This is a rush transcript from “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” May 28, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Good evening and welcome to TUCKER CARLSONTONIGHT.At some point, though it’s hard to imagine now, the current revolution willend. Ultimately, all revolutions do end, they can’t be sustained. And whenours does, we’ll wake up one morning in a country where we don’t have tolie about everything all the time, where Math is allowed, where we canacknowledge the profound and inherent differences between men and womenwithout being fired for it. That day is coming.The question is, when it does come, what will be left of our society? Wecan’t know the answer in detail. But here’s what we’re hoping for. We hopethat reason remains. Reason, logic, the ability to think clearly andrationally. That’s the one thing we can’t lose. We’re going to need it torebuild.That’s why of all the moral atrocities being committed at the moment in thename of equity and inclusion, it is the relentless attacks on science thatshould command our special attention.So for the next hour, we’re going to consider those attacks in some detailand we are going to start with America’s response to the COVID pandemic.When the coronavirus first arrived in our country last winter, mostAmericans uncritically accepted what the authorities said about it. Theythought they could trust the people in charge.Few imagined that our leaders would leverage a public health emergency fortheir own political gain. That seemed like the one line that evenpoliticians wouldn’t cross, and yet almost immediately, they crossed it.Around the country, Democratic governors used quarantine restrictions toreward their allies and to punish their opponents. Abortion mills stayedopen, but the police kept churches closed. You could buy weed, but youcouldn’t get your knee replaced.Demonstrations against the lockdowns were banned. Riots against DonaldTrump were encouraged.Watch the Governor of Michigan for example, shamelessly explained thedifference.(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)GOV. GRETCHEN WHITMER (D-MI): It is probably not going to be safe tocongregate in masses for quite a while, and it is heartbreaking it, but weknow that Michigan is not alone in this moment. That this is what ishappening all across the country that these big gatherings just can’tsafely happen right now.The death of George Floyd has once again shone a light on the systematiccycle of injustice in our country. To the overwhelming majority who havetaken to the streets and protested peacefully, protesting historicinequities, black Michiganders, and those across the country are facing, Ihear you. I see you. I respect you and I support your efforts to enact realstructural change in America.(END VIDEO CLIP)CARLSON: So, you are no longer allowed to exercise your constitutionalright of assembly unless it is to publicly support the Democratic Party,and it wasn’t just the Governor of Michigan, Gavin Newsom did the samething in California. Phil Murphy did it in New Jersey.It was partisan politics posing as science. But this was the most amazingpart, in the end, it was endorsed by actual scientists and that’s the partthat should worry you. Doctors like Jennifer Nuzzo at Johns HopkinsUniversity told us that structural racism was a bigger health threat thanthe coronavirus, so go ahead and loot Macy’s. It’s an important part ofpublic health.For those who still believe that American science was on the level, thiswas a shocking moment. When did the people who are paid to be rationalbecome corrupt religious zealots? When did our scientists becomeAyatollahs?Well, that happened years ago it turns out. The rest of us just weren’tnoticing.In February of 2019, a piece was published in the journal “Neurology,”which in case you don’t read it is one of the preeminent peer reviewedpublications in all of Medicine. The piece was called “Lucky and the RootDoctor.” It described a physician’s experience with a man in the Deep Southcalled Reggie.Reggie was suffering from a severe neuromuscular disorder, which had lefthim blind. Modern science might have helped Reggie, this was the point ofthe piece, but he didn’t want the help. Reggie believed he was blindbecause he had been cursed by a voodoo spell. That’s what he told hisphysician and then he refused treatment and left the doctor’s office forgood.Now the doctor who wrote this piece about Reggie was a man called WilliamCampbell. Campbell believed in Western science. He did not believe thatvoodoo is the cause of blindness. And the piece he wrote was designed tohelp other physicians communicate with patients like Reggie so thosepatients could receive effective medical treatment.Unfortunately, American medical journals are no longer allowed to criticizewitchcraft. Criticizing witchcraft is racist. So the editor of “Neurology,”a man called Robert Gross began a purge of his own publication. He firedthe Humanities editor, then he suspended the entire Humanities section.And then to further atone, he hired what he described as a Deputy Editorfor Equity, Diversity