Rand Paul Vs. Dr. Fauci: Their Three Most Recent Senate Hearing Clashes

senator paul dr fauci in a recent british study david wiley and others found that no symptomatic re-infections from covet 19 after following 2 800 patients for several months in fact there have been no reports of significant numbers of re-infections after acquiring clovid 19 naturally shane crawdy of our virologist at la jolla institute for immunology concludes from his experiments that the amount of immune memory gained from natural infection would likely prevent the vast majority of people from getting hospitalized disease severe disease for many years in this study which was published in science dr cody showed that antibody levels stayed relatively constant with only modest declines over six to eight months dr crotty reported that notably memory b cells specific for the spike protein or rbd were detected in almost all covid19 cases with no apparent half-life at five to eight months after infection in other words dr crotty found significant evidence of long-term immunity after covet infection furthermore dr cruddy noted b-cell memory to some other infections has been observed for as long as 60 plus years after smallpox vaccination or even 90 years after a natural infection with influenza that was a woman who got the spanish flu still showed immunity 90 years later so rather than being pessimistic towards people gaining immunity after they've had covid or had a vaccine studies argue for significant optimism in fact there have been no scientific studies arguing or proving that infection with covid does not create immunity there have been no studies showing significant numbers of re-infections of the 30 million americans who have had covid only a handful of re-infections have been discovered in fact the new york times reported last fall more than 38 million people at the time worldwide had been infected with the coronavirus and as of that date fewer than five of these cases had been confirmed by scientists to be re-infections scientists interviewed for the article concluded in most cases a second bout with the virus produce milder symptoms or none at all given that no scientific studies have shown significant numbers of reinfections of patients previously infected or previously vaccinated what specific studies do you cite to argue that the public should be wearing masks well into twenty twenty two i'm not sure i understand the connection of what you're saying about masks and re-infection we're talking about people who have never been infected before you're telling everybody to wear a mask whether they've had an infection or a vaccine what i'm saying is they have immunity and everybody agrees they have immunity what studies do you have that people that have had the vaccine or have had the infection are spreading the infection if we're not spreading the infection isn't it just theater no it's not a vaccine and you're wearing two masks isn't that theater no that's not here we go again with the theater let's get down to the facts okay the studies that you quote from crotty and sete look at in vitro examination of memory immunity which in their paper they specifically say this does not necessarily pertain to the actual protection it's in vitro and what study can you point to that shows significant reinfection there are no studies that show just let me let me finish the response to your question if you please the other thing is that when you talk about reinfection and you don't keep in the concept of variance that's an entirely different ballgame that's a good reason for a mask in the south african study conducted by j and j they found that people who were infected with wild type and were exposed to the variant in south africa the 3-5-1 it was as if they had never been infected before they had no protection so when you talk about re-infection you've got to make sure you're talking about wild type i agree with you that you very likely would have protection from wild type for at least six months if you're infected but we in our country now have variants that are circulating significant reinfection what study shows significant reinfection hospitalization and death after either natural infection or the vaccine it doesn't exist there is no evidence that there are significant reinfections after vaccine in fact i don't think we have a hospitalization in the united states after the two-week period after the second vaccination yeah you have a death in the united states you're not hearing what i'm saying about variants we're talking about type versus variance and now what proof is there that there are significant reinfections with hospitalizations and death from the variants none in our country zero well because we don't have a prevalent of a variant yet we're having one can i finish we're having one one seven that's becoming more dominant policy based on conjecture it isn't based on conjunction so you some you want people to wear a mask for another couple years no you've been vaccinated and you parade around in two masks for show no you can't get it again there's almost there's virtually zero percent chance you're going to get it and you're telling people with them that have had the vaccine who have immunity you're defying everything we know about immunity by telling people to wear masks we've been vaccinated instead you should be saying there is no science to say we're going to have a problem from the large number of people being vaccinated you want to get rid of vaccine hesitancy something wear their mask after they get the vaccine you want people to get the vaccine give them a reward instead of telling them that the nanny states going to be there for three more years and you got to wear a mask forever people don't want to hear it there's no science behind it well let me just state for the record that masks are not theater masks are protective and we have immunity there theater if you already have immunity you're wearing a mask to give comfort to others you're not wearing a mask because of any sign i totally disagree with you dr fauci if you could respond so that we could understand the difference between the virus itself and the variance and the reason for a mask i'm sorry ma'am i can't if you could respond to the question so that we could all understand the difference between the vaccine and uh controlling the wild type versus the variants that are out there and the reason for wearing a mask i'd appreciate it yeah i mean yes first of all when you have a variant you have an immunity that you get what's