Essential Liberty
The Bob Zadek Show
Senator Rand Paul Exposes the Great COVID Coverup

Senator Rand Paul Exposes the Great COVID Coverup

How Misinformation and Censorship during the Pandemic Endangered Public Trust and Health

Dear Friends,

Although the immediate medical crisis of COVID may be behind us, we have yet to recover from the political side effects of the pandemic. We were lied to. Senator Rand Paul has revealed the extent of the lies in his explosive new book, Deception: The Great COVID Coverup, yet few have come to terms with the brute facts regarding “Gain of Function” research and the conspiracy to keep it a secret.

I had the privilege of interviewing Senator Paul about the extensive deception around COVID-19, and the shocking number of government agencies and private sector entities involved in the collective coverup. Rather than coming clean, Dr. Fauci and others orchestrated a massive campaign to shirk responsibility. The American people deserve to know the full truth.

With the mainstream media still asleep at the wheel, it’s time to wake up to the egregious overreach of federal, state, and local governments that took place, and ensure that they are never again able to abuse powers in this way. Listen to Senator Paul summarize in his own words what you’ll learn from his book:

“It was the outright lies that piqued my interest. What Fauci was actually doing was beginning a coverup. People often question, ‘How could a conspiracy involving hundreds of people possibly be true?’ As George Carlin said, ‘You don’t need a conspiracy when interests converge.’ I think over time, the idea that they could share guilt or culpability for millions of deaths [was] a big incentive for them to cover up.”

Listen now, or read the transcript below, to learn the full story behind the lab leak hypothesis (at this point, all but confirmed), and the Senator’s ongoing efforts to get the word out to the public.

Since his election in 2011, Senator Paul has been a tireless defender of liberty, taking on out-of-control spending and championing criminal justice reform. He has worked across the aisle with Senator Cory Booker on civil liberties, and with other progressives to rein in our endless wars abroad. However, he has often fought these battles alone.

In 2011 he was one of just two Republicans who voted against extending key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.

In February 2018, he was one of small handful of Republican senators to vote against a Trump-supported immigration proposal.

And in September 2020, Senator Paul was the lone Republican to vote against a COVID-19 aid package that inflated the national debt while giving politicians a free pass to extend lockdown measures.

Throughout the painful missteps of the pandemic era, Senator Paul has continued challenging the establishment and questioning the received wisdom. His book Deception will serve as an indispensable historical record, uncovering the deep conspiracy between public agencies and private interests to conceal the true origins of the virus.

Let’s be sure to learn the right lessons. Buy Senator Paul’s book Deception and share it with everyone you know. The truth depends on us spreading the word. Stay vigilant, and remember Ben Franklin’s warning that those who would trade a little liberty for security deserve neither.

Yours in liberty,

Bob Zadek



Bob Zadek: Senator Paul, your book gives the impression of being the result of an extensive investigation, similar to those conducted by blue-ribbon committees established to investigate significant events like the Kennedy assassination, Nixon's actions during his presidency, or the Challenger disaster. It's as if a team of dedicated researchers and their staff published these findings. However, you undertook the task of presenting this critical data to the public alone.

Your book is essential reading since it provides the public with unique insights into these events. We all experienced these events, yet they leave us dazed and questioning: What exactly did we go through and how did it happen? Your book provides these answers.

Thank you for writing your book, Deception, and for joining me this morning.

Senator Paul: Thank you, Bob.

The Coverup Begins

Bob Zadek: You've been active in the Senate, both publicly and privately, with Dr. Fauci appearing to be a main subject of your focus. It seems as if you've portrayed him as a kind of ringleader based on the various clips, publications, and media attention that consistently involved him. Perhaps "ringleader" is too harsh a term, or possibly not harsh enough. In your book, "Deception,” who is deceiving whom in "Deception"?

Senator Paul: In the beginning, I trusted Anthony Fauci. When I first heard from him, I didn't know who he was. I thought he was a disinterested scientist and he was probably just telling the truth. He said that the virus likely came from animals. I saw that in the news.

I really didn't think a lot about it for almost a year until I read an article by Nicholas Wade talking about how everything they were saying in private, they were not saying in public. So privately, they were alarmed. They said, "Oh my goodness, it looks like the virus has been manipulated in the lab." In Anthony Fauci's own words, he said, "We're concerned because we know they conduct gain-of-function research in this lab."

