reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @Luizmd
@Luizmd - Luiz M.D.
If you believe "HIV" is real, watch this. https://t.co/kG9ySOcfjH
Video Transcript AI Summary
The documentary traces the global HIV/AIDS story through shifting science, politics, testing, treatment, and personal narratives, revealing a landscape of debate, fear, and influence that has shaped how the epidemic is understood and managed.
From the outset, the film juxtaposes dramatic claims about the virus with questions about complacency, fear, and the human cost of AIDS. Early voices warn that HIV remains a deadly virus despite reduced fear, while others emphasize a persistent problem for individuals and the vast number of people living with the virus. The central tension is set: can a cure be found, and what would it take?
A through-line is the distinction between HIV and AIDS. The narrator and interviewees seek clarity on what causes AIDS, how HIV relates to it, and why the distinction matters for diagnosis and treatment. Experts emphasize core definitions: HIV is a virus; AIDS is a syndrome caused by infection with the virus; you don’t get infected with AIDS, you get infected with HIV which can lead to AIDS. Yet the dialogue also documents persistent public confusion about the difference, and shows that international definitions and country-specific criteria have evolved and sometimes diverged, complicating diagnosis and statistics.
The film surveys the history of HIV/AIDS terminology and surveillance. It highlights the GRID term, the early CDC framework, and the 1985, 1987, and 1993 definition changes that broadened AIDS criteria, sometimes to include people with varying CD4 counts or opportunistic infections. A retroactive redefinition in 1993 reportedly increased estimates, and a Bangui criteria conference in Africa sought a simple clinical way to diagnose AIDS in settings with limited lab access. World Health Organization definitions multiply across countries, leading to several AIDS definitions worldwide and debates about how to interpret the numbers.
The program documents how testing has driven both diagnosis and fear, including debates over screening versus confirmatory testing. It shows rapid antibody tests, ELISAs, Western blots, and viral-load tests, noting limitations and discrepancies: rapid tests may yield false positives or negatives, confirmatory tests can yield inconsistent results across manufacturers, and in some settings, developing nations rely on screening tests without adequate confirmatory verification. The story includes personal accounts of misdiagnosis, false positives, and the emotional toll of testing, as well as examples where people faced life-altering decisions based on uncertain results. The film also questions the reliability of testing narratives in light of varied international criteria and the economics of testing.
The narrative shifts to Africa, particularly South Africa, where the epidemic intersects with poverty, infrastructure, and policy debates. It documents the perception that Africa bears the highest incidence of AIDS, the Bangui criteria’s adoption in Africa, the social and economic context, and the role of poverty as a deadly factor that can mimic or exacerbate immune deficiency. It also notes skepticism about how data are compiled and presented, including claims that numbers are influenced by advocacy, funding incentives, and political considerations.
The film chronicles the evolution of treatment from AZT monotherapy to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and the cocktail era, detailing dramatic shifts in prognosis and the emergence of drug toxicity and side effects. Personal testimonies recount adverse reactions, weight changes, lipodystrophy, heart risks, and the existential dilemma of lifelong treatment versus quality of life. The dramatic arc notes that, while HAART transformed AIDS from a fatal disease to a manageable chronic condition for many, the treatment introduced new side effects and ethical concerns about prescribing practices, access, and the long-term effects of therapy.
A recurring theme is the tension between scientific consensus and dissenting voices. The film presents prominent figures associated with HIV research and advocacy, including discussions of the role of Robert Gallo, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, and Montagnier, and the geopolitical dynamics around the virus’s identification and acceptance as the cause of AIDS. It includes accounts of cofactor theories proposing that other factors—cofactors beyond HIV—may influence progression and that poverty, malnutrition, and coexisting infections can affect immune function. Some interviewees critique the dominance of a single narrative and suggest that alternative explanations have been marginalized or labeled as unscientific.
Personal stories punctuate the analysis: families learning of HIV status, the experience of testing in settings from a South African train station to clinics in Romania, and the emotional and practical consequences of a positive diagnosis. The film documents the journey from diagnosis to treatment, including the trials and revelations of those who have acquired, faced, or combated the disease, and those who question or reconsider the standard medical narrative.
Towards the end, the documentary reflects on the broader social and ethical implications: the cost and allocation of billions in AIDS funding, the disproportionate burden on poorer nations, the role of activism and politics in shaping policy, and the ongoing uncertainty about optimal testing, diagnosis, and cure. It closes by acknowledging the resilience of people living with HIV and those who work to understand and treat the virus, while underscoring that many fundamental questions about HIV, AIDS, and their interconnections remain debated in scientific and public spheres. The conclusion suggests that the epidemic’s true battles may extend beyond biology to include poverty, access, governance, and the politics of data.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There's nothing like HIV. There's no disease, no infectious disease that essentially kills everyone who gets it.
Speaker 1: The fear factor's gone, and yet getting HIV infection is a problem for any individual. The fear should still remain because it's a virus that kills people.
Speaker 2: There is this sense of complacency that it's better, and it it isn't better. And all these people, these forty plus million people living with the virus, they will die of AIDS.
Speaker 3: Over the past three decades, humanity has rallied together for the AIDS cause. People from all walks of life have united across all social and economic boundaries, joining hand in hand for one common purpose, to end AIDS. And
Speaker 4: I want you to say the name of the person you're walking for. I'm walking for Robert Johnson. I'm walking for Rob Hudson. I'm walking for everybody that isn't here to walk for themselves.
Speaker 2: The statistics are growing all except for one. That's the amount of people cured, and it's still zero.
Speaker 5: In theory, we could cure AIDS on a piece of paper. Maybe someday it'll come. I can't say when.
Speaker 6: Despite all the major progress we have in chemotherapy of those patients, none of these patients got rid of the virus.
Speaker 7: I don't think the pharmaceutical industry is very interested or invested in a cure. You know, I don't mean to be too cynical, but the reality, I think, is that, you know, the situation they've got now, which is lifetime treatment with expensive drugs, that kind of suits them pretty well.
Speaker 8: A cure is going to require some very tricky and sophisticated molecular biology, and I frankly don't see it happening.
Speaker 3: Ever?
Speaker 5: Ever.
Speaker 3: I was born in 1980, a year before AIDS exploded onto the public consciousness. I grew up beneath its shadow like a child raised under the threat of the mushroom cloud. You might say I am a member of the first HIV AIDS generation. I've never known a world without it. This film is an account of my journey through the shifting sands surrounding HIV AIDS.
AIDS has been front page news for nearly thirty years, yet how much do any of us really know about HIV and AIDS? What is the difference between HIV and AIDS?
Speaker 9: I don't know exactly.
Speaker 10: HIV is
Speaker 11: is wow.
Speaker 12: HIV has a ping too. AIDS is the
Speaker 13: same AIDS
Speaker 14: is the actual disease.
Speaker 3: I don't know the difference.
Speaker 15: I know HIV is less deadly. What
Speaker 3: would you say is the difference between HIV and
Speaker 16: There is no big difference, is it?
Speaker 17: HIV, AIDS is just a starting point.
Speaker 10: HIV, it's a virus.
Speaker 3: The actual virus is AIDS. People around the globe were just as confused as I was, so I sought out the world's leading HIV AIDS authorities, among whom were the discoverers of HIV, the key White House adviser on AIDS issues, and the executive director of UN AIDS global response to the epidemic. Meeting with these distinguished experts, I candidly asked, what is the difference between HIV and AIDS?
Speaker 7: The difference between HIV and AIDS is a really critical concept, and unfortunately, it's one that seems to escape a lot of people or just they don't remember it after hearing it.
Speaker 1: HIV is a virus. AIDS is a syndrome caused by infection with the virus. So you don't get infected with AIDS. You get infected with HIV, and that causes AIDS.
Speaker 18: The biggest problem with the HIV theory of AIDS is HIV.
Speaker 1: There is a group of AIDS denialists that say that HIV does not exist and has never been isolated, which is as bizarre as it gets.
Speaker 19: We do not say that HIV doesn't exist. What we say is that the presently available data does not prove the existence of HIV.
Speaker 1: The reality is that HIV does exist and does cause AIDS.
Speaker 20: I mean the evidence is incontrovertible. HIV causes AIDS.
Speaker 21: Alright, that's a theory that's there. Let that theory be there. But let's have some other conversations. Let's have some other research. Let's have some other fun.
Maybe something else is working here.
Speaker 3: No. Why nearly three decades since its discovery does there continue to be debate over HIV? Why is there no cure in sight? To answer these questions, I needed context. The past is prologue, so my journey begins with a step back in time.
Speaker 22: The National Center for Disease Control is reporting more cases of two rare and deadly diseases found in homosexual men. There is no apparent explanation for the outbreak.
Speaker 23: Obviously, this is an issue with great emotional fervor, but it
Speaker 24: How can we stay unemotional when people are dying every day from a disease the CDC has yet to name for crying out loud. If the CDC won't name it, at least demand the press stop calling it GRID.
Speaker 8: Well, unfortunately, I have to take credit for coining the term GRID, which stood for gay related immune deficiency. We were seeing a cluster of gay men who were suddenly critically ill of pneumocystis pneumonia, which was the indicator disease of something new, and reported our findings to the CDC.
Speaker 20: I was the chief of the STD division at the CDC at that time when the draft report of five cases of pneumocystis in gay men, came across my desk for review. Shortly afterwards, cases of a very rare cancer called Kaposi's sarcoma were diagnosed in young gay men. My first reaction was this is an extraordinarily important finding. The CDC was looking for something
Speaker 25: like that when it came along. They were looking for it already. They were hoping there was gonna be a new plague because polio was over. The CDC's budget was getting decreased. This is back in like '19 early eighties.
Speaker 20: There was double digit inflation, a very high unemployment, a rapid military buildup, and a threat to decrease, all domestic programs. And this led to reductions in force in
Speaker 5: the public health service, particularly the CDC. The Center of Disease Control, CDC, in Atlanta was under threat for reduction and even theoretically for closure.
Speaker 25: There were memos around the CDC says we need to find a new plague.
Speaker 26: For them to justify their expenses and their existence and their make their careers, they have to find infectious diseases.
Speaker 25: We need to find something that scare the American people so they won't give us more money.
Speaker 20: Once people recognized that this was likely caused by a virus, the media attention went from no news coverage to the most covered news story in history. People went from neglecting it to fear and panic. Maybe I can get it.
Speaker 27: All of a sudden, AIDS was a very fundable project, and I suppose the psychology they worked on was the fact that they thought, well, in congress, essentially, this is white, straight, heterosexual men who are congressmen. And if they feel they can't fuck around without, you know, being worried about AIDS, they're gonna let the dollars out. And it worked.
Speaker 25: Suddenly, was a lot of money available for anybody who wanted to study HIV. And nobody ever looked back and said, Why do we want to study HIV? Bob Gallo said on television, Causes AIDS.
Speaker 24: The evidence shows that this disease is not merely confined to the gay community. I motion to call disease acquired immune deficiency syndrome, AIDS.
Speaker 3: In 1982, doctor Harry Haverkosz was one of the Centers for Disease Control's epidemiologists tasked with defining AIDS.
Speaker 28: AIDS refers to a syndrome and its definition changes periodically.
Speaker 6: AIDS is a chronic disease. It's based on its immunodeficiency.
Speaker 25: AIDS is not a disease. Right? AIDS is a whole lot of different things. Depends on what country you're in.
Speaker 29: When your CD four count falls below a certain arbitrary level, by definition, you have AIDS. You know, when someone's count goes down and
Speaker 7: then it goes back up again, it's you know, politically, they may still have AIDS. Medically, I don't think they do.
Speaker 29: If you develop any of a number of opportunistic infections or diseases, that puts you in the category of AIDS.
Speaker 25: We don't even know what AIDS is. AIDS is so hard to define because they change the definition of it every year.
Speaker 20: The definition of AIDS has broadened over time. It was revised in 1985, then again in 1987.
Speaker 30: The changes in the definition have been political. Every time they change the definition, the numbers go up.
Speaker 28: The definition has changed many times. The biggest change was probably in 1993, which they then, you know, added the CD four count and HIV and, you know, you see, you could not even be ill, but if you had a CD four count consistently below 200, you now had AIDS.
Speaker 3: A closer look at the Centers for Disease Control's documents reveals that AIDS numbers actually declined in 1993, but a retroactive definition change increased the estimates by more than one hundred percent.
Speaker 26: The more diseases they could lump into this AIDS syndrome, s stands for syndrome, the better the chances are they get patients under that umbrella, the more patients they could catch.
Speaker 28: As time goes along, you know, get used for a variety of of issues. And some of those are not based solely on scientific decisions, but politics and capitalism and reimbursement comes into play.
Speaker 7: For example, a person with hepatitis C, even say here in San Francisco, you've got hepatitis C and only hepatitis C, you're you're shit out of luck.
Speaker 16: Having an AIDS diagnosis, you know, I get a free apartment. The city of San Diego pays my apartment.
Speaker 31: I can have the state of California pay for many medications related to HIV.
Speaker 16: I get social security benefits.
Speaker 31: I can get discounts on my supplements at the local health food store.
Speaker 16: I also get food stamps and in home supportive cleaning services.
Speaker 31: So I was basically a healthy person walking around and yet I had all these wonderful little perks, you know.
Speaker 7: You get all these benefits, I mean, that that that we fought for and got, but the end result has been a sort of an imbalance. I mean, we we succeeded. I'm glad we did, but it is a little unfair.
Speaker 3: Politics, insurance, capitalism, benefits, you can be sick or healthy, I never would have thought that AIDS was so convoluted.
Speaker 28: Right. Right. Well, as I said, that that that has changed. How you define that scientifically has changed quite often, which just makes it difficult to, you know, for for the laypeople to understand. It makes it difficult for me to interpret the numbers.
Speaker 3: Africa is purported to have the highest incidence of AIDS cases on the planet. So I trekked to South Africa to witness firsthand the impact of AIDS on that troubled continent. Around ten million of South Africa's forty eight million people have been reported to have AIDS. It's only a ten minute drive from Cape Town's pristine modern airport to the squalor of neighborhoods said to be ravaged by AIDS.
Speaker 1: All the facts on HIV and AIDS with Creselda on Metro FM talk.
Speaker 17: It's World AIDS Day. Their functions, gatherings, the international theme is stop age. Stop HIV and AIDS. Keep the promise. So many years later, we keep saying the same things, HIV, HIV, HIV.
Yet Each time I hear words like HIV and AIDS, I just want to pull my hair out. I'm just so fatigued about how we've packaged the messaging. All we talk about is AIDS. It's a sex virus. You have to use condoms or you die.
It's a sick and sad message. People can't think outside AIDS anymore. It's just a shocking sad reality.
Speaker 32: The first AIDS meeting on the Continent Of Africa was in 1985 in Nibangi.
Speaker 11: We were there with a few people who had experience on AIDS in Africa. And one of our problems was how can you diagnose AIDS in Africa in the absence of very sophisticated laboratory support?
Speaker 32: Even though by 1985 there was an HIV test, most of Africa didn't have access to it. So one of the things that we did in that meeting was to sit down and hash out the so called Bangui criteria for the diagnosis of AIDS in Africa. The idea was what would be a simple way for a clinician to look at a patient and say that, this patient likely has AIDS.
Speaker 11: We say somebody who has a combination of certain signs and symptoms like major weight loss, and if you have a combination of that, you can say this is probably somebody with AIDS.
Speaker 33: They wanted a clinical case definition where they could decide that someone had AIDS just by looking at weight loss and persistent fever and so on.
Speaker 11: It gave something to clinicians in Africa to to diagnose AIDS.
Speaker 32: And that helped in the overall effort to count cases because we needed to know what was the impact of the of the epidemic.
Speaker 33: They could discover AIDS all over Africa at that point. They could say that we are all at risk, but they could say it's spreading around the world. They could say it affects women as much as men because almost anyone in an African hospital could be diagnosed with AIDS without having to do the HIV test at all.
Speaker 14: Whole nations have been led to believe that in some instances that they've got large percentages of their population infected and doomed because of this sexually transmitted supposed sexually transmitted virus. It's such a tragedy.
Speaker 34: A lot of people here is very sick and is very die.
Speaker 3: What kind of sickness do you see around here?
Speaker 34: It's HIV AIDS.
Speaker 3: What is AIDS?
Speaker 34: Don't know. We don't know.
Speaker 35: So here you're living in a mud hut and here some come a white man with doctors who you respect, and they tell you that there is now among you an invisible disease that it and it gets into your blood and can stay there unseen for years. And when it manifests itself, it's going to manifest itself in the forms of diseases you've always known.
Speaker 12: Maybe if you look skinny, if you lost weight maybe, they'll simply say, you have AIDS or you're coughing a lot maybe. They'll say you have the disease.
Speaker 35: This cannot help but create extraordinary paranoia in people's minds. They say, well, what is going on with us? My neighbor next door has got he's got malaria. Is that that does that mean that he's that he's actually got the dreadful disease that that the whites are talking about?
Speaker 10: Like, I could be fed now, then the mentality is that if ever I become thin, then it could be one of the symptoms. I have to ask myself why now? Why at this time?
Speaker 3: Doctor Christian Fiala argues that many doctors have misused the Bongi definition.
Speaker 36: In the era before AIDS, we we had to admit we don't know the diagnosis and we could hypothesize. But nowadays, what doctors do is, well, if we don't know what it is, it must be AIDS.
Speaker 37: We did have patients with, the conditions we now regard as AIDS defining, even before the advent of AIDS.
Speaker 32: People could have TB and not have HIV and fulfill the Bunge criteria. They'd lose weight, they'd have TB, and they could look like they have AIDS when they don't. Is this Bangui definition still being used today? I'm fairly certain that in many parts of Africa where there's still no little or no testing available that that definition is still used, and I wouldn't be surprised that it's used in the poorer parts Asia.
