Thank You, Dr. Fauci, with Jenner Furst

In the wake of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, human civilization has grappled with global chaos -- and, even now, experts disagree on the provenance of this infection. How did it get here? Where did it come from? In tonight's interview, Ben, Matt and Noel sit down with Jenner Furst, the award-winning documentarian and creator of "Thank You, Dr. Fauci," to learn more about his terrifying exploration into the questions surrounding the emergence of COVID. Is the official narrative correct ... or is there Stuff They Don't Want You To Know?

They don't want you to read our book.: https://static.macmillan.com/static/fib/stuff-you-should-read/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio.

Speaker 2 (00:24):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
name is Nol.

Speaker 3 (00:28):
They call me Ben. We're joined as always with our
super producer Andrew Treyfort's Howard. Most importantly, you are you.

Speaker 4 (00:35):
You are here.

Speaker 3 (00:36):
That makes this the stuff they don't want you to know.
If you are hearing this the evening it comes out, folks,
we are almost at the end of the calendar year,
a time for reflection, a time when we look back
and think, holy crap, how much stuff has happened over
just the past couple years.

Speaker 5 (00:55):
Everything's fine a couple last couple of weeks.

Speaker 6 (00:57):
It.

Speaker 3 (00:59):
Says, says the dog in the Burning Room, the cartoon dog.
We're relevant, We're on point. What memes We're a going
to come back?

Speaker 4 (01:06):
Actually, it's very releant since the NL just did it.

Speaker 3 (01:11):
Yes, yes, just so. And like the rest of the world,
we your faithful correspondents, are in the wake of an
ongoing pandemic, something that fundamentally rocked the planet. Everyone is
still trying to figure out what happened, how it happened,
what it means for the future. And there's this continuing
war of narratives and theories, And as we've discussed previously,

(01:34):
people still argue to this day about the origins COVID nineteen.
Was it naturally occurring zoonotic infection from a wet market
in Wuhan. Was it a lab experiment gone wrong? This
is a heavy sensitive subject even now at the end
of twenty twenty four. Luckily, guys, we are joined this
evening by one of the world's foremost researchers on this case,

(01:59):
these dilemmas, these questions, the award winning director, executive producer,
studio exec and creator of Thank You, Doctor Fauci. Folks,
we proudly welcome Jenner first to the show. Thanks for
coming on, man.

Speaker 7 (02:13):
Thank you for having me, guys.

Speaker 4 (02:15):
Just as a real Jenner first for the show.

Speaker 5 (02:17):
Get it, because boy, I'm really sorry, sorry.

Speaker 7 (02:21):
I really wish that was the first time.

Speaker 5 (02:24):
Of course saying the first Noel to me and I say,
they're so creative and clever. It's true that, you know, Ben,
I couldn't help when you were doing that fantastic intro,
just thinking about how I haven't thought about this stuff
because it has not really been in the news a lot,
you know, since the you know, it was almost like
overloaded when it was first kind of happening to us,

(02:46):
and then all of the kind of post mortem, but
no one's really talking about this stuff as much as
you think they should be in general. I can only
imagine that that perhaps led to your exploration to some degree,
or you know, at least a moment when we need
to hear about some of them, this kind of stuff,
what may have actually happened.

Speaker 7 (03:02):
Yeah, it's interesting you say that. I think we hear
about a lot of things, and then we don't hear
about a lot of things, And I don't think that's
a coincidence, and I think therein lies the story. Guys,
It's a lot more than meets the eye. Let's just
say that.

Speaker 3 (03:20):
Hey, you you have a track record too for anybody
somehow unfamiliar. You are a two time Peabody Award winning,
four time Emmy nominated director, and you have this cavalcade
of diverse, impactful explorations of society that we could argue
go across genre with one thing in common, telling us

(03:42):
the stuff they don't want you to know about a
given subject.

Speaker 6 (03:46):
Oh, dude, the pharmacist right hotly crap.

Speaker 4 (03:49):
Fire for.

Speaker 6 (03:51):
Yeah, yeah, but I'm just the pharmacist, Jenner. When I
saw that for the first time, I was like, oh
my gosh, this dude is my hero. Like I immediately
connected with the subject of that documentary. If you have
not watched The Pharmacist, go watch it right now and
then immediately watch Thank you, Doctor Fauci.

Speaker 3 (04:10):
And I can confirm by the way Jenner, Matt is
telling the gods honest right there, because when Matt saw
The Pharmacist, he reached out to us and said, guys,
we got to check this out.

Speaker 2 (04:21):
We talked about it on the show. It was so good.

Speaker 7 (04:23):
Yes, ironic. The Pharmacist came out in February of twenty twenty.

Speaker 2 (04:28):
So are you serious?

Speaker 7 (04:30):
Well, circle right there.

Speaker 2 (04:32):
There we go.

Speaker 3 (04:41):
Now with that, let's like, now we're talking a little
bit about context. So before we dive into the deep water,
and we do have quite a few things we'd like
to glean your insight on here, Jenner, can you tell
us what where you were at in life, what was
going on in your head, what first led you to
the creation of Thank You, Doctor Fauci.

Speaker 7 (05:05):
Well, I think it's very interesting because actually when I
had finished and premiered The Pharmacist, I had been contacted
by these producers who wanted to attach me as a
director to this film about Anthony Fauci's work in Africa.
So this is twenty twenty. He's just becoming a household

(05:25):
name as the pandemic is starting to pick up, and
I developed this project. I had his contact, I had
done my initial research. We took the project out. This
was about Pepfar, an initiative in Africa which tried to
stop the AIDS pandemic. It involved President Bush and Bono

(05:49):
and it was a pretty crazy story and no one
bought it. And so I went on and directed I
believe three during the pandemic. So I was very busy,
and I was very lucky. And my personal life and
all the different things that we all experienced and suffered

(06:11):
through I experienced. But I was busy, and like I said,
fortunate because the industry, my industry supported remote working, and
I was able to keep directing and people wanted content.
And in late twenty twenty three, my attorney contacted me

(06:31):
and said they're these independent television producers. They have raised
their own personal finances and they want to attach you
to this project. They're looking for an accomplished director who
will independently investigate a story. And before I tell you,
I just want to warn you it's controversial. You may

(06:54):
find them crazy. I promise they're good guys, and you should.
You should hear them out. And so I take a
call and these producers, Lewis Fenton and Scott Saint John,
they tell me that they believe that Anthony Fauci has
done terrible things and that he lied, and he lied repeatedly.

(07:15):
And you know, this wasn't a big shock to me. Unfortunately,
I'm a very cynical person. I can't say I skipped
a beat in the beginning of the pandemic when conversations
about Wuhan began, because it's logical, right, there's a laboratory
in the same city where the outbreak happened. I believe
that governments lie, that the media lie, all those things.

(07:39):
But I had been whisked away like everybody else, and
you know, caught up in the craze and the dividing
nature of this topic. I was vaccinated. I saw my
own friend group kind of get fractured around that issue
my own family. I saw the politically charged nature of
the story, and I found myself subconsciously align with a

(08:01):
side of this story, you know, regardless of the fact
that I've been conditioned to accept everything that I would
soon discover. I was manipulated into kind of just going
with the herd, so to speak. And so I listened
to them and I said, look, I don't do head pieces,
I don't do witch hunts. If you want to just

(08:23):
do a takedown of Anthony Fauci, I'm probably not the
right guy. Give me a couple of days. Let me
go and see what is out there as far as
evidence is concerned, because I don't, you know, I don't
just want to jump in. I want to see where
the reporting is to date, and I want to get
back to you guys. I spent about three hours on
the Internet and immediately saw that there were almost two

(08:45):
hundred thousand pages of evidence that had been released over
the last two years since I was looking. And it
wasn't the substance of this material that shocked me the
most was that I had lived in a bubble where
every major media outlet that I trusted like the New

(09:06):
York Times, the Washington Post, you know, other major outlets
like that, had avoided this story. They had avoided not
just the reporting of the grants and the funding and
all the different connections that Anthony Faucci and the United
States government had to WUHAN. They had even avoided the

(09:27):
bombshell grant proposal from twenty eighteen, which is before the
pandemic happened, to do work on coronaviruses and essentially create
a virus that looked identical to COVID before the pandemic
started in the same city that the pandemic originated. And

(09:47):
so I was, you know, I felt like a sucker.
And that's what really got me looking deeper. And that's
how I'm here right now.