convalescent sarah and the same sort of thing if i vaccinate you or me against the wild type you get a certain level of antibody that's specific for a particular viral strain if there's a circulating variant you don't necessarily have it you have some spillover immunity to be sure but you diminish by anywhere from two to eight-fold the protection so the point i'm saying is that there are variants in now circulating the point that senator paul was making was that if you look at wild type only there is some clear-cut credence to what he's saying but we are living right now in a situation where we're having a dominance of 117 which was the original uk we have a very troublesome variant in new york city a 526. we've got two variants in california four a 427-429 and we have a number of others so we're not dealing with a static situation of the same virus that was the only point i'm making okay thank you very much thank you uh senator murphy uh thank you very much uh madam chair dr fauci thank you for setting an example uh over the course of the last year for americans you have made it clear that masks dr fauci we don't know whether the pandemic started in a lab in wuhan or evolve naturally but we should want to know 3 million people have died from this pandemic and that should cause us to explore all possibilities instead government authorities self-interested in continuing gain of function research say there's nothing to see here gain of function research as you know is juicing up naturally occurring animal viruses to infect humans to arrive at the truth the us government should admit that the wuhan virology institute was experimenting to enhance the coronavirus's ability to infect humans juicing up super viruses is not new scientists in the u.s have long known how to mutate animal viruses to infect humans for years dr ralph barrick a virologist in the u.s has been collaborating with dr xi zhengli of the wuhan virology institute sharing his discoveries about how to create super viruses this gain of function research has been funded by the nih the collaboration between the u.s and the wuhan virology institute continues doctors barrick and she worked together to insert bat virus spike protein into the backbone of the deadly sars virus and then used this man-made super virus to infect human airway cells think about that for a moment the sars virus had a 15 mortality we're fighting a pandemic that has about a 1 mortality can you imagine if a sars virus that's been juiced up and had viral proteins added to it to the spike protein if that were released accidentally dr falchi do you still support funding of the nih funding of the lab in wuhan senator paul with all due respect you are entitled entirely and completely incorrect that the nih has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the wuhan institute do they find doctors we do not fund do you dr barracks gain of function research dr barrett does not doing gain or function research and if it is it's according to the guidelines and it is being conducted in north carolina i don't think it's concerning a bat virus spike protein that he got from the wuhan institute into the sars viruses gain of function that is not a minority because at least 200 scientists have signed a statement from the cambridge working group saying that it is gain of function well it is not and if you look at the grant and you look at the progress reports it is not gain a function despite the fact that people tweet that so you're trying to because i report sending money to the wuhan virology institute we do not send money now to do one hun sending money we did under your tutelage we were sending it through eco health it was a sub agency and a subgrant do you support the money from nih that was going to the wuhan institute let me explain to you why that was done the saws cov1 originated in bats in china it would have been irresponsible of us if we did not investigate the bat viruses and the serology to see who might have been or perhaps it would be in chinese possible to send it to the chinese government that we may not be able to trust with this uh knowledge and with this uh incredibly dangerous viruses government scientists like yourself who favor gain of function really i don't favor gain of function research in china that are not correct government defenders of gain of function such as yourself say that covid19 uh mutations were random and not designed by man but interestingly the technique that dr barrick developed forces mutations by serial passage through cell culture that the mutations appear to be natural in fact dr barrick named the technique the no-see-um technique because the mutations appear naturally nicholas baker in the new york magazine said nobody would know if the virus had been fabricated in a laboratory or grown in nature governor authorities in the u.s including yourself unequivocally deny that covet 19 could have escaped a lab but even dr xi and wuhan wasn't so sure according to nicholas baker doctor she wondered could this new virus have come from her own laboratory she checked her records frantically and found no matches that really took a load off my mind she said i had not slept for days the director of the gain of function research in wuhan couldn't sleep because she was terrified that it might be in her lab dr barrick an advocate of gain of function research admits the main problem that the institute of virology has is the outbreak occurred in close proximity what are the odds barrick responded could you rule out a laboratory escape the answer in this case is probably not will you in front of this group categorically say that the covid19 could not have occurred through serial passage in a laboratory i do not have any accounting of what the chinese may have done and i'm fully in favor of any further investigation of what went on in china however i will repeat again the nih and niaid categorically has not funded gain of function research to be conducted in the wuhan institute of iran you support it in the u.s we have 11 labs doing it and you have allowed it here we have a committee to do it but the committee is granted every exemption you're you're fooling with mother nature here you're allowing super viruses to be created with a 15 mortality it's very dangerous i think it was a huge mistake to share this with china and it's a huge mistake to allow this to continue in the united states and we should be very careful to investigate where this virus came from i fully agree that you should investigate where the virus came from but