Well, I want to talk about something, going back to that COVID response, that hard, heavy-handed
COVID response. As I'm seeing the joke go around online, the idea of natural immunity
has been known for thousands of years throughout humanity, and it was somehow forgotten right
around 2020 when COVID happened. And it wasn't maybe forgotten as it was suppressed.
So just to bring people back there, the Lancet, scientific consensus, anytime you
see these words, you have to, your spidey sense has to go up, but they put this out in October
of 2020. Scientific consensus on COVID-19 pandemic, we need to act now. It says,
any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19
is flawed. This was signed by top medical experts, Rochelle Linsky, the director of the CDC,
goes on to say, furthermore, there's no evidence for lasting protective immunity
to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection. This was before the COVID shot came out, October 2020.
COVID shot first goes into the arm in December of 2020 in the United States. So they're saying,
forget about it, forget about it, don't even think about it. In fact, remember too,
as we know from Peter McCull and others, forget about early treatment, forget about everything,
just wait for that vaccine. Well, now we have internal emails from Anthony Fauci.
This is the headline here, Daily Caller, exclusive Fauci privately called natural immunity data
impressive before forcing jabs on Americans. Let's go right to these emails, August of 2021.
So the vaccine mandates were well into effect at this point. They were being given out,
they were starting to be pressed heavy handed. Fauci writes an email to Francis Collins,
to CDC director, Rochelle Linsky, and the subject of this email is post infection protection
versus vaccine immunity. It can't get any more clearer than that. And he says this, he's looking
at Israeli data. Because remember Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of Israel, he basically was the first
to jab his population with the Pfizer vaccine. So there was a lot of interest in how this
open air experiment would work. People were studying those people that took that jab.
And so Fauci gets some studies on the Israeli data on natural immunity. He says this,
the data as reported in the news article looks rather impressive despite the caveat
that it is a retrospective study and the testing was voluntary. However, it is conceivable and
possibly likely that those who have had a serious systemic infection develop a high level of
immunity that even surpasses that of full vaccination. Wow. Wow. Well, possibly likely.
Okay. Possibly likely it's better. And by the way, Jeffrey, we were reporting on this,
we're going to talk about all the way through, but the vaccine program has forever been attempting
to achieve the incredible robust nature of natural infection. It has never, ever achieved. We said
this during COVID. I will still say it. We have never seen a vaccine that performs better
than surviving a natural infection. We can argue how dangerous that natural infection was and all
the other things. But what you cannot argue is the fact that it always has provided more
robust protection, longer lasting, deeper, more thorough rejection of the infection.
And so this would have been an anomaly. This COVID-19 vaccine rushed on the market,
would have been the first time in history a vaccine performed better. And we know there
was no way they had taken the time to do the science to prove that this was an anomaly,
the one of a kind that is finally doing better than natural infection. And now
we're finally being proved, right, that they weren't as stupid as we thought they knew better.
Exactly. Fauci saying rather impressive behind closed doors, publicly not even giving any credence
to natural immunity. It's the shot. It's the shot. It's the shot. So in that same email
string, you have John Brooks. He's the CDC's chief medical officer of the COVID-19 response.
And he puts together kind of like a meta analysis of all the data to that point
of natural immunity. So what do we know? Because this looks rather impressive. He says,
let me put this together. This is what he says. Okay. So it seems now for at least three very
different analysis of different data that at least mRNA vaccine effectiveness is about as
good as infection induced immunity, but the main induced immunity wanes over time,
especially that induced by Pfizer's vaccine, whereas infection induced may be more durable
up to at least the four to six month mark. So remember at the time, that's early on,
they really only had data up to the six month mark. So he's basically saying this vaccine,
this Pfizer vaccine wanes, but maxing out what we know right now, natural immunity is going,
going the distance. So what conclusion does he makes? Does he say, we should study this more,
we should maybe balance this, maybe we should test people that have natural immunity. So we
have to force the vaccine, the spirit mental vaccine on them. No, this is the conclusion
that Mr. Brooks makes Dr. Brooks makes. He says this, the good news here is that boosters look
like a solution. Maybe this will be a three dose vaccine. After all, basically he says,
we should offer boosters because the vaccine is not working. Natural immunity looks really
good. Let's just get people more vaccines. I mean, I think that's the heart of it,
Jeffrey. People are seeing what my beep has been all along doctors and the scientific
establishment is so into fighting nature, to doing better than nature already does. Or
if you're, you know, a religious person to do better than God created you, so that even when
it's clear your natural body, your natural immune system performs far better than under
this vaccine regime, their answer isn't, well, let's just back off and let people have natural
immunity. No, let's try three boosters or four or five or seven or nine. And now we're
at 10. This is how crazy establishment medicine and science is. They will never give up. They
will never admit they're lost, you know? And that's, it's really, really unfortunate and quite
scary. And I don't know how people are going to ever get back to a place of trust.