Speaker 6 (09:56):
And just to be clear, that is that is ever
that you found. That is not somebody on social media
talking about this thing. This is research that you did
in an actual piece of like primary documentation that you
can find this proof that correct.

Speaker 7 (10:14):
Yeah, that's what's so shocking is that you of course,
we know there's a lot of talk on social media,
and I think a lot of social media gets dismissed
as just conjecture or you know, opinion, but this evidence,
this actual source material, verified grant proposals, verified emails, freedom

(10:39):
of information lawsuit materials that had been released drip and
drab for three years straight, even that had been discussed
on social media. And so, first of all, I was
mortified that the paper of record, the you know, democracy
dies in darkness, you know, the Fourth Estate, had avoided

(11:02):
this story. And even more shocking to me was that
they continued to promote a natural origin. And I started
to see that a lot of these scientists who are
out in front talking about the pandemic in this stratified
landscape where if it's blue, you know, it's natural, and

(11:24):
if it's red, it came from a lab, and Faucy
is evil, and you know, just a very very black
and white story. But I started to see that who
I had previously associated, who had been conditioned to associate
with as a progressive, was getting the story completely wrong
and in fact was potentially propagating a lie and doing

(11:47):
so in a way that was absolutely horrifying to me.
And the more I looked into it, the more I
saw that it was way worse than I even thought.

Speaker 3 (11:56):
General, we got to get to it, you and your
tea have in depth at interviews with multiple experts, and
one thing that I greatly appreciate, I think we all
greatly appreciate about this exploration is that we're not introduced to,

(12:16):
you know what false dichotomies and media would call whack
jobs or wing nuts or anything like that. One of
the first folks that you introduce us to in this
piece is and you reminded me of this when you
talk about seeing all these experts come up and make
speeches adhering to a narrative. You introduce us to doctor

(12:37):
Robert Redfield, one of the guys who is not making
a lot of universally propagated conversations about COVID, despite the
fact that he is the director of the Center for
Disease Control from twenty eighteen to twenty twenty one. For
a lot of us watching the film, doctor Redfield seems

(13:00):
to have some surprisingly strident differences of opinion and perspective
from those of doctor Fauci. Could you tell us a
little bit about his contentions and a little bit about
how you guys got connected.

Speaker 7 (13:15):
Yeah, I mean, what I discovered was there was a
community of people who had been on the inside of
this story who had investigated it and who within the
scientific establishment had fought Anthony Fauci not just about COVID,
but about a lot of things, about this really controversial

(13:37):
form of research called gain of function. And doctor Robert
Redfield happened to be one of those people, and he
happened to be in a very very important role during
the pandemic, at least when the pandemic started, and I
was introduced to him from a very unlikely person. So

(13:59):
as I began to fall down the rabbit hole, one
person would introduce me to another person, to another person,
and so, you know, you get in touch with Richard Ebright,
and Richard Ebright says, you know, you need to talk
to these people, and you need to talk to Jeffrey Sachs.
And so I talked to Jeffrey Sachs, who's a you know,
renowned progressive, left leaning economist, and he says, you know,

(14:22):
you must talk to doctor Robert Redfield, who was a
Trump appointee and the CDC director. And so right off
the bat, everything went against the political conditioning that we
are all you know, supposed to have, and these people
were united not about you know, some kind of commentary
or opinion, but about the hard, cold evidence, and Redfield

(14:45):
had been ostracized. And if you look at the press
of the CDC director at the time of the original outbreak,
at the time that the pandemic began to spread around
the world, the CDC director and the CDC were blamed
for a lot of the problems. And if you even
look at Anthony Fauci doing press, he will say things like,

(15:07):
I'm just following the guidance of the CDC, And what
I learned was it was the complete opposite, and that
the CDC director, Bob Redfield, was essentially powerless, and that
within that agency HHS, you have the FDA, you have
the CDC, and you have the NIH. And at the

(15:27):
time the HHS director was Alex Azar. But the person
with the most seniority, who had been in HHS for
the longest, who had understood that bureaucracy better than anyone,
was Anthony Fauci. And I think for anyone on the inside,
they knew that Anthony Fauci was the most powerful person.

(15:48):
And so in talking to Bob Redfield, it was immediately
clear that everything about this man, about this doctor, about
this scientist, about his opinions, about the actual things that
transpired in the early days of COVID was wrong, and
that there had been some cover up. There was a
series of events that the public had no idea happened.

(16:14):
And Bob Redfield is the most inside person. And not
only is an inside person to the outbreak and to
the early days of the pandemic, he's someone who knew
Fauci for forty years. He was on the ground during
the AIDS pandemic in the very beginning. In fact, he
did a lot of very important work. And when we

(16:36):
look back at history, it's very ironic because Anthony Fauci
takes credit, you know, as one of the heroes of
the AIDS pandemic, but it was actually the opposite when
the pandemic happened, and people like Redfield represented really good, honest,
ethical science. He was one of the first people to say,
this isn't a gay disease, this is transmitted by bodily fluids.

(16:58):
He was treating people in the army, and I think
that I immediately understood that Bob Redfield had no interest
in fame. He had no interest in parleying his experience
into a platform. He didn't have a lot of social
media followers, and he didn't create a lot of wealth
after the pandemic. He had no endorsements, he didn't work

(17:21):
for a pharmaceutical company, he doesn't worked for a powerful
lobbyist group. He's just a doctor who was on the
front lines of the pandemic as the CDC director, and
everything he did and everything he thought was covered up.

Speaker 5 (17:36):
Well, you know, in the documentary, Redfield goes so far
as to even express more than mild annoyance that Fauci
kind of seemed to take it upon himself to become
the spokesperson more or less.

Speaker 4 (17:47):
That he doesn't.

Speaker 5 (17:48):
Phrase it as though he's stealing his thunder. He just
kind of says that was a little interesting. He was
very aggressive about putting himself forth to being the kind
of poster child for this wet market theory, which is
kind of the prevailing theory they were pushing that would
go against this idea of a lab leak in Wuhan. Instead,
it was the idea that this zoonotic you know, virus

(18:10):
was created naturally, I guess, for lack of a better
way of putting it, at one of these web markets
in Wuhan. Why do you think Fauci was such a
good poster child. I guess of this.

Speaker 7 (18:25):
Theory, well, I think that Anthony Fauci has an incredible
bedside manner. And in addition to having an incredible bedside manner,
he has a lot of experience in Washington and has
weathered many different news events, scandals, movements, and time presidential administrations.