Fast forward about a year later, in committee, I directly asked Anthony Fauci, "Did the NIH fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan?”

And he responded, "We've never funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan."

So, it was the outright lies that piqued my interest. As I delved deeper, I discovered that the cover-up began at a specific time. This became evident as I read the emails that a federal judge ordered to be released beginning January 31st, 2020. You can feel the tension. You can sense the building hysteria. The emails begin at 10:30 PM and continue until 3 AM. It's evident that Anthony Fauci can't sleep because he's worried about this. His assistants are sending him emails, saying, "This is a research project that we funded, but it can't be gain-of-function because it didn't go before the safety committee."

At three in the morning, he sent an email to some guy I'd never heard of. A year later, I discovered that this person was the head of the safety committee. However, he insisted there was nothing to see and that it came from animals, not the lab. What he was actually doing was beginning a cover-up. The book reveals that this cover-up extends to eight different government agencies and involves hundreds of people.

People often question, "How could a conspiracy involving hundreds of people possibly be true?" To this, I believe George Carlin provided the best explanation. He stated, "A conspiracy theory isn't necessary where interests converge."

The common interest here is that they all know they funded the research. They've been doing it for a decade. They are all suspicious that the virus came from the lab, from money they provided. So, they all independently have the same self-interest in trying to cover up the fact that the US funded this. So, it's a conspiracy involving hundreds of people.

People often question, "How could a conspiracy involving hundreds of people possibly be true?" To this, I believe George Carlin provided the best explanation. He stated, "A conspiracy theory isn't necessary where interests converge."

Now they didn't necessarily act together. However, they all participated in funding research in a lab that was dangerous and ultimately leaked to the public.

The book presents an array of evidence suggesting that this did not originate from animals, as there is no evidence supporting such a claim. Additionally, there are hundreds of pieces of data pointing towards the fact that this originated from a lab in Wuhan.

Messing with Mother Nature: Gain of Function Research

Bob Zadek: You mentioned earlier that 'they' were exchanging emails to give us a sense of the scope. Can you clarify who 'they' are? I'm not asking for specific names, but rather the groups or sectors from both the public and private arenas included in 'they'.

Additionally, Senator, you used the phrase 'gain of function', a term we've been hearing daily for three years. However, the public might not be familiar with this concept due to its short memory span. Could you briefly explain what 'gain of function' means in this context?

Rand Paul: The initial conspiracy, conversations, and email exchanges involve Anthony Fauci and leading virologists, as well as those who distribute grants. One of the key figures is Jeremy Farrar – he's essentially the Anthony Fauci of England.

Farrar describes this period as a time when he bought a burner phone for the first time. This doesn't sound like the actions of a public servant, but rather someone conspiring to conceal things. His wife mentions that he had 17 conversations in one day. According to Farrar, his wife advised him to speak to his family as if it might be his last conversation, to inform them of the information he knows in case he doesn't survive. What does this imply? It suggests that something significant is happening, but he never fully explains it in his book. He mentions that he might die.

He has a burner phone. He's giving his last will and testament, but he doesn't really make it clear who he's afraid of. To me, it seems like he's afraid of the Chinese government, or perhaps his own government. However, he's acknowledging that this came from China.

The four or five other virologists on the call have looked at the genetic sequence, and they say it's suspicious and doesn't occur naturally. It has a special cleavage site which allows it to enter human cells, a feature that doesn't exist in this family of coronaviruses in nature. So, they're all very suspicious.

However, this only goes on for about four or five days, from February 1st till February 4th. By February 4th, they're all publicly saying that you're a nut, a kook, or a conspiracy theorist if you believe this. They're sending letters to Lancet and have published an article in Nature that is edited by Anthony Fauci.

During this same period, Anthony Fauci steps up to the lectern in the White House and cites a paper to assert that this could only have originated from animals. However, he authored the paper he's quoting. He edited, oversaw, and organized this paper. This is a conspiracy.

The person who wrote that letter was the head of a group called EcoHealth Alliance, who funded the research in China. They're all interconnected, they're all self-interested. They're all conflicted in interest and nobody's admitting in public. What they're saying in private is that they actually believe it came from the lab.

Hiding the Truth

Bob Zadek: The pivotal moment was when someone in the group acknowledged their possible role in this situation. The concern was that the public might learn that our government partially funded the research leading to a lab mistake. It's clear there was no intention of it being an attack, but it happened. Fauci and others were keen to distance themselves from this incident.

