Anthony Fauci and the Biden Administration finally admit what we’ve known for three years—that COVID leaked from a lab in Wuhan. Liz breaks down why Fauci called it a conspiracy theory, who he’s blaming his flub on, and how it all relates to the greater political events in the nation, including January 6th. Plus, an update on the WHO’s pandemic treaty. This is The Liz Wheeler Show.
This transcript was generated automatically and may contain typos, mistakes, and/or incomplete information.
Welcome to the Liz Wheeler Show. Dr. Fauci is blaming us for why he covered up the Covid Lab leak theory for the past three years. He, well, not he, but the Biden administration is finally admitting what we have known for literally three years that COVID-19 leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Fauci is blaming us for why he denied this, why he called this a conspiracy theory. Ha ha ha. We are going to talk about that tonight. We’re also going to talk about what’s coming next in the January 6th, and what this has to do with Fauci s denial of the lab leak theory.
But first, a little bad news. The bad news is, this is actually a little addendum to a show we did last week. You’ll remember we talked about the Pandemic Treaty, the World Health Organization Pandemic Treaty that they were negotiating in Switzerland.
Well, they, unfortunately, the member states of the World Health Organization have reached a consensus. They’re signing on to that zero draft, and that includes the Biden administration. Biden is signing the United States onto this World Health Organization Pandemic Treaty, and it’s awful. We did an episode last week reading through the document, looking at exactly what it does, what control it gives the World Health Organization over future policy, future political policy domestically here in the United States, in the event that the World Health Organization declares a pandemic emergency.
So it might seem, it might seem, oh, wow, that’s a lot of authority for, first of all, someone who’s not part of the United States. And yes, it is, but also the World Health Organization is both the one who declares the pandemic emergency and the one who tells the United States and countries all around the world what policies they should use to combat this pandemic.
The Biden administration has signed onto this is very bad news. There’s a little legal gray area. Whether Biden can sign onto a treaty without formal Senate ratification of that treaty, Biden is certainly going to try. They’ve inserted into this treaty, some very, not nuanced, but sneaky language. They’ve used what’s called provisional language that allows it to take effect, allows this pandemic to take, or not the pandemic, but the treaty that the, that the pandemic is assuming will happen allows this treaty to take effect provisionally until the Senate has either ratified it or not.
So it’s a little bit of a legal gray area, whether it has the binding force of law, but I think we all know that the Biden administration is going to treat it as if it has the binding force of law unless the Senate does something about it or the US Congress.
And that brings to me, to my point, what can you do about this? This is, it’s infuriating to sit here across the world as the Biden administration signs this document in Switzerland, giving an organization that’s part of the UN that has nothing to do with our country. These are not American citizens. This is not a representation of us. This is not our Congress gives these people, these, these global elitist power over our lives, our businesses, our churches, our speech, maybe lockdowns vaccines, masks, all of the other pandemic interventions that the World Health Organization recommends.
What can you do about it? That is the good news. Part of this bad news is there are a couple things you can do. you can call Congress and you can push your Congress member to take action. There are several things your member of Congress can do to stop the Biden administration in its tracks.
The first is called HR 79. HR 79 is the World Health Organization Withdrawal Act. It’s exactly what it sounds like. We in the United States are the third biggest funder of the World Health Organization after Germany, who’s number one, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Number two then comes the United States. Without our money, the World Health Organization ceases to exist in its current form. We are the ones that give it its lifeblood. We are the ones who have a controlling seat at the table, and we shouldn’t be part of this organization.
The World Health Organization is run by Dr. Tedros, who is handpicked by the Chinese Communist Party, who is a tool of communists who wants the same things that Klaus Schwab wants for the world, wants for the globe, wants for our country. And we can stop the World Health Organization if your member of Congress is pressured to vote for the WHO Withdrawal Act.
There’s also there’s also another senate, a piece of legislation in the Senate. It was introduced by Senator Johnson. It is called the No World Health Organization, pandemic Preparedness Treaty without Senate Approval Act. And it is also self-evident . It is our self-explanatory. It’s exactly what it sounds like. It forces Biden to bring this pandemic treaty before the Senate for ratification, because that’s constitutionally what he’s obligated to do, but what he’s trying to bypass.
