The Coverup | Dissident: The Doctor that Fauci Tried to Destroy | Ep. 1 BlazeTV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cHiJbofctU

Follow the science. Trust the experts. Do as you're told. These are the orders that were passed down on high from politicians, public health officials, faceless bureaucrats. They promised if we complied, if we followed the rules, if we did what we were told, they could keep us safe. But they didn't keep us safe. They fed us a story that over time just raised more and more questions. Where did the virus come from? How was it created? What role did the U.S. government have in financing dangerous gain-of-function research? What don't they want us to know? What else aren't they telling us? Just asking these questions got you labeled a crank or a conspiracy theorist. And when that didn't work, they started censoring us. What were they so actively trying to hide? My name is Matt Kibbe, and I am obsessed with these questions. I'm obsessed with the very nature of the biggest public policy failure of my lifetime. We're going to get to the bottom of it by talking to the very smartest people I know, the same people that were censored by government, who were stifled, attempted to stop them from asking these questions. Together, we're going to get to the bottom of this web of deception and lies. It's time to pull back the curtain on the cover-up. And if you can't social distance and you're outside, you must wear a mask. The NIH and NIND category has not funded gain-of-function research. Not that we want. We criticize the science. Because I represent some... My quest has brought me to the Stanford School of Medicine. I'm going to talk with my friend, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who was one of the first epidemiologists to question the official narrative about COVID, and the world came down on him. The media went after him. The government went after him. We now know that Tony Fauci himself orchestrated a smear campaign against him. He's also the guy that turned me on to this idea that maybe this entire gain-of-function paradigm was more about biosecurity as opposed to public health. And I'm really looking forward to talking to him because I want to dig a little bit deeper and really understand, why did they go after him so hard? What were they trying to hide? The first time we talked, you pointed out that the explosion in funding for this kind of pandemic research happened in conjunction right after 9-11. A new staff member actually had been tested positive for anthrax. The Florida man has contracted a very rare and potentially deadly form of anthrax. Rare inhaled form of anthrax. Anthrax, another infection. This time at NBC News in Rockefeller Plaza. This week's time, we have had four confirmed cases of anthrax, all with media connections, and a number of anthrax scares as well. ABC News. In Nevada. In New Jersey tonight. The U.S. House of Representatives is closing offices today. And this is where Anthony Fauci accumulated so much power and money. We appreciate your calling this hearing and giving us, my colleagues and I, the opportunity to address the threat of smallpox bioterrorism and how we may, as a group, defend against the bioterrorist potential of this pathogen. Should that increase in budget, if any, did you receive after the September 11th, related, I should say the anthrax attacks last year? Well, the budget process, as it evolves, took place following the September 11th and anthrax attacks in the fall. We have a chart from the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases. It was $2.5 billion in 2002. When we look at fiscal year proposed for 2003, $4.4 billion. Right. Correct. So almost doubled. And it sort of put me down this path that this isn't just a failed government response to a dangerous pandemic. There's something much bigger going on. There's stuff that I know for certain and there's stuff I don't have visibility in. But what I know for certain is enough to be very worrying. So what happened was, over the course of the last two decades, the U.S. government, and other governments, I'm sure, undertook this project to try to find the pathogens in the wild places of the world, bring them into labs, essentially weaponize them, make them so that in the wild they would only be able to infect bats or whatever. Turn them into pathogens that can actually infect human cells and potentially even be spread from human to human. We're trying to do good. The idea was, let's find which of these pathogens are likely to cause large outbreaks. And before that happens, we can predict which ones are most likely to do it, because it only takes a few mutations or something to infect human cells. And then develop countermeasures, like vaccines and other potential treatments. So the best of intentions, still, I mean, to me, it's still kind of mad science-y. There's a hubris. There's, as Hayek might say, a fatal conceit to thinking that you really want to unleash some of these things, because mistakes are about to happen. So I have an M.D. and a Ph.D. in economics. From almost the first moment I started doing research, I was very interested in infectious disease. My first published paper was on HIV. And because I do economics at the intersection of economics and medicine, a lot of it was about policy. So I published throughout my career a lot of papers on infectious disease. So in this pandemic hit, the World Health Organization, I forget the exact date, put out an estimate in a press conference saying that the death rate from this virus is 3.4%. Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. Devastating, if true. Yeah, I mean, three out of 100 people died from getting this. That is a disaster. But nothing in modern peace time history has an L. I mean, it's going to go everywhere, right? Because the virus spreads very easily. It was really clear from the data early on that was true. But that number had to be wrong is what I thought, because I thought back to what happened to swine flu. The World Health Organization has declared a swine flu pandemic as the disease continues to spread around the world. Sounds unreal, nearly half the population infected with swine flu. But the government believes that could happen. President Obama decided to declare the epidemic a national emergency of swine flu. The World Health Organization put out an estimate saying, you know, this is a 4% death rate. I forget the exact number, but 4% death rate. In cases where the H1N1 virus is widespread and circulating within the general community, countries must expect to see more cases of severe and fatal infections. The problem was they observed the people that died from the swine flu, but they didn't observe the total set of people that had been infected. They only saw the people who were really sick enough to come to the hospital. That meant the death rate was something like one in 10,000, not three out of 100 or four out of 100. That defanged the swine flu pandemic. It went from this, like, disastrous thing that's going to kill everybody to, you know, it's another flu. The uncomfortable implication of this is that public health officials don't care about what is true. It's seen as a virtue to overstate the danger. In other words, to lie about it. Whatever gets people to take the virus seriously. At the time, in January 2020, if you said that I'm not sure this number is right, then maybe it's less dangerous than people think. It's not 3.4%, maybe it's less than that. That was seen as a sin, a cardinal sin. It was crazy. It was absolutely outside of my experience. Like, I started getting death threats. I didn't say one word about economics. It was just pure epidemiology. In March 2020, I wrote an op-ed, published in the Wall Street Journal. The death rate projections, just based on just simple back of the envelope math, could have ranged from, you know, 20,000 deaths to millions and millions and millions of deaths. So we don't know this. We call for a seroprevalence study of antibodies in the population. You were just doing what you do, and you've done it before. The scientific process demands that people ask questions, particularly when you see half-baked scare figures that are designed to get people hysterical. But the whole world came down on you because you wrote an op-ed. It was crazy. I would get accusations from friends on campus, accusing me of valuing economics over lives. That framing was so unfair, right? Because if you lock down an economy, which is what we were planning to do, or what we're talking about doing in March 2020, you are going to kill people, especially poor people who cannot abide by having their lives disrupted by these kinds of disruptions of basic economic activities. You have someone who's a worker in a market who sells coconuts for a living, and he buys the coconuts. His entire life savings is in the coconuts that he bought. And if he sells it, he can then buy more coconuts for the next day and live and use the rest to feed his family. You say, you're locked down? That guy's going to starve. His family's going to starve. You say, OK, we're not doing a trade anymore. We're going to lock down. All the supply chains are going to be disrupted. The pointy end of that is some poor guy in the middle of nowhere whose job depends on this, and now he earns less than $2 a day or something, goes into dire poverty and starves. The decision was always lives versus lives. So you ended up doing this study yourself and other colleagues, right? That's what the Santa Clara study was? Yeah, the Santa Clara study was that study. It was a study to measure the antibody prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the population of Santa Clara County. The result was that 3% of Santa Clara County had COVID antibodies by early April 2020. That number indicates a few things. One, that the disease already spread much far outside what people in public health realized at the time. Two, that the death rate was 0.2% in the community population. 0.22 out of 1,000, not 3.4%. And then three, that whatever we had done, these lockdowns had not actually stopped the disease from spreading, had not protected older people. That meant that we had made a tremendous mistake by locking down. What was more hysterical response? Was it the op-ed or was it the scientific research backing up the conjecture in the op-ed? The op-ed was nothing compared to the response to the study itself. And the reaction of the scientific community was, I mean, it was vicious. Andrew Gelman, Columbia University. I think the authors owe a solid apology. Alan Cole, Tax Foundation. I don't think there's a way to say this diplomatically. I have zero confidence in the Santa Clara study. Erich van Nijmwegen, University of Basel. I might use this as an example in my class to show how not to do statistics. There's hit pieces done about my family. There's a Buzzfeed News journalist who made false allegations about conflicts of interest. But what I can say is that the study, because of the furious attack on it by the scientific community, by the press, essentially because we were saying that the policy was wrong, that the death rate is not so high, we shouldn't be alarmed, we should be essentially focused protection of vulnerable people. That was seen as anathema. And Stanford itself attacked me. I lost a lot of, I lost like 30 pounds of anxiety. I couldn't eat, I forgot to sleep. It was really, and I felt like I couldn't protect my family because the news media is going after my wife. It was really stressful in summer 2020. But they finally concluded after months and months of just nonsense that we'd done nothing wrong. Why did they do this to Jay? Was it groupthink? Was it a panic? Was it money? Or are these very important academic institutions fundamentally compromised by something else? It was a combination of a lot of things going on all at once. One thing is very important is