The Megyn Kelly Show - Fauci, Cuomo, Hunter, and Omicron, with Sen. Rand Paul, Miranda Devine, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and Dr. David Dowdy ｜ Ep. 212

00:00:00.620 Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations.

00:00:12.280 Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. We have a packed show for you today.

00:00:16.660 Two of our favorite docs, rational COVID experts, are here with us to answer your questions and mine.

00:00:22.900 Don't you want to get to the bottom of this?

00:00:24.100 You know, once again, the Omicron misinformation machine is out there. Everyone's trying to panic you.

00:00:31.940 Should we be panicked? Reasonable people are honestly saying, I'm open-minded to panic.

00:00:38.220 It's like, do I actually need to? And I think you're going to hear some reassuring answers today.

00:00:44.500 And Chris Cuomo is apparently out at CNN, though it's a little unclear, at least for now he's out,

00:00:50.820 indefinitely suspended. Miranda Devine, brilliant, brilliant of the New York Post, is with me to talk

00:00:58.120 about that, the Cuomo brothers, and her new book on Hunter Biden called The Laptop from Hell.

00:01:05.320 It's a great title. But first, just two days after telling the American public that the Omicron variant

00:01:11.720 is not a cause for panic, it seems President Biden is about to cause a whole lot of panic

00:01:16.620 for holiday travelers. The president is reportedly set to announce strict new travel rules for anyone

00:01:22.780 flying into this country, including vaccinated Americans returning, which may include requiring

00:01:29.480 you to self-quarantine for a week, even if you're vaccinated and you test negative.

00:01:34.600 So forget it if you thought you were going out of the country for Christmas.

00:01:38.160 And if you don't follow the rules, possible fines might be coming your way. Joining me now,

00:01:42.840 Senator Rand Paul. Senator, great to have you back on the program.

00:01:45.580 So let's start there. What do you make of the latest threat that now you're vaccinated,

00:01:50.160 you've tested negative, you leave the country, you come back in with a negative test,

00:01:54.900 and you still might have to quarantine for seven days?

00:01:58.200 You know, I think it's hard to know yet whether the Omicron variant is going to be a disaster or

00:02:03.580 whether it might even be a less lethal variant. We just don't know yet. Some of the initial reports

00:02:08.880 in South Africa show it having actually milder symptoms. I think we'll know more in a couple of

00:02:13.700 weeks, but I think it's premature for people to freak out. I don't think in general bans were.

00:02:19.760 There was a certain amount of hypocrisy to condemning, obviously, Trump's bans and now saying,

00:02:24.080 oh, they're fine because they're much more enlightened under Joe Biden. But I think there's

00:02:28.500 something to be said for the idea that maybe bans don't work on travel. The Omicron variant's been

00:02:33.720 found in 12 different countries already, which probably means it's in another couple of dozen,

00:02:38.320 may well already be here. And so freaking out and having travel restrictions hurts the economy,

00:02:43.560 but doesn't necessarily do anything about the spread of the virus.

00:02:47.040 But the instinct remains to panic. Even the head of the South African Medical Association has come

00:02:52.220 out and said, what do you do? Why are you doing this? It's not time to panic yet. We've only seen

00:02:56.020 mild symptoms. As you point out, we've had no hospitalizations, no one required oxygen,

00:03:00.260 no one died. And this thing hasn't hasn't really been much. We just wanted to let you know we saw it

00:03:05.260 and it had all these mutations on it. So we want to call your attention. But you're overreacting.

00:03:09.900 But that's what we do. Now, meantime, Dr. Fauci, your friend, seems to have really crossed over

00:03:16.260 into true God complex territory. I mean, he's he's a bureaucrat. But boy, talking about himself in the

00:03:22.740 way he has, I will tell you, as a private citizen, somewhat alarmed me. This is him over the weekend

00:03:29.480 talking about the attacks on him by senators like Ted Cruz. And I'm sure you were in there, too.

00:03:35.260 And talking about why he finds it inappropriate. The soundbite one.

00:03:40.780 My job has been totally focused on doing what I can with the talents and the influence I have

00:03:47.860 to make scientific advances to protect the health of the American public. So anybody who spends lies

00:03:56.320 and threatens and all that theater that goes on with some of the investigations and the congressional

00:04:03.080 committees and the Rand Pauls and all that other nonsense. That's noise, Margaret. That's noise.

00:04:09.960 Senator Cruz told the attorney general you should be prosecuted.

00:04:13.240 Yeah. I have to laugh at that. I should be prosecuted. What happened on January 6th, Senator?

00:04:22.340 Senator Cruz. I'm just going to do my job and I'm going to be saving lives and they're going to be

00:04:26.980 lying. Anybody who's looking at this carefully realizes that there's a distinct anti-science

00:04:34.020 flavor to this. So if they get up and criticize science, nobody's going to know what they're talking

00:04:40.140 about. But if they get up and really aim their bullets at Tony Fauci, well, people could recognize

00:04:45.920 there's a person there. So it's easy to criticize. But they're really criticizing science because I

00:04:52.300 represent science.

00:04:55.100 Criticism of him is criticism of science because he represents science. And you're a medical doctor

00:05:00.440 yourself. Your thoughts on it?

00:05:01.580 You know, I think there's a great danger when a government bureaucrat sets themselves up as

00:05:06.620 representing science. It, to me, doesn't conjure up images of freedom. It conjures up images of the

00:05:12.200 medieval church repressing science. You know, science should never be beholden to government

00:05:18.320 imprimatur or government dogma. And the thing is, most of the time when he's talking about mandates or

00:05:24.180 edicts that come from him, they're usually not based in science. So, for example, he's been saying

00:05:29.400 we're under-vaccinated as a country. The truth is actually the opposite. Well over 90 percent of

00:05:34.700 those over 65 at high risk have chosen voluntarily to get vaccinated. For children, he says, well, we

00:05:41.040 should mandate it on the children. And yet the death rate among children is almost zero. And if you look

00:05:46.780 at this and you say, well, do we have enough immunity to slow this down? It now appears, even according

00:05:53.000 to the CDC, that well over 100 million people in America, a third to maybe a half of Americans have had

00:05:59.100 COVID naturally. But if you don't count that natural immunity, then you jump to the

00:06:03.580 conclusion, oh, my, oh, my, we're under-vaccinated. We must mandate this. And that's probably not the

00:06:09.140 truth and very much open to debate. But for him to say to question him is to question the emperor of

00:06:15.160 science, to question the almighty high priest of science is really something un-American, scary and

00:06:21.720 worrisome that would elevate anybody to such a position.

00:06:24.220 Do you think his power and newfound fame has gone to his head?

00:06:29.700 Without question. And the thing is, is that he wants to maintain as if his only goals are

00:06:35.400 altruistic and he wants to help people. But he's been unwilling to discuss the origins of this virus.

00:06:41.240 He's been unwilling to discuss that he still is in favor of funding gain of function research

00:06:46.640 where they create viruses that don't exist in nature and that there's a great deal of evidence

00:06:51.340 that this pandemic started in a lab in Wuhan. Because he's unwilling to even countenance that 0.76

00:06:58.320 or have any discussion of that, he continues to support funding the lab in Wuhan. He continues to

00:07:04.180 support funding gain of function, very dangerous research in our country. And there are many

00:07:09.980 professors, many esteemed professors in the DNA world, in this microbiology world, who are worried

00:07:16.820 that we could create a virus or someone, one of these scientists could create a virus that could

00:07:20.960 have 15 percent mortality or 50 percent mortality. And yet there's been no discussion of this because

00:07:27.500 everybody is so beholden in Washington anyway to Fauci that I've been unable to have the Democrats

00:07:33.540 commit to any hearing or any investigations on the origin of this virus. And that worries me because

00:07:38.580 I think we could well have another pandemic worse than this come out of a lab.

00:07:42.840 Mm hmm. Yeah. He continues to wiggle on gain of function, even though his group admitted

00:07:47.340 subsequent to his congressional testimony that they did fund it through Peter Daszak's group,

00:07:52.240 EcoHealth Alliance. He he's basically hung up on the definition. He kind of tries to weasel out of

00:07:57.920 it, saying, well, you're you know, the definition is not the same and you can revise it all you want.

00:08:02.100 But we never funded under my definition. What is gain of function? Here he was on the Sunday shows

00:08:08.820 trying to say that's just a meaningless term. Soundbite to

00:08:11.980 Well, the intercept reporting is completely misleading because gain of function maybe

00:08:19.160 is a completely meaningless term unless you put it into context. Years ago, we paused all function

00:08:28.300 on manipulating viruses to set guardrails and guidelines and to get rid of the ambiguous and

00:08:34.960 misleading term of gain of function so that you could proceed with experiments if they fall within

00:08:41.840 those guidelines. Then someone comes along and says, you know, I don't like that definition.

00:08:48.220 And according to my definition, you did, quote, gain of function again. So meaning this term of gain

00:08:55.100 of function, it doesn't mean anything. What do you make of that, Senator?

00:09:00.220 You know, what's not disputed are the experiments that happened in Wuhan and that continue to happen

00:09:05.020 in the United States as well? They take an unknown virus from a bat cave. They basically dig a bunch 1.00

00:09:10.880 of guano from a bat cave, which is not a particularly, you know, enviable job. They dig up the guano, 0.95

00:09:16.880 they get viruses from it that are unknown. They then take the genes for those viruses or the S protein

00:09:22.300 from those viruses, mix them together with the genes from a known virus. Well, one of the known viruses

00:09:27.700 that they are using in Wuhan and other places is the SARS virus. This is a coronavirus from the 2004

00:09:34.560 era that had a 15% mortality. So they take a virus that we know has a 15% mortality and they mix it

00:09:42.120 together with an unknown virus. The good thing about the SARS virus is it was deadly, but it was not very

00:09:48.540 transmissible. They're mixing it with an unknown virus to see if it makes it more transmissible.

00:09:53.560 Dr. Fauci's argument is, well, we don't know whether it'll be more transmissible or not, but that's precisely

00:09:59.860 the reason for the experiment is to see if they can create viruses and then ask the question, is it more

00:10:06.160 transmissible? So the experiments in Wuhan did find viruses that are more transmissible, more lethal, more

00:10:12.720 deadly, which gained in function. And yet he says, well, those experiments happened, but because we didn't know

00:10:18.980 they would gain in function in advance, they're not gain of function. If that sounds like

00:10:23.280 parsing of words, that's exactly what it is. It's him wiggling away from responsibility. He realizes now that

00:10:29.660 5 million people died and 5 million families are grieving from the loss of people who died from a virus. And if this

00:10:35.960 virus came from a lab that he was funding, absolutely, he should be ridden out of town on a rail.

00:10:42.340 That's the thing that's so infuriating about the whole thing is you're trying to sort of figure out what happened in

00:10:47.140 that lab. What did we fund? What didn't we? Should we be revising policy? Should we be holding people

00:10:51.540 accountable? And he just keeps trying to like a whack-a-mole wiggle out of out from underneath

00:10:56.260 your thumb saying, well, it wasn't technically gain of function. Well, we didn't really do what you said

00:10:59.620 we did. But I think Josh Rogan of the Washington Post, who's he's he's written the definitive book

00:11:04.660 on this. He's been a very objective reporter on it. He he put it in a way I think we can all

00:11:08.940 understand, quote, Fauci and the NIH were collaborating on risky research with a Chinese lab

00:11:13.980 that has zero transparency and zero accountability during a crisis. And no one in a position of power

00:11:19.760 addressed that risk. Fauci's arguing the system worked. It didn't. And he went on to add the Wuhan

00:11:25.660 lab took our money and know how and built another secret part of the lab where they worked with the 0.77

00:11:30.480 Chinese military. I mean, isn't that the point? Whatever you want to call it, that he can't deny

00:11:35.560 that happened. And realize this isn't just partisan voices making this point. There's a professor from

00:11:42.440 MIT. His name is Kevin Esfelt. He helped to develop the CRISPR technology, which may someday

00:11:47.780 cure things like hemophilia and other genetic diseases. He's a known scholar, a known scientist,

00:11:56.040 not a partisan. He wrote in the Washington Post in an op ed about a month ago and said that this type

00:12:01.560 of research, this gain of function research that Dr. Fauci is denying, this type of research could

00:12:07.300 threaten our very civilization. It's a risk we should not be taking. This is coming from nonpartisans. 1.00

00:12:14.800 There's another Dr. Ebright from Rutgers, been saying the same thing for 15 years. We are endangering

00:12:20.920 civilization as we know it to create viruses that don't exist in nature with the risk that they could

00:12:27.440 be released, particularly in some of these labs that have been cited for lack of safety in China.