So what this legislation would do, this piece of legislation would force the Biden administration to bring that treaty to the Senate, and hopefully the Senate wouldn’t ratify it. Although when Senator Johnson introduced this bill, only 17 of his Senate colleagues signed onto this. So perhaps it’s an iffy gamble, perhaps the Senate, which is split evenly right, with the Democrats having just a slight advantage. Perhaps Republicans would defect and vote with the Democrats.
But it would still be a good thing to bring this up for a vote, because then at least you and I would know which Republican senators or squishes and which Republican Senators understand the reality of the political enemy that we face in the World Health Organization. There’s also one other piece of legislation. It’s HR four 19, and it is called the No Taxpayer Funding for the World Health Organization Act. It’s essentially the same as the first HR 79, the WHO Withdrawal Act, except for, I don’t know that it formally withdraws the US from the World Health Organization, but it does prevent taxpayer funding from funding the World Health Organization. So all of the above are my choice. This is up to us now to call your member of Congress, write them a letter, send them an email, talk to ’em at their town halls, tell them that there’s something that they can do, and that we as their constituents, this is what we hired them to do.
They need to act on our behalf. So, a little bad news that the Biden administration signed onto this, but good news that there is something that we can do to prevent that. so now let’s talk about, we’re gonna talk about today, I should say, we’re gonna talk about Dr. Fauci. We’re gonna talk about Biden’s Department of Energy declaring the lab leak theory to be probably the origin of COVID-19. And we’re gonna talk about what this has to do with January 6th and the video footage that we are all eagerly awaiting to see. So let’s get to it.
Okay. Before we actually get to the Dr. Fauci thing, one thing that I was thinking about that I wanted to add, this is an addendum to yesterday’s show. Yesterday’s show. We talked about the creator of the Dilbert Comic Strip, Scott Adams being completely canceled. I think every newspaper now has removed his comic strip from publication. Every website that he syndicated or licensed it to has removed it. He had a book deal canceled. He’s just, I mean, he’s undergoing literal cancellation. These leftists are trying to socially ostracize him. They’re trying to ruin his livelihood because he commented, he made an episode of his show about that Rasmussin poll that show that 47% of black people don’t think it is okay to be white, or aren’t sure that they think it’s okay to be white. Scott Adams did an episode of the show or, or did an episode of his show about this.
And then I talked about, obviously the backlash against this was, oh, Scott Adams is racist for calling the black people who believed this about white people calling them a hate group. He said he didn’t wanna live near black people who believed this. He said he thinks that there should be sort of a national divorce. but he divided it along racial lines. And a lot of people were saying, well, Scott Adams is a racist. That’s the justification the Left is giving for why they canceled him, why they removed his comic strip from newspapers and magazines and websites. And I did a whole episode yesterday breaking down the nuances of this. If you haven’t watched it, I highly recommend that you do, because this news story is a news story that’s just going to keep going. This is not going to end. And it becomes more convoluted every layer of news story that’s piled on top of it.
So if you wanna know the original thing Scott Adams said, and the breakdown of whether he was right, whether he was wrong, whether he’s racist, whether his diagnosis is correct, whether his prescription is correct, highly recommend that you that you watch that episode. The one thing that I wanted to add, the one thing that I wanted to add is a little breakdown of the poll itself. This was actually a conversatioNIHad earlier today with my husband who asked me, someone else had said something to us about, oh, is this, is this a real poll? Is this number actually true? And I had said, that’s what, that’s the Rasmus poll. Like supposedly. Yeah, it’s true. And after this conversation, my husband said, oh, what is the methodology on that poll? Is, is this a legitimate poll? And I said, well, I give, I assume so.
It’s from Rasmussen. They’re usually pretty reputable. But it caused me to pull this poll oven. Look at the methodology, because it’s a good question. It’s a good question. There are some polling places that are more credible, more reliable, more accurate, more good faith than others. But a poll’s a poll. So I dug up this poll and looked into it and what I found was kind of interesting, so I thought I would share it with you. This poll itself was conducted, or this, it was survey. The survey was conducted of just 1000 people. So that’s a pretty small sample of people in our country. And of these 1000 people that were asked the question, is it okay to be white? 13% of the people who were questioned were black. Now that obviously is the percentage, 13% of the American population are is black. So that’s why they asked 13% of these thousand people, because they wanted it to be represent representative of the percentage of black people in our country as a whole.