Speaker 30: This word AIDS, I don't know what it is anymore. I don't know what we're talking about anymore when we talk about AIDS. AIDS is one thing in Greenwich Village and a very different thing in Kampala, Uganda.
Speaker 3: I visited the World Health Organization's website searching for answers and discovered there are currently more than 12 different definitions of AIDS worldwide. So I turned to Doctor. James Chin, former head of the WHO's global HIV statistics unit, for an explanation.
Speaker 18: Some countries, they felt they were a little more sophisticated than than others. And you have, you know, along with the epidemic of HIV epidemics of HIV AIDS experts, and some of them will not necessarily, adhere to any international definition. They'll make up their own definition.
Speaker 3: High school biology class taught me that diseases and syndromes cannot differ from country to country, like languages. It was becoming clear that HIV and AIDS were distinct, separate entities and that AIDS was diverting my attention from the real culprit HIV. Where to next? The place millions have had their lives changed forever.
Speaker 16: She says, we have your test results. You need to come in and get it. And I was like, tell me now, Cheryl. She was like, Kim, we really need you to come in and tell me. I said, then I know it's positive, Cheryl, or you would just tell me over the phone.
And she's like, Kim, don't panic. You can still have a normal life.
Speaker 38: I can still remember his face. I can remember his eyes. And all he said was, I'm so I'm so sorry. I I think you should put your affairs in order, and you you might have five years.
Speaker 16: I said, Cheryl, I have to get off the phone right now. Have to go tell my dad. He started crying. This isn't the way it happens in the movies.
Speaker 3: It's 7AM here in Johannesburg, South Africa, and I'm a little nervous because I'm about to go in for my first HIV test. Have you ever gone in for an HIV test?
Speaker 14: No. No. No.
Speaker 3: No. No. Yes.
Speaker 9: I have actually, a few years ago.
Speaker 3: Were you nervous, apprehensive?
Speaker 16: I was, very
Speaker 3: The nearest testing center wasn't in a hospital or in a doctor's office, but on the main concourse of a bustling train station, beneath a few portable tents. HIV testing facilities are everywhere, from street corner kiosks to shopping malls. I'll be tested with a rapid test, which looks for antibodies to HIV.
Speaker 34: So have you ever tested for HIV before?
Speaker 3: No. Except no. Never. It's our
Speaker 13: first time.
Speaker 11: First time.
Speaker 3: Wow. Is this your questionnaire? Yes. Okay.
Speaker 39: These tests claim to be HIV tests. I'm going to read from a section that says limitations of the tests. The specificity of the REVEAL rapid HIV antibody test for blood specimens in low risk populations has not been evaluated. They don't know, in their terms even, how well this test is going to work in people they don't want it to work in. Low risk.
We don't think you're at risk.
Speaker 9: In 1990, we flew to Romania to adopt a baby. We found Lindsey, and she was only two weeks old. I can still remember that feeling, just holding Lindsey for the first time thinking, now my dream is gonna come true. I'll have one of those children. Before we left Romania, we had to make sure that she didn't have HIV.
We had to find a doctor and he did the test and it came back negative. We flew home just after Christmas nineteen ninety and thought we had it made.
Speaker 40: So I'm going to take a test which comprises of two test kits. These two test kits are from two different countries. Why we are putting them being two? Mhmm. We want them to confirm each other.
Can they be
Speaker 34: two
Speaker 40: different outcome? Then this one is stamina, which is going to give us the final results.
Speaker 3: Can I just ask you something as someone who's a little nervous?
Speaker 40: Okay.
Speaker 3: It seems like if this is positive and this is negative, my life hangs in the balance on whatever this one is. Yes. How do we know that this one's accurate when both of these were inaccurate?
Speaker 40: This one has been tested to be the one that is going to take out the results that are correct.
Speaker 3: Oh, so this one is more accurate than these two?
Speaker 40: Yes. According to what we have learned.
Speaker 3: So why don't we just use the more accurate one to begin with?
Speaker 40: You know what, what if now the more accurate one has a discrepancy? How are you going to find out?
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 41: Rapid tests in Germany, it's not allowed for standard diagnostics.
Speaker 3: May I ask why how come you don't use rapid tests for standard diagnostics?
Speaker 41: Several professional organizations who decide as an expert committee on guidelines how to do things. None of these responsible societies recommend it for scientific reasons.
Speaker 40: We always say to our clients, even if we have tested here, we can go to other centers and go and test and verify them. Test. We cannot say we are 100% because you find clients going from area to area during tests, and they come with stories that I was negative at a certain area and positive with you.
Speaker 3: How do they decide whether they're positive or negative?
Speaker 40: We cannot tell because we are using a rapid test.
Speaker 3: It occurred to me that perhaps the HIV epidemic is reported to be so widespread in South Africa and other poor nations simply because they use these inaccurate tests.
Speaker 18: There's the saying that if if you knew how sausages
Speaker 42: what
Speaker 18: sausages are made of, most people would hesitate to sort of eat them because they they wouldn't like what's in it. And if you knew how HIV AIDS numbers are cooked or made up, you would use them with extreme caution.
Speaker 3: I decided to investigate HIV testing protocols used throughout the development.
Speaker 43: When we're testing people for HIV, the first thing we do is a screening test, and it's usually a test called the ELISA.
Speaker 44: But there are also now available rapid assays that can be used as screening methods,
Speaker 39: because they're And we all know faster and cheaper is more efficient.
Speaker 41: If an ELISA is positive, it does not mean that the patient is HIV positive. That's a problem.
Speaker 45: If we're using antibodies as a screening test to tell who's infected or not, Very occasionally you can get false positives.
Speaker 44: So screening tests by themselves should not be used as a definitive measure of infection. That's why we use a screening test to pick up all the cases, but we use a confirmatory test to eliminate any false positives.
Speaker 40: Take it easy. I'll just get the site.
Speaker 3: It should be emphasized that most of the developing world uses only screening tests to confirm an HIV diagnosis. There are no confirmatory tests.
Speaker 40: The time now is twenty five past. At twenty two, the results will be out, which is going to be fifteen minutes.
Speaker 3: Nine days after returning home, Stephen Scherle's pediatrician ran a battery of tests on Lindsay, including an HIV test, even though Lindsay had tested negative for the virus in Romania.
Speaker 9: Doctor. McHugh called us and said, we run into some problems with the test, the testing that you did at Methodist Hospital, and you'll need to come right in and see me.
Speaker 38: I said, well, what is it? She says, well, I can't, I'm not gonna tell you over the phone. I said, I need to know exactly what this is. He said, you know, you got bad news that that she tests positive.
Speaker 9: And he said she'll have a twenty percent chance of living to age two. That was just a shock. Just a shock after all this joy and happiness. We finally found our daughter and I'm dancing around Romania and now I come home and it's like somebody could just stab me. And then I had to call my mom, and that was the worst phone call I've ever had to make because I I even remember saying that poor girl, she's just not gonna make it.
Speaker 43: So that we don't have to go to somebody and say, well, you might be infected, but it might be a false positive, we do a second test. That's a test usually called the Western Blot.
Speaker 16: In 1992, when I was told by my doctor that I was HIV positive, that was only a verbal admission to me. She didn't give me the written paper that came from the lab that tested my blood. I found out that it says this indicates possible infection by virus.
Speaker 7: There can be mistakes from the antibody test, and there are conditions that can cause the test to be inaccurate.
Speaker 16: Now that I've got the package insert for that test kit, it says positive results using any specimen type should be followed with additional testing. But this is the test that
Speaker 13: they used to confirm with.
Speaker 5: This has a margin of error done properly that's extremely low. In other words, it's one of medicine's better tests.
Speaker 45: I don't think the western blot is a useful diagnostic test. I don't think it's worth doing.
Speaker 44: Did he give a reason?
Speaker 28: You know, anybody can say anything. I think it's stupid to drive a car.
Speaker 44: But you might, you gotta give a reason.
Speaker 45: It's a useful prognostic test. Once you know that someone is infected, then you can follow their antibody response as well with western blots.
Speaker 44: I'd say he's absolutely wrong. It had a complete use for us.
Speaker 45: You don't need a Western blot and it's become a dogma in HIV research that you need one ELISA followed by a Western. You don't. You need two different kinds of ELISAs made in two different formats.
Speaker 3: Would you ever want to confirm somebody is positive using just ELISAs?
Speaker 41: No, never. It's not against the rules, it's against the recommendations.
Speaker 39: It's a turbulent sea of argument about how can we use this test, when can we use this test, why does this have no standard.
Speaker 23: We have a group now of about 40 patients that have no detectable virus in their body, but they're not being treated. So the first question is are they really infected?
Speaker 3: So the western blots can have false positives?
Speaker 23: No. The western blot was negative too. But they were told they were positive by a lab, yes, that misread the western blot.
Speaker 3: Heavyweight champion Tommy Morrison tested positive in 1996. Eleven years later, in 2007, he tested negative multiple times, allowing him to return to the ring.
Speaker 43: There's constant discussion in the community of people who do diagnostic testing and the blood bankers about how to read these tests.
Speaker 3: When you're looking at this Western blot, how do you determine what is a positive?
Speaker 41: You need a certain number of bands being present. It depends a little bit on the producer of the test.
Speaker 3: It depends on the manufacturer. Yeah. Is there different criteria for what might be a positive?
Speaker 41: Yeah. There are different criteria from the manufacturer. Thank you for the word. And also there are guidelines from the WHO and UN AIDS.
Speaker 20: Well HIV infection is diagnosed with rather now routine laboratory tests for which the there are criteria for diagnosis established by the manufacturer, FDA.
Speaker 3: Claudia showed me the package insert that comes with the western blot. It contains eight different sets of criteria for diagnosing HIV infection.
Speaker 14: Because of the different criteria that apply in different countries, you can be considered, you can test HIV positive in one country and be given an AIDS diagnosis as a result of that, whereas in another country you won't test HIV positive and you won't be given an AIDS diagnosis.
Speaker 18: It's ludicrous that you can be positive in one country and not positive in another.
Speaker 3: Theoretically, I could be diagnosed with AIDS in The United States. But if I take three steps to my right, I wouldn't be diagnosed with AIDS, or I would lose my AIDS diagnosis when I crossed the border.
Speaker 13: In 1992, I was encouraged by a doctor to take what's called an HIV test as a matter of social responsibility, and I was shocked and devastated and horrified when the results came back positive. It was one of those moments that everyone fears their whole life. A week later, I take the same test to an AIDS specialist. He looks at and says, this isn't a positive test. I don't know what this test means.
Speaker 3: Since a false positive looks like a true positive, how can you ever distinguish whether it's truly a positive or a negative?
Speaker 16: Well, that's a great question. It's going to be very hard to determine a false positive.
Speaker 13: So I take the test again, and this time my results come back marked from indeterminate. I'm faced with the decision, do I want to wait six weeks to test again or do it right away? I opted for right away. My results that time come back positive. Took it again, came back negative.
I took it again, positive.
Speaker 3: What happens if you are positive on one criteria but negative on another manufacturer's criteria? Do you decide who is infected and who is not?
Speaker 41: You will use the less, the most sensitive criteria?
Speaker 3: In 2007, I read about new legislation passed in New Jersey calling for the mandatory testing of pregnant women or newborn infants should the mother's status be unknown.
Speaker 46: HIV mandatory testing, to me, is a no brainer.
Speaker 13: I'm very much opposed to the concept of mandatory testing of any population because the tests are scientifically shown to be unreliable and inaccurate.
Speaker 46: You have no reason to fear this bill. And my hope is that eventually this will become a federal law so that every woman in this country would be tested.
Speaker 43: HIV testing isn't an absolutely precise science.
Speaker 16: When I confronted my doctor about that, she said we're way past Western blot now. We have the viral load test. But when you get the package insert for the viral load test, it says
Speaker 3: If you test positive, you are considered confirmed infected with HIV. But at the bottom of the page, in fine print, it states a person should have additional testing.
Speaker 14: It does not allow you to tell a single person on this planet that they are HIV positive, and it's a scandal that this test continues to be used.
Speaker 16: So again, I'm asking where's the test? Where's the test that can confirm a diagnosis of HIV infection?
Speaker 9: And I can't find one.
Speaker 3: I have the package insert from the manufacturer which they supplied me with and under limitations of the test it states that risk factors should be used in conjunction with the test. Has the person had sex? Have they used drugs? Have they had a blood transfusion? And then in conjunction with the test, not the test alone, but with the test, then you decide whether the person is positive or negative.
Do the answers to these questions help aid in the diagnosis? Of course they did. Really? They do.
Speaker 44: Now if I tell you that the test you took was lousy and didn't mean a thing, does that make any difference for everybody to hear?
Speaker 3: It'd make a difference for me.
Speaker 28: Yeah, I know.
Speaker 13: How can we say that HIV is the cause of AIDS when we don't know, based on current tests, whether or not anybody diagnosed positive actually has HIV.
Speaker 34: President Tabu Mbeki will officially open the AIDS conference tonight. Delegates here are hoping he will finally separate himself from the AIDS denials.
Speaker 47: We remain convinced of the need for us better to understand what would constitute a comprehensive response in a context such as ours, which is characterized by high levels of poverty and disease. As I listened and heard the whole story told about our own country, it seemed to me that we could not blame everything on a single virus.
Speaker 35: I thought this man must be an idiot. Everyone in Africa is dying of AIDS. I know this because I read the New York Times. It's beyond doubt.
Speaker 3: Rianne Milan was hired by Rolling Stone to investigate and debunk president Mbeki's misguided ideas. Where to begin? The numbers.
Speaker 35: My very first action, I opened Johannesburg's yellow pages. I thought that I could illustrate this with a scene that began in in a in a coffin factory in Johannesburg where workers are working overtime trying to create caskets for these massive, these mountains of people who are dying of this condition.
Speaker 6: And I
Speaker 35: I discover that in the midst of what the UN AIDS says is a plague, is that half of the coffin factories in Johannesburg have gone bankrupt.
Speaker 11: In South Africa alone, it's about a thousand people dying every day from AIDS.
Speaker 18: If you're an advocacy agency and you perceive low numbers to be bad, your bias may be to accept higher numbers even if they're scientifically sound.
Speaker 11: I know Jim quite well, I was the chairman of the steering committee on epidemiology of the global program on AIDS in WHO when Jim Chin was in charge of epidemiologic estimates. And we could never get information how the WHO estimates were made then. So we were very critical these days because we felt it was not based on enough evidence.
Speaker 18: It's possible that he didn't read the materials we sent him or he didn't understand them, but we did send information to anybody that wanted to know about the estimates, because they were pretty transparent.
Speaker 3: In an attempt to get to the bottom of the statistics debate, I've come to Geneva, Switzerland to look at the World Health Organization's official numbers, and what we found, there are no numbers, only assumptions and estimates.
Speaker 28: How are the monies divvied out to states for AIDS prevention or AIDS treatment? How is government money sent out to different states and communities?
Speaker 3: The more AIDS you have, the more money you get.
Speaker 35: Exactly. The AIDS foreigners have a vested interest in maximizing and squeezing the data to get the worst possible scenario that they can out of it, because the worse the situation is, the more compelling their fundraising claims are.
Speaker 11: When UN AIDS was created, about $250,000,000 was spent on AIDS in poor countries. Ten years later, it's $10,000,000,000. That's an unprecedented increase. Still not enough.
Speaker 18: When that was created, the first thing Peter Piat said and said was that UN AIDS is an advocacy agency, pure and simple.
Speaker 11: This was my first objective when I came into this job, and that was put it on the political agenda.
Speaker 18: He divested himself of all of the program aspects and the scientific aspects of of AIDS.
Speaker 11: This is not a scientific issue. This is a matter of politics.
Speaker 18: Except one unit. We kept sort of the numbers unit.
Speaker 11: We are really doing a major disservice to say it is not as bad as it looks like. Because actually it is much worse.
Speaker 3: One month after my interview with doctor Piyat, the Indian government slashed their estimates by nearly 60%. Shortly thereafter, UN aids acknowledged they've been overestimating global HIV statistics for more than a decade.
Speaker 18: They painted themselves into a corner and now the the their house of numbers is falling apart.
Speaker 48: America is leading the fight against disease, and I call on you to double our initial commitment to fighting HIV AIDS by approving an additional $30,000,000,000 over the next five years.
Speaker 35: Noble corruption, misuse of statistics in order to convince people that there's one hell of a problem out there, guys, and we gotta go and do something about it.
Speaker 49: If you look at the real world, you know, how many people are infected, diagnosed to be infected, and eligible for treatment. There are very few compared to the number.
Speaker 3: In April 2008, Congress approved a $50,000,000,000 expenditure for AIDS treatment and prevention.
Speaker 18: The vast majority of the world's population is not at any measurable risk of HIV infection.
Speaker 3: No measurable risk. Growing up in the age of AIDS, I was taught there were three certainties in life: death, taxes, and contracting HIV from unprotected sex. If
Speaker 10: you don't use a condom, there's a lot of chances that you can actually get the killer disease that is AIDS.
Speaker 50: I did a study of the heterosexual transmission of HIV in California and we recruited individuals who were infected with HIV, then we recruited their sexual partners, and we looked at whether transmission in fact had occurred.
Speaker 39: Paidian runs a study, it's a ten year study, with the world's most virulent, terrifying sexually I mean this thing jumps, excuse me, off of penises into vaginas miles away. How many of them do you think, after ten years, with the world's most terrifying virulent sexually transmitted disease came up positive? Not nobody. Nobody, nobody who was negative came up positive, zero.
Speaker 50: I think HIV is more difficult to transmit than other sexually trans than a lot of probably most other sexually transmitted diseases. I mean I think that's pretty widely known.
Speaker 3: If I were to have unprotected sex to somebody who is HIV positive, how many acts would I have to engage in before I got the virus?
Speaker 14: Just one. Just one.
Speaker 15: I think one would be enough.