and Inclusion. Then Robert Gross, as if this wasn’tenough, wrote a groveling apology letter for the piece, calling Campbell’sarticle racist and acknowledging it had caused, quote, “anguish.”Nowhere in that letter did Robert Gross explain any of this. Why exactly isit racist to prefer Western Medicine to witchcraft? Isn’t that the wholepoint of our system? Gross never explained. He just declared it racist andmoved on.So that’s now the official policy of this country’s top neurology journal:that witchcraft is the same as Western Medicine. And how dare you sayotherwise?Where does this leave you? If you were nervous about brain surgery before,this is not comforting news. How long before your doctor sacrifices achicken in the operating room? That’s a serious question.We can no longer say that science is better than Voodoo. That’s racist.Something similar has happened in the world of economic research. One ofthe top business journals in the world, “The Strategic Management Journal”deleted a paper from the internet without any explanation. Now, the keything to know is all of the numbers in that paper were accurate. The datawere right. No one claimed otherwise.The piece went through peer review. It was published.The piece was published because it was called this, quote: “ExaminingInvestor Reactions to Appointments of Black Top Management Executives andCEOs.” Now, we don’t know what those reactions were. It might beinteresting to know, but you can’t know because the original version of thepiece has disappeared. It’s gone. It’s now in the remote cave where we hideuncomfortable facts.It’s been replaced by a heavily revised version. So, what’s the truth? Wecan’t know.This is the definition of corruption, but it has spread through science.Take a look at the jobs postings at “Nature” magazine. “Nature” was oncethe foremost science publication on the planet.What “Nature” is looking for now in its employees has nothing whatsoever todo with science. In fact, it’s anti-science. Here’s one recent job postingthey posted on Twitter, quote, “As part of our commitment to fosterdiversity and inclusion, we are looking for a black candidate with apassion for science communication based in the U.K. for a full-time paidnews internship,” end quote.So, the thing that jumps out is that no whites or Asians or Hispanics areallowed. Is that legal? Of course, it’s not legal. But that’s not reallythe point.The bigger problem and it is bigger than Civil Rights law is that thepeople we trust to make the most important decisions in our society, theessential decisions, what kind of medical research do we fund? Who getstreatment and who doesn’t? Who lives and who dies? The people who makethose decisions are no longer rational. They have lost the ability to thinkempirically.Equity is now their god. They no longer believe in science. That’s a realproblem for the civilization.Victor Davis Hanson has watched the rise and fall of civilizations throughthe perspective of a historian. He is a Senior Fellow at the HooverInstitution. We’re happy to have him join us now.Professor, thanks so much for coming on.VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, SENIOR FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION: Thanks for havingme.CARLSON: So what does it portend for the future that Science has been socompletely corrupted, that it is dictated by political demands rather thanby observable facts?HANSON: Well, I think we’re watching the legacy of the people who putGalileo in jail. Remember, they said that the Earth was the center of theuniverse and solar system and Galileo was a nut for saying that planetsrevolved around the sun. So there’s a pattern here that we have these bycalls to elites, with letters after their names, and they say, right here,Science stops. There is no new development, no new inquiry, no new data,and they use it for ideological, political, even financial gain.So even — look at — it permeates all elements of our society, Tucker. TheSteele dossier was passed off as expertise by an expert in BritishIntelligence. And we knew that was true because the head of the C.I.A. atone time, the head of the F.B.I., James Clapper, are James Comey or JohnBrennan, all of these people came in and they assured us and then guesswhat? It just disappeared.He was not a traitor, Trump. There was no reality to any of the charges. Itturned out that Christopher Steele was indirectly through firewalls workingfor Hillary Clinton. John Brennan and James Clapper had lied under oath toCongress.Robert Mueller who based all of his investigation on that dossier couldn’teven remember that it existed. James Comey, 250 times under oath toCongress said he couldn’t remember much about it.And so — and then we moved on to — you talked about the Wuhan virus, butonly an idiot Science told us would think there was a connection between aLevel 4 virology lab with associations with a Chinese military andconducting gain-of-function research a mile or two away from the supposedorigins by a bat or maybe it’s a pangolin of the virus and anybody whosuggested that didn’t know anything about