00:12:32.700 So this should not be a partisan issue. I cannot believe that there are not any Democrats in

00:12:38.120 Congress who care about trying to prevent something like this from happening again.

00:12:42.580 It's appalling. I've been fighting for six months for a hearing and I cannot get a committee hearing

00:12:47.480 on any of this. They're influenced by people like Jimmy Kimmel. He was on the air the other night

00:12:51.980 with this nonsense, but he speaks the way he says what many, many Democrats, including those in control

00:12:58.380 right now, feel about Fauci, about you, about the push for information on this. Take a listen to this.

00:13:05.000 He didn't ask for this. He's not a politician. He's a doctor. His interest is in protecting us

00:13:10.140 from disease. What are the thanks he gets? He gets scumbags like Ted Cruz, like Rand Paul,

00:13:15.880 like that vile inflatable Macy's parade balloon of dog Tucker Carlson making up 1.00

00:13:22.080 lies. The reason they do it is so they can keep terrifying old people, which is basically what 1.00

00:13:29.260 they do for a living. They scare senior citizens in order to get ratings and money and votes. But 1.00

00:13:33.860 to do that, they need villains to scare grandma. They need fresh villains. So they zero in on this

00:13:39.360 tiny, adorable, tired man who's done nothing but good for the world and they make stuff up about him.

00:13:45.160 They insinuate that he helped develop the virus in China. He's part of the deep state. He does cruel

00:13:51.060 experiments on puppies. They will say anything to tear him down. They'd say he invented mosquitoes

00:13:56.300 if people were dumb enough to believe it. And guess what? People are dumb enough to believe it. 0.99

00:14:01.860 Wow. Thoughts on that? Well, you know, there's an important debate that should be occurring in our 1.00

00:14:08.340 country that Dr. Fauci has completely obscured and tried to brush under the rug. And that is the

00:14:13.820 debate over whether natural immunity is an important part of the way that a country or a population

00:14:19.780 fights a virus. We now have 50 million people have tested positive for COVID in our country,

00:14:25.080 but even the CDC admits that there's at least two people for every one person we know about.

00:14:30.400 So that's really 100, maybe 150 million people. Virtually half of the United States has had COVID.

00:14:36.420 This is important because this is one way. You don't choose to get COVID, but if you've had it,

00:14:41.680 we should at least examine whether or not that immunity that you get from that is helpful.

00:14:45.800 What we are finding is that the vaccines do help in preventing severity of the disease and death.

00:14:51.760 And so if you're at high risk, I recommend taking them. But we should not also, we should acknowledge

00:14:56.660 that the natural immunity exists because the thing is, is if your child has already had it,

00:15:01.640 it makes no medical sense to give your child a COVID vaccine. Even if your child hasn't had it,

00:15:06.300 the death rate for children is virtually zero. And we should examine evidence on the masks.

00:15:11.540 We should look at Sweden. 1.8 million children in Sweden have been going to school for over a year

00:15:16.880 and a half and no deaths. And you say, well, what about the risk to their teachers? Well,

00:15:21.340 the teachers have no higher incidence of getting the disease than any other occupation in Sweden.

00:15:26.280 This is a great deal of evidence that what Dr. Fauci is putting out as he is the science and that all

00:15:32.100 the science, there should be a debate over masks. There should be a debate over who needs to be

00:15:35.840 vaccinated. And there should be a debate over access to treatment. Have you ever heard Dr. Fauci talk

00:15:41.100 about access to monoclonal antibodies? If he does, he says, oh, we want to make sure the deplorables

00:15:46.580 don't get them, that too many people in Florida are using them, that we need to ration them.

00:15:51.100 This is the real danger. He is not a disinterested sort of nation's doctor. He's a government

00:15:57.740 bureaucrat that has always worked for government. And his first response to any problem is more

00:16:03.440 government. So he isn't an objective source of information. And he's done a great deal to obscure

00:16:08.520 the truth by hiding the science and glossing over the science.

00:16:12.740 To me, the longer he's on the national stage, the more truth we see about him. And I don't think

00:16:16.760 the he's such an adorable little sweet bureaucrat thing that Jimmy Fallon or Jimmy Kimmel is trying

00:16:21.840 to peddle is going to work if Fauci continues to go out on these Sunday shows and say how he really

00:16:27.360 feels the business about I'm political. You know, let's talk about January 6th, Senator,

00:16:32.600 which he said about Ted Cruz. I mean, things like that. He made a number of blatantly political

00:16:39.060 comments. And you've been in the political game a long time, Senator. You tell me what that's going

00:16:44.200 to do to the right half of the country to hear him going hard left.

00:16:49.540 Well, this is sort of the problem with the establishment in Washington of both administrations

00:16:55.840 recently. If you want people who are skeptical of getting a vaccine to get a vaccine,

00:17:00.540 they'd be more likely to listen to a voice like mine and others who have a reasoned approach to

00:17:06.440 this who are not anti-vaccine. Instead, they try to marginalize us. And never I've never had one

00:17:12.380 phone call saying, would you help to encourage people to get vaccines? Because I will for people

00:17:17.620 at risk. And that's predominantly, but not not exclusively people over 65, but also anybody

00:17:24.740 overweight. I recommend that they get the vaccine. And I've been recommending this all along.

00:17:29.620 But in the next breath, I also tell people there is a treatment, monoclonal antibodies. You got to

00:17:34.080 get it early because Fauci has set the rules. And if you get into the hospital, they may not give you

00:17:38.720 the treatment. So I've been willing to give these reasonable responses, but instead get vilified.

00:17:43.920 But the more that Fauci obscures the truth, refuses to accept the truth, the more that he continues to

00:17:49.740 promote that China is a reliable, reasonable partner, that we should still fund research in China,

00:17:54.180 the more people don't believe anything that he says.

00:17:58.020 Meanwhile, his boss, Joe Biden, and I guess our boss, too, in some ways, because these policies he's

00:18:03.500 keeps pushing are handed down, whether voluntarily by companies who are like, oh, I have to impose a

00:18:09.480 mask mandate or a vaccine mandate because, you know, the administration is going to make me and all those

00:18:14.020 vaccine mandates are falling apart in the court. And Joe Biden comes out and tells us we need to wear

00:18:19.380 masks. And even Fauci was suggesting we should potentially be masked forever. He was asked about

00:18:24.740 that on the Sunday shows, too. And he basically said, yeah, I mean, we might be because look at

00:18:28.300 the Chinese. That's what they do. Why wouldn't we do that? Well, because we're Americans and we believe

00:18:32.480 in freedom of choice over here. But anyway, Joe Biden believes you should be in a mask and I should

00:18:38.460 be in a mask, but doesn't apparently care whether he has to wear a mask. Look at this video. He was in

00:18:44.680 a mall, I guess, or in a store without a mask. And you can see the sign saying face coverings

00:18:53.800 required while he's there with his mask pulled down underneath his chin. Peter Doocy of Fox News

00:18:59.560 asked Jen Psaki about it and listen to how that went.

00:19:05.500 We saw the president shopping indoors on Saturday behind glass that says face covering required, but his

00:19:12.460 face was uncovered. Why? The president is somebody who follows the recommendations and the advice of

00:19:19.360 the CDC. I don't know what the circumstances were of that particular moment. He was shopping in a store

00:19:24.620 and on the glass outside it said face covering required and we could see him inside and his face

00:19:29.540 was uncovered. Well, again, Peter, our recommendation and advice continues to be for people to wear

00:19:34.740 masks when they are required in establishments. I'm concerned that when the president says today,

00:19:39.100 please wear your mask indoors in public settings around other people and he doesn't do that,

00:19:44.460 that it's going to make it harder to get people to follow him. I think you see the American people

00:19:49.020 and all of you see the president wearing a mask every time he comes out to an event when he's sitting

00:19:53.740 in meetings and certainly he will continue to model behavior he hopes the American people will follow,

00:19:58.280 not for his benefit, but to save their own lives and the lives of their friends and neighbors. 0.99

00:20:03.000 Is he a hypocrite, Senator? Well, without question, and I think it's not just him. You look 0.97

00:20:10.120 throughout the left that's preaching that we all do this. Some of the most startling photos now are

00:20:15.460 sort of the Hollywood elite, but around them, the servants, those serving their glasses and their

00:20:20.480 champagne are all wearing masks while the Hollywood elite don't. The pictures of Newsom dining and fine

00:20:25.580 dining and not wearing a mask. But there's something even worse here because we haven't even,

00:20:30.100 the hypocrisy is apparent, but we have so forbidden the discussion of whether they even work that we

00:20:37.700 have ignored something. I believe that Dr. Fauci's advice on masks actually costs lives, that the

00:20:43.560 misinformation that cloth masks work actually might encourage you to engage in risky exposure to

00:20:50.100 someone and get the disease when there are masks that work, you know, 10 times, maybe a hundred times,

00:20:55.500 maybe a thousand times better. So you can imagine a 75 year old person whose spouse has COVID. And if

00:21:01.340 you take Dr. Fauci's advice, just wear your cloth mask, your cut up t-shirt, put a bandana on and go

00:21:06.500 in and take care of your loved one. Well, if you're really at risk and you're 75 years old and you're

00:21:11.520 going to take care of your spouse, you know, I think that's commendable. But really the advice should

00:21:16.300 be to wear a mask that works. The N95 has a much better chance of working. You have to have a very

00:21:21.300 tight seal. You can have no air going around the mask. Nobody wears a mask that way. The doctors do

00:21:27.380 and the nurses do in the COVID room. But by giving people bad advice, what we're doing is we're getting

00:21:32.480 them all to submit and to the submission of lemmings, but we're not giving them good medical advice. We're 0.61

00:21:38.480 actually giving them the wrong advice. Cloth masks, frankly, don't work. And actually, if you put this up,

00:21:43.700 YouTube's going to take it down. I hope you're not on YouTube because they'll probably take it down because

00:21:47.260 it's true. Cloth masks do not work. Well, even the administration's own advisor said that once he

00:21:54.420 left, he admitted in a moment of, you know, unexpected clarity. Yeah, they don't get taken

00:21:57.740 down. Apparently, YouTube only cares if a Republican, you know, points out, one, that there are randomized

00:22:02.860 controlled studies, a large one from Denmark, showing that half the people wore masks, half the

00:22:07.460 people didn't wear masks. And guess what? The incidence of disease is about the same. In Florida,

00:22:12.940 we have a large number of school districts, half of them obeyed DeSantis, half of them disobeyed

00:22:18.260 DeSantis's rule, and they had a mass comparison. Incidents of the disease, the same between the

00:22:23.440 unmasked students and the mass students. So we should have a discussion of the science.

00:22:27.980 Just to add to that, Senator, I mean, the CDC did its own study of 90,000 kids in Georgia

00:22:32.280 months ago, and they found that masks had no discernible effect whatsoever that would benefit

00:22:37.940 the children. None. They have in the New York Magazine reporter, David Zweig, he also writes

00:22:42.600 for The Atlantic. He's been doing great reporting on this. So, you know, whatever you have your

00:22:47.240 opinion on it. We've seen studies on it from the CDC. So whatever. The truth is the truth.

00:22:52.920 I got to ask you this, though, because in the end, what we need to do is control some of these

00:22:57.740 bureaucrats who are running around, you know, issuing these edicts that we then must follow. 1.00

00:23:01.600 You could do that by winning the presidency and doing something about Dr. Fauci.