Speaker 16: Most act.
Speaker 20: One is enough. Remarkably HIV is a difficult infection to transmit.
Speaker 3: This contradicts everything I was ever taught about the sexual transmission of HIV.
Speaker 30: AIDS is the best example of what's really scary and alarming and dangerous about our culture right now, which is that it's a culture of of PR. It's a public relations phenomenon. The truth doesn't matter. What matters is the image. If we were talking about reality, the reality is that AIDS is over.
Speaker 17: Somebody decided in the early eighties that there's this infection called HIV. And upon deciding that, I don't think it was debated enough.
Speaker 3: In 1983, Doctor. Luc Montigny and his team of researchers identified what they thought might be the cause of AIDS.
Speaker 49: I really was excited because we knew it was a new type of virus not shown before in men and very likely to be the cause of AIDS. Of course, at that time we didn't have the full theory what's the cause of AIDS.
Speaker 1: That initial work was rapidly reinforced by additional virology and serology studies in in Bob Gallo's lab in Washington.
Speaker 0: Now we've got pushed by the Reagan administration that wanted to do something on AIDS finally. They literally told us to just close CDC's lab down. We we don't care about it. There's a bunch of gays who gives a shit. And that was really their their whole story.
So the whole thing that they rested their political response was, well, we discovered the virus.
Speaker 34: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The probable cause of AIDS has been found. Credit must go to our eminent doctor, Robert Gallo, who directed the research that produced this discovery.
Speaker 5: What was new that day is for the first time we were saying that's the cause, I'm sure.
Speaker 27: It was a civic press conference. There was not evidence then that HIV was the cause of AIDS. It wasn't called HIV. There was certainly evidence that he didn't discover it. It was discovered in France.
Speaker 51: The conference was held before any of Robert Gallo's papers were published. Therefore, any other scientist had a chance to review them and look at the evidence and see if he got it right or wrong.
Speaker 0: Gallo's philosophy was to have people to whom he would give the virus be in his own control so that any information that came out of that was would come through him, that he got all the information, and he'd often put his name on publications, and would quote collaborate with them. But should you have any broader view other than his personal glory and your personal glory, it is, this was not a scientific pursuit in any way.
Speaker 51: The US Department of Health and Human Services decided from now on we are only going to fund AIDS research that assumes that Robert Gallows virus is the cause.
Speaker 28: I didn't think that HIV in 1984 was the cause of AIDS. Why I did the study comparing gay men with Kaposi's and gay men with Pneumocystis? I assumed there must be something else. If you go read my paper from 1985 that Kern and Jaffee would not sign on to, I actually lay out the co factor hypothesis in that paper.
Speaker 49: I'm a promoter of of the role of co factors in AIDS.
Speaker 28: Cofactors just says that the cause of a disease is by more than one factor.
Speaker 27: Just simply being infected with HIV is not going to do it. You need certain cofactors.
Speaker 29: Cofactors are not necessary.
Speaker 27: Doctor. Fontra will say HIV causes AIDS without the need for anything else. That's kinda ridiculous.
Speaker 29: The data that indicate that any different type of infection like mycoplasma or something like that is a necessary cofactor, I believe those theories have been debunked.
Speaker 27: What the fuck does he mean? Sorry. What's it sorry. Does he mean that there are no cofactors? Where's he coming from?
There's cofactors for everything.
Speaker 5: Cofactor implies something specific, and it and it really gets us off into tracks that are wandering.
Speaker 28: Gallo isn't gonna isn't gonna change his mind. He's probably 70 years plus now. He's gonna remember things that we all remember, things that are good for us, and we forget the bad things. The cofactors are important to really understand how people get ill, why they get ill.
Speaker 30: What is asked of an AIDS journalist is to deny an existing reality, which is a strong, growing body of dissent on a scientific question.
Speaker 9: In August '92, my dad had just read his latest national review and there was an article in there about Peter Duesberg, a maverick cell biologist. He said he didn't think HIV caused AIDS.
Speaker 45: To deny that this well identified, well characterized virus is linked with AIDS is to my mind just potty.
Speaker 9: He said, I can't replicate this in my office. I can't get this virus to do anything. We thought, oh my gosh, my dad is already daydreaming. He's trying to wish this all away because he knows how upset we are. Just just wish it all away, and, you know, everybody will be going happy.
Speaker 26: If Fauci would say here's a billion dollar for alternative theories of AIDS, you wouldn't believe what's gonna happen. A lot of HIV researchers overnight would find of would start cofactors. The first year they would call them cofactors of HIV, and the next year the co would be topped and HIV would be topped a year later.
Speaker 6: Peter is highly intelligent. He did excellent work. I mean, no wonder he got a full professorship in Berkeley and was nominated to the American Academy of Sciences. But I told him very frankly that he's killing people with his theories and I still stick to that.
Speaker 21: They attack him, they attack his ideas, and they don't and they they present some bogus way of refuting what his science has said, but doesn't really refute it.
Speaker 52: Peter Dusberg? Yes.
Speaker 26: They are all prostitutes, most of them, my colleagues, to some degree, even myself. You have to be prostitute to get money for your research. You're trained a little bit to be a prostitute, But some go all the way.
Speaker 3: In light of all this scientific uncertainty, I asked Doctor. Fauci for evidence linking HIV to immune deficiency disease.
Speaker 29: When you put the combined findings of the initial characterization as a distinct retrovirus isolated by Montagnier and his group, together with Gallo linking the virus to being the cause of AIDS, and they put those things together, and that's how we have a confirmation of the causative agent of a of of AIDS, namely HIV.
Speaker 3: Still unclear about the evidence for HIV's existence, I decided the best way to verify it would be to actually see it. I asked doctor Hans Gelderblom, a world renowned electron microscopist, if he thought there was any reason to question doctor Montagnier's published images.
Speaker 52: I've seen these publications, stamp sized images. It's a nuisance. It's a nuisance. You do not really see much.
Speaker 6: When we saw that photo, we said, suggestive, but not convincing.
Speaker 3: Doctor Gallo, one year later, published photographs he claimed to be of HIV. Were his any better?
Speaker 52: These pictures were not so impressive. They were not much better than Montangi's images.
Speaker 19: It's one thing to look like, and another thing is to be a virus.
Speaker 16: In 2002, I stumbled across an article by Valander Turner and Andrew McIntyre of the Perth Group in Australia, and it questioned whether there's ever even been found a virus. I became consumed with researching this. I could read from morning till night, morning till night every day, and every link turned under a link and I would email to these people and say, where's the test? I want to know. Am I dying?
Am I contagious? And they weren't even very kind. They were just like, read our articles again. How many times do we have to tell you there's no test?
Speaker 3: It is crucial to understand that an AIDS diagnosis is forever. It cannot be reversed or alleviated.
Speaker 2: The stigma attached to people knowing that you have it and are living with it is worse than actually living it.
Speaker 53: I can't think of anybody who's ever been evicted from their apartment because they had breast cancer or because they had cerebral palsy.
Speaker 2: I did a campaign to address stigma. The message is that if anyone is infected, we are all affected. Some have it medically, some have it socially, some have it culturally. And at the end of the day, if it exists anywhere, it exists everywhere. We don't all
Speaker 5: have AIDS. And once you start bullshitting, it gets a problem. You know? We don't all have AIDS. We all have to be sympathetic to AIDS, and yet all kinds of people who get HIV infection.
But, you know, we don't need to make, in my view, non truths, you know, or just to have a slogan or a symbol. We all have AIDS. No. We don't all have AIDS.
Speaker 2: But my message is you do have it. Whether you want to accept it or not. Are you medically susceptible? Maybe not. But are you socially vulnerable?
Yes.
Speaker 3: In June 2007, the BBC featured a news story which began HIV infection theory challenged.
Speaker 45: Living cells are complicated, and how they work inside the body is even more complicated. So there's still a lot of debate, as to how exactly HIV causes AIDS.
Speaker 3: In March 2008, the Washington Post went on to state that multiple surprises have reminded researchers how much they still don't know about HIV's biology.
Speaker 54: HIV has got to get inside the circulation of the body, and it does that in ways that are not completely understood.
Speaker 43: The prime target for HIV is a t cell population called CD four helper t cells.
Speaker 29: The way that the virus gets into the target cell, it fuses its membrane to the membrane of the cell.
Speaker 5: I don't understand the fusion process. I don't think anybody completely understands it.
Speaker 28: We have a relatively poor understanding of how viral proteins interact with proteins in the cell.
Speaker 3: How come our antibodies aren't able to keep HIV in check?
Speaker 29: It's an excellent question. That's one of the great stumbling blocks.
Speaker 21: They can't prove that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Okay? They cannot prove that HIV is the cause of the collapse of the immune system, no matter how many scientific journals says it is. When you go to the basic research, it doesn't prove it.
Speaker 55: We are almost convinced that there is other factors that are involved in the loss of CD4 cells and we don't know yet all the mechanism.
Speaker 56: How HIV depletes the T cells so an individual advances to AIDS is probably due to multi factorial elements. One is it will kill the cell eventually that it infects. HIV does not necessarily kill the cells it infects. Some T cells are directly killed by HIV and other T cells keep the virus in check. It's a silent state within the cell and I think in some some many cases these cells can return to a normal function.
Speaker 8: Can that cell return to a normal state? I don't think so.
Speaker 13: When I was told I was HIV positive, I accepted that on a very deep level. But only by having the courage, the open minds, and the open hearts to answer these questions are we ever going to know how to help people, how to do what we need to do to help people.
Speaker 3: In late two thousand and seven, Science Daily reported that three prominent research teams had published papers in the Journal of Immunology challenging the theory that the sudden loss of T cells triggers disease and AIDS.
Speaker 1: The details of HIV pathogenesis, how HIV kills people, are still being worked out.
Speaker 3: If the sudden loss of t cells in HIV positive individuals can't explain why people get disease, then there must be cofactors that cause people to get sick and die, or factors that have absolutely nothing to do with HIV. While researching HIV hotspots, I began to realize there is a direct correlation in these places with another condition that leads to immune deficiency and death.
Speaker 36: I think it is important to keep in mind, especially for us in the West, that poverty is not a romantic issue. It is a deadly issue. Poverty leads to diseases and premature death, period.
Speaker 34: When you look at the symptoms that they talk about, you know, for people that are HIV positive, you find that some of them, they are more related to malnutrition.
Speaker 49: Their nutrition is not very equilibrated. They are in oxidative stress even if they are not infected with HIV. So their immune system doesn't work well already.
Speaker 17: People are hungry. They underdeveloped. There are no hospitals. There's no proper medical care. You take away poverty, you're giving people an ability to fight infections.
Speaker 3: These are toilets? Yeah. We
Speaker 57: don't have flushing toilets. When flies get to the toilets, they actually can come back to to to to to to touch our food, you see. And and and look, we need to take that food, and we don't know which infections are there.
Speaker 15: How do you expect people who must must survive in these places? Look there. How many white people there are staying in this house like this one? In Cape Town, it's different. You go to suburbs, you see the suburbs is different to our places.
Speaker 27: Why have we done nothing for African people just like give them clean water so they don't die in infancy of diarrheal disease and stuff like this. All we care about is HIV AIDS. Well, question. Well, there's money in it. There has to be, you know, other dynamic working to lead public interest to the African situation and ignore clean water, sanitation, malaria.
I mean, that kill people.
Speaker 34: This is the beginning of a war. It is it is a war to reclaim our help.
Speaker 3: In 2008, USA TODAY published a news story that stated, if we look at the data objectively, we are spending too much on AIDS. About $10,000,000,000 a year is spent on AIDS while two billion people live with no sanitation. One billion lack access to clean water, and malnutrition kills someone every ten seconds. These factors enable diseases to thrive and severely weaken the immune system of those living in such squalor.
Speaker 17: If we were to take all that money and put it towards developing poor countries, God would be so proud of us indeed because we would have taken away the major challenge that's facing humankind and that is people dying in silence. It's slow painful deaths from being scared of something that was just packaged as as as it.
Speaker 3: Could it be that the real epidemic is extreme poverty, not HIV? On the other hand, HIV allegedly occurs in The United States as well. So I looked for alternative causes of immunodeficiency in this wealthiest of nations.
Speaker 7: There are other ways you could produce a condition that looks like AIDS, but they too will be some source that causes a severe, defect in the immune response.
Speaker 26: Nineteen million Americans now, nineteen million are taking illicit drugs every day, but we don't talk about this. This is politically incorrect.
Speaker 29: There have been a number of theories as to what the origin of HIV AIDS is. One of them was a theory that certainly turned out to be completely incorrect that it's a lifestyle phenomenon.
Speaker 20: The large epidemic of STDs in general in the late seventies and particularly in gay men in San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles were meccas of the new lifestyle, which came from the liberation in the post Stonewall era.
Speaker 14: The more partners you could have, the more you were striking a blow for gay Liam. I remember talking to one of the people who was at the forefront of that lifestyle. He very much felt like if he did have another bout of syphilis or gonorrhea, whatever it might be, that it was like a notch, another a victory notched up for his right to exist as a gay man.
Speaker 28: I went on a vacation to Los Angeles, and it wasn't that wild, but one night I went to a bathhouse. I came home with, get this, at the same time, syphilis, gonorrhea, and two forms of parasites.
Speaker 27: I have no views about that, you know, in a judgmental kind of sense, but certainly from a public health point of view that's kind of a prescription for disaster because AIDS first occurred in these men who were not healthy for reasons that were obvious to everyone.
Speaker 31: You're talking thousands of partners, sometimes hundreds, you know, per month, lots of antibiotic use, lots of drug use, and, you know, the result were people getting pretty sick.
Speaker 28: There's a drug called Amyl nitrile that was developed in the eighteen fifties and sixties. Came in ampoules and they became known as poppers because you'd pop them when you open these ampoules up to sniff when you had coronary artery disease. The first AIDS cases, for example, that Mike Gottlieb reported, were all five gay men. They were young. They all used poppers.
Poppers. Something you
Speaker 39: walk around huffing all night. I mean, it says flammable, fatal if swallowed on the side of the bottom. They're walking around huffing it all night long. Why? Gives you a great rush.
Speaker 58: Poppers was a sex drug. They were in every gay bathhouse, every bar, every porno bookstore across the nation. Poppers were visible on the dance floor and the discos. At the end of an evening, the bartender would announce last call for alcohol, last call for poppers,
Speaker 25: it was like a mad wonderful kind of a dance that was being done, but if you think that can happen forever, you're wrong.
Speaker 31: Whether or not HIV exists, whether its its role in a weakened immune system is almost irrelevant when you compare it to what was going on at that time.
Speaker 14: The lifestyle explanation proved politically unacceptable, but the virus explanation proved proved very, very acceptable to many different parties.
Speaker 8: Pneumocystis pneumonia and Kaposi sarcoma were the hallmark diseases for AIDS in the early years.
Speaker 25: To go back and deconstruct it and say, what exactly did cause Pneumocystis Carinea?
Speaker 59: I remember the first patient that I ever saw, my resident brought me to see a young gay man with Pneumocystis pneumonia. I knew a little bit about the use of poppers or amyl nitride inhalants and I started asking the patient if he used them and it turned out that he was a very heavy user of amyl nitrites and much to the surprise of my students I said I think the man probably has destroyed his pulmonary immune system by inhaling this toxin.
Speaker 25: What exactly caused Kaposi sarcoma? We know that now. It was amyl nitrite.
Speaker 58: We saw KS decline, interestingly parallel to the decline of popper use.
Speaker 8: We now know that capsa c sarcoma is caused by a second virus, the human herpes virus strain eight.
Speaker 26: To rescue comes another virus. As always, when you need when you're in trouble, you find another virus.
Speaker 28: If one wants to look at really what causes this, we've gotta look beyond, just HIV and just beyond h h v eight.
Speaker 25: Calling it a disease, see, and to give it that name, AIDS. So everything's included under that and you don't have to just say, I mean, if you just said,
Speaker 44: you know, these people are getting a lot
Speaker 25: of weird diseases, all kinds of diseases, it wouldn't have had the same impact. It was much better to say there is an infectious organism on the loose in America and it could get you.
Speaker 3: I had interviewed the world's leading HIV experts and discovered that the two benchmark diseases of AIDS have alternate explanations. Once again I turned to Doctor. Gelderblom, seeking proof of HIV's existence in the most recent images available.
Speaker 52: Here, you do not see anything about the details, but I would say it's probably a virus.
Speaker 3: These are HIV here? Yeah. Oh, so are these HIV too?
Speaker 44: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Everything Probably. Probably. Yeah.
Speaker 5: What can I tell you? You know, I
Speaker 29: mean, it exists.
Speaker 0: The animal said he had all these viruses, and it was a lie.
Speaker 14: I think HIV totally has turned out not to be the cause of AIDS. HIV has turned out not to be.
Speaker 3: Gelderblum's images said to come from isolated HIV culture provided no proof for HIV's existence. So I asked Nobel laureate Doctor. David Baltimore and Doctor. Robin Weiss how they would isolate and photograph this elusive virus.
Speaker 54: Well, I didn't doctor Gallo do that. Mean, he actually isolated it. So I mean, why should I do all of this? This is all textbook stuff you're asking me.
Speaker 45: I'm not quite sure what's behind your question about isolation.
Speaker 54: I don't want to be your textbook, you know? I got other things to do.
Speaker 14: They're embarrassed. The scientists have been embarrassed about this. They know that it's flawed.
Speaker 3: In 1987, the CDC made two mind boggling changes in the definition of AIDS, which are in effect today. You can be diagnosed with AIDS without ever having an HIV test.
Speaker 58: In 1987 I had a lesion on my arm and it was KS Kaposi sarcoma.
Speaker 3: A doctor diagnosed you with AIDS without an HIV test? Yes. You can be diagnosed with AIDS if you've tested negative for HIV.