viral sequencing. And yet, that’sprobably a much more likely scenario.Dr. Fauci no need to go there, but he has told us mask are essential.They’re not essential. One mask is okay; no, two is better. And he said,herd immunity is 60, 70, 80, 90 percent and every time he was caught, hereverted to the platonic noble lie, “I just lie because it was for your owngood.”And then remember those weird 1,200 medical professionals who have said,you know, given our expertise, we think the Science says if you’re going toprotest for BLM, you don’t have to shelter in place, you don’t wear a mask.You don’t even have to social distance. Go out and protest, in a wayapparently that it was scientific to say no to a religious congregation ora Trump rally.And so, you know, we have this pattern and the funny thing is, Tucker,there is a personal agenda, as there always is in history.When somebody at Moderna says, we have to vaccinate people who have hadCOVID and have antibodies or even children, we wonder, it couldn’t be thatnine people made $20 billion off the vaccination. It’s in their interest,or that Dr. Fauci was engaged in funding indirectly, enhanced research atWuhan or when Bill Gates said, “Follow the research” that he hasconsiderable financial interest in China.Or, you know, Christopher Steele was a good friend of Hillary Clinton, orat least wanted to be and there was an effort to destroy a presidency.And that’s how Science is perverted. It always is for ideological andfinancial reasons.CARLSON: But without it, we can’t — can’t really continue in an advancedsociety without Science. I appreciate that overview.HANSON: We can’t, we can’t.CARLSON: Victor Davis Hanson, great to see you. Thank you.Well, one of the many topics that scientists are no longer allowed todiscuss openly is why so many young children are trying to change theirbiological sex. Abigail Shrier is one of the very few people who has notgone along with the mandate and has done her best to study the data, lookedat it clearly.Next, she tells us what she has found.(COMMERCIAL BREAK)CARLSON: We’re living in a moment when almost nobody can tell the truth inpublic, and yet occasionally, you see glimpses of true things. Probably thelast place we expected to see the truth was on “60 Minutes” from CBS News,but recently, we did, to their great credit.They did an honest look at how many physicians are treating genderdysphoria. Here’s part of what they found.(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)LESLEY STAHL, CBS NEWS, “60 MINUTES” (voice over): Just four months aftershe started testosterone, she says she was approved for a mastectomy,what’s called top surgery that she told us was traumatic.GRACE LIDINSKY-SMITH, UNDERWENT GENDER TRANSITION IN HER EARLY 20s: Istarted to have a really disturbing sense that like a part of my body wasmissing. Almost a ghost limb feeling about being like, there’s somethingthat should be there. And the feeling really surprised me, but it wasreally hard to deny.STAHL (voice over): And so she de-transitioned by going off testosterone,and then went back to the clinic. And she says complained to the doctorthat the process didn’t follow the WPATH Guidelines.LIDINSKY-SMITH: I can’t believe that I transitioned and de-transitionedincluding hormones and surgery in the course of like less than one year.It’s completely crazy.(END VIDEO CLIP)CARLSON: How can that be allowed in a functioning medical system? Well, onedoctor explained why.(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)STAHL: Do you have conversations with your colleagues about this whole areaof accepting what young people are saying too readily?UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, everyone is very scared to speak up because we’reafraid of not being seen as being affirming or being supportive of theseyoung people are doing something to hurt the trans community. Even some ofthe providers are trans themselves and share these concerns.(END VIDEO CLIP)CARLSON: Nobody in American journalism has reported more deeply on thissubject or more bravely than Abigail Shrier. She is the author of”Irreversible Damage” and we’re happy to have her join us tonight.Abigail, thanks so much for coming on.So every time I read one of your pieces, your book, see the “60 Minutes”piece last Sunday, I have the same thought which is where are theresponsible physicians — I know they exist — who are standing by silentlyas this is going on? Do you have any idea?ABIGAIL SHRIER, AUTHOR, “IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE”: Yes, I mean, they are tryingto start to speak up. I mean, the Science Society for Evidence Based GenderMedicine has formed recently. It’s a consortium of doctors from across theWest who are very concerned and oppose affirmative care.But the problem is, is that the problem is much worse than that doctor in”60 Minutes” said. The reason is, it is because doctors in America areafraid of losing their license. Nearly, every medical accreditingorganization has adopted affirmative care, which means that the doctor’sjob is to have firms or rubber stamp the patient’s