this difference in norms of discourse. Between public health and science, right? In science, if you have some body, outside body saying, you can't look at that, you can't say that, you can't see that, you can't investigate that, you can't run an experiment about that. It restricts the ability for scientists to work and actually produce science. But for much of science, it's just free. Like I can say that, no, there are many more cases than you think. And then I may be right or wrong, but I can develop evidence, and then you can argue by evidence. That is absolutely part of the ethos of science. It's absolute freedom to ask questions. And speak publicly about that, right? That's how we convey our ideas to other scientists and to interest members of the public, right? That's the ethic. In public health, the ethic is unanimity. Unanimity of messaging, control of messaging. Wear a mask, social distance, wash your hands. Be as forceful as possible in getting your citizenry to wear masks. Social distancing is absolutely critical. And if you can't social distance and you're outside, you must wear a mask. It's much more like politics in that sense, right? And it's seen as an act of... You're essentially being a traitor if you disagree with public health. What they are spewing are egregious untruths. You know, a euphemistic way of saying they're just lying. I mean, the data clearly show that these interventions don't work. So you have this clash of norms. The problem is that the public health community had latched itself onto this narrative very early, before the scientific evidence was there about COVID, to actually have the ethical basis of this norm in place, right? Well, you have a new virus floating around. You have a tremendous number of questions, both about the policy and about the epidemiology and everything else about it. So you don't have the ethical basis for applying this sort of silencing norms, anathemizing norm, where you say, well, if someone says, contrary to public health, therefore they are heretics that need to be destroyed. But yet that is the norm that was applied to almost anyone who questioned that narrative. We've talked about this before, the centralization of the finance of science and health research. I got to believe that Stanford University raises a lot of money from government research grants. Yeah, so I think something on the order of $700 million a year from the National Institute of Health alone. And that's at Stanford, right? Hopkins, you know, close to a billion dollars in funding. And so you have like top officials at the National Institute of Health saying, this is the right narrative. It's not just Stanford institutionally, but also individuals inside Stanford who depend on the NIH for their scientific careers. In any investigation, a good place to start is to follow the money. And there's a boatload of money flowing into the nation's top research institutions coming from government agencies that don't like to be contradicted. So someone like Tony Fauci, very famous, very loud in the press, comes and says, this is the right strategy. This is the right policy. And you get funding from his National Institute of Health in Texas either. You get funding from the NIH. You don't want to cross him. You just don't. So the signals from Fauci et al maybe created a pack of academic pitbulls that just naturally went after you. Attacked by the academic community, censored by his own university, savaged in the press, Jay was feeling pressure from all sides. What I have a hard time believing is that all of this is organic. Why would the whole world suddenly care about the opinions of one Stanford epidemiologist? But there are emails from March 2020 from Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook to Fauci. A lot of it's redacted. But the sense is, like, Zuckerberg is offering cooperation with NIAID to reduce the amount of counter-narrative information on platforms like Facebook. Later, we learned that the direction actually often went the other way. In fact, the government was telling social media companies who and what to censor. When I looked into the Twitter files, they confirmed that Jay was being blacklisted, his post being censored in response to pressure from the government. These sites that built their reputations on facilitating unprecedented mass communication have been captured. Instead of a public square where ideas could be heard and debated, they had become a propaganda arm of the state, with the FBI dictating the terms of discourse. They'd create an illusion there was a consensus behind the lockdowns. And so for them, the people like Tony Fauci and Francis Collins, when I wrote the Great Stanford, Harvard, Oxford, it was a direct threat to their authority. Which they were using to create this illusion of consensus. We basically shattered the idea that there was a consensus. I mean, how could there be if scientists from Stanford, Harvard and Oxford disagreed with Tony Fauci? I'm starting to understand that what happened to Jay was no accident. It's a coordinated campaign to suppress and marginalize Jay and his colleagues. They were punching holes in the narrative Fauci was determined to sell. It's only natural that Fauci would punch back. Francis Collins, four days after he wrote the declaration, wrote an email to Tony Fauci calling me a fringe epidemiologist. Then he called for a devastating takedown of the premises of the declaration. Tony Fauci responded with a Wired magazine article essentially saying he wanted to let the virus rip, effectively calling me a grandma killer. They coordinate a propaganda campaign in order to demonize me. From Greg Gonsalves to Francis Collins. Dear Francis, saw your comments on the ludicrous Great Barrington Declaration and wanted to thank you for speaking out and doing it undiplomatically. After we saw what you had said about fringe epidemiology, we wondered why we were so nice in our op-ed. From Anthony Fauci to Deborah