But 13% do the math here, 13% of 1000 people is just 130 total black people. So in this entire poll, only 130 black people were even asked this question, which means that 47% of 130 means that 61 people, 61 black people, answered that they disagreed that it’s okay to be white or they were not sure. Now, maybe you’re surprised when you hear, oh, it’s only 61. They’re making this sweeping generalization about the bla about black people across our entire country based on the answer that 61 black people gave. And that’s a valid point. It’s actually a really good point to discuss. because I would say two things about this. First of all, I would say this is both problematic because it is hard to make an extrapolation for the entire country based on what 61 people said. However, this is also very typical of polls.
So the methodology in this particular Rasmussen poll is not different or corrupted in a way that skews or biases the outcome any differently than any other poll that we, that we believe, or that we operate, that we sometimes believe. I know we’re on this show, we’re kind of skeptical of polls, but it’s both problematic in the big picture. But in the small picture for this poll, there’s no reason why we would discount this poll just because it has a small sample size if we’re also not discounting every other poll that has sample sizes this size, which is basically every other poll. So what the question that I find the most interesting, and this is a question that was not answered in the methodology information of the Rasmus poll, is the 61 black people who answered that they disagreed or not sure about the statement, it’s okay to be white. Who are they? Who are they? Like, is, is this an accurate representation of the diversity of thought in the black community across our country?
Or is this like 61 brutal murderers that are all incarcerated right now? Because the who it is of these 61 black people who made this statement significantly impacts whether or not this poll is biased. And therefore, whether this poll could be an accurate representation of an ideology that’s embraced by a larger, a larger portion of the American black community at large, right? That matters. This really matters, this question of who are these black people? Because who are these individuals, I should say who answered this? Because who they are could either create bias or not create bias. And maybe, maybe by the way, the answer to this question wouldn’t change anything. Maybe we would find out that these 61 people who answered this are a pretty good representation age wise, socioeconomic status wise, career-wise, criminal record wise, all the different factors that can, that can add bias or not to a survey.
Maybe we’d find out, no, this is actually pretty representative. Or maybe we’d find out that it skews the outcome of the poll. I don’t know. It would be interesting to hear Rasmussen answer this. it is worth noting though. It’s certainly worth noting. So either we change the way that we do all polls in politics and make it a much bigger sample size or not, but it would, it’s a little disingenuous to selectively discard this particular poll or any particular poll based on the sample size, but allow other polls on other topics with the same sample size to stand and pretend that they’re credible. Can’t have it both ways here. The other thing that I wanted to add to this is the reason that so many people when they hear this number are both shocked because they should be shocked. But also the reason that so many people are willing to believe this number, to think, okay, that sounds credible based on my experience, is, is not because there are racists that are, the majority of people in our country are racist or white people are racist, or Republicans and conservatives are racist.
It doesn’t have anything to do. The belief in this, in this poll or the willingness to believe this number doesn’t have anything to do with racism from the people who are hearing about the number. But it does demonstrate to us, it does illustrate to us how pervasive the racist ideology of Critical Race Theory has become in our country. And the reason so many people are willing to say, well, that sounds like a horrendously large number or percentage horrendously, large percentage of black people. But okay, the reason they’re willing to believe that is not because they inherently believe something negative about black people based on the color of their skin. It’s because so many people in our country have seen and been impacted by the Critical Race Theory that’s in our workplaces, that’s in our corporations, that’s in our media, that’s in our school systems.
And they say, you know what? I find it believable that this many black people who’ve been targeted specifically by Critical Race Theory have fallen prey to Critical Race Theory. So the belief in this poll, or the willingness to believe has nothing to do with racial bias or racial animosity, has everything to do with with the pervasiveness of Critical Race Theory. And that is a reflection of the radical leftists who are criticizing conservatives for taking this poll at face value. It’s just another attempt by the Left to gaslight conservatives because they don’t want to address. What they don’t wanna do is they don’t wanna look at this poll and this story about Scott Adams being canceled in the bombastic extreme things that he said, his proposals which you can separate from his diagnoses, which I talk about at length in my episode from yesterday.
Again, go listen to that if you wanna know. I’m not gonna reiterate my entire breakdown of every single sentence that he said on his show. I did that yesterday. but the Left would rather talk about Scott Adams and accuse him of racism versus looking at the 47% of black people in this poll who said that they don’t believe that it’s okay to be white. They don’t want to look at that. They don’t want to say that is racism, that is a racial inferiority or racial superiority ideology That’s toxic, that’s poisonous. And so what the Left does is they try to gaslight us instead and be like, oh, you didn’t look at the methodology of this pool. Is this actually accurate? And they’d rather pretend that Scott Adams is racist. So I wanted to add onto that before we get to the Fauci stuff, which we are now going to talk about.