self-diagnosis even ofminors when they decide that their problem is gender.So there’s a real problem and in the 20 states in America that haveconversion therapy laws, doctors are absolutely afraid that they could facecivil and criminal penalties if they say, wait a second, this may not begender dysphoria that’s the problem. Let’s explore other options.CARLSON: Well, that is shocking. Is there any other procedure or series ofprocedures to which that applies? If I walk in and say, I wantchemotherapy? And the physician says, I’m sorry, I don’t detect cancer. Iwant it any way. The physician could turn me down for that treatment,right?SHRIER: Absolutely. I mean, this is the only area of Medicine where we dothis and it has basically turned our doctors into life coaches. It isprofoundly unscientific. It tells them not to use their medical judgment,and instead just rubber stamp the patient’s wishes.CARLSON: Where were the rest of us when this happened? Until you just saidit, I didn’t know that, that medical associations can revoke the license ofphysicians who don’t play along with is essentially a political movement.SHRIER: Well, I mean, you know, we’ve seen some of the really giants in thefield of gender dysphoria who have been deep platformed or canceled. KenZucker, you know, most famously, who chaired the committee who wrote — towrite the definition of gender dysphoria for the DSM V, that’s thePsychiatric Manual. He was fired in Canada, you know, because activistscalled him a transphobe.CARLSON: I wonder at what point do we look back on this, and a lot of otherthings we’ve done in Medicine, I will say, giving heavy duty drugs to kidswho don’t need them. But do we look back on this and recognize it for thetragedy that it is? Like how long is it going to take, do you think?SHRIER: You know, I don’t know. I have a feeling the lawsuits will startcoming. But because you know, they can attack me, they can try to discreditthe scientists who have done good research into this and have shownaffirmative care does not show the mental health benefits that theactivists claim.But the one thing they haven’t been able to cover up is the de-transitioners — young women who are regretting that they were pushedthrough these treatments. They are speaking up all the time, more and moreof them.CARLSON: Man, your bravery is a case study of how one person refusing toback down from what is true can make a huge difference, and I am justgrateful for what you’ve done. Thank you.Abigail Shrier, good to see you.SHRIER: Thank you so much.CARLSON: We are going to take a quick break from Science for a moment andturn to Religion because on some level, they are connected.We had a really interesting conversation with a Catholic Bishop Chaput –Archbishop Chaput on “Tucker Carlson Today.” He says the core problem withtoday’s society, the reason so many are so unhappy is because people havebeen told and they believe that they have the power to change nature, andthey can’t. No one has that power. Here’s part of the conversation.(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)ARCHBISHOP CHARLES J. CHAPUT, ARCHBISHOP EMERITUS OF PHILADELPHIA: Youknow, Catholics talk about Original Sin, other Christian communities talkabout the sin of Adam and Eve, which was they wanted to be like God. Theydidn’t want to ever — they didn’t want God to tell them what to do. Theywanted to do it their way.And that that’s — we consider that an act of idolatry, instead of givingGod his due, you give to someone else or something else what belongs toGod. That’s called idolatry. It’s a foundational sin, it is the mostdangerous sin and it has led us down this path of making ourselves thecenter of creation.CARLSON: Do you notice in a lot of the issues that dominate politics thedesire of people to pretend that they are God?CHAPUT: Well, I think that the gender issues today are the prime example ofthat where one isn’t satisfied with the body that we’re born with, that wethink we have the power to become something that we were not created as andI can become a woman, or a woman can become a man. That’s something Goddoes, not something we do.But that in some ways, that’s the final rebellion against God. You know,the Sexual Revolution was a great rebellion against God, and it wasrebelling against the way God made our bodies and the way God created humansexuality.But now, it has come a point where we even think that we should havecontrol over the kind of human beings we are.(END VIDEO CLIP)CARLSON: Really interesting and long conversation that you don’t have to beCatholic to enjoy. This is someone who spent 80 years thinking about lifeand what comes after. Really interesting.That’s on .So a question relevant to — I don’t know, maybe a hundred millionAmericans is — is it safe to take the corona vaccine if you’ve alreadyrecovered from COVID? One of those basic questions, but until now, no onehas bothered to answer it.The few who’ve asked it have been shouted down.Tonight, we have data and it is a little different from what you’ve beentold. That’s next.