The Highwire with Del Bigtree - SENATOR RAND PAUL: EXPOSING THE COVID COVER-UP

Episode Date: March 16, 2024

Del sits down with one of Anthony Fauci’s biggest adversaries, Senator Rand Paul. Hear how his perspective as a physician and politician led to holding Fauci to the fire on his cover-up of gain-of-function research, his push for draconian lockdowns, and refusal to accept the strength of natural immunity against COVID. His new book, Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up, reads as a forensic investigation, chronicling the disastrous failure of government and public health during the pandemic.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

We can really get upset. There's a lot of that's happened in the government. A lot of people seem to be asleep at the wheel. Many of them seem to be owned by globalist mentalities that really don't care what's happening inside of our border. They're asleep at the wheel. But there have been some amazing heroes. And one of them, we have celebrated on this show all through COVID,

that actually held that liar at the top of this show, accountable and had him under oath and really put the pressure on him. Much of what we know to be true here on the high wire, much of what we reported, much of the science was because this one politician stood alone, took it all on the chin, literally being attacked by news agencies mercilessly for daring to ask about the origin of the coronavirus. Who is that guy? I know you remember him. This is what he looked like in the news. Joining us now is the sworn enemy of the bully bunch.

The man himself is also a medical doctor, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Here with Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Thanks for coming out to Dr. Fauci's retirement party. Anthony Fauci came before my committee. He said absolutely he funded no gain of function research in China. He believes that it's okay to take animal. viruses, make them into super viruses to infect humans, even if a pandemic should occur. He says, oh, the research is worth it.

Viruses that in nature only infect animals were manipulated in the Wuhan lab to gain the function of infecting humans. This research matches, indeed epitomizes the definition of gain of function research, done entirely in Wuhan. This gain of function research has been funded by the NIH. The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute. I don't think inserting a bad virus spike protein that he got from the Wuhan Institute into the SARS virus's gain of function. That is not.

You would be in the minority because at least 200 scientists have signed a statement from the Cambridge Working Group saying that it is gain of function. If the point that you are making is that the grant that was funded as a sub-award from EcoHealth to Wuhan created SARS-CoV-2, that's where you are getting. Let me finish. We don't know. Wait a minute. It did come to the lab, but all the evidence is pointing that it came from the lab. And there will be responsibility for those who funded the lab, including yourself. Did Dr. Fauci lie before your committee? Absolutely.

I think probably the largest area of misinformation is actually coming from the government regarding natural immunity. After hearing that millions of people in a study prove, show without a doubt that there's a great deal of immunity from getting it naturally. Do you want to apologize to the 100 million Americans who suffered through COVID, survived, have immunity, and yet you want to hold them down and vaccinate them? Do you want to apologize for calling those people flat-earthers? This is an arrogance coupled with an authoritarianism that is unseemly and un-American. You should be ashamed of yourself and apologize to the American people for being dishonest about naturally acquired immunity. The question I ask is how many kids are dying and how many kids are going to the hospital who have already had COVID? The answer may be zero, but you're not even giving us the data because you have so much wanted to protect everybody from all the data because we're not smart enough to look at the data.

We need to quit the fear-mogering. We need to let people go back to school. Look, Europe's been in school for over a year. We still have schools in California in place where they're still not teaching the kids in person. It's a crime against these children. More children are dying from suicide than are dying from COVID. It isn't just a matter of taking something that's ineffective. It's mandating a vaccine that threatens the health and well-being of these kids. There's a study in Israel of thousands of patients, and yet you sit here and act as if you've never heard of myocarditis and you don't think it's an increased risk for young adolescent males when all of the studies who isolate out people by age have found that, yes, there's an increased risk after taking your vaccine. You are the one responsible. You are the architect. You are the lead architect for the response from the government, and now 800,000 people have died. Do you think it's a winning success, what you've advocated for government?

This is a desire by the majority party to control your life, to control your medical decision-making because they know better. Try persuasion instead of government cudgels. Try humility instead of arrogance. Try freedom instead of coercion. Most of all, try understanding that there's no more basic medical right than deciding what we inject into our bodies. No bureaucrats should be above the law. No bureaucrat should be allowed to deny information to Congress, and no bureaucrat should be allowed to lie to Congress. All right, well, the book is deception by Senator Rand Paul.

