June 7, 2023 • 34 mins
Jayanta "Jay" Bhattacharya is an Indian American professor of medicine, economics, and health research policy at Stanford University.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
You're listening to The Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show, everybody. On this episode,
we have doctor J. Batacharia with us. We're very excited
to talk to him about well health policy as it
relates to COVID and so much more. Batachari as a
professor at Stanford University Medical School, teaching in the Department
of Health Policy. He's a Research associate of the National
(00:41):
Bureau of Economic Research, a founding fellow of the Academy
of Science at Freedom at Hillsdale College, and co wrote
the Great Barrington Declaration, a focused protection alternative through lockdowns.
Doctor Botacharia honored to speak with you, sirs. As a
very early, huge supporter, booster, adopter of the Great Barrington Declaration.
(01:03):
I feel like I'm in the presence of Sanity Royalty.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
Thank you for your sanity Tuotebuck sheiate the support for it.
Thank you for having me on.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
So just for everyone listening to this, if they, you know,
subscribe to my show and they know what I'm gonna say,
so you were right. So the Great brand Declaration was
as correct more correct now, even if that's possible, than
it was then because we played out the experiment on
the other.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Side of what what happened.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Let me start with this because it's such a big
topic and we don't you know, you've got people to
save and young minds to mold and all that stuff.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
At Stanford.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
How is it that all the institutions of medicine seemed
to get this entirely wrong and would not speak out
at all in favor of some sanity on this.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
I mean, I think there was some element of policy
hysteresis wish. I mean, like very early on the Chinese example,
the January twenty twenty Chinese lockdown played an enormously important
role in the minds of public health. The people, like
the World Health Organization sent a delegation to China in
February and it came back like they wrote this report saying, oh,
(02:21):
what China did worked, and then everyone copied China, all
the countries one by one, from Italy on. It was
like Domino's falling with these lockdowns, And you know, how
do you do something so dramatic, so devastating that already had.
It's really hard if you're like at the top of
some bureaucracy and some hierarchy, especially if you're a scientist,
(02:42):
to admit that you've got it wrong. And so I
think that that's that. Like by the time October twenty
twenty rolled around, I mean, I saw very clearly the
lockdowns had failed in October, in April, March, April twenty twenty,
and that I'd already gotten already seen all of the
devastating reports that were coming out of poor countries and
even rich countries about what had happened to poor people
(03:03):
during the lockdowns and so and I also saw that
the lockdowns were coming back. And so what's happened? And
I think since is it's a lot of people who
should have known better, and maybe now they actually do
know better, but they can't bring themselves to admit that
they were wrong. Because they do, they sort of lose
their status, lose their position, lose their power.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
Now, did you have docs coming to you, colleagues, people
you know in the medical community who were saying to you, look,
I know this is all crap like this the paper masks, really,
the masks period aren't doing anything for anybody. The lockdowns
were a disaster didn't stop the virus at all. And
(03:47):
you know, the vaccines are nowhere near what they were
promised to be. And I want to get your take
on exactly how you'd grade the vaccines in a moment.
But did you have people coming to you in twenty
twenty one, twenty twenty two, I mean, I mean later
on in the pandemic, or was the group think so
strong that mds, even from Vario esteemed institutions like in
(04:10):
Stanford University Medical School just couldn't see what was obvious.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
So in twenty twenty I'm pretty sure I was not
a majority, My view was not the majority within Stanford,
but it might have been a pretty prominent a much
more prominent than people realized.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Right.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
So when we wrote the Great Brenton Declaration, almost immediately
actually released it, tens of thousands of scientists signed on,
very prominent scientists signed on, including a Nobel Prize winner
here at Stanford. It was it was really clear that
there was a pretty substantial portion of the scientific community
that was very deeply unhappy with the lockdowns, that actually
was not a consensus, the scientific consensus behind them, and
(04:49):
that actually that there was a lot of people who
thought what we were proposing, which is essentially lifting lockdowns
and focused protection of vulnerable older people, was a better strategy.
Was a strategy actually, just to be clear, that strategy
we proposed the Great Brandon decoration. That's basically the old
pandemic plan we followed for a century of respiratory virus pandemics.
I was just cribbing off of people that are smarter
than me for over the last entry. So it wasn't
(05:11):
like we had a really truly novel thing. So it's
not surprising that a lot of people, but the suppression
was so the censorship, the smearing of people that that
said no, was so severe that a lot of people
kept themselves silent. A lot of very prominent people kept
themselves silent after after we wrote the Great Parent Doc Christians,
the people that signed it, some of them lost their jobs.
(05:32):
A lot of them face like, you know, investigations and
other things within their own universities for you know, for heresy,
I guess. And it was it was so shocking because
I thought the scientific community was more open to challenge.
I mean, that's part of what science is. You say,
you think you think a I think that I think
(05:52):
B we run an experiment, it turns out you're right.
Now we both think A right, but no, I'm not
even allowed to say B. You're not allowed to say
and therefore there's no challenge and we don't know what's right.
A lot of that happened during the pandemic. People silence themselves.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
Has there been any I mean, here we are talking
in halfway through twenty twenty three, and you know, someone
just told me that in New York City where I
left New York City because of the response to the pandemic.
I mean, that was the number one reason I just said,
I can't do this anymore at this place. The libs
have gone completely insane, and I'm not going to pay
(06:29):
taxes to support this system, et cetera. Right, but put
that aside for a moment. A friend of mine who
was there said that recently, all these they had these
little COVID testing tents, as if remember there was that obsession.
It's almost hard to go back and think of this
as like a nightmare that you're trying to forget. There
was this obsession with we just had testing everywhere, Like
what is that? What is that even going to do?
Speaker 1 (06:48):
Right?
Speaker 2 (06:48):
What was the point of having just mass testing, constant
test test, test test tests all the time. Was just
an anxiety disorder pretending to be a health policy. But
you know now they've switched it, so now it's COVID
and flu testing. Almost like we've created this bureaucracy that
will now live on forever. Instead of everyone realizing what
a disaster the policies were, the policies were, we're really bad.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
Yeah, it's institutionalized hypochondria book, That's what it was, and
it is. I mean, I think you know you you
the testing is is valuable if you use it the
right way. Right, So if let's take those at home
managing tests, right, So what if we'd had them very
early and we use them so that before you go
visit a nursing home, you test you have to check sure.
(07:33):
Right before, all we had was those PCR tests. That
wasn't a technological thing. That was a decision that was
made by public health that to not promote the andergen
test early. That could have been you know, sort of
promoted and like developed much earlier. And the reasoning was that, well,
if you do a PCR test that has to happen
in a lab, public health will know if you're positive,
if you'd had the Amergen test early, people could have
(07:54):
known for themselves without even directly reporting public health and
use that information to protect older people, vulnerable people. Matchine,
We've done that. Like the test, the key question is
not whether we should test. The question is what do
we where should we test? What we tell for, and
what do you do with the information? Testing low risk
people for for for the viral fragments in a where
(08:20):
they have no symptoms at all, It is just destructive,
it puts it results in a whole bunch of low
people being quarantined for nothing. That's what happened during the pandemic.