Birx. Deb, and so just a heads up, over the past week, I've come out very publicly against the Great Barrington Declaration. I started getting death threats again. I started getting racist attacks, you know, go home your home country kind of things. You know, again, a tremendous abuse of power by people who have control of billions of dollars of funding and the livelihoods of scientists to climb the scientific hierarchy. And they abuse their power to marginalize me, Martin, Suneetra, almost anyone that signed the Great Barrington Declaration. The policies that we followed affected every single person on this earth. The poorest of the people on this earth, it harmed them in ways that were never going to recover. Children, it harmed them in ways that, you know, their schooling was disrupted for years in some cases. There should never have been any attempt to silence and censor people to reduce the discussion. In my research on Stanford scholars like Jay, Scott Atlas, and John Ioannidis, I keep coming across this name, the Stanford Internet Observatory. I don't know what this is, but I'm hoping Jay can help me find out. What we discovered is that it's not just the Stanford Observatory, other universities and other NGOs are funded by government organizations to create hit lists for censorship. To identify patterns of what people are saying on the internet, say to identify themes that they deem to be misinformation. Like, for instance, a theme that I think they deem to be misinformation is if you have COVID and recover, do you have immunity, have some immunity? You said it does, that's misinformation. They would call that a theme. Here's how misinformation is spreading. Funded by governments. Then governments go to social media companies and say, look, these independent entities and top universities are finding this is what's happening. You, the social media company, better suppress these people and these ideas or else you're going to be killing people. We're going to regulate you out of existence. I mean, that's the implied threat in these emails all the way across. Jay and his allies are fighting social media censorship in the courts, but I'm learning that this is not just a First Amendment issue. There's a more nefarious ecosystem that has the patina of academic credibility that is in reality just another government censorship machine. Once you lock down and you get all this collateral damage that you've been talking about, the children and the lives lost and people devastated and suicide, the list goes on and on. You have to keep doubling down because you can never, ever admit that that was not the right thing to do. And you certainly can't admit, I did that to distract us from this other thing that I did do. So I modified it just one way. I don't think the lockdowns were an attempt to distract from the lab leak. One of the great debates we're having and has embroiled this ongoing conversation is the debate between the lab leak theory versus the wet market theory. What are those two things? The question is, how did this pandemic arise? The closest progenitors of this virus came out of a bat cave thousands of miles south of this lab in Wuhan, China. The pandemic first started in Wuhan, China. One theory of how this whole pandemic started was that in Wuhan, there are these markets where wildlife are sold for food and for other purposes. So the idea is that a bat or a pangolin or some other animal had a virus that was very close to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, had some mutation naturally. Then when that animal was sold to somebody who aided or came in contact with it, it infected them and then the virus spread. It mutated so that it could infect human cells. Theory two is that the virus came out of an intentional research program aimed at actually preventing pandemics. That intentional research program says, let's go to the wild places, find viruses and other pathogens, bring them into labs inside big cities, mutate them, add functionality to them to see if they might be able to infect others. The reason you do that is that if you have a virus that has only a few mutations away from that capacity, you can develop vaccines early. You can develop trauma measures early. The risk is that the lab worker gets infected accidentally. They go home, they spread it to their wife, they spread it to their community members and it spreads everywhere. A virus that never would have existed in nature, only exists because we did this research, then it spread to the community elsewhere. So gain-of-function is a scientific experiment. You take a virus or some pathogen, let's say virus, and you mutate it. Gain-of-function is a scientific experiment to ask, how much do we need to change the sequence so that it will infect humans? And to be clear, gain-of-function could weaponize a virus that wouldn't have an affinity to infect humans and be devastating should it leak. What does it mean to leak out? It sounds like something nefarious. It's not actually nefarious. It's just somebody, some lab worker getting tired, letting their mask slip or whatever, their suit slip, pipetting, and they get exposed to the pathogen in the lab, they go home and they give it to their family members and it spreads. That's what a lab leak actually is. It's not intentional. I'm not going to send this out to the community. It's just a leak. And so because those leaks have a history of happening and you're doing this really dangerous work, Cambridge Working Group said, let's not do this anymore. I forget what year it was, but Fauci actually wrote an article defending gain-of-function research, I think, in response to the Obama prohibition. And there's sort of a creepy sentence in here where like, yes, a leak is possible, but the benefits obviously outweigh the costs. Yeah. I mean, how he knows that, I have no idea. He couldn't possibly know that. I wonder if he would still say that. I hope not. Well, I mean, I think Fauci's