We've all watched these incredible interactions, and it is my honor and pleasure, in fact, bucket list moment to be joined now by Senator Rand Paul. Senator, thank you for taking the time to join us today. Well, great to be with you, Del. Thanks for happening. Absolutely. This book really is, it's terrifying in two different ways. I think that, first of all, it's a forensic investigation into this virus, what it actually was in a way that I haven't seen it described in any other place, but it's also a forensic investigation with what seems to be absolutely, totally dysfunctional with the U.S. government and how we get to the bottom of a problem

and how bad this divide seems to be between two parties that cannot even come together to ask really reasonable questions during a very intense and tragic moment for all of us. So just getting into the details of it, at what point did you sort of start questioning the origin of the COVID virus? You know, I start almost in the examination of government or government's response to something with a healthy degree of skepticism. But in the midst of this, so much was going on. You know, I got COVID in March of 2020 at the very beginning. I didn't really get sick, but, you know, they accused me of trying to kill everyone and I was to blame for the whole thing. And then they started spending money like there was no tomorrow.

Then they started shutting the schools down. And so my initial sort of response was to recoil from. what I thought wasn't a scientific approach to all the lockdowns. But I didn't really question the origin of where the virus came from at first. In fact, I guess I was guilty of just sort of accepting their word. You know, there was an article in Lancet, 22 scientists signed it. And I just read almost like reading the headline in the newspaper, and it said 22 scientists that came from nature.

And I remembered SARS from 2003, and that one they found that it was in civets, and then it came from bats, and the handlers had antibodies. and the proof and the chain was pretty strong for that coming from animals. And I just sort of accepted it for almost a year. And then I came across an article by Nicholas Wade. Nicholas Wade was a science writer for the New York Times. He was a card-carrying member of the establishment community. And yet he wrote this amazing article linking this to the lab,

and nobody would publish it. He ended up publishing it on Medium.com, and it's about a 25, 30-page article, and this got me intrigued. And then I started seeing the emails. And this is probably the first time we've ever had government people covering something up and lying where we have them dead to rights in their own words once we discover the emails. And there was about a year lag time. U.S. Right to Know was really good on this.

And so were other groups going after these, you know, so was Michael Schellenberger and Tevi and all these others. But as it came out, I had about a year delay. But then by 2021, I was fascinated with it, fascinated with the science. pointing towards the lab. But then also I became fascinated with the idea that there was an enormous cover-up in our government because they knew if they had funded this, they would bear some responsibility for the pandemic. Now, some of your arguments very early on, or some of, I think, your confusion, which we were having, was this attack on natural immunity. You were one of the

first to get infected. You didn't really even know it was only because your wife sort of prompts you into, you know, when you go back to D.C., you did have the sniffles, sniffles over the weekend. Maybe you should get a COVID test. That COVID test ends up taking, I think you say, like 10 days to come back in perfect sort of government official working order. But then all the media jumps all over you. How could you be walking around? How could you, you know, all of these things? But we were watching you constantly in front of the news say, they're like, why aren't you wearing a mask or why aren't you, you know, being more carefully? Like, I've already caught it.

You had this belief in natural immunity that we were really celebrating on our show. And what was crazy for us and must have been even more difficult for you, it was like all of science, as we've known it, disappeared as though there was never such a thing as immunity had ever existed before. And you were the first one pioneering your way out in this idea that maybe somehow, you know, you had immunity. What was that like as a doctor especially? Well, one, it was insulting because most of these 25-year-old reporters wearing three masks, goggles and earmuffs to protect themselves had never taken a science course. I mean, most of these people had never had even a science course in high school. So these were the people who are now the new experts. And Martin Koldorf, who's a Harvard professor of epidemiology, he had one of my favorite quotes on natural and

