what I began to understand is
Speaker 7: that I was being supported by people potentially within the CIA,
Speaker 7: and I had a background source in the CIA whom
Speaker 7: I cannot disclose any information about. But what I can
Speaker 7: say about this individual is that they endorsed and supported
Speaker 7: the data that I had collected and the hypothesis that
Speaker 7: I had formed around this data, and that they believed
Speaker 7: that I was on the right track, and that the
Speaker 7: biggest thing they wanted people to know and the American
Speaker 7: public to know is that most of the people in
Speaker 7: these agencies, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, the DoD.
Speaker 7: These are patriots, for lack of a better word, people
Speaker 7: that believe they're serving our country and that they're protecting
Speaker 7: us from threats that will never know, and that they
Speaker 7: believe that they're honest people and they're hardworking people, and
Speaker 7: that the corruption is really at the top, and that
Speaker 7: they want more than any thing for that corruption to
Speaker 7: be routed out, for that corruption to be annihilated. And
Speaker 7: so I found by the end of the story that
Speaker 7: the people that I may fear the most, you know,
Speaker 7: the CIA, you know the intelligence community, they're the ones
Speaker 7: who are going to off me, were actually individuals who
Speaker 7: supported my efforts. And that was the big twist for
Speaker 7: me when I realized that this was a story that
Speaker 7: made for a lot of strange bedfellows and created strong
Speaker 7: alliances and strong collaborations across political lines, across agency lines,
Speaker 7: and that a lot of these people were simply soldiers
Speaker 7: of the truth. And I found myself in a similar role.
Speaker 7: And I think it'll be a war that I'm fighting
Speaker 7: for the rest of my life at this point, because
Speaker 7: the folks on the other side are quite powerful and
Speaker 7: they have a lot of tricks and things are actually
Speaker 7: just getting started. So I hate to say something like that.
Speaker 7: I hate to say that, oh, we figured out the
Speaker 7: truth now and there's there's protections in place and this
Speaker 7: won't happen again. It's it's the opposite. And you asked
Speaker 7: me what did I learn? What did I discover? You know,
Speaker 7: from making this movie. I learned how much I don't know,
Speaker 7: and I am hungry to learn more about what happened
Speaker 7: with COVID. But watch for the biggest distraction. The biggest
Speaker 7: distraction is going to be the quote smoking gun. And
Speaker 7: the reason why that's the biggest distraction. You know, when
Speaker 7: did the virus leak? What is the incident that caused
Speaker 7: that leak, What is the exact composition of that virus,
Speaker 7: and the proof that that composition was man made? You'll
Speaker 7: never find that, Okay, you will never find that. The
Speaker 7: serological data about the virus was never released from the Chinese.
Speaker 7: We don't know what the earliest you know, illness look like.
Speaker 7: We have a genetic sequence, which is essentially just a
Speaker 7: computer set of letters, right, And the reason why that
Speaker 7: so much attention is put on the exact origin of
Speaker 7: this virus is because that's the part that the most
Speaker 7: powerful and sinister individuals know that they've gotten away with.
Speaker 7: The prime that you can prove right now is that
Speaker 7: there was a cover up, and that the individuals engage
Speaker 7: in a cover up are engaged in a lot of
Speaker 7: sinister activities around the globe. That these activities involve war games,
Speaker 7: that they involve pharmaceutical industry essentially abusing the public for years,
Speaker 7: and they involve what could be another pandemic that will
Speaker 7: cause even more societal change, even more profit, and even
Speaker 7: more I think, destruction to the fabric of our world.
Speaker 7: And that is the thing that we need to focus
Speaker 7: on right now. We need to focus on the clear
Speaker 7: evidence that a bird flu will likely emerge sometime very soon.
Speaker 7: You can see the fingerprints in the media. You can
Speaker 7: see stories about bird flu emerging in cow milk and
Speaker 7: crossing over. And that's a distraction. In fact, I think
Speaker 7: that is them perfecting their toolbox because the last time
Speaker 7: they did this it didn't work okay, and proximal origin
Speaker 7: was too obvious, and the wet market was too obvious
Speaker 7: of a lie. And now for months now we've been
Speaker 7: seeing about, you know, bird flu crossing over in these
Speaker 7: isolated instances, and that is really preparing the stage for
Speaker 7: the next pandemic and for us to believe that it
Speaker 7: was natural. It will not be a natural pandemic. It
Speaker 7: will be a man made pandemic. And that is what
Speaker 7: we should be focusing on. So watch carefully. If you
Speaker 7: continue to see a story emerge about the exact you know,
Speaker 7: genetic proof that the virus came from a lab, you
Speaker 7: are actually being distracted because that is the part that
Speaker 7: they are most confident about. They are most confident that
Speaker 7: you'll never be able to prove that. That's why Anthony
Speaker 7: Faucis stood there with so much bravado and so much
Speaker 7: confidence in front of Congress because he knew he got
Speaker 7: away with that part. This is the part they didn't
Speaker 7: get away with. They covered it up. The evidence is there,
Speaker 7: it's right in front of us. That's the crime. And
Speaker 7: the next crime is going to be ten times bigger
Speaker 7: than the last one.