And as, remember, as they kicked off the mandates, they had data showing natural immunity
was better. So whether it's conflicts of interest or just religious dogma at this point,
you really don't want these people running your public health leads when a once in a lifetime
pandemic comes in because they make those decisions. In fact, here's Paul Offit in retrospect,
having a moment of clarity on this very topic. Take a listen.
In February of 2022, I was asked with three other immunology, virology types to participate in
a conference call about whether or not natural infection should count as a vaccine. In other
words, for those areas that were still mandating vaccine, which was many in early 2022, whether
they should be able to say, look, here, I was naturally infected here. This should serve as
my vaccine card. And that meeting was held with Rochelle Lensky, Tony Fauci, Vivek Murthy,
Murthy from, you know, Surgeon General's office and Francis Collins. And then me and
three other immunology, virology types. We voted on it. And it was sort of tuted to,
basically. I mean, I was one of the, I think, natural infection should count for obvious reasons.
I mean, actually you're making immune response to all four viral proteins.
In many ways, make a broader site of types of T cell response. I think you're better off in many
ways. So I saw Dr. Fauci at a meeting maybe a year ago or so, because I was already getting out
there saying, I think we should target high risk groups. But where I was getting a lot of
pushback from public health, people who felt that I had gotten off the bus, because see,
that was the whole feeling in this. You know, you're either on the bus or off the bus,
and there was no in between. So I got, I said, Tony, am I wrong? Am I wrong in making? He said,
no, you're right. We should target high risk groups. The problem is, many of you say that,
it becomes a nuanced message. And a nuanced message is a garbled message. If you really
want to make sure those groups get vaccinated, then you recommend it for everybody.
I mean, he is literally admitting, we will lie to you. We will lie. We'll do whatever it
takes to get you to vaccinate. We don't want the complications of having to say, well, if you've
already had the infection, you're immune, because then we'd have to test. I mean, what's unbelievable
about this and so infuriating is they were literally testing us like two, three times a day
if you worked in Hollywood. Preschoolers couldn't go to school without being tested.
But God forbid you say, I don't want the vaccine. Can you test me to see if I'm
telling you I'm infected, but go ahead and test me. I'll prove it so I can opt out of the vaccine.
No, we can't do that. We will test you for every other reason that makes your life
a complete and total inconvenience. But God forbid we test to see if you're naturally immune.
And Jeffrey, I want to point out that Paul off at The Liar and all the people,
Walensky, and not only the saying they will lie, they will get the Lancet to publish
a lying journal article. They will lie through peer reviewed science. This
is why we can never, ever let these people off the hook. And lastly, by the time he is
discovering this, by the time Biden is mandating this product so that you can go to work, odds are
this virus has already swept the entire world. We were all already naturally immune. If anything,
there was no science on what the risk would be taking this after you had developed immunity.
Good chance it maybe took away your broad-based immunity that we've gotten into many, many times
and then narrowed it down to just what they're vaccinating for. This is such a disaster. It is
so incredibly infuriating. We knew it, but now to see it right before our eyes and they're
admitting it, maybe even chuckling about it. Jeffrey, and then to think that idiots like
Gavin Newsom in California is going to break away from the CDC's recommendation and not give this
to children. No, no, no, we're giving it to kids. It looks like Hawaii wants to follow suit right now.
And of course, Connecticut, you've got this West Coast contingent, East Coast contingent,
because we plan on staying stupid and being dangerous to our population despite any science.
We will lie. We're sticking with a lie. We're sticking to it.
