0 in the middle of summer, they have flexible plans to match my budget and go online to find the right plan for you. >> yeah, good girl. are you taking a statin drug to reduce cholesterol? it can also deplete your your ten levels. i recommend considering qnol chan along with your spatt medication brand. i trust is qnol. welcome to tucker carlson. tonight, nobody wants to talk about covid anymore and that's certainly understandable. this country lost so much in. two years. it's depressing to think about it and the instinct is just to move. nd but unfortunately we don't have that luxury and for two reasons. first, politicians are continuing to use the virus as a pretext to force their agendas on an unwilling and weary population that's happening still, believe it or not. and second, it may be more significantly long term. somebody has got to rescue science from the ideologuesak who all of a sudden have taken it over science must be objective. science must be honest. otherwise everything falls apart. so with that in mind, this story i in april of last year, researchers at the cdc concluded a month long study ofr thousands of health care workers. they include first responders, enurses, physicians. as the point of the study was to assess whether the covid vaccine wase working. >> researchers put the health care workers into two groupss, vaccinated and vaccinated and then they watched what they found was so significanten that the head of the cdc was so leonski went directly to emison to tell the world what researchers had found. and here's what she said. tthis is word for word, quote, our data from the cdc today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick. and that's not just in j clinicl real worldw,so inn data. now, that turned out not simply to be untrue, but in some sense to be the opposite of the truth. in some cases, the vaccine are m more likely to get variants of covid. the death rates around the world for the vaccinated are extraordinarilyly high. but at the time, anyone who had doubts about rochelle once said was told to shut up. those questions are out loud.so we're kicked off social media. if, you kept questioning, you might be fired from your job.do doubtingub rochelle walensky promises during w a five administrations claims with the covid vaccine was totallyvi unacceptable was like questioning their views on herd himmunity or mandatory maskingi for children or airline passengers or closing the schoolse p. >> now that we know that virtually everything they said about koband was wrong, however, no one has admitted it and nono one has been punished. no o one at the cdc was fired f, this. in fact, they were elevated under joe biden the people who madeun these claims, these false claims have even more power than ever. lewinsky is back on television. she's demanding that parentsts force our children as young as six months old to take. the covid shot. >> they're all saying f tony fauci joe biden to watch.au >> i know many parents with very young children have anti. tronglyting this day parent, i strongly encourage childrenn infected and vaccinated. they do get infected and they do pass the infection. so wedo p would hope that family members who are responsible for the children will realize that and will be enthusiastic about getting their children vaccinated. and finally, covid-19 vaccinationsnsvaccinated. b of r five years of age. >> finally, some peace of mindma . amazingly, despitees all of their demonstrated failures, all of are documented dishonesty, those three people are still, as of tonight, in charge of this country's response to covid. it's remarkablepo if you think about it. so parents thinking about how to treat their own children are in a very tough position. hs one of the covid shots that wollensky and fauci and bideno v are tellinge to give your smallb kids is manufactured by moderna. now, you might recall thaty midterm's koed t vaccine for adults was suspended from use in several countries afterse researchers found that it caused potentially very dangerous heart inflammationaldn young people. the other covid vaccine has been approved for toddlers in the united states is made by pfizer. pfizer's vaccine for adults has also been linked to heart damage to myocarditis in young people. so a lot oft o parentsre are wondering, should we give this to our toddler? how do we find the answer? virtually every news show inve america seems to be sponsored by pfizer. sour clearlyni turning on television is not going to give you an answer you can trust. you need to find an independent science minded researcher orrc physician who's looked at the actual data. and there are very fewewfe who who've done it and are willing to be honest about it. marty macquarrie of johnsns hopkins university is one of them. he's just written a remarkableem piece and very wise and substract and he wrote with epidemiologist tracy hote macquarrie hope found that pfizer and moderna provided and we're quoting extremely weak, inconclusive q data to a justify vaccinating children as young as six months in the united states. quote, using a three dose vaccine, a nine hundred 3 ninety children between the ages of six months and five years. pfizer found noiv statistically significant evidence of vaccine efficacy. icthey wrote in the subgroup ofs children aged six months to two years. the trial found the vaccine could result in a ninety nine percent lower chance of infection. but they also have a three hundred and seventy percent aincreased chance of being infected. what does that mean? >> we have no idea. we don't know how you would because those data are completely incoherent. they do not present a picture that suggests a path forward. ftheir inherently confusing. meanwhile, modernana claim a vey weak vaccine efficacy of just four percent in children agege six to two years.. thatstic is not a statistically significant result either. so based on those numbersre and probably those arent the underlying numbers, how could the biden administration how could the peopleowow who run public health in the united states of america push for the immediate vaccinationam of children over the ages of six months? we need to assess what exactly these data are and why public health agencies seem to be ignoring them. >> money to carry, as we toldou you, is professor of public johns hopkins university who wrote the piece we just referred to and we're honored to have him on tonight . doctor , thankssmi so much for coming on . thank you for taking a look at l the numbers behind this. unless we just mischaracterize them, they don't sound likeen the basis for a recommendation for