The Wall Street Journal published an article I wanna bring up exactly what date and time they published this. The Wall Street Journal published an article on February 26th at 4:29 PM Eastern time. This is February 26th, 2023. I should know, that’s actually the pertinent part of that date. The Wall Street Journal published an article titled Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of COVID-19 Pandemic Energy Department Now Says. US agencies’ revised assessment is based on new intelligence . So this article has created quite the fanfare. And I gotta tell you, I laughed when I saw this headline or the sub-headline that said, it’s based on new, this new assessment is based on new information. I thought, oh yeah. Okay. Congratulations Department of Energy for finally acknowledging what Well, you and I have known for almost three years that COVID-19 was not spontaneously passed from animals to people in some wuhan wet market, but was the result of a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Thanks for catching up. I’m sure you spent an untold number of our tax dollars to come to this conclusion when we could have told you the reality only would’ve charged you to 10 bucks for this. So the most important thing here is this sentence, and I wanna read you this exact line here. So it says, the US Department of Energy has concluded that the Covid pandemic most likely arose from a laboratory leak according to a classified intelligence report recently provided to the White House and to key members of Congress. The shift by the energy department, which previously was undecided on how the virus emerged, is noted in an update to a 2021 document by Director of National Intelligence Avril Hayes office. The new report highlights how different parts of the intelligence com intelligence community have arrived at disparate judgments about the pandemic’s origin.
The energy department now joins the Federal Bureau of Investigation in saying the virus likely spread via a mishap at a Chinese laboratory. Four other agencies along with a national intelligence panel still judge that it was likely the result of a natural transmission and two are undecided. This is the key line, though. The Energy Department’s conclusion is the result of new intelligence and is significant because the agency has considerable scientific expertise and oversees a network of US National Laboratories, some of which conduct advanced biological resource or research advanced biological research. So let’s focus just on that sentence for a second. New information.
This is wildly unbelievable, to put it lightly. This is not because of new information. The Department of Energy has reassessed what they believe was the origin of COVID-19, and then they put it in a classified document, they briefed Congress and then they leaked it to the Wall Street Journal because they wanted this article to be published. this is not because of new information, and we can tell that because you and I knew this, knew the origin of COVID without any access to classified information. We don’t have the sources, we don’t have the intel apparatus, we don’t have the surveillance capabilities of the federal government. And you and I knew this just based on open source information and a little cursory investigative journalism. It was very easy to figure this out.
The reason the Department of Energy, and this is illustrative of the entire Biden administration. This is not just the Department of Energy itself, but the reason the Biden administration wouldn’t acknowledge the origin of COVID-19 is because Dr. Fauci, who until two months ago, was in charge of all of this needed, the reason why the virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology to remain undercover. He needed that reason why to remain hidden. And he knew if he so much has acknowledged the possibility that the virus had leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the first question on everybody’s lips would be, well, why? How did that happen?
And he needed the reason kept in the dark. He re he needed that reason hidden because ultimately it was his fault. No, he wasn’t at the Wuhan Institute of Virology conducting these experiments himself, but he was funding them. He used the, he was in charge of the N I A I D, which is a sub-agency of the N nih. He gave grants to EcoHealth Alliance who in turn subcontracted this research, this money your taxpayer money in mine to the bat lady, Dr. She at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who conducted gain of function research on bat derived coronaviruses, which gain of function research juices up these viruses to make them more transmissible and more lethal to humans. This is against the law. This is against US government policy. It’s not allowed. It’s prohibited because it’s wrong, it’s dangerous, and it’s unethical. Why?
Because of things like this. Because even Dr. Fauci 10 years ago admitted that gain of function, while he said possibly potentially useful, has a huge drawback because there are lab accidents all the time. Things get leaked, things aren’t kept contained. And when people become infected with a virus that has been deliberately juiced up, this is, I mean, this is the same thing as biological warfare. The only difference is the intent that’s biological warfare is taking viruses that have been manipulated to be lethal against human beings and releasing them on the public in order to kill them. Well, what happened to the Wuhan institutional virology was the same thing, just without the intent of war, without the intent of human destruction. But the action is the same.
