Biden quits after leaving a wake of destruction from COVID and beyond!

America Out Loud Pulse brings together the top experts in healthcare-related fields to give you a peek ahead.

Well, didn't we just have some major news, with President Biden retiring? Not exactly retiring yet. He's going to still remain in control, even though he's not, does not have, clearly doesn't have his faculties, unless they implement the 25th Amendment, but, which they should have done years ago. But the point is that the most popular, popularly elected president, he received over 13 million more votes than Barry Hussein Obama, and has overseen the greatest economy, so they tell us. And he is now not fit to serve all of a sudden.

And so he is taking a backseat, looks like, to his vice president, who last week said she was not fit to serve yet, wasn't ready, but now she is. We'll see. But it's clear that for the people that didn't understand that you can run for a president of the United States from your basement, if they couldn't see that something was wrong, then, it apparently took an embarrassing thing for our country, not just for them, but for our country, for him to display it a month ago in a debate with Donald J. Trump.

It's been a horrible, horrible catastrophe. These people care nothing about the image of our country, because the image of our country should be that of truthfulness.

And yet they always say that Donald Trump is the liar, kind of like. they always call us a liar for being wrong about COVID, even though it turns out we've been right all along. It's an inability to accept reality and truth. Very sad. But clearly, if you just look at it from their perspective, all of this could be very well chalked up to vaccine injury.

I think he received multiple, multiple shots, which didn't work because he got infected multiple, multiple times. But Jordan, I think this is the most important issue of our day today, with the leader of the free world, supposedly, being denied office.

Yeah, well, first of all, I mean, I'm not, I guess the problem with people not being honest is it creates our own conspiracy world. But the fact that it's a letter written, there's not literally a picture of him, excuses that he had COVID, but then again, you read in the press releases that he's been spending time with all these,

you know, his confidence,

yet, you know, sitting six feet away, I'm pretty sure you can take a picture, six feet away, even though six feet again, going back to the fact that's not scientific either, it's just made up on behalf of our government.

It is worrisome because you kind of saw this coming, I think, Wednesday, when he got diagnosed with COVID. There's a couple things that occurred to me. One, of course, he's getting that great medicine we all love, called Pax Lovett. He is somebody with a history of strokes, as well as a history of kind of clots in the head, who takes Eliquis every day. So, and to take Pax Lovett, guess what you need to do, Stuart?

Yeah, you got to quit it. Yeah, it's not good in the context of a very thrombotic and fibrin aggregation producing disease process. And then you kind of said, well, if, you know, again, I've seen this with lots of patients, but you know, whether the vaccine or the infection, once they start going downhill, each repeated hit with spike protein does them no favors. Does that make sense? Yeah, you know, one of the first things that I remember you telling me that CDC director Robert Redfield told you last year, was that Pax Lovett was immunogenic.

It's not good for the immune system and they shouldn't have allowed it. But that's a side note. The point is that the brilliant Biden and the people running the show clearly do not understand the damage done from these shots.

Obviously, he was losing his mind years ago, but the fact is that it doesn't help. It doesn't help. Millions and millions and millions of people are being hurt and killed by these shots. I don't know if you saw, you. hopefully didn't, but you're on vacation.

But the fact is that last week, there was. the latest data in the United States shows that the last week we have record is the fourth week of April. The United States is still at 10 percent excess deaths.

We're in the greatest die off in our country's history, clearly related to the shots. The burden of proof is on them to prove it's not. Of course, they can't. But Ed Dowd's book, Cause Unknown, details it the best.

But what needs to happen is we've got to, our profession has got to wake up, get their pride in check, repent, and begin helping the millions and millions of people. And I think the majority of them probably don't know they've been injured, Jordan. What do you think? Yeah. And I think that's a lot of, it's easy to rationalize the decline, especially when you're talking about somebody in their 80s.

And so a lot of this is just, oh, well, they're just getting old. And I don't think that's untrue. All of us get old. Usually, what I tell people is that if you see kind of a temporal relationship between the decline and injection slash infection, then it could definitely be something that is a big contributor and, at that point, a little bit more reversible. And so a lot of what I do is, especially in older folks, I'm trying things that help.

The worst thing that they can do is not help. Usually, the things that we're using are safe and they have some mild risk with them. But the other option is to resign to the fact that you can't do anything. And I think that's kind of unreasonable. And I would say, probably in my cohort of people over 75, it's probably upwards of high 60% to 70% that seem to respond really, really well.

And then the other 30%, it's probably either I don't know what's going on or it's just their typical decline.