And then a lot of people just stop testing because
they're like I don't want to I don't want to
be stuck in quarantine for you end days just because
I tested positive. So yeah, I think I think the
testing it's just it's it's like you have a technology,
(08:41):
but you don't know how to really use it. You
have to like think, And we didn't do that.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Yeah, no, there was there was no thinking. Tier to
your point about the previous pandemic policies as well, it
really feels like the people that were supposed to implement
the policy, looked at the book of what decades of
thought and research had come up with and said, now,
let's scrap this. Let's let's just let's go with something
else right away in the moment, you know, if you've
been practicing a fire drill and a fire exit plan
(09:06):
for years, the house catches on fire and you go, well,
let's forget about the fire. Let's forget about those fire exits. Everybody,
let you know, everyone think you're crazy. Seems to be
kind of what they did.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
This for me. But it's an area, you know.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
I still get people docs you know, that say, oh,
you know, we've moved past COVID. I said, how have
you moved past COVID? There hasn't been any account any
accountability for this. Have you seen any major institution. I'm
here in Miami because I left New York and I
went to the U Miami Health System just to get
a yearly my check up, you know, And I don't
(09:41):
go yearly, but I hadn't been.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
I like, I don't know five or six years. Don't
tell anyone, doc.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
And so I'm going for a checkup, and they made
me wear This is a couple months ago. They made
me wear a mask walking in the lobby and then
I go in the actual medical area and like, yeah,
we don't really but I mean they shouted at me
to put a mask on. I don't feel like there's
an accountability. I think there's still pockets of lunacy. Do
you think has anyone been chastened by this? You know,
(10:05):
does anyone at the CDC feel horrified at what an
abject failure they were during the US or not really now?
Speaker 3 (10:11):
The CDC, the NI, HD, FDA, they're all they all
failed in very fundamental ways, and they're basically like they're
giving themselves awards, like they're patting themselves on the back.
There have been some attempts to try to like do
some evaluations. So for instance, the House Select Committee on
this Coronavirus task coronavirus pandemic has been meeting, but you know,
(10:32):
like if you look, I testified that the Democrats have
basically they think they've done everything right. The only problem
was misinformation by the by the by the right, and
so like you don't you're not getting like honest, like
a real honest evaluation in that setting of what actually
went wrong, scientific questions about what what went wrong in
policy and in science. There's other places like in around
(10:54):
the world. The UK has its is it's its parliamentary
inquiry going on. There are some some some like like
the Danish of the Norwegian authorities have concluded that they
shouldn't have closed schools for the two weeks or whatever
they closed it for the very short period of time
they closed it. So you're starting to see some push pushback.
But as it stands, Buck, I completely agree with you.
We are in a position where if the pandemic, another
(11:16):
pandemic comes, we will lock down again. We will absolutely
lock down to it is now thus standard plan. And
so that means that if you run a small business,
prepare around that, because it's very likely that you're going
to face a time where your demand is going to
dry up because of that. If you have kids, make
alternate arrangements, make sure that they have some capacity to
(11:37):
learn even if another pandemic happens. You know, I think, uh,
a huge amount of civilization depends on some sort of
certainty that the kinds of guarantees that we have in
our society. You know, I can send my kids to
school and I kid the teachers are going to teach
them I have to worry about it. Those those are
out the window now thanks to this pandemic manage, this
crazy pandemic management we faced and that which is now
(12:00):
I think the standard plan.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
So I want to I want to ask you, Doc,
hold hold your answer for a second, but I want
to ever know. We're going to get into what your
real report card for the mRNA vaccines against COVID. I
want to be specific on it because I know people
like to play all these games. No, no, no, no, I
want your real report card for what we know now
based on the data and what we've seen in reality,
(12:24):
not in theory. In just a second, but for a
moment here, I want to talk about the Tunnel the
Towers Foundation two thousand, nine hundred and seventy seven People
lost their lives on nine to eleven, two thousand and one,
but that day is still taking lives. People are suffering
and dying from nine to eleven related illnesses. Not to mention,
there's also a whole generation out there that knows little
to nothing about nine to eleven. Only two states in
(12:45):
our nation mandate K to twelve learning about that day.
That's why the Tunnel the Towers nine to eleven Institute
is giving educators access to nonfiction nine to eleven resources
for K through twelve that includes full curriculum units built
around first person accounts. Tunnel to Towers Foundation has also
created a Speaker's Bureau with access to nine to eleven
(13:06):
first responders, survivors, and loved ones. They speak in schools
and community centers as they're invited. Finally, they've got a
mobile exhibit, a high tech eighty three foot tractor trailer
that turns into an eleven hundred square foot interactive museum
with nine to eleven artifacts. To never forget, we must
educate future generations. Help Tunnel to Towers educate kids. Donate
(13:27):
eleven dollars a month at T two t dot org.
That's T the number two T dot org. All right,
your grade for the mRNA vaccines, doctor Botocharia.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
See I give it a C.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
So tell us what worked, what didn't? What do we
need to know?
Speaker 3 (13:48):
Yeah? So, I think the problem actually is again not
just the technology, but rather how it's used. All right, So,
in December of twenty twenty, the randomized trials what it found.
What they found was that the vaccines stopped symptomatic infection.
At ninety five percent for two months. That was the
That was the result. We didn't know if it's if
(14:09):
if the the protection waned after that time. We didn't
know if it stopped transmission. If you get infected, can
you still get infected, can you still pass the disease on?
We didn't know if it stopped asymptomatic infection, And we
didn't know for certain whether it protected you against severe
disease and death, because the random zest trials didn't have
that as a primary endpoint. In fact, the m RNA
vaccines the trials had actually more deaths in the vaccine
(14:34):
arm than the placebo arm, but it was like such
small numbers that you couldn't tell statistically. You had to
tell it when it world down in the public at large.
The reason I give it a C is I do
think that it would protect it against severe disease and death,
which was really important for older people who had a
very high risk of dying from COVID. Young people, the
mortality benefit is small because the risk of dying from
(14:56):
COVID is small, so I don't see much benefit, and
I do see some harm, like for young men, like
folks your age, it's you have I think an unacceptably
high rate of myocarditis, especially after the second dose, but
certainly even the first does you know, heart inflammation after
the vaccine, so for for so okay, So how would
(15:17):
you use that vaccine with with this kind of these
kind of characteristic The way I would use it is
I would use it to protect older people. I would
very much strongly encourage older people to get the vaccine,
And in fact, that's what I did, and I think
it saved lives doing that.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
Kind of like the flu, right, I mean, the flu
is for older people, immuno compromise people get a flu shot, right,
that's generally the that's the advice, the guidance that I've received,
I think a lot of other people here from their doctors.
But it's not if you're twenty five and you don't
get the flu shot, you're a monster who's killing your
killing your grandma.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
Yeah, because the flu shot doesn't stop transmission most most years,
and it's so like you know, if young young people
can get actually young flu is probably a little worse
for young people than covid is, depending on the age
and the condition you're in. So it's you know, flu is,
flu is a different thing. The vaccine is a very
it's a very traditional technology. It's very safe, that flu vaccine.
(16:08):
It's we know we know that the characteristics of it
because we've been using it for decades. It wasn't true
for the mRNA vaccine when we recommended it at scale. Instead,
we used it to essentially we first first public comp
made this promise that if everyone got it, or ninety
percent of the people got or eighty percent of people
got it, then the disease would stop. You get hurt
immunity with the vaccine. The problem was like herd immunity
(16:31):
doesn't work that way. You don't you don't you need
a vaccine that actually stops you from getting and transmitting
the disease. There's a famous clip of this woman on
MSNBC like you know this like incredible delivery. She's like
telling saying, okay, if you if you get it, you
are a dead end for the virus. You don't transmit
it to other people, right, And that was wrong. She
(16:53):
didn't know that. The public Health didn't know that. And
yet you had Tony thought you going around saying you
gotta have eighty percent of people to get it in
order for the disease to go away.
Speaker 1 (17:00):
Well, that that was the part of it.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
That all that I think bothered so many people. You know,
I told, and I was saying this on Radio two
at the time. I told my own parents, who were
both seeing both senior citizens, unsurprisingly, to go get the vaccine.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
And they did.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
And I think that under the circumstances, given what we knew,
that was a sensible move. But the whole mandates and
the federal mandate that Biden tried and then had to
be overturned, you know, the Supreme Court had to step
in and say, no, you can't do that. This was
all premised on you have to get it because you're
a danger to the people around you if you don't.
I mean, that was a total lie, right doc. And
(17:37):
what I want to know is should did they know
it was a lie all along?
Speaker 1 (17:43):
Was it always a lie? Or did they figure out
that it was a lie? You know what I mean?