Speaker 28: Alvin Friedman Keen found sixteen patients with Kaposi's sarcoma among gay men in New York City in the eighties. They did not have HIV infection, yet they had AIDS by our definition, right?
Speaker 3: In a World Health Organization publication, Doctor. Chin writes, it should be emphasized that the surveillance definitions for AIDS were not intended to be reliable indicators of HIV infection.
Speaker 30: If you have thousands of documented cases of AIDS without HIV, how can HIV cause AIDS?
Speaker 3: Why do you believe that HIV does cause AIDS?
Speaker 47: Because that's all the information that I've been given.
Speaker 13: Because we've never been taught anything different.
Speaker 16: We have we just heard it.
Speaker 15: Because that's what the scientific community has told us.
Speaker 51: Scientists are supposed to observe, experiment, and reason from what they observe. They're not supposed to grab hold of an idea and cling to it and adjust everything else in their perceptions to fit that idea. I think an HIV positive test means that your life is forever changed. You have a whole new battery of things to consider for yourself. What does it mean to me?
Speaker 16: It's very hard to find anyone who supports you when you say, I don't think I'm going to die of HIV or AIDS.
Speaker 31: Does the typical model of HIV equals AIDS equals death, how invested am I gonna be in that model?
Speaker 0: Everyone who's infected with HIV would like to deny it. It's a bad prognosis, it means you're going to take drugs for the rest of your life, etcetera, etcetera. So there's people who want to say, ah, I'm one of the people who tested positive, but I'm not going to get the disease.
Speaker 31: Do I start treatment? Treatment meaning the antiviral drugs, if ever.
Speaker 9: We started taking Lindsay to a doctor at the Children's Medical Clinic. She gave us a prescription for retrovir syrup, which is AZT. It was so important for us to get something to help our baby that we sat on the floor in the pharmacy and gave her her first dose.
Speaker 3: Shortly after Lindsay began AZT treatment, side effects began to emerge.
Speaker 38: Her eating habits changed quite a bit. She didn't eat well. She was hard to handle at the table. And then the leg cramps started. Once that started, it got progressively worse.
Speaker 9: She would just grab him and go, oh, you know, screaming in the middle of the night, just like it was a It wasn't an ache, was like must have been sharp pains. It just just made you feel sick to your stomach.
Speaker 49: Any drug active on HIV would be toxic because it's not 100% specific on the HIV enzymes.
Speaker 38: When we switched over to the university, then the dosage of AZT went up and that's where she started flattening out on her growth chart. The doctors would try to put a positive spin on how well she was progressing. It was mainly in the T cells that weren't always a positive situation.
Speaker 9: Yeah, the T cell count would go down and then the doctors would say, well, maybe we better raise that AZT dosage, get that T cell count back up. We're going, I think it's kind of making her sick because she doesn't want to eat. She's having leg cramps. And they'd say, well, it's the HIV, and that's what it does. It's all part of the package.
Speaker 60: The treatment causes a very similar condition we would expect from an AIDS patient. That's why nobody noticed that there was something wrong with the treatment.
Speaker 13: I remember in 1992 after I first tested positive, I became involved in an organization called Women at Risk. There were 11 of us at the time on the board and involved in the group. All of us except three were on the medications. In the year and a half that I was involved with Women at Risk, every single woman in that organization on the drugs died. Every single one, except the three of us who weren't taking them.
Speaker 42: Stop the clock, the left of people. Stop the clock, the of people. Stop the clock, left people.
Speaker 31: We weren't just given handfuls of AZT, we demanded it.
Speaker 42: My AZT should be free. Where is your humanity?
Speaker 31: We considered the FDA not giving us these things as being anti gay instead of being responsible. And so we went and we lobbied and we pushed for all these things, and we didn't think clearly about what it was we were asking for. It's like that saying, be careful what you ask for. It may come to pass.
Speaker 60: That's the very reason why everybody believes HIV is a deadly virus because the HIV positive patient at that time got a deadly treatment. Despite the billions spent on the drug, tens of thousands of people with AIDS have died, and now a growing number of studies
Speaker 35: are questioning the drug's usefulness.
Speaker 9: We just decided between ourselves in November to write to Peter and say sorry to bother you, are you for real, and if Lindsey were your daughter what would you do? On November 11, we got a big package and he said you must take your daughter off AZT immediately or she will die from it like Kimberly Megalis.
Speaker 26: That is AIDS by prescription. You get immunodeficiency and you die from the tox. That is AIDS by prescription.
Speaker 59: When AZT became widely available in 1985 and 1986, I cautioned my patients not to jump on the bandwagon and start being treated. I didn't want to see my community poisoned by an ineffective therapy.
Speaker 28: I think in retrospect the dose that we started with with AZT was a dangerous and poorly tolerated dose.
Speaker 60: Nobody wants to realize what was the real effect of this over treatment. That means that we killed a whole generation of AIDS patients.
Speaker 11: In '96, David Ho announced highly active antiretroviral therapy.
Speaker 3: Also known as the cocktail, because the treatment combined the newly developed protease inhibitors with older HIV drugs, such as the chemotherapy drug AZT.
Speaker 11: That was a revolution. What was a one hundred percent fatal illness now could be treated.
Speaker 60: The AIDS medication today is not that toxic than it was in the early days. And it's a potent drug regime that means it kills almost everything.
Speaker 58: I play around with treatment interruption because I think the drugs are toxic. And if I do the drugs continuously without interruption, I think that they'll have cumulative damage.
Speaker 8: In the years that we've been using the cocktail, we found that there are lots of side effects.
Speaker 3: In South Africa, I spoke to a couple of pharmacists specializing in HIV treatment. How often do you see side effects in patients? All the time. Almost
Speaker 41: all the time.
Speaker 7: We saw the lipodystrophy, the buffalo humps at the back of the neck, and the lipoatrophy, which is the loss of fat in the face and the arms, giving people a very gaunt look.
Speaker 43: The risk of heart attacks seems to be increased in people on these drugs.
Speaker 7: With what we have now, the side effects eventually are going to outweigh the benefits.
Speaker 60: So patients really do better for the short term, but in the long term, they die also.
Speaker 3: In 1994, Audrey Serrano tested HIV positive. While initially healthy, she was prescribed AIDS drugs which nearly killed her and left her scarred for life. In December 2007, after multiple negative tests, she was awarded $2,500,000 in damages.
Speaker 56: Some people are very fortunate. They don't have these side effects, but many people do. So prolonged treatment is impossible.
Speaker 58: I know people that are like horses, have no impact with some drugs, no side effects, and somebody else falls apart.
Speaker 49: The new generation of antiretroviral drugs are less toxic. They can be more tolerated. But for how long? I agree, we cannot give a treatment for life. It's not like insulin, know, it's something which is toxic.
Speaker 3: Has a patient ever died from the side effects?
Speaker 44: Yeah, sometimes.
Speaker 60: Sometimes it happens.
Speaker 39: AIDS drugs are all classified as black box drugs. A black box drug is the most severe warning that our FDA will put on a product. It means you could die taking this because other people have died taking this.
Speaker 61: My sister Joyce was my best friend. She's a great mom, and just a very lively person.
Speaker 3: In 2003 Joyce found out she was pregnant with a second child. She was offered an HIV test as standard prenatal care by her obstetrician.
Speaker 61: She called me at work and she was like I got something to tell you and I was like well what is it? She said I'm HIV positive. So I took a deep breath and said well it's not the end of the And she said, Well, Neal, I met this doctor today, and he's a specialist, and he says, Is there some medicines I can take that will keep my baby from being HIV positive? Nevirapine.
Speaker 39: Severe life threatening skin reactions, including fatal cases.
Speaker 61: One morning she was covered in these welts and this rash. It was all over her face, it was all over her chest, all over her arms, her hands.
Speaker 39: When they're talking about a rash that can kill you, they're talking about a drug that targets actively cells in your dermis, in your mucosal layers, in your intestine, and stops them from working, and what happens, could buy skin.
Speaker 17: I would never take them. I look at, I I I don't have a problem with other people taking them, but I as Griselda Kananda personally, looking at the side effects that they come with, looking at the toxins that they they they present in my body, not now, not ever.
Speaker 60: I have patients tested in 1985. They were all advised to take treatment, but they declined the treatment for different reasons, because they didn't want to take toxic drugs because they were feeling well at that time.
Speaker 3: And how are they doing today?
Speaker 60: They are still living.
Speaker 3: Healthy? Yeah.
Speaker 38: Once we came to the conclusion that this drug that was causing this problem, irregardless of what the HIV was going to do, she was gonna come off the drug no matter what.
Speaker 9: If taking her off the drugs meant that she could sleep through the night and be happy for six months, that would be worth it rather than live in agony for two years or twelve months.
Speaker 38: You hear a lot of doctors, hear a lot of educators in age, you hear a lot of people talk about it is probably the drugs that are going to kill us before the disease does.
Speaker 30: What are the drugs doing to the bodies? They're putting the body into coffins.
Speaker 61: Before my sister started taking the drugs she was healthy. After she took started the drugs she developed an allergic reaction which made her look like a patient with full blown AIDS. She was admitted to the hospital, she continued to spiral down, and within thirty seven days from her first date of taking the medicine, she was gone.
Speaker 3: When news of Joyce's death reached the NIH, emails were exchanged between the director of the AIDS division and an ethics and safety officer. Ed, there was fulminant liver failure resulting in the death on this trial last week. Ouch, not much we can do about dumb docs.
Speaker 27: They are cynical enough to introduce drugs that they know will have toxic effects and will carry a certain mortality, and they know that the life of the drug before this mortality becomes too obvious to ignore is say two or three years and they work up what the sales are going be in those two, three years and then they know they're going to have to reduce the dose.
Speaker 61: Joyce has two sons. Jamal will be, he is in his senior year of high school this year. Sterling will be four years old. And in my mind they were robbed of their mother.
Speaker 16: If someone's going to be giving me a diagnosis of certain death in five to seven years, I want scientific proof. This isn't a religion.
Speaker 30: My interest in questioning and breaking and exploring does HIV cause AIDS is an instinct to liberate people from a death sentence that isn't theirs to carry.
Speaker 9: After we took Lindsay off AZT, her weight did go up.
Speaker 38: Within a couple of days, the leg cramps went away.
Speaker 9: And her physical body seemed to be doing pretty well, but it was like she was disturbed. She was agitated very easily.
Speaker 38: Her lifespan changed all the time after she got to be two years old, and then she'd only lived to be five. When
Speaker 9: she got to be a little older, then they said, oh, she might live to be seven.
Speaker 38: Yep. I definitely wouldn't live in the double digits, and that just was our life then.
Speaker 3: Although Lindsay was on AZT for twenty two months she made a full recovery from the pernicious side effects. Lindsay will be 19 in October 2009.
Speaker 51: Because it's been surrounded from day one with so much emotion, so much fear, so much psychology, so much drama, very few people are capable of looking at AIDS logically.
Speaker 49: We can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected. Our immune system will get treated with virus within a few weeks if you have a good immune system.
Speaker 3: If you have a good immune system, then your body can naturally get rid of HIV.
Speaker 49: Yes.
Speaker 3: If you take a poor African who's been infected and you build up their immune system, is it possible for them to also naturally get rid of it?
Speaker 49: I would think so.
Speaker 23: It's very easy to get people to think the right thing if you get it right on the tablet the first time. But once something's on the tablet and you gotta erase it and put something else, it's very hard to get people to think differently.
Speaker 3: The victims of HIV and the dedicated professionals combating it deserve our sympathy, compassion, and respect. However, at Journey's End, I find myself perplexed, bewildered at times with an overall feeling of dismay and sadness. I found a research community in disarray over the most fundamental understanding of HIV, all the while presenting a monolithic public posture of authority and certainty. Bluntly stated, we have tests that prove nothing, remedies that kill, and statistics manipulated to the point of absurdity. Ninety percent of global HIV corresponds to areas of great poverty and squalor.
Ironically, while we may have been pursuing a phantom killer, a shape shifting assassin, perhaps the real enemy has been hiding in plain view, clear as day, and as old as time.
Speaker 49: We can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected. Our immune system will get rid of that risk only a few weeks if you have a good immune system.
Speaker 3: If you have a good immune system, then your body can naturally get rid of HIV.
Speaker 49: Yes.
Speaker 13: How can we say that HIV is the cause of AIDS when we don't know based on current tests whether or not anybody diagnosed positive actually has HIV? Some
Speaker 56: people are very fortunate they don't have these side effects, many people do so prolonged
Speaker 43: T cell is impossible What
Speaker 27: the vaccine mean?
@Luizmd - Luiz M.D.
“Polio” was a scam just like “covid” https://t.co/Y4kfS0tRZJ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 argues that there is no evidence of a virus ever, stating that they “stake my entire reputation and career on that.” They claim the polio story is revealing: before the vaccine was rolled out, a polio diagnosis required “an acute illness and paralyzed for one or more days.” After the vaccine, the diagnosis supposedly changed to “an acute illness and you had to be paralyzed for four months.” They assert that “ninety seven, ninety eight percent of the people who you claim have polio don't have paralysis for four months,” and therefore there would be a “ninety eight percent reduction just because you change the diagnosis.” They reference India in the last decade, noting “three hundred thousand cases of what they call acute flaccid paralysis” and ask what the diagnosis is, reiterating “an acute illness followed by paralysis,” equating that with polio.
They claim Guillain Barré syndrome is diagnosed as “an acute illness followed by paralysis,” and declare this a scam, alleging the same pattern has been used with COVID, smallpox, and measles. The speaker asserts that diseases are not specific and that the narrative is manipulated to claim epidemics, with examples including chickenpox, measles, monkeypox, and smallpox. They allege that when an epidemic is proclaimed, “they” turn various diseases into smallpox; when claiming the vaccine ends the epidemic, “smallpox is gone,” and then new labels appear—monkeypox, chickenpox, measles, scarlet fever, etc.—to describe what is being labeled as outbreaks or epidemics.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There is no evidence of a virus ever. I stake my entire reputation and career on that. The polio story is fascinating because right before the vaccine was rolled out, in order to get a diagnosis of polio, you had to have an acute illness and paralyzed for one or more days. Right? So, anybody with an acute illness, paralyzed, that was polio.
After the vaccine, they changed the diagnosis to an acute illness and you had to be paralyzed for four months. So, ninety seven, ninety eight percent of the people who you claim have polio don't have paralysis for four months. So, you get a ninety eight percent reduction just because you change the diagnosis. For instance, India in the last decade has had three hundred thousand cases of what they call acute flaccid paralysis. Yes.
What is the diagnosis of that? An acute illness followed by paralysis. That's polio. What about Guillain Barre syndrome? I saw lots of people with Guillain Barre.
What is the diagnosis? An acute illness followed by paralysis. This is a scam. They did it with COVID. They do with smallpox.
They do it with measles because these are not specific diseases. That's the scam. When they wanna say there's an epidemic, chickenpox, measles, monkeypox, all become smallpox and when they wanna say that we got a vaccine and the epidemic is over, smallpox is gone and so now it's monkeypox and chickenpox and measles and scarlet fever, etcetera.
reSee.it AI Summary
I injected myself with HIV positive blood to expose what I believe is a massive fraud in medical history. My aim is to reveal the truth about HIV, similar to how Dr. Walter Reed demonstrated the truth about yellow fever. Despite the risks, I tested negative multiple times.
@_APWK_ - Luiz
Dr. Robert Willner injects himself with HIV. When asked why he would put his life on the line to make a point, Dr. Willner replied: "I do this to put a stop to the greatest murderous fraud in medical history. By injecting myself with HIV positive blood, I am proving the point as Dr. Walter Reed did to prove the truth about yellow fever. In this way it is my hope to expose the truth about HIV in the interest of all mankind." He tested negative multiple times.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker introduces a butterfly needle set, typically used for blood draws and injections. He recounts a story about accidentally injecting himself with penicillin while trying to give his infant son a shot.
He then proceeds to wipe the needle thoroughly in blood. The speaker states that he is doing this for the sake of humanity, addressing Fauci, Gottlieb, Galpin, Gallo, and other unnamed individuals. He claims this action is in the hope that it will save millions of lives from what he calls the greatest lie ever told. He states that the process hurts him.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's a heck of a time to lose my needle. There we go. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen this is a typical butterfly needle set. If somebody has a scissor it'll pop there I got it.
Okay. It's sterile And usually we use it to take blood by sticking this in and then we can inject things also. So let's do that. We got this. Yeah.
Yeah. Let me put my glasses on. Good. I think you'd rather I do that. I got to tell you a cute little story.
Shortly after my son was born many years ago, he's now 40, he got some kind of an infection or whatnot and I spoke to a pediatrician at the hospital, I was an intern at the time, and he said go home and give him a shot of penicillin. So I took the syringe and everything home and my wife held Bruce over her shoulder and I grabbed his little bottom cheek and I go like this and I stuck it right into my thumb so Careful! You can tell I don't like doing this, never have. Okay. Now we want to get a lot of blood.
There we go. Okay. There we go. I'm wiping this needle thoroughly in this blood and I say to my friends Fauci and Gottlieb and Galpin and Gallo and all the rest of those criminals, alright, that this is for the sake of humanity and no other reason. And believe me, it hurts.
And this is in the hope that it'll save the lives of millions of individuals who will die because of the greatest lie ever told. Thank you.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe the "covid" plandemic revealed that "viruses" may not exist as we think. Event 201, a pandemic simulation held just before the outbreak, mirrored what unfolded. The initial fear was fueled by footage of people collapsing in China, which was never replicated elsewhere. The PCR tests showed that most positives were asymptomatic, exposing the situation's fraud. Vaccines didn't prevent illness, and the media labeled vaccinated individuals who got sick as “breakthrough cases.” New variants kept the fear alive every few months.