(18:50):
He is someone who's you know, butter doesn't melt in
his mouth, or at least that's what it looks like.
And the reality is that Fauci has been the frontman
for an aggressive biodefense agenda for the last twenty years.
And contrary to what liberal progressive Democrats may believe, the

(19:12):
man who gave him the most power in his career
was Dick Cheney. And in the wake of nine to eleven,
when all of these different rights and regulations and structures
were being taken apart of yeah right with the excuse
of terrorism, biodefense had the same filter. And it was
the anthrax attack that put Anthony Fauci on a direct

(19:36):
course to become the number one person in biodefense. The
problem was there was no real regulation and that Cheney
had taken biodefense out of the Pentagon in the Defense Department,
where it was heavily regulated, where there was a lot
of compliance review, and he had given it to an
agency where there was none of that. And billions of
dollars went into this research, and there had been scientists

(19:59):
fighting that, and even scientists like Redfield who witnessed this
whole transition, who were very skeptical and who felt like
the research that was being done was not research that
was going to make the planet safer that in fact,
it was the opposite. It was research that was going
to create more and more risk for everyone because.

Speaker 5 (20:20):
It's dangerous to contain or some of these labs were
not set up in such a way to have a
robust protection against these potential leaks.

Speaker 7 (20:30):
Biological weapons or weapons of mass destruction, and unlike nuclear weapons,
a biological weapon that could wipe out the human race
can be created in a high school chemistry lab. And
that is just a scary reality that anyone who knows
about biological weapons knows is true. And so there were

(20:53):
these technological advances that made this field of biological weaponry
and biodefense a lot more sophisticated. And we all know
about Crisper, and you know genetic sort of editing. This
was happening in viruses, and you know, this has the

(21:14):
potential to take a common cold and mix that cold
with HIV, or mix you know, a bird flu with
a bola, or take some characteristics of one virus that
transmits in a respiratory way with a virus that was
never you know, airborne. And this type of research was

(21:36):
popularized by Anthony Fauci. A lot of people were arguing
that this was a Pandora's box and that once you
open it, you can't close it again, and that once
you know, one mistake could wipe out the human race
or could create a pandemic that you know, the world
had never seen.

Speaker 6 (21:56):
And with that, we're going to take a quick break.
Hear a word from our sponsors. Will be right back.

Speaker 3 (22:08):
We've returned. Let's dive back in, Jenner. What you just
explained in very approachable terms for anyone unfamiliar is the
idea of gain of function, right, giving new abilities to
life forms, be they viral or something else that ordinarily
did not exist in the wild. And I want to

(22:30):
go back to something that you mentioned here because it's
definitely a sticking point, not just on a scientific level,
but on a deep philosophical level for a lot of
the scientists and experts you interview, which is the binary
or purported binary difference between bioweaponry research and biodefense research.

(22:56):
At more than one moment, we see experts that you're
speaking with to seem like almost righteously indignant about the
idea that how did they put it? In one in
one conversation, the idea that the best way to protect
against bioweapons is to research into how we make bioweapons.

Speaker 4 (23:17):
Which is just making bioweapons.

Speaker 7 (23:21):
Yeah, that's actually Redfield who says that.

Speaker 3 (23:23):
Right, It's a lot. Yeah, it's a lot like the
fire department saying, you know, guys, as the fire department,
what we need to do is start more house fires
because that'll help us figure out how to put them
out later.

Speaker 7 (23:37):
Yeah, except you know, imagine that with you know, h bombs,
because you know these are fires. Viruses have arguably billions
of years more evolution than humans, and they evolve faster
than we can even understand. I mean, obviously a virologist
than a microbiologists molecular biologists could tell you how fast

(24:02):
these viruses evolve. But within days, within weeks, a virus
can completely change and so we're playing with organisms that
arguably do things that we can't necessarily predict. And like
many people have said, where these scientists were playing God

(24:22):
or playing master of the universe, or you know, playing
master of evolution. And I think that that is a
dangerous concept and really an archetype in science for years.
I mean, this is one of those stories that is
so essential mythological. It's a fable, it's a parable. You know,
it's when you fly, you know, it's icarus. You fly

(24:44):
too close to the sun, your your wings melt. And
that's essentially the type of work that Faut she was
doing while enjoying incredible celebrity and enjoying the power he
gained from being the largest funder of biomedical research in
the world and someone who had a secret parallel budget

(25:06):
with the Defense Department to shell out even more billions
that were not recorded. And you know, it's ironic that
after all that time, a pandemic happens arguably from this research,
and we are completely unprepared for the pandemic, which was
the reason why this research happened in the first place.

(25:29):
In fact, a lot of this research was connected to
an mRNA vaccine for coronaviruses, which you know, the initiative
sprung from the original Stars outbreak years ago in the
early odds, and for years, this idea that a Stars
virus could be another pandemic or biological weapon, or simply

(25:51):
something to focus on in vaccine technology actually propelled a
lot of the research that resulted in the pandemic at
and so you couldn't have a more ironic and tragic
closed loop system where the research that was supposed to
prevent a pandemic ended up causing a pandemic for which

(26:14):
society was not prepared for. And then now we are
actually more at risk for another pandemic like the one
that just happened because we never told the truth about
how it happened. We never regulated a damn thing, And
in fact, the lie about natural origin led to even
more funding around researching viruses that come out of nature,

(26:36):
when in fact these viruses don't come out of nature,
and that the next killer is not going to be
a natural virus, it's going to be the result of
the same research that caused the last one.

Speaker 6 (26:45):
So one of the things we always like to do
on this show is follow money trails, which is something
you do here, and that's what we're talking about right now.
Who were the individuals and companies that were inside that
web of profiting like to a ridiculous amount off of
this terrible thing that happened.

Speaker 7 (27:06):
You have a cottage industry of scientists who their whole
careers were financed by Fauci's grants and by the other
accomplishments and accolades created from this type of research. And
of course those scientists on an individual level, they want

(27:27):
the research to continue. And then you go up the
ladder and you have different biomedical and biotech companies that
provide pieces of a vaccine or provide pieces of technology
that is very much benefited from this type of research continuing,

(27:48):
and you have them on the food chain. And as
you continue to go up, you have pharmaceutical companies specifically
in vaccine development, who almost all of their search is
subsidized by Anthony Fauci in the United States government. You know,
they're getting money from the United States government to do

(28:09):
this research and ultimately they profit from this research and
all of it is subsidized, so of course they're incentivized
to want this research to continue. And then you have
sort of an aspect of this equation that involves a
lot of money but is not meant to be seen

(28:29):
by the public. And that's the involvement of the intelligence community,
and that there's actually a connection between the intelligence community,
venture capital, this research, vaccine development, and biotech companies. And
so you have to ask yourself, how the hell is
that food chain all connected ethically and without raising extreme

(28:54):
suspicion from the average person, And there isn't a good
answer for.

Speaker 3 (28:58):
It, And what else does it tell us about the
larger context. We're so glad you're bringing this part up
because this is a heck of a wrinkle. There is
an alleged devil's bargain. Or let me step back for
a second and just highlight the note you made their
Jenner about the funding and the origin of the funding.

(29:18):
Fellow American listeners, that means you paid for it. Just
a side note for that one. When we're talking about
intelligence agencies in Thank you, doctor Fauci, there is this
concept of what we could call a Faustian bargain, a
devil's bargain, the idea that the United States, through various

(29:39):
Matroshka dolls of interaction gave the nation of China incredibly
sophisticated technology and funded research. Tell us what you think
as a way of aiding their goal of spying on
Chinese labs.

Speaker 4 (29:53):
Is that correct?