00:23:05.240 But you tell me what could happen if the Republicans retake the House and or the Senate

00:23:09.700 next year. You know, if we take over the Senate next year, I'll be chairman of the health committee,

00:23:16.080 and I pledge to use the subpoena power to get every last record about the origin of the virus,

00:23:22.360 about Fauci, about all the studies, all that's coming forward. They've been sending us redacted

00:23:27.360 copies when they send us anything at all. So we are going to get to the bottom of this if we're in

00:23:31.800 charge. But there's an important philosophical thing that has nothing to do or it has indirectly

00:23:36.860 to do with partisan politics. But we should not centralize authority. I've told people I have an

00:23:42.560 opinion. I support it with random peer review studied, and then we can have a debate. But I

00:23:48.560 would never appoint myself to a position of dictatorship over what the truth is on medicine

00:23:54.520 or science. That is the medieval church that did that. And that was a big mistake. Fauci sets

00:23:59.960 himself up as the medieval church. We should never centralize the authority. I meet doctors every day

00:24:05.960 who are afraid of their license being taken away from them or their board certification being taken

00:24:10.420 away from them because they choose to treat COVID in a slightly different way than the government's

00:24:15.920 algorithm. It might mean they give monoclonal antibodies a little bit earlier or a little bit

00:24:20.420 later. It might mean that they give inhaled steroids. God forbid they might even use ivermectin. 0.67

00:24:26.200 But the thing is, is we have always allowed this until recently, doctors some discretion to figure

00:24:32.120 out what's best for their patients. We should never centralize that. And that should be the real

00:24:36.280 message of this, is that centralized control of medicine has the same ramifications, bad ramifications

00:24:42.620 that it does when you centralize the authority over the economy. They're both bad news.

00:24:46.720 Hmm. I mean, I, for one, as somebody who I'm very anti these mandates, even though, you know, I got the

00:24:52.400 vaccine. So did my husband. I appreciate you being out there fighting against it because it's so hard.

00:24:58.280 You know, like my kids, they have to go to school. If I don't put a mask on them, they won't take them.

00:25:03.460 You know, it's we do. We need people in power to fight against this authoritarian overreach.

00:25:09.500 So I'm grateful to you, Senator Paul. Thank you for being here today.

00:25:14.260 Thanks for having me.

00:25:15.660 Up next, Miranda Devine. I'm so looking forward to this.

00:25:19.420 She's brilliant. She writes for The New York Post. If you read nothing in The New York Post,

00:25:22.300 you've got to read her because she's just her. The way she works her pen makes me feel like,

00:25:26.340 yes, oh, my God, why couldn't I have said it like that?

00:25:28.620 She's here to talk about the Bidens and the Cuomos and the laptop from hell.

00:25:39.500 CNN has suspended its anchor Chris Cuomo indefinitely now, they say, after new documents

00:25:45.300 showed he misled everybody about the extent to which he was involved in his brother's defense

00:25:50.180 against sexual misconduct allegations that basically resulted in the end of his gubernatorial career.

00:25:57.440 Joining me now to discuss that and much, much more is Miranda Devine, New York Post columnist and

00:26:02.120 author of the new book Laptop from Hell, Hunter Biden, Big Tech and the Dirty Secrets the President

00:26:07.960 Tried to Hide. Love the title. Miranda, thank you so much for being here. So we'll get to the book

00:26:13.840 in one sec, but let's start with Chris Cuomo. So they're saying he's suspended indefinitely because

00:26:20.280 they feel misled about the extent to which he was involved in advising his brother. At first,

00:26:26.560 I thought to myself, oh, they knew what he was doing. But, you know, when I took a closer look at

00:26:30.220 what Chris Cuomo, how he described what he had done and then what the newly released documents from

00:26:35.640 the New York State AG Letitia James show, there is a stark difference between what he admitted to

00:26:42.000 and what he was really doing. Your thoughts on it? Thanks, Megan. I'm really thrilled to be with

00:26:46.080 you. Look, I think the Chris Cuomo story just speaks for itself. The documents there show that

00:26:52.060 he misled the viewers. He misled CNN about his involvement with his brother. You know, no one

00:26:57.940 would really blame a brother for wanting to help, you know, out when he's in trouble. But he went far

00:27:05.260 and beyond anything that was appropriate or ethical by using, it appears, his journalistic contacts and

00:27:13.540 sources to find out information that would be damaging to the women who were coming out against 0.53

00:27:19.840 his brother and accusing him of sexual harassment. So, I mean, that's really journalistic malpractice.

00:27:26.480 And I guess it's not really a surprise considering how incredibly callous the pair of them were. I

00:27:32.780 know, I mean, your friend Janice Dean on Fox News lost her in-laws and she speaks about

00:27:39.220 the devastation that they were feeling at the very time that the Cuomo brothers were having this comedy

00:27:46.060 routine on air. You know, if anyone knew how many people were dying and why they were dying in nursing

00:27:53.600 homes, it was Andrew Cuomo. And so it takes a really special kind of sociopathy to be able to

00:28:00.660 lock it up on television when you're responsible for so many deaths.

00:28:05.280 Janice Dean, she started speaking out about it saying, you issued this order. It resulted in the 0.61

00:28:10.180 death of, now we know, 15 plus thousand people in the New York State nursing homes. She started to say,

00:28:16.460 I'm upset. And, you know, my husband's parents are now dead. And Governor Andrew Cuomo's office

00:28:21.180 attacked her. They attacked her as just the meteorologist and she's not an expert in anything

00:28:24.700 but the weather. Well, she still got her job and Andrew Cuomo doesn't. Now it appears Chris Cuomo

00:28:28.600 may have lost his. And she said that that moment when Andrew went on Chris's show, Chris Cuomo took

00:28:34.500 out the big Q-tip, ha ha ha, joking around, oh, this is what you'd need for a COVID test with your nose

00:28:39.320 was the moment that did it for her. Like the cavalier callousness, the sort of, you know, promoting his

00:28:44.960 brother. And one of Chris Cuomo's lies was that when he interviewed his brother, which was an

00:28:51.960 exception, I guess, to the longstanding CNN policy that didn't allow him to do that, their quote,

00:28:56.780 that it was, quote, long before any kind of scandal. OK, that's a lie. He interviewed Andrew

00:29:01.920 Cuomo nine times between March 19th and June 24th, 2020. As of May, which last time I checked is before

00:29:08.920 June, Andrew Cuomo was taking fire for the nursing home story. I just pulled up just one before we got on

00:29:14.620 the air. The Guardian had a piece May 26th talking about how he had granted liability to nursing

00:29:21.120 home and hospital execs for the way they dealt with COVID patients. And the critics said this

00:29:26.900 proves that you're basically allowing corners to be cut when it comes to the care of seniors and

00:29:33.360 all of the he'd already issued the order mandating that the COVID positive patients go into the nursing

00:29:37.500 home. Anyway, none of that was discussed. But the other thing I wanted to ask you about is

00:29:41.080 he says specifically to the audience, to CNN, I'm not an advisor, I'm a brother. But now we're

00:29:46.660 seeing these documents, Miranda. He is an advisor. He's out there saying, please let me help with it

00:29:51.920 with his preparation, you know, before he goes forward with his interview with the AG. Call me,

00:29:57.100 he says to Cuomo's top eight. I have a lead on the wedding girl, one of his accusers. This is Chris

00:30:01.540 Cuomo. Melissa DeRosa, this top eight, says rumors are going around from Politico. One to two more

00:30:07.020 people coming out tomorrow. Can you check your sources? Chris Cuomo on it. Text back. No one's

00:30:11.720 heard that yet. Looked into whether Ronan Farrow was about to move on a source. Reported back on

00:30:16.920 that. And then here's the most egregious one. He said in his testimony to Letitia Jane, to Letitia

00:30:23.240 Jane's, I would never do oppo research on anybody alleging anything like this. I'm not in the oppo

00:30:29.480 research business. And then another one of Andrew Cuomo's aides, Liz Smith, Lee Smith testified,

00:30:35.720 Chris Cuomo sent e-messages to us about one of the accusers, Charlotte Bennett,

00:30:41.340 and forwarded tweets from her. Apparently he dug up during her college years to the governor's

00:30:47.220 advisors. What's that? That's not oppo research. He lied over and over to cover his brother's butt and

00:30:54.020 then his. Yeah, it's so egregious. That's a litany of real journalistic malpractice is the only way I can 1.00

00:31:04.980 put it. It's unethical and it's dishonest. And it's something that really shames CNN. I mean,

00:31:13.400 I guess it's not surprising, but the fact that CNN has, you know, indefinitely suspended him,

00:31:22.000 presumably on full pay, and presumably they'll just wait until the heat dies down, if it does,

00:31:29.080 and bring him back, just as they did with Jeffrey Toobin. So the only light at the end of the tunnel

00:31:38.560 is that CNN is under new management. And there was some indication the other day that they want the

00:31:45.960 network to go back to doing proper journalism as it used to. CNN is not what it used to be.

00:31:51.400 When it started, it was this magnificent 24-hour news cable operation, a real groundbreaking. They

00:31:58.860 covered, you know, the first Iraq war and did some magnificent reporting. But it's just sort of

00:32:05.580 degenerated into this very ugly sort of opinion fest and very sloppy reporting. And the viewers have

00:32:15.880 just, just viewership's collapsed as a result.

00:32:19.340 That's right. I mean, Jeff Zucker's still running the actual entity, CNN, but above him,

00:32:24.620 there's been a shift in ownership and management and ultimately control. Charlotte Bennett, the woman 1.00

00:32:30.820 who Chris Cuomo was digging up dirt on, issued a statement saying, in part, CNN must immediately take

00:32:39.460 action. They're saying they're going to investigate. She said the network need not investigate

00:32:42.900 his behavior. The investigation's over. And yesterday we received answers, just like his

00:32:47.760 older brother. Chris Cuomo used his time, network and resources to help smear victims,

00:32:53.100 dig up opposition research and belittle our credible allegations. His behavior is reprehensible,

00:32:58.220 unprofessional and inexcusable. She says anything short of firing Chris Cuomo reflects a network

00:33:03.700 lacking both morals and a backbone. This is how Chris Cuomo, who we now know was digging up dirt on

00:33:10.180 Charlotte Bennett, among others, wedding girl and on and on it went, criticizing Lindsay Boylan,

00:33:14.960 one of the other accusers. This is how he portrayed himself, Miranda, when the scandal broke on the air.

00:33:19.700 This is soundbite eight. I'm aware of what's going on with my brother. And obviously I cannot cover it

00:33:26.280 because he is my brother. Now, of course, CNN has to cover it. They have covered it extensively

00:33:34.780 and they will continue to do so. I have always cared very deeply about these issues and profoundly

00:33:44.840 so. Oh, profoundly cares about sexual harassment while he digs up. He's broken trust and faith with

00:33:55.460 his audience, his staff. He's embarrassed CNN. And I agree with Charlotte Bennett from the moment he did

00:34:02.920 his fake exit from his basement while he was parading all around the Hamptons having COVID

00:34:07.980 and pretending he wasn't right to his weird muscle building routines that he does all the time at

00:34:13.420 Post Online Bazaar to the harassment of Shelley Ross, which came out, which he doesn't deny happened

00:34:19.660 before CNN, but it happened. She went on the record. He humiliated her to the forcing out of another 0.71

00:34:26.440 executive producer of his who was female because of his bully tactics, something CNN has not denied

00:34:31.560 to now this. The interviewing of his brother, the lack of journalistic integrity, the lies about

00:34:36.620 there being no scandal when he was doing it, the lies about whether he was an advisor, the lies about

00:34:41.220 I would never do oppo. He's done. He's he's done. He's told more lies than Brian Williams ever did.

00:34:46.840 And he needs to be out on his ear, if you ask me.