(COMMERCIAL BREAK)KEVIN CORKE, FOX NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to FOX News Live.”I’m Kevin Corke.Senate Republicans blocking the creation of a bipartisan panel toinvestigate the January 6th riot at the U.S. Capitol. The Senate fallingshort of the 60 votes needed to consider that measure. The bill would haveformed a 10-member commission, evenly split between the parties.The gunman who killed nine coworkers at a San Jose rail yard had astockpile of guns at his home. According to the Santa Clara CountySheriff’s Office, he had 12 guns and 22,000 rounds of ammunition at hishome that he also set fire to.They also found suspected Molotov cocktails.And actor Bill Cosby denied parole after refusing to take part in a sexoffender program. The 83-year-old Cosby who refuses to acknowledge anywrongdoing was sentenced to prison back in 2018 for sexual assault againsta woman at Temple University.I’m Kevin Corke in Washington. Now back to more TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT.CARLSON: Researchers confirmed this week what’s been very obvious for morethan a year, people who have been infected and then recovered from thecoronavirus will likely almost certainly develop antibodies, and thoseantibodies will likely last the rest of their lives. In other words, theyare immune, therefore, they do not need the vaccine.Earlier this year, we spoke to one physician Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, whorealized this a long time ago.(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)DR. HOOMAN NOORCHASHM, SURGEON AND PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIVIST: The mostunprecedented thing that we’re doing in this vaccine campaign is that we’redeploying it indiscriminately into folks who have been recently orpreviously infected. And I think that we shouldn’t underestimate what theeffect of a vaccine driven immune response is on the tissues in individualswho have been previously infected, literally the antigenic footprint of thevirus persists in the tissues of the previously infected.So it’s not far stretch to imagine that those tissues such as the innerlining of the blood vessel would be targeted by the vaccine immuneresponse.And I have not yet seen any evidence, frankly, of the F.D.A. or C.D.C.taking this seriously. You know, I think it’s a major mistake to assumethat you can put this vaccine into people who have been recently arecurrently infected, and expect that you know, no complications will result.(END VIDEO CLIP)CARLSON: So people who don’t need the vaccine are being compelled to getthe vaccine. That’s not an argument against vaccines. It’s an argumentagainst the misuse of medicine, any medicine, including vaccine.Rand Paul is a physician. He is also a U.S. senator from the State ofKentucky. He has been infected with COVID, obviously, he recovered. He hasjust written an op-ed on why so many are denying the science of naturalimmunity to COVID. We’re happy to have him join us tonight.Senator, thanks so much for coming on.SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): Thanks, Tucker.CARLSON: So will you just clarify, as a physician, in a sentence or two,how people who have recovered from COVID that many tens of millions whohave should feel about their chances of getting re-infected?PAUL: Well, people need to understand that vaccines — the science ofvaccines is based on the science of natural infection. What they’re tryingto do with a vaccine is to simulate and get the same response that you getor better with a natural infection.Some diseases like measles, when you get them, you actually have long –lifelong immunity. If you get vaccinated after a couple of decades, youneed a booster. So actually, natural infection is actually better than thevaccine in some ways for measles.Now, this isn’t an argument against being vaccinated, it just happens to beif you’ve got the measles, you’ve got lifelong immunity. Small pox was thesame way. But it’s not an argument for getting small pox.With COVID, we don’t know yet. But they say all the time is you don’t knowhow long you’ll be immune. Well, I can look right back at you and say Idon’t know how long the vaccine will work. They’re already talking about abooster.When Dr. Fauci came before the committee and we asked him, how many ofthose were vaccinated already have the disease? He has no earthly idea.They’re not even counting them.Even as good scientists would say — we would — we should look and seewhether those who’ve already been vaccinated are somehow respondingdifferently. I did see one study that showed that if you’ve already had thedisease, you get a vaccine, you get a thousand times greater response.Now, maybe that means a thousand times better, or maybe that means you’remore likely to get symptoms and side effects. So I don’t think it’s beenstudied thoroughly.I do know that in Israel, there was a study recently, and it showed thatthose who were vaccinated and those who were infected naturally had aboutthe same possibility of being re-infected — pretty small.CARLSON: I’m a little confused by this. I mean, if your job is to promoteand then disseminate the vaccine and compel