Charles Rixey (3:02)

I went down to Alabama, to the only place in the US at the time that was currently doing this testing that was confirmed. So. So I am vaccine injured. I have this marker above the 90th percentile of all the samples, about 1,000 samples that Dr. Vaughn has done. And then I spoke to Dr. Redfield about this because he has acknowledged that a this microglotting is a driver of the issues that we're seeing in Long Covid. He's also acknowledged that Long Covid is dysregulating the immune system through several different pathways. And so Redfield is now treating Long COVID patients and he's using a lot of the similar techniques that Vaughn has been using down in Alabama.

Narrator/Documentary Voiceover (3:51)

Long Covid is not a single illness. It is an umbrella term. More than 200 documented symptoms. Crushing fatigue, brain fog, heart palpitations, nerve pain, dizziness. For a long time, patients were told it was stress or anxiety or something to push through. Now researchers are finding evidence that something is actually breaking inside the nervous system, the immune system, even the blood itself. And that is why this conversation matters, because Long Covid forces a harder question than where the virus came from. Episode 6 the lingering damage.

Charles Rixey (4:36)

So what am I doing back here in Japan? We have just come up with a new treatment regimen. It's very expensive, it's very experimental. We have patients three through six coming next week. But the first two patients that we did using a certain set of stem cell growth factors, and the person who just left last week or two weeks ago, patient number two was not quite wheelchair bound, but almost, and she is now in a much better. There was immediate, within hours effects, brain fog lifting. We have pictures of the skin on her hands dramatically improving due to the clearing out of the microclots and the micro vessels of the hands. So we are still in the process of testing this and as we test it, we're going to upscale it as we continue to get positive results. But this is attacking Long Covid at its source.

Interviewer/Moderator (5:37)

Andrew, I want to ask you about sort of your current opinion, if it's evolved at all about Long COVID vaccine injuries. What facts have emerged about anything pertinent? What's your position on this and what do you think the data shows and what's been emerging over the last year that has advanced that conversation?

Andrew Huff (5:57)

That's a great question. It's Actually an extremely difficult question to answer because I'm of the opinion that we haven't collected gold standard data related to vaccine injuries, turbo cancers. Much of that information is being masked, withheld or covered up. And when you have biased samples, and what I mean by that is like a statistical bias where the, essentially the cases of turbo cancer are cherry picked, it's difficult to analyze those data in a valid manner to have any hypotheses that are real. Essentially, if you start with biased data, it doesn't matter what your modeling technique is, what your analysis technique is, you're going to have a biased result. Now, if we take these data at face value and say that these data are represented with a population, that they generalize, it very much looks like the terrible cancers are caused by the contamination of SV40 into the MRNA vaccines. And this is well documented. This is not cutting edge science. This problem has been known for at least a decade or two.

Charles Rixey (7:05)

Well, and I actually just want to jump in here.

Interviewer/Moderator (7:07)

Yeah, go ahead.

Charles Rixey (7:08)

So I came to Japan in mid November, and the week before I came to Japan, I flipped to Boston and spent a week with Kevin McKernan in his lab and he taught me Oxford nanopore sequencing. And one of the things that we did was we sequenced a series of vials. Some of those vials had come from Japan. And it turned out that one of there was a Pfizer vial that was a hundred times more contaminated than any that we had yet seen. And we had full cold chain custody records, we had tracked it. So we had good chamber custody for these files. And there's multiple problems when it comes to cancer. We would call them early onset and we would call them fast onset. So when we discover these cancers, we're seeing them in late stage. So instead of being in stage one or stage two, finding these cancers, we're finding them in stage four. And both of those things are very unusual. So seeing early onset and then rapid onset cancers, and one of the confounding problems of this is that those cancers could be driven by several different mechanisms. They could be driven by the spike protein in the virus itself, they could be driven by the spike protein in the vaccine. Because ultimately, if the spike or the plasmid containing the spike gets into the cell nucleus, which is exactly what the MRNA vaccines are designed to do, then there are, there are three different basic pathways that could lead to cancer generation in the cell within the spike protein. And so we have a two, we have a definite increase in early onset and rapid onset cancers. But we also Have a time frame beginning in 2021 where this began to rapidly occur. And so let's say in my case, I was vaccinated in 2021. I'd had Covid. I was vaccinated, and it wasn't until I had Covid again that I started to have really bad. What we now call long Covid. So as far as we can tell, and we have proof of this, it can be virus or vaccine, but it's that repeated exposure that continues to weaken the immune system. And for every person, there's a threshold. And that's why it's so hard to nail down, because you have. When your immune system is suppressed, whether it's by the spike protein or the microclots that are. The combination of those things can drive neurological problems, can drive cancers. And so it's a. It's a multifactorial problem, and it needs a massive amount more of research before we can say anything with certainty. All we know is that we see the problem and we're in the process of nailing out the pathways by which that problem is occurring.