00:34:50.580 Well, yeah, I agree. And I mean, the insincerity of his public proclamations, I think,

00:34:56.740 really tells his audience what he thinks of them. He thinks they're all chumps and people to be, 0.97

00:35:02.460 you know, tricked and and lied to. And I just think it's untenable. I mean, whether CNN wants 0.99

00:35:09.220 to get rid of him or not, I just can't see even the CNN audience being able to forgive that kind

00:35:16.300 of dishonesty. And look, his brother's gone down in flames and he's dragging everyone else down around

00:35:22.380 him. And the Democratic Party doesn't show any inclination to protect Andrew Cuomo because he's

00:35:28.980 no longer any use to them. He was useful to them during the Trump administration because he acted as

00:35:35.240 the foil, the guy who was doing a really good job of COVID. And of course, it was the opposite.

00:35:42.320 He was doing a terrible job of COVID. New York has one of the worst, the second worst per capita

00:35:49.220 death rate of any state, second only to New Jersey, which where Phil Murphy also did the same

00:35:55.180 horrendous order with nursing homes, forcing them to take in COVID positive patients. So look,

00:36:02.660 I think it's calmer. Everybody who supported Andrew Cuomo is getting their comeuppance as they should,

00:36:09.100 because this was a matter of life or death.

00:36:12.020 And, you know, the approval ratings of Andrew Cuomo and the pass he got for so long on the

00:36:17.380 deadly orders he was issuing are also, in fact, in part attributable to CNN's malfeasance and Chris

00:36:24.940 Cuomo's yuckety, mucky, whatever interviews with his brother, which gave him the halo, which allowed him

00:36:31.940 to, you know, just I'm this avuncular, enjoyable, sweet guy just doing the best I can. Meanwhile, people

00:36:38.400 like Janice Dean's in-laws were dying unnecessarily in these nursing homes where the most vulnerable

00:36:45.060 patients were, which never should have been required to take COVID positive patients.

00:36:49.400 And he comes out yesterday, Chris Cuomo, and said, I think it was on his serious show. He's on serious

00:36:55.360 too. You know why Andrew Cuomo went down? He went down because the media didn't support him. You know,

00:37:01.900 his ultimately hit him. Miranda, you lived it along with me. They idolized him. They gave him a pass

00:37:09.960 on everything until women like Janice dragged them kicking and screaming to the nursing home story. 1.00

00:37:17.060 Yes. And look, he was the anti-Trump, so he could do no wrong. And they put him up on a pedestal.

00:37:23.240 And they've done the same thing with Anthony Fauci. It's quite obscene that the people who have been

00:37:30.040 sanctified during the pandemic are actually the people who have done the most harm to the American 0.82

00:37:35.480 people. You are not wrong about that. All right. Looking forward to turning the page and talking

00:37:41.000 about your new book right after this, The Laptop from Hell. And she has done her homework on Hunter

00:37:48.280 and Joe Biden right after this. And remember, folks, you can find The Megyn Kelly Show live on

00:37:52.600 Sirius XM Triumph Channel 111 every weekday at noon east and the full video showing clips when you

00:37:57.780 subscribe to my YouTube channel, YouTube dot com slash Megyn Kelly. Do me a favor. Go subscribe now

00:38:02.840 and then we will see whether YouTube suppresses my interview with Rand Paul and let's stay in

00:38:10.200 touch on it. Right. Go there now. Subscribe so you can let me know. And if you prefer an audio

00:38:14.400 podcast, you just want to share the show with somebody you love. Go ahead and subscribe and

00:38:18.260 download Apple, Spotify, Pandora, Stitcher or wherever you get your podcasts. If you leave me a

00:38:23.400 review over on Apple, I will read it. And by the way, there you're going to find our full archives with

00:38:28.000 more than 210 shows, including with Janice Dean a couple of times who has been righteously

00:38:33.640 celebrating the downfall of the Cuomos. Back with me now, Miranda Devine, New York Post columnist

00:38:45.560 and author of the new book Laptop from Hell, Hunter Biden, Big Tech and the Dirty Secrets the

00:38:52.580 President Tried to Hide. So great, great idea. Right. Because it was the post that really got

00:38:57.860 shut down on its reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop, all of which we now know was right and

00:39:03.700 never should have been suppressed right before the presidential election. So first of all, one of the

00:39:09.300 one of the things you take a look at is how that laptop wound up in the media and how it wound up

00:39:16.400 made me, I wrote this in my notes, Miranda, the Biden children are very forgetful. Tell us.

00:39:24.540 Well, Hunter Biden, this is one of three laptops that we know of that he's mislaid or abandoned. And

00:39:31.380 this one in April of 2019, he dropped off at his local Mac repair shop in Wilmington, Delaware. And

00:39:39.580 it was waterlogged. And John Paul Mac Isaac, who owns the shop, said that he would fix it. He would,

00:39:47.780 it was actually unsalvageable, but he would upload all the information onto his server, and then he could

00:39:54.340 download it onto a hard drive. So he called Hunter and he said, can you bring in a hard drive? Hunter

00:40:00.360 brought in the little hard drive. And he said, all right, well, I'll call you when I've done it. And

00:40:05.920 Hunter never came back. John Paul Mac Isaac tried to call him several times

00:40:11.020 using the phone number, which we verified was Hunter Biden's phone number, his signature on the

00:40:16.780 form. And he just never came back. And he had an $85 bill he never paid. So after three months,

00:40:23.980 that laptop became the property of John Paul Mac Isaac. And he did nothing with it for a while,

00:40:31.080 but he had had to spend a lot of time looking at the material on it because it took so long to

00:40:35.840 upload onto his server. And so he recognised some words and some keywords and documents. And

00:40:42.520 when he saw the impeachment process going on with Donald Trump, he's a Trump supporter, which

00:40:48.620 people have used against him, but I mean, he just is. And he was watching that and he saw all this talk

00:40:56.540 about Burisma, this corrupt Ukrainian energy company, and he recognised that from the material

00:41:02.020 on the laptop. And so he thought that it might be important. And he was a bit concerned. So he called

00:41:08.220 the FBI, which is what law abiding people do. They took their time, but finally came along and

00:41:15.260 picked up the laptop. And he had a copy, of course, of all the material on his server. He made a copy for

00:41:23.240 his own protection, he said. And when nothing came of, you know, any investigation from the FBI,

00:41:30.440 this is December 2019, he ended up contacting several Republican congressmen. Jim Jordan was

00:41:39.940 one of them. He just got no response. And finally, he saw Rudy Giuliani on television and decided

00:41:45.320 he'd try him. So he tried, found an email address, which actually was for Rudy Giuliani's lawyer,

00:41:50.760 Bob Costello, sent him this email, which was very thorough, very well written and expressed fear

00:41:58.720 for his own safety, because he knows that the Bidens control Delaware. And he was worried and

00:42:04.780 wanted to make sure that somebody, you know, on his side, I guess, someone who understood about the

00:42:11.380 material in the laptop and how important it was, would also be able to have it so that it didn't just

00:42:18.120 disappear if he disappeared. And he also sent a copy to a friend and said to him, hold on to this,

00:42:23.920 don't open it unless something happens to me. So that's how explosive the material was,

00:42:30.280 and how this just humble laptop repairer just felt really quite concerned. And so Bob Costello,

00:42:37.700 to his great credit, his job at that point was to go through the voluminous emails that came through

00:42:43.800 for Rudy Giuliani and a lot of nutty ones. But he found this, he thought it was credit,

00:42:49.180 credible. And he contacted John Paul MacIsaac, got him to Federal Express, a copy of the hard drive

00:42:56.460 to his home, and he went through it.

00:43:00.020 And he's a former investigator.

00:43:01.640 Well, the thing that's kind of funny about it is because Ashley Biden, you know, apparently, 0.99

00:43:04.860 I think, misplaced her diary. Hunter Biden misplaces his laptop. All of them appear to have very

00:43:10.640 damaging, embarrassing information on Joe Biden. Now that he's president, the FBI is finally

00:43:16.140 interested in protecting him from what's in that diary and his threatening James O'Keefe

00:43:20.220 and the people to whom it was given.

00:43:22.940 OK, so what you know, we learned about Burisma and this Ukrainian company paying Hunter Biden all 0.91

00:43:29.680 this money every month for nothing. It was basically paid for access to Joe Biden. And then he had links

00:43:35.120 with the Chinese, too, and some discussions about getting 10 percent for, quote, the big guy if you

00:43:40.160 were to strike a deal with the Chinese, meaning Joe Biden. What is new in there about what Joe Biden

00:43:46.840 and Hunter Biden or either one of them was doing with respect to, you know, foreign entities for money?

00:43:55.120 Well, I think that the Chinese grift is probably the most significant in terms of America's national 0.98

00:44:00.960 interest. And what we know and from the laptop material, but also from Tony Bobulinski, I've also

00:44:09.600 have his all his contents of his phones, numerous WhatsApp messages and documents, because he was one

00:44:17.680 of Hunter Biden's business partners in this putting together this deal with this Chinese energy company,

00:44:24.720 CEFC, which is not just a Chinese energy company. This is the capitalist arm of President Xi Jinping's

00:44:33.080 Belt and Road Initiative. This was the pointy end of China's imperialist reach across the world. 0.87

00:44:41.500 And for the last two years of Joe Biden's vice presidency, there is evidence on the laptop and from

00:44:48.680 Tony Bobulinski's material, which shows that the Bidens were doing work for CEFC around the world,

00:44:59.840 stitching together deals using Joe Biden's name and his influence to make money. Now, they were not to

00:45:07.640 be paid until after Joe Biden left office, at which time he and Hunter were going to set up an office

00:45:15.580 together in Washington, in Georgetown, with their nameplate on the door, CEFC America. And Joe Biden

00:45:25.460 met with Tony Bobulinski in Los Angeles to vet him as CEO of this new joint venture with CEFC. Now,

00:45:34.860 the joint venture that Hunter Biden told CEFC that they owed his family $20 million for the work they'd

00:45:42.400 already done for the previous two years while Joe was vice president. So much is made of Joe Biden

00:45:49.300 having left office by the time he met Tony Bobulinski, which is correct. But we know that they were

00:45:56.860 already doing work for CEFC. And we also know that Hunter Biden and Jim Biden got tens of millions of dollars

00:46:05.240 from CEFC and would have got a lot more except that the whole thing fell over because once the Trump

00:46:14.840 administration came in and Jeff Sessions became attorney general, they started winding up all these

00:46:21.540 Chinese businesses that were, you know, pirating American intellectual property and preying on 1.00

00:46:29.740 America. If you weren't worried about the behavior that happened, you know, after he was vice president,

00:46:35.300 think about what's happening now, right? That what this means about Hunter while his dad is president

00:46:39.300 and certainly in the future. We're up against a hard break. So I got to wrap it. Miranda, I recommend

00:46:44.040 everybody, everybody read it. Laptop from hell and read Miranda and the New York Post. Well worth your

00:46:49.600 time. Great to see you. Up next, COVID, two docs. COVID's in the news as always today. We've got new

00:47:01.640 variants, new COVID pills, new boosters, and new high profile breakthrough cases like LeBron James.

00:47:07.100 Joining us now to discuss it all, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor of health policy at Stanford

00:47:12.200 University, and Dr. David Dowdy, infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of

00:47:19.360 Public Health. And our experts in just a bit are going to be taking your calls too on COVID. Call

00:47:24.340 me. Call me now with your questions for the docs at 833-44-MEGYN. That's 833-446-3496. Welcome,

00:47:34.420 Jay and David. Thanks so much for having us. Great to have you guys. Okay, so let's kick it off.

00:47:39.760 Omicron. So hard to say. You should have come up with one that was easier. Am I the only one who's

00:47:43.900 desperate to say Omicron? I was desperate to say Omicron. Anyway, it's Omicron, so forgive me if I

00:47:49.300 mess it up. But I mean, I'll start with you on this, David, because I haven't talked to you yet,

00:47:54.460 but I'm very interested. What I hear from the WHO is it may be more transmissible from an early look

00:48:01.860 at it, but they don't know. But there's absolutely no reason right now, no factual evidence, no cases

00:48:07.600 to believe it's any more deadly or dangerous than any other variant. Is that correct?

00:48:12.800 Yeah, that's exactly right, Megan. I think that the primary result there is we don't know yet.