And gain of function is, this is the thing around which it all, it all revolves. Dr. Fauci funded that, although they pretended that it wasn’t gain of function, he denied it repeatedly to Rand Paul in the Senate. But we know the truth. Fauci knows the truth. Fauci needed to cover up the origin of COVID-19 because he knew if he so much as admitted there was a possibility that it leaked from that lab. He would be under the microscope. He would be asked, well, how did this happen? And we would soon find out what we found out anyway, didn’t need him to tell the truth. We found out anyway that he was partially responsible for this leak.
The White House, however, came to the defense of Dr. Fauci, the White House, Kareen Champer, the press secretary was asked about Fauci and Francis Collins, who is the head of the NIH, so ostensibly Fauci boss, more like a partner in crime, were asked, or Karine Jean-Pierre was asked about Fauci and Francis Collins in an email describing the lab leak theory, not just as unlikely or something that they were denying, but labeling it as a conspiracy theory. And this is what she answered.
One more on the lab leak news from Department of Energy with all of this information coming out. And obviously the president had ordered a multi-agency effort that included Department of Energy to try to, you know, get at the origin’s question. But looking, you know, with hindsight 2020 and now these conclusions coming out from parts of this administration, was it prudent to have at the time some administration officials voicing support for one Origins theory over another, like Dr. Fauci did? At a couple, in a couple instances, he said, you know, my belief is that it’s most likely natural transmission.
Dr. Collins at one point sent an email to Dr. Fauci that was discussing the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory. So given where we’re at now looking backward and with respect to how we talk about these things, if it ever happens in the future, is it, is it prudent to have members within the administration voicing support for one theory over another if there isn’t a consensus of that? So,
I do wanna speak to Dr. Fauci because the political attacks on someone like Dr. Fauci who and, and public officials more broadly, but Dr. Fauci, who has spent his career saving lives and you know, whether it was the AIDS epidemic or as we have just coming out of this uh covid, this once in a gen generation pandemic these attacks have been counterproductive. They have not been helpful. this is someone again, who has spent his almost entire career fighting for the wellbeing, the health of American people. And so I just wanna call out the political attacks.
I think, again, it’s not been helpful. Dr. Fauci himself has said he agrees with the president that we needed to get to the bottom of this, to get to the bottom of where Covid originated. And that’s what the president did from almost the, certainly the first few months of his administration. And we have been grateful again, we have been grateful to Dr. Fauci s wisdom. We’ve been grateful to Dr. Fauci advice during the Covid response. And we have been very, very clear here. We need, we need, we need to know more. we need to get to the bottom of how COVID-19 originated. And so that is why, again, that is why the president directed his IC and his intelligence committee community to get to the bottom of this. And so I’ll leave it there.
More broadly than Dr. Fauci, though. I guess what I’m getting at is, there was not so long ago a point where anyone asking the question of whether a lab leak was a credible theory that should be looked into, you know, a lot of those people were derided as, as fringe, you know, conspiracy theorists. So are there lessons learned? You know, looking back about how we discuss theories when we don’t have all
Of the, so what, here’s what I can tell you is the president’s commitment to getting to the bottom of this, right? That is what’s the most important, so that we can, you know, we can share this with Congress, we can share this with the American people. That is why he asked the ic to do its work. And right now, there is no consensus. There is no consensus. You heard this from Jake Sullivan yesterday. You heard this from my colleague just moments ago. And we are going to do everything that we can. The president is asking his team to do everything that they can to figure out where it originated because of what could potentially happen next because of the potential of having another pandemic. And I think that’s what’s most important. That’s what the American people should have confidence in, is that you have a president that wants to get to the bottom of this.
She is the worst, best press secretary in history. She’s the worst because it gives you actual physical pain to watch her because she’s so unable to speak coherently. But at the same time, she manages to drone on for what that was probably three minutes and not actually say anything. So she’s a perfect representation of the Biden administration. One phrase she mentioned, though, Dr. Fauci has dedicated his life to saving lives. Hold on just a second. Let’s back up there. And I’m not talking about backing up to analyze Fauci s role in the AIDS crisis. I think that Fauci laid, let’s just say this. Fauci used the same playbook for Covid that he had perfected during the AIDS crisis, where he took over medical laboratories by nature of funding them or not funding them based on whether they served his purposes. He’s highly tied to big pharma.
this COVID the way he handled Covid was not new. However, what I wanna focus on today is how Fauci responds to the Biden administration’s intelligence community’s assessment. That the lab leak theory is the most likely origin of covid. This is what Fauci, I wanna read this exactly, this is what Fauci said to the Boston Globe. He said, the only way we’ll know about the origin is if China opens up and we get American scientists, Canadian scientists, Australian scientists to go there to China and do the kind of surveillance in the wild. The problem is that they have attacked. He’s talking about the other side critics, you and I, they’ve attacked the Chinese so badly. The Chinese authorities act suspicious even when they have nothing to hide.
