Episode 136 - Anthony Fauci is No Physician

Anthony Fauci went to medical school, but never practiced medicine. Instead he moved to the dark side, where he became a bureaucrat's bureaucrat in an agency that Congress had no proper authority to create. In doing so, he lined his pocket - and his friends' pockets - with your tax money while killing millions.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:12

Welcome to Careful Consideration of Our Common Concerns. I'm Dr. Ted Noel. And our seminar is back in session. I trust you have your favorite beverage to sip as we continue. Now, we talked about Anthony Fauci on the legal side of things. It's time to talk about the medical side. And for what it's worth, Anthony Fauci is not a physician. Yes, he has the degree MD, and yes, he did a residency, but he never practiced medicine. That's why I say he's not a physician, never was. He was a bureaucrat. He was, as we say in the clinical practice of medicine, on the dark side. And it turns out that in his circumstance, it's even more of the darkens, dark side. And this is a reason not to trust the government. Let's go look at some of the details. First, he claimed that we needed masks. Well, guess what? The Spanish flu epidemic that began in 1918 proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that masks didn't change anything, and that's been known for over a century. Second, in 2014, in a paper from the CDC, the flu virus, which is airborne, was studied. And it turns out that masks had no benefit in preventing influenza. It's an airborne virus. Of course, they were claiming it was spread by contact, which of course masks don't do anything for in any case. So the masks were not a good idea. What did they do? They prevented children from learning their parents' faces, which is an incredibly important part of early childhood development. Continuing on, social distancing. That was known to be worthless from day one. If it was spread from contact, social distancing does nothing because that's direct contact. Anything beyond apart farther apart than direct contact isn't going to spread anything. And we already knew from studies of the, for example, the Skagget Valley Corral Incident, and there was a restaurant incident that appeared in the Chinese literature and was spread our direction, that it was clearly airborne, and social distancing doesn't change airborne. Well, then they went on and said, Oh, we need to ban these outdoor activities. And so there were kids who were out surfing in California, got arrested because they were violating the COVID curfews. Uh, but of course, if you were in an Antifa riot, you were fine, you could do whatever. It didn't make any difference. That tells you something already. But let's go on a little bit on the outdoors. I play golf. What did they do? They had this stupid thing where you had to put this foam thing in the in the uh cups, and putting was different. I mean, they did all these crazy things. I'm going, wait a minute. When you check the data, there were zero cases transmitted outdoors for a couple of reasons. One is that the outdoors dilutes your breath. Let's say you've got the bug and you're breathing out outdoors. Well, you're breathing out into an infinite reservoir. It dilutes it way, way low. And you don't get the disease from one virus. You get the disease from a certain number of millions of viruses, which means you've got to be fairly close for that to happen. And of course, outdoors, ultraviolet light from the sun, which penetrates clouds rather nicely, sterilizes the air. Viruses die outside. They knew this. They knew all of this. And yet they insisted that we had to go through all of this stuff. They killed people. For example, in New York City, 60% of all of the cases of COVID were people who were locked down. 60%. That's horrendous. And why did that happen? Well, it turns out they were in closed spaces with recirculated air. That meant that the viruses got a chance to get concentrated. That's all. So all of these things are government medicine. You heard me right, government medicine. And that tells you right now that there is no sense to having the government control anything in our medical arrangements. They have their own incentives. And with Anthony Fauci, oh, he could not let ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine be a good thing because they're both dirt cheap. And it turns out that anybody who was treated early with ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine recovered at home, they never needed to go to the hospital. Virtually 100% cure rate. If you went to the hospital, oh, it was horrible. You lost a lot of money. But you know what happened? If you walked in the hospital with a broken leg, well, let's say with a broken arm, because you could still walk with a broken arm. And they swabbed your nose, and then they ran it through that PCR, and it came up with COVID. You now had a COVID diagnosis. And the hospital got about $12,000 extra, so they tested everybody. Cardiologist friend of mine was talking about how they came around. Well, you didn't order a COVID test. He said, That's right, the guy has an MI. He doesn't need a COVID test. And the hospital got angry about it. But the fact is, the COVID test did nothing. All it did was create money for the hospital from the taxpayer. The people who were locked down and couldn't pay anything ended up losing their tax money to people who were milking the system. Of course, if your shadow darkened the door of an intensive care unit, the 12 grand extra went up to 30 grand. So hospitals were really happy to have you come in sicker than a dog because they got a whole bunch of extra money. You say, wait a minute, if people are willing to be that callous for money, what was Fauci's gig in this? Well, it turns out Fauci had a piece of the royalties for various treatments, including the mRNA virus or mRNA shot, and in particular, a drug that he decided we needed to use for treatment. It's called Remdesivir. Now that drug was originally created to help with Ebola. Well, it didn't work there, and so he had this lovely drug which did nothing for nobody. And he had to make some money on it because he owned the patent on it. So it became the standard of care, even though that drug should never be given to anyone, because it kills kidneys, among other things. You see, Fauci is as evil as they come. We're going to disregard the legalities on the federal side. He stood to make a pot full of money, and his buddies stood to make a pot full of money. Pfizer made something in excess of $30 billion on the mRNA clot shot, which incidentally should never have been approved for injection because, oh, and here's Fauci again. It seems that the law says you can grant emergency use authority for a medication or a therapy for which for a disease for which there is no alternative treatment. Okay, you get that? No alternative treatment. But Fauci knew that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine worked. So how could he get this? Well, they had to say, oh, the FDA had to say these are not useful for this disease. And remember the ads, you you're not a horse, you're not a cow, stop it because ivermectin was a horse dewormer. Well, yeah, it's a people dewormer as well. And it is a drug that is incredibly safe in people. But if it was there as an alternative treatment, the emergency use authorization, which allowed Pfizer to make $32 billion plus, would be blocked by law. So Fauci and his buddies worked hard to prevent that. Because why? Because they wanted to make the money, they didn't care about the truth. We know Pfizer hid a lot of things involved in what's going on. So ultimately, this was all about the money. But now we have to ask something. Where is Congress permitted to spend money on this sort of thing? Well, it turns out in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Congress shall have the power to collect taxes for the common defense of general welfare, and the taxes have to be uniform. That's clause one. We will come back to general welfare in a minute. Taxes have to be uniform. That's the rest of clause one. And you say, okay, what else are they? They have the power to borrow money. No. That's the COVID vaccine's not that. To regulate commerce? No. Naturalization? No. Coin money? No. Punish counterfeiting? No. Post offices? No. Patents and copyrights? No. Various courts? No. Punish piracy? No. Declare war? No. Raise and support armies? No. Provide and maintain a navy? No. Make the rules for government and regulation in the end and land and naval forces? No. Provide for calling forth the militia? No. Provide for organizing the militia? No. Exclusive legislation over the District of Columbia? No. And then the last clause says to make all laws which are necessary and property carry out the ones before. There are 16 specific powers listed. Not one of them has a single thing to do with your health or my health. Or medication for that matter. It has nothing to do with that. In other words, there is no power to have the National Institutes of Health, which consumes more money than the entire government of the entire state of Georgia. Okay. Look at that again. There's a huge amount of federal money that goes into the National Institutes of Health, but it's not in the powers provided. Oh, it has to be in the general welfare. Sorry, Charlie. Doesn't work that way. It turns out that that term general welfare actually comes from the Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England. There were four colonies, Massachusetts Bay, Providence, you know, I forget which four. In 1643, they formed a mutual defense pact. And the term general welfare was used in that to say we want to make sure that all four colonies are protected. It's talking about the colonies. It's not talking about the people in them, it's talking about the colonies. Indian attack could occur over at this one little town. Yes, that's people in the colony, but it's an attack on the colony. Everything was about the colonies. In the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which came in 1778 after the Declaration of Independence, the term was the same. And when you examine the use of that language, all the way up through 1787, which is when that constitution was adopted, general welfare specifically meant the welfare of the states. It was talking about protecting all of the states together against foreign action. That's what it was about. That's common defense. And the idea of welfare is making sure that things are peaceful so the people in them can operate in peace and be prosperous. Okay. That's what the term meant then. That's what the term means in the Constitution. It is most clear from the cases of Heller in 2008, Bruin in 2022, and restated in Rahimi this year, that the words have to be understood in the way they were understood by the people who wrote them down on the paper. There's no choice. In other words, unless the Constitution lists a specific enumerated power, that's the legal term. Congress has had no right to create the National Institutes of Health. But Fauci is running along there. What did he do? He ran for the benefit of Fauci. Okay. Forget about the law otherwise. All of this was to line Fauci's pocket and to line his buddies' pockets. Hey, I can't be the only one getting rich. If you guys get rich, I get rich. Sounds cool. Not a problem. This works fine. And for example, the latest news out is if a woman in the first trimester of pregnancy took the COVID vaccine, she had over 80% chance of losing the baby. 80%. Eight out of ten would lose the baby if they got the shot early in pregnancy. Yet Fauci stood up, he knew that, and he still said, they've got to be vaccinated. They got to be vaccinated early. Who was Fauci benefiting? Fauci. This is government involvement in medicine. And it is guaranteed to be harmful when we look at the FDA. In medicine, we always called it the Federal Delay Administration because we'd read the research papers and we would say, dang, this thing is cool. And then you'd look and it would cost $10 billion to bring a new drug to market. Why? Because of all the FDA rules. And we can talk more about that another time, but you begin to see what's going on. The FDA, the NIH exist to protect the FDA and the NIH. They serve no purpose. And neither one of them is within the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Now, general welfare, as it's been interpreted for the last century, basically, since two cases, but U.S. versus Butler in 1936 and Helvering v. Davis in 1937, declared that if Congress says it's okay, then it's okay. They deliberately twisted the term general welfare to say, if Congress thinks it's good for us, then it's then it's okay. When in fact, the term general welfare had to do not with, is this medicine good for you or is that treatment good for you? It had everything to do with the states. It never looked below the level of the states in anything interior to the states. It was strictly at the level of the states. General welfare was involved in protecting the union. At the beginning, the 13 states, it was involved in protecting the union. And when you look at it, until Butler and Helvering, that's the way it was interpreted by the courts. We are beginning to see some changes coming by. And when you look at a case that just came out of a court in the Northern District of Texas looking at the National Firearms Act, it turns out that on enumerated powers criteria, the National Firearms Act registry of various guns cannot be justified under the enumerated powers of the Constitution. It's not there. You heard me read the list. None of them had to do with registering and creating a list of anything anybody owns. It just doesn't exist there. And fortunately, we are beginning to see courts dealing directly with the question of enumerated powers. And hopefully, this will continue. Until next time, the message is what matters. I'm Dr. Ted Noel.