Speaker 3 (17:46):
So early on let's say January Febry twenty twenty one,
they didn't know it was true because the trial didn't
check it. So if they confidently said that if you
get the vaccine, you're not going to spread it, they're
lying because they're over representing what the trial said. By
let's say April May June twenty twenty one, it was
clear from international events that heavily vaccine societies were experiencing
(18:10):
huge disease burden, a huge spread of the disease. You know,
places like I remember the earliest one was I was.
I think it was like the Seychelle Islands, which you
use the Chinese vaccine. I saw this enormous outbreak in
like late March, early April Afica, exact the date, twenty
twenty one. I thought, huh, that's strange. Maybe maybe that
means that the vaccine, the Chinese vaccine, doesn't work. I
wonder what that means for the for the these vacs,
(18:31):
the MR ANDAs we used. And then I saw Gibraltar
which had an enormous outbreak. And then I saw, I mean,
it's just like Israel. Country after country there was heavily vaccinated,
saw enormous outbreaks. It was clear that all of these
vaccines had failed to stop disease spread, and that at
that point it was it was a pure lie. They
should have been seeing these same things I saw, and
(18:53):
yet they still going on TV saying if you don't
aren't vaccinated, You're a danger to others. That's a lie
piled on top of demonization of people. This this sort
of like separation of people on the basis of like
are you clean or unclean, which is a very dangerous
thing to do in public health. A lot of people. Yeah,
I don't know, Like I heard all these stories from
(19:13):
Thanksgiving A twenty twenty one where I'm vaccinated, people weren't
invited to Thanksgiving for their own families. Yes, I mean
that's public Health's fault. That that's a lie put around
by public health essentially demonized people on the base of
the vaccination status. And then there was a parent lie
with it, which is that if you had had COVID
and recovered, there was no there's no immunity at all. All.
(19:36):
The evidence was really clear by July twenty twenty that
you had pre substantial immunity.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
Yeah, how is it that doctor Fauci could look anyone
in the health sphere in the face and say, Rather,
the bigger thing is what he didn't say, which he
the concept of natural immunity was completely abandoned for the pandemic.
How couldn't people see, right? I mean, doc, how many
years did what you went to school? How many years
(20:03):
for medicine? I mean it was like four years medical school,
four years residency, right, I mean you spent decades of
your life studying this. There are like you, How could
they have not have seen this? I feel like I'm
just some random dude. I saw this.
Speaker 1 (20:14):
It was crazy, Okay.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
Yeah, So I mean, you know, so I do research
full time. Just so you know, So I didn't do residency,
but oh I did a PhD. I got gray hair
for a reason.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
Buck, Yeah, you studied this stuff for a long time,
bottom line fair.
Speaker 3 (20:26):
Yeah, but yeah, just so why did they not know?
I mean I think that the problem is like the
kinds of people that ran the pandemic response, they're they're
most of their HIV experts, right, So, like you know,
Tony Fauci, Rachelle Olenski, all of these folks, they made
their bones in HIV, and for HIV there's no immunity,
(20:50):
so and you know, like there's this new virus. They
use their knowledge of HIV to set expectations about this virus.
So very early on, it was like you weren't even
allowed to say that it's the possibility of the immunity.
Until you can prove it. The problem is like they
didn't update. By July of twenty twenty, it was clear
from like a multiple papers in prominent medical journals that actually,
(21:11):
you know it works pretty well, that is, your body's
immune response works pretty well. And they didn't update. They
were like, oh, we can't know for certain, We can't
know for certain. Well, you know for certain for the
vaccine either. And if you really look, you're right bucket.
You don't even need medical training. You can go back
in history, right, We've known for twenty five hundred years
during the Athenian Plague, they used people who would recover
(21:34):
from disease to care for people who are already sick.
It Right, in the Athenian Plague twenty five hundred years ago,
people used they used people who recovered to care for
the people who were sick because they knew about natural immunity. Somehow,
in the last three years we forgot about twenty five
hundred years of medical knowledge, and Tony Fauci going around saying, oh,
(21:56):
I'm not certain that you have protection if you have
COVID or covered.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
We don't.
Speaker 3 (22:00):
I mean, that's just crazy, it's just bad policy. People
could see with their eyes that if they got COVID
that it took for a long time. Afterwards they wouldn't
get COVID. They could see with their eyes at the
second than they got it was less severe than the
first time.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
So I've been called an anti mask fanatic by all
the worst people. So I want to return and ask
you about some mask related questions and the possible connection
to massivesteria here in just a second doc. But first up,
some days you have to dig deep for the energy
you need. But where does that energy come from? And
(22:33):
men's body's testosterone is a critical source. And if your
body is not producing enough to meet the demand, you're
feeling worn out before the day is far from over,
and you're not performing at your best. The solution is
found with the company by the name of Chalk that's cchoq.
Their most popular daily supplement. Chalk's Male Vitality Stack is
specifically formulated to provide more energy and more focus. The
(22:55):
leading ingredient has been proven in studies to replenish twenty
percent of diminished testosterone levels in just three months time.
And that's just one of the many benefits that comes
from making the Male Vitality Stack A part of your
daily regimen. You're going to feel so much better as
a result. Go online today to Chalk dot com and
get set up. Their website is spelled cchoq dot com.
(23:16):
Save thirty five percent off any Chalk subscription when you
use my name Buck in your purchase process. That's Chalk
cchoq dot com and use my name Buck to get
thirty five percent off your subscription for life. So doc
I when I go into any doctor's office, and this
has been the way I felt now for what three years,
but certainly still because it does happen in places, and
(23:37):
I see, you know, the purpose of the people at
the front desk with the masks on they're walking around
when I'm told that it's still hospital policy as it
is in some places that visitors everybody has to walk
around with a paper mask on. I lose faith in
the intelligence, the seriousness, and the professionalism of the people involved.
Are they aware of this at this point? Like this
is this is no longer a debate that rational people
(24:00):
can have. It doesn't work, It doesn't help.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
What are they doing?
Speaker 3 (24:06):
It's it's okay, So let me just do a little
bit of the history. I think this is my theory
about why they launched themselves or attached themselves to such
an odd such a bad uh, such an intervention with
the almost no evidence behind it. In fact, the evidence
behind it. Coming into the pandemic, there was a dozen
randomized studies that said it didn't work. Show they didn't
really work very well for the flu, which transmits very
(24:26):
similarly to COVID, and so we knew we had the experience.
There was a reason why we didn't say to school's
mask up during flu season because there was the randomized
studies that it didn't work. When the pandemic hit, I
think public health had two contradictory aims that they needed
to meet. They wanted to meet first, they wanted to
tell the public, you've got to take this pandemic seriously.
(24:48):
Remember how early on, like there was that guy, that
NBA player, Rudy Gobert, who, like you know, he does
this like press conference, the licks the microphone and the
everyone gets on his case because he's not taking COVID seriously.
Masks serve the purpose of telling everybody you're in the
middle of a pandemic. Everyone's wearing a mask that means
you're in the middle of pandemic. Everything's going to take
the pandemic seriously. The second thing the mass does, and
(25:13):
this is paradoxical, is they also give people the sense
of control that they have something to do about the
risk that they face. So the public health makes people
feel this sense of risk and then they give them
something to control it, and now you moralize around it.
Take I wear the mask and I'm like protecting others
with it, right, I'm doing good. So I think that's
(25:35):
really like the fundamental thing, Like it didn't matter what
the evidence said. All that mattered was that you had
this sense of control and you have this sense of fear,
and the mass ser of both of those purposes. The
evidence during the pandemic became came in loud and clear.
Randomized studies that were looking at the effective as the
mass would find nothing. And so yeah, I think the
(25:58):
places that are still attached to the masks, where they
treat everybody like a biohazard, they're not following any scientific data.
And I mean, I'm not sure I should agree with
you about joejudging them, Buck, but you know what i mean,
I'm sympathetic.