Speaker 7 (29:55):
Well, yeah, of course that isn't the story that makes
the news. The story, sorry, that makes the news is
usually a story that doesn't even talk about that. But
if you look back at the news that was happening
around the time that the United States government was endorsing
and supporting this research, around twenty fourteen twenty fifteen, you'll

(30:17):
see this idea that science brings nations together, that science
is the great uniter, that like the International Space Station
for example, this is something that all of our great
scientists around the world can do benevolently, and this can aid,
you know, international relations. And the reality is one that

(30:38):
is far more sinister than that, and that when it
comes to the greatest threats to humanity, it isn't nuclear weapons.
It isn't what you see on the news about Iran
and its nuclear program. It's biological weapons. And the new
arms race that was taking place was between the United
States and China to world powers, one that was very

(31:02):
dominant in this space and another that wanted to catch
up China and wanted to advance an agenda and become
a leader in this space, and did not have the
same regulations as the United States and did not have
any interest in being compliant to the Bioweapons Treaty or
any of these other safeguards, and that they essentially the

(31:25):
intelligence shows that they set very ambitious goals. And this
was known in the intelligence community for years. And there
was sort of this problem in China where they didn't
have certain aspects of technology, they didn't have certain aspects

(31:47):
of intellectual property or talent who understood how to use
this technology. And they called that the stranglehold problem. And
they ended up partnering with the French to build out
the wuhanans to the Virology's Biosafety four lab. This was
the most sophisticated lab in China to handle the most

(32:07):
dangerous pathogens on the planet, and the French lent most
of their knowledge and a lot of the technological expertise
to build this lab, to train the Chinese on how
to operate the lab, and ultimately the French were kicked
out at the last second before the lab was ready

(32:30):
to be functional, and the Chinese assumed control of the lab,
and this sent signals I think in the intelligence community
that the Chinese intended to use the lab for bioweaponry
and for research that was adversarial in nature. And this
is around the same time that you see the funding
to that lab from the United States increase, and where

(32:54):
you see scientists who are highly suspicious individuals who run
quote on profits like Peter Dashik and Eco Health Alliance
start to do more research at Wuhan as a pass
through right, as essentially something that can receive money from
the United States government and then distribute it with even

(33:14):
less regulation than the government had at the time, which
was scammed.

Speaker 5 (33:18):
So it's a way of conducting this kind of research
without being directly tied to it, or it's almost like
a loophole to get around like the Biological Weapons Convention,
which essentially prohibited development, production, acquisition, stockpiling of biological and
toxic weapons. Like is that the idea that this sort
of gives this layer of plausible deniability or what?

Speaker 7 (33:37):
Yeah, that's exactly what it is, and that's what it
was from day one. So even before you have what
is going on in Wuhan around twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen.
You go all the way back to two thousand and one,
around the time of the anthrax attack, when you know
we began to do this research aggressively to make a
quote vaccine or to stock pile vaccines for potential weapons agents.

(34:04):
The loophole is by design in order to make a countermeasure,
you have to create the agent itself. And so as
long as your research is defensive in nature, it's permitted
in the Bioweapons Treaty. Or you can make defensive measures,
but those could involve the creation of an offensive agent

(34:28):
and that is kosher.

Speaker 6 (34:30):
So let's talk about a very specific instance of this
that it's a proposal there comes to us in the
form of a proposal that was sent to DARPA in
twenty eighteen by EcoHealth Alliance. It was a proposal that
was rejected. I think you mentioned it in the documentary
as the Diffuse Proposal or what are they called DC

(34:52):
sign I believe.

Speaker 7 (34:53):
No, it's the Yes, it's the Diffuse Proposal, which was
drafted by EcoHealth Alliance with the contryributions of Shijing Lie
at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ralph Barrick at
UNC Chapel Hill, and these are really the main players
in this story. Underneath Anthony Fauci is this web of

(35:15):
scientists who were doing research at Wuhan or who were
connected to Wuhan, And this proposal predates the pandemic and
outlines essentially a blueprint for how to create a virus
that looks identical to COVID nineteen in its sort of effect.

(35:35):
And of course plausible deniability is to you know, look
at every little nuance of the actual virus, which has
evolved countless time since it was released, and you know,
for people like Fauci to say that, well, this has
no connection whatsoever, and of course it was never funded,
which we also believe is a lie.

Speaker 2 (35:56):
Exactly.

Speaker 6 (35:57):
So this whole, this recent arch was meant to insert
fer and cleavage sites in SARS viruses, like, as you're saying,
a blueprint for what SARS cove two became. And I
can we just hit really quickly on why that fer
and cleavage site is so important to the genome organization
of this virus and.

Speaker 4 (36:17):
What that is and what it might indicate.

Speaker 7 (36:19):
Right, So, the what gain of function does over time
is identify different aspects of a virus or an organism
that contribute to a key function, and if you want
to add that function, if you want to gain a function,
you use certain attributes and fur and the fur and

(36:42):
cleavage site is very complex and something that I think
a layman may have trouble understanding. But the simplest way
to explain it is that this is a component that
was well known and understood to make viruses airborne, inspiratory
and very very infectious. So if you took a virus

(37:04):
that maybe didn't have an easy time transmitting in humans,
if you added a fer and cleavage site, you would
have a very infectious virus. And that I think is
really the first smoking gun in the story, because as
the outbreak is happening and as it's becoming a global pandemic,
the genetic sequence is released by the Chinese and it

(37:27):
has this immediate sore thumb sticking out, which is the
fer and cleavage site. Many scientists pointed to that, and
they looked at the genetic comparison of other coronaviruses that
were similar, and there were a lot of anomalies. The
most striking one was this fern cleavage site. It had
not existed in this way in any other virus and

(37:49):
essentially made a virus that would spring loaded to infect humans.
And so the whole logical, you know, explanation for this
being a natural virus started to fall away for a
lot of people, including doctor Bob Redfield, because you have
a virus that immediately is infecting humans, when if it

(38:11):
was natural, there would be several evolutions and there would
be a way to track those evolutions in other animals,
other host species, and ultimately into humans. And instead you
had a virus that wasn't even infecting bats, that was
being blamed on bats, but was essentially transmitting like wildfire.

(38:34):
Bob Redfield says he believes it's the second most infectious
virus in history, and it's being blamed on a bat
in a wet market and there isn't even evidence of
where that incident occurred. Meanwhile, by the time we were
reporting it, little did the world know this had spread

(38:54):
around the globe probably three times. That by January of
twenty twenty, this virus had most likely gone around the
globe multiple times. And so the fir and cleavage side
to kind of tie it all together. The reason why
this virus was so infectious, the reason why it was
an airborne virus, and the reason why it was so

(39:16):
suspicious is because it used this thing, this tool, this attribute,
which was well known and gain a function to make
it that way, and scientists on the inside knew that.

Speaker 3 (39:28):
On day one, will pause here for a word from
our sponsor, and then we'll be back with more from Jenner.

Speaker 8 (39:35):
First, and we've returned, let's jump right back into our
conversation with Jenner.

Speaker 3 (39:48):
And this is where this is where we get to
the idea of narrative war. Right, you mentioned you mentioned
Dasik or Pete. Know him well enough to call Pete.

Speaker 7 (40:01):
So it's a lot of different pronunciations. They have called
him doctor Evil. Yes, I believe the actual Foyas. There
are scientists who are making essentially a fraudulent science paper
who call him the Grand Wizard of phylogeny. He is
a quite a a interesting guy.

Speaker 3 (40:24):
From the word right, sorry, and yeah, that that was
what you're referring to. There is a statement from Neil Harrison,
a PhD, who didn't want to use the F word, uh,
the F word being fraud. This is interesting, Jenner, because
we've we've already sort of alluded to this idea of

(40:44):
again narrative war of experts in their field, world class
experts who are somehow sidelined in the race to figure
out what the f is going on. With our guy
Pete here, I'm particularly interested in the role he played.
It seems like there are may be multiple roles in

(41:05):
getting together a group of scientists who would march in
lockstep with the wet market conclusion or the wet market theory.
And there's a lot of time spent in I mean,
you and your team and your partners find some pretty
disturbing internal communications. I'm thinking specifically about folks like the

(41:28):
investigative reporter Emily Copp leading so many charges on Foyer requests.
Could you tell us a little bit about why some
scientists felt they were excluded from this quote unquote inner
circle and why other scientists seemed to be totally fine

(41:49):
jumping on things like that open letter from the Lancet
in February of twenty twenty.