He says, well, we knew about it since the time of the plague in Athens in 436 BC. We knew about it until 2020, at which time we forgot completely about natural immunity for three years. But the good news is we've rediscovered it again in 2023. And it's like the bizarre notion of even look, vaccines are based on immunology. They're based on trying to emulate the natural response to a virus. All of the evidence showed immunity, even to 2002, 2003. Those people have immunity 17 years later. Right. In the book, I recount a 103 year old woman who had the Spanish flu in

1918 was still alive in like 2020. She still had antibodies to the Spanish flu. And so it was his ignorance and these people saying, well, you don't know, you don't know how long it'll last. And then the coup de grah, though, is when we discovered or somebody on the internet discovered Anthony Fauci from 2004 answering the woman who says, well my daughter just had the flu and she was very sick but should she get the flu vaccine and he was like absolutely not she's been inoculated uh you know the natural inoculation and immunity is stronger than any vaccine she's had the flu for 14 days should she get a flu shot well no if she got the flu for 14 days she's as protected as anybody can be because the best vaccination is to get infected

yourself and she should not get it if she really has the flu if she really has the flu she definitely doesn't need a flu vaccine if she really has the flu. She should not get it again. She doesn't need it because it's the best it's the most potent vaccination is getting infected yourself. And that's when there used to be a semblance of truth telling until these people just became shills for big pharma. It's so dishonest, so blatantly dishonest. And I think they've lost there used to be at least some people in the middle of thought, well maybe these people are truth tellers. Now we completely distrust everything they tell us. You say shill, for pharma, why would they, you know, why would they not want to agree with natural immunity?

Do you think, was it all just so they could sell every single American a vaccine, whether they'd caught COVID or not, or is there some, there has to be an agenda when you watch this many people override common sense and like simple known science principles? You know, I think there is an agenda and I think a lot of them really were enthralled with MRNA technology and they thought this is going to be the new thing and they really kind of in some ways secretly loved the idea that they could experiment because so many people, you know, were there and so many people were frightened. But, you know, as far as I think it was also about submission, I guess. I mean, this is something I learned. I was last week in California and I

didn't realize this. A guy came up to me and said his mom died 83 from COVID. He thinks from Remdesivir, but anyway, she goes to the hospital with COVID and she's very, very sick and her oxygen levels low, but they wouldn't admit her to the hospital until she was vaccinated. And it's like, that's what kind of moron thinks that you vaccinate somebody with the disease they have already while they're sick? In fact, the CDC used to say when they were a little more honest, and this is when they were recommending the vaccine, they said, if you've been sick, you shouldn't get the vaccine for three months until your immune system has normalized from having the natural.

immune response. And this is a craziness because if you think that the myocarditis or the inflammation of the heart comes from too aggressive of a response to the vaccine, if you're sick and you get the vaccine, your incidence of an inflammatory syndrome like the myocarditis is much greater. In fact, I really think it's malpractice at that point. I think it's malpractice to require this on anybody, but particularly to push it on children, but also then to do it without even taking into account whether someone's either had the disease or actively with the disease. I think it just beggars belief that these people are doing it. You do start to wonder, do they have an agenda?

Why are they doing this? But the vaccine community for so long has been about submission. They discount anybody who challenges them, and they believe that they're on the side of righteousness and anybody else should just be quiet. They don't even accept that there should be a debate. And when there is no debate, there really is no freedom. And so, you know, you can have a variety of opinions and we don't have to agree on everything on every vaccine, but we should agree on the freedom to make our own decisions.

I agree here, here, Senator Paul. And how do you, you know, you said, you know, it should be malpractice. On one hand, a lot of this book is really about just a real difficulty of communicating decent, simple ideas in politics. But as a doctor, how do you explain the amount of people? doctors that, for instance, are telling this person, we're not even going to let you in to treat you unless you get a vaccine while you're sick. How do we look at medicine? I mean, it's one thing to complain about the kid with the earmuffs on that never took a science class, but your peers in medicine have been just as oblivious to known science and going ahead with, I guess, mandates coming down

from heads of hospitals or CDC or FDA, but without questioning it at all. And as soon as you question it, you really come into some problems around how we're treating people. You know it's not about the science is when there's a girl who needs a kidney transplant or a heart transplant to survive. I think this was at Duke at my alma mater. They wouldn't take her. But they also wouldn't administer a test to see if she'd had COVID. Because the thing is, they don't care about the immunity. They don't care about this kid. They care about submission. There's a rule. And there's a law, my golly, you don't do it, you're going to die. You're the unwashed, you're the deplorables, you're going to die if you will not do what we tell you.