Speaker 3: What a mic drop Well said.
Speaker 6: Just to put this in perspective, Jenner, Roughly, when did
Speaker 6: you interview doctor Redfield?
Speaker 7: I interviewed Redfield in February of twenty twenty four. Okay,
Speaker 7: so I began working on this project in December of
Speaker 7: twenty twenty three, and I fell down the rabbit hole
Speaker 7: and began interviewing folks and had done most of my
Speaker 7: interviews by the spring the end of the spring of
Speaker 7: twenty twenty four.
Speaker 6: Okay, because I just something that rings in my head
Speaker 6: all the time is his statements about bird flu and
Speaker 6: again thinking about what we see in the news with
Speaker 6: H five N one and how Redfield seem to be
Speaker 6: very confident that bird flu is the thing that is
Speaker 6: coming for us next. I think he uses the word
Speaker 6: premonition or something to that effect, but ultimately he sees
Speaker 6: that as the thing that's coming that is really I mean,
Speaker 6: you have that belief now as well, because we've been
Speaker 6: talking about on the show, and it does just feel
Speaker 6: like a strange set of circumstances.
Speaker 5: Statistical service with some of the little stories we've been seeing,
Speaker 5: right the coble drips and drabs of cases kind of
Speaker 5: on the upswing.
Speaker 7: Yeah, and even there has been an increased funding for
Speaker 7: gain of function or gain of function adjacent work on
Speaker 7: avian flus since the pandemic, and that individuals who were
Speaker 7: in that teleconference are the most famous individuals for setting
Speaker 7: the stage for that bird flu pandemic, that man made
Speaker 7: catastrophe to hit the public, that individuals in the teleconference
Speaker 7: with Fauci and the others of COVID. So you have
Speaker 7: to ask yourself, you know, once you can see this puzzle,
Speaker 7: because that's the part that they work so hard on,
Speaker 7: is for you not to have the puzzle pieces. And
Speaker 7: that's what the film does. And if you think you
Speaker 7: know the story of COVID, you don't because I made
Speaker 7: a documentary about it and sipped through three hundred thousand
Speaker 7: pages of evidence and I still don't know the exact
Speaker 7: story of COVID. And if you think you're over COVID,
Speaker 7: that is a manipulation. You are being conditioned to think
Speaker 7: you were over COVID so that the crime is never
Speaker 7: solved and so that when the next one happens, you
Speaker 7: will forget what happened this time. So when you see
Speaker 7: people who are in a malaise and don't want to
Speaker 7: talk about COVID, COVID's over. The pandemic's over. The pandemic
Speaker 7: ain't over, Okay, We're all suffering from one form of
Speaker 7: long COVID or another. And I know that sounds crazy
Speaker 7: for all of us who think we're healthy. This virus
Speaker 7: continues to affect our bodies years later. This virus may
Speaker 7: have pieces of HIV in it. This virus has caused
Speaker 7: a mass autoimmune dysregulation in the public of the planet. Okay.
Speaker 5: Isn't it also true that doctor Redfield's specialty for his
Speaker 5: private practice now is long COVID.
Speaker 7: Doctor Redfield's now specializing in long COVID, and this was
Speaker 7: I think the full circle for him. You know, he
Speaker 7: was there in the early days and now he treats
Speaker 7: people with long COVID. And I think again, a huge
Speaker 7: distinction between doctor Redfield and doctor Fauci is that doctor
Speaker 7: Redfield is a doctor, okay, and doctor Fauci is a bureaucrat.
Speaker 7: And doctor Redfield cares about patients, and doctor Fauci is
Speaker 7: still concerned with his power and his legacy and probably
Speaker 7: getting final payment for his deeds which couldn't have been
Speaker 7: issued during his time in government. He received roughly seven
Speaker 7: million dollars in security from the United States government after
Speaker 7: he retired annually. Okay, more than that. And long COVID
Speaker 7: and vaccine injuries which are very similar to long COVID
Speaker 7: will continue to haunt us for years. Some of us
Speaker 7: will struggle with this for the rest of our lives.
Speaker 7: Redfield and others believe they can actually reverse a lot
Speaker 7: of this, and that it's not some complex, high cost medicine.