00:48:19.960 It's going to be probably another week or two before we have any definitive data on transmissibility,

00:48:27.860 virulence, et cetera. So we're still in a bit of a waiting game. A lot of press has gotten out about

00:48:35.120 this new variant, but it's not clear yet just how big of a problem this is going to be.

00:48:40.680 Mm hmm. When they say, you know, mild so far, Jay, you know, they're saying there haven't been

00:48:46.180 that many cases, but the cases are seeing in the South African countries that there are no needed

00:48:50.420 oxygen, no needed hospitalization, no one died. So that's all very reassuring. They're saying these

00:48:56.500 are mild cases. They don't understand the freak out like the national freak out. But at the same time,

00:49:00.940 they're saying there were between 30 and 50 mutations, many around the spike protein of the

00:49:07.280 coronavirus. And that's why other doctors, I guess, outside of South Africa are saying

00:49:12.840 that's what's making us nervous. So do they have reason right now, in your view, to be nervous?

00:49:19.320 I mean, I think if you look at it theoretically, there's it could a mutation could either help or

00:49:23.940 hurt. It doesn't it's not automatic that a mutation is going to necessarily make the virus more

00:49:29.800 more or less dangerous. It's it's an empirical question. I think part of the reason why people

00:49:34.940 are some people, some biologists are getting scared is just because if there's more mutations,

00:49:41.060 then then they're thinking just one step further that the that the antibodies produced by or the

00:49:47.260 immune response produced by the vaccine, which are focused on the spike protein might not be as

00:49:51.660 effective. That's the theory, whether in practice actually results in in being less effective is

00:49:57.600 is an empirical question. And I completely agree with David. It is something that we should wait

00:50:01.660 and see. There's absolutely no reason to panic. And the data we have so far empirically suggest

00:50:06.200 that it's not more it's not more severe. So I counsel, let's just wait. I mean, something worth

00:50:13.520 watching, but it is certainly not worth this enormous news cycle with this inducing panic.

00:50:19.280 So, David, I saw you saying if it's got 30 mutations, then it had one, two, three,

00:50:23.920 four, five, six, seven, eight, all the way through twenty nine mutations. Then there was no panic and

00:50:28.200 there was no alarm sounding and everyone went about their business. We didn't see some huge spike

00:50:32.700 in deaths. I mean, that seems to me to be an important point. What like how long must this variant

00:50:38.560 have been around if it's already on its 30th mutation? Yeah, I think this is a good question.

00:50:45.760 And I think part of the reason people weren't freaking out when they when when this variant had

00:50:50.980 one, two, three, four, five is that we didn't see it when it was when it was going through all

00:50:55.660 that evolution. So it's just coming to people's attention at this time. And whether that's because

00:51:00.780 this has been a variant that's been circulating where we're not really looking all that closely,

00:51:05.280 like in other countries in Africa, or whether it was in a small number of patients who who were sick

00:51:11.660 for a very long time and allowed the virus to to mutate. We don't really know. It's something that

00:51:19.440 it looks like it's more closely related to to some of the variants that were here before Delta

00:51:25.640 than than to Delta itself. So this is something that's been circulating somewhere for for a while.

00:51:34.960 But I think one important thing for for people to realize is that wherever it was circulating,

00:51:40.360 whether it was in places we weren't looking or in people who who we didn't know about,

00:51:44.800 it's very unlikely that it's seen a lot of of the vaccine. Most places where we've been looking

00:51:51.800 for variants are the places where there's been a fair amount of vaccination. So this is a virus that

00:51:58.420 hasn't seen the vaccine very much, meaning it probably hasn't had I mean, there's no no reason

00:52:04.060 to think it would be trying to evade the vaccine through a mutation, so to speak. And so so I think it's

00:52:13.440 important for us to be looking at this. And I think all of the vaccine manufacturers are testing

00:52:20.040 right now to see how effective these these vaccines are going to be. But until we have evidence that

00:52:26.320 that this is a variant that can really survive in a place where where a lot of people have been

00:52:32.860 vaccinated, I just don't think we need to be panicking at this stage.

00:52:37.780 Mm hmm. So the three questions that we look at when there's a new variant are, is it is it more

00:52:43.620 easily transmitted? Is it more likely to cause death or severe disease? And is it likely to evade

00:52:52.580 the vaccines? Right. Like those are the three things that we look at. And it looks like maybe

00:52:57.480 is the answer. Number one, maybe more transmissible than some of the other. Although Delta was pretty

00:53:02.660 transmitted. I don't know. Maybe so far, no evidence, though, it could change that is more

00:53:07.960 likely to cause hospitalization or serious effects or death. And we don't know about the vaccines,

00:53:14.180 because most of the people in the South African countries do not have the vaccine. Unlike us,

00:53:18.180 whereas I don't know if this is right. The latest stats I just read were 60 percent of adults in

00:53:24.260 America are fully vaccinated. Seventy plus percent have had at least one shot. But those are big,

00:53:29.020 big numbers. So, Jay, how do we find out? They say, what do they need? Two weeks from the date

00:53:35.220 the scientists first got the alert from the South African authorities? Two weeks for the vaccine

00:53:39.260 companies to see on question three whether they're vaccine resistant? I mean, I think part of the thing

00:53:46.520 is it might actually take longer. The reason is this, that the vaccine companies, what they're looking

00:53:51.340 at is antibody responses. That's something you can check in very quickly in vitro and so on.

00:53:56.580 What you can't check is the broader protection provided by the vaccine and also people who are

00:54:02.580 COVID recovered. They get very, very broad protection from COVID recovery. That's harder

00:54:07.560 to check in a very fast time. What you need is empirical evidence of what the virus actually does

00:54:15.120 in the real world to really know. And that'll take a little bit longer. But, you know, it will start

00:54:21.100 to see it. I mean, I think now that we know to look for it, we'll track this variant. That's what

00:54:27.000 happened with the Delta variant. And David is right. I think it's quite widespread before even

00:54:32.340 that it was found in South Africa. I think now it's been found in Belgium, in Canada, in Scotland,

00:54:38.600 in, you know, just a whole bunch of places around the world. They said 15 countries.

00:54:41.540 Yeah. And, you know, it's very likely already in the US as well. So, so I think now that we know

00:54:48.760 to look for it, we can look and then do empirical studies to see if it is more severe. And if it does

00:54:52.800 evade, I don't, it seems really unlikely just from a first principle point of view that, because it's

00:54:58.880 still the same virus with a few mutations. The other variants have not escaped natural immunity,

00:55:05.320 have not escaped vaccine immunity in terms of protection against severe disease. And that's

00:55:09.580 something that we should tell the public. This is not something to panic about. We have many tools

00:55:14.700 to address this. And we can, we're in the process of developing new ones. This is something that are,

00:55:19.380 that are, that people should not, you know, sort of go back into, oh, no, it's March 2020 again. I

00:55:25.980 think that's, that's irresponsible rhetoric. David, why do you think that there, there was such a

00:55:30.200 reaction to this? Countries closing their borders like Israel. You know, we instituted a travel ban. So

00:55:35.220 many countries did. The New York governor saying all elective surgeries must be canceled. I mean,

00:55:39.020 my God, you would have thought, you know, the, the deadly rate, the death rate on this variant had

00:55:45.780 already been pronounced at 50%. Like the way people reacted, it was stunning. And that got everybody's

00:55:50.200 attention. Yeah. Well, we've gotten to a point, I think, where the, the word variant is just something

00:55:58.020 that induces fear and panic in our population. And, and I think that's a real problem because we're

00:56:04.960 going to be seeing new variants of this virus. We see new variants of the flu every year. Um, uh,

00:56:12.820 but yet people have associated, um, new variant with massive wave of, of death. Um, and, and I think

00:56:22.740 that, that that's the problem is that there's this, this, um, link in people's mind between new variant

00:56:29.640 and next big wave. And, and, um, I, it's hard to, to fault people for, um, for reacting as, um, as humans

00:56:41.720 do. I mean, everyone was buying toilet paper at the beginning of, uh, of this, uh, this pandemic. Um,

00:56:47.960 but, but, but I think we, as, as scientists, as, uh, as the media, as, as leaders of the world,

00:56:55.620 et cetera, like we need to be messaging this in a way that does not cause people to have that kind

00:57:01.400 of panic. And, and maybe we need a new word, but, but variant has become linked in the, um,

00:57:08.100 the public mind with, with fear and panic. And so, um, I think we just need to find a way to move

00:57:14.540 away from that because this is not going to be the last variant that we see. Right. I mean,

00:57:18.580 I think that's certainly true on sort of the political left in this country. I think the

00:57:21.640 political political right is more like, all right, there's a new variant. I'm going to continue living

00:57:26.220 my life and doing the things that I think makes sense, um, to protect me and my family. I don't

00:57:32.180 know if you can get people off of the need for sort of forgive the term, but fear porn, you know,

00:57:37.320 you can see it in areas outside of COVID too. Some people naturally gravitate toward it. There's

00:57:41.620 something about being afraid that is oddly attractive to them. And then you have media

00:57:46.680 and irresponsible public health messaging that torques, torques it up, you know, plays into it

00:57:51.600 and torques it up. Um, I I'm, I think I'm just sort of reasonable. I just feel like if I, if I need to

00:57:57.020 be worried, okay, walk me through why I need to be worried. I'm not really a worrier in general,

00:58:01.120 but like if I, if I need to, you know, if there's cause for concern that I need to take precautions

00:58:04.420 for, I'll do it. I just don't see it yet. Um, I I'm listening, but I I'll tell you this, Jay,

00:58:09.760 one of my first thoughts on it was something you've been saying for a long time, which is

00:58:12.760 why don't we focus more on vaccinating people in other countries rather than like the obsessive,

00:58:18.580 you know, like everyone here has got to get another stick. Now you need three sticks, three,

00:58:22.520 three jabs. Why didn't we do more to get the people in the South African countries,

00:58:26.920 at least one dose of the vaccines? This is one of the things that the world health organization

00:58:31.520 actually has gotten right. Uh, they've been pushing for this for the, for, for a very long time.

00:58:35.780 Um, uh, vaccinating the world, especially the older people around the world who are very vulnerable

00:58:40.840 if they get infected is, is priority one. The first vaccine dose is much more protective than

00:58:46.040 on the margin than the third. Um, and so I don't, I don't really understand. Uh, and I think, I mean,

00:58:51.780 I guess I got, I kind of do it's, it's, it's, it's a result of this panic and fear. Everyone wants

00:58:55.620 control. And we live in a rich country where we can afford to get the third dose. We can afford to

00:59:00.340 worry about vaccinating, you know, five-year-olds or whatever. Um, when in fact, the most that like

00:59:06.060 the, if you want to save lives, the thing you should do is vaccinate the world, vaccinate older 1.00

00:59:10.340 people around the world who do not have this, that the vaccine is all, if you really, that's what

00:59:13.780 your main primary concern is. Um, and I think, you know, Megan, to get back to your point about fear,

00:59:18.500 which I think is a really important one, it's, I don't actually think it's simply left, right. I mean,

00:59:22.380 like in the, in the UK, there's this massive panic and you have a right-wing government. Um, you,

00:59:26.520 you have, uh, I think part of it is, is actually a class thing. I think a certain class of people

00:59:32.880 have actually benefited from the lockdowns. It's, it's people, it's actually, frankly,

00:59:37.540 it's people like me. I mean, I've been able to keep my job and maybe just barely, I don't know.

00:59:41.240 I'm sure Stanford's not very happy with me. Um, but, but, but, but I've been, I mean, I, I haven't

00:59:46.200 like actually suffered. Uh, whereas so many people, the, the, the, the, the essential workers,

00:59:51.800 if you will, um, they've, they've, they've suffered through the pandemic. They've made,

00:59:55.660 they've been, they've been working and, uh, and for certain class of people, uh, the variants

01:00:00.780 renew the call for like, Oh, we should be panicked. We should be, we should be locked down. We should

01:00:05.240 do what, you know, these things that, that have kept us safe, but it's only kept a certain class

01:00:08.640 of people safe, not everybody safe. Um, so I think, uh, and unfortunately I think the media reflects

01:00:14.380 that class much more than, than, than it ought. It ought to be, it ought to be reflecting regular

01:00:19.500 people, but it, uh, this panic I think feeds into that, uh, into the, the, the neuroses of that class.