It's really an anti-science danger to their populations with those governors that are pushing
these COVID shots on children at this point. But I want to stick on Fauci for a second because
Senator Rand Paul was recently on Joe Rogan. And the conversation came up of why
is Fauci still a free man? Why is he walking around? And this is what Rand Paul had to say.
Take a listen. Good question. Under the Biden administration, I sent criminal
referrals for Anthony Fauci to Merritt Garland twice, and I sent them evidence that he had lied
to Congress, which was a felony. They just ignored me. I've been working with Bobby Kennedy, and
he's been very helpful on this. I have good relationship with him. He's given us a lot of
information, and we've looked at the communications. And in Anthony Fauci's communications,
we now have evidence that he was telling people like Francis Collins,
read this and destroy it. We can't do that. The executive branch, when they communicate,
they're required to keep their communications, and they're required to do it on government devices.
So we have this evidence, and I've summarized it again in a criminal referral
to Trump's attorney general, and I still haven't gotten action. But there's a couple
reasons we should do it. One, that he shouldn't get away with lying. He shouldn't get away
with destroying records. But two, we should check the pardon. Is an auto pen pardon valid?
And is a pardon a retrospective pardon back 10 years that doesn't mention a crime?
Can you give people pardon for everything they did in 10-year period? I can't imagine,
and I think the court might narrow that. But it doesn't happen unless the
Trump Justice Department will do something. And I've been sending them referrals,
and I can't get them to do anything. I can't guarantee they'll win. They might lose.
But they ought to go to court. Take this, take it to court.
You know, it's interesting, too, because just right in the back of what we said,
one of the main things that woke Rand Paul up was he had an infection very early on,
and when they kept trying to force vaccinate him in order to go into Congress and be on the floor,
he said, I have had the illness. I have immunity. I'm not against the vaccine,
but I don't personally need it. And of course, he's been on the front row of proving that
Fauci lied under oath on gain of function. We now know it. He is now talking about these
emails where we see saying destroy this afterwards. I mean, this is a criminal that was in our government,
and it's a really good question. And we're going to live in a world where the president just says,
I blanket, you know, protect from any liability, anyone that worked in my administration from,
you know, during it, before, after, you know, in the years to come. You can do whatever you
want because you're never going to go to court. It just doesn't make sense. And I think that
we should be challenging. And you would think that of all the presidents of all times, President
Trump would be, you know, chomping at the bit to, you know, prosecute this and see what we know.
It's curious why we're not. Yeah. And this is a topic we've been tracking for some time now
with the new administration in there, also a new Department of Justice. They reshuffled the
deck at a lot of those levels at Department of Justice. We've been watching. We've been
paying attention. And this is a conversation for the make America healthy again, people,
because they've been watching too. And I hear it everywhere I go. So let's go into this topic,
this investigation. And I don't know if I know the answer to it, but I'm going to try to put
some puzzle pieces together and hopefully we can build on this. So the Department of Justice is
now headed by the Attorney General Pam Bondi. Pam Bondi in her Office of Government Ethics,
Public Financial Disclosure Report, which everyone had to, you know, if you're going into office,
you have to fill this out. Kennedy had to fill it out. Everyone has to fill it out,
take a government position. In there, on line seven, she worked for a law firm,
or she actually was contracted by a law firm, Panza Mara and Maynard, and they represented
Pfizer. So, and she was awarded money for that, or she made money for that over $5,000
that was compensation exceeding over $5,000, I believe it was $200,000 for that year.
So that's just a data point we're going to keep on because you hear Rand Paul there saying,
I submitted this criminal referral to the Biden Justice Department. Okay, well,
kind of a different way they did things back then. During the civil rights abusing COVID times
and lack of informed consent and so on and so forth. But he said, I submitted to the Trump
Justice Department headed by Pam Bondi and has heard nothing yet. So what's going on there?
Well, if that was just a one off thing, okay, maybe there's a lot going on, which there probably
is the Department of Justice is a massive organization with a lot of sub organizations
under it and sub offices, a lot going on, not making excuses here. But then we see these,
these ducks start to line up in a row of questions. And so I'm going to put those
out here. So we have in 2024, September 2024, federal court rules against EPA and lawsuit over
fluoride and water. This was a huge maha hot button topic is water fluoridation in the United States.