No, yeah, it seems to be much more prevalent, no doubt.

So with that, I think it would be important for us to talk about what's really needed in health care today to alleviate this historic burden that we are stuck in. And I think there's no better person, you know, when Robert Redfield, former CDC director, said in his interview six weeks or so ago to Chris Cuomo that the expert really is this guy down in Birmingham, Alabama, Jordan Vaughn. He's taught me a lot. I've taught him a little, I think was part of the quote. But when the former CDC director says you're doing it the best way, he knows, we need to replicate that in mass.

I think we need to really find a way to get the truth out and offer people relief and recovery from this disaster.

Yeah, and I think that's I think Peter is doing a good job, Peter McCullough, on the aspect of what's available. I will say I use a lot of things that are very natural as well. I think that's one of the great ways to start. It's probably the easiest to get out there, because I think replicating what I do is going to be difficult. First of all, just finding physicians that understand what we're doing, much less are willing to try.

I think that's medicine has lost its, lost its direction in terms of approaching a new disease with curiosity and the ability to implement and debug, or what I would call kind of fix or find a solution to. Instead, they're waiting on the, you know, whether it's CDC guidelines or something like that to say, here's just the concoction you need to use. The problem is, is that's not coming anytime soon. And that's really kind of a crappy way to treat patients. anyway.

From my personal opinion, I mean, each patient is different. I think that's what's so hard about this disease is not only is each patient different, but how it affects them is different. It's a multi-systems disease and some people have issues in one area that need this addressed and some people in the other area that need that addressed. And sometimes the interventions aren't equal in their usefulness.

But, yeah, I mean, we need something that people can, first of all, recognize that what is going on is something that the current system can't address. How I would look at that is the typical young person or middle-aged person, heck, it could even be an older person that has been to multiple doctors, cardiologists, neurologists, pulmonologists with symptoms of, you know, cognitive dysfunction, shortness of breath, heart racing, just not feeling their self, but has been given answers that basically say there's nothing wrong with you. I think that's that's the starting point. Yeah, right. The majority of people, I don't think, know they've been injured.

Yeah, and I think the cadre of doctors, with no explanation, and soon, when they all say you need to go see the psychiatrist, that's probably a good indication that you need help. And we've got to. we've got to figure out a way to let people know there is help, but also effectively deliver that help. And that's that's where it's going to be hard, because, as you know, Stuart, we're talking about millions of people. Yeah.

Probably a million in our own state.

So what do we need to do? I think we need to create an effect in mass, a, whether it's an electronic, I mean, telemed visits or clinics. I think that in following you around a month ago in your own clinic, I was mesmerized and proud of you all for spending so much time with each patient.

But it might need to be a telemed type of establishment for the initial evaluation and discussion, and then maybe having a certain lab that we can send everything to, including your lab that will look at the, you know, will grade the level of these abnormal clots. Yeah. Identify. Yeah.

And then develop a follow through system for patients, you know, at some point, preferably the earlier the better. We definitely want to put our hands on people. But with the volume of people that have the issues and the dearth of doctors to provide care, I think the so. we need to find a middle ground, if you will. But it's got to be put into mass industrial effect, if you will, assembly line kind of.

that kind of takes the personality out of it, which I'd never like. But we've got to find a way to reach these, this gargantuan number of injured.

Yeah. That's where we don't. Yeah, that's where we have to get the medical system to to start moving in the right direction. But it's a sad, sad time we live in, where the answer to most of these people is there's nothing wrong with you. Yeah.

When, apparently it's obvious, I saw two young ladies last week who had no business having POTS, postural orthostatic, or you like another term, but postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, who out of nowhere, it's obviously no history or anything like that, but they get the shots and, lo and behold, they develop that friend, mutual friend, Rich Vest, the cardiologist, is seeing record numbers of this. I bet every other cardiologist is seeing record numbers of this, but we've got to find a way to help not just the young, but the old. And of course, you and I would have no problems doing the right thing and helping Joe Biden. We're not advocating that we're not volunteering to move to Washington, D.C., but the fact is we look out for humanity. That's something missing in our culture today.

And it's truly tragic that there are so few that are willing to set aside the pride and look to help humanity at large. Agreed. All right. With that, we will be back again. This is Dr.

Jordan Vaughn, Dr. Stuart Tinkersley with America Out Loud Pulse, always one beat ahead.