They seemed more preoccupied with this than with addressing the actual problem. Would you agree with that summary?

Senator Paul: Yes, it's initially a fear of culpability, fear, and guilt, that they funded something that killed millions of people. Now, they didn't yet know it was going to kill millions of people. So it's fear and culpability. But they also were worried about what they call science. I call it the business of science.

They're worried about the millions and billions of dollars that change hands funding this type of research. They're concerned about it damaging relations with China. One of them, at one point, says, "This will be a real mess if it gets out that China's lab had anything to do with this."

They're worried about all the money changing hands back and forth. Francis Collins, the head of the NIH, sends an email to Anthony Fauci and says, "This won't be good for science."

They imply as if they are fully supportive of the platonic lie or the noble lie. The common people, we can't really tell them the truth about where this came from because it'll damage their support ultimately for gain-of-function research.

Francis Collins, the head of the NIH, sends an email to Anthony Fauci and says, "This won't be good for science." … I call it the business of science. They're worried about the millions and billions of dollars that change hands funding this type of research.

You asked for the definition of this. Gain-of-function research is where you take a virus, or the genetics for a virus, and combine it with another virus or its genetics. This results in a brand new, “chimeric” virus, which consists of two different viruses. Then, it is tested to see if it would be more infectious or deadly in humans, and is purposely mutated.

But you test it and you say, “Hmm, I wonder if it would be more infectious or more deadly in humans,” but then they purposely mutated. For instance, the most famous experiment doing this was in 2010, and alarm bells went off. A researcher studied the avian flu, which is highly contagious among chickens. When we hear about millions of chickens being culled in China, it's usually due to this flu. Although it's not very contagious to humans, it has a 50% mortality rate when it does infect. He wondered what it would be like if he could mutate the avian flu to make it more easily transmissible among mammals and through the air, to make it aerosolized. This is sort of a death wish. It's like a reckless teenage scientist with a mad scientist kit deciding, "Wow, wouldn't it be cool to create a virus that might kill everyone?" Then, promising to be careful not to let it leak. But this is what's been going on: gain of function research.

They've been doing it for a decade, and there's been a real debate in the scientific community. There are significantly credentialed and tenured professors at some of our most prestigious schools who think it's a bad idea. And then there's Anthony Fauci, who thinks it's a good idea.

Silencing the Critics: Fauci’s Two-Faced Answer on Face Masks

Bob Zadek: So, we have an initial mistake – a bad act, but not necessarily criminal – then we have the cover-up. A classic pattern. The coverup is in the news, and that's where your attention went, attempting to uncover it. The question is, why was there such a coverup? The health establishment was extremely aggressive in suppressing any contradictory information. What was in their ethos that made them so determined to have the government dictate the narrative, and why were they so aggressive in suppressing other opinions?

Senator Paul: I think over time, the idea that they could share guilt or culpability for millions of deaths is a big incentive for them to cover up. But I think initially, before millions of people had died, the bigger incentive was that they philosophically believed that we need to have good relations with China. They feared it would damage relations with China and harm a decade of developing this interaction with the scientific community with China.

“I think over time, the idea that they could share guilt or culpability for millions of deaths is a big incentive for them to cover up.”

These are people who are not averse to telling the noble lie. A good example of this is Anthony Fauci's varying opinions on masks. He says finally, that when he initially stated that they don’t work, he was really trying to prevent a shortage of masks for healthcare by discouraging people from buying them. First he said they didn't work to. Then he said they did work.

In the end, though, if you really want to know the truth from most of these people, it's what they say in private. When Anthony Fauci was asked privately by a colleague who was going to travel in February 2020, he said, "Don't use them. We've known for decades that masks don't work in public and for public health, they do not prevent the passage of viruses.”

Executive Overreach

Bob Zadek: I'd like you to discuss your take on the use of emergency powers, a topic that you spent considerable time on in your book. The mere mention of "emergency powers" infuriates me. You discussed how the executive branch, at both state and local levels, became enamored with the newfound abilities granted by these powers. Could you give us your perspective on the uses and abuses of executive power and explain how we arrived at this situation?

Senator Paul: Virtually everything that happened during the lockdown, every enforcement of the lockdown, whether federal or state-based, was an abuse of emergency powers. Emergency powers are essentially extra-constitutional because the Constitution states that legislatures, both state and federal, pass laws, not executives.

