 This episode brought to you by Noble Gold. Check out this free coin offer for my viewers. Noble Gold specializes in retirement planning and IRAs, so their team of experts is your first step. This month, they're offering a one ounce American Eagle solid silver proof coin with every IRA or 401K taken out. Not many people can relax with inflation this high, but like thousands of others with Noble Gold, you'll be okay. Visit our website at noblegoldinvestments.com or just click the link in the description or pin comment. Hello, everybody, welcome back. Thanks for watching as always. Let's get right into this one. This conservative decision to demonize Anthony Fauci. And I want to separate from the question of the one-hand lobby because this conflation is causing the confusion. I'm wondering if CNN hired this guy on the basis of his infuriating facial expressions. Right off the back, this hack, John Avalon, is making these strawman declarations and broad generalizations to discredit any scrutiny of St. Fauci. And hilariously here, he says, quote, he wants to separate from the Wuhan lab leak theory because that's confusing people. Oh, really? Well, first of all, is it really separate from the Wuhan lab leak theory? After all, it was Fauci and CNN who insisted it was a conspiracy theory and that the virus was clearly naturally occurring. Seeing as how Fauci is being accused of funding the banned gain of function research at the Wuhan lab, which was involved with coronaviruses, it seems connected. But we can actually measure the impact of this month's long effort. According to a new poll from the Annenberg Public Policy Center, 68% of folks overall are confident that Fauci is providing trustworthy advice on COVID. But that number goes down dramatically when all of a sudden you look at people who are ingesting their information primarily from conservative hyperpartisan sites. Oh man, there's that trademark lack of self-awareness. I mean, we're all seeing it in. It's one of the most hyperpartisan fake news networks out there next to MSNBC. But the game that he is playing is quite obvious, I think to most of us. First, he frames the scrutiny of Fauci as a, quote, attack, just like they do with criticism of CNN, other Democrat media, or Democrats themselves. That is the game. Yes, it's not surprising that people who get their news from CNN or other hyperpartisan Democrat party media are gonna think that Fauci is a saint, that he's perfect, because there's exactly zero scrutiny of him on these networks. I challenge anybody out there who disagrees with me to find this scrutiny and come to me with it. If you can come up with something, I'll bring you on the live stream and we'll talk about it. So what's the game here? What is the purpose of this fixation on attacking Anthony Fauci? Well, I don't think it's entirely a game. I think it's that Fauci is a very powerful public official who deserves and rarely gets tough questioning in almost any realm. It's just so funny to watch this guy. John Avalon's like the new Brian Stelter. He's been around a long time, but he's very prominent now and I have some theories about that. I don't know if I'm necessarily gonna get into that now, but notice that any time Avalon hears the truth, anything, something that is true comes up. He starts contorting his face or laughing about it. We saw that a lot on a video I did a couple of days ago. Like when he's not speaking, he makes these facial gestures that I guess are supposed to be discrediting of what's being said or to bolster it if he agrees with it. He gets, frankly, a lot of fangirling and a lot of just sort of forum for his ideas and he doesn't get a lot of pushback. Senator Paul understood the assignment here. He's asking about a tough subject that admittedly none of us are experts on, but I would like to know a lot more about. And despite his protestations, tough questions for Dr. Anthony Fauci are not attacks on science itself. This is something we should talk about. Further, Fauci has something to do with the numbers on his own level of trustworthiness. He has at least twice, and I will be gentle in saying, at least shaded the truth about his COVID pronouncements based on his own judgment on what the public can handle. Now, you may think those shading this of the truth were noble, but for instance, saying that. Real quick, that's what I mean. Like what she says that you may have thought it was noble. That's what I mean when I'm talking about how they rationalize. This is why they spend so much time demonizing us because if we're these horrible monsters, if they're political opposition or these snarling beasts, then anything they do, any lies they tell, anything, any information they withhold, in their heads, they're doing it for some greater good purpose. And masks were not particularly efficient for helping protect you back in the beginning of the pandemic so that they could be in greater supply for health workers, that that was, the end result was okay, but it did seed distrust of him with good reason. Absolutely true. Fauci has flip-flopped on multiple so-called factual pronouncements, and she actually missed a few, like when he said that the flu was a bigger threat near the end of February of 2019. And in every case, the media has carried his water and rubber-stamped whatever his new claims were, just like when they set upon anybody who brought up the Wuhan Lab leak theory and call them a racist conspiracy theorist or a right-wing nut job. Also has admitted saying that when it came to herd immunity, he looked at polling to base his statements on how much herd immunity would be the threshold that we needed. These two instances are just facts. Mary-Catherine, I wanna, I wanna. Those are facts, hold on, those are just facts, and it is an issue that a very powerful public figure was found to be shading the truth about these things. And it is a reason that people have come to distrust him on the issue of the lab leak theory. Hold on, hold on, let me just stop you there because I want David to jump in, but I wanna make it a six-screen tough questions and their total legitimacy and what Rand Paul is doing within the context of the conservative ecosystem. But- Oh, oh, there's a difference between scrutinizing questions and when a person from a right-wing media or a conservative asks questions, it's different when we do it, you see, but when these people ask it, well, then it's not legitimate. There's actually no objective difference, okay? We all know how the leftist mind works. It's always, you know, different when they do it. They always rationalize it. And conveniently, it's always somehow wrong when their political opposition doesn't, but never them. But this whole thing has moved anyway because there is no scrutiny of Fauci in the media. John Avalon has never scrutinized Dr. Fauci. David Gregory has never scrutinized Fauci. Rand Paul asked legitimate questions that deserve answers. And any real journalist, somebody who's actually into journalism would be all over that story. But strangely, the media's