Speaker 7 (41:54):
Well, I think that people like doctor Peter dash were
really the ones that were so compromised that it was
others who had to do the work of covering up
their mistake. Yet people like Dashik, of course, were out

(42:15):
in front with this natural origin theory, never disclosing to
anyone the work he had done at Wuhan, never disclosing,
of course, the proposal that outlined creating a virus that
looked identical to the one that was infecting people around
the world. And I think it's pretty obvious that the
folks on the inner circle, when you do the actual

(42:37):
digging on these folks, they all had conflicts of interest.
They either received money directly from Anthony Fauci's agency in
the United States government to do research involving gain of function,
which was of course the most controversial aspect of this
research that people like Fauci did not want to talk about.

(42:59):
And many of these people who signed the Lancet letter,
for example, have direct ties to even vaccine technology, biotechnology research,
pharmaceutical companies. And so you see this media campaign essentially
for three months straight, and this is while the virus
is continuing to spread around the world, and this is

(43:21):
while we are confounded by the virus's attributes and we
don't know what it's doing and we don't know how
to treat it. And of course that is a horrible,
horrible misleading idea here that we don't know about this virus,
because there was research into this virus and aspects of

(43:43):
this virus and the virus's attributes for close to a decade,
and if there had been an honest conversation amongst all
of these scientists, and if they had been willing to
acknowledge what was staring them right in the face, which
was evidence that this had and manipulated in the lab,
evidence that many of the grants, I mean many grants,

(44:06):
like over twenty grants to the Wuhan Institute of Virology,
to doctor Ralph Barrick at UNC, to a lot of
other scientists who were actually involved in these teleconferences would
tell you how this virus behaves and would give you
a leg up for treating this virus, including countermeasures which

(44:29):
were somewhat successful at treating the virus that were not vaccines.
And yet for months, there's one story that's hitting the airwaves.
The virus is natural. It just hit us and you know,
out of the blues, smacked us in the face. And
we've been warning you about this type of you know,
natural phenomenon for decades now, and it's exactly why we

(44:51):
do this dangerous research so that we can understand these
things that are just going to come out of nature,
like you know, a bolt from above, and we're just
scrambling to figure it out. So please be patient and
trust the science because we're just trying to figure it
out right now. And it was actually the opposite. The
only thing they were trying to figure out was how
to carry out a cover up which would essentially obscure

(45:16):
or hide all of the connections that these individuals had
for years to this work and all of the culpability
that they had for the pandemic happening. But the problem
is unlike a traditional fraud or a traditional crime, where
you can really narrow down a set of suspects and

(45:36):
you can, you know, put culpability down to you know,
who drove the getaway car and who held the gun.

Speaker 2 (45:42):
And you know rode proximal origin, right, you know.

Speaker 7 (45:45):
Who who covered for who? And you know you can
you know, get people in even a rico case like
in the mafia. You know, you can put a bunch
of things together. This makes the average mafia case, you know,
look like child's play. I mean, this is levels and
levels of culpability, of connection, of benefit, of potential harm

(46:09):
to sectors that or lobbies that have extreme power in
the United States. You have a lot of people all
standing to lose something from telling the truth, and you
have a lot of people all standing to gain something
from telling a lie. And so you just have a

(46:32):
perfect storm and ultimately a crime that becomes too big
to prosecute. And that's where we are now. But these
individuals did the early work, and these individuals set the
stage and created the master narrative, the big lie that
would get repeated for years and ultimately got the media
in line and got even the United States government under

(46:54):
Donald Trump in line to enact this cover up and
to essentially launch warp speed and to give these pharmaceutical
companies complete and total protection, no liability for damage, and
all of it, all of it was based on a lie.
And if we are to really step back and look

(47:15):
at that, the damage is inconceivable.

Speaker 6 (47:20):
I'd love to name some of those guys, just put
it like, do we have a list of people from
like those early slack communications and those early connections that
we could just say their names here where people should
start looking up.

Speaker 7 (47:35):
Of course, so you have an initial flurry of emails
between Sir Jeremy Farrar Fauci and Francis Collins, who is
the director of the NIH, ostensibly Fauci's boss, although Fauci
has been there a lot longer and appears to have

(47:56):
a lot more power. These three individuals represent nearly seventy
five billion dollars in funding every year.

Speaker 4 (48:05):
Wow.

Speaker 7 (48:05):
And Jeremy Farrar is like Fauci's equivalent in the UK.
He was the director of the Welcome Trust and that
was one of the largest funders of biomedical research in Europe.
And these individuals were corresponding on emails for which you
can see just Google. Emails between Anthony Fauci and Jeremy Farrar.

Speaker 4 (48:28):
Heavily redacted though right, I mean, isn't that well.

Speaker 7 (48:30):
Originally they were heavily redacted, which is something that was
of course very suspicious, especially how long they were requested.
In the first batch that was released was redacted, but
by now these emails have been unredacted because there was
no legal reason why they should have been redacted in
the first place. And the essentially the NIH was engaging

(48:51):
in obstruction of justice and essentially continuing and cover up
despite the fact that they legally needed to release this information.
But back to the story, So in early January, right
after New Year's Eve, you see a flurry of emails
and then you see scientists start to have conversations amongst

(49:14):
each other after this genetic sequence is released to the public,
and that's in early January, January eleventh, and by the
twenty seventh of January, Fauci gets contacted by a scientist
named Christian Anderson. And Anderson is based in California and
does a lot of research on viruses like a bola

(49:37):
and lassa. He worked for worked with a laboratory in
West Africa called the Viral Hemorrhagic Fever Consortium, and he
contacts Fauci and says, you know, this fern cleavage side
is very suspicious and this looks like it may have

(49:58):
come from a lab. And by the way, I I
found these grants that basically show almost instructions and or
components of this virus, and they were funded by the
ni AID and the work happened with Ralph Barrick back
in twenty fourteen, in twenty fifteen, and Fauci responds by

(50:20):
saying something along the lines of you know, if this
is true, then you know you should contact the FBI.
Right Meanwhile, you know Fauci is continuing to field panic
and start to do some damage control. And then on
the thirty first of January, you've had all these emails,
this kind of concern that this is going to get

(50:41):
out of control and that there needs to be essentially
a story right now because this could affect a lot
of us, and you're not going to see them, you know,
dump their guts on emails because they are seasoned bureaucrats.
I mean, it's like the Mafia. They don't talk on
the phone, watch the soprano, and Tony doesn't let you
say anything on his house line. Fauci was the same

(51:04):
way about his email account. I mean, if anything, he
put things in his email to try to protect himself
to make it seem like he had genuine concern or
genuine he was genuinely trying to get to the bottom
of what happened, as if he didn't know already.

Speaker 3 (51:19):
Oh geez, says the guy A dressed as the hot dog.
It could have been anybody.

Speaker 5 (51:23):
That's just basic corporate training etiquette, you know, for email,
like our lawyers for our company, like tell us the
exact same thing. Be really careful about what you say,
because that's the stuff that gets pulled in for lawsuits
is usually this kind of email conversation.

