How do you see this affecting midterms? I'm

glad you asked, because there's a lot that's not being talked about by, I guess, institutional Maha, which is why I appreciate Mary's voice on social media so much.

Basically, what's going on is since February, there's been a major pivot at HHS away from talking about vaccine issues.

And a bunch of White House officials who didn't have the courage to put their names behind their statements told the mainstream media, yeah, this isn't popular with voters.

So we're so we're pivoting away from again this like kooky maha stuff and they would constantly cite one particular poll or a couple of polls by Tony Fabrizio which is sort of Trump's go-to bolster on many issues often briefs cabinet officials about the direction of the administration very close to Susie Wiles and they said you know this is just really a loser which which I think doesn't pass the smell test, right? Because it's like, wait, we just won the election with these issues, not that long ago, you know? So it never made any sense to me.

And then I got leaked this poll that was never fully released where it showed something very different, much more nuanced, which is that people do really want more flexibility with the childhood vaccination schedule.

Voters of both parties do not trust the COVID vaccine in particular.

Can you talk about that a little bit and who he is and what that is?

Now, uh, can you describe some of the specifics that have to do with, um, women and, and potential, uh, miscarriages as a result of the different doses and, and perhaps, you know, uh, what the responses behind the scenes were like from the various pharmaceutical companies as well?

Yeah.

So we learned this last week from Fauci's phone that he was discussing with the CEC director at the time, Rochelle Walensky, and the surgeon general at the, uh, time, Vivek, uh, Murthy, that they were uncertain about the risk of women taking the COVID vaccine while pregnant, um, regarding the risk of miscarriage and also birth defects.

They were having this discussion around January 2021.

Yet three months later, they were saying, um, remember those, you know, uh, COVID briefings that the White House would do regularly? Um, they were saying in that very, you know, uh, well-watched, um, briefing to all of the American press and all of the American people, "Absolutely pregnant women should take this," you know? Um, they weren't g- giving women the information that they needed to make the proper risk-benefit analysis for themselves.

And the WHO, you know, no great conservative organization or anything [chuckles] was actually saying at the time, um, that they were not recommending that pregnant women take the vaccine if they were low risk for complications from COVID because of these uncertainties.

You know, pregnant women hadn't been enrolled in the clinical trials, uh, that the, the companies, you know, conducted to submit their applications to the FDA for, um, emergency use authorization and later, uh, full approval.

Yeah.

Now, can you describe some of the specifics that have to do with women and and potential miscarriages as a result of the different doses and perhaps what the responses behind the scenes were like from the various pharmaceutical companies as well.

Yeah, so we learned this last week from Fauci's phone that he was discussing with the CDC director at the time, Rochelle Walensky, and the Surgeon General at the time, Vivek Murthy, that they were uncertain about the risk of women taking the COVID vaccine while pregnant regarding the risk of miscarriage and also birth defects.

They were having this discussion around January 2021, yet... three months later, they were saying, remember those COVID briefings that the White House would do regularly? They were saying in that very well-watched briefing to all of the American press and all of the American people, absolutely pregnant women should take this.

They weren't giving women the information that they needed to make the proper risk-benefit analysis for themselves.

And the WHO, you know, no great conservative organization or anything, was actually saying at the time that they were not recommending that pregnant women take the vaccine if they were low risk for complications from COVID because of these uncertainties.

You know, pregnant women hadn't been enrolled in the clinical trials.

that the companies, you know, conducted to submit their applications to the FDA for emergency use authorization and later full approval.

Have you been able to interview any of the people within RFK Jr.'s group right now or Jay Bhattacharya or anybody that's gaining access to some of these documents?

Yeah

... and he wrote this op-ed in The Washington Post.

The headline is A Flu Risk Worth Taking, where he said the risk of a man-made pandemic, um, is worth it because of the promises of this gain-of-function research technology.

To my understanding, I've gotten some pushback from Angela Rasmussen on Twitter about this.

My understanding is that we don't have any major countermeasures, um, no med- or major medical advancements from those experiments that were, you know, nearly 15 years ago now.

Um, so people can come to their own judgments about whether, whether it's a flu risk worth taking, um, to risk a lab escape of a catastrophically, um, a fatal airborne virus-

Right

... and I think logically.

Can you talk through, one, how you found those, what documents, and then where you started to see the, the, the, the, the string of, I guess, cover-up is the, is the best word to use? Or, or, you know, using tactical language to, to push it down the road, so to speak?

Yeah, absolutely.

Well, I think one thing that we should note is that one report, um, was actually a, what they call a meta-analysis.

So, it looked at a bunch of different reports in the scientific literature.

Said, "Okay, which ones meet this rigorous criteria? And let's summarize the findings of them." And so, that one Harvard report that, um, Kennedy cited and that a bunch of people, you know, as you mentioned, were being critical of, was actually a summary of a bunch of the scientific literature, which we can see from these internal FDA reports were accumulating over the last decade or so.

And that very first report that sort of kicked off FDA reviewing the evidence, it should be noted, was published in the second most prestigious pediatric journal in the country.

So, this isn't some pre-print that hasn't been peer-reviewed.

(laughs)

Can you talk through, one, how you found those, what documents, and then where you started to see the, the, the, the, the string of, I guess cover-up is the, is the best word to use, or, or, you know, using tactical language to, to push it down the road, so to speak?

speak?Yeah, absolutely.

Well, I think one thing that we should note is that one report, um, was actually a, what they call a meta-analysis.

So it looked at a bunch of different reports in the scientific literature, said, "Okay, which ones meet this rigorous criteria, and let's summarize the findings of them." And so that one Harvard report that, um, Kennedy cited and that a bunch of people, you know, as you mentioned, were being critical of, was actually a summary of a bunch of the scientific literature, which we can see from these internal FDA reports were accumulating over the last decade or so.

And that very first report that sort of kicked off FDA reviewing the evidence, it should be noted, was published in the second most prestigious pediatric journal in the country.

So this is in some preprint that hasn't been peer reviewed.

This is rigorous science published in a journal that the FDA couldn't ignore.

Is that true?

Is he a, a political appointee or was this someone who rose up from within the, the NIH ranks?

Um, if I had to guess, I would say that Bhattacharya was blindsided.Um, you know, this new HHS is incredibly ambitious.

You know, the old HHS under Biden, you wouldn't hear from them for months, um, and with this new HHS, you know, they're tackling this enormous autism, um, study.

They're taking dyes out of food.

Um, they're, they're hitting the ground running and if I had to speculate, I would say, you know, Bhattacharya cannot, um, have his, uh, hands in every single, uh, intricate detail, and I think someone he trusted, uh, recommended this person, and it was, um, despite this long history.

And what I write in the piece is that it shows the, you know, despite the fact that you have these two upstarts in Kennedy and Bhattacharya who want enormous upheaval, um, of our nation's health agencies, it's running into the practical reality that they are facing an entrenched Washington bureaucracy.

Um, because again, these two gentlemen, you know, the people, the people who have popular support, um, they have been very vocal about the fact that gain-of-function research is dangerous to humanity, um, and that they aspire to end it.

And walk us through why what the Trump administration did on gain-of-function research would even be susceptible to being subverted by, by anyone, let alone it seems like the number one poster child and advocate for it.