Andrew Huff (9:57)

Just to add to what Charles just explained extremely well, it's a multifactorial problem. But in epidemiology, we say guilt by association. And the way that you get around this multifactorial problem is that you have large sample sizes. And when you have sufficiently large sample sizes and effect sizes, you're then able to determine if there is a causal relationship. But the point that Charles is making, and to simplify that, we also say that the dose makes the poison. That's an old saying in toxicology. So the more of these exposures that you have in combination together, and there could also be synergistic effects, meaning if you're exposed to two of these, it actually multiplies the risk of you developing cancer. So the first question is, once you have the large enough sample size, actually start at a high level and you drill down. So you do the population level study, you say, well, yes, there, there is, it looks to be an association here. And then you start to drill down through the different interaction in individual effects to determine what, what percentage of the. It's called the variance. Each risk factor contributes to developing cancer. And with. With these type of studies, you will never know if you pick one person out of the. The study. You can't determine from these types of studies whether or not those were actually the causal factors for the individual. That's a logical fallacy which happens more often than I'd like to admit in the scientific community. Especially with more junior scientists. The real takeaway here is you can get it down by drilling down through these different study designs to a point where you can say these are the most likely things that are harming people. And I think the big deciding factor here is to determine is whether or not it was exposure to the virus or exposure to the vaccine. And that's actually a pretty simple way to sort of split the study design to answer one basic question. And then after you answer that question, then you say, well, how much do each one of these other. These risk factors within the vaccine contribute to the odds or risk of developing a turbo cancer?

Interviewer/Moderator (12:08)

Okay, that was really great. I want to kind of build off what you both said and drill down on what is in the spike protein.

Andrew Huff (12:14)

Right.

Interviewer/Moderator (12:15)

So in the movie, we explore the idea that that patent from 2014, when it went through that blast analysis, that it was very probable based on the statistic, that it was a coincidence that this Moderna 2014 patent for this cancer mutating gene, which could be present in the spike protein, the effect that that may have on mutations of cancer in otherwise healthy people. So, Andrew, could you start by just responding to if we. With the spike protein, which. The vaccine. The MRNA vaccine obviously has a relation in multiplying the spike protein, essentially. So if we just understand what could be in the spike protein, what's the chances that it's carcinogenic based on what we know from the sequencing?

Andrew Huff (13:02)

May I ask you a question first? So what's the intent with this line of discussion? Because the one thing that I observed over the last four or five years is that this type of discussion that Charles and I are having right now tends to fall deaf on most, like the general population's ears. Like they don't get it. It becomes too technical. And then we're playing into the hands of the virologists and immunologists, which will then tie this up in minutia by just simply saying, making the argument that we don't have the data.

Interviewer/Moderator (13:36)

Well, I think that regular people look at their lives, look how sick they still are, how dysregulated their immune system has since they got Covid or since they had a vaccine. Like five people on our crew had relatives with turbo cancer. One woman herself had to resign cause she had a turbo cancer. It's just like when you actually bring this information to people who are just regular people. Yeah, of course virologists are gonna dismiss it. Or the hit parade of people who are fighting that this is even from a lab are gonna Say this is bullshit, but we explored some of this stuff in the movie and I think it was really provocative for certain people who either suffered from a turbo cancer or had their relative die from one right after Covid or the vaccine. So I guess it's in that context. And you know, we never got a chance to fully include all of the basis for it.

Andrew Huff (14:32)

This is my take on it. So if we're trying to go with gold standard science and be objective and maintain credibility, I think this is one of the flimsiest arguments to have a position on. And if I were, if I were a gambling man and looking at the different causal pathways to develop turbo cancer, I think the spike protein is probably negligible in causing turbo cancer. That's just a gut feeling. I have no data to support that. And that's based on corollary from other types of viruses having spike proteins and not causing turbo cancers. That's a terrible comparison. It's the best analogy that we have to. For me, at least, where I feel comfortable to have a position on discussing whether or not the spike protein is the thing causing the cancer, because I think it's actually a combination of the risk factors within the vaccine. And I would be a betting man and say I don't think it's the circulating strain of SARS CoV2 that's causing the cancers. I don't believe that that's a gut feeling and that's just based on really flimsy data.

Interviewer/Moderator (15:39)

Got it. We can move on. But Charles, do you have anything you want to add to it or based off what we included in the film about sort of in the last chapter when we were opening up the moderna of it all and that they're going into cancer. Sort of basically cancer is the new frontier for them. It was the portion towards the end of the film. Do you have anything, do you think you want to add to that or agree with Andrew on or disagree, whatever your position is on that?

Charles Rixey (16:05)

Well, I definitely think it's more likely that there's more mechanisms that can produce a pathway to lead to cancer in the vaccine than in the virus. Now, what the virus does is we talked in the movie about several different manipulations to the virus. And those manipulations, several of them were directly involved in messing with your immune system response. Now, what does your body doing every day of your life? Your body's immune system is a surveillance system. And every day of your life, your body produces cells that are cancer cells. And they produce these signals that tells your body, well, that cell Is wrong. So we need to flush it out of there. As you age, your immune system's surveillance capability degrades. And that's why as you get older, your. The incidence of cancer rises. This is a known fact. There are some cancers that happen when you're younger, More than likely specific blood cancers. For instance, leukemia. We see a lot in children, but by and large, most cancers occur later in life. And that's a consequence of this process of your body's surveillance system breaking down. Now, what the spikes protein does is it inflames your body and it degrades your body's immune response. And over time, for anybody, the weaker your immune system is, the more susceptible you are to those cancer cells forming and not getting caught by the immune system. However, there are much more drivers of immune suppression in the vaccine than the virus itself.

Andrew Huff (17:40)

The one other thing that we should consider is that there is going to also be a large portion of a study population that's been exposed both to the vaccine and. And the virus. So that's another. That's another. It confounds the study. And I think what you would tend to see, like what I would predict or what I would establish as a hypothesis test, Is that people who've been both vaccinated and been exposed to and contracted Covid would be more likely to have a rare cancer. Very simple hypothesis.