I read this and I thought, I actually had to read this twice, because I thought, oh my goodness. Dr. Fauci is actually blaming us for criticizing the Chinese Communist Party as the reason the Chinese Communist Party is not being transparent about the origins of COVID-19. Like this guy, this guy Gaslight of the year. And remember the definition of gaslighting here. The definition of gaslighting is to make someone else feel crazy out of their mind for holding a certain position. This is what Dr. Fauci, he is the king of gaslighting of all the nerve to blame us. If we criticize the Chinese Communist Party, it’s our fault that the Chinese Communist Party isn’t transparent enough that they act defensive, they act suspicious even when they have nothing to hide because of our criticism. Yeah, it’s our fault. That’s right. It’s our fault. That’s why, that’s why the Chinese, that’s why Xi Jinping is being so shady about this.
It’s not because they’ve been doing shady things. It’s not because the communists have been taking advantage of people just like Dr. Fauci to get American taxpayer funding of what’s essentially bioweapons research that they then intentionally or not unleashed on the world. That’s caused what? 7 million deaths is the official number. And I know some people like to quibble with what actually caused the deaths, but there’s no doubt that COVID-19, the virus has wreaked havoc on our globe.
But it’s our fault that we don’t owe the origin of COVID-19. That’s what Dr. Fauci says. And this is interesting, this gaslighting, this blame Dr. Fauci pointing his finger at you and me. This has become the PR or it is becoming. Watch this unfold before your very eyes. This is becoming the prevailing narrative from the Left. And MSNBC host by the name of Medi Hassan, is not blaming critics of China for why we don’t know the origin of COVID or why the Left refused to even consider the lab leak theory.
This MSNBC host is blaming critics of Fauci. This is what he tweeted. He said, the simple reason why so many people were not keen to discuss the lab leak theory is because it was originally conflated by the right with Chinese bio weapon conspiracies and continues to be conflated by the right with anti fauci conspiracies. Blame the conspiracy theorists, he said. Then he says, also ask yourself why so many people on the right lay people were obsessed with his one specific aspect of the science of covid, which by the view is still not the majority view among scientists. Was it because of their scientific curiosity? He says, let’s take a moment to answer that question, because that question, I think accidentally, I don’t think he realized that he was asking a very pertinent question, why were so many people on the right?
Why are so many people on the right so insistent that we identify the origin of COVID-19, because identifying the origin of COVID-19 isn’t going to help us find a cure or a treatment or even a mitigation. I understand that there’s a priority in an outbreak of a virus to work on stopping it instead of saying, well, how did this happen? But the reason so many of us understand the importance of identifying the origin of COVID-19 is because we understand the corruption that underlies it. We understand that this should not have happened. And it’s not just the Chinese communists that unleashed this on us. This happened as a result of Dr. Fauci s deliberate political and profiteering motives and behaviors. That is why the right has single-mindedly forced the Biden administration, agencies and intelligence community to actually admit what we have long known to be the most likely reality.
That COVID-19 leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, that it was a tampered with virus, perhaps subject to gain a function. Jew stuck, made more lethal, more transmissible among humans by scientists who got the money to conduct these experiments from Dr. Fauci. That is why the right, but according to this MSNBC host, the reason the Left was so hesitant to even consider this is because they didn’t wanna believe anything that the right said. They didn’t blame the conspiracy theorists. Msn b c says that’s the reason that he and so many others were too stupid to see realities who biased by their political ideology to see what lay right in front of their own eyes. So Fauci says, it’s our fault for criticizing China. And MSNBC hosts says it’s our fault for criticizing Fauci. It’s not their fault. It’s not Dr.