Speaker 7 (51:36):
And imagine that times ten, because now you're dealing with
American bureaucracy and the federal government and Congress and all
of these things that Fauci was well aware of. So however,
he you know, got there whatever. You know, however he
scraped his knee in the past, he was very well
aware on how to discuss things over email. Although he

(51:58):
made a lot of mistakes. And if you hadn't made
those mistakes, we wouldn't be here right now. There's still
plenty in those emails that's suspicious and that raises a
lot of questions. But you have this turning point, and
you have these conversations happening online amongst accomplished scientists, scientists
who have a background in this field and who can

(52:22):
call it like it is and look at this genetic
sequence and google and use the research databases that they exist,
and go and find grants that are doing research that
is very suspicious compared to the outbreak and in the
location where the outbreak happened. And so this is starting

(52:44):
to crescendo. And then on the thirty first of January,
there is a number of different articles that come out,
but there is a preprint of a paper, and this
paper advances the original suspicion that existed and says, yes,
there is a fern cleavage side, but there are three

(53:06):
other regions of this genetic sequence that are suspicious and
do not seem natural. And we have found in our
crunch of the genetic sequence, in comparison to all the
other genetic sequences that exist for these viruses, we have

(53:26):
found fragments that are suspiciously similar to HIV. And this
is when the panic begins to articulate and get even
more frenzied, and Fauci is up late at night scheduling
an emergency teleconference. And by this point Bob Redfield has

(53:51):
had numerous conversations with Anthony Fauci. He's the director of
the CDC, and he has talked to Fauci directly about
his feelings about this virus. That he felt it came
from the lab in Wuhan, that he felt it wasn't natural,
that he felt it was spreading in a way that
was uncontrollable for a natural virus, and that he also

(54:15):
was aware of research that was funded by the United
States at the lab to do work that may result
in a pandemic just like this. And on that night
of frenzied emails inviting scientists like Christian Anderson, who at
first was somewhat of a whistleblower, who shows up saying, hey,

(54:36):
you know, doctor Fauci, this virus doesn't look natural. And
doctor Fauci goes, that's, you know, great observation, you know,
doctor Anderson. Well, if it's true, let's call the FBI. Well,
Anderson gets invited to this teleconference, along with a lot
of other scientists that have a lot to lose if
Gain of Function has another scandal. But the CDs director,

(55:01):
doctor Bob Redfield, does not get invited to the emergency teleconference.
And so you have the director of the NIH, Francis Collins.
You have Jeremy Farrar, the guy who is you know,
the Fauci of Europe. And you have these scientists who
do this work, in fact, are famous for this work.

Speaker 6 (55:22):
I'm gonna put these names, Robert Gary, Eddie Holmes, a
couple of dudes.

Speaker 7 (55:27):
Christian Anderson loops in three scientists that he works closely with,
and those scientists are doctor Bob Gary, who also does
a lot of work in West Africa around viruses like
Abola and LASSA, and even did a lot of research
around AIDS and HIV starting in the nineties. And you

(55:50):
have Eddie Holmes and Andrew Rambo. Again, these are scientists
who have been in the community for a while doing
this type of work themselves, but also have ties going
all the way back to the HIV research being done
in the nineties to try to understand origin and understand

(56:11):
the virus better. These were people that Fauci knew, that
Fauci had funded, and whose work he was familiar with.
And you have some scientists who really have no reason
for being there. The only reason they maybe were there
were to argue why this was or wasn't gain of function,

(56:33):
why this was or wasn't a lab league. But they
weren't doing that objectively because this scientist, for example, this
guy Ron Fuchier, was one of the most controversial scientists
in gain of function today. He had been funded by
Fauci to make avian flu bird flu airborne, and bird
flu has like a fatality rate that can be anywhere

(56:56):
between ten percent and fifty percent. There has never been
a huge human to human spread of bird flu it
doesnatural right, it does, Yeah.

Speaker 4 (57:08):
Jenna really quickly.

Speaker 5 (57:09):
Fauci in a press conference references a paper or a
study that is he, as far as he's concerned, is
proof positive that no lab leak occurred, that this was,
you know, something that supported the wuhan wet market narrative.
But he's like, I don't remember the names, and it
seems really so it's odd and it's just I don't know, Yes,

(57:31):
what's very od.

Speaker 4 (57:33):
Does he ever actually drop what it is?

Speaker 5 (57:34):
Like, do you guys get to the bottom of that
or is it just sort of a vague statement.

Speaker 7 (57:37):
Okay, you know, you rewind three months and those scientists
who he says he doesn't have the names of are
the ones that he summons to an emergency teleconference on
January thirty. First, he begins the emails. On February second,
that teleconference happens. So you're referring to a press conference

(57:58):
in April where Trump was present and where there is
a lot of concern now about this being a lab leak.
And Fauci holds up a paper. It's called the Proximal
Origin of Stars KOV two. That paper was written by
Christian Anderson, Bob Gary Andrew Rambo and Eddie Holmes. There
were a bunch of other writers, but those four guys

(58:21):
happened to be in the teleconference. On February second, there's
another teleconference that we didn't even know about that happened.
It's February first that this teleconference happened, So if you
have to go back, and the date is February first,
Fauci is panicked on the thirty first of January, and
by the first of February he gets everybody together for

(58:44):
a teleconference. On February third, there's another teleconference, and this
one actually includes some of the scientists who may be
responsible for the pandemic. And this was never disclosed to
the public, and these scientists were never even credited on
that proximal origin paper. And essentially you had scientists who

(59:05):
were either famous for gain of function research and or
involved in the actual creation of a virus that may
have caused this pandemic, who are present and who are
interfacing with scientists who are writing a scientific paper to
prove that this did not happen in a lab and

(59:26):
that this was natural. And so you can't think of
a more suspicious set of facts than that.

Speaker 3 (59:32):
And I think that's I think you put it very
fairly there. At multiple points. We'd love to ask a
personal question of you generate if it's all right here?

Speaker 7 (59:42):
Sure?

Speaker 4 (59:42):
All right?

Speaker 3 (59:43):
So what are so You're coming into this like so
many other people across the planet during the let's say,
the emergence of public knowledge of COVID right if we
want to be technically accurate there, when you have dived
into this, are there questions that you personally right now

(01:00:06):
would like answered or questions that remain unanswered at the
culmination of your research here? And then secondly, I just
we just have to ask, man, did you ever feel
that you were in danger looking into this or ever
in fear of some some kind of possible reprisal.

Speaker 7 (01:00:26):
Yeah, I've been. I've told stories where I feared for
my life, and I've told a few of them, and
the nature of the threat was different each time. And
I think when you go against the intelligence community, or
you go against the pharmaceutical industry, you can find yourself

(01:00:47):
in the crosshairs. But in my experience, in my you
know understanding the space that unfortunately it's the bravest and
the first to respond, the first to break important information
or even I witnesses whistleblowers. They're the ones who die first.
They're the ones who were killed first. And I was
coming to this story late, but I was the aggregator.

(01:01:09):
I was the person connecting a lot of this research
and a lot of these sources together. And I quickly
realized that I was being monitored, or at least I
felt I was being monitored. There were weird things happening
with my devices, and I had some very strange zoom
calls that you know, I was getting thumbs up and
balloons and all sorts of things on very bizarre lines.