Remember, we had studies came out that showed it lowered IQ in children. So this was a citizen
petition that went to court that they lost the EPA loss. The court said you have to go back,
you have to basically reformulate either the regulatory actions or you have to come out
and find a way a path out of the current water fluoridation paradigm we're in right now.
Out of nowhere, we have the Trump Justice Department come in, makes this headline,
Trump administration fights historic fluoride ruling. So we go to Michael Conant. He's the
lead attorney that is putting forth this legal action against the EPA. He saw this all the
way through and he puts out this on X after several extensions of Trump administration and
decided to appeal the federal court decision ordering EPA to address the risk posed by
water fluoridation. He goes on to say rather than use the court's decision as an opportunity to
finally end water fluoridation as most of Europe has already done, the EPA will spend its time
legally challenging the court's order. Conant goes on to say the decision to appeal the court's
order was not made by the HHS or Secretary Kennedy. It was made by the solicitor general
of the Department of Justice who reports to Pam Bondi and the White House goes on to say
Kennedy's been clear with this part here. So what's going on there? Why are they stepping
in front of this? This seemed like a slow-pitched softball home run. Get this water fluoridation
out. It's been going on for a while. This science is adding up. We have a court ruling,
a court win. All EPA has to do is go back and make the changes the court ordered.
But then we have this story we've been reporting on for a couple weeks now. Trump
administration sides with Bear in seeking Supreme Court ruling in roundup fight. Remember,
Bear is losing and has been for almost a decade in court in states losing cancer cases
showing that glyphosate, their roundup product causes cancer to the tune of billions and their
stock price is plummeted. They're trying to stop the bleeding. In one last final appeal they're
appealing to the Supreme Court saying, please take this up. We need to stop this. And the
Trump administration steps in. In fact, the solicitor general who reports to Pam Bondi
steps in and says, you should take up this appeal. Well, this is kind of the breaking news here.
Reuters puts out US Supreme Court to hear Bear's bid to curb roundup cases. They're going to hear
this. There is no date set hearing perhaps this summer, sometime around July. We're going to
have this Supreme Court hearing. So again, you have the solicitor general. So with the
fluoride case, with this case, you go in and you see who signs these appeals from the
Department of Justice site map of all of the offices, all of the sub offices within here.
And a lot of it is coming out of the Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources
Division. That's who a lot of these people who are signing these appeals are originating from.
Of course, the solicitor general, it is his job as John Sauer. His job is to put these
forward. He's kind of the point man on this. And his job as a solicitor general is to
step in on these legal arguments. So you're going to see his name on those. But it's really
this environment and natural resources division. So the question is, which I don't know if we know
the answer to yet. Is this Pambani wielding authoritarian power to kill all these massive
MAHA initiatives and not to prosecute Fauci? Or are there other organizations? Are there
stay behind networks? Are there small cut out organizations within the Department of Justice
that are running this outside of the view of the entire department and also outside of the
view of the administration and which way the current wind blows and what the people elected
Trump and Kennedy to get done? That is the question that we leave our viewers with. But
something is not right in the Department of Justice, at least when it comes to the MAHA
agenda, because these are massive pillars that are not being, I mean, these should be
easily pushed away and they're not. They're being trampled on and they're being brought
back with the fury. They're going out of their way. I mean, it'd be one thing to just look the
other way, but to go out of your way and block initiatives that are moving forward or
force Supreme Court to look at something that they have no interest in looking at.
And it seems to be well decided in courts that this stuff is causing cancer. When we're talking
about glyphosate and Roundup, we know it's causing cancer. It's losing cases.
Yeah. What was it you just reported was the Congress took out of the latest bill,
sort of the liability protection. Even our government is backed away from getting involved
here. But yet the Trump administration, it's the heart of MAHA, make America healthy again,
appears to be just lowering the bar to make America healthier.
As long as it doesn't take away toxic chemicals on our food, toxic chemicals in our water,
we'll do the best we can. I'm sure, I mean, what we see is the complications of the work
that Bobby has to do in there because you couldn't have someone more outspoken on fluoride,
both during his life before public office, but even in public office. And of course,
glyphosate is a huge part of the work he's done too. So it's disturbing when we're getting
two different stories conflicting with each other right inside of our own government system.