Interviewer/Moderator (18:15)

So why don't we just kind of focus on some of the news breaks over the last year. So what do we know now that we didn't know a year ago about Ralph Barrick? And what does it mean for everything? I mean, officially, we may have known this in our, you know, based on smart people looking at the obvious. But what has been disclosed at this point?

Andrew Huff (18:36)

Well, I believe it was fairly recently that senator Rand Paul published on X that the senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee had obtained documents that showed that the office of the director of national Intelligence and the Central intelligence agency, the CIA, reached out to Dr. Baric to set up a meeting to discuss a possible project related to coronavirus evolution and possible natural human adaptation. And this was back in 2015.

Interviewer/Moderator (19:09)

Yeah. And I think that there was also in a discussion with Ebright yesterday, It was kind of clear that Barrick kind of began working potentially with the CIA or our intelligence body around SARS being a threat in 2004 when the original SARS virus hit China. Does that kind of square with the way you both see it? Or that's at least how when Ebright felt he was, you know, that you could peg his involvement in that in sars, and as a weaponized agent, or researching it as a weaponized threat.

Andrew Huff (19:45)

Absolutely. That tracks with what I believe to be probable based on the body of research that's been published from Dr. Ralph Barrick's laboratory going back to 2004. I think the other interesting aspect is, is how that relationship likely evolved with the intelligence community because sort of in defense of the government, when there is an infectious disease outbreak like this that occurs, meaning a novel infectious agent, the first question on everyone's mind in the government is, was this an intentional attack? Is this a weapon? And you never know at that moment they want that answer. So then they rely on a network of experts and scientists to then begin studying that agent, to characterize, make a simple characterization, is this a weapon or not? Because it's very different how the US Government will respond internationally to a weaponized agent versus a natural emergence event.

Interviewer/Moderator (20:47)

Do you have anything to add to the Ralph Barrick story?

Charles Rixey (20:51)

CHARLES yes. So it came out recently. What Senator Paul released was the fact that what Andrew's referring to in the Marine Corps, my job was weapons of mass destruction defense. And I was considered a technical expert at this, to the point where I taught our new officers the curriculum when they came from the basic school, and then I also rewrote the curriculum. But when it comes to being knowledgeable in the technical aspects of my job in the military is very different from being an expert in the scientific field having a Ph.D. and so we call that technical reach back. So when we have questions about a chemical, biological and nuclear threat, we go back to the Pentagon. And the Pentagon has its own scientists, but they also they also reach out to other outside scientists who are the absolute experts in their field. Well, who is the absolute expert in the field of coronaviruses in the world at this time, outside of China? Well, that was Ralph Barrick. And Ralph Barrick was the ODNI reached out to Ralph Baric. We know that he was part of their reach back capability, at least since 2015. My guess is that goes back even earlier, just based off of the research that he was doing and the fact that there was some questions when SARS first emerged, question whether or not that had been a lab leak. So it wouldn't be surprising at all for the Director of National Intelligence to reach out to the world's Coronavirus expert in 2015, in the aftermath of SARS a decade earlier, to be interested in, okay, what are the intelligence interests involved in this? And I I can speak with some authority because earlier this year, before it was made public. I spoke with Tulsi Gabbard's task force on the origin of COVID in person. So once again, I can speak with some authority in saying that a, they're very interested in this now. I can proudly state that I was part of why they're so interested in it. So, yes, what is interesting, what is concerning is how the ODNI's view on this has changed over time. Because prior to Tulsi Gabbard and the Trump administration in 2025, the ODNI under Avril Haynes spent four years blocking all origin intelligence. I mean, they're still not releasing all of it, but now they're not. Now they're at least actively investigating it, whereas for the last four years they were actively blocking it. To include, as we discuss it in the movie, when we leaked the defuse proposal, Major Murphy and I, we did that and we were holding it in our hands before we had leaked it. We were holding it in our hands when The Biden administration's 90 day intelligence outlook on the origin of the virus came out and basically denied that they had any evidence. The sort of which I was holding my hand that came directly from their servers. So we know for a fact that the ODNI has not always been trustworthy on this issue.

Narrator/Documentary Voiceover (24:13)

Well, the holidays have come and gone once again. But if you've forgotten to get that special someone in your life a gift. Well, Mint Mobile is extending their holiday offer of half off unlimited wireless. So here's the idea. You get it now, you call it an early present for next year.

Andrew Huff (24:28)

What do you have to lose?

Narrator/Documentary Voiceover (24:29)

Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch limited time.

Advertiser (24:33)

50% off regular price for new customers. Upfront payment required $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 for 12 month plan taxes and fees. Extra speeds may slow after 50 gigabytes per month when network is busy. See terms.

Charles Rixey (24:43)

Parle tu francais, Habla espanol. Parle italiano.

Advertiser (24:46)

If you've used Babbel, you would. Babble's conversation based technique teaches you useful words and phrases to get you speaking quickly about the things you actually talk about in the real world. With lessons handcrafted by over 200 language experts and voiced by real native speakers, Babbel is like having a private tutor in your pocket. Start speaking with Babbel today. Get up to 55% off your Babbel subscription right now at Babbel.com listen spelled B A B-B-E-L.com listen rules and restrictions may apply.

Advertiser (25:13)

Hi, I'm Angie Hicks, co founder of angie. One thing I've learned is that you buy a house, but you make it a home. And for decades, Angie's helped millions of homeowners hire skilled pros for the projects that matter. Get all your jobs done well@angie.com.

Andrew Huff (25:30)

All.

