mRNA flu Vax, Fauci’s contempt vote, and the Food distraction

we'll start to populate as time goes. I wanted to address a few things, things that happened this week, one of which is, everybody knew that the committee, Ron Johnson's committee voted to hold the science in contempt. I think the reason why they decided to do that is because he is enjoying the privilege of a presidential pardon, while also as a public official enjoying the privilege of the Fifth Amendment, which you don't get both, especially when you're questioned on a public interest discussion. He used the excuse that he'd be cornered into purgering himself, when even when Senator Hawley said, what color are your shoes? He invoked the Fifth when he said, what color is the carpet in front of you? He invoked the Fifth. So that doesn't hold water, which is why the committee went ahead and voted to hold him into contempt. That said, this has to also hit the entire Senate. I'm not holding my breath regarding how that would go because many vote on a partisan line when this is not a partisan issue, this is public health, this is the health of the public, this should be scientific and not political. But luckily we have an attorney who's also a physician, I'm gonna invite to speak because she's not there yet. And maybe she cannot put in her two cents, but I don't hold my breath that something's gonna happen. I think if anything, it's going to wake everyone up to say, hey, what about Francis Collins? What about Rochelle Wollensky? What about all of these other people that do not have a presidential pardon? Do we bring them into a forum or a committee to testify? Because I think that especially after what has been revealed with his government phone texts this week, that we see a different side, somebody pulled the curtain back of the mighty A's. So Dr. Gold, what are your thoughts on this contempt issue? Yeah, are you able to hear me? Yes, very well. Okay, perfect, I was unsure. Well, you were just mentioning the Fifth Amendment, so I just wanted to go over that for a moment. I think that's when you started to mention that I was also a lawyer. Yeah, it was pretty interesting, and then I'll get back to the contempt. It's pretty interesting to hear how often he invoked the Fifth. There's about, I came up with four reasons why the way he used the Fifth Amendment was inaccurate. First was, he gave, remember, about to give an opening statement, right? So in that opening statement, it was really very broad. Once the witness opens the door to a subject, then you're allowed to proceed on that subject. So he opened the door himself. So that actually contradicts how the Fifth Amendment is supposed to be used. This, this, right. The second thing he did, and I actually think this is kind of the biggest one, is that you are only allowed, well, we'll see if anybody enforces it, but you're really only allowed to use the Fifth Amendment as protection against a quote, real and appreciable danger, real and appreciable danger of criminal prosecution, not a hypothetical danger, right? So there was, there is no actual real and appreciable danger just yet in front of him. Plus, of course, the color of his tie and the color of the carpet, those are not real and appreciable dangers. And that's actually the law by the Supreme Court when they've interpreted the Fifth Amendment. So that was another way he did it. He also invoked the Fifth Amendment kind of generally. You know, he said it all the time, but invoking the Fifth is questioned specific. So that was another way. And of course, the biggest, which is the rhetoric, you know, he has the President of Shepardin, I actually do have sympathy for witness who wants to invoke the Fifth knowing that other criminal chargers might come along. I mean, if we're blessed, other states will come after Fauci. So I'm gonna just, it is impulse, but he should have been a lot more respectful. And of course, he's just a disrespectful person. That as you said, the committee vote came down totally on party lines. I think it was eight seven. Then it goes to the full Senate and actually, and you know, there's 53 of Republican senators and 47 that vote Democrat. I think two of them are social, full on socialists. Yes. You know, Bernie Sanders. But it was 53 to 47. And there's about five Republicans that are a bit squishy. Like Susan Collins is in Maine, is in a very kind of tight race now. And it's typical to Maine. Murkowski, all of them. Murkowski is the worst. And also Cassidy. Cassidy's on his way out. And he probably would really want to stick it to Trump on this issue. So on the other hand, Rand Paul and Ron Johnson are not gonna let up on this. So I'm actually more optimistic than I used to be. I don't know, Lynn could take that. I think there's, I think they really might hold them in contempt. That would be wonderful. I think holding him in contempt will send a message. And each state that is starting to open investigations into his actions will be more apt to go after him. And like I said, not just Fauci here, we see through the phone texts that, you know, others were warned and they went ahead and lied to the public. So Rachelle Wollensky, Frances Collins. The list goes on, even Redfield, who backed out and tried to blow a horn of, hey, this is wrong. Well, he's got a history of wrong himself. And those that are falling for it don't fall for it. He's just trying to get himself out of trouble. He's just as complicit. So I'm glad you said that because everyone was like on Redfield train and I was like, no, no, no, no, the guy did his own damage and he needs to be held accountable for that. Now absolutely, when he went on all of the shows to try to bolster his stance, which wasn't his stance in the beginning clearly. I have a question for Simondo. Simondo, so if he's held in contempt, what does that actually mean? Let me unmute myself, I apologize. Right, so it doesn't mean that much, but I do think Dr. Lynn is right that it would set a very good kind of precedent and he might have a domino effect. The reality is if you're held in contempt, it doesn't mean you're going to prison, it doesn't mean you're necessarily paying a fine. Eric Holder, I believe, was held in contempt and nothing happened to him. Steve Bannon was held in contempt and he went to prison. So it's very, very political. But I honestly don't think people are going to put an 85-year-old guy in prison. However, I do think Dr. Lynn is right that it's a little bit hard to ignore if there's an actual action that attaches to him. But that's all it is, Kat. It's only, it's a Senate hearing of contempt which Eric Holder went through and nothing happened to him. Well, we don't know. When Eric, yeah, when