people to take it, which iswhat we are doing. College students can’t go back to school without it, soyou’re forcing this on people.Isn’t it your moral obligation to find out what the potential harms are?What population should get it? Which shouldn’t get it? Why are theytreating everyone the same and refusing to ask obvious questions?PAUL: Well, this a huge public policy or public health question. In India,they don’t have enough vaccines. So if Dr. Fauci is advising the world,which he seems to want to do, what should he tell them there? Should theygive the vaccine to people who already had it? Or should they save thevaccine for those who haven’t had it?So this is a profoundly important question for a country that has a billionpeople and might have 200 million vaccines. Should they waste the vaccineand people have already gotten it? The Science says no, but Dr. Fauci says,no, we’re all lemmings. Submit. It’s more about uniformity of submissionand less about science.CARLSON: These people are scary. And I appreciate your asking obviousquestions and thank heaven, you’re a physician. You still have a right todo that, I suppose.Senator Rand Paul –PAUL: For now.CARLSON: For Now. Good to see you. Thank you.PAUL: Thank you.CARLSON: What’s so interesting is that a lot of people in public healthseem in private to agree with what Senator Paul just said. Earlier thismonth, the heads of the F.D.A. and the C.D.C. as well as Tony Fauciadmitted that about half of their employees have decided not to getvaccinated.(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)SEN. RICHARD BURR (R-NC): What percentage of the employees in yourinstitute, your center or your agency of your employees has beenvaccinated?DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUSDISEASES: You know, I’m not a hundred percent sure, Senator, but I thinkit’s probably a little bit more than half probably around 60 percent.BURR: Dr. Marks?DR. PETER MARKS, DIRECTOR OF THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION’S CENTER FORBIOLOGICS EVALUATION: I can’t tell you the exact number, but it’s probablyin the same range. Some people vaccinated at our facility and others atoutside of the facility.BURR: Dr. Walensky?DR. ROCHELLE WALENSKY, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: We are encouraging ouremployees to get vaccinated. We’ve been doing town halls and educationseminars. We have — our staff have the option to report their vaccinationstatus, but as you understand, the Federal government is not requiring it,so we do not know.(END VIDEO CLIP)CARLSON: Really one of the most remarkable tapes of the past year, so aspeople who work full time in public health at the C.D.C., at the N.I.H.,approximately half of them have refused to take the vaccine at that exactmoment, and by the way, why? That would be a good follow-up question, noone asked it. Why?But at that same moment, we are forcing kids to get vaccine — college kids– many can’t return. They are telling you to give the vaccine to yoursmall children, too.(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): With the vaccine a hundred percenteffective for children in the clinical trial, the vaccinations are the bestshot say experts for a safe return to school, to summer camp and for sleepovers.MICHAEL ALMAGUER, NBC NEWS NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Trials are stillunderway for children as young as six months old. But by the end of thisyear, Dr. Fauci believes there will be a vaccine available for nearly allchildren.(END VIDEO CLIP)CARLSON: A vaccine in the works for children as young as six months old,what should we think of this?Dr. Harvey Risch is with the Yale School of Public Health. Dr. Risch joinsus now.Doctor, Thanks so much for coming on. What do you think of that?DR. HARVEY RISCH, YALE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH: My pleasure.CARLSON: Children getting the vaccine?RISCH: Well, the first thing — problem we have is we’ve dumbed down thediscussion of everything. So we’re at the level now, vaccine good; COVIDbad. And, you know, other facts relating to that are just kind ofinopportune.The problem is that children get the illness perfectly well, almostentirely, and for children who — for children who have obesity, diabetes,chronic illnesses that put them at high risk of bad outcomes from COVID,they are the ones who might consider being vaccinated. But for almosteverybody, all children, otherwise, it doesn’t make sense because theirrisks are negligible.Now, the C.D.C. has addressed this with its data. So it’s seen that inapproximately 470,000 Americans who have died from COVID that includesapproximately 400 children who have died either with or from COVID.That’s not zero, but it’s a very small number and comparable to childrenwho have died from influenza in past flu seasons.So there’s no real reason why children need to be vaccinated because theyget immune from just their own interactions, and they don’t transmit theillness to adults. And they hardly even transmit it to other children.Mostly children, get it from adults, from their parents, and so