Speaker 7: It's actually enhanced antihistamines and you know, anti clotting agents
Speaker 7: and doing MRIs to learn where blood clots may be
Speaker 7: happening in your body and essentially helping the immune system
Speaker 7: regulate again. And you know, this is a frightening thing
Speaker 7: for a lot of people. But while I was making
Speaker 7: the movie, the person who I had hired to be
Speaker 7: my main researcher dropped out within a week because she
Speaker 7: had aggressive stage three breast cancer out of nowhere. She
Speaker 7: was in her early thirties. One of my producers, their
Speaker 7: mother died right before production of an aggressive lung cancer
Speaker 7: that went from zero to stage four out of nowhere.
Speaker 7: She went to an urgent care because she thought she
Speaker 7: had pneumonia. She never went home. She was unconscious within
Speaker 7: a couple weeks and dead. My partner and my company
Speaker 7: while we were making this movie. His mother died of
Speaker 7: a sudden heart attack, and he is confident with his
Speaker 7: other siblings that that was caused by a blood clot
Speaker 7: that was essentially a reaction to the vaccine or the virus.
Speaker 7: I have two relatives right now with aggressive cancers that
Speaker 7: got them out of nowhere right after the pandemic. Now,
Speaker 7: if that sounds familiar to you, and you notice that
Speaker 7: there are people in your community that are sick or
Speaker 7: drop dead or that have cancers in ways that you
Speaker 7: didn't noticed before, I think it's time to ask ourselves
Speaker 7: those hard questions, and that if we think we're over COVID,
Speaker 7: we're just fulfilling the propaganda that was fed to us,
Speaker 7: and we're actually feeding it to each other. That was
Speaker 7: the scariest part for me. It's not that I was
Speaker 7: the victim of state sponsored or corporate sponsored propaganda. It
Speaker 7: was that it was so effective that I was feeding
Speaker 7: it to others organically, others were feeding it to me,
Speaker 7: and that I'd be willing to have a fight at
Speaker 7: the dinner table when the person that I was likely
Speaker 7: defending was the United States government or a pharmaceutical company.
Speaker 7: Think about that. Think when you fight about this and
Speaker 7: you think it's political, think who taught you how to
Speaker 7: feel that way and who gave you the playbook, And
Speaker 7: think of the fact that instead of them paying for it.
Speaker 7: You're not even being paid, you're not an influencer, you're
Speaker 7: not carrying that message out. It's so damn effective that
Speaker 7: we spread it amongst each other. That's how affect of
Speaker 7: this propaganda is, is that we spread it amongst each other.
Speaker 7: And that's like, you know, Hitler level propaganda. Okay, that's
Speaker 7: like that's that's another level and we're all suffering from it,
Speaker 7: and we need to wake up. This is something that democrats, leftists, progressives,
Speaker 7: all the people who have been fighting for you know,
Speaker 7: government reform and consumer protection, wake up. This is our
Speaker 7: fight too. This is not just conservatives and people on
Speaker 7: the right. In fact, the political nature of this is
Speaker 7: the core manipulation. It's not political. It affects everyone on
Speaker 7: the planet, and only the one percent of one percent benefit. Well,
Speaker 7: the ninety nine point nine percent of us get harmed.
Speaker 7: It's time to tell the truth now.
Speaker 3: And propaganda is viral when successful propaganda only acknowledges any
Speaker 3: ideology in such that it allows that propaganda to further communicate.
Speaker 3: I think these are very real, very dangerous questions, and
Speaker 3: there are questions that need to be asked a lot
Speaker 3: of times. To your point, Jedter about the nature of
Speaker 3: mass media communication, We the public are taught that an
Speaker 3: answer should be simple, an answer should be deliverable within
Speaker 3: three to five minutes. You get the answer, you feel better.
Speaker 3: You move on to the next thing, be that celebrity scandal,
Speaker 3: or be that to the next crisis. So we cannot
Speaker 3: thank you enough. There is so much that we have
Speaker 3: not been able to get to. But thankfully again, guys, yeah,
Speaker 3: just part one right, it's a seriously thank you. You're
Speaker 3: being so generous with your.
Speaker 6: Time here, man, I gotta tell you. When we started rolling,
Speaker 6: I got a message from an unknown number that just
Speaker 6: says hello, And just now I got another message from
Speaker 6: another unknown number that just says hello.
Speaker 7: They don't want you to know.
Speaker 3: Before we get black bagged again. We want to thank
Speaker 3: you Jenner so much, not just for thank you, mister Fauci,
Speaker 3: but for all your additional work, and perhaps most importantly,
Speaker 3: for continuing to spread awareness and continuing to be a
Speaker 3: clarion call for these very difficult questions. Could you tell
Speaker 3: our audience and everybody else who wants to learn more
Speaker 3: where they can learn more about you and your work.