@_APWK_ - Luiz
The "covid" plandemic was the best time to realize "viruses" do not exist:🧵 1. Event 201 "pandemic" simulation conducted 2 months prior was exactly what happened during "covid". 2. Fear footage of people collapsing on streets in China. 3. PCR test showed 90% of positives had no symptoms. 4. Vaccines did not prevent anything. 5. "Virus" kept changing every month.
@_APWK_ - Luiz
On October 18, 2019, one month before the plandemic, this "pandemic" simulation Event 201, was conducted by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. https://t.co/6LHLFWkImL
Video Transcript AI Summary
The pandemic emergency board convened on 12/18/2019, amidst exponentially growing cases (4.2 million) and deaths (240,000). Models predicted 12 million cases and 1 million deaths by mid-January. Financial markets were down 15% due to pandemic fears.
Disinformation on social media, spread by state-sponsored groups and individuals seeking financial gain, fueled violence and distrust. Experts debated controlling information access versus promoting accurate public health messaging. Health workers faced attacks due to false rumors, and pharmaceutical companies were accused of creating the virus. Misinformation was ubiquitous, with governments contradicting each other.
The board discussed strategies to ensure reliable information reaches the public and to combat false information, including flooding the zone with accurate data. Suggestions included leveraging trusted employers, engaging traditional media, and partnering with social media platforms. Speakers emphasized the importance of community trust, faith-based organizations, and clear communication from international bodies like the WHO. Concerns were raised about governments spreading misinformation and the need for international cooperation to address disinformation campaigns.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Okay. We will now advance three weeks to the fourth and final meeting of the pandemic emergency board on 12/18/2019.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you for reconvening. And let's get an update from doctor Rivers.
Speaker 2: In the last three weeks, case numbers have continued to grow exponentially. We now have an estimated four point two million cases and two hundred and forty thousand deaths. Almost every country is now reporting cases, and those who aren't may simply not have the resources to conduct surveillance. We don't see any change in the rate of rapid spread, and models estimate that we could have more than twelve million cases and close to a million deaths by mid January. We're not sure how big this could get, but there's no end in sight.
Financial markets are universally down by 15% or more on the year. Fear of a catastrophic pandemic and uncertainty about the capacity for governments to respond and remain viable are fueling investor uncertainty.
Speaker 1: We have called this meeting today because of major strategic problems around communication that are happening globally. And here's a media debate that just happened on air today.
Speaker 3: Alarming news emerging from social media companies today about the CAPS pandemic. Twitter and Facebook are reporting they've identified and deleted a disturbing number of accounts dedicated to spreading disinformation about the outbreak. For more on this,
Speaker 4: we go to our correspondent, Catalina Parks. Chen, these accounts were created by several state sponsored groups intending to sow political discord, and some individuals are seemingly seeking to gain financial advantages. Violence against health care workers and minority populations has been increasing. A recent riot highlights the real danger in these posts. Countries are reacting in different ways as to how best to manage the overwhelming amounts of dis- and misinformation circulating over the internet.
In some cases, limited internet shutdowns are being implemented to quell panic. Thank you, Catalina. For more on this, we
Speaker 3: are joined by experts on crisis communications and social media, Kevin McAleese and Sara Lee.
Speaker 5: To me, it is clear countries need to make strong efforts to manage both mis- and disinformation. We know social media companies are working around the clock to combat these disinformation campaigns. The task of identifying every bad actor is immense. And experts agree that new disinformation campaigns are being generated every day. This is a huge problem that's going to keep us from ending the pandemic and might even lead to the fall of governments, as we saw in the Arab Spring.
If the solution means controlling and reducing access to information, I think it's the right choice.
Speaker 6: I agree with Kevin. This is a big problem and doesn't even account for the massive amounts of misinformation being generated by legitimate users about the pandemic. But it's not just trolls who are spreading the fake news. It's often political leaders themselves. Who's to judge what's real or not?
Would we trust every government to separate truth from lies?
Speaker 5: I think this is more than just keeping the bad information out. It's also about making sure real public health information reaches the public. News is found from outlets other than social media. News organizations, public health groups and companies need to help people take the right actions to protect themselves by promoting accurate, real information about the outbreak.
Speaker 1: Okay. For more on this, we're gonna get a briefing from our communications expert, doctor Sell.
Speaker 7: Global health experts have highlighted that dis and misinformation are wreaking havoc on the CAPS response. Health workers are under attack in a number of locations due to rumors that they are purposely spreading this disease, and response efforts in many places have had to be suspended because of concerns around violence. Pharmaceutical companies are being accused of introducing the caps virus so they can make money on drugs and vaccines and have seen public faith in their products plummet. Unrest due to false rumors and divisive messaging is rising and is exacerbating exacerbating spread of the disease as levels of trust fall and people stop cooperating with response efforts. This is a massive problem, one that threatens governments and trusted institutions.
Polls have shown that mis and disinformation are ubiquitous. At least 90% of the public has been exposed to these messages. At the same time, misinformation messages come from a variety of sources, even government officials. And often governments are contradicting one another. We know that social media is now the primary way that many people get their news, so interruptions to these platforms could curb the spread of misinformation but could also limit access to information from legitimate sources.
Health ministries around the world are attempting to combat mis and disinformation by amplifying public health messaging through social and traditional media, but they are being outpaced by false and misleading information. National governments are considering or have already implemented a range of interventions to combat misinformation. Some governments have taken control of national access to the Internet. Others are censoring websites and social media content, and a small number have shut down Internet access completely to prevent the spread of misinformation. Penalties have been put in place for spreading harmful falsehoods, including arrests.
Other countries have taken a more moderate approach and have focused on promoting fact checking efforts and working with traditional media outlets, yet these approaches are limited in scope. Social media companies report that they're doing all they can to limit the use of their platforms for nefarious or misleading purposes. But this is a technically difficult problem, and false, misleading, or half true information is difficult to sort without limiting potentially true messages. The bottom line is that members of the public no longer know who to trust. Both the misinformation and the measures to control it have led to a crisis of confidence.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Doctor. Sowell. So here's the policy crisis for this meeting of the Board. How can governments, international businesses, international organizations ensure that reliable information is getting to the public and prevent highly damaging and false information to the extent that's possible about the pandemic from spreading and causing deepening crisis around the world. How much control of information should there be and by whom and how can false information be effectively challenged?
And what if that false information is coming from companies or from governments? So your views are welcome.
Speaker 8: So I would start by pursuing where trust exists in the ecosystem. Jane, in a prior meeting, mentioned that there's considerable trust by employees of their employer, and that's been borne out by our own trust barometer in the last several years, where there is, it's extraordinary the amount of trust given to the employer, and coupled with that in times of crisis as we're living, the role of the CEO and the trust given to the CEO for advocacy and for advancement of accurate information is considerable. I would marry the business leadership of the employer with business leadership organizations, such as the BRT and like enterprises around the globe, but I also think we're at a moment where the social media platforms have to step forward and recognize the moment to assert that they're a technology platform and not a broadcaster is over. They, in fact, have to be a participant in broadcasting accurate information and partnering with the scientific and health communities to counterweight, if not flood the zone, of accurate information, because to try to put the genie back in the bottle of the misinformation and disinformation is nigh impossible. So flood.
Speaker 1: Flood good information. Okay. Others? Yeah. Jane?
Speaker 9: Yeah. So can I agree with that? And my fact did come from the Edelman Trust Index, you'll be pleased to know. But also borne out by the work I've done as a CEO in my time. Can I also add that I think there are real technology opportunities here?
I I personally do not believe that trying to shut things down in terms of information is either practical or desirable. And we do have, I think, a couple of strategies that are available to us. One of which is the flood strategy. Second of which is relying and informing and equipping trusted, sources of information with the facts so they can then pass that on. But we also need to actually think about a technological answer to this.
So there is work that's being done to actually create algorithms to sift through information on these kind of social media platforms. And I know that, the Gates Foundation and others are funding organizations to work on things like this in order that people can actually have more confidence in the sources that they will use in any event. So I think both a detailed solution working with individuals, but then also thinking about technology is something we have to advance.
Speaker 1: Hi, Steve.
Speaker 10: So looping back into the trust barometer, last year in Davos, it was released that trust in traditional media sources has grown while trust in social media sources has gone down specifically after the last elections in The United States. So I think one of the ways that we need to approach this is to make sure that we have the right representatives on traditional media networks in order to portray our side of the story and make sure that there there isn't misinformation. I agree with Jane that shutting down internet is only going to cause extra panic and extra anxiety. In fact, that staff tells me places where internet access has been shut down, there's unrest growing. So we're not only dealing with this specific situation but really people not trusting their governments at this point.
And so I think we really need to make sure, one, from a news perspective that that information being is being disseminated correctly and that we have the right resources out there to provide this information. I also think that there is a good point in trusting in employees, in your employers. There are lots of communications channel, for example, during the Ebola crisis at Texas Children's Hospital. We had daily briefings with the CDC to tell us what the situation was. And because of the daily briefings we used between the intranet, internal global communications, and town halls, we used those sources to be able to disseminate information and make sure that our employees knew exactly what was going on coming straight from the source, whether it was from our CEO, our chief nursing officer, others within the hospital.
Speaker 1: Okay, do want chime Chris? I'm sorry.
Speaker 11: No, I think a complimentary tactic too is to tap faith based organizations and civil society and other institutions to recruit them also to basically, almost at a grassroots level, continue to basically have the integrity of the information.
Speaker 12: Todd, just to pick up on the daily briefings or twice daily briefings. During H1N1, WHO filled the parking lot in Geneva with the global press and provided them daily updates on what was happening. And I think that's that's that's a manifestation of flood, meaning you have to lead and lead regularly. And I think in the terms of the content is what we know and point to where communications have actually been pretty good. I think we projected the exponential increase in this quite well, and therefore, there's legitimacy to what's being communicated.
And so be clear about what's being communicated that we know and that is right, but also be very clear about communicating what is absolutely wrong and being clear about that, and then also being clear about uncertainty and that that's being managed. So I think in those three domains, very important not to deny, but to speak to them very clearly in the context of a daily briefing from, in this case, I can't imagine any other institution than WHO, being the focal point.
Speaker 1: Martin, Chris, come down the slide.
Speaker 13: Thank you. I fully agree that this is pure crisis communication and crisis communication today, also social media is part of it. And just to limit or even stop social media would create a huge damage. And we should use it, we should get it on our side, we should work together with them and we should try to avoid this misinformation. And another topic is, I mean, our industry, there are indications, meanwhile, that we are getting this social conspiracy theory, the topic that we are part of this conspiracy theory that we are supporting this, that wealthy countries will spread out caps to poorer countries.
And this is clearly thing of social media that could be directed via clear crisis communication and confirmed and regular updated information. So I also agree with Matthew, companies responsibility that the CEO talks to the staff, the CEO improves this information flow, and then you have a chance to get it channeled.
Speaker 1: So in this case, are governments do you think governments are at the point where they need to require social media companies to operate in a certain way? I hear you saying social media companies should not be impaired, but are they do they need to operate under different conditions? I think Matt alluded to that as well.
Speaker 13: Yes, I would say that there are specific conditions now and we have to find a way to cooperate and we have to find solutions for this, but not to hamper them.
Speaker 1: Chris?
Speaker 14: So I just want to build on Ed's comment about the importance of civil society and faith based communities. I think, you know, in addition to employers, people trust their neighbors, trust their local community organizations. With three million cases in The Americas, you know that local communities around the countries have been responding, whether it's to manage day care so people can stay in school or go to work. So, you know, while the social media can provide better quality information, I think actually local community organizations can help individuals understand how to filter out some of the noise and to act on the good information that's there. I think it's an important lesson that we've learned recently, we're learning as we speak, in East Africa with the Ebola outbreak.
If you don't have the community trust and engagement, you can't deliver even effective countermeasures, even when you have them. So I think the importance of local community, perhaps married to and as a filter for helping to discern the truth from the misinformation on technology platforms is going to be an important part of this response.
Speaker 1: Steve, Brad, and then we'll go down the table here.
Speaker 15: Just two points. First is that we have to recognize that we are all susceptible to misinformation based on our prob beliefs and experience. And I think with the social media platforms, there's an opportunity to understand who it is that's susceptible in what form to misinformation. So I think there's an opportunity to collect data from that communication mechanism. The second thing is, with that ability, we can identify false information more quickly.
We are actually receiving reports about people trying treatments that are purported to be effective, but are actually harmful. And the quicker that's recognized and can be countered, fewer people will fall susceptible to those things.
Speaker 1: Okay, thanks. Brad?
Speaker 16: Yeah, don't want be repetitive. I agree with almost everything that was said. But when we talk about our health, who do we typically trust? Our physician. And we're not talking about that right now, so we need physicians and the medical community really out there on the forefront talking about this.
I remember I had access to local news in Atlanta when the patient was taken care of for Ebola that came back, and physicians were on there nightly talking about, you know, don't panic, it's okay, this isn't going to go spread, so I would add physicians to it.
Speaker 17: Okay. Yeah. Some important news to share from our member companies. Rumors are actually spreading that the antivirals are causing gaps, and so patients are not taking them anymore. And this is particularly an area where we have government mistrust.
On the other hand, it's interesting because we are doing clinical trials in new antiretrovirals and in fact in vaccines and social media, including Facebook, is actually enhancing recruitment. People are going to it and they're actually seeking information on where they can participate and sign up. And so I sort of wonder that maybe we're in the mistake of reporting and counting all the fatalities and infections and we're not sharing with people what are the wins. Know, who are patient advocates that can say what worked for me and maybe you should try that? I think we have an opportunity here.
Speaker 1: Okay. George, and then Gabriel. Yes.
Speaker 18: By now, we have more cases in China and also death cases reported. And also my staff told me that before there's misinformation and there's some belief, people believe this is a man made pharmaceutical company made the virus. So there are some violations and even, you know, that is because of this misinformation. As a, you know, from, like, the CDC, and I don't know if Steve believe but Steve agree with me. When you are doing the field work and you like to do some so called TOT, training of trainers.
So we only need to train the health workers, the health care workers, their access to the patients, to the public. So make sure they got the right information. Sometimes the healthcare workers, they know something, but if they are not well trained, they might give the wrong information, but also they might say something, oh, I don't know. Even I don't know, that could hurt. So when I remember, such a situation reminded me.
When I was in Sierra Leone, when I was interviewed by radio, the national radio, I was asked by one of the audience to say, okay, we believe Ebola was man made, is transported from somewhere. So this is, I think this is very important we do the TOT, so make sure the healthcare workers have the right information.
Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. I very
Speaker 19: much agree with that. So, I mean, I think I agree with a lot of what's been said. I'd just add to it maybe by saying that I think one of the things we want to do is work with telecommunication companies to actually ensure that everybody has access to the kind of communications that we're interested in providing because that's going be critical for dealing with, you know, obviously the explosion of the disease. And then another issue, I suppose, is just through that, if you have a trusted source, I believe in the idea that we shouldn't be trying to control communication, but rather flood the zone, in a sense, with a trusted source that then is influential community leaders as well as health workers, as Brad noted, and others on these issues in order to try to amplify the message that's coming through. And I think Tim's absolutely right.
I've certainly seen the value of communicating constantly on these issues so as to continue deal with, know, sort of the vacuum that can be created in this circumstance. But then also with the comments made about the fact that for all of the disinformation that will be put out, it's gonna be important to actually have a response to those questions and to those concerns, as Steven said. And I understand from staff that actually there are also intelligence sources identifying multiple foreign disinformation campaigns and so on. But it's all a part of a larger piece which is to say that every time there is something that comes out that is in fact false information that is starting to actually hamper our ability to address the pandemic, then we need to be able to respond quickly to it.
Speaker 1: So a number of comments here. People want to react to what Avril just said? I see a couple of fingers just went up. Matt, you need some?
Speaker 15: I think
Speaker 1: just to build a little
Speaker 8: bit on what Avril said is, I think as in previous conversations where we've talked about centralization around management of information or public health needs, there needs to be a centralized response around the communications approach that then is cascaded to informed advocates represented in the NGO communities, the medical professionals, etc.
Speaker 1: You mean centralized internationally?
Speaker 8: Centralized on an international basis, because I think there needs to be a central repository of data, facts and key messages.
Speaker 1: Tim, do you want to comment on that and then we'll go back to regular order here?
Speaker 12: Yeah. I I think one important thing is it needs to there needs to be a sense of two way communication, which is people on the front lines may be finding out that actually the system is not working as it should. And I think there should be a culture in the communications to feedback to authorities places where the system is broken down, where supplies are short, where there are no health workers, where hospitals are dysfunctional, etcetera. Because that and then with some credible investigation process, which is that then values the the the client. The second dimension of it, think, that's really important is that is to get individual narratives on this.
I mean, the fact is that most people will survive, and that's probably not a widespread public perception. And so people who have lived and survived and can say that they got good care or that they were treated appropriately will help build confidence in the in the system in a way that's perhaps the data doesn't do as effectively.
Speaker 1: Ashti, Latoya, Sofia, and then Jane.
Speaker 10: So I think a couple of things we have to consider are even before this began, the anti vaccine movement was very strong, and this is something specifically through social media that has spread. So as we do the research to, come up with the right vaccines to help prevent the, continuation of this, how do we get the right information out there? How do we communicate the right information to ensure that the public has trust in these vaccines that we're creating, and secondly, news organizations in some countries are right now under a lot of pressure from their governments to provide politically favorable news, and so we have to think about you know, this isn't just The United States where we sometimes take the freedom of press for granted. There are countries where the news organizations are owned by the government and how are they disseminating information and what do we need to be thinking about? How do we communicate with those governments to ensure that misinformation and disinformation is not being spread.
Speaker 20: That goes along with her. I've received information from my staff saying there's they're confused about the different authoritory public health messages that are coming out from all the different sectors, the countries, the states, and different cities. And they're concerned about the differences, what the World Health Organization is saying versus what their government is saying and what the total consensus are. So with that being said, looking at hotels from that perspective, we're in a bind in knowing how to proceed.