But the thing is, if they were concerned about the science and they were concerned that this little girl is going to have a depressed immune system, we're worried about her getting COVID, why wouldn't you let her take a test to see if she's already had COVID, in which case, all of the studies now, every one of them show that the immunity you develop from the natural infection is two to three to four to five times, better than the limited, not very long lived immunity that you might get from the MRNA vaccine. Which is proven true on every virus so far ever dealt with by a vaccine. We've always known the natural immunity, whether or not you want to go through that process of that infection has incurred a longer lasting, more robust immunity. So this fell in line like every other situation we deal with.

But let's get now to this forensic investigation that you've not. now done probably more thoroughly than anyone alive. And you certainly stared right into the eyes of one of the biggest liars we've ever seen longer than any of us. When we look at this virus, the biggest question we have to ask ourselves, and then you ask in the book, really about two-thirds of the way for the book, because when you really ask the question, and I think it's actually a scientist that does, how did this virus learn to infect human beings? At the heart of this question is every other virus we've ever studied and we've gotten really good at this, we see the lineage, we see it jumping, we see it making the attempts, we see half-hearted attempts by the virus infect and then it fails and then eventually gains its ability, gains its function in nature.

As you point out, this thing comes out of the gate, perfectly able and designed to infect human beings, and no one seems to question that. And isn't that the biggest question there is? How's that possible? So the one thing that's universally true about animal viruses that break into the human kingdom, from the animal kingdom to the human kingdom, is they're clunky. They don't infect humans very well because they've evolved and adapted. Natural selection has selected for ones that infect that animal well. And so when they infect humans, they try it many times until they get lucky,

and then they get a mutation where it can infect other humans. The best example of this is 2002, 2003. When the first SARS virus came out, it had a 10% mortality rate, which is, you know, that's like 30 times worse than this, the current COVID-19 we had. But it only infected 8,000 people. Why? It just didn't infect humans very well. And when they went back and did testing, they found that it infected civets well and also bats. So one of the cool things that I've discovered about COVID-19 is they borrowed Oracle's supercomputer.

a scientist from Australia, and they wanted to see which animal that the virus would attach best to. So they tested it with humans and like dozens of other animals, and lo and behold, it didn't attach to any animals very well. It attached perfectly to humans. This does not happen. It's almost proof positive that this was manipulated in the lab. And what you do in the lab is you actually speed up evolution and you direct evolution because you keep infecting mice that have human lung markers. So it thinks it's infecting a human lung and you do it over and over again. You get the sickest mouse and the one with the highest viral load, you take that out and you infect the mice again. And each time you pass it through the virus, you get the sickest and

the most infected mouse and you do it again. You're selecting for the worst, the most deadly, the most efficiently. And this is what the scientist found. Alina Chan from MIT, she said it looked pre-adapted. And this is what convinced her. What really was sort of the smoking gun, though, is we discovered that the way the virus is genetically constructed is virtually identical to a research project from 2018 that had Dr. Barak from UNC, Dr. Shee from Wuhan, and Dr. Peter Dezac from New York, they actually applied for money to create something that looks very suspiciously like COVID-19. They didn't get the money for it, But almost everybody believes now that Dr. Xi in China went ahead and did that project,

created that virus, probably to create a vaccine, and probably it was an accident that it leaked out. But we have all of this evidence now, and yet it has been like pulling teeth to get a Democrat anywhere in Congress to sign even a records release. And I tell these people all the time, look, I'm a Republican, but if a Democrat comes to me ever and ask me if I'm the chairman of a committee to sign a records release, I will never turn them down. I can't imagine ever turning down a records release from our government. And yet, I have had to use blocking nominations, blocking legislation, tying things up in order to get them to finally sign letters. And lo and behold, even when I finally got a Democrat to sign letters