Executives administer the laws. This has always been a usurpation of power. It's been ongoing for a long time – really since the Great Depression on, we have granted more and more emergency powers. In fact, in the 1930s, we gave the president the power to shut down all communications in the country. Many people believe this now applies to the internet, radio, television, and everything else, even things that didn't exist back then. Some people have referred to this as the internet kill switch, suggesting that the president could turn off the internet with the flick of a switch.

“Virtually everything that happened during the lockdown, every enforcement of the lockdown, whether federal or state-based, was an abuse of emergency powers.”

I've tried to remove these powers. I've attempted to halt these emergency powers at the state level. In my state, in particular, my governor actually forbade church attendance, going to a gym, staying in a hotel, dining in a restaurant, and traveling without papers or vaccines.

Every one of his edicts was ultimately struck down by the court. Fortunately, there were enough people left in the federal courts to achieve this. However, we ultimately had to address this issue at our state legislature. These emergency powers need to be limited. Therefore, at our state legislature, we finally determined that emergency edicts by the governor expire within 30 days unless approved by the legislature.

Now, I would have likely shortened it to three days. However, these emergency powers are perilous. If a president ever loses any sense of self-awareness or restraint, we could see a president ruling the United States by edict, given the current laws.

Downplaying Natural Immunity

Bob Zadek: [00:19:05] Your book spends considerable time discussing how aggressively Fauci and his team suppressed any discussion about the benefits of natural immunity. In other words, their stance seemed to be that “there's nothing to see here.” Why was government so afraid of natural immunity?

Senator Paul: At one point Anthony Fauci says to Francis Collins in an email, “We need to do a take down” of these scientists who were talking about natural immunity. This was the epidemiologist, Martin Kulldorff, and Jay Bhattacharya, who issued the Great Barrington Declaration, talking about natural immunity, trying to work hard to save the people most at risk for this disease.

They didn't want mention natural immunity because they didn't want to deter anybody from being vaccinated. But the problem is, when you're dishonest with people, they tend to doubt everything you tell them. So they would come and accuse me of spreading vaccine hesitancy.

And I would say, “No, I'm not telling people not to get vaccinated. I'm telling people who are at risk, they should get vaccinated.”

But what I'm not doing is telling a six month old they need to be vaccinated, because that's a lie. Children don't die from this disease. In fact, as the statistics came in, we found that zero healthy children – not a handful, not 1%, not 10% – zero healthy children died from this.

Now about 140 children died in the United States with Covid. They were all, unfortunately, dying from other diseases, and they died. But we finally badgered them and badgered them, and the CDC released a study. There were a million people in California and New York who they'd accumulated through government statistics, and they found out that those who had not been vaccinated but who had gotten the disease had protection that was twice as good as being vaccinated.

The idiots on the left said, well, you're telling people just to get sick and die, and if they don't die, they have immunity. I said, “no, I'm not. I'm just telling people they're gonna get sick one way or another, whether they've been vaccinated. What's the truth of the matter? They still will not release."

The idiots on the left claimed, "Well, you're telling people to simply get sick and die, and if they don't die, they'll have immunity."

I responded, "No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm just informing people that they will likely get sick regardless of vaccination.”

What's the truth of the matter? They still refuse to disclose.

One Size Fits None

Senator Paul: They have the data for the whole United States. 90% of people over 65 got two vaccines. I'm fine with that. They got two vaccines, but now they've also been infected. Now they have been infected twice. What does it mean to have both natural immunity and vaccine immunity? I suspect that the likelihood of being hospitalized or dying, regardless of age, may approach zero if you have been vaccinated and previously infected, as long as you do not have a significant health issue.

But they need to tell us that instead, they're hawking a vaccine. They're telling you, oh, this new one you need to take. Well, there is a real question - you now have immunity, but the vaccine has mutated and mutated and mutated such that it's no longer as deadly. It was much more deadly in 2020. But the only way to make rational decisions is if they give us information.

However, instead of informing us, they are hawking a vaccine. They are telling you that you need to take this new one. But there’s a real question - if you already have immunity, and the vaccine has undergone multiple mutations, it may no longer be as deadly as it was in 2020. The only way for us to make rational decisions is if they give us information.

But it makes me believe that when they won't give you the information, they're actually in cahoots with just selling vaccines. They, they've become salesmen for these billion dollar companies. They're buying up the extra doses, you know, they're out there advertising every day. Oh. And lamenting that moms will not vaccinate their one and two year olds, which I think is malpractice - to vaccinate young people for this because there are some risks in the vaccine for young people, and the risks for the vaccine for young people outweigh the benefits.