on.CARLSON: So the whole reason we have science is to make the finedistinctions such as the ones that you just explained. Why aren’t the headsof our public health institutions saying exactly what you just said?RISCH: It’s difficult for me to speak about why they think what they think.I think we’re in a vaccine mania or a vaccine fanaticism stage and, youknow, I think that the goals are to show — proclaim your goodness byvaccinating everybody, then you’re looking to jab everybody.If your goals are to solve a public health issue as best you can, then it’sa tradeoff and you balance the risks and benefits as best you can.CARLSON: I don’t know how you’ve kept your head in the middle of thismania, as you just described, but I’m so grateful that you have.Dr. Risch joining us tonight. Thanks so much.RISCH: Pleasure.CARLSON: Well, no one is covering this story. There are too many storieshonestly to cover and too few outlets willing to cover them, but the Bidenadministration is appointing completely unqualified people to importantscientific and engineering posts. What effect is that going to have on thecountry? You can imagine, not good.Heather Mac Donald has studied the details of this issue, and we’re happyto have her join us next.(COMMERCIAL BREAK)CARLSON: In the name of equity, Joe Biden has appointed a lot of completelyunqualified people to key science and engineering posts. What effect willit have on the country’s competitiveness?Heather Mac Donald has investigated the implications of this for a newpiece in “City Journal.’ We’re happy to have her tonight. She is, ofcourse, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.Heather, thanks so much for coming on. Give us — there is so much going onright now that it’s just nice to talk to someone who has got a handle onthe details as you do. Give us some examples of what’s happening while therest of us go about our lives.HEATHER MAC DONALD, FELLOW, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE: Well, let’s look atBiden’s nominee to run the Office of Science in the Department of Energy.This is the largest funder of basic scientific research in the country.It’s a $7 billion agency.It oversees x-ray synchrotrons, funds fundamental particle research,physics research, clean energy, nuclear fusion. Who is the nominee for thisprogram for this Office of Science? A soil geologist with no background inphysics, who has never run a large bureaucratic organization, much less alarge scientific bureaucratic organization.What are her qualifications? She’s black and female.She’s known for her promotion of diversity in her lab. She writes articleslike “A Critical Feminist Perspective on Transforming Workplace Climate.”Here’s a translation key, Tucker. Diversity is code for race and sexpreferences. Given the vast academic skills gap, you can have diversity oryou can have meritocracy. You cannot have both.China in the Sciences is opting for meritocracy. We’re opting fordiversity. This is suicide for our culture and for our scientificknowledge.CARLSON: At the same time, maybe we stopped talking about it, but up untilthe other day, we were talking about STEM and the idea that we need toeducate our kids more rigorously in the Sciences if we hope to becompetitive in the 21st Century, fill in the cliches as you will, butthere’s some truth in that. We need to be competent in this stuff. Have wegiven up on that completely?MAC DONALD: Well, we’ve given up on cultivating our top talent with all theresources we have. We are now trying to engineer — socially engineer — adiverse graduate class of scientists based on sex and race, which aretotally irrelevancies to Science.We should be finding the best possible minds regardless of what theirgonads and melanin are, giving them all the training we can. That is notwhat’s going on. Every single Science department in this country inacademia is obsessed with race and gender.They don’t care about scientific qualifications. They’re screening peopleout based on the quality of their diversity, equity and inclusionstatements which are just again, mere fig leafs for being diverse andequitable in one’s self.This is not how we have advanced beyond the Stone Age. We did so by valuingknowledge and brilliance and we are turning our backs on those capacitiesnow.CARLSON: Yes, well, that’s national suicide, what you just described. Hopeit ends soon.Heather Mac Donald, it is great to see you tonight. Thank you.Depressing, but important.MAC DONALD: Thank you, Tucker.CARLSON: Well, few areas of Science are as dishonest and open tomanipulation as the study of climate change. Some of it is, of course,unknowable despite what they lie to you.Now some people have devoted their life to environmentalism, saving theactual Earth, the air and the water and they think Science has taken awrong turn.They’re speaking out. That’s next.