to get COVID records, the Biden administration won't give it to me. It's not even classified, but they won't give us the records. It's really, it's shocking, and your book describes it so well. I really hope everyone in our audience reads it, because it has you screaming at the walls because it's something so serious. This is so serious. What we're talking about is a man-made virus, and as you point out, one of those attributes is very specific to the Barrick study that DASC had submitted for and wanted to do

was inserting this barren cleavage site, right? is not naturally appearing in any other coronavirus, I think, as we know it, right? This is something that's sort of added in, and it's done. We know it's done in labs. It was a part of what this study would have done, and it makes this virus really good at going at human beings. And so the question, and what is so shocking, that Washington Post, New York Times, all of these newspapers that have been attacking you this entire time, were the same ones, fear. mongering everybody that this is the worst virus we've ever seen in warrants destroying our economy, destroying our right to assemble, destroying jobs without due process or being able to fight to

say, I think I'm an essential human being and my business should stay open. All these newspapers attacking you. But now when we look at this, we see a virus that is circulating the planet, probably responsible for millions and millions of deaths. And it's advanced by hundreds of if not thousands of years evolutionally in a lab funded by Tony Fauci to add this thing that may never be in nature. I mean, we now have a circulating coronavirus that wasn't here before this happened. And one of the things I learned about this is that the debate over gain of function didn't begin with this.

This is at least a 10 to 15 year long debate. There are scientists on both sides. One of the most vocal scientists is Richard Ebright from Rutgers. He has 175 peer-reviewed papers. He's been the editor of the journal, I think, of molecular pathology. He's esteemed in his field, but he's been fighting with Anthony Fauci for 15 years because when they discovered that they could create the Spanish flu again, when they discovered they could take the avian flu,

which normally doesn't attack humans very well, but it's deadly when it does, and they made it more transmissible to mammals. There was this huge debate over, should we keep doing this? And one of the most alarming quotes, which really tells you who Anthony Fauci is, is in 2010, 2012, he was asked about this. And he says, well, you know, there are some risks. We could get a pandemic, could occur from these experiments, but the knowledge is worth the risk. And, you know, that to me is just, it turns out to be one of the worst judgments probably of any public official ever, at least in my lifetime. he still doesn't regret it. He still hasn't gotten it. And the media still cover for him.

I mean, some foundation gave him a million dollar prize. He still lauded and feeded by the liberal left as if he were some great savior. But he funded the research that I think led to maybe as many as 15 million people dying worldwide. It's really incredible. And beyond funding that research and beyond lying about it, when we look at the scientists, you know, that we're looking at Anderson, these guys It originally the very beginning, we've seen their emails now, say, hey, man, I don't know how you explain this inside of nature, really, saying things like, I'm 90, 10, I'm 70, 30, depending on which one of these scientists, all the best in their field. Tony Fauci gets a hold, and then we see him reach out, and then suddenly they all fall in lockstep and change their tune and say, definitely natural. and beyond that, beyond lying about it, then basically say anyone that says otherwise is a conspiracy theories.

They label you and reporters like me. And basically now we're under attack for pointing out all the obvious issues. But here's the point. Tony Fauci made all these statements on the stand. He's under oath. Is he not? Number one, he created it. That should be a crime unto itself, especially if it was illegal.

We still are not quite sure what the legalities of that gain of function are, but then you cover it up, and then you go even a step further to basically get people to lie about it. We send a fake group of people to go and do the investigation that we're all involved with EcoHealth Alliance, so they were a part of their own cover-up. You know, I don't know a lot about how the government works, but how is it not treasonous that an American diplomat, a politician, went out of the way to cover up a problem inside of a child? Chinese laboratory that, as you pointed out, is responsible for more deaths than just about, I think, than any bio weapon that we've ever imagined being released on the world.