The wellness company is offering the Signature Series Spike Support Formula. The wellness company supports this formula because it's designed to remove spike protein from the body. The Spike Support Formula is designed to help the body catabolize the spike protein, begin to remove it through its natural mechanisms. So go to TWC.Health and check out the Spike Support Formula. You can use our promotional codes or go through our banner bars on our site to get promotional codes and discounts on your purchase.

Worried about spike protein? Dr. Peter McCullough and the wellness company may have a solution. Get the incredible American-made, GMO-free Spike Formula from the wellness company. Go to TWC.Health and use promo code OUTLOUD for an exclusive discount.

Got gastrointestinal issues? We created a three-step, doctor-formulated, completely natural gut reboot system that takes less than two minutes a day to start working for you. Step one, gut detox formula, a gentle way to clean the intestines and balance the body. Step two, nano silver solution, a safe way to restore gut bacteria, balance and protect us from pathogens. Step three, green 85 juice formula, a simple way to replace the 85 percent of nutrition farmed out of our soil so our body can repair itself and increase energy levels.

Go to chemicalfreebody.

com forward, slash OUTLOUD today. Get the Malcolm Healthy Gut Bundle. Reboot your gut and your energy and save 20 percent on your first order.

Welcome back. So last week there was actually, I think it was two weeks ago. I can't keep my schedule straight given that I was on vacation. The Senate actually had Dr. Redfield before them in a hearing, and I think it's very useful to hear what Ron Johnson asked Dr.

Redfield. So we are going to start with that. We were told this, we were told it was going to stay in our arm, right? OK. We were told this was mRNA, going to degrade rapidly in our body, right?

But it wasn't mRNA, was it? It was modified RNA. It was actually produced synthetically so it wouldn't degrade. And we now have studies that say the mRNA is circling the body at least, I think, two months. And we haven't done studies beyond that, correct?

I know in your own practice, you don't administer that because you realize the spike protein is toxic to the body. I prefer the killed protein vaccines. When did you first determine, or when did you first find out about the biodistribution studies Pfizer had done that the Japanese regulators released in February of 2021?.

Probably somewhere in the spring or summer of 21,, it was clear that the mRNA in some patients was persisting much longer than it should. When did you find out about the biodistribution of the lipid nanoparticles? or when did people in the FDA, when should they have known about the fact that they were biodistributing all over the body? Yeah, I don't know the answer to that. I was telling you the summer of 2021 is when I probably became more aware that this.

Only because the Japanese regulators released that. Again, this was part of the Pfizer studies. So they knew that the lipid nanoparticle, which is designed to permeate, difficult to permeate barriers, correct? That's the design of the lipid nanoparticle. So they knew it was going to biodistribute all over the body, concentrate in the ovaries, the adrenal glands.

It crosses the blood brain barrier, correct? Correct. So what would? let's, let's just again, you're a doctor. What happens when you have a lipid nanoparticle biodistributing and let's say this mRNA, this modified mRNA attaches to a heart muscle?

But what is it? It injects itself into the cells, causes that heart muscle cell to produce a spike protein, correct? Which is toxic to the body. And then, what does the body do? It has a very strong pro-inflammatory response, which is problematic.

Again, I think, Senator, what you're getting, at, which I'm 100 percent agreeing with you, is, I think there was not appropriate transparency from the beginning about the potential side effects of these vaccines. And I do think there was inappropriate decisions by some to try to under report any side effects because they argued that would make the public less likely to get vaccinated. I do think one of the greatest mistakes that was made. Of course, was mandating these vaccines. They should have never been mandated.

It should have been open to personal choice. They don't prevent infection. They do have side effects. We were told. So.

I think Ron Johnson was thankfully running down something that a lot of us have been talking about for a long time, which is what's unique about these vaccines. Modified mRNA is not regular mRNA. So the argument that mRNA degrades quickly, which I hear all the time from people that are scientists, is true. Modified mRNA doesn't.

That's why it's important to realize these are not mRNA injections. They are modified mRNA injections. But not only that, they're protected by the lipid nanoparticles, so that they're not. I mean, it's a double whammy. Yeah, well, now that thing that's hard to degrade can go anywhere in the body.

It's, you know, again, it's setting up for. For all the kind of injuries that we have seen again, going back to what Dr. Redfield has said, the spike protein, as we have known for a long time, is immunotoxic, cytotoxic, thrombogenic, platelet, activating all of the above. And it is the last thing that you would want to utilize for. Well, it's the last thing you would want sticking around longer than it should.