Eric Holder went through it, we had a very sympathetic and aligned administration to back him. We're not quite in that same situation right now. So we don't know, but it does set a precedent. I'm gonna let you know. No, it's, yeah. Excuse me, and I need to say one more thing. First of all, it is still a big deal even if the punishment doesn't usually attach to it. You know, it'll be a separate process. What punishment might look like. I think for someone like him, they might levy a fine and maybe, I don't know, maybe he would fight it. But remember, in addition, the very next day, Senator Rand Paul also sent a referral to the DOJ. Now he sent a referral multiple times in the past and the Trump administration never picked him up, which is disgraceful. Yeah. But he sent it on this issue. So he's asked the DOJ to actually look into the contempt issue. So that's actually a second that, so there's two processes playing out right now. The next Senate, full Senate vote, and the DOJ was asked to look at it. Normally, that doesn't happen. Normally, you would not normally send it to the DOJ. Correct. He's trying to bypass the partisan effect, I think. So we shall see, we shall see. What do you ladies think of of some of his text entries in his government phone? I'm sure both of you saw some of this. And David Weissman's up here I see. What are your thoughts on unveiling behind the curtain of the science? I mean, if, first of all, anybody else who wants to speak, you can just like knock me off. So David, if you want to speak, please go for it. I can't tell. If not, okay. I don't want to jump in and I'm being very polite because linen, cat, no, how polite I am. And I never interrupt people. I'm like, never. So, you know, so this week, was it this week? We saw, I think, the first of the few, there was a very, a couple of pages really of text messages from Anthony Fauci's phone. And I think the Senate Jones was focusing on the pregnancy issue, mainly. Yeah. Was everyone else's understanding of what happened just now? But there's like thousands of these messages and they have to go through them. And there's 35,000 messages. 35,000. So I mean, there's going to be some legitimately private information that they have to, they can't disclose about other people that have absolutely nothing to do with any of this sort of stuff. But they've got to protect those people, which is fair enough. So it's going to take a while. But anyway, so I was, you know, we sort of continue in the conversation from the web webinar that we just... Did he get knocked off? She did. So, so... So, hello. Can you hear me? Yeah, you're breaking in and out, David. I'm standing still. I'm doing absolutely nothing. I've got my phone plugged in onto a power source. I'm doing everything possible. So you guys know this happens during Zoom too. All of a sudden, David is not there. David's not there. I think he needs a Wi-Fi booster in his house. Let me know, David, I'll come and install one. OK, we've got one. But anyway, OK. You know, the thing is we ask for a booster. And some guys come around with the... Is it just me? No, it's David. OK, Simone, you're on back again. Yeah, no, I can't hear him. I'll just, I will just tell you that... What's frustrating? Oh, are you OK, David? Are you in a good spot now? I'm in the bad mood. I haven't moved. I haven't moved. Yeah, you're having trouble, unfortunately. And you keep going in and out. I don't want to... I'm going to find another place in my house. I'm going to sit next to the router and see if that's... OK, Simone, go ahead and I'll try and... OK. I think the pregnancy thing is super frustrating. I'm just speaking, you know, as... It's just an ordinary American citizen. You know, people on this call like we really understand that these are really important issues. I don't think the American public really gets this. But, you know, Lynn, Kat, you know, Mary, we all lived this. And people were asking us in real time. Should I take the shot? I'm going to get pregnant. I am pregnant. I'm having a miscarriage. This was a real issue. And you know, four years later, five years later, six years later, it sounds so dry, you know, on a paper. And I think most people don't get it or don't care. And I personally find that incredibly frustrating. And what bothers me the most is that this was so abnormal compared to how we treated pregnant pregnant women. Women, thank you. Until... Sorry about that. See how brainwashed I am living in society? But we had never, ever, ever treated pregnant women. Ever there was... It's just a golden rule. You do not take anything new or different when you're pregnant. It just wasn't a thing. And we just want to remind people you didn't... You were told women not to smoke, not even take a cigarette. Not to take a glass of wine. No, too cheap. Too cheap. Yeah. Like all of this and all of a sudden it's like, roll up your arm and give me the new stuff. That's what anger's me is that... Absolutely. There was a link. Actually, Lynn, I think you and I talked about this one. That study came out in New England Journal of Medicine, which was a garbage study that conflated the first, second, and third trimester risk, which no normal doctor could possibly conflate the risk to a pregnancy from the first, second, and third trimester. They're completely different risks. Correct. Early on, they're more genetic and later on, there's more like physiological with the woman's body able to bear a baby. But so when they put in a lot of people in that study that with third trimester, that just completely reduced the risk. So I don't know that this captures the imagination of the public, the way it does doctors. And I'm three because I know when I would see an urgent care pregnant woman, like every medicine to give them, I was like, can I give them this antibiotic? Can I recommend this over the counter? Because they can't keep them changing the guidelines, but you can give them or not. And then all of a sudden, oh yeah, this is... You can totally take it. It doesn't matter. The Pfizer insert said it hasn't been studied in pregnancy. We should... And some of them... Moderna say, Lynn, that you're not allowed to give them pregnancy? Yeah, Moderna said that they don't have adequate evidence that it should be given in pregnancy, regarding safety. And Pfizer said, yes, of course you can. And at the same time, physicians were going around telling everyone, it's totally fine to mix and match these products. If you took two Pfizer's, take a Moderna boost. If you took a Moderna, take a Pfizer. And never in history has this precedent been something that we would recommend without combination studies, without all of the safety under wraps. And none of...