Nobel Prize-Winning Doctor Echoes C&B in WSJ Op-Ed

CLAY: I gotta give credit, Buck. The two pages that I’m most interested in seeing every single day are the Wall Street Journal editorial pages. They are by far the most honest, the most interesting, the most thought-provoking, and the most fact-based — and fearless, I would say — of any newspaper pages in the media. And I’m old school in the sense that I still read the actual physical newspaper. So I turned to it this morning, Buck, when the Wall Street Journal got to the house, and I read this piece, and I might mangle these names.

Luc Montagnier (that’s the French pronunciation; Montagner if you’re a southern guy; I have no idea how exactly to pronounce it) and Jed Rubenfeld wrote a headline here: “Omicron Makes Biden’s Vaccine Mandates Obsolete,” and, Buck, the entire argument here is effectively — this is an emboldened part of their piece — “There is no evidence so far that vaccines are reducing infections from the fast-spreading Omicron variant.” And they argue that as a result, “there is no scientific basis whatsoever for OSHA’s vaccine mandate.”

And they close their piece by saying, “Neither Health and Human Services nor OSHA ever considered Omicron or said a word about vaccine efficacy against it for the simple reason that it hadn’t yet been discovered. In these circumstances, long-standing legal principles require the justices to stay the mandates and send them back to the agencies for a fresh look,” which is an interesting argument which I hadn’t even thought about.

It was well said by these guys in this article, because at the time of the Biden covid vaccine mandate Omicron didn’t exist, and so they need to reconsider the science behind their argument. And so the Supreme Court could just send this back to HHS and OSHA and say, “You have to redo this entire vaccine mandate because the science upon which you relied has changed.” It’s a little bit of a way to dodge having to make a big decision about executive authority.

BUCK: Right. This is a moment in time where any reasonable, rationale decision-making body — the Supreme Court; OSHA itself; oh, I don’t know, the Biden regime’ the mouthpieces at the CDC, you know? Where’s little Fauci? I have the seen him in five minutes. I don’t know what’s going on. It’s been five minutes without him on my TV screen.

CLAY: (laughing) It is true.

BUCK: And you say, “Hold on a second. Someone explain to me how this makes any sense, given the realities of the underlying justification for this. They took this out of individual hands — your rights, your freedom as a person to not have something injected into you or else you would face serious consequences.” In New York City you’re effectively locked in your home unless you get the shot. It’s horrible what they’ve done to people here. Okay?

That was all based on the, “Oh, I can’t be near ’cause you’re gonna get me sick.” Well, now we know, unless you’re gonna avoid all human contact, you might actually get exposed to covid, vaccinated or unvaccinated. And they can’t even distinguish between the duo in terms of infection likelihood anymore or viral spread — unless I’m missing something, unless there’s some data I don’t know about.

They did do recent studies to show that those who are vaccinated versus unvaccinated who do get infected have about the same level of virus in their nasopharynx, right? So in terms of initial infection, maybe for the first 60 days, Clay, you’re more protected or the first 90 days you’re more protected. But after that you’re not. So what’s really the justification here for making people get the shot? They don’t have answers. They’re just coming up with it on the fly.

CLAY: This is maybe the most blockbuster part of the entire article here that I’m reading from the Wall Street Journal. For those of you out there, I shared this on Twitter and encourage you to go read the article for yourself. Again, one of the writers here, Dr. Montagnier. I’ve pronounced his name different ways now.

BUCK: Lean into the French. Montagnier?

CLAY: He was the winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for discovering HIV. So this guy’s kind of a big deal. Nobel Prize winner. All right, listen to this paragraph, Buck, because this is a jaw-dropping paragraph and I think we’re gonna talk some with Alex Berenson about this tomorrow in the third hour of the program for those of you out there who want to hear this discussion.

But here’s what they say: “The little data we have suggest the opposite” in terms of omicron protecting vaccinated people. “One preprint study found that after 30 days the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines no longer had any statistically significant positive effect against Omicron infection,” just 30 days, but listen to this, “and after 90 days, their effect went negative — i.e., vaccinated people were more susceptible to Omicron infection.

“Confirming this negative efficacy finding, data from Denmark and the Canadian province of Ontario indicate that vaccinated people have higher rates of Omicron infection than unvaccinated people.” Buck, if this paragraph that I’m reading from in the Wall Street Journal is correct, not only is there not now — as Joe Biden has been saying for months — a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” what we actually have in this country, Buck, based on this paragraph and these studies, would be a pandemic of the vaccinated! It’s earth-shattering.

BUCK: I can guarantee you that if Clay or I or any of our brothers and sisters in the conservative movement took those exact words — and forget about attribution and plagiarism for a second, okay, just for the purpose of the story here. If we took those exact words, put them onto our Facebook page or put them onto Twitter, there’s a very high likelihood that you would get a strike.

You’d be suspended and maybe permanently suspended for taking the words of a Nobel Prize winner in science on what’s happening right now based on the data. So can we all understand the people that are telling you “it’s the science” are cowards, they’re liars, and they don’t know what the heck they’re talking about. The corporate media in general — aligned with the Democrats — has failed to even do the most basic due diligence on Fauciism.

They’ve been at every stage of this pandemic pretending to have the answer, Clay, based upon things that they clearly could not really know. But they said, “We’re a hundred percent sure.” At what point is “I’m a hundred percent sure” and then “I’m actually wrong ’cause I wasn’t sure” the same thing as a lie? Right? To say that we know these vaccines work so well and will stop transmission and will stop infection to find out catastrophically how much that’s not true?

Well, it’s not like they said, “We think.” They said, “We know, and you must get the shot based on us knowing,” and they didn’t, and they were wrong, and there needs to be accountability for that because otherwise how can we trust what they say going forward? Why should anyone listen to the next Fauci pronouncement? Oh, I’m sure you’ll see him walking around in three masks in a matter of weeks now ’cause he takes the virus seriously. By the way, does AOC take the virus seriously? ‘Cause she just got infected! She was down in Florida.

CLAY: It’s not gonna take long ’til AOC blames DeSantis for her covid infection. By the way, her covid infection: Post-double vaccine, post-booster. By the way, she’s also gonna be fine. Maybe the virus was just supremely attracted to her because she’s so good-looking, right? Maybe that’s the big takeaway here.