(01:01:32):
And I started to have an evolution where I understood
that maybe I was being monitored, but that it appeared
that who was monitoring me was in support of my thesis,
and that it was a very bizarre thing that happened.
And so I began to realize that I was not

(01:01:52):
going to be killed, and I was not at risk
of being killed, and that kind of melodramatic story that journalists,
you know, like to tell case I was. I was safe,
but that the greatest risk for someone like me is
that there will be people who come into your life
and convince you that they have a lot of evidence

(01:02:14):
that you should know about, or that you need to
talk to this one person because this one person has
it figured out, or actually it's not Anthony Fauci, it's
Francis Collins, or it's not that it's this, or you know,
that is the risk because for someone like me, who
you can google and who has reached, you know, over

(01:02:35):
a billion people, with my work has been seen by
over a billion people, It's been on major platforms. That
the name of the game is not killing me because
my crew is too big, and that it's too many
people know I'm making this movie. The name of the
game is misleading me and getting me to include information
that isn't true. And what I began to understand is

(01:02:55):
that I was being supported by people potentially within the CIA,
and I had a background source in the CIA whom
I cannot disclose any information about. But what I can
say about this individual is that they endorsed and supported

(01:03:16):
the data that I had collected and the hypothesis that
I had formed around this data, and that they believed
that I was on the right track, and that the
biggest thing they wanted people to know and the American
public to know is that most of the people in
these agencies, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, the DoD.

(01:03:40):
These are patriots, for lack of a better word, people
that believe they're serving our country and that they're protecting
us from threats that will never know, and that they
believe that they're honest people and they're hardworking people, and
that the corruption is really at the top, and that
they want more than any thing for that corruption to

(01:04:01):
be routed out, for that corruption to be annihilated. And
so I found by the end of the story that
the people that I may fear the most, you know,
the CIA, you know the intelligence community, they're the ones
who are going to off me, were actually individuals who
supported my efforts. And that was the big twist for

(01:04:23):
me when I realized that this was a story that
made for a lot of strange bedfellows and created strong
alliances and strong collaborations across political lines, across agency lines,
and that a lot of these people were simply soldiers
of the truth. And I found myself in a similar role.

(01:04:47):
And I think it'll be a war that I'm fighting
for the rest of my life at this point, because
the folks on the other side are quite powerful and
they have a lot of tricks and things are actually
just getting started. So I hate to say something like that.
I hate to say that, oh, we figured out the
truth now and there's there's protections in place and this

(01:05:07):
won't happen again. It's it's the opposite. And you asked
me what did I learn? What did I discover? You know,
from making this movie. I learned how much I don't know,
and I am hungry to learn more about what happened
with COVID. But watch for the biggest distraction. The biggest
distraction is going to be the quote smoking gun. And

(01:05:30):
the reason why that's the biggest distraction. You know, when
did the virus leak? What is the incident that caused
that leak, What is the exact composition of that virus,
and the proof that that composition was man made? You'll
never find that, Okay, you will never find that. The
serological data about the virus was never released from the Chinese.

(01:05:52):
We don't know what the earliest you know, illness look like.
We have a genetic sequence, which is essentially just a
computer set of letters, right, And the reason why that
so much attention is put on the exact origin of
this virus is because that's the part that the most
powerful and sinister individuals know that they've gotten away with.

(01:06:16):
The prime that you can prove right now is that
there was a cover up, and that the individuals engage
in a cover up are engaged in a lot of
sinister activities around the globe. That these activities involve war games,
that they involve pharmaceutical industry essentially abusing the public for years,

(01:06:37):
and they involve what could be another pandemic that will
cause even more societal change, even more profit, and even
more I think, destruction to the fabric of our world.
And that is the thing that we need to focus
on right now. We need to focus on the clear
evidence that a bird flu will likely emerge sometime very soon.

(01:07:00):
You can see the fingerprints in the media. You can
see stories about bird flu emerging in cow milk and
crossing over. And that's a distraction. In fact, I think
that is them perfecting their toolbox because the last time
they did this it didn't work okay, and proximal origin
was too obvious, and the wet market was too obvious

(01:07:21):
of a lie. And now for months now we've been
seeing about, you know, bird flu crossing over in these
isolated instances, and that is really preparing the stage for
the next pandemic and for us to believe that it
was natural. It will not be a natural pandemic. It
will be a man made pandemic. And that is what
we should be focusing on. So watch carefully. If you

(01:07:43):
continue to see a story emerge about the exact you know,
genetic proof that the virus came from a lab, you
are actually being distracted because that is the part that
they are most confident about. They are most confident that
you'll never be able to prove that. That's why Anthony
Faucis stood there with so much bravado and so much
confidence in front of Congress because he knew he got

(01:08:06):
away with that part. This is the part they didn't
get away with. They covered it up. The evidence is there,
it's right in front of us. That's the crime. And
the next crime is going to be ten times bigger
than the last one.

Speaker 3 (01:08:18):
What a mic drop Well said.

Speaker 6 (01:08:21):
Just to put this in perspective, Jenner, Roughly, when did
you interview doctor Redfield?

Speaker 7 (01:08:29):
I interviewed Redfield in February of twenty twenty four. Okay,
so I began working on this project in December of
twenty twenty three, and I fell down the rabbit hole
and began interviewing folks and had done most of my
interviews by the spring the end of the spring of
twenty twenty four.

Speaker 6 (01:08:49):
Okay, because I just something that rings in my head
all the time is his statements about bird flu and
again thinking about what we see in the news with
H five N one and how Redfield seem to be
very confident that bird flu is the thing that is
coming for us next. I think he uses the word
premonition or something to that effect, but ultimately he sees

(01:09:10):
that as the thing that's coming that is really I mean,
you have that belief now as well, because we've been
talking about on the show, and it does just feel
like a strange set of circumstances.

Speaker 5 (01:09:22):
Statistical service with some of the little stories we've been seeing,
right the coble drips and drabs of cases kind of
on the upswing.

Speaker 7 (01:09:28):
Yeah, and even there has been an increased funding for
gain of function or gain of function adjacent work on
avian flus since the pandemic, and that individuals who were
in that teleconference are the most famous individuals for setting
the stage for that bird flu pandemic, that man made

(01:09:52):
catastrophe to hit the public, that individuals in the teleconference
with Fauci and the others of COVID. So you have
to ask yourself, you know, once you can see this puzzle,
because that's the part that they work so hard on,
is for you not to have the puzzle pieces. And
that's what the film does. And if you think you

(01:10:15):
know the story of COVID, you don't because I made
a documentary about it and sipped through three hundred thousand
pages of evidence and I still don't know the exact
story of COVID. And if you think you're over COVID,
that is a manipulation. You are being conditioned to think
you were over COVID so that the crime is never
solved and so that when the next one happens, you

(01:10:38):
will forget what happened this time. So when you see
people who are in a malaise and don't want to
talk about COVID, COVID's over. The pandemic's over. The pandemic
ain't over, Okay, We're all suffering from one form of
long COVID or another. And I know that sounds crazy
for all of us who think we're healthy. This virus

(01:11:00):
continues to affect our bodies years later. This virus may
have pieces of HIV in it. This virus has caused
a mass autoimmune dysregulation in the public of the planet. Okay.

Speaker 5 (01:11:14):
Isn't it also true that doctor Redfield's specialty for his
private practice now is long COVID.

Speaker 7 (01:11:20):
Doctor Redfield's now specializing in long COVID, and this was
I think the full circle for him. You know, he
was there in the early days and now he treats
people with long COVID. And I think again, a huge
distinction between doctor Redfield and doctor Fauci is that doctor

(01:11:42):
Redfield is a doctor, okay, and doctor Fauci is a bureaucrat.
And doctor Redfield cares about patients, and doctor Fauci is
still concerned with his power and his legacy and probably
getting final payment for his deeds which couldn't have been
issued during his time in government. He received roughly seven

(01:12:07):
million dollars in security from the United States government after
he retired annually. Okay, more than that. And long COVID
and vaccine injuries which are very similar to long COVID
will continue to haunt us for years. Some of us
will struggle with this for the rest of our lives.