Speaker 1: I see. Sophia?
Speaker 21: Thank you. I wanted to I mean, the discussion is focusing on mis and disinformation, but I think what's important to counter some of that is to actually put out information or good good news stories of people who have actually beat the disease or best practices in other parts of the world that is is delivering on results and sharing that. But also, I agree on the point on having a centralized source of information and a world body that could have, garner the respect of everyone, and I think the WHO in this instance might be that source of information. And again, using the UN networks on the ground, and many of these countries has a UN presence through its resident coordinator systems. And I think based on the Edelman trust barometer, the UN still enjoys a lot of trust around the world.
It's a good bet. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Jane.
Speaker 9: So I I just want to
Speaker 1: I'm back.
Speaker 9: Focus if I could have for a second on why we communicate, what the purpose of this communication is. So there seem to be several elements to this conversation, one of which is to get the facts, however you define them, out there. But let's be completely clear. We have known for many years that tobacco kills you if you consume it. It's a fact.
It's it's a crapshoot whether you're gonna be in the fifty percent proportion who's gonna die very young, but we know this as a fact. There are some things we know that are widely held. Doesn't mean it always changes people's behavior. So I think we should also focus in a conversation about communication, about what the purpose of that communication is, and think about what we know about incentivizing the kind of behaviors we want to see. I agree with Tim completely.
It needs to be two way. So governments and people who are organizing service delivery, businesses who are trying to operate in this environment, they can do that optimally. But we should also think in a communication sense, it's not just about handing people a piece of knowledge. It's also about how we incentivize them to manage their behaviors, which in any communicable disease outbreak, behavior of one sort will minimize your chance of getting a disease versus behavior of another sort, may maximize that chance.
Speaker 14: Thanks. Chris? Yeah, I just want to come back to the community. Know, judging from the statistics, we currently have four million survivors. We may in a month have eleven million survivors.
Assuming this is like other respiratory pathogens, they're now immune. And they live in the communities, almost by definition, that are affected. So can we turn the survivors into an effective community based source of accurate information? They're going be the least likely to be wanting spread false information. They're going to be motivated by having survived this outbreak and knowing loved ones who are also affected.
I think they can become a very effective force for intervention at the community level.
Speaker 1: Thanks. I'm gonna turn to Lavon. I just wanna ask one other question to think about as Lavon's commenting. We've talked a lot about misinformation and flooding good information. We've just started to talk a bit about disinformation and the strategy around that.
And Avril or others, after Lavan comments, if you have any additional thoughts about the particular approaches to disinformation that may be distinguished from misinformation, it would be good to hear about those. But Lavan?
Speaker 22: Yes. So I've received a note to say that some bad actors are actually using social media to spread rumors about specific companies in order to profit from short selling. So along the lines of what we've been talking about, this is going to cause companies to come up now to get some of their screen time as well because they need to spread the correct information. But one thing we haven't spoken about, and I'm wondering whether it's time to talk about this is a step up from the part of the governments on enforcement actions against fake news, right? Some of us this new regulations that come in place about how we deal with fake news and maybe this is a time for us to showcase some cases where we are able to bring forward some bad actors and leave it before the courts to decide whether they have actually spread some fake news.
Speaker 1: So we have about three minutes left for this discussion. I just wanna throw one more question out for your final thoughts on what if it is, as some people have raised, governments that are spreading misinformation either inadvertently or to some political advantage. How do we work around that with international organizations or business? Are there particular things that people haven't mentioned already that are worth talking about? But does anyone wanna talk about either that or disinformation or other topics in the last couple of minutes?
Speaker 18: Sure. Sorry, go ahead.
Speaker 19: No, please.
Speaker 18: So I want to talk a little bit about science. I want to follow Chris' talk. You know, because that's a very good challenge. We have survivors. Because we have so many survivors, the epidemic already fall two months.
We have all these modern technologies and the platforms, and it's time to think about it, to try to isolate the human antibodies for this, because this is a very serious pandemic, but we want also to see the future. That will help science based information. Thanks. Ariel?
Speaker 19: Sure. If you have state sponsored disinformation, there's obviously additional tools that you can bring to bear to try to address that situation, not the least of which is bringing together other countries to effectively, you know, take action against them for the kind of campaigns that they're propagating. But it's But generally, I mean, would say the disinformation The line between disinformation and misinformation is not always an easy one to find, and the reality is the greatest, you know, way to impact it, in my experience, is not to let it sit. So in other words, find your trusted interlocutors that are capable of saying this is not acceptable, this is in fact the truth, here is the information, and I think the community of survivors is one example, but there's a whole series, employers, trusted faith leaders, health workers, and so on can be part of that. In addition, obviously, you want to work with the private sector and those who are spreading information generally to see that they can bring things down that are in fact lies or, you know, false information that's being put forward as a way to minimize it.
But having a source, a national source, an international source, other trusted sources, and really guiding everybody towards that information is one of the most effective ways to deal with a situation like that.
Speaker 1: Great. I have Martin, Tim
Speaker 13: If it comes back to misinformation on a level of governments of countries, then we need, as Sofia mentioned, trustable international organizations, UN, WHO, and they have to come together to get together to spread this trust and to work against this. We cannot hold governments from doing misinformation on their own. So I fully trust on disinformation organizations.
Speaker 12: Tom, just to build on that, I think you're right. It's important that the UN and WHO remain very clear, But when they challenge governments directly, they often get into this issue of sovereignty. And so I think it's really important not to have that as the only response. I think it's really critical to think about soft power influence, which is other, influential who can call up the head of state, or, powerful constituencies within those countries. We've seen this in the context of mobilizing religious leaders in the context of polio, or specific business leaders where you can soften perhaps a very hard line from government, through less more stealth entry points rather than trying to punish them through the international health regulations or something like that.
Speaker 1: Great. And I Adrian, I think last comment.
Speaker 17: I think it's important to think about what atypical players in the private sector can we bring to bear in this. So bringing multinational pharmaceutical companies to talk about why who are self interested about why their products are safe could be seen as non credible. But if I think about the champion for TB in South Africa was Nando's chicken. And so I think as we think about these large atypical players who have no credible vested interest in in this issue, but have a strong voice that's economically differentiated for their governments as well in their country. They're gonna listen
Speaker 1: to them with
Speaker 17: some respect. I think it will be very important. Okay.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have to leave that conversation there. Thank you all for another very highly valuable discussion. We'll take what you've advised, bring it to the attention of leaders and we deeply appreciate all you have done here in these meetings. This is concluded.
Speaker 0: Great. So that concludes the exercise portion of the event. How did this pandemic turn out? We please watch this epilogue video, and you can see the outcome.
Speaker 23: The outcome of the CAPS pandemic in event two zero one was catastrophic. Sixty five million people died in the first eighteen months. The outbreak was small at first and initially seemed controllable, but then it started spreading in densely crowded and impoverished neighborhoods of mega cities. From that point on, the spread of the disease was explosive. Within six months, cases were occurring in nearly every country.
At first, wealthy countries with advanced health care and public health systems were primarily able to limit the spread of the disease within their borders. As systems became overwhelmed, however, no countries were able to control its spread. And the disease affected people of all socioeconomic status, from the very poor to the extremely rich, from sanitation workers to CEOs and national leaders. The economic consequences were dramatic. The high death toll and even greater numbers of sick hurt productivity in many industries.
Manufacturers were having trouble filling orders and countless companies in the service sector simply shut down. The global economy was in a freefall. The GDP down 11%. Stock markets around the world plummeted between 2040% and headed into a downward cycle of fear and low expectation. Businesses were not borrowing.
Banks were not lending. Everyone was just hoping to hunker down and weather the storm. While nearly all businesses were affected, certain sectors were especially hard hit. Travel, finance, service, manufacturing, health care and insurance among them, with some major companies going bankrupt. And there were seismic societal consequences as well.
The world saw large scale protests and in some places riots. People were angry about the lack of access to health care and medicine, as well as governments' inability to protect them from the disease. This led to violent crackdowns in some countries and even martial law. Political upheaval became the rule across the globe. The public lost trust in their respective administrations.
Several governments fell while others were desperately striving to hold on to power. This spurred further crackdowns. Attempts to control media messaging originally aimed only at health related misinformation became used increasingly to quash political dissent. Economists say the economic turmoil caused by such a pandemic will last for years, perhaps a decade. The societal impacts, the loss of faith in government, the distrust of news, and the breakdown of social cohesion could last even longer.
We have to ask, did this need to be so bad? Are there things we could have done in the five to ten years leading up to the pandemic that would have lessened the catastrophic consequences? We believe the answer is yes. So are we as a global community now finally ready to do the hard work needed to prepare for the next pandemic.
@_APWK_ - Luiz
The "covid" plandemic started with footage of people collapsing in the streets in China which did not happen anywhere else. This was propaganda footage to incite fear and compliance around the world. https://t.co/dHPViXL60R
@_APWK_ - Luiz
The PCR exposed the fraud by revealing that the vast majority of people testing positive had no symptoms. https://t.co/A1viBdNVrS
@_APWK_ - Luiz
The media tried to hide the vaccine fraud by calling vaccinated people getting sick as “breakthrough cases” until they couldn’t hide it any more. Truth was, the vaccine was never tested to prevent any “virus.” https://t.co/wAMu2atiXA
@_APWK_ - Luiz
And as we all know, there was a new “variant” to be afraid of every few months. https://t.co/EbAh2DQwkL
@_APWK_ - Luiz
Want to start understanding how "viruses" not exist? This is a good place to start: https://t.co/nLTCrgO1Uf
Video Transcript AI Summary
Do you have an open mind? Consider that we live in a toxic world, where our cells respond to poisons by packaging and releasing damaged genetic material, called exosomes. This contrasts with the established theory of viruses, which are seen as non-living entities that can cause illness.
The coronavirus emerged when a respiratory illness was linked to a new RNA fragment found in patients. Testing methods, like PCR, amplify genetic material, but their arbitrary cutoff points can lead to misleading results. Cases like the Diamond Princess cruise ship show conflicting test results among close contacts, challenging the infectious virus theory.
Many who test positive remain asymptomatic, and some fluctuate between positive and negative results. This raises questions about the reliability of PCR tests and whether exosomes could be misidentified as viruses. Ultimately, how confident are you in these tests? Would you choose to be tested?
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Do you have an open mind? Can you suspend judgment for a moment? Most people can't. But what if your job depends on it? What if the freedom to hug people depends on it?
What if your life depends on it? Here's a new theory. 1st, consider that we live in a world where everything is toxic. The soil, the water, the air, our food, even our medicines are toxic. Even stress can be toxic.
Now imagine that all these toxins are poisonous to us on a cellular level. Imagine that our cells have a defense and respond to the situation. Poisoned genetic material, either RNA or DNA, is packaged up and sent out of the cell in tiny balls of protein. Let's call these balls of genetic material exosomes. Let's imagine that exosomes can act as messages to alert other cells of a particular poison, and so all throughout the body more and more cells package up the poisoned material and release it.
Also, at certain times of the year due to temperature cycles, humans tend to purge a high number of these poisons genetic materials out of the body resulting in symptoms of illness. These exosomes neither cause illness nor are they infectious, though they do appear to spread throughout the body. Now that's exosome theory. Let's move on to the established theory of viruses. Viruses are generally regarded as not alive.
They have no cellular structure and do not reproduce on their own, though we do have trillions of them inside our bodies. They are tiny bits of genetic material, either RNA or DNA, packaged in tiny protein balls that appear to exit and enter cells. Sound familiar? We believe that some of these entities are infectious and pathogenic, transmitting amongst humans and reproducing inside our bodies, causing illness and death. So let's look at the situation for this coronavirus and compare what is happening to these two theories.
Let's first consider the origin story of the coronavirus. A group of people had a respiratory illness unresolved by antibiotics, so medical officials began looking, of course, for a virus. What they eventually found under the electron microscope were small protein balls being excreted by the cell. Okay. First comparison.
This would make sense in both exosome theory and virus theory. Then they searched for and found an RNA fragment that they had not seen before in some of these patients. This would make sense in both exosome theory and virus theory. Now they did not prove that they could infect somebody or an animal with a purified form of this so called virus. They simply assumed that this RNA fragment was the cause of the illness they saw in some patients, and they assumed it was contagious.
So do you know how the tests work? It's not a binary test like a pregnancy test. It's called a PCR test, and it involves amplifying genetic material by doubling it in dozens of cycles until you have billions or trillions of the original molecules, and then using those results to determine if you have enough of the identified RNA fragment to be considered positive. Here's the thing. At a certain point of amplification, every single person would test positive.
They use an arbitrary cutoff point where they stop doubling the material. That cutoff point is different amongst different tests for COVID 19. In fact, there were 10 different cutoff points amongst 33 tests approved by the FDA. Seems a little strange. Right?
You might find it interesting that the Nobel Prize winning inventor of the test did not believe it should be used to diagnose infectious illness, and perhaps you've heard about some of the problems with the test, such as the high rate of false positives. But in any case, let's say that after 37 times of doubling a specific genetic material they found in your body, they determine that you have enough of the RNA they are looking for to be considered positive. This could make sense in both exosome theory and virus theory, but clearly there are clusters of people getting ill. Look at New York City. It must be a virus.
However, if you are being poisoned by something in your environment, it's likely people near you are too. And if we commonly purge these poisons during specific times of the year, many people may have symptoms of illness all at once. This fits either theory. Now, here's where things get interesting. Let's go to the Diamond Princess cruise ship situation.
Did you know that people who were bunked together for days had conflicting positive and negative tests? How could one person have this highly infectious illness, but not transmit it to somebody bunking with them for days? This would make sense in exosome theory, where the balls of RNA are not contagious, but it would not make sense for virus theory where the balls of RNA are supposed to be highly infectious. Let's take a look at the first case of transmission in Illinois. A woman traveled to Wuhan, came back, and both she and her chronically ill husband ended up testing positive.
Medical authorities then tracked over 300 people who had had close contact with them to see who acquired the virus. And guess what? 0 positives. This again would make sense in exosome theory since exosomes are not contagious, but it would not make sense for virus theory where this is supposed to be an infectious virus. In fact, do you know that there are many documented cases all around the world of patients testing positive for this RNA fragment with no relevant travel history and no known possible contact with somebody who was infected?
These were people in the middle of nowhere, early on in this whole crisis, who suddenly were testing positive. This would make sense again in exosome theory, where the RNA is being produced as an immune response within our cells, but it would not make sense for virus theory where you are supposed to have had contact with somebody with the virus. What about the high levels of people testing positive who don't get sick? In fact, 80% of people testing positive are either asymptomatic or have slight cold symptoms. Why?
This would make sense in exosome theory since the RNA fragments are not the cause of the illness. But it would not make sense for virus theory where this virus is supposed to cause the illness. Things get even stranger. Did you know that some people go from testing positive to testing negative to testing positive again in a matter of days. That would make sense for exosome theory, where perhaps the cells are simply releasing more or less of these exosomes depending on certain conditions.
But it doesn't make sense in virus theory, where you are supposedly infected until you have rid yourself of the virus. So which of these theories seems more likely to you? What if you heard that there are virologists who believe that viruses are actually exosomes? What if I told you that doctors and other scientific experts also believe this? Ultimately, regardless of which theory you believe in at this point, the established infectious virus theory or the emerging theory of exosomes, how confident are you in the PCR test?
Are you really interested in having your life hinge on the results you get from this potentially meaningless test? Do you want your loved ones tested? Do you want to be tested? Or shall we perhaps refuse the test?
@_APWK_ - Luiz
As long as you believe in “viruses” they will keep trying to control you. https://t.co/U8khzGRwV0
@_APWK_ - Luiz
Fauci literally just said the "bird flu virus" can go into a pig and a "human flu virus" can also go into that pig, both "viruses" can then have sex and create a "human-bird-pig flu virus" that will be able to transmit from human to human. LOL https://t.co/zUoeYwBZ9r
Video Transcript AI Summary
The concerning issue is that the virus can infect multiple species, including pigs, which are often in close proximity to chickens and cows. This interaction raises the risk of a reassortment of viruses, potentially creating a new strain that combines the dangerous traits of H5N1 with the ability to spread between humans. Public health officials are particularly worried about this possibility due to the mixing of viruses in pigs. Although the current risk is considered low, the CDC emphasizes the need for vigilance as the situation could change.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now let me tell you the sobering news. The sobering news is that that can change because the virus infects more than one species, and we know it can infect pigs. Pigs are on farms with chickens and with cows, and chickens and cows can infect with their virus a pig, and then a human virus can go into pig, and then you could get a reassortment of a virus that has some of the dangerous qualities of h five n one and some of the capability of spreading from human to human of a human virus. So that's what public health officials are concerned about, that when you have the circulation of this virus in multiple species, including a mixing bowl species like a pig, you might get a reassortment and a mutation that could make this something we really have to be concerned about. And that's the reason why the CDC says, although currently the risk in general is low, we still have to pay close attention to the possibility that that might change.
@_APWK_ - Luiz
The WHO wanted to use a global Digitized Vaccine Certificate to control your ability to live freely through vaccines. Look at how the WHO director Tedros spoke before and after the US elections. https://t.co/o3NMpX4rIA
Video Transcript AI Summary
The European Union developed a COVID-19 certification system to facilitate safe travel during the pandemic, which has now been adopted by WHO as part of a global digital health certification network. This network will initially include the COVID-19 certificate and will later expand to include other health documents. There is a need to address the challenges posed by anti-vaccine sentiments, as vaccines are effective and supported by evidence. WHO clarified that it did not impose any mandates during the pandemic, emphasizing its role in providing guidance and support to governments rather than enforcing policies.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Like many countries, the European Union made significant investments in COVID 19 certificates to help people move around as safely as possible during the pandemic. The European Union certification system was used by all 27 EU member states and more than 50 other countries. Building on the success of the EU system, WHO is proud today to launch the global digital health certification network. So thank you so much to European, Union for the excellent certification system that you have transferred to us and we have the chance to build on it. WHO will begin operations of the network today with the existing COVID-nineteen certificate as a global public good.