Speaker 2 (26:14):
Well, I just want to know, like, does anyone would
anyone in the medical community honesty come up to you
and say, doctor Botacharia, this cloth mask that I wear
for you know, a total of five minutes a day,
maybe when I go into the doctor's office. Nowhere else,
by the way, nowhere else am I wearing this? This
keeps me very safe from Aristolas virus? Like, is there
(26:35):
is there a serious MD on the planet who would
make that case to you? And if not, how is
it that there are still places that are making us mask?
Speaker 3 (26:43):
I mean there are still people floating around inside meta.
I mean, like, you know, you can tell yourself any
story you like, buck and if you convince yourself for
you can. I mean, but and people there are people
like it's just cognitive disonance. They can't believe that they
were wrong about something, like very very smart people. So
there's not that there aren't people like that. You know
on Twitter they still bug me. But like, but it's
it's it's not. I think most people in medicine understand
(27:06):
that there was a mistake, that that that there isn't
the evidence behind did that they wanted, and that they
embraced an intervention that didn't have evidence, and it's undermined
the credibility in the eyes of the population. I think
a lot of people in medicine and public health have
started if they haven't seen that, they started to see that.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
What do you I want to ask you how we
can fix this, this credibility issue, or what that would
look like, doc. And I also just want to say
thank you for the Great Barrenton Declaration for a lot
of us who were trying to hold the line for
sanity while and I'm talking about you know, early on
right summer twenty twenty, we'd all seen the hospital tents
(27:46):
in Central Park that never got used because they weren't needed,
and the hospital ship that never got.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
Used in New York City.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
But you know, they brought up this whole hospital ship.
We all saw this stuff, and the Great Barrington Declaration
came out and we're like, wait a second, so what
we see just as rational people. There are doctors who
are telling us that that's true. Right, So it was
really I don't know if anyone told you this. It
was a glue of light in a darkness of mass
(28:13):
hysteria and appalling cowardice and political opportunism. And you know,
I know you're a very nice guy. My disdain for
Anthony Fauci, who went to my high school, which I
always tell people is kind of funny. Will never it
will never cease because he's never apologized. He's never said
I lied about everything and I was wrong about everything.
If he does that, then you know, fine, Fauci will
(28:34):
call it a day, I guess. But the Great Barrington
Declaration is very important anyway, and you can tell I
feel very passionate about this. We'll get back to this
in a second. I just want to say thank you
for attaching your name to it and giving a template
for reality and sanity at a time when so many
of us were looking around saying, I can't believe you
know double mess. Remember they talked about goggles and gloves too.
(28:57):
I mean, I remember all this.
Speaker 3 (28:59):
Tony Fauschu said goggles. There's not a single study I've
seen that talks about I don't know where she get
that idea.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
Just you know why not right? I mean, to your
point about the enforced hypochondria, it really turned into Remember
they put the kids in the bubbles for band practice,
like the plastic bubbles. Remember remember the plastic dividers that
they set up.
Speaker 3 (29:20):
In place A study that shows that it reduces airflow,
making things worse.
Speaker 1 (29:27):
Yes, you're creating like little pockets of virus. I mean
you can't make this stuff up.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
Everything that they did that people didn't want to do.
That people you know had a problem with, Like, yeah,
you're six, stay away from people, stay home.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
That's called having.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
The flu or the cold for all of you know,
human existence. You know, you don't want to infect people.
So if you're six, stay home anyway. Doc, But I
want to ask how we fix this. We'll get to
that in a second. But for everybody at home, the
team at my Pillow got to talk to you about
this for a second. You know, the Geeza dream Sheets
have done amazingly well their slippers, their pillow products, There's
so much that they have that are absolutely fantastic. But
(30:05):
their newest and latest offer is on their six piece
towel set. It's made with USA cotton, making it extremely absorbent,
still provides that soft feel you look for in a towel.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
You want that.
Speaker 2 (30:15):
Fresh towel that you get that kind of hotel towel feel.
You're gonna get it with the six piece towel set.
And you probably have old towels in your house. You
need to replace them and upgrade them. And that's what
you can do with the six piece towel set. Now,
I just got a piece six piece set myself. You
should get some, just have it on hand. Great for
(30:35):
guests too, you know, just to have that six piece
set ready to go. For a limited time. You get
this set on clearance for twenty five dollars with my
first name as the promo code buck. Two bath towels,
two hand towels, two washcloths. Typically it's retails for ninety
nine to ninety eight. Get it over seventy percent off
when you use promo code buck. To find this offer,
(30:56):
just go to MyPillow dot com click on the radio
listener special square. Get this clearance price of twenty five
dollars on the towel set. The deal will not last long.
Enter promo code buck for that twenty five dollars deal.
All right, doctor Boticharia giving you the ability here to
clean up faucheese mess. How do we fix this? How
(31:16):
do we fix the credibility problem? How do we fix
the systemic wrongness problem from the pandemic? So to your point,
we don't lock down again and do all this crazy
stuff again because I think we would.
Speaker 3 (31:27):
Yeah, I think we would too. But at the end,
to answer your question, the key thing is, let's follow
what happens after an airline disaster crash. Right, the NTSB
sends out, it's independent investigators, people who weren't involved in
the disaster. They take a look at the black box,
they like try to figure out what happened, and then
they make reforms so that it doesn't happen again. Right,
(31:48):
And the same thing happens in medicine. Right, so when
the patient dies, you'll have these conferences called minem conferences,
mobility and mortality conferences and where doctors like it sometimes
can get heated, but like the idea isn't to blame anybody.
The idea is to like figure out what went wrong.
We need a society wide eminem conference, a society wide
airline disaster conference for the disaster that was the management
(32:09):
of this pandemic. And you know there's some places that
are starting to do this, but like it's it the
quote there, no one has asked really all of the
right questions. So I've worked with a do on a
document called a Norfolk Group document an o rfolk dot
org Norfolk Group dot org. Uh that that asks essentially
like eighty pages of questions, scientific questions, policy questions. You know,
(32:32):
some of the stuff we discussed, what was the evidence
on masks, what was the evidence on natural natural immunity?
Why didn't why wasn't it acknowledged? When did people know
that the vaccine didn't stop transmission? Why were there why
we're still there being mandates pushed? All these all these
questions need to get asked, both at the national level,
I think, and also at local levels. And and in
(32:53):
essentially it's an agenda, a blueprint for what an honest
commission looking at the COVID policy disaster would ask. We
still haven't had one. I think that's fundamental. Once we
have that, and it's not it won't be run by me.
It should be run nor by Tony. Fact you've run
by independent people who that and you have answers to
(33:13):
these questions that everyone accepts. Then you can start to
begin to start to regain credibility.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
Am into that doctor Boticharia, A lot of us out
there and not just me, really appreciate what you did
during the pandemic. And then you continue to speak the truth,
and it feels like the world of medicine is not
completely going into the abyss of politicization and mass psychosis.
So thank you for that, and thank you very much
for being those Is there anywhere you should you want
(33:40):
to direct people to either look at your research, follow
you on Twitter, or anything like that.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
Yeah, so I'm on Twitter. Probably too much on Twitter,
as my wife tells me. But doctor J. Boticharia A
D R J B h A T T A c
h A R I A. I'm also I have a
new sub Stack thing called Illusion of Consensus where we
explore how the idea of consensus arises, why sometimes often
(34:08):
the idea of consensus and sciences is actually just simply
an illusion in fact, and we use the pandemic as
a lens into that process. How the media and the
scientific community work together to create this illusion when in
fact there's quite a bit of dissenting ideas inside science.
So Illusion of Consensus on substack and Twitter, those are
(34:31):
the two places to follow you right now.
Speaker 2 (34:33):
Doc, you have a new subscriber. I think you've got
a whole lot of others that are coming your way
to when they hear this.