01:00:24.600 You know, I heard a discussion this morning on, I listened to the New York times podcast,

01:00:28.440 the daily, and, uh, like to get my info from the left and the right. And, um, they had a,

01:00:33.120 they had an interesting discussion about why these South, uh, African countries, why,

01:00:38.520 why did this new attention getting variant come up there? And, um, they were talking about how,

01:00:46.180 like how the virus could have mutated 30 times. It would have had to be, they, they thought in an

01:00:50.960 immunocompromised patient. So what are your thoughts on that, David? Like why,

01:00:54.880 why South Africa? And should we, as a result of whatever the answer is,

01:00:58.440 be prioritizing that issue in whatever country for our next doses of vaccines?

01:01:04.800 Yeah. I mean, I think the question of why this, this would, um, first be picked up, um,

01:01:09.940 in a place like South Africa is a really interesting one. Um, and I think that the,

01:01:14.740 the idea that this might've been in, in one or more immunocompromised patients, um, that,

01:01:19.540 that we're able to kind of keep the virus just at enough, uh, level to, to keep it replicating,

01:01:25.080 but without, um, you know, killing them, uh, I think is, is a reasonable one. Um, South Africa 0.95

01:01:31.340 also has a much better surveillance system than, than any other, uh, country in the Southern part

01:01:37.320 of the African continent. And so, um, you know, part of the reason we're seeing it in South Africa

01:01:42.120 is because that's where we, we had the best eyes and that's where we were, we're looking. Um,

01:01:46.500 but it's also interesting that this happened, um, in a place where transmission was actually quite

01:01:52.760 low. If you look at the number of cases, uh, in South Africa a few weeks ago, as, as compared to,

01:01:58.520 to the U S on a, even on a per capita basis, it was less than a 10th of what we have here.

01:02:04.380 And the more transmission you have, the more mutation you would expect to, uh, to be occurring.

01:02:10.400 Um, so it's also quite possible that, that what's happening here is that this was, uh, a variant

01:02:17.060 that was randomly associated with a particular outbreak in South Africa where we were able to,

01:02:24.380 to see it. Um, and, and when those outbreaks start, they, they tend to, to spread a little bit,

01:02:30.900 right. And, um, and we're seeing, uh, that that's been picked up in travelers throughout the world,

01:02:37.240 but we're not actually seeing, uh, at least not yet evidence of a lot of ongoing transmission in

01:02:43.920 those, those new countries. And so it's possible that this was, uh, was seen just because, um,

01:02:50.320 you know, this is one place where a small outbreak could have a big influence. Um, and we had good

01:02:57.240 eyes on the ground, um, looking at this. Um, and so, and then we decided to punish the country for

01:03:04.140 self-reporting. Do I, do either one of you guys support the travel ban?

01:03:09.580 No, I think it's xenophobic nonsense. I think it, I think it, uh, it's, as we've been discussing,

01:03:16.120 it's probably likely already here if it's, if it's, uh, and, uh, the travel ban is not going to

01:03:21.120 have any marginal benefit as far as stopping this thing from spreading. What it will do is it'll,

01:03:26.200 it'll make the lives of many, many people miserable for no good purpose. And frankly,

01:03:30.400 it's xenophobic, like these countries, the countries in Europe that have had that have

01:03:33.280 this variant that now have been detected. And we are only focusing our travel ban on African 0.63

01:03:38.400 countries. It, it, and, and especially the places that have looked just like David said,

01:03:42.660 they have these capacity to look. Um, it makes no sense as policy. It makes no sense as public

01:03:48.180 health. It is a enormous mistake. I think. Did you support the travel ban from China, Jay?

01:03:53.500 I don't remember that. I, I didn't. And, uh, I didn't, I mean, I wasn't on Twitter then. And I,

01:03:58.020 frankly, I wasn't, uh, I wasn't a Twitter, like a COVID celebrity then, but I, but I, I mean, I,

01:04:03.220 I generally think the travel bans are bad approach to this and I wouldn't have supported it back

01:04:08.560 then either. I didn't support it back then. All right. Just slow your roll, Jay. Right. Cause

01:04:11.840 like, you know, Dr. Fauci, we'll get to his God complex in a little bit. COVID celebrity king.

01:04:18.580 Um, Dave, go ahead. Your thoughts on the, the travel ban. Oh, well, well, I'm, I'm no COVID

01:04:23.460 celebrity. So I can still speak freely, but, um, I think I agree with Jay a hundred percent. Um,

01:04:29.660 I mean, the thing for people to realize is that even the best, um, surveillance system for these

01:04:36.860 variants is going to be two or more weeks behind when infections actually are occurring. Um, and so

01:04:44.980 by the time we're able to implement any sort of, of travel ban, um, this, this variant has already

01:04:53.280 gone throughout the world. And, um, that doesn't mean that we need to be scared of it. It doesn't

01:04:59.440 mean this is, this is not the same as at the very beginning of this pandemic, when you have a single

01:05:06.700 place that is, um, where this, this virus is, for example, this is a virus that is already in every

01:05:16.440 country of the world. Uh, we've all seen like all every population has, has seen this virus. There

01:05:22.960 is immunity based on, on vaccination and on previous infection in, in every country in the world. Um,

01:05:31.700 and so just because it has a lot of mutations doesn't mean that, that that immunity is, is

01:05:36.960 worthless. So this is, this is not like a brand new, something we've never seen before. And it's not

01:05:43.720 like it's something that we can contain given our current systems. So I'm, I'll say, agree with Jay.

01:05:50.000 Yes. Up next. Um, we're going to talk about boosters and therapeutics because Fauci has been

01:05:54.680 saying, get a booster. This is the perfect reason to go get a booster. So do our doctors agree with

01:05:58.900 that? And, um, they also say Pfizer is saying it would take it about a hundred days to come up with

01:06:03.620 a, with a vaccine that would attack this variant in particular. So if you're thinking about a booster,

01:06:07.620 should you wait, right? We're going to ask them that. And then the doctor is going to take your

01:06:11.800 questions on COVID. What do you want to know about the new variant, about boosters, about anything?

01:06:15.060 Call me. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. David Dowdy are here to discuss all things COVID and you're up

01:06:26.680 to give us a call because the doctors are taking your phone calls. The doctor is in call me at 833-44

01:06:32.400 Megan, M-E-G-Y-N 833-446-3496. We're going to take a call right now. Doc's a guy, uh, we'll start

01:06:39.240 with Kent in Indiana, who's got a question for you about the kids. Go ahead, Kent. Hi, Megan. How are you

01:06:46.600 doing today? Great. Thanks. Um, yeah, I'm just really confused as far as, um, getting conflicting

01:06:53.880 information on children and the risk, uh, children have with COVID-19. And that's about it. All right.

01:07:01.460 So the risks that they have, right. And that is one of those things you, you watch MSNBC, you know,

01:07:06.300 you're like, Oh my God, how soon can I stick the needle in my two-year-old and you watch Fox and

01:07:10.620 you're like, uh, never I'm fine. And I don't have to get it at any point. So which either one of you

01:07:15.000 can take it. Okay. Well, uh, let me, let me launch on. Maybe, maybe David disagrees or not. We'll see.

01:07:22.160 Um, the, uh, uh, the risk to kids is orders of magnitude less than the risk to adults from getting

01:07:28.620 infected. Uh, a thousand fold difference or more in the risk of mortality, uh, from, uh, from,

01:07:35.000 from, from getting infected for, for adults, uh, for older adults, especially elderly adults versus

01:07:39.720 kids. Um, just to give some sense, uh, the estimates of the infection fatality rates, uh,

01:07:44.520 from, uh, from around the world for infection in kids is something like, uh, 99.999 plus percent

01:07:51.560 survival for kids under the age of 11. Um, so the, the disease is, uh, is, is, is not nearly as

01:07:59.920 deadly as is reported for kids. It's in fact, orders of magnitude less deadly for kids. More kids

01:08:04.600 died of the flu in typical flu seasons than have died, uh, in, in, in, in, uh, in, uh, as, as, as,

01:08:10.920 as far as the rate of death given, given infection, kids face far greater risk for many, many, many,

01:08:15.860 many other things. That's the first order thing. So to my thinking about whether kids should get the

01:08:21.340 vaccine, you should balance the benefit versus the potential harm to date. The evidence shows that

01:08:27.740 the vaccine seemed pretty safe in kids. Um, I don't see any, uh, evidence of, uh, in the,

01:08:32.800 in the trials that make me particularly worried about it. I do worry a little bit about myocarditis

01:08:36.540 risk in, in boys, uh, given that in young men, myocarditis risk is elevated, but you know,

01:08:40.980 COVID also caused myocarditis. Uh, and I think, uh, uh, there may be kids that have, uh, immune

01:08:46.840 deficiencies or other, other conditions that make them more benefit more for the vaccines. So I think

01:08:51.580 what I come down is this should be an individual choice that's made between the pediatrician and the

01:08:57.360 parent. Uh, there should not be coercion in this at all. Uh, and, uh, on, I think it is completely

01:09:03.560 reasonable for a parent to decide, well, my kid is not at high risk and I don't want to face the

01:09:08.180 potential long-term effects that we don't know about yet from the vaccine. Um, and, and come down

01:09:13.480 against, uh, I can also completely understand a parent who says, look, I'm worried about this and,

01:09:17.860 uh, it's safe and I want to just do it.

01:09:19.820 Jay, would you get your kid vaccinated if he had COVID already?

01:09:22.680 Me? Uh, no, I wouldn't.

01:09:25.820 No, you wouldn't. Okay. Because the, there's an, because he doesn't need it because there's an

01:09:30.160 increased risk. The marginal benefit is really low. Uh, and there's some potential, like I said,

01:09:34.600 it's for safe so far. There's some potential for harm on, on, on balance. Why?

01:09:38.880 Dave, what do you make of, um, Fauci's push for this is, this is the time for the booster shot.

01:09:44.060 I'm somebody who has a double vax, not a triple did not get the booster did not think I needed it.

01:09:48.500 I'm only 51 years old. I'm in perfectly good health. Don't have any comorbidities.

01:09:51.640 So what's your thought on go get your booster right now?

01:09:54.880 Yeah. I mean, well, and, and also just to, to speak to the, the risk in kids, I would say, um,

01:10:01.140 it's, I would, I would portray this as, as like getting a flu shot, right? I mean, like in kids,

01:10:07.380 COVID is about as dangerous as the flu. The shot is still very safe. We give people, uh, we give

01:10:13.380 kids flu shots. We don't, you know, coerce every kid to, to get a flu shot. Um, so, but as far as,

01:10:19.720 um, boosters, this is timely because, uh, I actually have my, uh, my appointment to get my

01:10:25.300 booster in, uh, in about an hour. Um, so, um, and, and I was, I was vaccinated, um, you know,

01:10:32.580 back in February. So, um, you know, I, I think on balance, um, if, if you haven't gotten a booster

01:10:39.560 and it's been more than, um, six to eight months since, uh, since you, you got your,

01:10:45.840 your first series on balance, I think the boosters probably do provide more benefit than harm. We

01:10:51.620 don't know that that's a long-term benefit, but I think wait until, you know, Omicron is better

01:10:58.060 understood and maybe Pfizer is going to give a different vaccine.

01:11:01.140 My personal expectation though, I hesitate to tell the future is that, uh, this is going to become

01:11:11.200 a virus like the flu that is worse in the winter time. Um, and so I, I feel like, um, I'll, uh,

01:11:19.420 I'll get my, my extra benefit for the next couple of months, um, during the peak season. And this is

01:11:25.860 when, when it was worse last year. Um, and, and so, but, but do I, I feel really strongly about

01:11:33.400 this? Um, no, I think that the priority still needs to be, um, what we were discussing earlier.