Interviewer/Moderator (25:31)

Right, so I want to now talk about what do you see as the roadmap to conduct the investigation into the origin of COVID and what did you propose to Tulsi Gabbard and sort of walk us through your proposal.

Andrew Huff (25:45)

Sure. So I think I can hit the high level points. So really I developed an investigation blueprint for the ODNI under something that's an executive order that's known as the COVID dig, but it's really the the person that would be appointed by President Trump, working under Tulsa Gabbard to conduct the investigation. Someone close to that team nominated me for that position. So I took it upon myself to actually develop the operational plan, the budget and the strategy on how to execute this. So really I think there's three different parallel lanes which will that need to occur. So the first is we need to have record the records released and it needs to be declassified. To Charles point that he mentioned earlier is that the previous Director of National Intelligence did not release all the information. There's actually a law in the books already which had unanimous support in the Senate, which was signed into law by Joe BIDEN and the U.S. government did not comply with their own law from the Biden administration. That law is still in the books and Tulsi Gabbards still has not complied with that law. Where this gets a little strange is that it's my understanding under the Defense Appropriations Bill, which as of today, December 15th just was passed in the Senate, contains a provision that the US Government is to declassify release all the COVID Origins materials. But the legal mechanism is there for this to happen. And I had actually spoken with Judicial Watch about bringing a lawsuit to compel the government to release this information. So that's real simple. You release the records, you declassify and you do a full spectrum review across odni, the Department of Defense, Health and Human Services, and probably also the Department of Homeland Security and any other component in the government in this big biodefense web to see what's really going on. And this will be a massive dump of documents. And to get through that quickly, we can actually use AI assisted methods to triage and prioritize what we need analysts to look at and Dig into and to investigate. We need to validate those records and then simply just best practices. We want to prevent privacy breaches. So that's one lane, the other. The second thing that we could do in parallel is looking at the analytic integrity and personnel decisions. So from looking at all the different communications that would be stored on these government servers, and the NSA is probably sitting on all of this right now. You want to take a look and see who knew what and when related to the disease spreading, what actions were taken and were those actions in accordance with official policy and duty to warrant. I think I can explain a quick example here. So pretend that Charles is my military supervisor. He's a senior officer in charge and I'm an analyst, either contractor or uniformed officer working under Charles. And say I detect the signal that this disease is spreading. That signal could be lab sample data that showed up in a DoD health record. It could be satellite imagery from in Wuhan of vehicles coalescing around irregular activity. It could be cell phone data increase or the cell phone transmission signal data increasing in density around the laboratory. And those are actually real signals that were detected by the way that information is then communicated through the chain of command or up through the government hierarchy. And you want to see where that information went. Did someone try to block and cover up and conceal that information? And were they diligent in trying to adequately respond? And there will be so many other questions that come out of this investigation. But that's really, that tells the important part. The important part of the story is what happened. So that's the, that's the second parallel lane of investigation. And the third is to actually take US government funding to conduct the forensic origins science. So that's the forensic epidemiologic investigation where you would have actually a large team nationally, I believe in the proposal, I have somewhere between 42 and 100 people working on this. And you would reach out to academic health centers, hospitals, reference laboratories, government laboratories, private companies that were collecting different tissue samples. You could even exhume bodies if you had to, and then analyze those samples that were probably collected for other purposes to one, determine whether or not SARS CoV2 was present in the sample. And if you found positive hits, and you'd want to look at the timeframe probably going back to July 2019 through early 2020. And if you had positive cases of COVID showing up in say something that would be unexpected, for example, in the mid mid Atlantic region, the US in August on August 15, 2019, that would suggest that the disease was spreading earlier and might have had a different emergence location. And when you stratify the sample, which means you spread the sample equally over the landscape, and then you look at these same time periods and you compare that, you actually get a spatial map, a spatial temporal map of how the disease spread. And I don't know what the integrity of these samples would be after this amount of time. There's a lot of potential issues there. But if you are able to obtain high quality samples, you can then run also molecular sequencing on those samples, and that will tell you very specifically how that disease evolved and spread. And that tells the whole story. And the really strange thing about this, and I was actually speaking with a team of scientists in Germany this morning, and they had epidemiologists on their team as well. And I asked the question, I go, gentlemen, don't you find it very strange that there is no country, no large corporate organization, no large, no healthcare provider which has conducted the large scale forensic epidemiologic investigation? And it's so strange because every time we've had a unique outbreak, a large epidemic or a pandemic in recent modern history, this investigation that I just described is conducted. So it begs the question, why hasn't this study already been conducted? Because I'm not the only one who knows this technique or the method. And, and I can assure you that the people that I used to work with in the government, as a government scientist, there are people that know how to do this. So is this actual study being suppressed currently, or is it just a matter that someone needs to have the motivation to go to the government from the executive branch? We want to run the study to get to the bottom of this and then have to go over to Congress, to the Hill to get the funding to execute it.

Interviewer/Moderator (32:54)

So, Charles, I want to give you a chance to kind of walk through Andrew's plan and give your feedback and other stuff that you think is a primary focus of a real investigation in earnest was to start to take place.

Charles Rixey (33:09)

I think the way that he explained it is absolutely beautiful. And it's funny because that is exactly the way that I approached this five, well, almost six years ago now, in May of 2020, when I first started digging into this question, the first thing I looked at was who knew what and when. And then I just, from the outside looking in, once again, my job in the Marine Corps was analysis was to analyze the situation and then go to the unit commander and say, based on this intelligence and all the information that we have, this is what I recommend. This is the, this is what we believe the situation is. And this is how we should approach that situation to mitigate it, the risk. So what I became famous for was exposing who knew what and when, what actions they took versus what actions they should have taken. Because he was absolutely right. As we discussed in the movie, Fauci broke all of the rules, all of these rules that were in place prior to the pandemic, some of which were written by Andrew and other people that he was working with, the national like pandemic influenza plans, the various ones from the different agencies. So we already had guidelines for what to do at each stage of a potential outbreak, slash pandemic. And all of that was ignored. And all of this power was given to this person and Fauci and others supporting him and behind him to control everything when he was at the center of the controversy of the origin itself. So one of the things I talked about was, okay, Fauci had a duty to warn. The best example of that was when Fauci saw all these epitopes. His chief lieutenant made the decision to retain it in the vaccine. On January 13, which was a week before China admitted that this virus could even spread to humans or between humans at all, a week before there was any confirmed human to human transmission, Fauci was making a vaccine for a virus that he knew contained the chief element that drove the entire gain to function debate for the previous decade. And it was Fauci then, a decade earlier, who justified the work, the gain of function work, saying that we need to do this in case a pandemic occurs. So he kept from the world for six weeks the existence of this fear, amongst all the other negative aspects of it that made it look like it was engineered. And Fauci swore an oath to the Constitution to support and defend the Constitution. But also as a chief public health official in the United States, he wasn't the chief at the time, but he became de facto when the pandemic began. He had a duty to tell the world that there was a high probability that this was a highly transmissible aerosolized virus and he suppressed that. So the three things that Andrew laid out, who knew what and when, what actions did they take and the duty warrant that they had, they did none of that. And so not only was that the basis for what I independently and then ultimately with drastic was working to expose, but that was of course that was the basis of what I explained to, to Tulsi Gabbard's task force about this. And I, I gave them additional evidence that wasn't Public. But the. But the end result is the same, which is we need to do a lot more research. I just want to throw one final thing out there, which is that. So once again, so on January 13th, Fauci knew unequivocally, because they had to make the decision to retain the Fury and cleavage site in the vaccine unequivocally, by January 13th, they knew that. So we can assume they knew a lot earlier than that. But no later than January 13th, they knew this was a potentially pandemic level virus because it wasn't just fear in cleavage site. But that was a major one. Well, there's a very famous email that was sent between January 27th and 29th where Christian Andersen says he brings us to the attention of Fauci. And Fauci says, oh my gosh, there's a Fury Cleveland site in here. Well, you should have learned the FBI, well, that was two weeks after they had already. And it states in writing in the scientific publications by January 13th, we made this decision, but nobody ever put this together. So right there, Anthony Fauci was pretending when scientists, when outside scientists came to him and said, holy crap, this looks like a pandemic virus that was manipulated, he pretended not to know. And what did he tell them? He told Christian Andersen, oh, no, you should go alert the FBI. No, the FBI should have been alerted by Anthony Fauci two weeks earlier. And once again, that's just another blatant example of things were happening behind the scenes. They knew what was going on and they hid it even from other scientists who were trying to answer this question.

Andrew Huff (38:05)

And to add to that with Kristen Andersen, which is interesting. So there's the email exchanges which were released, and that's what Charles is referring to between the team of scientists and Dr. Anthony Fauci. But we also have the Slack communication app. The Slack app communications of the scientists, they're private conversations. And there's these really strange slack text message conversations which occur where they're talking about, you know, this really looks like it's a man made agent. And we're concerned about what the higher ups might think. So in the context of who these higher ups could be, obviously it looks like it's the Central Intelligence Agency or ODNI, because like Dr. Peter Dasak told me that he was working with the CIA back in 2015. Now we have proof that Dr. Ralph Barup was working with the CIA and ODNI back in 2015. I would be shocked that Dr. Kristen Andersen didn't already know this because at Equal Alliance, I was a collaborator with Dr. Kristen Anderson and a number of these other scientists that were on this review panel.

Interviewer/Moderator (39:07)

So I want to just pivot to the origin question and something that I discussed briefly with both of you, which is the potential that this didn't originate in China, this originated in the United States. And the sort of potential hotspots for where specifically I was contacted by, you know, not to say that this is scientific data, but I was contacted by emergency room workers who said they could swear they saw patients with COVID in August 2019 and they didn't know what it was. And this was in North Carolina, near Chapel Hill. And also something I know you're familiar with, the clear spring theory in Virginia. This idea that it's not like it's extremely probable, but there is probability. Andrew, you targeted what you think are at least four labs in the United States that would have had samples before the quote, outbreak. And Charles, you kind of know these theories pretty well. So obviously there's a basis to investigate these early outbreak spots, but probably no cooperation with the government to do so, because why would they want to reveal that this was a false flag and it really originated here in the United States and we were responsible for the pandemic. So can we unpack that? Either one of you can start with the sort of earliest potential outbreak theories here in the United States and how we would verify them.

Andrew Huff (40:32)

Sure, I can hop on that. So going back to the COVID dig investigation plan that I submitted to odni, the third item was conduct an epidemiologic forensic analysis. And that would answer the question when and where this disease emerged there. There are a couple different scenarios here. So it could actually emerge in multiple different places. So let's pretend that the United States and China were friendly and working together on a potential cover up. So it could have been that if whether it leaked in China first or whether it leaked in the United States first, they might ask the other country to release it because what that would do for the forensic epidemiologic analysis that I suggested that they conduct, it would confound it and you would have very strange results where looking like you had a uniform emergence, which is not the way that a disease emerges. Usually it looks like a spider. If you're like a web on a map, it starts as like, you know, you can put a pinpoint in, you can see, watch it spread out from the pin across the geography. That's typically what it looks like when you go to analyze those type of data. So there's a. There's a potential scenario where they work together and they tried to confound a future investigation. At this point, with all the craziness that's happened, I, I wouldn't be shocked if that happened. Otherwise, you have other very just simple scenarios. The agent was released either intentionally or accidentally in Wuhan, China or at one of the laboratories in the United States.

Charles Rixey (42:07)

Well, it's possible, it's documented that there have been multiple lab leaks of respiratory pathogens from the different laboratories at UNC Chapel Hill in the decade prior to the pandemic. So certainly possible that it could have come from there. Now, all of the phylogenetic evidence, so basically when they run all the sequences, all the phylogenetic evidence for the Wuhan strains seem to point to Wuhan being the source for that. However, we also have a couple of different other possibilities. One, there is a closely related strain that appears to have been circulating in white tailed deer up to 18 months prior to the pandemic beginning. White tail deer in the United States, specifically in the western half of the United States, where there happens to be a myriad, a whole network of laboratories. Madison, Wisconsin, Rocky Mountain laboratories, several laboratories all throughout the West. And so it's quite possible, given that the ring was a bat colony at Rocky Mountain Laboratories that was studying coronaviruses pre pandemic, that that could have been a spot where there was a leak. And then as Andrew explained, they could have counter they, China and the US could have worked together to cover it up. It's clear that they worked together to cover it up in, in the sense that the United States, when China covered it up, the United States didn't press very hard. Trump did. But Fauci and the scientific establishment defended the Chinese and did everything they could to this day to argue that the virus outbreak occurred in the wet market rather than outside or from one of the labs on the other side of the Yangtze river in Wuhan. Now, the other outbreak that you're referring to, the Green Spring outbreak, there was, there was an outbreak in two nursing homes in Northern Virginia not long after. I can't remember the specific dates, but contemporaneously with the shutting down of the BSL4 laboratory at Fort Detrick and due to a myriad of concerns about improper disposal of waste leakages, contaminated leakage coming out of the lab, etc. I just want to point out that these nursing homes are actually 45 minutes to an hour to the south of Fort Detrick. But that doesn't rule out a laboratory leak for those outbreaks because there are Dittra labs and Other labs that are also coming out of that are within 5 to 10 miles of these two nursing homes. And for those who don't know, what I'm referring to is, is two nursing homes, one in particular and eventually another where there's an outbreak of severe respiratory illness that much like COVID 19, killed a high proportion of residents of these nursing homes in Northern Virginia. But that outbreak, from everything that we understand, everything that's been made public, was limited. And that was six months before the pandemic began. So could that have been a trigger point for the pandemic? Quite possibly, yes. One thing that's interesting about that outbreak is that there's been a massive lack of transparency and that tells me that there's more to that story than a simple outbreak at a nursing home. But once again, as Andrew has been advocating for, that is why we need actual public, large scale investigations, forensic epidemiology, to go through and analyze all this information. Because without that, without shedding light on this, the darkness will just continue to spread undebated.

Andrew Huff (46:09)

This is classic forensic epidemiology. It's not complicated. It's just a matter of having the resources and the power to do it. So without having state or federal, federal, national security authority, when you are a scientist or epidemiologist, example from an organization, a private company or an academic institution, when you start going to other hospitals, other research facilities, whether they're private or public, and asking them for samples that they might just happen to have lying around from this timeframe, it will generate questions. So the management and the scientists and the doctors and clinicians at that facility will ask the question, well, why do you want this information? And then when you answer that question and tell them that you're trying to investigate the origin of SARS CoV2, there's liability issues, there's privacy issues, there's a number of legal protections in place which make it difficult for the organizations, companies or entities involved to disclose or provide that a sample material to you. And in the past it's been quite difficult to get this, that those, those samples from investigations which are not as contentious or high stakes as this. So I firmly believe that this has to be a federal investigation using national Security authority to basically compel anyone who has these samples to just hand them over. And the struggle will not end after they're handed over because there will be great incentive for some parties to interfere with that investigation, whether it's corrupting the samples in some form or maybe potentially providing misinformation or using cyber information, attacks on the computer systems and information systems to skew the investigation. So this has to be a very tight investigation and you have to have good chain of custody on these samples. And frankly, the way that this virus is typically stored, it's difficult to transport from a sample because these samples are typically stored in negative 80 centigrade freezers, which is extremely cold. And so then you have to remove these samples from the laboratory, put it into some temporary transportation, cold storage device or system and then move it to the laboratory where you're actually then going to analyze it. And you have to maintain that cold supply chain, that cold chain to the laboratory where you analyze this. And in previous work that I've done, we lose samples even just under normal research conditions. We have a certain fail rate where samples, they spoil and you can almost guarantee that there's going to be some spoilage that happens during this investigation process. And some of the samples will already be spoiled when you collect them. You just won't know that because you don't know what you have until you test it.

Charles Rixey (49:29)

Hey Sal.

Andrew Huff (49:30)

Hank. What's going on? We haven't worked a case in years. I just bought my car at Carvana.

Charles Rixey (49:34)

And it was so easy. Too easy.

Andrew Huff (49:36)

Think something's up?

Charles Rixey (49:37)

You tell me.

Andrew Huff (49:38)

They got thousands of options, found a great car at a great price. Uh huh.

Charles Rixey (49:43)

And it got delivered the next day.

Andrew Huff (49:45)

It sounds like Carvana just makes it easy to buy your car, Hank. Yeah, you're right. Case closed.

Advertiser (49:52)

Buy your car today on Carvana. Delivery fees may apply. You open the fridge, there's nothing there. So what's it gonna be? Greasy pizza? Sad Drive Thru Burgers? Dish by Blue Apron is for nights like that. These are the pre made meals of your dreams. At least 20 grams of protein. No artificial flavors or colors. No chopping, no cleanup, no guilt. Keep the flavor, ditch the subscription. Get 20% off your first two orders with code APRON20. Terms and conditions apply. Visit blueapron.com terms for more. Why are more women than ever choosing Natural Cycles, the hormone free, side effect free way to take control of your fertility. Natural Cycles is a birth control app that uses your temperature to find your fertile window. It is more than a basic cycle tracking app. Natural Cycles is the only FDA cleared and CE marked birth control app and has helped millions prevent and plan for pregnancy naturally. Save 15% when you sign up today with code RADIO15. Learn more@natural cycles.com.

Interviewer/Moderator (51:00)

Okay, I'd like to take the last like four minutes because they want to kind of wrap up at 5:30 based on the tech who facilitated this recording. Could you guys just each talk about for a couple minutes what is the way to prosecute and Fauci and hold him accountable, given the federal pardon and that there's a, obviously a military tribunal and a state pathway. So just getting some thoughts from you guys about that would be great. And a perjury, obviously a perjury pathway as well.

Charles Rixey (51:29)

I'll let Andrew take this one, Dev.

Andrew Huff (51:31)

Sure. So I think, as everyone's aware, Dr. Anthony Fauci and other individuals had been pardoned all the way back to, I believe, 2014 for unspecified reasons by President Joe Biden with using a technology or device called an auto pen. There's some question as to whether or not the use of a auto pen to sign a pardon is valid or legal. Our current president, President Trump, had issued, I believe, an executive order saying that the pardons issued by President Biden by auto pen are null and void. I don't believe that that is. It's my. My opinion that that is not technically constitutional. This is now a constitutional question. It could be challenged in the Supreme Court if they did try to prosecute Dr. Anthony Fauci or others through the Department of Justice. So you can see that the prosecution side of this becomes a hot mess very quickly. So let's make the assumption that he cannot be prosecuted and the pardon issued by President Joe Biden withstands a legal challenge. There is another potential course of action where a military tribunal or a military court martial could be used against Dr. Anthony Fauci and other civilians or contractors working with the Department of defense. Because under U.S. code and UCMJ, the long arm of the law, so to speak, extends to contractors or government employees just merely working with the Department of Defense. There's a lot of case law around here. This is. This has been used in recent history quite famously or infamously. Blackwater Security contractors in Iraq were actually charged under this provision of ucmj. So it extends beyond people who just wear. Wear a uniform. However, I believe that the. If the auto pen pardon is upheld and it's valid, I believe that even applies to the UCMJ process. So there's really not an avenue of prosecution through the federal system. So then you would have to rely upon a state court, which is independent of the federal government, to then bring a criminal prosecution through their state court justice system. I'm aware of some efforts in Texas to convene a grand jury, and I believe a grand jury has been convened. This is sort of also might be speculative on my part because I don't know how solid these sources are and grand juries being convened on these investigations and cases are secret. So I believe that this could be taking place right now in Texas. I have no clue what the status of those grand jury proceedings are, and nobody will know until. Unless there's an indictment that comes from it. So that's a possible pathway. But then it becomes a really interesting situation where the national security authorization used by the federal government to conduct the federal epidemiologic investigation is then handed over to a state prosecution, to a state for prosecution. So this is a lot of really strange law and case law in the United States to bring criminal proceedings against individuals. And the one thing that I caution here is that Dr. Anthony Fauci might not be the person that this hinges upon, because as we discussed earlier, there is now proof that senior department defense officials knew that this disease was spreading in October 2019. So we really need to obtain, declassify and release and then analyze all the different communications of all the different parties involved to see how this went off the rails.

Interviewer/Moderator (55:29)

And do you think that this will make from sort of a sign off question for both of you. Do you think that there's compelling material for a sequel? And thank you, Dr. Fauci. And would you participate if there was one made?

Charles Rixey (55:42)

Absolutely. This is the biggest scandal in the history of scandals. If this is a cover up of biological weapons research or just even an accident of some kind, then this is the biggest scandal in the history of modern humanity. So there's so much ground left to be uncovered. And I think simply because there's so much that we didn't get to cover, and also because there continues to be almost on a daily basis, new information coming out, I have no doubt that we could, we could fill many more. We could fill a whole miniseries full of information regarding this because this branches. This branches into military, civilian, legal, medical. This touches everybody's lives. And especially in the case of Long Covid. What is the Long Covid? Well, Long Covid is the ongoing and massively underreported and massively misunderstood fallout from this biological explosion. And we need to so that fallout alone, we need to make people aware of it, the scale and the scope of it. And we need as much help as possible to solve that problem because it's going to impact us for generations. Of that I have no doubt.

Andrew Huff (57:01)

Charles. I don't think I could have said that better. I think I'll direct my response to the potential stakeholders of a sequel. Not only would we be able to tell the story of the biggest lie in history and the fallout and the terrible consequence and suffering from this big lie. This film will be in a position to nudge history in the right direction and to find truth. We're not asking the public to trust us here. We're proposing a system where the evidence and trial is inspectable and where the conclusions are earned. And I hope from the previous film, the other numerous interviews that Charles and I have done, I think we've remained extremely objective and scientific and analytical in how we've approached this terrible problem. And after, I guess we've been in this gauntlet now for. For five, going on six years, we've been able to maintain our credibility and we've been right about everything that we've said and we've brought the documents to prove it. And despite all the attacks, the credibility smear, the credibility attacks, the smears, the harassment, we've risen above it all. And Charles is a hero.

Interviewer/Moderator (58:20)

Well, I think you guys are both heroes, honestly, and I'm grateful that you've trusted me this far. And I think that we have received a lot of grassroots support and growth on Angel's platform. They're the only, quote, streaming platform brave enough to release this. And we're encouraging them to expand their release. Right now, it's on their streaming platform. And I think ultimately there will be, you know, purchase potential on Apple, Amazon and all the other places people around the world could watch it in a hundred different languages, languages, if we can get it on those platforms. And they want to do it, and they want to do a sequel. And so I think, you know, we could be started on something like this right in the new year. And I would hope that beyond all the things that were mentioned, that we could use it to leverage a real investigation by Gabbard and others and hold them accountable for what they said, use it as a tool to create pressure. Well, a movie's. Another movie's going to come out and your inactivity is going to be kind of visible if you don't show signs that you're willing to take this more seriously or say, do what you said you're going to do. So I'd like to leverage it the same way we attempted to leverage the first one.

Andrew Huff (59:29)

I think that's a great idea. And if we're successful, we're not only going to obtain the answers to what happened. The end result will be a permanent, accountable framework for biosecurity governance. And without getting to the truth of this problem, that will not happen.

Interviewer/Moderator (59:47)

Go ahead, Charles.

Charles Rixey (59:48)

Now, I just wanted to Say, I just got off the phone with a friend from Germany a few days ago, and he saw an advertisement over there. I can't remember what platform it was on for the. Thank you, Anthony Fauci, basically, for volume one of the documentary. So even in Europe, they're seeing advertisements for this as recently as this week. So it is gaining traction in certain sectors, and we need to build off of this momentum.

Andrew Huff (60:18)

That's great. I didn't know that.

Interviewer/Moderator (60:19)

I agree. Yeah. I mean, Angel's actually paying promotion around the world, so I think their platform is available in a number of different countries. I think that also they're growing a lot. They're now a publicly traded company. They got put onto the New York Stock Exchange. So not only are they, you know, brave enough to put it on, but their audience is growing. So I think from a combination of them, you know, doing. Agreeing to do a sequel and the guild approving that, to them making the original film available on all other sort of purchase platforms, that it'll greatly increase the exposure and create not just more attention for the second one, but more attention for the original one. You know, sometimes it takes. It's like sort of the Empire Strikes Back theory, like this. The Star wars was great, but when the second one came out, the fan base grew, and before you know it, you have like a franchise. So hopefully we can have that happen for us and get that George Lucas effect going in our. In our pursuit of justice. The good and evil, the dark side versus the. The force.

Andrew Huff (61:20)

So you're a little thinner than George Lucas.

Interviewer/Moderator (61:22)

Only by a small amount. No, just kidding. I have a. He's probably got 20, 30 pounds on me, but he should have 50 or 60, and I'm fucking overweight.

Andrew Huff (61:31)

So.

Interviewer/Moderator (61:32)

You know what, guys? This was really, really great. I really appreciate both of you, as usual, and I'll stay in touch with you both individually in the weeks that follow. And there's plenty to discuss. So thank you both for this.

Narrator/Podcast Producer (61:51)

Thanks for listening to Leaked, a podcast inspired by the documentary. Thank you, Dr. Fauci. If you want to see the full story, the interviews, the evidence and more, check out the documentary streaming now on Angel Studios. Visit angel.com Leaked is a production of Tenderfoot Labs produced in partnership with Insight Studios, Angel Studios, and Bombadil Productions. Producers on behalf of Insight Studios are Jenna Furst, Louis Fenton, Scott St. John, and Arnold Rifkin. Executive producers on behalf of Tenderfoot Labs are Donald Albright Payne, Lindsay and Alex Vespested. 10 Foot Lab's lead producer is Tristan Bankston. Editing by Cameron Tege. Coordinating producers are John street and Jordan Foxworthy. Artwork by Where Eagles Dare music by Danielle Fuerst Kairematin and Jay Ragsdale, mixed by Dayton Cole. For more podcasts like Leaked, search Tenderfoot TV on your favorite podcast app or visit us@Tenderfoot TV. Thanks for listening.

Host/Advertiser (62:58)

Oh, could this vintage store be any cuter?

Advertiser (63:01)

Right?

Charles Rixey (63:01)

And the best part?

Interviewer/Moderator (63:02)

They accept Discover.

Host/Advertiser (63:04)

Except Discover in a little place like this? I don't think so. Jennifer.

Charles Rixey (63:08)

Oh yeah, huh? Discover's accepted where I like to shop. Come on, baby, get with the times.

Host/Advertiser (63:14)

Right. So we shouldn't get the parachute pants.

Andrew Huff (63:17)

These are making a comeback, I think.

Interviewer/Moderator (63:21)

Discover is accepted at 99% of places.

Andrew Huff (63:23)

That take credit cards nationwide, based on.

Charles Rixey (63:26)

The February 2025 Nielsen report.