And definitely the instructions for your cells to produce it, sticking along, sticking around longer than it should and going to places that you don't want it to go. Yeah, I was proud of Senator Johnson, who really, to me, has been the greatest hero in all of Congress, excuse me, in all of Congress. He's been the greatest advocate for truth. regarding COVID. Rand, Paul has been favorable.

And, unfortunately, other senators, I think, know, and other congressmen know. But in Tom Massey out of Kentucky, but they just will not speak to it. It's the most bizarre thing. It tells you how evil of a trap they're all in, but they got to get their head out of their pride and start getting engaging in the game of helping millions and millions of injured people of their making. Of their making, yeah.

And that's the biggest problem, I think, is it's easier to recognize vaccine injury in young, vibrant people. It's more difficult to recognize it in an 81-year-old presidential candidate.

Yeah, that testimony, there was a lady there that, I'll pull up her name in a minute, but she could not get out of her own way. She just continued to flub around with non-answer after non-answer. that made no sense, because there's no justifiable reasons for their actions. She was, I think, felt she's number two for a while. And she continued to basically say, I don't know anything about that.

She was very, at one point, was very proudful in her actions and her attitude about how proud she was of things that were so destructive, it was very odd.

But he said, he backed off, I won't say he backed off, but Redfield said many bold things in his interview with Cuomo six weeks ago, he kind of was realizing the potential downstream effects of testifying exactly to all the truth he does know would lead to some problems for our government. But so be it. We are the purveyors of lies and destruction throughout the last four and a half years. It's time somebody answered the call of accepting the reality we've imposed.

Yeah, I think it's, you know, protecting the government at this point. is, you know, the government is us, or what it's supposed to be us. So if we're not going to look, if the government's not going to look into it, that means that people will suffer. So, not that I'm a... Yeah, an example of the government looking into things, one of the greatest catastrophes of the Secret Service occurred nine days ago, 10 days ago or whatever.

And Saturday before last. And finally, they're going to have a hearing with the Secret Service director. I love the headline that said, former Cheetos or Doritos executive, now in charge of securing the president. She had no business being in that role. And then what she said about DEI, she wants, who cares about standards, you know, standards be down.

We're going to get 30 percent of our Secret Service agents to be women. And then you saw the catastrophe of one of the women that was a Secret Service. She couldn't even holster her weapon. It should be these people at this level of training, and I've seen them. It is, they could holster their weapon in their sleep.

And yet one of them, I mean, they thought that she was a fit woman. looking at her. She was probably 5'5", 200 pounds. It was such a gross display of incompetence.

And then, you know, one of the questions, I'm just going to go down this rabbit hole for a second.

Where is the integrity? I guess the Trusted News Initiative has taken on a new brand to not only discredit truth and science, but in taking care of our elected officials.

There were two, if you listen to the audio, there were two types of weapons fired before the counter sniper SWAT guy took out Crooks.

Those are distinct sounds that I have yet to hear anybody address.

Yeah, Ron Johnson is also, again, saving us on this here. But that's the problem, too, is that you're talking about, you know, even the people that were taking pictures of the body. afterwards, Ron Johnson's found that it was somebody that no one knows and has gone off the grid. I hadn't heard that, not surprised, but it has just been ridiculous. Yeah, our government is incompetent, would be the least of our...

What was Reagan's famous line, the nine worst words anyone could hear? I'm from the government and I'm here to help the incompetence. I'm surprised we haven't had that as one of our themes of our show the last two years, because everything the government's done basically has been wrong, wrong, and wrong. And the pride of these fools prevents us from escaping their trap.

Yeah, a couple other things I think that are useful to, you know, address are related to what we're seeing in clinic with platelets, I think is the last thing. And this is actually just kind of jumping off a pediatric infectious disease journal, looking at something that actually Risha had pointed out a long time ago that we've been looking at, but this report, or it's not really a true research, it's just more of what they're finding.

And it is related to circulated activated platelets in children with long COVID. And I think this is kind of a good example of what the spike protein can do. And what we have found is not only does it cause fibrin aggregation, but just as equally, it causes platelet activation. So hyperactivated platelets, and, from what we know, irreversibly hyperactivated. And then we have found that when we talk about the activation in these children that have persistent symptoms, this looks at 14 people with long COVID, 14 controls.

And they, even after 6 and 12 months, their P-selectin is still activated and or basically present. And so that means that it's, it is a, the platelets themselves are activated in an inappropriate way. And that's why it's important. A lot of people say, well, why can't I just take Eliquis? Because you're talking all about fibrin.