01:11:40.220 So getting vaccines out to, to everyone who hasn't been vaccinated, um, at least adults.

01:11:46.560 The first shot is the most important, not, not the third. Um, let me get into a few more callers

01:11:51.800 because the board is lighting up. They want to talk to you guys. Angie in Florida,

01:11:55.820 has a question for you, Angie. Hi, what's on your mind?

01:11:59.120 Hi, Megan. Oh my gosh. I've been a fan of yours forever. I have such respect for you. I love you.

01:12:03.800 Um, and on a side note, it's interesting that Omicron, which is like, um, you know,

01:12:10.540 seems to be a lot of hype for, uh, mild case of the COVID. If you unscramble those letters,

01:12:16.700 it's ironically comes out as moronic. Thought you'd think that was cute. Um, my second, 0.99

01:12:23.360 my point and question is I had COVID and as did my husband and are we safe with our natural

01:12:32.180 antibodies from having the COVID to where we wouldn't need or benefit as much from the vaccine

01:12:37.920 as folks who maybe haven't had it? Jay? Yeah, the answer is yes. The answer is absolutely yes. Uh,

01:12:44.240 the evidence at this point is overwhelming that COVID recovery product provides long and durable,

01:12:49.520 durable immunity against, uh, future reinfection. Um, just to give a couple of data points, uh, uh,

01:12:55.600 there, there was a study that was just published in the new England general medicine, Qatar,

01:12:59.280 that said, that showed that people who recovered from COVID, uh, a year ago, the likelihood of severe

01:13:07.580 disease disease on reinfection was, was, uh, orders of magnitude less than people who, uh, had never

01:13:15.420 been, had never been, never had COVID and never had the vaccine. Um, and in fact, the, the protection

01:13:20.840 was stronger in, than the vaccine and an Israeli study. Uh, uh, and in fact, even the likelihood of,

01:13:26.640 of reinfection is quite low in a, in a whole series of cohort studies around the world. But what,

01:13:31.540 what the, what the data show is that there is a, somewhere between a 0.3% and a 1% risk of

01:13:37.520 reinfection at one year, if you have had COVID and recovered, that's stronger protection than the

01:13:42.900 vaccine. Um, so I don't think that it's wise to, uh, it's not, it's not, I mean, I, I think it,

01:13:49.680 it is, it may be the case that the vaccine provides some marginal benefit on top of the

01:13:53.600 protection you already have, but it's going to be much, much, much, much smaller than the benefit

01:13:58.200 provided by, by, uh, by, uh, you know, um, uh, to, to people who've, who've never been infected,

01:14:04.420 never recovered, never had the vaccine before. Do you agree with that, David? Um, you know,

01:14:10.460 I, I'm going to agree and disagree. I think, um, I think that, that everything that, that Jay has said

01:14:16.300 is, is correct. I do think that there is some evidence that, um, if you have been infected,

01:14:24.420 that getting the vaccine provides additional benefit against getting reinfected. So again,

01:14:30.820 is this as critical as, um, as getting that, that first vaccine series, if, if you've never been

01:14:37.760 infected? No, you, you certainly have some, some level of protection. I think one thing is to make

01:14:43.920 sure that, that you actually were, um, tested positive against COVID. I mean, some people

01:14:49.580 think that they had COVID, but they, they didn't. Right. And so I think that's an important

01:14:53.360 consideration. If you've tested positive, I think you do have, um, strong level of protection.

01:15:00.060 I still think that the vaccines are, are very safe and probably provide additional benefit. And I would

01:15:07.160 say on balance, the risk benefit ratio is probably still favorable, but I would not

01:15:13.400 fault, uh, a decision, um, to, to not get the vaccine. And it's not, let me answer this follow

01:15:20.260 up. Okay. This is a hypothetical. So here we are in December of 2021. Let's say neither one of us has

01:15:26.460 had the vaccine and neither one of us has had COVID and it's, and we're trying to, we know in the next

01:15:33.920 year, one of those two things is going to happen, right? Like you could choose, you either get COVID

01:15:38.820 or you get the vaccine, uh, forget for, and you live through COVID and let's say it's, you have

01:15:44.320 very little symptoms and it's not a thing for you at in one year from now, 12 months from now,

01:15:48.820 if I got the vaccine and you just got COVID, which one of us would be better off in terms of not getting

01:15:54.480 it again? Oh, so I think the, the first response to that is nobody knows for sure that they're going

01:16:02.400 to be the person who, who gets the, the mild case of COVID. Right. And so I'm pro vax. I'm not trying

01:16:07.800 to make an argument anti-vax, but I am like, aren't you like, if you get a decent case of COVID

01:16:12.840 and you're pretty close to having gotten over it, you're, aren't you better off than somebody who

01:16:18.000 never had it and is double vaxed? Um, I would say to my mind, probably. Yes. I think there has

01:16:27.560 been some, um, some mixed evidence as to which is, is stronger. I think Jay is citing the,

01:16:34.260 the best evidence, uh, in favor of the previous infection. The Israeli study. Yeah. Um, but 27 0.58

01:16:40.740 times protection. Yeah, exactly. Okay. Um, so let me pause here. I get it. You've got, you've got some,

01:16:47.980 you've got a nuanced view of it, but I want to get in a couple more, um, and, um, a couple more,

01:16:52.840 uh, calls. Let's see. Yes. Uh, oh, okay. Uh, let's see. Braun in Kansas is going to bring up the

01:17:01.340 dreaded I word. Hi, Braun. What's, what's your question? The dreaded I word. Okay. Well,

01:17:07.460 hey, Megan, uh, thanks for taking my call. Hey, my question is, so we all know eventually we're all

01:17:13.160 going to get COVID in some fashion, either a little bit or severe. Um, I know there's therapeutics out

01:17:18.720 there's been used for over a year. There's studies saying that ivermectin seems to have some positive

01:17:24.020 effects. I've seen, um, you know, like four of my friends, um, they kind of went downhill pretty

01:17:30.460 quick with, with COVID confirmed. Uh, and they eventually reluctantly took some ivermectin and

01:17:37.960 within a day they started getting better and they could attribute them getting better because they did

01:17:42.760 ivermectin. I'm just looking to show the doctors to say, is this, is there any validity to this?

01:17:50.260 Good question. Who wants to take that one, Jay? I'll, I'll, I'll take that one and convey some

01:17:55.800 uncertainty. Um, the, there are something like 30 randomized trials on ivermectin. Many of them

01:18:02.520 find good results and some of them don't find nothing. Um, the, the, uh, the literature on this

01:18:08.380 is deeply divided. There are folks who've gone through these trials carefully and think that the low,

01:18:12.160 that the, the ones that have positive results are low quality trials and the ones that have

01:18:16.160 negative results are high quality trials. Uh, there, what might, so the answer is I don't yet

01:18:20.940 know if it works or not. I know there are many people who, who swear by it, but, uh, you know,

01:18:25.780 I'm not, I'm not, I personally am not yet convinced. Um, I, what I do, what I do know is that it is a

01:18:31.220 scandal that I don't know. We should have had a very high quality trial done in the United States

01:18:37.160 in, uh, in 2020 with ivermectin. There were hypotheses out there in 2020 that

01:18:42.100 this was a, uh, a potentially effective agent. We have a trial actually that the NIH is funding

01:18:46.360 called active six. That's due to be completed in March, 2023, 2023. There is absolutely no good

01:18:53.840 reason for us not to have put as much effort into development of early therapeutics, especially

01:18:58.680 cheap early therapeutics, uh, that as, as we put into the development of the vaccine from the very

01:19:03.660 earliest days of the epidemic. And I do not understand why, uh, the NIH in particular did not

01:19:08.580 put its, put its, uh, vast resources into rapidly developing and answer questions like the one that

01:19:13.320 Carol just asked. Yeah. It's so weird that we're behind everybody. You know, Israel's doing all this 1.00

01:19:18.000 testing, all these other countries. What about us? We're a big country. We got a lot of money. We got

01:19:21.800 a lot of smart doctors. Why aren't we doing any testing? It's ridiculous. Um, I, that brings me to

01:19:27.440 the question of therapeutics, right? We've got this, now this Merck pill is going to come out and

01:19:32.560 that it's something you can take once you have COVID, which is supposed to be spectacular at keeping

01:19:38.100 you out of the hospital, um, or from dying. But this is something that I understand that David is given

01:19:43.720 to patients who have not been vaccinated because the vaccine is above the Merck pill in terms of

01:19:49.160 preferences, like better not to get COVID than to just get it and have to treat it. Um, but my

01:19:54.940 understanding was Merck can only be of help to you if you haven't taken the vaccine. And, um, maybe,

01:20:00.540 I don't know, does it work as well as, as the vaccine that's keeping you out of the hospital

01:20:04.640 or death?

01:20:06.260 So I'm not aware of, of why this would be something that you couldn't get if, if you were

01:20:12.260 vaccinated. Um, I think that, um, this is, uh, if, if we believe the data coming out of the

01:20:19.960 country, uh, the companies, um, that these are going to be very effective pills. Um, if we're

01:20:26.360 able to at least diagnose people early in the, in the course of the infection and get

01:20:31.080 them the treatment before they get really sick. Um, but I think it, it, it should be something

01:20:37.940 that works, um, as well in people who have been vaccinated versus, uh, versus not. Um, so

01:20:45.460 my, my general advice would, would be get vaccinated, but, but if you get sick, um, and, and these pills

01:20:52.760 are available, um, and I mean, by the time they come out, there will be an indication

01:20:58.280 as to whether or not they, um, you know, you can get them when you're vaccinated or not,

01:21:01.780 but, but I, they should be available to you. I don't think that getting a vaccine is going

01:21:05.160 to make it so that you can't get these pills.

01:21:07.500 Okay. Uh, but again, it's better not to get COVID in the first place if you can avoid it

01:21:10.820 so that we like the vaccines for the people who can, who can get them. Um, though we, I am

01:21:16.660 opposed to the mandates. Um, I like these therapeutics though, Jay. I mean, I like the fact

01:21:21.220 that we are now focused a little bit more on cures as opposed to just preventions because

01:21:26.780 there are people who just are not going to get the vaccine for whatever reason, philosophical,

01:21:30.900 religious, or they're not able to. I had a really respected doctor on the show who loves

01:21:35.220 vaccines, but she can't get it. She's bummed out. She can't get it, but she can't because 0.50

01:21:38.000 of an immuno issue. So we do need good therapy therapeutics. So where are we on that?

01:21:43.400 I mean, actually the, the, uh, the, the development of these two, these two new therapeutics,

01:21:48.440 one by Pfizer and one by Merck potentially has the, has the potential to just alter the

01:21:52.780 epidemic altogether. Maybe even end it in a, in a sense, at least end the panic around

01:21:56.880 it. Um, the, uh, we'll, we'll see. I mean, I, I'm always a little careful when I don't

01:22:01.820 want to like get excited, super excited and tell people that, uh, what based on, on press

01:22:07.180 releases by drug companies, that's usually not a good idea. Um, so let's see what the data

01:22:11.420 actually show. Um, but if, if there's anything close to the claims, especially for that Pfizer

01:22:16.780 one, um, then, then we're in really, really good shape, uh, going forward with this disease.

01:22:22.520 Yeah. I always, I'm like, Oh, Pfizer really thinks everybody should get a booster. I'm like,

01:22:26.260 okay. All right. I'm going to, I'm going to talk to Dr. J. Um, how about Jeff in Florida? This

01:22:31.840 caller, uh, yeah, Jeff in Florida. There we go. Uh, he's got a good question that I'd love to hear

01:22:36.400 the answer to as well. Hi, Jeff. Go ahead. Hi, Megan. In your previous segment with Senator,

01:22:41.660 Senator, Senator Rand Paul, he mentioned that cloth masks were not effective and the effective

01:22:47.300 master, you know, the N95 masks that have that really tight seal around your mouth. Um, I'm just

01:22:53.220 curious what the doctors feel about the efficacy of cloth masking. What do you think of that, Dave?