desire to sleuth and investigate goes into hibernation during Democrat administrations. It happens every time. And instead, they work to discredit the critics exactly like we're seeing right here, right now. David, why don't you weigh in on that? Well, I mean, I don't think Mary Catherine is wrong in the respect that, of course, he deserves tough questions. And you know, there's kind of this narrative, yes, there's no question that liberals have jumped to Fauci's defense all the time. And whether it's, thank you, Dr. Fauci science, which I don't think are inappropriate for the top public health official in the United States who has helped guide the country through the virus during two administrations that somebody who is of some renown for decades now would get that kind of positive attention. That never meant that somehow Fauci was responsible for making every decision with regard to what people ought to do, number one. Okay, so he's the guy in charge. He guided us all through this, but he doesn't make every decision, come on. He was the head of the area, he is the head of the NIH. The NIH funded the Wuhan lab, okay? This guy, it's interesting to me that they both start off saying, oh yes, yes, he deserves tough questioning. But again, I ask, which one of these two has ever scrutinized Fauci? Which one, David Greger used to be on MSNBC. Where is the scrutiny of Fauci on MSNBC? Where is it on CNN? I've never seen it. And you see how they frame tough questions that do come out about Fauci. Avalon calls it the conservative ecosystem. So he's basically admitting right there that the only scrutiny that's coming out of Fauci is coming from the conservative ecosystem. Bull, but that's not legitimate criticism because of who it's coming from. And I just love how Gregory kind of starts off agreeing with Catherine. But then he kind of moves in, it's like double-speak. He moves into just basically deflecting any criticism saying that he's such a great guy, he does everything, he's done everything, although he doesn't control everything, but he's such a great guy that these questions are just not legitimate. I don't agree with the characterization that it's a shading of the truth, but we're not here to debate each other about the original decision on masks. But the truth is a proper scrutiny of Fauci, proper scrutiny, which is appropriate too of the CDC and some of the political nature of what they're doing, I think is totally appropriate. That's separate from what I think in this case is Rand Paul contradicting himself in the space of a three-minute clip, which is plain for anyone to see. Okay, I have no idea what he's talking about, a contradiction there, but look how he's deflecting. He's deflecting because of who is asking the scrutinizing question, oh, it's Rand Paul, again, who raised questions about the Wuhan lab early on and was treated with this exact same disrespect. And trying to make a larger case against Fauci, who may not be infallible, but the point is he is trying to direct the government to direct the public through a response to a pandemic against countervailing claims, against misinformation. You know, it's tough business. Oh, okay, so what does any of this have to do with the questions surrounding Fauci funding of this banned research at the Wuhan lab? What does it have to do with any of it? Having done all these other things doesn't preclude the other from being true or needing to be questioned. All he's doing for this entire thing is just spewing out all these rationalizations for why scrutinizing Fauci from the right is wrong. And I find it interesting because they did this exact same thing when Biden, right before Biden took office, rationalizing why the fact checks and the scrutiny would just disappear. But it's not because that we're all lab dogs. It's because Joe Biden's just so great. The sort of holdouts that, well, there were a couple of statements that it made that should be reviewed. And that's somehow the case against him. I mean, is somebody trying to lead a class examination of Fauci? I think, I've been listening to Fauci's response on this. And I think he's been remarkably consistent. But both Fauci and much of the media and much of his fan base, frankly, conflate, confronting him about these things in a serious way with an attack on him personally. It's not an attack on him personally to note that he has done these things. He is the face of the messaging for this. At times he has been not a great face for the messaging of these things. And I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to point out. On the issue of this particular line of questioning, which has to do with the lab leak theory, we also have to look, in practice, you may say it's legitimate to ask him difficult questions, but we don't ever seem to get around to it, okay? And on this issue in particular, we're connected to the lab leak theory. The lab leak theory was credible last year, reported on valiantly by Josh Rogan, even when people said that it was verboten and we shouldn't talk about it. Rand Paul asked about it last year as well. This is the kind of thing that makes people distrust, folks, when we're told we can't talk about something that we have good reason to ask. But we're talking about it. This is this red herring. I'm sorry, this is the straw man that people- And he does not sound like he's being particularly forthcoming. He sounds like he's walking a bunch of lines and being very indignant and saying that asking questions with him is an attack on science itself. A lot of people- I'm sorry, this is getting into cable news silliness. This is cable news silliness. Nope, nobody's saying, we are talking about this. Wait a minute here. Okay, hold on, he says cable news silliness. I just, I don't know what to say to that. He's the one doing his best to deflect all scrutiny of this powerful unelected official. To me, cable news silliness is him saying that, quote, look, we're not against scrutiny of Fauci. We're talking about it right now. He said it right there. We're talking about it right now, Mary Catherine. This is a red herring. And all they're doing is trying to stamp out and discredit scrutiny of him. That's what this whole segment is. They're not talking about the accusations against Fauci or the evidence against him or any of the things that Rand Paul brought to light. They're not talking about any of that. All they're doing is putting doubt in the minds of their viewers that there's any legitimate criticism of Fauci. So it's completely dishonest for Gregory to sit there and say that it's a red herring to say that the media isn't scrutiny. It is not a red herring. Is it a 100% fact? You cannot find any scrutiny or criticism at all, zip zero zilch from either of those guys on either of their networks, on any of the Democrat media. All right, that's it for me. Make sure to hit that like button and let me know what you think in the comment section. Also, don't forget to subscribe to my news clip channel, DroneTech Media, for your daily dose of media malpractice.