But it leads me to believe that when they refuse to provide you with information, they are actually just in cahoots with the manufacturers selling vaccines. They have essentially become salespeople for these billion-dollar companies. They are acquiring the surplus vaccine doses and actively promoting them every day. Furthermore, they express regret that mothers are hesitant to vaccinate their one and two-year-old children, which I consider to be a form of malpractice. Vaccinating young individuals for this particular disease carries some risks, and the potential drawbacks of the vaccine outweigh the benefits for young people.

Now, I would say the opposite. If you're significantly overweight or if you're older, at least in 2020 or 2021, the benefits of the vaccine, I think, outweighed the risks of the disease.

But we used to treat people individually in medicine. It was an individual assessment based on your age, based on your health. And instead, what we're getting is one size fits all. And it all seems to be to the benefit of billion dollar pharmaceutical companies.

Bob Zadek: It sounds like something which I remember reading about about a decade ago, and it scared the heck outta me. It was called herd medicine, and the medical schools were promoting an approach to medicine which was sacrifice the individual for the good of the group. In other words, the individual patient stopped mattering, just as you have said now.

Lessons Learned?

Bob Zadek: What is the lesson you hope your readers will get from the book that will make us better, more informed participants in the political process? What should we look for when we vote, when we read, when we make our selection at the ballot box? What are the warning signs we should be alert for?

Senator Paul: I think the number one point I want to get across is that we are still at risk for this happening again, for another leak of another lab, another leak of a virus, but there could be one much more dangerous. In the book, I quote a scientist, a longstanding virologist, who believes that the next leak could be much worse - it might have a mortality of 5 to 50%. There are viruses they're experimenting with that we pay for through tax money - Marburg virus, Nipah virus, Ebola - they have 50% mortality. What kind of crazy person would think it would be a good idea to take tax money and see if we can make these viruses more transmissible?

I will attempt to pass legislation, assuming I can ever get Democrats to show any concern for this issue. In my opinion, this matter is equally or even more significant than nuclear arms control, as it can cause as many fatalities as a nuclear bomb. Therefore, just as we engage in discussions with China, Russia, and North Korea regarding nuclear weapons, we must also engage with our Congress and citizens to address this issue and impose limitations.

Right now you can order online DNA to create the polio virus. You can create it from nothing. We actually can sort of create life in a way. A virus isn't maybe necessarily life because a virus has to live in a living cell. But you can create polio online. There's a real danger if we are getting to the point where people are creating Ebola and making it worse online and then releasing it - we've got enough crazy people doing crazy things in our country.

The taxpayers shouldn't be supporting that. So my goal is to have legislation that we can interest Democrats in passing bipartisan and try to make sure we're not continuing to do this dangerous kind of research in the US.

The Great Deception

Bob Zadek: One final question: If you have an opinion, why were you fighting this battle alone? You were doing important work, seemingly doing God's work. It seems like such a crucial cause that should have garnered full-throated support from the entire House of Congress. Why were you the only one doing it?

Senator Paul: What I would say is that on the other side, the Democrats tend to be defenders of the government. They believe that government and Big Brother are always helpful, harmonious, and philanthropic. They are hesitant to criticize parts of the government because they see it as a criticism of their philosophy.

But it is shocking that none of them have shown much interest in this. We have tried numerous times, but to this day, there is almost no Democratic support or interest in understanding what happened with the virus. However, I don't think it's over yet. Public opinion has shifted, and I still hope to engage Democrats in this matter.

I will continue trying and see what I can do to bring about change throughout the country.

Bob Zadek: Thank you so much. Senator Paul has just published a book called Deception. What happened that we should know about in the Coronavirus era? It's a must-read if you want to truly understand how your government and mine operates behind the scenes.

Essential Liberty
The Bob Zadek Show
Bob talks about the issues that affect our lives on a daily basis from a purely libertarian standpoint. He believes in small government, fewer taxes, and greater personal freedom.<br /><br />America has lost its way, but it cannot and does not need to be reinvented. Our founders were correct about their approach to government, as were John Locke, Adam Smith and the other great political philosophers who influenced them. The country’s first principles are economic and social freedom, republicanism, the rule of law, and liberty. Bob believes we must take the best of our founding principles and work from them because a country without principles is just a landmass.