And that is true. Fibrin is what we look for under the microscope, but just as equally important. And hopefully we're going to be doing pretty soon, even in my lab, is also addressing the activated platelets. And the thing that's activated, or the thing that you can stain for, is something called P-selectin. And that is one of these little proteins or things that actually cause aggregation and interaction with other platelets, is exposed on the platelet surface.

And when we compare it, these 14 kids with long COVID, both at 6 and 12 months, that was still activated at the controls. It was not activated at all. And so that's kind of an important distinction. So. Yeah.

And for those listening that are interested, I thought one of the most fascinating discussions I've heard about platelets maybe in my life was done by Dr. Bean. He interviewed a platelet expert in July of 21,, I believe. And boy, that's been a long time. But they went over it.

Now, I want for the doctors that are listening, the providers that are listening, to listen to that, to understand how complex the platelet is. It's not just this thing that branches off from the megakaryocyte, from bone marrow, that then clots up holes in your blood vessel. It is an extremely important thing. the Lord has designed that. I'm just amazed how little I knew about it.

But it is a wonderful video. to start with. I think I've listened to it three or four times and took copious notes from it, because it is so important that everyone needs to consider. Yes. All right.

With that, again, this is Dr. Jordan Vaughn, Dr. Stuart Tinkersley, with America Out Loud, Pulse, always one beat ahead.

When God, through his grace and mercy, gave us free will, the will of the people was to live freely. To that end, we fight for the liberty of all at a time when global tyranny threatens us as never before in mankind's history. This vision is manifest at americaoutloud.news, a site for all who cherish free will and freedom.

Now is our time, my fellow Americans. America, Out Loud talk, radio. Liberty and justice for all.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death and disability. Today's high-stress, on-the-go lifestyle makes it hard to stay heart healthy. Lifestyle changes like exercise and diet are critical, but you can also support your heart with concentrated nutrients. Healthy Cell created heart and vascular health to support three aspects of heart health, cholesterol, blood pressure, and triglycerides, with CoQ10, vitamin K2, resveratrol, and soluble fiber. And Healthy Cell's not a pill.

It's a patent-pending gel you swallow with ultra-absorption of science-backed ingredients. You would need to take 13 pills to get the same amount of nutrients in each gel pack. And these great-tasting gels come in a small packet. Tear off the top, shoot it down, or mix it in water. Get heart healthy.

Go to healthycell.

com and use code OUTLOUD for 25% off your first order. Healthycell.com. Code OUTLOUD for 25% off.

We wouldn't go a day without washing our hands, brushing our teeth, and washing our nose. Whoa, wait. We wash our nose? Yes! The number one place where bacteria, viruses, and pollen enter the body is through the nose.

So, the average person breathes over 23,000 times a day. That's 23,000 opportunities for bacteria, viruses, and irritants to get into your nose and make you sick. For an extra layer of protection, wash your nose with clear. That is clear, X-L-E-A-R. Clear's drug-free nasal spray features xylitol, an ingredient proven to block adhesion of many nasty bacteria and viruses, and effectively clean, not just rinse like a saline, but wash your nose.

Clear nasal spray quickly alleviates congestion, opens your airway, and ensures your body's natural defenses are strong. Read the research studies for yourself at clear.com. That's X-L-E-A-R.com. Protect yourself from the pathogens and junk you breathe. Pick up a bottle for you and your family.

today. I'm so confused. I don't know what to do. I'm afraid of going to the hospital. My doctor tells me nutrition doesn't work.

Trust is earned. We are the Energetic Health Institute, and we want to earn your trust. Natural medicine, holistic nutrition, detoxification, fasting, cellular healing, and so much more. Remember, the best way to be free is to be healthy. So stop being a patient and start being a student at energetichealthinstitute.org.

So for the final segment today, what I wanted to do is give you some highlights from two recent hearings. One of them was a hearing in the Senate. Thank God for now even Gary Peters, who's actually a Democrat from Michigan, being open to inviting people to discuss this. A friend of mine, Roger Marshall, a senator from Kansas, but also a physician, is going to ask.

Robert Redfield a couple questions, and I think it's very useful. So, with no further ado, this is Senator Marshall asking Dr. Redfield about therapeutics versus vaccine. Tens of millions of lives, and I commend him, and we'll do everything we can to put wind beneath yourself to get this across the finish line. My concern is there's not enough national security emphasis on this.

It's stunning to me as I go back and talk to the folks who knew the most at the beginning of COVID were the national security people. They were not surprised at all. So, Dr. Redfield, I want to talk about the next pandemic, and whether it's man-made or from nature, I don't care. We all realize the flu vaccine works 25 or 50 percent of the time.