(COMMERCIAL BREAK)CARLSON: Way back in 1989, thirty two years ago, a senior official at theU.N. claimed that quote, “Entire nations could be wiped off the Earth byrising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year2000.” Twenty one years ago.Then in 2004, “The Guardian” newspaper in Great Britain warned us that,quote: “Britain will be Siberia in less than 20 years,” thanks to climatechange.Now Sandy Cortez of Queens says we have only 10 to 12 years to live. Howmuch of this is true? And if the basis of Science is admitting what youdon’t know, why are so many people pretending to know what they don’t?Recently, we spoke to Steve Koonin. He is a former Obama administrationenergy official who spent his life working on climate change, studying it.Here’s what he said.(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)STEVEN KOONIN, THEORETICAL PHYSICIST: Even though the globe has warmed byabout two degrees Fahrenheit over the last century, the incidence of heatwaves across the 48 states is no greater now than it was in 1900, and thehighest temperatures haven’t gone up in 60 years. We have been able to findno detectable influence on hurricanes from humans.And the models that we use to predict future climates have become moreuncertain, even as they’ve become more sophisticated.So all of these things suggests that people who say that we’ve broken theclimate and face certain doom unless we take drastic action are justmisinformed about what the official reports actually say.(END VIDEO CLIP)CARLSON: Michael Shellenberger is the author of “Apocalypse Never: WhyEnvironmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.” He joins us tonight.Michael, thanks so much for coming on. The question that always occurs tome is considering we have and we know for a fact had throughout the lastseveral million years, massive climate cycles, ice ages, warming periods, Imean, they shaped the landscape around us. Why does no one in the climatecommunity ever mention that this could potentially be one of those?MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER, AUTHOR, “APOCALYPSE NEVER”: Good to be with youagain, Tucker. I mean, I think it’s important to get some — to separatesome basic facts, some basic science from what’s become really speculativescience fiction.I mean, we know climate change is real, we know that we’re contributing toit. Carbon dioxide is a heat trapping molecule. But the claims that arebeing made are just really getting out of control. The more desperate theDemocrats’ climate energy agenda in Washington gets, the more exaggeratedthe claims get made.So we’ve seen a huge decline in deaths from natural disasters. We’ve becomemuch better at dealing with heat waves, much better at dealing with floods.We’ve seen no increase in droughts. We’ve seen no increase in hurricanes.And in fact, the best available science suggests that hurricanes willactually become less frequent, 25 percent less frequent, even as they mayget five percent more intense, but mostly, the news is great news when itcomes to climate change in the environment.CARLSON: So why doesn’t anyone say that? or why doesn’t anyone moreprecisely say, you know, there are some things we can’t really know,climate is very hard to measure globally, anyway, as everyone knows, so whydoesn’t anybody ever acknowledged the limits of human understanding on thisone topic?SHELLENBERGER: Yes, well, part of the reason is that when you do and youwrite books like mine, or you or Steve Koonin’s book, you end up gettingcharacter assassinated. I mean, it’s quite incredible the way they go afteryou. So there’s a lot of reasons why people don’t explain that.You know, I mean, what you find is that when you actually read thescientific reports, you read the summaries of the reports by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, they often do a pretty good jobof describing the uncertainties.I mean, we know that a doubling of CO2 could lead to temperatures risingbetween two and 4.5 degrees Centigrade. But there’s a huge amount ofuncertainty and other questions. We just don’t know what the impacts ofgreater warming will be in a lot of cases. And in some cases, it could bethe opposite of what’s been predicted.I mean, we saw with the Amazon, the early predictions would be more rain.Now, we’re predicting less rain. And a part of that is just the function ofgood science. The problem is that when it gets translated by alarmistpoliticians, alarmist journalists and alarmist scientists.CARLSON: What you just said sounds like science to me, and I wish we hadmore of it. Michael Shellenberger, great to see you tonight. Thank you.SHELLENBERGER: Thanks for having me, Tucker.CARLSON: That’s it for us tonight.The latest episode of “Tucker Carlson Today” out on FOX Nation.We are back Monday. Have a great weekend with the ones you love.We will see you soon.Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALLRIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. Allmaterials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may notbe reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcastwithout the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. Youmay not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice fromcopies of the content. 

Source Link:

400 Request Header Or Cookie Too Large

400 Bad Request

Request Header Or Cookie Too Large