Speaker 3 (34:36):
Thank you so much, Thank you Buck, thank you for
having me, thank you for the great branch of decoration,
signing it
You're listening to The Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show, everybody. On this episode,
we have doctor J. Batacharia with us. We're very excited
to talk to him about well health policy as it
relates to COVID and so much more. Batachari as a
professor at Stanford University Medical School, teaching in the Department
of Health Policy. He's a Research associate of the National
(00:41):
Bureau of Economic Research, a founding fellow of the Academy
of Science at Freedom at Hillsdale College, and co wrote
the Great Barrington Declaration, a focused protection alternative through lockdowns.
Doctor Botacharia honored to speak with you, sirs. As a
very early, huge supporter, booster, adopter of the Great Barrington Declaration.
(01:03):
I feel like I'm in the presence of Sanity Royalty.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
Thank you for your sanity Tuotebuck sheiate the support for it.
Thank you for having me on.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
So just for everyone listening to this, if they, you know,
subscribe to my show and they know what I'm gonna say,
so you were right. So the Great brand Declaration was
as correct more correct now, even if that's possible, than
it was then because we played out the experiment on
the other.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Side of what what happened.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Let me start with this because it's such a big
topic and we don't you know, you've got people to
save and young minds to mold and all that stuff.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
At Stanford.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
How is it that all the institutions of medicine seemed
to get this entirely wrong and would not speak out
at all in favor of some sanity on this.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
I mean, I think there was some element of policy
hysteresis wish. I mean, like very early on the Chinese example,
the January twenty twenty Chinese lockdown played an enormously important
role in the minds of public health. The people, like
the World Health Organization sent a delegation to China in
February and it came back like they wrote this report saying, oh,
(02:21):
what China did worked, and then everyone copied China, all
the countries one by one, from Italy on. It was
like Domino's falling with these lockdowns, And you know, how
do you do something so dramatic, so devastating that already had.
It's really hard if you're like at the top of
some bureaucracy and some hierarchy, especially if you're a scientist,
(02:42):
to admit that you've got it wrong. And so I
think that that's that. Like by the time October twenty
twenty rolled around, I mean, I saw very clearly the
lockdowns had failed in October, in April, March, April twenty twenty,
and that I'd already gotten already seen all of the
devastating reports that were coming out of poor countries and
even rich countries about what had happened to poor people
(03:03):
during the lockdowns and so and I also saw that
the lockdowns were coming back. And so what's happened? And
I think since is it's a lot of people who
should have known better, and maybe now they actually do
know better, but they can't bring themselves to admit that
they were wrong. Because they do, they sort of lose
their status, lose their position, lose their power.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
Now, did you have docs coming to you, colleagues, people
you know in the medical community who were saying to you, look,
I know this is all crap like this the paper masks, really,
the masks period aren't doing anything for anybody. The lockdowns
were a disaster didn't stop the virus at all. And
(03:47):
you know, the vaccines are nowhere near what they were
promised to be. And I want to get your take
on exactly how you'd grade the vaccines in a moment.
But did you have people coming to you in twenty
twenty one, twenty twenty two, I mean, I mean later
on in the pandemic, or was the group think so
strong that mds, even from Vario esteemed institutions like in
(04:10):
Stanford University Medical School just couldn't see what was obvious.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
So in twenty twenty I'm pretty sure I was not
a majority, My view was not the majority within Stanford,
but it might have been a pretty prominent a much
more prominent than people realized.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Right.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
So when we wrote the Great Brenton Declaration, almost immediately
actually released it, tens of thousands of scientists signed on,
very prominent scientists signed on, including a Nobel Prize winner
here at Stanford. It was it was really clear that
there was a pretty substantial portion of the scientific community
that was very deeply unhappy with the lockdowns, that actually
was not a consensus, the scientific consensus behind them, and
(04:49):
that actually that there was a lot of people who
thought what we were proposing, which is essentially lifting lockdowns
and focused protection of vulnerable older people, was a better strategy.
Was a strategy actually, just to be clear, that strategy
we proposed the Great Brandon decoration. That's basically the old
pandemic plan we followed for a century of respiratory virus pandemics.
I was just cribbing off of people that are smarter
than me for over the last entry. So it wasn't
(05:11):
like we had a really truly novel thing. So it's
not surprising that a lot of people, but the suppression
was so the censorship, the smearing of people that that
said no, was so severe that a lot of people
kept themselves silent. A lot of very prominent people kept
themselves silent after after we wrote the Great Parent Doc Christians,
the people that signed it, some of them lost their jobs.
(05:32):
A lot of them face like, you know, investigations and
other things within their own universities for you know, for heresy,
I guess. And it was it was so shocking because
I thought the scientific community was more open to challenge.
I mean, that's part of what science is. You say,
you think you think a I think that I think
(05:52):
B we run an experiment, it turns out you're right.
Now we both think A right, but no, I'm not
even allowed to say B. You're not allowed to say
and therefore there's no challenge and we don't know what's right.
A lot of that happened during the pandemic. People silence themselves.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
Has there been any I mean, here we are talking
in halfway through twenty twenty three, and you know, someone
just told me that in New York City where I
left New York City because of the response to the pandemic.
I mean, that was the number one reason I just said,
I can't do this anymore at this place. The libs
have gone completely insane, and I'm not going to pay
(06:29):
taxes to support this system, et cetera. Right, but put
that aside for a moment. A friend of mine who
was there said that recently, all these they had these
little COVID testing tents, as if remember there was that obsession.
It's almost hard to go back and think of this
as like a nightmare that you're trying to forget. There
was this obsession with we just had testing everywhere, Like
what is that? What is that even going to do?
Speaker 1 (06:48):
Right?
Speaker 2 (06:48):
What was the point of having just mass testing, constant
test test, test test tests all the time. Was just
an anxiety disorder pretending to be a health policy. But
you know now they've switched it, so now it's COVID
and flu testing. Almost like we've created this bureaucracy that
will now live on forever. Instead of everyone realizing what
a disaster the policies were, the policies were, we're really bad.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
Yeah, it's institutionalized hypochondria book, That's what it was, and
it is. I mean, I think you know you you
the testing is is valuable if you use it the
right way. Right, So if let's take those at home
managing tests, right, So what if we'd had them very
early and we use them so that before you go
visit a nursing home, you test you have to check sure.
(07:33):
Right before, all we had was those PCR tests. That
wasn't a technological thing. That was a decision that was
made by public health that to not promote the andergen
test early. That could have been you know, sort of
promoted and like developed much earlier. And the reasoning was that, well,
if you do a PCR test that has to happen
in a lab, public health will know if you're positive,
if you'd had the Amergen test early, people could have
(07:54):
known for themselves without even directly reporting public health and
use that information to protect older people, vulnerable people. Matchine,
We've done that. Like the test, the key question is
not whether we should test. The question is what do
we where should we test? What we tell for, and
what do you do with the information? Testing low risk
people for for for the viral fragments in a where
(08:20):
they have no symptoms at all, It is just destructive,
it puts it results in a whole bunch of low
people being quarantined for nothing. That's what happened during the pandemic.
And then a lot of people just stop testing because
they're like I don't want to I don't want to
be stuck in quarantine for you end days just because
I tested positive. So yeah, I think I think the
testing it's just it's it's like you have a technology,
(08:41):
but you don't know how to really use it. You
have to like think, And we didn't do that.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Yeah, no, there was there was no thinking. Tier to
your point about the previous pandemic policies as well, it
really feels like the people that were supposed to implement
the policy, looked at the book of what decades of
thought and research had come up with and said, now,
let's scrap this. Let's let's just let's go with something
else right away in the moment, you know, if you've
been practicing a fire drill and a fire exit plan
(09:06):
for years, the house catches on fire and you go, well,
let's forget about the fire. Let's forget about those fire exits. Everybody,
let you know, everyone think you're crazy. Seems to be
kind of what they did.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
This for me. But it's an area, you know.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
I still get people docs you know, that say, oh,
you know, we've moved past COVID. I said, how have
you moved past COVID? There hasn't been any account any
accountability for this. Have you seen any major institution. I'm
here in Miami because I left New York and I
went to the U Miami Health System just to get
a yearly my check up, you know, And I don't
(09:41):
go yearly, but I hadn't been.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
I like, I don't know five or six years. Don't
tell anyone, doc.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
And so I'm going for a checkup, and they made
me wear This is a couple months ago. They made
me wear a mask walking in the lobby and then
I go in the actual medical area and like, yeah,
we don't really but I mean they shouted at me
to put a mask on. I don't feel like there's
an accountability. I think there's still pockets of lunacy. Do
you think has anyone been chastened by this? You know,
(10:05):
does anyone at the CDC feel horrified at what an
abject failure they were during the US or not really now?