The mRNA vaccines were going to be the cure-all. that they're not.

What do you think would be the, if you were going to line up a scenario for us to practice, what would be the virus? And talk a little bit about vaccines as opposed to therapeutics. Well, I think it's very probable that we will have another pandemic. I think it's very probable that the pandemic pathogen will be bird flu. The current bird flu, as you know, is now in over 100 million chicken and turkeys in the United States alone.

It's global. It's an H5N1 virus. That virus now has gone into 27 mammal species in the United States, including cats and mice and bears and, surprisingly, dolphins and seals. So it's quite extensive. It doesn't seem to have learned how to go mammal to mammal.

when it gets into those mammals. It usually seems to go bird to mammal. And you know, it's been in five humans in the United States since 2019..

And it has been in about 888 humans across the world since 2003.

. And it raises concern because of those 888 individuals, there have been about 52 percent mortality. So there's a high mortality rate. So I think it's very likely that this virus will continue to go out and try to learn how to infect different mammals, including humans. And eventually it will evolve so it can transmit efficiently human to human.

We know exactly what has to happen for that to happen. There's four amino acids that need to change. It was published in 2012.. I was not an advocate that it would be published because I thought it would show terrorists a recipe to how to create a catastrophic virus. But it was published.

You know, Senator Marshall, I'm a man of faith. I think it's kind of a miracle that no one's exploited that yet to cause global chaos. But I am more concerned that the virus could be created in university labs, labs are doing experiments that are trying to understand how to manipulate this virus and then be subject to accidental laboratory leak. And once respiratory viruses get leaked, they're very hard to contain. So I'm very concerned about that.

On the other side of your question, I think that the United States is not prepared proportional to the threat. As I said, I think this is the greatest national security threat our nation faces. We have a $900 billion defense department for the threat of China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia. We don't have really any systematic agency or network of private sector contractors to help us with the biosecurity threat, which I believe we should have. We need a proportional response to the threat.

I'd like to see us build within the Department of Energy. Since they're used to weapons of mass destruction, they have a good science base for them to basically get the mission to help build our biosecurity response and then build a series of private sector enterprises, like you mentioned, antiviral drug development, and vaccine diagnostics, PPE, as well as medical equipment that you can predict will need. When COVID happened, you remember Vice President Pence went up to Michigan, to the Ford manufacturers, to ask them to stop making Fords and start making ventilators. Dr. Redfield, if I could interrupt you.

I want you to really nail this, the vaccine versus therapeutics. Therapeutics, stop transmission. Suddenly we found, heaven forbid, that bird flu was in humans. We could go there with a therapeutic and really stop the spread. Am I right?

I think your point, Senator, is exactly right. Too much weight is on vaccines. They're part of the response, but it's not where the money is. The money is in antiviral drug development. That's where the money is.

The way I keep my patients alive today that get COVID that are over the age of 65 is the antiviral drugs. What we really need to have for bird flu, because we don't have them right now, is multiple antivirals that are highly efficacious against bird flu. We don't have it. We should have it. Talk about the supply chain, what we don't have in this country, for you to be able to develop those antivirals.

There's some chemicals and rare earth stuff that you need that I don't have. There's different technologies. This is where I think this should invest in platform technologies that can protect us. Right now, for many drugs, you need to get an active pharmaceutical ingredient. The sources of that is really two, India and China.

There's an alternative platform, which I'm a big advocate of, which is to use the mRNA platform, not for vaccines now, but for therapeutics. If I do use the mRNA for therapeutics, what I need to do is just procure four nucleotides, which I can procure right now. We're eliminating the risk of developing the vaccine to be leaked. Developing a vaccine often leads to leaks. I just think that we should have a robust therapeutic program that builds technology that's independent of needing to go get active pharmaceutical ingredients from China and India.

That technology exists today, using the mRNA technology, not for vaccine development, but using it for therapeutic product development. Dr. Esselstyn, let's talk about national security just one more time here. In my humble mind, a viral biosecurity issue is a bigger issue than China's military threat to us. This is way more important than how many more submarines we build.

Those submarines are important. Why wouldn't we apply the same type of rules and regulations to anybody that's working with nuclear energy, nuclear physics, nuclear bombs? This is 10 times worse as well.

I think Dr. Redfield does a good job there. Again, we don't have to excuse him that he is still a virologist, but I think Senator Marshall is making the good point that what we needed to do was to come up with therapeutics. Interestingly enough, at least the people that I listened to had therapeutics. A lot of therapeutics were medicines that were still available that could be repurposed.