universal toddler vaccination. >> that's that's exactly right, tucker. itct wouldn't even get published in medical journal with peer review. it wouldn't cuteer through the process. it would get rejected. now, doctors everywhere in doc the worldd, even in the government, should always be free to speak up about their public health concernss. that is a sacred right that weua have to guard. but rightrd now in the governmet recently and this is a trend t c the last year, doctorsto are muzzled. i've talkedve to many doctors fm this piece at nih and cdc who are extremely frustrated. they're smart people. they know that a vaccine efficacy of four percent doesn't warrant an authorized version. they also know thatht n there'so health emergency right now among among kids six months of age.ea sorn i learned a lot. they know the underlying data. they know it'ss inappropriate. they're not allowed to speak to anyone. h reporter calls the communications office has to approve the conversation. and if they want to ask the scientist whether or notthyo they want to do this, they'llu' say, tell us what you're goingnd to tell the reporter. and then we'll decide whether or not to approve it. at, the cdc, a bunch ofun scientists actually said, look, we recognize the insanity of mastec trying to chase down every case of the virus in the united states. ubiquitous now. t it's not contained. so they came up with a plan to w use sampling data like we do with influenza every year and to get better numbers fromth the hospital of those truly in there for covididin just everyby with incidental covid tests. and that plan is proposed and it was rejected and they say it was rejected by the owhite house and over and overa in the different agencies i heard from smartrd people who were just extremelyex frustrated that not only arefi they bypassing the normal scientific process, but they you really can'tc say anything because if they do,he they know that their jobs are at risk and they'll be treatedy. very differently. one person even said there's no transparency as to how dr. fauci makes his decisions. he doesn't even consult with the real experts. and other people have said other things like it's demoralizing that one person at the fda even who knows the datan really well said that they feel that they're watching a horrorir show and they can't close their eyes. they're being forced to watch this if public health wants toty restore some credibility and there's good people in public healths go, they've been sidelined. the leaders have to have more humility, less absolutism, more answers like we don't know when that's the right answer and less paternalism. that's the only way we're going to rebuild trust in the medical profession. and in public health. >> then i think it begins with individual physicians o and researchers like you who act on conscience, speak with integrity, tellnea the truh regardless that will restore faith, at least mine. soestoai i appreciate your starg that by coming on here. thank you. dr. winnipeggers. t. appreciate it. so we going to another story that's been brewing tonight. so for weeks, as you know, the january 6th committee hass been holding hearings. they've been widely covered on the other channels. we haven'them. seen the news vae in them. but there is a bit of news toe emerge from that story and we want to get to it now.as so the new york times has ar written hundreds and hundreds of articles about january 6th since it happened, describing it as a riot and insurrection as part of its coverage lastso summer, the times published a video documentary in which the times reported that one man was actually caught on camera planning an insurrection, encouraging a breach of the capitol complex. >> that man's name is ray epps . the new york times notedeo that epps wasta videotaped on both january 5th and january 6th, urging protesters to storm the capitol. >> here it is . >> we need to go to the capitol . let's go out there. but we're going to go to the mall. the capitol and capitol to capitol hill. >> reaction now. a lot of ways that's the strangest video to emerge january six . we played it several times inth this quote, we need to go into the capitol, into the capitol, reps tells the crowd. he says it repeatedly. he's soo emphatic about it, encouraging other people to commit a crime that the crowd around him decides he must be a federal agent. they began chanting, as you just heard, fed, fedin. soso shortly after that video surfaced, the fbi placed reps on a list of people wanted ford questioning. they released it to the public and you can understand why h thethey did that, according o the justice department, what ray did on that, video is a federal crime, in fact. but administration has charged several people with seditious conspiracy for doing precisely what you just saw reps do,he urging others to enter the capitol complex on january six . here, forte example, is a quotes from a doj press release. it describes the federal case against five members of the so-called proud boysd pr grp you're supposed to be terrifiedf of, quote, on january six .n 2020 one , the defendants directed, mobilized and led members of the crowdd onto the capitol grounds and into the capitol. and quote again, that's what you just saw ray epps tried to do. but here's the difference others would have done that are in prison or facing long terms in prison, but no charges have ever been filed against rafe'sct despite the fact there's no question did it because once more it's on tape. that's's very strange. iter just is . and we don't care how people call us . thanks for pointing that out. it is strangeit a a and we'd lin answer to what the heck a is going on now. we've asked on this show repeatedly to explain why he thinks he has escaped prosecution. ep and we'll ask him once again and we will keep asking because we think this is very obvious o and important question that gets to the heart of what xa is this exactly? >>ct but it's amazing how little democrats want too hear about this. again, nancy pelosi, liz, spento the last year staging an investigation at great expensen and in a series of public show trials arresting people in their homes supposedly designed to discover how and why january six happened. >> but they remain curiously uninterested inunin the case. we've got what seems like an actual insurrectionist on tapend ,but they don't want to talk about it and they definitely don't want you to talk about it or ask any questions, as if to prove that point. the new york times just ranou a piece explaining that when you asked questions about, you are committing a moral