Speaker 3 (10:11):
The CDC, the NI, HD, FDA, they're all they all
failed in very fundamental ways, and they're basically like they're
giving themselves awards, like they're patting themselves on the back.
There have been some attempts to try to like do
some evaluations. So for instance, the House Select Committee on
this Coronavirus task coronavirus pandemic has been meeting, but you know,
(10:32):
like if you look, I testified that the Democrats have
basically they think they've done everything right. The only problem
was misinformation by the by the by the right, and
so like you don't you're not getting like honest, like
a real honest evaluation in that setting of what actually
went wrong, scientific questions about what what went wrong in
policy and in science. There's other places like in around
(10:54):
the world. The UK has its is it's its parliamentary
inquiry going on. There are some some some like like
the Danish of the Norwegian authorities have concluded that they
shouldn't have closed schools for the two weeks or whatever
they closed it for the very short period of time
they closed it. So you're starting to see some push pushback.
But as it stands, Buck, I completely agree with you.
We are in a position where if the pandemic, another
(11:16):
pandemic comes, we will lock down again. We will absolutely
lock down to it is now thus standard plan. And
so that means that if you run a small business,
prepare around that, because it's very likely that you're going
to face a time where your demand is going to
dry up because of that. If you have kids, make
alternate arrangements, make sure that they have some capacity to
(11:37):
learn even if another pandemic happens. You know, I think, uh,
a huge amount of civilization depends on some sort of
certainty that the kinds of guarantees that we have in
our society. You know, I can send my kids to
school and I kid the teachers are going to teach
them I have to worry about it. Those those are
out the window now thanks to this pandemic manage, this
crazy pandemic management we faced and that which is now
(12:00):
I think the standard plan.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
So I want to I want to ask you, Doc,
hold hold your answer for a second, but I want
to ever know. We're going to get into what your
real report card for the mRNA vaccines against COVID. I
want to be specific on it because I know people
like to play all these games. No, no, no, no, I
want your real report card for what we know now
based on the data and what we've seen in reality,
(12:24):
not in theory. In just a second, but for a
moment here, I want to talk about the Tunnel the
Towers Foundation two thousand, nine hundred and seventy seven People
lost their lives on nine to eleven, two thousand and one,
but that day is still taking lives. People are suffering
and dying from nine to eleven related illnesses. Not to mention,
there's also a whole generation out there that knows little
to nothing about nine to eleven. Only two states in
(12:45):
our nation mandate K to twelve learning about that day.
That's why the Tunnel the Towers nine to eleven Institute
is giving educators access to nonfiction nine to eleven resources
for K through twelve that includes full curriculum units built
around first person accounts. Tunnel to Towers Foundation has also
created a Speaker's Bureau with access to nine to eleven
(13:06):
first responders, survivors, and loved ones. They speak in schools
and community centers as they're invited. Finally, they've got a
mobile exhibit, a high tech eighty three foot tractor trailer
that turns into an eleven hundred square foot interactive museum
with nine to eleven artifacts. To never forget, we must
educate future generations. Help Tunnel to Towers educate kids. Donate
(13:27):
eleven dollars a month at T two t dot org.
That's T the number two T dot org. All right,
your grade for the mRNA vaccines, doctor Botocharia.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
See I give it a C.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
So tell us what worked, what didn't? What do we
need to know?
Speaker 3 (13:48):
Yeah? So, I think the problem actually is again not
just the technology, but rather how it's used. All right, So,
in December of twenty twenty, the randomized trials what it found.
What they found was that the vaccines stopped symptomatic infection.
At ninety five percent for two months. That was the
That was the result. We didn't know if it's if
(14:09):
if the the protection waned after that time. We didn't
know if it stopped transmission. If you get infected, can
you still get infected, can you still pass the disease on?
We didn't know if it stopped asymptomatic infection, And we
didn't know for certain whether it protected you against severe
disease and death, because the random zest trials didn't have
that as a primary endpoint. In fact, the m RNA
vaccines the trials had actually more deaths in the vaccine
(14:34):
arm than the placebo arm, but it was like such
small numbers that you couldn't tell statistically. You had to
tell it when it world down in the public at large.
The reason I give it a C is I do
think that it would protect it against severe disease and death,
which was really important for older people who had a
very high risk of dying from COVID. Young people, the
mortality benefit is small because the risk of dying from
(14:56):
COVID is small, so I don't see much benefit, and
I do see some harm, like for young men, like
folks your age, it's you have I think an unacceptably
high rate of myocarditis, especially after the second dose, but
certainly even the first does you know, heart inflammation after
the vaccine, so for for so okay, So how would
(15:17):
you use that vaccine with with this kind of these
kind of characteristic The way I would use it is
I would use it to protect older people. I would
very much strongly encourage older people to get the vaccine,
And in fact, that's what I did, and I think
it saved lives doing that.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
Kind of like the flu, right, I mean, the flu
is for older people, immuno compromise people get a flu shot, right,
that's generally the that's the advice, the guidance that I've received,
I think a lot of other people here from their doctors.
But it's not if you're twenty five and you don't
get the flu shot, you're a monster who's killing your
killing your grandma.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
Yeah, because the flu shot doesn't stop transmission most most years,
and it's so like you know, if young young people
can get actually young flu is probably a little worse
for young people than covid is, depending on the age
and the condition you're in. So it's you know, flu is,
flu is a different thing. The vaccine is a very
it's a very traditional technology. It's very safe, that flu vaccine.
(16:08):
It's we know we know that the characteristics of it
because we've been using it for decades. It wasn't true
for the mRNA vaccine when we recommended it at scale. Instead,
we used it to essentially we first first public comp
made this promise that if everyone got it, or ninety
percent of the people got or eighty percent of people
got it, then the disease would stop. You get hurt
immunity with the vaccine. The problem was like herd immunity
(16:31):
doesn't work that way. You don't you don't you need
a vaccine that actually stops you from getting and transmitting
the disease. There's a famous clip of this woman on
MSNBC like you know this like incredible delivery. She's like
telling saying, okay, if you if you get it, you
are a dead end for the virus. You don't transmit
it to other people, right, And that was wrong. She
(16:53):
didn't know that. The public Health didn't know that. And
yet you had Tony thought you going around saying you
gotta have eighty percent of people to get it in
order for the disease to go away.
Speaker 1 (17:00):
Well, that that was the part of it.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
That all that I think bothered so many people. You know,
I told, and I was saying this on Radio two
at the time. I told my own parents, who were
both seeing both senior citizens, unsurprisingly, to go get the vaccine.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
And they did.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
And I think that under the circumstances, given what we knew,
that was a sensible move. But the whole mandates and
the federal mandate that Biden tried and then had to
be overturned, you know, the Supreme Court had to step
in and say, no, you can't do that. This was
all premised on you have to get it because you're
a danger to the people around you if you don't.
I mean, that was a total lie, right doc. And
(17:37):
what I want to know is should did they know
it was a lie all along?
Speaker 1 (17:43):
Was it always a lie? Or did they figure out
that it was a lie? You know what I mean?