Those medicines could include things like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, steroids, other things like pentoxyphthalein, lots of natural things. The list goes on, but instead the whole governmental apparatus was focused on vaccine. The problem with that is that, just as Dr. Redfield said, that's not where the money is, meaning the money of which one's going to work. It is where the money is when it comes to what's best for Pfizer or what's best for Moderna.

Instead, the focus was changed, and I think that's where we have a problem. The real thing, in terms of money, in terms of saving lives, therapeutics not only save lives, but they also stop transmission, regardless of what antivirals, by definition, stop viral infections. That is where our whole medical industrial complex went wrong. Given that it went wrong, we need to figure out why. We'll now move forward to listen to Rand Paul's interview, and I think that is very useful as well.

Without further ado, here's Rand Paul questioning the panel. Thank you, Dr. Wolinetz.

During your tenure of working for Francis Collins, he sent an email to Anthony Fauci, and in the email, he said that he directed Anthony Fauci to orchestrate a takedown, a takedown of Drs. Koldorf and Bhattacharya.

Were you aware of that email at the time? I don't specifically recall it. I'll remind the panel that you all continue to be under oath, and it is a crime to lie to Congress. Were you directed by Francis Collins to participate in a takedown, malignment, disparagement of either Drs. Koldorf or Bhattacharya?

No. Did you plant any articles or discuss with anyone in the media articles that disparaged Dr. Koldorf or Bhattacharya or their positions? No. In Dr.

Fauci's response to this email, he responds by saying, don't worry, this is a paraphrase, don't worry, Dr. Collins, I'm on it. I got a story planted and wired, and I think another lay publication, but he was actively doing Dr. Collins' bidding. So I am surprised that as the chief of staff, you had no awareness of that there was a policy of taking down these scientists.

Dr. Parker, you've had a long, distinguished career. Have you ever directed any of your employees to take down fellow scientists who you disagreed with? No. Dr.

Redfield, you've had a long and distinguished career. Have you ever directed any of your employees to take down scientists who you had a disagreement with? No. Dr. Esvelt, same question.

No.

Dr. Wolinetz, did you attend the Gain-of-Function Dual-Use Research of Concern meetings during your tenure in government?

Yes. Were you considered to be a member?

A member of what specifically, Senator? I don't know. Is there a group called that? Is it a meeting? Who gets to go?

So I participated in many groups inside government in which biosecurity, management of dual-use research. This is a very specific meeting, though. This is the week. it's called in this email, Weekly Dual-Use Research of Concern Gain-of-Function Meeting. Did you attend those routinely?

I don't recall a meeting called that, although it's quite possible. I was involved. That name doesn't ring a bell. This would be a meeting to discuss things that might be gain-of-function. Did you attend those meetings?

Not if they were meetings at the level of an individual NIH institute to review research. I was not at all involved in that process. This is an email. It's from Teresa, I don't know how you pronounce it, Hogwell, H-A-U-G-U-E-L. It's to, let's see, Irene Glowinski, Dennis Dixon, Linda Lambert, David Spiro.

Are you familiar with those names? I believe those are all employees of NIAID. Okay. So you think this meeting may have occurred within NIAID and you might not have participated in it? Yes, that's correct.

Are you surprised that when I ask for the debate over what is and what is not, because there's a debate over what is the definition of gain-of-function, that the NIH still refuses to give me minutes of these meetings or any of the discussion concerning what is gain-of-function and what is not gain-of-function? I can't speak to NIH's decision. Do you think that's an appropriate policy for the NIH to refuse to give members of Congress the debate over whether something is or is not gain-of-function? My general philosophy at NIH was to always be as cooperative with members of Congress as humanly possible. Your boss, not so much.

He was for that when he wasn't busy taking down fellow scientific colleagues. Dr. Parker, do you think it's appropriate for the NIH to refuse to give Congress the minutes or deliberations over what is or what is not gain-of-function, particularly concerning research that was done in Wuhan? Inappropriate. Dr.

Redfield, do you think the NIH should release, do you think it's inappropriate that they won't release, and should they release the information concerning the deliberations over gain-of-function? Yeah, I think it's inappropriate that they don't share that information. Dr. Esfeld, do you think it's inappropriate that the NIH continues to refuse to reveal information considering the deliberations over gain-of-function? I think transparency is essential to public trust in science, and I think NIH has a duty to uphold public trust in science insofar as possible.