again we have not funded gain of function research on this virus in the wuhan institute of virology no matter parsing words you're part of say it there was research there was research done with dr she and dr barrack they have collaborated on gain of function research where they enhance the sars virus to infect human airway cells and they did it by merging a new spike protein on it that is gain of function that was joint research between the wuhan institute and dr barrack you can't deny it senator paul your time time is expired dr fatchi i will let you respond to that when we need to move on excuse me i will allow you to respond to that and then we'll move on yeah i mean i just wanted to say we i i don't know how many times i can say it madam chair we did not fund gain of function research to be conducted in the wuhan institute of virology thank you senator smith dr falchi as you are aware it is a crime to lie to congress section 1001 of the u.s criminal code creates a felony and a five-year penalty for lying to congress on your last trip to our committee on may 11th you stated that the nih has not ever and does not now fund gain and function research in the wuhan institute of virology and yet gain of function research was done entirely in the wuhan institute by dr xi and was funded by the nih i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the wuhan virology paper entitled discovery of a rich gene pool of bat sars related coronaviruses please deliver a copy of the journal article to dr fauci in this paper dr she credits the nih and lists the actual number of the grant that she was given by the nih in this paper she took two bat coronavirus jeans spike genes and combined them with a sars-related backbone to create new viruses that are not found in nature these lab created viruses within to shown to replicate in humans these experiments combine genetic information from different coronaviruses that infect animals but not humans to create novel artificial viruses able to infect human cells viruses that in nature only infect animals were manipulated in the wuhan lab to gain the function of infecting humans this research fits the definition of the research that the nih said was subject to the pause in 2014 to 2017 a pause in funding on gain of function but the nih failed to recognize this defines it a way and it never came under any scrutiny dr richard e bright a molecular biologist from rutgers described this research in wuhan as the wuhan lab used nih funding to construct novel chimeric sars-related coronaviruses able to infect human cells and laboratory animals this is high-risk research that creates new potential pandemic pathogens potential pandemic pathogens that exist only in the lab not in nature this research matches these are dr ebright's words this research matches indeed epitomizes the definition of gain of function research done entirely in wuhan for which there was supposed to be a federal pause dr fauci knowing that it is a crime to lie to congress do you wish to retract your statement of may 11 where you claimed that the nih never funded gain of function research in wuhan microphone your microphone senator paul i have never lied before the congress and i do not retract that statement this paper that you were referring to was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gain of function let me finish taking animal virus and you increase this transability to humans right you're saying that's not gain a function that is correct and and senator paul you do not know what you are talking about quite frankly and i want to say that officially you do not know what you are talking about okay you get one person let's read from the nih can i function this is your definition that you guys wrote it says that scientific research that increases the transmilita transmissibility among animals is gain of function they took animal viruses that only occur in animals and they increase their transmissibility to humans how you can say that is not gain a function it is not it's a dance and you're dancing around this because you're trying to obscure responsibility for four million people dying around the world from a pandemic and let's let's send doctor i have to well now you're getting into something if the point that you are making is that the the grant that was funded as a sub award from eco health to wuhan created sars kovi ii that's where you are getting let me finish we don't know wait a minute it didn't come in 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 i totally this community will allow the witness to reach i totally resent the lie that you are now propagating senator because if you look at the viruses that were used in the experiments that were given in the annual reports that were published in the literature it is molecularly impossible no one's saying those it is paused it is molecularly those virus caused the pandemic what we're alleging is that gain of function research was going on in that lab and nih funded it that is get away from it it meets your definition and you are obfuscating the truth i am not obfuscating the truth you are the one i'm expired but i will allow the witness to let me just finish i want everyone to understand that if you look at those viruses and that's judged by qualified virologists and evolutionary biologists those viruses are molecularly impossible pause the pandemic we're saying they are gain of function viruses because they're animal viruses that became more transmissible and human and you funded it and you admit the truth and you implying oh your time has expired and i will allow witnesses who come before this committee to respond and you are implying that what we did was responsible for the deaths of individual i totally resent that and if anybody is lying here senator it is you uh senator smith

Channel: Forbes Breaking News

Views: 1,311,155

Rating: 4.8474631 out of 5

Keywords: Sen. Rand Paul, Dr. Anthony Fauci, COVID-19

Id: rQdyegf4n1U

Length: 21min 38sec (1298 seconds)

Published: Tue Jul 20 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/ididntkillmywife]

Rand Paul sucks so hard

[u/McSquishin]

Fauci is playing semantic games, and might legally get away with the perjury allegations because of it, but what Rand is saying is not wrong. The NIH did in fact fund research, via grants, into juicing up viruses. It's not a question of whether this happened, because it inarguably did. It's simply a question of whether or not this is technically "gain of function."

[u/Ok-Mastodon4158]

Lol. Pretty funny

fauci