interesting because he was such a vocal advocate of this work and a champion of this work, even going back before the 2012, like for decades. Bioterror, there's always the potential for bioterror. And we have a major biodefense research and development efforts from the NIH. The CDC has surveillance mechanisms, often Homeland Security, Department of Defense. We do all of that. Having said that, the worst bioterrorist is nature itself. Nature is very good at evolving microbes to create problems. You have to have some restrictions in the sense of you don't do work that could actually hurt people in the sense of if you have a laboratory accident, you have to have the right containment. Once you start being too restrictive, you then impede creativity for so many of the good things that could come out of the same type of work. So he's in a tough position, right? So now if people understand that what has happened the last three and a half years in the COVID pandemic is potentially, maybe even actually a result of this kind of research agenda. And Fauci was one of his champions. He's in a very tough spot. You really can't, you know, millions and millions of people have died. Economies have been devastated, the poor of the world, children, vulnerable people have been hurt by this mad science experiment. I mean, that would be, you go down in history as one of the world's greatest monsters. I think the lockdowns were an attempt to suppress this extent of damage of the lab leak. Let's say that you're Tony Fauci and you know you've been funding scientists' data function work or this kind of like lifting viruses from the wild into population centers and labs and experiment with them. And you funded this lab in Wuhan, exactly the place where this outbreak happens. Very close to the lab itself. It's January 2020, maybe late December 2019. What you do is you organize a group of people that you fund to absolve you. Say, oh no, it's not a lab leak, it must have come from the market. From Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust to Francis Collins and Tony Fauci. On a spectrum, if zero is nature and 100 is release, I'm honestly at a 50. From Edward Holmes to Jeremy Farrar. Here's our summary so far. We'll be edited further. From Professor Christian Drosten, Director, Institute of Virology. Who came up with this story in the beginning? Are we working on debunking our own conspiracy theory? So first, you try to cover up. And that's what the FOIA emails show from early 2020. Is essentially, rather than mainly thinking about the control of the pandemic, although they were thinking about that, they were very concerned that the public would think that this was a lab leak. From Jeremy Farrar. The theory of the origin of the virus has gathered considerable momentum, not just in social media, but increasingly among some scientists, in mainstream media, and among politicians. We hope to focus the discussion on the science, not on any conspiracy, and to lay down a respected statement to frame whatever debate goes on before that debate gets out of hand with potentially hugely damaging ramifications. From Marion. And I would leave Lab Escape for the discussion, because putting that in the public domain as a hypothesis, in my view, will be read as, See? They also thought so. Our main work over the last couple of weeks has been focused on trying to disprove any type of lab theory. But we are at a crossroad where the scientific evidence isn't conclusive enough to say that we have high confidence in any of the three main theories considered. From the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. The scientific article written by this group of scientists organized by Anthony Fauci. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible. There was a study recently that we can make available to you, where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists looked at the sequences there, and the sequences in bats as they evolve. And the mutations that it took to get to the point where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human. How could that be? How could you get cooperation? Wouldn't there be somebody to speak out? Why is DARPA funding this? Much of this is public. So it's not like people are trying to hide it. They think they're doing good. And the side effect is that they end up doing great harm. I think... So now we're getting to... I'm not a classified scientist. I'm not a scientist. I'm not a national security person. So I don't have direct visibility. But I have been paying very close attention to the public rhetoric from many of the people in the security community, national security community. It wouldn't be at all surprising to know that there was, in fact, a lot of national security infrastructure behind this research. I think there's probably never before been a cover-up in our country so fully exposed. The gain-of-function research was going on in that lab, and NIH funded it. You do not know what you are talking about. The NIH did fund gain-of-function research. It is inconceivable that I was trying to cover up the possibility of a lab leak. I would have thought he would have said, yes, we funded this and we didn't realize how dangerous it would be. Instead, it was the absolute denial. Science and the truth are being attacked. One of the biggest clues we got that there was a cover-up was in 2018. It was a project called Diffuse. And it was proposed by the Wuhan lab. Burner phones, hand-delivered packages. Sounds like international espionage. Referred him to the Department of Justice three times. Same thing about you, main man. He certainly seems to be protected. It feels like the bad guys are starting to be shed light on. The majority of the public police just came from the lab. We've had more cooperation from the CIA and the FBI than we have from the NIH. I mean, is there a deep state? You're damn right there's a deep state. It's time to pull back the curtain on the cover-up.