Speaker 3 (17:46):
So early on let's say January Febry twenty twenty one,
they didn't know it was true because the trial didn't
check it. So if they confidently said that if you
get the vaccine, you're not going to spread it, they're
lying because they're over representing what the trial said. By
let's say April May June twenty twenty one, it was
clear from international events that heavily vaccine societies were experiencing
(18:10):
huge disease burden, a huge spread of the disease. You know,
places like I remember the earliest one was I was.
I think it was like the Seychelle Islands, which you
use the Chinese vaccine. I saw this enormous outbreak in
like late March, early April Afica, exact the date, twenty
twenty one. I thought, huh, that's strange. Maybe maybe that
means that the vaccine, the Chinese vaccine, doesn't work. I
wonder what that means for the for the these vacs,
(18:31):
the MR ANDAs we used. And then I saw Gibraltar
which had an enormous outbreak. And then I saw, I mean,
it's just like Israel. Country after country there was heavily vaccinated,
saw enormous outbreaks. It was clear that all of these
vaccines had failed to stop disease spread, and that at
that point it was it was a pure lie. They
should have been seeing these same things I saw, and
(18:53):
yet they still going on TV saying if you don't
aren't vaccinated, You're a danger to others. That's a lie
piled on top of demonization of people. This this sort
of like separation of people on the basis of like
are you clean or unclean, which is a very dangerous
thing to do in public health. A lot of people. Yeah,
I don't know, Like I heard all these stories from
(19:13):
Thanksgiving A twenty twenty one where I'm vaccinated, people weren't
invited to Thanksgiving for their own families. Yes, I mean
that's public Health's fault. That that's a lie put around
by public health essentially demonized people on the base of
the vaccination status. And then there was a parent lie
with it, which is that if you had had COVID
and recovered, there was no there's no immunity at all. All.
(19:36):
The evidence was really clear by July twenty twenty that
you had pre substantial immunity.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
Yeah, how is it that doctor Fauci could look anyone
in the health sphere in the face and say, Rather,
the bigger thing is what he didn't say, which he
the concept of natural immunity was completely abandoned for the pandemic.
How couldn't people see, right? I mean, doc, how many
years did what you went to school? How many years
(20:03):
for medicine? I mean it was like four years medical school,
four years residency, right, I mean you spent decades of
your life studying this. There are like you, How could
they have not have seen this? I feel like I'm
just some random dude. I saw this.
Speaker 1 (20:14):
It was crazy, Okay.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
Yeah, So I mean, you know, so I do research
full time. Just so you know, So I didn't do residency,
but oh I did a PhD. I got gray hair
for a reason.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
Buck, Yeah, you studied this stuff for a long time,
bottom line fair.
Speaker 3 (20:26):
Yeah, but yeah, just so why did they not know?
I mean I think that the problem is like the
kinds of people that ran the pandemic response, they're they're
most of their HIV experts, right, So, like you know,
Tony Fauci, Rachelle Olenski, all of these folks, they made
their bones in HIV, and for HIV there's no immunity,
(20:50):
so and you know, like there's this new virus. They
use their knowledge of HIV to set expectations about this virus.
So very early on, it was like you weren't even
allowed to say that it's the possibility of the immunity.
Until you can prove it. The problem is like they
didn't update. By July of twenty twenty, it was clear
from like a multiple papers in prominent medical journals that actually,
(21:11):
you know it works pretty well, that is, your body's
immune response works pretty well. And they didn't update. They
were like, oh, we can't know for certain, We can't
know for certain. Well, you know for certain for the
vaccine either. And if you really look, you're right bucket.
You don't even need medical training. You can go back
in history, right, We've known for twenty five hundred years
during the Athenian Plague, they used people who would recover
(21:34):
from disease to care for people who are already sick.
It Right, in the Athenian Plague twenty five hundred years ago,
people used they used people who recovered to care for
the people who were sick because they knew about natural immunity. Somehow,
in the last three years we forgot about twenty five
hundred years of medical knowledge, and Tony Fauci going around saying, oh,
(21:56):
I'm not certain that you have protection if you have
COVID or covered.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
We don't.
Speaker 3 (22:00):
I mean, that's just crazy, it's just bad policy. People
could see with their eyes that if they got COVID
that it took for a long time. Afterwards they wouldn't
get COVID. They could see with their eyes at the
second than they got it was less severe than the
first time.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
So I've been called an anti mask fanatic by all
the worst people. So I want to return and ask
you about some mask related questions and the possible connection
to massivesteria here in just a second doc. But first up,
some days you have to dig deep for the energy
you need. But where does that energy come from? And
(22:33):
men's body's testosterone is a critical source. And if your
body is not producing enough to meet the demand, you're
feeling worn out before the day is far from over,
and you're not performing at your best. The solution is
found with the company by the name of Chalk that's cchoq.
Their most popular daily supplement. Chalk's Male Vitality Stack is
specifically formulated to provide more energy and more focus. The
(22:55):
leading ingredient has been proven in studies to replenish twenty
percent of diminished testosterone levels in just three months time.
And that's just one of the many benefits that comes
from making the Male Vitality Stack A part of your
daily regimen. You're going to feel so much better as
a result. Go online today to Chalk dot com and
get set up. Their website is spelled cchoq dot com.
(23:16):
Save thirty five percent off any Chalk subscription when you
use my name Buck in your purchase process. That's Chalk
cchoq dot com and use my name Buck to get
thirty five percent off your subscription for life. So doc
I when I go into any doctor's office, and this
has been the way I felt now for what three years,
but certainly still because it does happen in places, and
(23:37):
I see, you know, the purpose of the people at
the front desk with the masks on they're walking around
when I'm told that it's still hospital policy as it
is in some places that visitors everybody has to walk
around with a paper mask on. I lose faith in
the intelligence, the seriousness, and the professionalism of the people involved.
Are they aware of this at this point? Like this
is this is no longer a debate that rational people
(24:00):
can have. It doesn't work, It doesn't help.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
What are they doing?
Speaker 3 (24:06):
It's it's okay, So let me just do a little
bit of the history. I think this is my theory
about why they launched themselves or attached themselves to such
an odd such a bad uh, such an intervention with
the almost no evidence behind it. In fact, the evidence
behind it. Coming into the pandemic, there was a dozen
randomized studies that said it didn't work. Show they didn't
really work very well for the flu, which transmits very
(24:26):
similarly to COVID, and so we knew we had the experience.
There was a reason why we didn't say to school's
mask up during flu season because there was the randomized
studies that it didn't work. When the pandemic hit, I
think public health had two contradictory aims that they needed
to meet. They wanted to meet first, they wanted to
tell the public, you've got to take this pandemic seriously.
(24:48):
Remember how early on, like there was that guy, that
NBA player, Rudy Gobert, who, like you know, he does
this like press conference, the licks the microphone and the
everyone gets on his case because he's not taking COVID seriously.
Masks serve the purpose of telling everybody you're in the
middle of a pandemic. Everyone's wearing a mask that means
you're in the middle of pandemic. Everything's going to take
the pandemic seriously. The second thing the mass does, and
(25:13):
this is paradoxical, is they also give people the sense
of control that they have something to do about the
risk that they face. So the public health makes people
feel this sense of risk and then they give them
something to control it, and now you moralize around it.
Take I wear the mask and I'm like protecting others
with it, right, I'm doing good. So I think that's
(25:35):
really like the fundamental thing, Like it didn't matter what
the evidence said. All that mattered was that you had
this sense of control and you have this sense of fear,
and the mass ser of both of those purposes. The
evidence during the pandemic became came in loud and clear.
Randomized studies that were looking at the effective as the
mass would find nothing. And so yeah, I think the
(25:58):
places that are still attached to the masks, where they
treat everybody like a biohazard, they're not following any scientific data.
And I mean, I'm not sure I should agree with
you about joejudging them, Buck, but you know what i mean,
I'm sympathetic.