The public needs to realize that I only know of this meeting, existing because of a Freedom of Information Act. The Senate, groups of senators, the ranking member of a committee, they will not reveal. they even have the meeting, much less the minutes of the meeting. I can get more information from the CIA than the NIH. Dr.

Redfield, do you think that damages science? when the science are acting like the CIA and not revealing information? Does it damage our trust in science? I think it's going to be very hard for public trust to be regained at NIH, CDC, FDA, from what we experienced in the COVID pandemic. Dr.

Redfield, do you think, and we talked a little bit about this before, but taking the backbone of a SARS virus and adding various S-proteins from other unknown viruses to see what you get, running through that through serial passage, should that have gone before some sort of gain-of-function review, even to figure out whether it meets a definition of dangerous research? Yes. One of Anthony Fauci's responses has been, well, they're two animal viruses and we don't know that they will infect humans. But by the time you combine them, the test they do is they actually test them to see if they infect human cells after they're done manipulating them. So their goal really is to see, hey, guys, do you think we can make it more infectious?

And yet they say, and they hide behind definitions of, well, we didn't know in advance. And this becomes the problem. And look, I come from a scientific background. I'm aware of CRISPR technology, not enough to do it, but aware of the great benefits of science. I'm aware of creating bacteria that make insulin, not against any of those kind of things.

But I do want scientists like yourselves to be on some sort of committee to overlook this. But I get the feeling that over and over again, this has been hidden and been in-house. There was actually, and I'm trying to remember if it's the same board that you led, Dr. Parker, but it's the NAA, remind me the acronym for your board. NSABB.

And you're still ahead of it. I'm still a member of the committee, but any of my comments today are not reflective, they're all my... And I won't put you on the spot on this, but there's a story from like four, eight, 10 years ago, of like a whole bunch of people being fired by Dr. Fauci because they disagreed with his opinion on gain of function. And so it's just another indication that we can't have this all within house.

And it's like, oh, no big deal. There really has to be some independent people outside of government to look at that. And that's what I emphasize over and over is that we have to get to some sort of independent board here. Dr. Wolinich, you were a member of the PC30 committee, correct?

That's correct. Who were the other members? I don't recall all of them off the top of my head. There were about a dozen. I know there were representatives from ASPR, from the communications, Bill Hall at HHS.

It's been a while. Are you aware that they were also refusing to give us the names? I think the names have been published by the COVID committee. They've been refusing to give the names of the people on the COVID committee. As a member of the committee, previous member of the committee, I have no objection to the names being released.

You can see the problem. So you set up an oversight committee, but the oversight committee never saw the Wuhan research. Should the Wuhan research, taking a SARS backbone and putting a new S protein on it, running through human cells to see if it infects. Then it turns out it did. Then we say, oh, it's only a thousand times more and we'll give you more leeway to do it, et cetera, et cetera.

All the stuff that happened with EcoHealth. In retrospect, should that have gone before the P3CO committee? So, Senator Paul, I think one of the things I've learned in engaging this, particularly as a non-virologist myself, although I'm a scientist, I don't know that much about virology, is that it's really important to have expertise to be able to evaluate that benefit and risk and talk about whether or not it meets the scopes of these policies. However, I do agree that, and I'm glad we're discussing, whether or not there is an opportunity to do this better, to introduce independence earlier in the process. That's a general answer, and that's fine.

But very specifically, should the research, putting a new S protein, a random S protein from a random, unknown virus on a SARS backbone, creating an infectious chimera and then deciding or looking to see if it infects human cells more, should that have gone before the P3CO committee? Yes or no? I do not know enough about the research to be able to make that. That was why I was not part of the process. That's really disappointing and, I mean, would exclude me from considering you for any board, frankly, if you can't admit.

I mean, because you're sort of, you're still in your mind thinking, oh, I don't want to criticize Francine Collins, or I don't want to criticize Anthony Fauci, because this is your group, you know. But in retrospect, 15 million people died. The Department of Energy have concluded it came from the lab. So has the FBI. So did the CIA, until higher-ups at the CIA told them to change their opinion.

But the group of scientists at the CIA, according to a whistleblower, voted six to one. So, with that, again, I think this is a very instructive meeting, but it shows you the corruption, but also just.

capture of our scientific bodies. Caroline or Carrie Wolinitz is a good example that there is a big issue, as she can't even state that in retrospect. We should have looked at this and found out that this kind of research was used. And with that, again, this is Dr. Jordan Vaughn and Dr.

Stuart Tinkersley with America Out Loud.

Polls always one beat ahead.