Wow! Rand Paul Roasts Fauci Again


BUCK: We are telling everybody to stick to the reality, stick to the facts when it comes to covid. No more panic pandemic, and let’s remember that this thing has been going on for 18 months. We’re in a much, much better place than we were, a lot of it through natural immunity. What’s up, Clay?

CLAY: Yeah.

BUCK: A lot of it through those of you who have had covid.

CLAY: We don’t get talked about at all. We don’t exist.

BUCK: You know, I feel like we should get a little bit of credit for our herd immunity contribution. But, no, we do not. Instead, they want us to pile on with the vaccine and maybe boosters beyond that. And I’ve gotta say, “There are very few people…” I mean, Clay, at very beginning you were questioning that.

You used to come on my other radio show from your show and we would talk about masks in the very beginning of the pandemic and how dumb this whole thing was. But there’s been one person, I think, above all others in politics, and he’s joining us tomorrow, correct?

CLAY: Yeah, Rand Paul, third hour of the show.

BUCK: Dr. Rand Paul has been willing to go at the ultimate sacred cow, if you will — the ultimate person who is beyond reproach — Dr. Fauci, and try to hold this little lab coat tyrant, this little health policy Stalinist to account. And we have in this time on the issue specifically of the Wuhan lab leak. Which, let’s remember, if this was true, if it did leak from the lab — which, Clay, I’m 90% on it. Where are you?

CLAY: If I were betting man, it’s a great question. I’m probably… To me, it’s like Occam’s Razor. You look at all the evidence and whatever the most likely outcome is the most likely outcome. To me it’s a 90%-ish theory as well. I just think it’s far more probable than not, based on all the evidence.

BUCK: Right. Like, for example, Jussie Smollett I said, “I’m 99.99% sure he’s lying.”

CLAY: Yeah. It didn’t happen.

BUCK: Just because, like maybe the craziest thing in the universe could have happened, but on this one I’d say I’m 90%, meaning I’m pretty damn sure but I’m not a hundred percent sure on the lab leak theory.

CLAY: And I don’t think, by the way, we’ll ever know unfortunately a hundred percent ’cause I don’t think we’re gonna find the proverbial smoking gun in covid ’cause China has covered it up, which makes it even more likely to me that it did come out of a lab. Because if it was truly something that moved from an animal to a man, which is what they’ve been trying to argue, then you would think they would want that to be uncoverable.

BUCK: Yeah, of course. And that would be something they could show us definitively. But I do believe that we’ll get to a point based on the research they’re doing, which is where you actually get into true expertise that I don’t understand, but into the amino acid chains that make up the virus that you can tell almost like a virus fingerprint.

CLAY: Right.

BUCK: You can tell if it’s been manipulated in some way or the basic structure of it. So that may be. But to the Chinese Communist Party, it doesn’t matter. We could have every scientist in the world say, “It came from China;” the CCP is gonna say, “Actually, no — and, hey, Taiwan, we’ve got eyes on you.” There’s gonna be Chinese Communist Party stuff that we’re not gonna be able to change no matter what. And I would just say right now, though, Rand Paul, Dr. Rand Paul, is the one guy who tries to hold Fauci to account, and this is a fiery one.

PAUL: Dr. Fauci, knowing it is a crime to lie to Congress, do you wish to retract your statement of May 11th where you claimed that the NIH never funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan?

FAUCI: Senator Paul, I have never lied before the Congress, and I do not retract that statement. This paper that you’re referring to was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gain-of-function. What was —

PAUL: So you take —

FAUCI: Let me finish!

PAUL: So you take an animal virus and you increase the transmissibility to humans?

FAUCI: Right.

PAUL: You’re saying that’s not gain-of-function?

FAUCI: That is correct. And — and Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about, quite frankly — and I want to say that officially. You do not know what you are talking about, okay?

PAUL: Let’s read the NIH —

FAUCI: You get one person —

PAUL: Speak to the NIH definition of “gain of function.”

FAUCI: (sputtering) Can I answer the question?

PAUL: This is your definition that you guys wrote. It says that scientific research that increases the transmissionibility among mammals is gain-of-function. They took animal viruses that only occur in animals and they increased their transmissionibility to humans. How you can say that is not gain of function —

FAUCI: It is not.

PAUL: It’s a dance, and you’re dancing around this because you’re trying to obscure responsibility for four million people dying around the world

FAUCI: Okay.

PAUL: — from a pandemic.

CLAY: Wow! That is, again, when you really put… I gotta give Rand Paul credit here, okay? When you really put Dr. Fauci on the witness stand, do you know what he sounded a little bit like there, Buck? He sounded like Bill Clinton saying, “That depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” right? There are great…

That sounded to me like a lawyer defense that Anthony Fauci is trying to trot out where he’s trying… Look, the basic essence, which I think most people out there would agree with is, if you are doing what Rand Paul just laid out, that sounds like gain of function to me.

And it sounds like it meets the definition of gain of function that the NIH used. And Fauci is try to argue that is not, based on some subtle, legal technicality. When everybody out there listening, the common sense if you’re talking to a jury, that sounds like Rand Paul just caught Dr. Fauci in a guaranteed, straight-up lie.

BUCK: Think about the incentives here as well as the evidence that we have from the early stages of the covid lab leak, assuming that that thesis is correct. Of course, the international health policy community did not want this to come out as something that was the result of research.

CLAY: Right.

BUCK: The Chinese Communist Party obviously did not want this to come out as the result of research at a lab that has some degree of connection to the military in China. As all major industry, all major scientific research whether you’re talking Cuba or China, government authorities are calling the shots. So everyone needs to remember that.

CLAY: Just think about how much different the story changes for covid if this is a man-made virus that American taxpayer dollars helped to fund that then escaped the lab and has killed four million people.

BUCK: Would everyone listen to the same public health experts, by the way, when they were saying…? So you’ve gotta think about it from the little, Stalinist, lab coat tyrant Fauci mind-set here. You’ve gotta think about in his mind, “Oh, my gosh. We’re getting hit with this pandemic.” The global health community…

There’s international cooperation with this lab. That’s a fact now. The global health community was involved in something that at some level could be seen as reckless and a precursor to this whole thing. And then, in order to get people to do what you, Fauci, think is necessary.

Whatever you have to say at that point, you justify it. If you have to lie… In Fauci’s mind, what I’m trying to say is, if he had to lie in the early stages — even about the level of certainty of the thesis of the lab leak — he could justify it to himself, I can assure you, by (impression), “We’re saving lives.”

CLAY: Not only that, I always say if you’re trying to decide between who is lying, ask, “Who has more incentive to lie?’ What does Rand Paul really gain as a United States Senator by buying in on a lie and helping to propagate it as a physician in the United States Senate?

Virtually nothing. To me Rand Paul would stand to gain virtually nothing. Dr. Fauci, as you just said, stands to gain everything and/or lose everything when you analyze who is likely to be telling the truth. The motive, i.e. what someone gains or loses, often can go towards determining who is telling the truth.


Sponsored Content

Sponsored Content