Speaker 2 (26:14):
Well, I just want to know, like, does anyone would
anyone in the medical community honesty come up to you
and say, doctor Botacharia, this cloth mask that I wear
for you know, a total of five minutes a day,
maybe when I go into the doctor's office. Nowhere else,
by the way, nowhere else am I wearing this? This
keeps me very safe from Aristolas virus? Like, is there
(26:35):
is there a serious MD on the planet who would
make that case to you? And if not, how is
it that there are still places that are making us mask?
Speaker 3 (26:43):
I mean there are still people floating around inside meta.
I mean, like, you know, you can tell yourself any
story you like, buck and if you convince yourself for
you can. I mean, but and people there are people
like it's just cognitive disonance. They can't believe that they
were wrong about something, like very very smart people. So
there's not that there aren't people like that. You know
on Twitter they still bug me. But like, but it's
it's it's not. I think most people in medicine understand
(27:06):
that there was a mistake, that that that there isn't
the evidence behind did that they wanted, and that they
embraced an intervention that didn't have evidence, and it's undermined
the credibility in the eyes of the population. I think
a lot of people in medicine and public health have
started if they haven't seen that, they started to see that.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
What do you I want to ask you how we
can fix this, this credibility issue, or what that would
look like, doc. And I also just want to say
thank you for the Great Barrenton Declaration for a lot
of us who were trying to hold the line for
sanity while and I'm talking about you know, early on
right summer twenty twenty, we'd all seen the hospital tents
(27:46):
in Central Park that never got used because they weren't needed,
and the hospital ship that never got.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
Used in New York City.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
But you know, they brought up this whole hospital ship.
We all saw this stuff, and the Great Barrington Declaration
came out and we're like, wait a second, so what
we see just as rational people. There are doctors who
are telling us that that's true. Right, So it was
really I don't know if anyone told you this. It
was a glue of light in a darkness of mass
(28:13):
hysteria and appalling cowardice and political opportunism. And you know,
I know you're a very nice guy. My disdain for
Anthony Fauci, who went to my high school, which I
always tell people is kind of funny. Will never it
will never cease because he's never apologized. He's never said
I lied about everything and I was wrong about everything.
If he does that, then you know, fine, Fauci will
(28:34):
call it a day, I guess. But the Great Barrington
Declaration is very important anyway, and you can tell I
feel very passionate about this. We'll get back to this
in a second. I just want to say thank you
for attaching your name to it and giving a template
for reality and sanity at a time when so many
of us were looking around saying, I can't believe you
know double mess. Remember they talked about goggles and gloves too.
(28:57):
I mean, I remember all this.
Speaker 3 (28:59):
Tony Fauschu said goggles. There's not a single study I've
seen that talks about I don't know where she get
that idea.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
Just you know why not right? I mean, to your
point about the enforced hypochondria, it really turned into Remember
they put the kids in the bubbles for band practice,
like the plastic bubbles. Remember remember the plastic dividers that
they set up.
Speaker 3 (29:20):
In place A study that shows that it reduces airflow,
making things worse.
Speaker 1 (29:27):
Yes, you're creating like little pockets of virus. I mean
you can't make this stuff up.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
Everything that they did that people didn't want to do.
That people you know had a problem with, Like, yeah,
you're six, stay away from people, stay home.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
That's called having.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
The flu or the cold for all of you know,
human existence. You know, you don't want to infect people.
So if you're six, stay home anyway. Doc, But I
want to ask how we fix this. We'll get to
that in a second. But for everybody at home, the
team at my Pillow got to talk to you about
this for a second. You know, the Geeza dream Sheets
have done amazingly well their slippers, their pillow products, There's
so much that they have that are absolutely fantastic. But
(30:05):
their newest and latest offer is on their six piece
towel set. It's made with USA cotton, making it extremely absorbent,
still provides that soft feel you look for in a towel.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
You want that.
Speaker 2 (30:15):
Fresh towel that you get that kind of hotel towel feel.
You're gonna get it with the six piece towel set.
And you probably have old towels in your house. You
need to replace them and upgrade them. And that's what
you can do with the six piece towel set. Now,
I just got a piece six piece set myself. You
should get some, just have it on hand. Great for
(30:35):
guests too, you know, just to have that six piece
set ready to go. For a limited time. You get
this set on clearance for twenty five dollars with my
first name as the promo code buck. Two bath towels,
two hand towels, two washcloths. Typically it's retails for ninety
nine to ninety eight. Get it over seventy percent off
when you use promo code buck. To find this offer,
(30:56):
just go to MyPillow dot com click on the radio
listener special square. Get this clearance price of twenty five
dollars on the towel set. The deal will not last long.
Enter promo code buck for that twenty five dollars deal.
All right, doctor Boticharia giving you the ability here to
clean up faucheese mess. How do we fix this? How
(31:16):
do we fix the credibility problem? How do we fix
the systemic wrongness problem from the pandemic? So to your point,
we don't lock down again and do all this crazy
stuff again because I think we would.
Speaker 3 (31:27):
Yeah, I think we would too. But at the end,
to answer your question, the key thing is, let's follow
what happens after an airline disaster crash. Right, the NTSB
sends out, it's independent investigators, people who weren't involved in
the disaster. They take a look at the black box,
they like try to figure out what happened, and then
they make reforms so that it doesn't happen again. Right,
(31:48):
And the same thing happens in medicine. Right, so when
the patient dies, you'll have these conferences called minem conferences,
mobility and mortality conferences and where doctors like it sometimes
can get heated, but like the idea isn't to blame anybody.
The idea is to like figure out what went wrong.
We need a society wide eminem conference, a society wide
airline disaster conference for the disaster that was the management
(32:09):
of this pandemic. And you know there's some places that
are starting to do this, but like it's it the
quote there, no one has asked really all of the
right questions. So I've worked with a do on a
document called a Norfolk Group document an o rfolk dot
org Norfolk Group dot org. Uh that that asks essentially
like eighty pages of questions, scientific questions, policy questions. You know,
(32:32):
some of the stuff we discussed, what was the evidence
on masks, what was the evidence on natural natural immunity?
Why didn't why wasn't it acknowledged? When did people know
that the vaccine didn't stop transmission? Why were there why
we're still there being mandates pushed? All these all these
questions need to get asked, both at the national level,
I think, and also at local levels. And and in
(32:53):
essentially it's an agenda, a blueprint for what an honest
commission looking at the COVID policy disaster would ask. We
still haven't had one. I think that's fundamental. Once we
have that, and it's not it won't be run by me.
It should be run nor by Tony. Fact you've run
by independent people who that and you have answers to
(33:13):
these questions that everyone accepts. Then you can start to
begin to start to regain credibility.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
Am into that doctor Boticharia, A lot of us out
there and not just me, really appreciate what you did
during the pandemic. And then you continue to speak the truth,
and it feels like the world of medicine is not
completely going into the abyss of politicization and mass psychosis.
So thank you for that, and thank you very much
for being those Is there anywhere you should you want
(33:40):
to direct people to either look at your research, follow
you on Twitter, or anything like that.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
Yeah, so I'm on Twitter. Probably too much on Twitter,
as my wife tells me. But doctor J. Boticharia A
D R J B h A T T A c
h A R I A. I'm also I have a
new sub Stack thing called Illusion of Consensus where we
explore how the idea of consensus arises, why sometimes often
(34:08):
the idea of consensus and sciences is actually just simply
an illusion in fact, and we use the pandemic as
a lens into that process. How the media and the
scientific community work together to create this illusion when in
fact there's quite a bit of dissenting ideas inside science.
So Illusion of Consensus on substack and Twitter, those are
(34:31):
the two places to follow you right now.
Speaker 2 (34:33):
Doc, you have a new subscriber. I think you've got
a whole lot of others that are coming your way
to when they hear this.
Speaker 3 (34:36):
Thank you so much, Thank you Buck, thank you for
having me, thank you for the great branch of decoration,
signing it
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.