Speaker 7: Well, you know, my work exists on major platforms like Netflix,
Speaker 7: and Amazon and Hulu and Paramount Plus. But this particular film,
Speaker 7: the greatest way to learn about it is through our website,
Speaker 7: and you won't find it in a lot of media
Speaker 7: reporting right now because it's actually a tough subject for
Speaker 7: the media because they were involved in helping to cover
Speaker 7: it up. So I want to give credit to you, guys,
Speaker 7: because as a purveyor of truth, as a podcast that
Speaker 7: has listened to by many people, you are doing the
Speaker 7: good work right now and help this story get out
Speaker 7: because we have experienced a media blackout for almost four
Speaker 7: weeks now. Press release went out to five thousand outlets,
Speaker 7: and no major outlet, no international outlet, no big national
Speaker 7: news outlet covered the story to date. And so I
Speaker 7: want to thank you for having me. People who want
Speaker 7: to learn about this film can go to thank you
Speaker 7: Doctor faucimovie dot com and that all of the ways
Speaker 7: to watch the film are there. That our social profile
Speaker 7: on x is really the best way to stay connected.
Speaker 7: You know, that's the only platform really allowing for a
Speaker 7: free and open debate right now and where we have
Speaker 7: the most presence, So you can find us on XSet.
Speaker 7: Thank you Doctor Fauci, and you can find always to
Speaker 7: watch this movie at thank you doctor faucimovie dot com.
Speaker 3: What a ride, you guys. I know we've all seen
Speaker 3: the documentary here again, as we were saying, there was
Speaker 3: much much more to the story, but I think we
Speaker 3: unanimously commend Jenner and his team for the research they've done.
Speaker 5: Yeah, haven't hypen it up to some pals since we
Speaker 5: did the interview? It really you know, I mean it's
Speaker 5: one of those things too, where it's just like, these
Speaker 5: are things that all of us have thought about, and
Speaker 5: he gives so much credence to a lot of these
Speaker 5: these narratives, it's really hard to ignore at the very least,
Speaker 5: thinking about what some alternatives could be to the narrative
Speaker 5: that has been sort of more or less forced down
Speaker 5: the throat of the American people.
Speaker 6: It does make me wonder how many people actually clicked
Speaker 6: on this episode and have made it this far because
Speaker 6: this is such a politically charged topic, or you know,
Speaker 6: it was turned into such a political topic rather than
Speaker 6: a science.
Speaker 3: Topic, right, a narrative war.
Speaker 6: Yeah, Yeah, So I hope anybody who's still around in
Speaker 6: hearing this right now is fully considering this stuff. Look
Speaker 6: at it on your own. That's kind of what the
Speaker 6: whole point of this is.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I believe that we all on the show
Speaker 3: unanimously feel the same way. And Folks, we don't have
Speaker 3: all the answers. We definitely want to look at the
Speaker 3: facts and objectively apply critical thinking to sensitive and heavy
Speaker 3: subjects such as this. We can only do so with
Speaker 3: your help, and that's why we would like to ask
Speaker 3: you to hang out with us on email, on a
Speaker 3: telephonic interaction, or even on the internet online.
Speaker 5: Correct, you can find us all over the internet, all
Speaker 5: over your platform of choice at the handle conspiracy Stuff,
Speaker 5: where we exist on Facebook with our Facebook group Here's
Speaker 5: where it gets crazy, on x FKA, Twitter, as well
Speaker 5: as on YouTube where you can find video content galore
Speaker 5: to enjoy. On Instagram and TikTok, however, we are Conspiracy Stuff.
Speaker 6: We have a phone number if you want to call
Speaker 6: and give us your two five twenty cents. Call one
Speaker 6: eight three three STDWYTK. When you call in it's a
Speaker 6: voicemail system. You've got three minutes. Give us your name,
Speaker 6: like not your real name, maybe a fun nickname, and
Speaker 6: let us know if we can use your name and
Speaker 6: message on the air. If you've got more to say,
Speaker 6: than can fit in a three minute voicemail. Why not
Speaker 6: instead send us a good old fashioned email.
Speaker 3: We are the entities that read every piece of correspondence
Speaker 3: we receive. Be well aware, yet unafraid. Sometimes the void
Speaker 3: writes back. Send us the links, Send us the pictures,
Speaker 3: the puns, the near death experience stories. That's going to
Speaker 3: come in handy later in our third Man Syndrome episode.
Speaker 3: Most importantly, be well, stay safe, have adventures, Join us
Speaker 3: out here in the dark conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 6: Stuff they Don't Want You to Know is a production
Speaker 6: of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 6: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.