Dr. Scott Atlas: The Birx-Fauci Lockdowns Failed To Stop The Pandemic By Tim Hains
DR. SCOTT ATLAS, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE CORONAVIRUS ADVISER: The data is the data. And the data is being denied by the lockdowners. The data shows the following. Bjornskov’s study of 24 European countries, the lockdowns did not reduce the deaths during the pandemic. That was a spring 2021 study.
A January 2021 study from Stanford’s Bendavid and colleagues, lockdowns failed to stop the spread of the infection. In fact, Ioannidis, one of the authors, said it was — quote — “pro-contagion,” increasing infections.
And the most important study was National Bureau of Economic Research by RAND in June this year. Everyone should look at it, because they showed analysis of 43 countries and all the states that lockdowns increased the excess deaths during the pandemic. Earlier lockdowns increased the deaths during the pandemic.
And when lockdowns were instilled, deaths were coming down. And the deaths started increasing when the lockdowns were implemented. So the Birx-Fauci lockdowns, which was the advice of the task force the entire year, failed to stop the spread of the infection. They failed to stop the dying. And they destroyed millions and millions of people, particularly low-income families.
BARTIROMO: Yes, I want to ask you about the Birx-Fauci lockdown, because, today, we have the FDA authorizing now booster shots for everybody, all adults.
Pfizer and Moderna are going to make a combined $93 billion in sales on this in the coming years on vaccines. What is going on here? Is this about money? Your thoughts on the FDA asking a federal judge to give it 55 years to wait for all data, release final data on the Pfizer vaccine?
ATLAS: Yes, I mean, there are so many problems with this.
BARTIROMO: Fifty-five years.
ATLAS: And the science — yes. And on the science side alone, boosters to be indicated for people who are, for example, low-income groups like children, healthy children have extremely low risk from COVID, period. That’s been known for more than a year-and-a-half.
To give people boosters, even vaccines with an experimental technology for a disease that they have almost no risk from for serious illness is simply contrary to the science. Boosters, there’s no significant safety data on boosters, zero, OK?
We have thousands of people, single-digit thousands in Israel, with 30 days of safety data. A vaccine normally takes five to 10 years to be approved for safety. And so this kind of boosters, I don’t know. That…
BARTIROMO: Right, which is why I’m questioning — it’s five to 10 years, which is why I’m questioning 55 years.
Look, Dr. Atlas, we’re going to slip in a short break. I have got to get your take on why this administration refuses to acknowledge the benefit of natural immunity, Dr. Fauci pushing COVID booster shots and vaccinations for babies, all that right after this…
Now, our CDC and the present administration won’t even acknowledge natural immunity, which is every bit as effective as getting the vaccination.
BARTIROMO: That was Dr. Ben Carson on this program back in August discussing natural immunity, which the Biden administration still refuses to acknowledge. We’re speaking this morning with Dr. Scott Atlas, who advised the Trump administration on COVID-19. Scott, your thoughts on that? Many people say that the infection from the virus actually brings more immunity than the vaccine.
ATLAS: Maria, Dr. Carson’s right. I would say even more so is that the data shows this — listen, this is not even news. This is something that should have been — that was known for decades. This is basic knowledge about viral infection, including coronaviruses, by the way, of which four are circulating separate from this one, is that we know and the data shows that natural immunity, people who have recovered from the disease not only have protection; they have better protection, according to the data.
And the studies are — particularly in Israel, they have 27-fold less incidents of symptomatic COVID than people who’ve been vaccinated, but never had the disease. They have an eight-fold less incidents of hospitalizations, people who’ve recovered from the infection naturally than people who’ve been vaccinated and never had the infection.
And the waning — the protection wanes with the vaccine in a quicker time than the protection wanes from natural infection. So, natural infection confers protection, significant, durable protection. And we are the — as far as I can read it, the only country that I know of in our peer nations who refuses to accept this.
If you’re in Europe, they count having had the infection as protection, when you have these green passes or whatever they call them to go places and to travel.
The United States is, bizarrely, denying the science. It’s not just political, I don’t think. I think there’s — we’re in an era here where the United States is really simply not looking at fact. We are denying fact. And this shows really an indictment of the public health leadership in this country. What I saw during the task force, it’s all the same stuff.
BARTIROMO: So, tell me more, Dr. Atlas, because you have referred to all of this as a cabal of individuals who are all in on this together, making medical decisions, saying they’re following the science, but, in fact, they’re not following the science.
What do you think is going on? You spent time with Fauci, with Birx when you were on the inside. You write in the book how Birx tried to stop Trump from meeting the nation’s best medical scientists.
What did you see while you were there?
ATLAS: Sure. Well, first, let’s say the difference between me and the doctors on the task force, Drs. Birx and Fauci are government bureaucrats. They have been in their position in government for 40 years. I am a health policy scholar for 15 years and, before that, 25 years in clinical medical science and research and teaching in some of the best medical centers in the country.
I would bring into the task force scores of papers, a dozen papers, 20 scientific publications. And when asked about my opinion, I would go through the data. I would cite the data. All I heard from them was either nothing, silence, or simply calling me an outlier, and then they would run to the media and do this ad hominem attack.
So, that’s not critical. There was no critical thinking there. There was no citation of a study. In fact, they never disagreed with each other, OK? That’s not scientific inquiry at all.
And so what we see now is this idea that they have — in fact, there was a pact that Dr. Birx revealed earlier this year. She said — and I didn’t know this at the time — that she Fauci and Redfield, if one of them got fired by President Trump, they were all going to quit.
First of all, I mean, it’s not — I was there for one reason, to stop people from dying. I didn’t care about anything else. They were there to keep their positions. They wanted the pandemic to end, no doubt, but there were other motives.
And then the question is, why? Where does this come from? When I say there’s a cabal, the American people really don’t know this, because this is an insider’s game, but there is a — there is sort of a group of people, very powerful people in science, who are at the NIH, like Dr. Fauci and others in academia and in the scientific journals, OK?
This is how all academic science is produced. The prestigious grants, the way you get promoted in a university is to have NIH grants. You submit papers to these journals.
The people who review the grants to get them accepted or not to give you funding are the same people in the NIH and in the journals.
It’s a cabal. They control the money. They control the scientific funding. They control the careers of everyone.
So you have to wonder, why did these scientists, for instance, write a letter to the editor of Lancet in February 2020 claiming it was known with certainty the origin of the virus was natural, and anyone who said otherwise was a conspiracy theorist? That’s a political statement, first of all. Science has become politicized.
But the internal politics in the field of science and academia is so destructive, and there’s no transparency. And this is — undermines the validity of the research and their statements.
Comments are closed.