Fauci i’s fault. It’s not the Chinese Communist party’s fault. It’s not the Biden administration’s fault. It’s not even the Trump administration’s fault for elevating fauci. None of that. It’s your fault. It’s my fault. I found this to be extremely interesting for two reasons. First of all, when I read this, I thought, well, I’m genuinely curious, looking back on the past three years of COVID-19, I’m, I’m, I’m genuinely curious in an analysis of what exactly in the past three years has the Left gotten right about COVID-19? And I guess that question comes hand in hand with a little self-reflection. Those of us who have been locked down skeptics and have wanted to trace the fatality rate from the very beginning and wanted to find pharmaceutical interventions that maybe were preexisting and that were effective, those of us who well have been right, have we been wrong about anything?
As we compare it? So it’s a fair question, right? It’s a fair contrast. If we’re analyzing whether the Left has been right about anything, we should analyze whether we’ve been wrong about anything in the last three years. So I did a little self-reflection. have I been wrong about anything? Not from a sense of being prideful. Although I am proud of how we analyzed, how I analyzed the studies and the science and the practicality of all these different political policies, the information, the data and the science that we had to come to the conclusions that I’ve held since the very beginning of this pandemic. That’s something that I feel is an accomplishment. It’s an achievement. It was difficult. There was a lot of criticism and I am proud of that. But being proud of something is different than being prideful about it.
So I don’t, I don’t say this from a place of, oh, I’m bragging. Oh, I’m giving myself a pat on the back. No, I’m objectively looking, well, was I right about things? Did I do this well? Are there areas that I needed to improve? Did I get anything wrong? And there are two things actually in the past three years that I was not correct about. The first was for about the first week of the COVID-19 outbreak, I thought face masks had some effectiveness against respiratory viruses like influenza or COVID. We didn’t have any studies at that point testing masks against COVID-19. But there were some meta-analysis of masks against flu that appeared to show that they had some efficacy. So for about a week, I said, yeah, I mean, masks seemed to work, so go ahead and wear them.
Although I obviously did not agree at any point with any kind of mask mandate. When, however, the data showed that that was not the case, I followed the data and, and said, Nope, doesn’t look like that’s the case. So my policy position changed on that. That was a position that I held at the very beginning of the pandemic for a very short amount of time that I changed when the data changed. And I’m, I’m proud of that. I’m proud that, oh, you know, I can follow science and not some ideological commitment to something. there was also a viewpoint among some people who were, I call them covid skeptics, but it’s more like the government response to covid skeptics who said that natural immunity would prevent any reinfection. And that turned out not to be the case. There was some substance to the idea that if you got alpha, the alpha strain and you didn’t get it again, or if you got the delta strain, you didn’t get it again.
But at this point, you know, the omicron variants, the sub variants, it, you can get ’em multiple times. So that wasn’t, that wasn’t correct. That’s people on our side. There’s a couple of things that we did not get right in the last three years. But then you look at the other side, the other side, the Left, the Fauci, the MSNBCs, were they right? The, the Biden administration, the Department of Energy, the CDC, the NIH, all these people, were they right about any of the policies, any of the pronouncements, any of the advice that they gave or that they imposed on us? So I wanna kind of go through this list starting out with a fatality rate. Nope. They told us at the very beginning of the World Health Organization actually told us at the very beginning that the fatality rate of covid was 3.6%.
That wasn’t even kind of close to true, absolutely false. They were not right about who was at risk. They, they presented COVID-19 as if it posed an equal risk to everybody, all ages, all different kinds of comorbidities. That turned out not to be true at all, that children were barely at risk at all. elderly people were at risk, people who were obese were at risk. But unless you were elderly obese or had a serious comorbidity, then it was not equally distributed. The risk was not equally distributed. Asymptomatic spread, Nope, the Left was wrong about that.
They told healthy people to stay home. They quarantined healthy people. That turned out to be totally absurd ventilators. This was a widespread ha hospital intervention for people with COVID-19 at the beginning. And turned out that hospitals later said, listen, we did that because we were afraid of the respiratory droplets that would have, would’ve been breathed into the air by these covid patients.
Cuz they thought that those respiratory droplets in the air would’ve caused doctors and nurses to get sick. So they put people on ventilators, even though that turned out not to be a protocol that was effective. And actually, a lot of people argue that that was an extremely harmful intervention. They were wrong about that PCR r testing. They were certainly wrong about PCR testing. They did PCR testing so extreme, so many rounds of it, so many magnification levels that it identified dead virus in people that were completely asymptomatic. So, certainly not, certainly not contagious masks, lockdowns, business closures, schools being closed. they were wrong about all of these things. Every political intervention they were wrong about out the spread of COVID-19 outdoor, you know, closing out beaches, closing down sidewalks or, or walking trails, making people mask outside banning gatherings outdoors.