Without question, it's a felony to lie to Congress. And I reminded him that he was under oath and that it was a felony to lie to Congress. And he wagged his finger at me and the American people and said, we never, ever funded gain of function research. But we now have an email from February 1st, 2020, where he says, the virus looks manipulated. We're very suspicious. We know they do gain of function research there. He lists a research topic that was going on in that lab, which just turns out to be one

that he had been funding. So he's essentially admitted that gain of function research was going on that we had funded it. That's what he's saying in private. But in publicly saying the opposite, all of the other scientists, Christian Anderson and the others, are saying in private, like you say, 90% chance it came to the lab or 50-50 or 60-40, they're They're still saying this privately for weeks on into February and March while they're publishing articles saying the opposite.

Coincidentally, Christian Anderson gets an eight or a nine million dollar grant that's signed by Anthony Fauci in April of that year. So there is money and the money changing hands here, you know, they like to say that they're defending science and science would be damaged if people thought it came from the lab. They're defending the business of science. These are not high-minded people who just want to cure cancer or, you know, controlled disease. These are people getting paid billions of dollars. And I think, you know, Robert Kennedy has probably recounted this better than anybody else,

the connection to bio-weapons trade and the fact that after 9-11, we put so much money into this, the military-industrial complex became consumed with this, and a lot of the money gravitated to Anthony Fauci. I've actually compared him to her, Jay, or Hoover, because they're ten years about the same and their abuse of power is very similar. And it's the abuse of power, I think, that can go to anybody that has a fiefdom or an area where they completely control with absolute control. At one point in time, there's a committee that wants to control gain of function. I think it's background 2010, 2012. Anthony Fauci fires them all. They call it the Saturday

night massacre. He takes a full-fledged scientific committee. You know, they're all about the science. He fires them all because they've wanted to put controls in place on gain and function research. This is the kind of dictatorial power that he's had and has been so damaging. But it's also an argument for controlling power, not letting too much power gravitate centrally to anyone individual, make sure they're not in that position very long. So one of the legislation that I put forward is to divide Anthony Fauci's position into three different positions, have them approved by the Senate, and have all three positions term limited. Are you seeing people wake up inside of our government?

I mean, from our vantage point throughout COVID, it looked like you were all alone. Senator Ron Johnson, obviously, has done some good work. Now we're seeing Massey, Jim Jordan, starting to ask what appear to be the right questions. Is this a sign that, I mean, is at least a Republican Party waking up to some really terrifying shenanigans? And by the way, we still have universities bragging that they've just made a, a virus that, you know, I think a COVID virus that kills every mouse it touches. So this type of gain of function is still going on. And we're, you know, the world is hanging in the balance. Can we look to the American government to work this out? I think that we need to be aware and

see some of the glass half full here. So for example, the one thing we did do is the first time we've ever removed a vaccine mandate, we removed the vaccine mandate on the military. And I still have soldiers come up to me all over the country who come up and say, look, I was in 16 years or I was 19 years, and I just felt so strongly I was going to lose my pension and lose my 20-year career by leaving, and they were able to stay, many of them because they were still appealing their removal when we finally got the law change. So that has changed. There is more skepticism. There are more voices on the Internet. All these voices have come alive, and as much as we want to complain about censorship from big tech and everything, there's still more voices. Look, your voice,

and you wouldn't have this show in the 1970s. So there is more, there are more voices out there, and we shouldn't give up and say, oh, we got to have some kind of government body, you know, censor to make sure we get our opinion heard. We are being heard. And now it's about persuasion and winning the debate. But I think there's more skepticism right now, particularly because they've overreached. And I'm actually one who's willing to debate whether or not, if you're 70-year-old, you should either get it or get a booster. I'm sort of in between on that. But I think it's malpractice to give it to a six-month-old.

It's malpractice to give it to a 25-year-old healthy. And if you've already had COVID once or twice, the honest truth is you don't need it. It's probably not going to work very well. But the debate is really about choice. It's about whether or not you get to make this choice versus a government. And the great irony or hypocrisy is that the people who are all enamored of my body, my choice, don't seem to give a crap about whether you have a choice

on a vaccine, they think it's a completely different issue. And this is really kind of disappointing that those people can't at least be consistently for choice, if they are for choice. Is this over? Is Fauci off the hook, or do you still believe there's a chance that at some point he'll be indicted for all these lies and essentially at least perjury that he's committed, if not really have to be held responsible for the lives that were lost because of this? but how many lives were lost because of the cover-up? Or how about the amount of lives that were destroyed and education destroyed,

forcing people to socially distance and lock themselves at home? And now he says, oh, actually that just popped up was never based on science. I mean, I think many of us, I know there's got to be a weight of the world on your shoulders because we're like, come on, Rand, you got to get this guy.