Soon after, we will expand this infrastructure by incorporating other use such as a digitized international certificate of vaccination, routine immunization cards and international patient summaries. But you know the, serious challenge that's posed by anti vaxxers, and I think we need to strategize to really push back because vaccines work. Vaccines affect adults. And we have signs, evidence on our side. I think it's time to be more aggressive in pushing back on anti vaxxers.
Think they use COVID as an opportunity and, you know, all the havoc they're they're creating.
Speaker 1: It is now official. CNN projects that Donald Trump has been elected president, defeating vice president Kamala Harris, and making a political comeback unlike any in modern American politics. Now The
Speaker 2: World Health Organization has become nothing more than a corrupt globalist scam paid for by the United States but owned and controlled by China. For this reason, it was my great honor to terminate America's relationship with the World Health Organization.
Speaker 0: A few moments later WHO did not impose anything on anyone during the COVID 19 pandemic. Not lockdowns, not mask mandates, not vaccine mandates. We don't have the power to do that. We don't want it, and we're not trying to get it. Our job is to support governments with evidence based guidance, advice, and when needed, supplies to help them protect their people.
@_APWK_ - Luiz
WHO director, Tedros wants to get more aggressive with anti-vaxxers. Anything you want to say to @DrTedros ? https://t.co/IslagvrqF6
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2022, over 14 million children missed vaccinations. Collaborating with partners like Gavi and UNICEF, we aim to reduce this number by 2030. However, we face significant challenges from anti-vaccine movements, which have gained traction, especially during COVID-19. It's crucial to strategize and push back against misinformation, as vaccines are effective and beneficial for both children and adults. We need to take a more assertive stance in countering the narratives propagated by anti-vaxxers to protect public health.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: More than 14,000,000 children in 2022 did not receive a single dose of vaccine. Working together with partners like Gavi and UNICEF, we aim to have that number by 2,030. But you know the serious challenge that's posed by anti vaxxers, and I think we need to strategize to really push back because vaccines work. Vaccines affect adults. And we have signs, evidence on our side.
I think it's time to be more aggressive in pushing back on anti vaxxers. I think they use COVID as an opportunity and, you know, all the havoc they're they're creating.
@_APWK_ - Luiz
Pediatrician Dr. Paul Thomas had his license revoked after releasing this vaccine study to the public. This is how many times more vaccinated children have a higher risk of these diseases than unvaccinated children. https://t.co/X2z82lqIkI
@_APWK_ - Luiz
‘They’re frozen in time. The shots froze them in time.' Two-year-old twin boys who each received multiple vaccines when they were four months old — and haven’t developed any abilities since. https://t.co/r4sibAZLEE
Video Transcript AI Summary
A 2-month-old boy's life is described as destroyed after receiving DTaP, HIB, and polio vaccines at 4 months. The speaker states the child is frozen in time due to the shots. At a 2-month well-baby visit, a child receives DPT (3 antigens), HIB, Prevnar, Hep B, polio, and rotavirus, totaling 6 shots and 8 antigens. Some people interviewed had to remain outside the bus due to their condition. The speaker says, "We are going to stop this because this see? She knows," while addressing a child named Kelsey.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The DTaP, the HIB, the polio. How old is that at this stage?
Speaker 1: 4 months? 4 months. And it's it's very hard to see
Speaker 0: it. Yeah.
Speaker 1: It's a beautiful boy's life is destroyed. Yep. Do they I mean, they've just been sitting staring. Is this is what their life is like? Or do they do I mean, I'm sorry to be so blunt.
Yeah. No.
Speaker 0: This is it.
Speaker 1: I've never seen anything like this.
Speaker 0: This is it. They're 2 year old, 2 month olds. You know, they they're frozen in time. The shots froze them in time. Let's just say a 2 month well baby visit.
There's a DPT. That's 3 shots, 3 antigens. HIP, Pravnard, d, hep b, polio, rotavirus, 6 shots, 8 antigens. Other people who couldn't even come on to the bus, who had to stay outside the bus, and we had to move all of our equipment outside and interview them there.
Speaker 1: We are going to stop this because this see? She knows. It's alright, Kelsey. See, children tell Spence got your back.
@_APWK_ - Luiz
Vax vs. Unvax. Study done by pediatrician, Dr. Paul Thomas. His license was taken away after releasing this study. https://t.co/kNTxYgcoD3
@_APWK_ - Luiz
Major red flag 🚩 if this didn’t wake you up, nothing will. https://t.co/EfqXviAjVJ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Double vaxxed, boosted, flu shot, and shingle shot, the speaker still gets their period. They traveled to Mexico twice, did shows and meet and greets, and never got COVID. They believe Jesus clearly loves them the most.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Brag, I don't care, but I want you to know double vaxxed booster flu shot, and I'm gonna be honest, I have the shingle shot too. And I still get my period. What? Yes. Traveled, went to Mexico twice, did shows, meet and greets, never got COVID, clearly Jesus loves me the most.
Seriously. So nice. So nice.
@_APWK_ - Luiz
"The experts" were not wrong. They intentionally lied to millions of people. https://t.co/keXYeVEfQ4
Video Transcript AI Summary
Initially, all vaccines released under emergency use authorization by the FDA were considered outstanding. The J&J vaccine carries a risk of life-threatening blood clots. Despite claims that COVID poses zero threat to healthy children, vaccination for children was urged. Two mRNA vaccines were considered a three-dose vaccine.
Two doses were found to be insufficient for emergency room visits and hospitalizations, necessitating a third immunization. A fourth immunization was suggested as a potential innovative solution. The numbers are trending up again, so a new bivalent booster is recommended for everyone ages 12 and older. Those over 50 who have had two boosters more than 2-4 months prior may need a third booster, a fifth immunization. Boosters may not be holding up as well as desired, potentially requiring boosters every few months.
Disinformation campaigns have promoted fake concepts of herd immunity and discredited masks. Vaccinating is considered our last hope. The single most impactful thing is to be fully boosted, preferably twice boosted. Monkeypox is accelerating among men who have sex with men, though sources disagree on whether it is sexually transmitted.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: One of the things that we're not hearing a lot about is the unique potential safety problem of coronavirus vaccines. And then something changed. Any vaccine released by emergency use authorization by the FDA is an outstanding, vaccine.
Speaker 1: J and j's vaccine has a risk of life threatening blood clots.
Speaker 2: When you hear the beep, that's the sound of safety.
Speaker 0: So don't overthink it. They're they're both really good vac they're all really good vaccines. Get vaccinated now.
Speaker 2: I gotta call now.
Speaker 0: If you wait, it's gonna be really too late to protect your child.
Speaker 2: If this was your child, what happens next could make it the worst day of your life.
Speaker 1: So even though COVID poses zero threat to healthy children
Speaker 0: Vaccinate your children.
Speaker 2: Do the right thing. Be safe and not sorry.
Speaker 0: I'm strongly recommending for adolescents to get their 2 doses of vaccine fully immunized after those two doses.
Speaker 2: Advanced technology that can help save lives.
Speaker 0: This is gonna be a long lasting vaccine. A long lasting vaccine.
Speaker 3: A few moments later.
Speaker 0: We're seeing that 2 doses is not holding up well for emergency room visits. It's not holding up well for hospitalizations.
Speaker 1: Here we go.
Speaker 0: Again. Everyone's going to need a booster. You need that 3rd immunization. Triple the amount. Get that 3rd immunization.
The 2 mRNA vaccines were always a 3 dose vaccine. The 2 mRNA vaccines were always a 3 dose vaccine. We've I've always said this is a 3 dose vaccine. We've I've always said this is a 3 dose vaccine. This is a 3 dose vaccine.
Speaker 2: But I'm not done yet.
Speaker 0: That third immunization, the problem is it's not holding up. So we may have to look at sort of innovative solutions.
Speaker 3: Oh god. Not this again.
Speaker 0: A 4th immunization Oh, boy. Just just to keep them to keep them going. Keep the country, going. We have to consider some out of the box things. A 4th immunization
Speaker 2: 4th A
Speaker 0: 4th immunization get that second boost. A second boost to keep the country, going. I've made that recommendation a 4th immunization.
Speaker 2: But I'm still not done.
Speaker 3: One semester later.
Speaker 0: Unfortunately, the numbers are starting to trend up again, so the hospitalizations are up. And so the most important message that I have this morning is get your new bivalent booster.
Speaker 4: Willie and Lee's were saying they got their booster, and I was like, oh, I need to get mine. And then I found out they they're talking about the 3rd shot. And is that the bivalent, or is it the 4th booster, or does it matter? Like
Speaker 0: Don't worry so much about the number of
Speaker 2: There's no wrong way to use it.
Speaker 0: You have to get it. This new bivalent booster
Speaker 2: You can double or triple stack them.
Speaker 0: The new bivalent one is is doing a much better job. You have to get a booster. Yeah. You need to get this new bivalent boost. That bivalent booster for COVID.
Speaker 5: But does everyone ages 12 and older need a booster?
Speaker 0: The answer is yes. Yes. And by the way, if you're over 50 and have gotten 2 boosters and more than 4 2 or 2 to 4 months out, you're gonna need a 3rd booster as well, a 5th immunization. 5th. I don't think we're gonna need an annual booster like flu.
Speaker 1: Eventually. Doctor Hotez supports yearly boosters just like flu.
Speaker 2: But I'm still not done.
Speaker 0: It looks as though the boosters are not holding up quite as well as we'd like. And and and I think our think thinking is going to change and that what's going to happen is every, you know, few months, we may need another booster.
Speaker 2: Uh-uh. Uh-uh. Perfect results each and every time.
Speaker 0: I know we just could not overcome that massive disinformation campaign. These fake concepts of herd immunity and discrediting masks.
Speaker 6: Well, doctor Hotez, but you are a national treasure.
Speaker 0: It is picking off young people like we've never seen. Doctor Peter Hotez, that was extremely informative. Disinformation that you're hearing that kids are fine, it's nonsense. Kids need to get that vaccination. You health care workers have been our saviors.
Watch out for that misinformation. Doctor Peter Hotez is probably one of the smartest people on this topic. And if you haven't gotten your 5 and ups vaccinated yet, now's the time to do that.
Speaker 4: Doctor Peter Hotez, thank you for saving the world.
Speaker 0: We also support giving that 3rd immunization for the 12 to 17 year old. People have to feel safe.
Speaker 4: Doctor Hotez, you are a voice of reason.
Speaker 0: Take down the fake information. These fake concepts of herd immunity. Our last hope is to vaccinate our way through this. Make certain that everybody's vaccinated, including their kids. That's the single most important thing right now the American people have to do.
Speaker 6: Doctor Peter Hotez, who's the person that we like to go to, for the sort of expertise.
Speaker 0: The single most impactful thing you can do is make certain that you're fully boosted and preferably too boosted.
Speaker 2: Later.
Speaker 4: Buckypox is a global emergency.
Speaker 0: And it's accelerating, among a specific social network of of men who have sex with men, not because it's sexually transmitted.
Speaker 1: Monkeypox is sexually transmitted, almost exclusively.
Speaker 5: Before we let you go, we have to stop and applaud you because I didn't a lot of MSNBC viewers who have watched you constantly for the last 3 years or so and and have come to trust you. I don't know if they fully appreciate what you have done.
@_APWK_ - Luiz
How hospitals murdered people during the plandemic: 1. They “tested” people. 2. Labeled them as “covid” 3. Sedated and intubated them. 4. Killed them. 5. Labeled death as “covid deaths.” 6. Celebrated with a dance routine. https://t.co/P9pbIBsY1x
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker expresses anger at the emptiness of a hospital in Gloucestershire during a supposed medical pandemic. They state the hospital is "empty as hell" and "absolutely dead," with "nobody even in there." The speaker questions how this is possible during a pandemic and claims it is "fake news."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is going to get worse. As you can see, it's empty as hell. No one's in there, guys. It's absolutely dead. Not many people are in there at all.
If it goes down, and there's there's a hospital. We've just been locked down in Gloucestershire for an empty hospital. Look. I am so angry. So there's nobody even in there?
Nobody's in there. Nobody's in the hospital? How is that possible, though, in a medical pandemic? That's fake news, though, by. That's fake news, though, by.
That's fake news, though, by.
@_APWK_ - Luiz
mRNA Vaxxers literally have toxic lipid nanoparticles in their ovaries and testicles. https://t.co/xz7WqhBtjJ
@_APWK_ - Luiz
I can’t believe people saw this and said “yea, give me two of those” https://t.co/jRQq84dWLY
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tiffany Doper, the manager in the CCU, states that her team is in the COVID unit. Therefore, her team will be getting the first chances to get the vaccine. She then states that she is feeling dizzy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Name is Tiffany Doper, and I am the manager in CCU. For my team, we are in the COVID unit. So, therefore, you know, my team will be getting first chances to get the vaccine. And I know that, it's really I'm sorry. I'm feeling really dizzy.
@_APWK_ - Luiz
Update from Alexis Lorenze’s father: Today has been “highly difficult” but she is getting through it. Pain is rough without medication. Never. Get. Vaccinated. https://t.co/rPazpmq5aC
reSee.it AI Summary
I injected myself with HIV-positive blood to challenge what I believe is a massive fraud in medicine. My aim is to expose the truth about HIV, similar to how Dr. Walter Reed demonstrated the truth about yellow fever. Despite the risks, I tested negative multiple times.
@_APWK_ - Luiz
Dr. Robert Willner injects himself with HIV. When asked why he would put his life on the line to make a point, Dr. Willner replied: "I do this to put a stop to the greatest murderous fraud in medical history. By injecting myself with HIV positive blood, I am proving the point as Dr. Walter Reed did to prove the truth about yellow fever. In this way it is my hope to expose the truth about HIV in the interest of all mankind." He tested negative multiple times.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker demonstrates using a butterfly needle set, typically used for blood draws and injections. He recounts a story of accidentally injecting himself with penicillin while trying to give his infant son a shot. He then wipes the needle in a blood sample, stating it is for the sake of humanity. He addresses Fauci, Gottlieb, Galpin, Gallo, and others, calling them criminals. He says this action is in the hope that it will save millions of lives from what he calls the greatest lie ever told. He acknowledges the action hurts.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's a heck of a time to lose my needle. There we go. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a typical butterfly needle set. If somebody has a scissor yeah, I got it.
Okay. It's sterile. And, usually, we use it to take blood by sticking this in, and then we can inject things also. So let's do that. We got this.
Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I gotta let me put my glasses on. Okay?
I think you'd rather I do that. I gotta tell you a cute little story. Shortly after my son was born many years ago, he's now 40, he got some kind of an infection or whatnot, and I spoke to the pediatrician at the hospital, I was an intern at the time, and he said, Go home and give him a shot of penicillin. So I took the syringe and everything home, and my wife held Bruce over her shoulder, and I grabbed his little bottom cheek, and I go like this, and I stuck it right into my thumb, so Careful. You can tell I don't like doing this.
Never have. Okay. Now we and we wanna get a lot of blood. There we go. Okay.
There we go. Now I'm wiping this needle thoroughly in this blood, And I say to my friends, Fauci, Gottlieb, and Galpin, and, Gallo and all the rest of those criminals, alright, that this is for the sake of humanity and no other reason. Oh, wow. Oh, thanks. And believe me, it hurts.
And this is in the hope that it'll save the lives of millions of individuals who will die because of the greatest lie ever told.
@_APWK_ - Luiz
Warning: If you choose to get vaccinated, you do so at your own risk, because no one is being held accountable. You've been warned. https://t.co/jwoLIXSaY9
Video Transcript AI Summary
Original Summary:
是我们的一个人的人的，都是不是我们的人的人，都是不是我们的人的人，都是我们的人的人，都是不是那时候的人，都是不是那个。
English Translation:
It is the people of one person of ours, are they not the people of us, are they not the people of us, are they the people of us, are they not the people of that time, are they not that one.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: 的 是 我 们 的 一 个 人 的 人 的 人 都 是 不 是 我 们 的 人 的 人 都 是 不 是 我 们 的 人 的 人 都 是 我 们 的 人 的 人 都 是 不 是 那 时 候 的 人 都 是 不 是 那 个
@_APWK_ - Luiz
People didn’t die of “covid.” People were murdered by hospital protocols. https://t.co/Phdy9MxSKJ
reSee.it AI Summary
I just saw the secret vaccine purchase agreement South Africa signed with Pfizer. It reveals unknown efficacy, adverse events, and long-term effects. It feels like leaders worldwide have treated citizens as lab rats in this whole plandemic, which I believe was a scam.
@_APWK_ - Luiz
BREAKING: The secret vaccine purchase agreement that South Africa signed with @Pfizer has been released. Unknown efficacy Unknown adverse events Unknown long term effects Leaders around the world recklessly turned their citizens into lab-rats by signing this garbage. The whole plandemic was a scam.
@_APWK_ - Luiz
Here’s a link to the full agreement between Pfizer and South Africa. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23941524-south-africa-pfizer-contract
South Africa-Pfizer Contract
documentcloud.org
@_APWK_ - Luiz
BREAKING: Now in the peer-reviewed literature: a 37% loss of life expectancy if you got a COVID shot. Will the FDA finally pull the mRNA injections?