crime, . ybe even helping putin >> the piece was entitled it's just beenju life as the victim of a january six conspiracy theory. oh, so real. the guy telling people toac breach the capitol is now, inh the words "new york times", a victim, a victim of your unrestrained curiosity. now, this piece was written u by a reporternr who has spentas years schilling openly fornl the intelligence agency may give you some sense of where the storyline comes from, like the agencies themselves, the new york times piece was highly deceptive. for example, the new york times says that epps was, quote, thtaped urging people to go to the capitol hill. but that's not what the tape shows. raft's is doing something very different. ramp's is urging people to,s go into the capitol, not to the capitol. and there's a big differenceo legally. one is a crime, according to the doj and the other is not a crime.e. and that's not all raf' did. that'sll also told people what they should do once they got inside the capitol and that's , too. i this is just minutes before the first breach of the building that day bhe. >> watch one more. we go out there so when we go in, are we going to get arrested? we don't we don't need one or two and leave this here. >> will that mean.so well, for some reason, the new york times reporter didn't m ask what he meant by that. now the reporter spent a day talking to epp's. it was a day long conversation,t accordingrdin the story. but that question never came up. no meaningful. question came up. it's all very strange. the new york times is mounting a propaganda campaign on behalf of a self-described trump voter insurrectionist. now, this is the same paper that cheered ashley babbitts death, but this same paper weeping for because people it's aeen mean to himpp online. it's almost like they're trying to cover something upp now very near the end of the new yorkk times piece, there's a hint we find this line, quote,thne mr. s also said he r regretted sending a text to his nephew. well, after the violence thate erupted in which he discussed how he helped orchestrate the movements of peoplele who were leaving mr. trump's speech near the white house by pointing them in the direction of the capitol really what was in that text? we never heard of that before. >> and it kind of makes you think the entire "new york times" piece t washa written to dropt that little bomblet at the end in the least damaging way that we'd ever seen that text message before. >>ne what exactly did say to hs nephew? have prosecutors reviewed that text? the new york times doesn't tellw us , nor does the new york times tell us the has had any contact with any federal agencies in the period before january six . that's the core question. butio they can ask it. a why m is that? seems like a major omission, but don't ask more questions. come in. the new york times.ise ray otherwise, rapp's epp may be kid by mexican drug cartels. mexican drug cartels. where they have to do with this, we're not sure. butto according to the paper, there are people who have heard, quote, some cartel members talking about killing mr. epp's rights because the drug cartels are committed trump voters and they feel v betrayed by wrap's maybe they're calling on people to . is is highly strange and if you're going to spend more than a year looking into january 6th, and you ignore this, then it's more than strange. it's an indictment of your motives. there is one of the reasonshe this piece was first written. he's the editor of revolver news, which published the first stories about raft's obviously the new york e e times are veryim worried about his reporting. we're happy to have him join us tonight. stefan , thanks so much for coming on . what do you make of this? >> well, it's prettyll remarkable. i mean, just let's take all of this. and the one person caught repeatedly urging people into the capital as early as january 5th is the one person of all of the january six riot penuparticipants' that the new k times just happens to write this ultra sympathetic puff piece for it. it's. quite remarkable. and to look at the piece itself as you suggested in your in your intro, there are some real glaring omissions from a journalist standpoint to have access to the sky. no one in the entire your piece there is no blanket explicit denial on the part of epps to have been associated with any intelligence group, dhs, atf, military intelligence, soh, forth, just reiterates his j vey legal denial of being involved with law law enforcementth. number two, the piece describes epps as a trump supporter. t heo just went to went to dc to defend trump and to attendh the speech on a last minute thing with his son to attendud trump's speech on election fraud. is i didn'tng. attend the speech. abss travels allh the way from trump bto dc, this big supporter and he doesn't even attend the speech. instead, he fixates on this bizarre mission to get everyone to go in to the capital . and by the way, he just happens to be hanging out right by the initial bridgepoint near the peace monument on the west p side of the capitol before the proud boys even get their. and thirdly, where did reps p get this idea? thisis whole piece doesn't explore that question at all. here is the one person calling for everyone to go . where did you get that idea? wrap's did it occurred to you o out of nowhere? did someone tell you to do it? this piece shockingly does notn explore that question at all, which is the paramount questiona . that's really the animating the alleged animating focus of january six committee. so this is so dirtyy tee. relaps behavior was so egregious thathe he was f one of the first twenty on the fbi most wanted list. he wasur featuredta as a star in the new york times. his own documentary on january six . and now he's unarrested unindicted and he's the onlyy january six writer about whom adam kinsinger6t has nice things to say. and the "new york times" is writing puff pieces about t is this the entire fed's directionng g? and they go crazy when you askio simple questions likens what was the role of federal law enforcement of the military in this day? and it's been our experience when they won't answer a questionansw and call you nams for asking it. maybe there's something there. i appreciate you're pulling the threads relentlessly. >> drumbeating. thank you. thank you. >>so leading democrats knew that joe biden was literally senile when he ran for president in 2020. they know it.at there's a lot of evidence of that. we're going to need some help on that later. >> but at this point they're protecting the and they can't believe how old joe biden