(01:12:29):
Redfield and others believe they can actually reverse a lot
of this, and that it's not some complex, high cost medicine.
It's actually enhanced antihistamines and you know, anti clotting agents
and doing MRIs to learn where blood clots may be
happening in your body and essentially helping the immune system
regulate again. And you know, this is a frightening thing

(01:12:52):
for a lot of people. But while I was making
the movie, the person who I had hired to be
my main researcher dropped out within a week because she
had aggressive stage three breast cancer out of nowhere. She
was in her early thirties. One of my producers, their
mother died right before production of an aggressive lung cancer

(01:13:15):
that went from zero to stage four out of nowhere.
She went to an urgent care because she thought she
had pneumonia. She never went home. She was unconscious within
a couple weeks and dead. My partner and my company
while we were making this movie. His mother died of
a sudden heart attack, and he is confident with his
other siblings that that was caused by a blood clot

(01:13:36):
that was essentially a reaction to the vaccine or the virus.
I have two relatives right now with aggressive cancers that
got them out of nowhere right after the pandemic. Now,
if that sounds familiar to you, and you notice that
there are people in your community that are sick or

(01:13:56):
drop dead or that have cancers in ways that you
didn't noticed before, I think it's time to ask ourselves
those hard questions, and that if we think we're over COVID,
we're just fulfilling the propaganda that was fed to us,
and we're actually feeding it to each other. That was
the scariest part for me. It's not that I was

(01:14:18):
the victim of state sponsored or corporate sponsored propaganda. It
was that it was so effective that I was feeding
it to others organically, others were feeding it to me,
and that I'd be willing to have a fight at
the dinner table when the person that I was likely
defending was the United States government or a pharmaceutical company.

(01:14:38):
Think about that. Think when you fight about this and
you think it's political, think who taught you how to
feel that way and who gave you the playbook, And
think of the fact that instead of them paying for it.
You're not even being paid, you're not an influencer, you're
not carrying that message out. It's so damn effective that
we spread it amongst each other. That's how affect of

(01:15:00):
this propaganda is, is that we spread it amongst each other.
And that's like, you know, Hitler level propaganda. Okay, that's
like that's that's another level and we're all suffering from it,
and we need to wake up. This is something that democrats, leftists, progressives,
all the people who have been fighting for you know,
government reform and consumer protection, wake up. This is our

(01:15:23):
fight too. This is not just conservatives and people on
the right. In fact, the political nature of this is
the core manipulation. It's not political. It affects everyone on
the planet, and only the one percent of one percent benefit. Well,
the ninety nine point nine percent of us get harmed.
It's time to tell the truth now.

Speaker 3 (01:15:41):
And propaganda is viral when successful propaganda only acknowledges any
ideology in such that it allows that propaganda to further communicate.
I think these are very real, very dangerous questions, and
there are questions that need to be asked a lot
of times. To your point, Jedter about the nature of

(01:16:02):
mass media communication, We the public are taught that an
answer should be simple, an answer should be deliverable within
three to five minutes. You get the answer, you feel better.
You move on to the next thing, be that celebrity scandal,
or be that to the next crisis. So we cannot
thank you enough. There is so much that we have

(01:16:24):
not been able to get to. But thankfully again, guys, yeah,
just part one right, it's a seriously thank you. You're
being so generous with your.

Speaker 6 (01:16:36):
Time here, man, I gotta tell you. When we started rolling,
I got a message from an unknown number that just
says hello, And just now I got another message from
another unknown number that just says hello.

Speaker 7 (01:16:51):
They don't want you to know.

Speaker 3 (01:16:57):
Before we get black bagged again. We want to thank
you Jenner so much, not just for thank you, mister Fauci,
but for all your additional work, and perhaps most importantly,
for continuing to spread awareness and continuing to be a
clarion call for these very difficult questions. Could you tell

(01:17:18):
our audience and everybody else who wants to learn more
where they can learn more about you and your work.

Speaker 7 (01:17:25):
Well, you know, my work exists on major platforms like Netflix,
and Amazon and Hulu and Paramount Plus. But this particular film,
the greatest way to learn about it is through our website,
and you won't find it in a lot of media
reporting right now because it's actually a tough subject for

(01:17:45):
the media because they were involved in helping to cover
it up. So I want to give credit to you, guys,
because as a purveyor of truth, as a podcast that
has listened to by many people, you are doing the
good work right now and help this story get out
because we have experienced a media blackout for almost four

(01:18:05):
weeks now. Press release went out to five thousand outlets,
and no major outlet, no international outlet, no big national
news outlet covered the story to date. And so I
want to thank you for having me. People who want
to learn about this film can go to thank you
Doctor faucimovie dot com and that all of the ways

(01:18:28):
to watch the film are there. That our social profile
on x is really the best way to stay connected.
You know, that's the only platform really allowing for a
free and open debate right now and where we have
the most presence, So you can find us on XSet.
Thank you Doctor Fauci, and you can find always to

(01:18:49):
watch this movie at thank you doctor faucimovie dot com.

Speaker 3 (01:18:55):
What a ride, you guys. I know we've all seen
the documentary here again, as we were saying, there was
much much more to the story, but I think we
unanimously commend Jenner and his team for the research they've done.

Speaker 5 (01:19:10):
Yeah, haven't hypen it up to some pals since we
did the interview? It really you know, I mean it's
one of those things too, where it's just like, these
are things that all of us have thought about, and
he gives so much credence to a lot of these
these narratives, it's really hard to ignore at the very least,
thinking about what some alternatives could be to the narrative

(01:19:31):
that has been sort of more or less forced down
the throat of the American people.

Speaker 6 (01:19:36):
It does make me wonder how many people actually clicked
on this episode and have made it this far because
this is such a politically charged topic, or you know,
it was turned into such a political topic rather than
a science.

Speaker 3 (01:19:50):
Topic, right, a narrative war.

Speaker 6 (01:19:53):
Yeah, Yeah, So I hope anybody who's still around in
hearing this right now is fully considering this stuff. Look
at it on your own. That's kind of what the
whole point of this is.

Speaker 3 (01:20:04):
Yeah, and I believe that we all on the show
unanimously feel the same way. And Folks, we don't have
all the answers. We definitely want to look at the
facts and objectively apply critical thinking to sensitive and heavy
subjects such as this. We can only do so with

(01:20:26):
your help, and that's why we would like to ask
you to hang out with us on email, on a
telephonic interaction, or even on the internet online.

Speaker 5 (01:20:38):
Correct, you can find us all over the internet, all
over your platform of choice at the handle conspiracy Stuff,
where we exist on Facebook with our Facebook group Here's
where it gets crazy, on x FKA, Twitter, as well
as on YouTube where you can find video content galore
to enjoy. On Instagram and TikTok, however, we are Conspiracy Stuff.

Speaker 6 (01:21:01):
We have a phone number if you want to call
and give us your two five twenty cents. Call one
eight three three STDWYTK. When you call in it's a
voicemail system. You've got three minutes. Give us your name,
like not your real name, maybe a fun nickname, and
let us know if we can use your name and
message on the air. If you've got more to say,

(01:21:21):
than can fit in a three minute voicemail. Why not
instead send us a good old fashioned email.

Speaker 3 (01:21:25):
We are the entities that read every piece of correspondence
we receive. Be well aware, yet unafraid. Sometimes the void
writes back. Send us the links, Send us the pictures,
the puns, the near death experience stories. That's going to
come in handy later in our third Man Syndrome episode.
Most importantly, be well, stay safe, have adventures, Join us

(01:21:48):
out here in the dark conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.

Speaker 6 (01:22:10):
Stuff they Don't Want You to Know is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.