@_APWK_ - Luiz
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/12/7/1343
A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province
Immortal time bias (ITB) is common in cohort studies and distorts the association estimates between the treated and untreated. We used data from an Italian study on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, with a large cohort, long follow-up, and adjustment for confounding factors, affected by ITB, with the aim to verify the real impact of the vaccination campaign by comparing the risk of all-cause death between the vaccinated population and the unvaccinated population. We aligned all subjects on a single index date and considered the “all-cause deaths” outcome to compare the survival distributions of the unvaccinated group versus various vaccination statuses. The all-cause-death hazard ratios in univariate analysis for vaccinated people with 1, 2, and 3/4 doses versus unvaccinated people were 0.88, 1.23, and 1.21, respectively. The multivariate values were 2.40, 1.98, and 0.99. Possible explanations of this trend of the hazard ratios as vaccinations increase could be a harvesting effect; a calendar-time bias, accounting for seasonality and pandemic waves; a case-counting window bias; a healthy-vaccinee bias; or some combination of these factors. With 2 and even with 3/4 doses, the calculated Restricted Mean Survival Time and Restricted Mean Time Lost have shown a small but significant downside for the vaccinated populations.
mdpi.com
@_APWK_ - Luiz
A gallery dedicated to vaccination victims has been put up in Vienna. https://t.co/dTzG7k4MDw
@_APWK_ - Luiz
Vaccines are not tested against placebos because the harms would be too obvious. They are tested against other harmful vaccines. Testing against a placebo would show how harmful and ineffective ALL vaccines are. https://t.co/9RbSaTq8GJ
@_APWK_ - Luiz
How can anyone trust vaccists after watching this? https://t.co/3mMPm7LJM5
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video emphasizes the importance of COVID-19 vaccination, including the need for boosters. It discusses the potential need for multiple booster shots in the future. Doctor Hotez is praised for his expertise and efforts to combat misinformation. Monkeypox is highlighted as a growing concern among a specific social network. The importance of vaccination, especially for children, is reiterated throughout the video. The overall message is to prioritize vaccination to combat the spread of COVID-19 and other diseases.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: One of the things that we're not hearing a lot about is the unique potential safety problem of coronavirus vaccines. And then something changed. Any vaccine released by emergency use authorization by the FDA is an outstanding, vaccine.
Speaker 1: J and j's vaccine has a risk of life threatening blood clots.
Speaker 2: When you hear the beep, that's the sound of safety.
Speaker 0: So don't overthink it. They're they're both really good vac they're all really good vaccines. Get vaccinated now.
Speaker 2: I've gotta call now.
Speaker 0: If you wait, it's gonna be really too late to protect your child.
Speaker 2: If this was your child, what happens next could make it the worst day of your life.
Speaker 1: So even though COVID poses zero threat to healthy children
Speaker 0: Vaccinate your children.
Speaker 2: Do the right thing. Be safe and not sorry.
Speaker 0: I'm strongly recommending for adolescents to get their 2 doses of vaccine fully immunized after those 2 doses.
Speaker 2: Advanced technology that can help save lives.
Speaker 0: This is gonna be a long lasting vaccine. A long lasting vaccine. A few moments later. We're seeing that 2 doses is not holding up well for emergency room visits. It's not holding up well for hospitalizations.
Speaker 2: Here we go.
Speaker 0: Again. Everyone's going to need a booster. You need that 3rd immunization. Triple Triple the amount. Get that 3rd immunization.
Get 2 mRNA vaccines. We're always a 3 dose vaccine. The 2 mRNA vaccines were always a 3 dose vaccine. We've I've always said this is a 3 dose vaccine. You've I've always said this is a 3 dose vaccine.
This is a 3 dose vaccine.
Speaker 2: But I'm not done yet.
Speaker 0: That third immunization, The problem is it's not holding up. So we may have to look at sort of innovative solutions. Oh god. Not this again. A 4th immunization Oh, boy.
Just just to keep them to keep them going. Keep the country, going. We have to consider some out of the box things. A 4th immunization 4. A 4th immunization.
Get that second boost. A second boost. Just keep the country, going. I've made that recommendation, a 4th immunization.
Speaker 2: But I'm still not done.
Speaker 0: Unfortunately, the numbers are starting to trend up again, so the hospitalizations are up. And so the most important message that I have this morning is get your new bivalent booster.
Speaker 3: Oh, Willie and Lee's were saying they got their booster, and I was like, oh, I need to get mine. And then I found out they they're talking about the 3rd shot. And is that the bivalent, or is it the 4th booster? Or does it matter?
Speaker 0: Like Don't worry so much about the number of
Speaker 2: There's no wrong way to use it.
Speaker 0: You have to get it. This new bivalent booster
Speaker 2: You can double or triple stack them.
Speaker 0: The new bivalent one is is doing a much better job. You have to get a booster. Yeah. You need to get this new bivalent boost. That bivalent booster for COVID.
Speaker 4: But does everyone ages 12 and older need a booster?
Speaker 0: The answer is yes. Yes. And by the way, if you're over 50 and have gotten 2 boosters and more than 4 2 or 2 to 4 months out, you're gonna need a 3rd booster as well, a 5th immunization. 5. I don't think we're gonna need an annual booster like flu.
Speaker 2: Eventually.
Speaker 1: Doctor Hotez supports yearly boosters just like flu.
Speaker 2: But I'm still not done.
Speaker 0: It looks as though the boosters are not holding up quite as well as we'd like. And and and I think our think thinking is going to change and that what's going to happen is every, you know, few months, we may need another booster. Uh-uh. Uh-uh.
Speaker 2: Perfect Perfect results each and every time.
Speaker 0: You know, we just could not overcome that massive disinformation campaign. These fake concepts of herd immunity and discrediting masks. Doctor Hotez, but you are a national treasure. It is picking off young people like we've never seen. Doctor Peter Hotez, that was extremely informative.
Disinformation that you're hearing, that kids are fine, it's nonsense. Kids need to get that vaccination. You health care workers have been our saviors. Watch out for that misinformation. Doctor Peter Hotez is probably one of the smartest people on this topic.
If you haven't gotten your 5 and ups vaccinated yet, now is the time to do that.
Speaker 3: Doctor Peter Hotez, thank you for saving the world.
Speaker 0: We also support giving that 3rd immunization for the 12 to 17 year olds. People have to feel safe. Doctor Hotez, you are a voice of reason. Take down the fake information. These fake concepts of herd immunity.
Our last hope is to vaccinate our way through this. Make certain that everybody's vaccinated, including their kids. That's the single most important thing right now the American people have to do. Doctor Peter Hotez, you're the person that we like to go to, for the sort of expertise. Single most impactful thing you can do is make certain that you're fully boosted and preferably too boosted.
Later. Buckypox is a global emergency. And it's accelerating among a specific social network of of men who have sex with men, not because it's sexually transmitted.
Speaker 1: Monkeypox is sexually transmitted, almost exclusively.
Speaker 4: Before we let you go, we have to stop and applaud you because I didn't a lot of MSNBC viewers who have watched you constantly for the last 3 years or so and and have come to trust you. I don't
Speaker 5: know if they fully appreciate what you have done.
@_APWK_ - Luiz
Perfect example of how most people behaved during the plandemic. He posted by the door with a lint roller and no one questioned a thing 🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️ https://t.co/1leAdP3EIK
@_APWK_ - Luiz
Is polio caused by toxins such as the now banned pesticide DDT or a virus? https://t.co/4FQwLlDAm6
@_APWK_ - Luiz
video credit to @forrestmaready
@_APWK_ - Luiz
🚨BREAKING: X just banned the son of WEF co-founder Hussain Najadi for calling for the arrests of Bill Gates, WHO leadership, the WEF, Klaus Schwab, Big Tech and Pfizer. He says he and his mother are now dying from the vaccine, which he calls “poison”. https://t.co/sNLL7IlnEI
Video Transcript AI Summary
Geneva is a beautiful city with a dark side. The World Health Organization (WHO), Gavi, and the World Economic Forum (WEF) are all based there. The speaker calls for the arrest of these organizations, claiming they promote poison and are responsible for injecting nanolepeds into billions of people. Another speaker criticizes the UN and the immunity given to WHO and Gavi by the Swiss government. They believe this is a global crime scene and are trying to raise awareness. Both speakers emphasize the importance of building a global movement to protect the people. They call for Swiss neutrality to be restored and for the masses to stand up against the injected poison.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Geneva looks beautiful. It's beautiful. It has a lake. It has its shadow. It's very peaceful, but there's a dark side to it.
Everything evil in the world related to Demond Saif, unfortunately, comes from Geneva. You have WHO in Geneva. You have Gavi, then you have the WEF, the World Economic Forum, which my father was a cofounder and left Klaus Schwab out of disgust in the early eighties that has diplomatic immunity. I, as a Swiss citizen, right here now, Declare that the Vef is not eligible anymore for diplomatic immunity. I call on the Swiss authorities and security to arrest those people immediately.
Why? The WEF, WHO, Garvey, Big Pharma, Big Tech, Bill Gates, all advocated a global humanity injection by a bioweapon injecting Nanolepeds into 5,700,000,000 people, and we Swiss are hosting them. That's terrible. We cannot tolerate any entity that promotes poison to be injected into humanity, but you have done it. I'm the victim.
I'm dying from it. And my mother too. It's a demo site, and you'll be judged. It will be corrected in the name of humanity.
Speaker 1: Maybe there is a Geneva Swiss syndrome, but definitely, there is a a UN syndrome because people are so afraid of what's going on because the United Nation is occupied that people in there don't understand. Those who understand keep quiet Or try to speak in different ways to help people to wake up. So if you understand that, you know that this was very easy To carve a world government. If you don't have a force that stops that and says, we the people is more important, And that's what we're doing now. We're trying to build a We The People movement that is very global, something completely different, But what is going on in Geneva is is the opposite at the moment.
There is no right to WHO to give any orders to dictate to the whole world like they And the Global Alliance For Vaccine Immunization, Gavi, got total immunity from The Swiss government, you can find this, admin. Lex in the Swiss database. Go and look. This is a coup d'etat, clearly. It's a global crime scene, and we are bringing little pieces of evidence to people with humility because in science, you always have a doubt.
It's a it's a healthy doubt, and I think that is a very important attitude.
Speaker 0: I believe personally, Geneva has a better future. Swiss neutrality has to be restored. We have no future not being neutral. The young people who survive through this We'll be the guarantors, hopefully, that such institutions can never again take foothold in our blessed country. Never again.
The snakehead is in Geneva. I call it a direct, clear, and present danger to the Swiss population, but I can tell you it is being cut off. If you have a house of cards, and this is a house of cards of a criminal. One card pulled by justice and the whole card house collapses. But from hope alone, it is not done.
Everybody must now change the spirits. And all the vaccinated, the injected knowing that they are poison. We are the masses. We are billions of people. Let's just stand up and say, Stop.
We will not comply. And in French, nie oublis nie pardon because we are the guardians of humanity and our light obliterates The darkness of evil, always.
@_APWK_ - Luiz
What really killed people during the plandemic: Mass intubations killing 90% of people. Remdesevir destroying peoples organs. Lockdowns & Isolation resulting in: Suicides Overdoses Domestic violence Perpetual fear and stress Masks inhibiting natural breathing Zero holistic care
reSee.it AI Summary
Pfizer warns of reactions after Comirnaty COVID vaccine, including breathing issues, myocarditis, and pericarditis. Protection is not guaranteed. COVID cases rise ahead of 2024 election. Bivalent vaccines offer improved defense against symptomatic and severe disease. Severe allergic reactions possible, especially within an hour. Monitor for chest pain, shortness of breath, and heart irregularities. Males aged 12-17 face highest risk of myocarditis. Fainting can occur. Weakened immune systems may have reduced response. Vaccine may not protect all recipients. Stay informed.
@_APWK_ - Luiz
Pfizer posting warnings now on the upcoming Comirnaty batch of COVID Vaccines. Saying after shot you will be required to stay at location for observation of possible reactions. Some of these reactions listed include Not Breathing Myocarditis Pericarditis to name a few... Also they state plainly the vaccine "can" (not will) provide improved protection...what's that mean like a lil better than 0? C'mon this is ridiculous. Don't forget COVID cases are rising just in time for election year 2024 and mail in ballots. Pfizer Press bivalent COVID-19 vaccines provide some protection COVID-19,2,3 evidence suggests that vaccines better matched to currently circulating strains can offer improved protection against symptomatic and severe disease. IMPORTANT SAFETY COMIRNATY could cause a severe allergic reaction. A severe allergic reaction would usually occur within a few minutes to 1 hour after getting a dose of the vaccine. For this reason, your vaccination provider may ask you to stay at the place where you received the vaccine for monitoring after vaccination. Signs of a severe allergic reaction can include: difficulty breathing, swelling of the face and throat, a fast heartbeat, a bad rash all over the body, dizziness and weakness Authorized or approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccines show increased risks of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the lining outside the heart), particularly within the first week following vaccination. For COMIRNATY, the observed risk is highest in males 12 through 17 years of age. Seek medical attention right away if you have any of the following symptoms after receiving the vaccine, particularly during the 2 weeks after receiving a dose of the vaccine: chest pain shortness of breath feelings of having a fast-beating, fluttering, or pounding heart Additional symptoms, particularly in children, may include: Fainting Unusual and persistent fatigue or lack of energy Persistent vomiting Persistent pain in the abdomen Unusual and persistent cool, pale skin Fainting can happen after getting injectable vaccines including COMIRNATY. Your vaccination provider may ask you to sit or lie down for 15 minutes after receiving the vaccine People with weakened immune systems may have a reduced immune response to COMIRNATY COMIRNATY may not protect all vaccine recipients.
@_APWK_ - Luiz
New study shows masks expose the wearer to high levels of toxic volatile chemicals created during the mask's manufacturing process. So, now it’s proven masks provide no benefits, hinders breathing and communication and pose a health risk by increasing volatile toxin exposures.
reSee.it AI Summary
Florida lawmakers plan to classify mRNA Covid vaccines as bioweapons, seeking to ban their administration in the state. The Brevard Republican Executive Committee urges Gov Ron DeSantis to sign the legislation, citing claims of vaccine-related deaths and disabilities. The resolution calls for a ban on vaccine sale and distribution, seizure of remaining doses for safety testing, and mandatory disclosures on mRNA or gene-altering products in the state.
@_APWK_ - Luiz
BREAKING: Florida To Officially Classify mRNA COVID Shots As Illegal ‘Bio-Weapons’ Lawmakers in Florida have announced plans to officially designate mRNA Covid vaccines as “bio-weapons” that are hazardous to human health. The proposed law seeks to BAN the administration of mRNA shots to anybody in the state. The Brevard Republican Executive Committee has urged Gov. Ron DeSantis to sign the legislation, which will outlaw Covid-19 vaccines, as soon as possible. The non-binding resolution was passed by a supermajority vote of committee membership Thursday. It now goes to DeSantis to sign. http://Floridatoday.com reports: A draft version of the resolution reviewed by reporters closely mirrors one passed by the Lee County Republican Party in February, drawing national headlines. “Strong and credible evidence has recently been revealed that Covid-19 and Covid-19 injections are biological and technological weapons,” the Brevard draft resolution says, citing claims that have been disproven and disputed by respected medical groups. “An enormous number of humans have died or been permanently disabled” by the vaccine, it says. “Government agencies, media and tech companies, and other corporations, have committed enormous fraud by claiming Covid-19 injections are safe and effective.” It calls on DeSantis to ban sale and distribution of the vaccine “and all related vaccines,” and for Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody to seize all remaining doses in the state for safety testing, “on behalf of the preservation of the human race,” it says. It also calls for mandatory disclosures on any product in the state “using mRNA or gene altering or therapeutic technology.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Republican party leaders in Brevard County, Florida are planning to call on state leaders to ban mRNA-based COVID vaccines, claiming they are biological weapons. They believe that government agencies, media, tech companies, and other corporations have committed fraud by promoting the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines. The leaders are preparing a letter to be sent to Tallahassee, coinciding with a grand jury investigation into the vaccines. If the ban is approved, no one in Florida would be allowed to receive the vaccines. Meanwhile, the federal government has urged drug companies to make the vaccines more affordable and accessible. The vote on the ban is expected to pass, as there is significant support for it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Vaccine turns out it's back in the news.
Speaker 1: Republican party leaders on the Space Coast are minutes away from officially calling on the governor and other state leaders to ban mRNA based COVID vaccines immediately. IT chief investigator Mike Magnolia has more on what exactly is going on. Mike.
Speaker 0: Good Good evening, everybody. Well, in their own words, the leaders of Brevard County's GOP say that they believe the vaccines are a biological weapon. As you say, this is the executive committee of the party in Brevard. They haven't hit send on this letter yet, but that vote coming up 630 and I'm told it's very likely going to pass. If it does, they're asking state leadership to make it illegal to give or to take mRNA vaccines in Florida.
In this 4 page letter, complete with footnotes, Brevard County Republicans cite sources Which led them to a stunning conclusion. Here it is in their own words. Government agencies, media and tech companies, And other corporations have committed enormous fraud by claiming COVID nineteen injections are safe and effective. Strong and credible evidence has recently been revealed that COVID nineteen and COVID nineteen injections are biological and technological weapons. If approved, this letter will be sent to Tallahassee at a time when a grand jury requested by governor DeSantis Is investigating those very same vaccines.
That grand jury's job is to determine whether pharmaceutical giants Who brought the mRNA vaccines to market broke any laws and should face charges. It's already illegal to require anyone to get the COVID vaccine in Florida, but if state leaders go along with Brevard's request, no one in Florida would be allowed to get those vaccines. Today, the federal government sent a very different letter to drug companies calling on them to make the COVID vaccines cheaper and more accessible, Anticipating an increase in demand come flu season. The Brevard County Republicans gathering right now. That vote is expected sometime during the 6 o'clock hour, but I can tell you there is major support for this going forward.
@_APWK_ - Luiz
15,891,821 “covid” sequences submitted. This is what happens when a computer spitting out random codes that aren’t real. This is why the PCR doesn’t test for anything, resulting in 80% of people testing “positive” not even being sick. This also gives them endless fabricated “variants.”