They, they were wrong about in restaurants putting that plexiglass barrier as if that would do anything. Social distancing, they were wrong about that. Vaccines, hospital overcrowding. They were wrong about everything. I can’t find one thing that they were, that they were right about it. And that they, I mean, they were wrong about the natural origin of COVID-19 versus the lab leak conspiracy as well. So if you’re analyzing who was right and who was wrong, it’s almost 100% right. Those of us who were skeptical of the claims from the World Health Organization from the very beginning about COVID-19 and spoke out immediately against lockdowns and social distancing and force masking and all of that, and the shuttering of our society. We were right about everything. And the other side, the side with the political power, the government officials, the public health officials, the World Health Organization, the UN, the CDC, the NIH, the administrative state, they were wrong about everything.
Everything. Those who claim to be the experts, they claim to be the science, they were wrong. And we were right. Here’s the interesting part. The interesting part is this is where January 6th plays into it. We are going to see the exact same thing happen once we’re able to view that 40,000, 44,000 hours of footage, that speaker of the house Kevin McCarthy gave to Tucker Carlson from around the capitol on January 6th. Once we see what happened on January 6th, we’re gonna see this same pattern of gas lighting happen to us. But about January 6th, and this is actually the same playbook. Let’s back up just a little bit. This is the same playbook that the Left used a couple years ago when the IRS targeted conservatives, you remember this, it was the IRS targeting the Tea Party. And they would identify terms like patriotism and eagle and liberty, and they would deny tax exempt status to organizations that use those, those names because they were trying to, to stifle and censor and cancel conservatives at first.
How did the IRS handle this? Well, they denied it. They blanket denied it. But then when the evidence became so clear and so obvious that this had happened, that no one believed the denial of the IRS, the IRS changed their tune. They said, well, this did happen, but it wasn’t institutionally endorsed. This was just some rogue employees. I think it was rogue employees out of Cincinnati that they blamed for this, but they denied institutional co coordination or institutional knowledge of this, right? And this is the same, this is the same thing that happened with COVID-19. They denied it. At first, no, this couldn’t have leaked from the lab conspiracy theorists. No way. This was natural origin. But then when it became so obvious and so clear that the reality of the thing was, yeah, COVID-19 most likely leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, we’ve all known this for years.
Congratulations on catching up to us with all of your classified intelligence. Then they said, well, it might have, but the reason, the reason that we couldn’t admit this was you, you know, the reason that we don’t know this for a fact is because you are criticizing the Chinese Communist Party. The reason we can’t believe this is because we didn’t want, we didn’t believe anything out of the mouths of conspiracy theorists. So it’s denial and then it’s gaslighting, and then it’s minor, minor admission of wrongdoing, but blaming it on a rogue employee or blaming it on you and me refusing to take actual responsibility. And this is what we’re going to see with the January 6th tapes when it becomes so obvious and so evident that it’s impossible to deny the Fed’s involvement. In January 6th, when we see wrongdoing from police, when we see for ourselves who is ginning up violence, who moved barriers, who opened doors, and it directly contradicts the narrative that’s coming from the Left.
They’re going to admit that feds were involved. They’ve denied it up to this point, but they’ll admit that Feds were involved. But they’ll do two things. They’ll deny institutional knowledge. They’ll deny that the FBI knew anything about this. They’ll deny that the Capitol police knew anything about this. They’ll just say, rogue employees did this without our knowledge. They violated our protocols. They weren’t supposed to do this.
That’s why we denied it. We denied it in good faith because we didn’t know they did this because it was wrong and they weren’t told to do this. And then they’ll say, the reason we didn’t investigate, the reason we didn’t know rogue employees did this is because we couldn’t focus on it because we were too busy defending ourselves against people like you Propagating the big lie, mark my words. It will be the exact same playbook that we see Dr. Fauci using that we saw the IRS using. We will see this unfold as soon as we see the details, the vindication, the exoneration, and the wrongdoing by government officials and informants at the Capitol on January 6th on those video tapes.
Thank you for watching. Thank you for listening. I’m Liz Wheeler. This is the Liz Wheeler Show.