Are you going to get this guy? The one thing we know that's not over is you're still paying him. A limo picks him up every day, and he has a security detail 24-7, which is completely ridiculous, and he gets up in front of the committee and whines about death threats. And then he blames it on me.

He says, somehow I'm responsible for the death threats. The week he blamed that on me, I had 34 death threats, and you don't hear me whining about it. I don't like it, but, you know, the thing is, is they want to make it about, oh, it's only people from the left that are getting death threats. No, I get my share of them.

I've had people who have actually gone to prison for threatening me, threatening me. And the disappointing thing is he's still, on the take, basically. A limo driver picks him up every day at his at his home, takes him wherever he wants to go. Will he get justice? You know, this, this Department of Justice won't. Would the next one, maybe? The main reason I want to pursue it is, you know, I think he deserves to be in prison, but more than that, I don't want this to happen again. I'm with several of these

scientists who believe that the next time is going to be worse and that it may be sooner than we think. And that instead of, you know, COVID is bad. as it was, was 0.3% deadly. Correct. That was about a million people in America. What if we get one that's 20% deadly? What if we get one that's 50% deadly? This is what happened when you had the bubonic plague

and the black death of the 14th century. Europe was put back several centuries and you had marauding bands of people just killing each other and taking their food. Nobody was growing any food. It was just it descended into utter chaos. Think what happens in our country when you don't have coronated water, when you don't have sewage,

when the accidents don't get removed from the road, when there is no government left, when half the police die, when half the firefighters die, we will descend into chaos, and this is going to happen again if we don't do something about it. So my biggest project right now is a gain of function reform bill. I'm talking actively with the Democrat chairman of my committee. I'm very hopeful we can get it done.

We're talking to all these scientists. And basically it'll be a committee, And you know, you have somebody has to appoint it. So it's probably going to be presidentially appointed. They'll have a term of office. They'll be approved by the Senate. But then their mandate will be not to wait for research to be sent to them, but to look at all research. And each person asking for money is going to have to also volunteer whether they think there's a possibility there'll be gain of function.

But we're going to actively look at all of this research. And it won't be me because I think people don't want politicians deciding what is and what isn't science. These will be scientists that will look at. at it, but we hope we can get scientists who are skeptical and worried enough about it. You know, one of the scientists from MIT says this is like nuclear weapons. You know, this should be treated with the same degree of respect that we look at arms control, that we should be worried about this enough that people are looking at these different viruses and saying this is an atomic weapon that could get loose.

Should we really do this experiment? Should we try to make Ebola spread through the air just to see if we can? But that's the kind of lunacy they're doing now, and I'm not going to rest until we actually get some oversight on that. Senator Paul, I want to thank you for all the incredible work. Thank you for putting your effort in this amazing book. You're a true hero in America. I just wish there's more politicians like you that will stand in the heat, stand for what's right, and really we owe you a debt of gratitude as humanity for continuing this work to stop the gain of function work.

that is truly one of the terrifying developments in the modern age. So best of luck to you. We're going to push this book as hard as we can, and I look forward to speaking to some day soon. Take care. Thanks, Al. All right. You know, folks, when you have somebody that goes out of their way

while fighting for you in America, fighting for the truth when everyone in media is against them, can you do them a favor and make this the biggest book on the New York Times' bestseller list, so New York Time can have to chew on that a little bit after having lied to us. Really, this is a book you should own. Spent late hours preparing for the show because it is incredibly riveting, things that I didn't even really realize about this virus

and what was going on inside of Washington, D.C. Again, a shout out to Senator Paul for that great work that we watched them do for years. Much work that we all have to do to try and stop this insanity from ever having. happening again.