01:23:00.580 Um, so I, I'm going to say that my personal read of the literature is that on balance cloth masks

01:23:10.780 do offer some protection, but I, I will also say that the, um, the level of evidence is not as strong

01:23:20.720 as, um, has been, um, I think put out there. I do think that masks play a role. Um, I do think that

01:23:29.260 they probably reduce transmission. And I think that when we're in, in indoor settings with high levels

01:23:34.420 of transmission, we should be doing everything we can to, to block that transmission. Um, I do think

01:23:40.240 that N95s are better than cloth masks. Um, but, um, but I, I don't want to come out too strongly on

01:23:48.600 this. Um, other than to say, I, I do think that when we have higher levels of transmission, we should

01:23:53.780 be a little bit more cautious about what we do. You know, Jay, it's like, I send my kids off to

01:23:58.120 class, uh, each morning, they're 12, 10 and eight and their masks are like over here on their face is

01:24:03.260 like falling down off the noses. They're loose. They're, you know, they're kids. Abby, my assistant,

01:24:07.700 she's got, she's got, is Lillian three yet? She's three. She's got a three-year-old in the mask.

01:24:13.100 It's like, oh, it's in the back of her head. You know, they're snotty kids. It's like, whatever. 0.67

01:24:16.680 It's like ridiculous that that Utah, that mask is doing absolutely nothing. I, you just, I don't 0.73

01:24:22.240 have to be a doctor, but I'll ask you cause you are. I, I agree with you, Megan. I think that the,

01:24:27.540 the, especially for on children, the evidence that masking children has any effect whatsoever on

01:24:32.360 disease spread is, is, is, is no, I mean, zero, uh, there's no high quality at randomized evidence

01:24:38.660 whatsoever about, about masking children and the effect on the disease spread. Um, and, uh, the,

01:24:44.100 uh, you know, like you can look and see, uh, how the different agencies around the world have dealt

01:24:48.560 with this. The, the, our CDC recommends masking two-year-olds, uh, no other health agency in the

01:24:55.260 world that agrees with that. Um, you know, so, so for instance, the, in Europe, the, the,

01:24:59.500 the masking recommendations start at six, uh, even, and then, and actually the ECDC says 12,

01:25:05.060 um, you know, with, with, yeah. And the world health organization says six, five, six to 11

01:25:10.380 year olds, be very careful. Think carefully about it because there may be developmental harms and

01:25:13.820 other harms to some kids, uh, from masking learning, learning languages might be tough for some kids

01:25:18.140 if they, if they can't see the faces or, or, or learning emotional responses. I mean, there's some,

01:25:23.220 it's, there's some weird fight among psychologists, which I would never have thought that there's some

01:25:28.060 people who say that, that masking kids have absolutely no effect on them. There's no harm

01:25:31.760 whatsoever. And I have no idea how they can conclude that from the literature I've seen.

01:25:36.260 It is, seems really likely to me that there's some harm to some kids from masking them. Um,

01:25:41.780 at the same time, there's no evidence, no good evidence at all that this, this stops the disease

01:25:45.620 spread or has any appreciable effect on disease spread is, as you say, the kids don't wear the

01:25:49.420 mask very effective. Frankly, adults don't wear these masks very effectively. Um, and so I,

01:25:54.840 I come down against masking children. I think it is at least, at least forced masking of children. 0.53

01:25:59.580 If a, if a parent thinks it's, it's necessary, I mean, I'm not going to, I'm not going to sit

01:26:03.460 there and argue with them. Um, but I do not think the schools should be forcing kids to mask. And I

01:26:08.080 think they should have very, very easy ways to opt out if, uh, if they, if they so wish.

01:26:12.480 Yes. Preach. All right. Stand by more with the doctors right after this. We're still taking

01:26:17.240 your questions. You can call us and get on the queue. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. David Dowdy

01:26:25.120 are here taking your questions. Can I ask you, Jay, just, I was curious, your reaction on I am

01:26:30.380 science, Dr. Fauci and everyone else is a liar. Your thoughts? Uh, nobody with such hubris should

01:26:38.420 be at the center of COVID policy. There's actually a conflict of interest there, uh, Megan, that's

01:26:43.020 really important for people to understand. Dr. Fauci is the head of NAID. He is in charge of

01:26:47.900 funding, uh, a very large number of immunologists, a very large number of epidemiologists and a very

01:26:53.440 large number of virologists. Uh, they, uh, scientists are, are normal people. They worry

01:26:59.040 about their careers and they worry about funding. Um, if you have somebody who's in charge of that

01:27:03.920 kind of funding, also in charge of COVID policy, it creates a deep conflict of interest. It's

01:27:08.600 irresolvable. Uh, I think Dr. Fauci should step down for one of these two roles.

01:27:13.020 It would be nice. Um, I don't expect it because to me, it seems like he's getting a little drunk

01:27:16.740 on his own power and fame. That's what Rand Paul said. Um, here's a good question. There's a couple

01:27:21.840 of questions like this. Let's go to Melanie in Indiana. We've got a question about antibodies.

01:27:26.380 Hi, Melanie, go ahead. Hi. Yeah. Thanks for taking this call because I haven't heard it anywhere.

01:27:32.180 So my question, uh, to the doctors is, um, what do we know? I don't think we know what level of

01:27:40.740 antibodies are actually protective for people. And I think we, if we haven't done the research

01:27:46.800 to find out the answer to that question, we should, and it's almost criminal because if we

01:27:51.900 knew what we needed, then we could argue less about whether or not you should be naturally,

01:27:57.460 uh, uh, whether natural immunity should count. David, I'll give that one to you.

01:28:02.300 Sure. And that's a great question, Melanie. I think the challenge is that antibodies are not

01:28:06.700 the whole story when it comes to immunity against, uh, against this virus. And so we're,

01:28:11.000 we're unfortunately never going to have that antibody level. Um, antibodies are just what are

01:28:16.560 easiest for us to measure, but it's not the entirety of, of what our immunity is. So, um, I wish we could

01:28:23.840 have that level, but I don't think we will achieve it. Unfortunately. I want to tell you guys, um, this

01:28:28.380 is just breaking, uh, from the AP U S official United States identifies first case of Omicron COVID-19

01:28:35.380 variant, um, in this country. My husband, Doug had to go get a COVID test this morning. I hope 0.88

01:28:39.700 it's not him. No, it's not breaking news. It was already here. Yeah, that's right. But you guys

01:28:45.640 were right. So your, your suspicions have been confirmed. Um, Pat in Illinois has a question

01:28:50.740 about the effects of vaccination. Hi Pat, go ahead. Hi, good morning. How are you all? Good. Thanks.

01:28:56.220 What's up? Good. Good. So my question is, I understand that I've been vaccinated so I can still

01:29:01.380 get the virus. However, my chances of becoming seriously ill or dying are much reduced. So I'm

01:29:07.440 vaccinated. That's great. How, what is the thought though on, cause I, I hear this on mainstream media

01:29:14.120 all the time that I need to get vaccinated to protect other people. So the evidence on that

01:29:21.480 is, is interesting. It's, it's, uh, for the first couple of months, it's probably true. Uh, first two,

01:29:26.240 three months after. So the efficacy and the studies, some of the, like, there's a study out

01:29:30.400 of Qatar that it, the efficacy against getting infected at all is about 60, 70% after two or

01:29:36.980 three months. But then it starts to decline very sharply so that by six months, it goes down to 20%

01:29:42.720 efficacy. So in other words, out of, out of, uh, if, if a hundred people could get it that are

01:29:48.100 unvaccinated, 80 people that are vaccinated will get infected. Um, so the efficacy, the public

01:29:54.240 protection provided by the vaccine declines very sharply over time. Uh, this is partly,

01:29:59.140 I think why people are talking about boosters, uh, although even there, the evidence is only,

01:30:02.760 it's only short-term. Um, whereas the private protection, the protection against severe disease

01:30:06.680 seems to be much longer lasting. Uh, I, I personally had the vaccine in April, uh, the second dose,

01:30:12.100 and then I got COVID in August. Uh, I mean, it was, I mean, I didn't get hospitalized. It was,

01:30:16.280 I mean, I'm not happy to get it, but it was, it was, uh, it wasn't so bad. Um, so I very

01:30:20.980 strongly recommend the vaccine, but as a, as a mechanism for public protection, this is not

01:30:25.040 like many of the other vaccines we use that are in, in broad use in public.

01:30:29.820 Hmm. That's a, that's, that's interesting. Now I want to go to, um, Jean, Jean in Indiana. Jean,

01:30:35.820 what's your question? Uh, yes. Um, my wife and daughter have both had the virus and I was around

01:30:42.160 both of them. And actually the, the day my wife was, uh, getting sick, uh, I was right next to her

01:30:49.380 and I'm O positive blood type. I've heard that there, if you're O positive, there could be,

01:30:54.980 uh, some resistance to the back or to the virus. Is that correct?

01:31:00.000 David? Um, so I think that there are people who, who get very mild cases and, and asymptomatic

01:31:07.800 cases. I do not think it's a result of, of blood type. Yeah. There's a lot of people said that too.

01:31:15.720 They're like, I'm, I'm a positive. And they're like, Oh, a positives don't get it. And I haven't

01:31:19.840 gotten it, but I've also gotten the vaccine and I don't know, whatever. I don't listen to all the

01:31:24.760 Dr. Fauci edicts, but I do what's reasonable. Um, here's a question for you. This is actually

01:31:29.160 good. Phil is in Massachusetts. He got a followup on ivermectin. Go ahead, Phil.

01:31:34.120 Hi, Megan. Uh, it's good to talk to the doc here. Um, I've been in dairy farming my whole life,

01:31:40.220 uh, and we've been around the ivermectin and it's always a pour on worm medication. It's never

01:31:48.020 oral. So when did this become oral, especially for people? And what's the deal with that?

01:31:53.720 So, uh, ivermectin is used by billions of people around the world for, to treat parasitic infections.

01:31:59.780 Um, it's the, if there's this disease called onchocercase, which is the number one cause

01:32:04.140 of blindness worldwide, it's ivermectin is very effective. I think it's an oral oral dose for

01:32:08.840 that. Uh, so it is, it is effective in, in, uh, used, you know, widely as an oral medication. Um,

01:32:16.340 uh, so I don't think the controversy was whether the ivermectin is useful as a human drug. It is,

01:32:20.140 it is incredibly useful as a Nobel prize was awarded for it in the mid nineties, uh, cause it was such

01:32:25.420 a big advance. Uh, the only question is whether it's effective. The question here is whether it's

01:32:29.320 effective to treat COVID-19, uh, early on or not. And for that, as I said earlier, I don't know the

01:32:35.060 answer. Hmm. But can I ask you a quick question? We're up against a break, but how do you know if

01:32:39.320 you need, you know, a drug at all, if you get COVID, you know, like, how do you know, I got to

01:32:43.820 go get the monoclonal antibodies or I got to get looking to ivermectin, David? Part of this is about

01:32:48.980 how, how old you are and how susceptible you might be to, to getting sick. Also how, how early you are in

01:32:54.700 the course of the disease. Um, but in general, especially as we get better treatments, I think

01:32:59.620 the, the pressure is going to be on to, to get diagnosed sooner so that you can get these meds

01:33:04.260 and keep yourself out of the hospital. And more testing. We need more at-home testing guys. Such

01:33:08.740 a pleasure. Thank you so much. And thanks to all of my listeners for calling in really appreciated

01:33:12.180 your thoughtful questions. I want to tell you, don't forget to watch the show tomorrow. We got a

01:33:16.120 lot of hot case, uh, legal cases, the Supreme court case on abortion, Jussie Smollett. That case is

01:33:21.600 underway. Ghislaine Maxwell. There's a lot. Download the Megan Kelly show on Apple Pandora,

01:33:26.040 Spotify, and Stitcher. Go to youtube.com slash Megan Kelly to watch it. See you tomorrow.

01:33:30.160 Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.

The Megyn Kelly Show - December 01, 2021

Fauci, Cuomo, Hunter, and Omicron, with Sen. Rand Paul, Miranda Devine, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and Dr. David Dowdy ｜ Ep. 212

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript