Dan Bongino.

Welcome to the Bongino Brief from Dan Bongino.

Folks, I'm just here to tell you, if Dr. Fauci, I know Scrutube and the Communist at Fakebook,

I understand they'll probably try to ban this episode, and I get that, and that's okay,

I really don't care. It's why I'm on Rumble, a free speech platform.

But understand, I'm just using Dr. Fauci's own words. He says the science is dynamic and evolving.

So I'm giving you some of the science and some of the research right now,

so that you can make decisions based on evolving dynamic science. Anthony Fauci said his dynamic

and evolving. So if he's suggesting to you, he sure lockdowns work. Surely there's some science

out there. Well, of course there is. I'm going to show you Wall Street Journal piece. Quite

interesting. Donald Luskin, always his science were allowed to look at it. We're not allowed to look

at this as this, I thought science was evolving. Donald Luskin, the failed experiment of COVID

lockdowns. New data suggests that social distancing and reopening haven't determined the spread.

Is that acceptable science or is that unacceptable science? Is science evolving only when it's

acceptable and you have a narrative here from the Wall Street Journal piece about lockdowns?

Again, is this acceptable myelot to read this on the air? I'm only citing a researcher

who's looking at the evidence. Is that okay? Or is it only okay when Fauci says science is evolving?

He says quote, measuring from the start of the year to each stage point of maximum lockdown,

which range from April 5th to April 18th, it turns out that lockdowns correlated with a greater

spread of the virus. States with longer stricter lockdowns also had larger COVID outbreaks.

The five places with the harshest lockdowns, DC, New York, Michigan, New Jersey, and Massachusetts

had the heaviest caseloads. It could be that strict lockdowns were imposed as a response to

...