TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @TheChiefNerd
reSee.it AI Summary
I was approached by the U.S. government for off-the-record meetings. They want to hook my influence into whatever they're after. There are elements in popular music where people have been compromised, and I know the game because I've lived it.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
🚨 NEW: Smashing Pumpkins’ Billy Corgan Says He Was Approached by the U.S. Government For ‘Off the Record Meetings’ “They somehow want to hook my influence … into whatever they're after … There are elements in popular music where people have been compromised … I know the game because I've lived it.”
reSee.it AI Summary
I say Mike Pompeo pressed Trump to keep the JFK files secret, and I call Pompeo sinister and criminal, claiming he intimidated Trump into not releasing them. I’m baffled that Pompeo is treated as a Republican poobah in good standing and even seen as a future Secretary of Defense, which I view as insane for someone I call a criminal to wield nuclear weapons. @joerogan @TuckerCarlson @RobertKennedyJr
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
🚩 Tucker Carlson Goes Off on Mike Pompeo, Says He Intimidated Trump to Not Release the JFK Files "Mike Pompeo is the one who pressed Trump to keep those documents secret. What's crazy to me is not just that Pompeo did that. I think Pompeo is a really sinister person and a criminal...But he somehow intimidated Trump into not releasing this. I think it's criminal behavior. What's crazy is how Mike Pompeo is treated. He's treated as, like a Republican poobah in good standing. He fully expects to become the Secretary of Defense in a Trump Administration, which is like, completely insane. Why would you take a criminal and give him nuclear weapons?" @joerogan @TuckerCarlson @RobertKennedyJr
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: Did you hear Trump's take on the JFK assassination, why he didn't release the files? Yeah. I know what Trump's take is. He said that if you knew what I know, you wouldn't tell people either, which is crazy. Well, and What does that mean? That's his position on the UAP thing as well Yeah. Actually. And that's a lot of people's position on it. I mean, you know, Trump is saying, of course, the CIA had knowledge of it. That is known. I mean, I mean, the whole it sounds like it's so funny. There's so many levels and there's so much I don't understand. But the whole JFK conspiracy industry, and it really is an industry, more books written on that than almost any historical topic, is is filled with wackos. Right? There are a lot of wackos in there. But it obscures that fact obscures the larger fact which is the facts themselves tell an unbelievable story. Yeah. And so whatever. I could get into it at great length. But yeah. Yeah. They're they're still classifying documents sixty one years later. Both Trump and Joe Biden have, in violation of my read of federal law, kept those documents secret. There's no living person connected to the Kennedy assassination. It was a couple generations ago. There's no one person whose whose secrets are being protected. It's an institution or maybe countries. There may have been countries involved too. I mean, don't know the answer, but there's clearly something worth protecting. And I know that when I I spoke to someone who'd seen the documents, okay, two years ago and I got I got one fact out of him, which is, yes, the CIA was involved. And by CIA, CIA is a huge organization, but James Jesus Angleton, the head of the operations directorate, had knowledge of this, which I think is well known. But that that's the view of someone who saw the documents. So I thought that was news, so I went on TV and said that. The next day, I'll never forget it, I went quail hunting, and I was driving back and I got a phone call from Mike Pompeo's lawyer. Mike Pompeo was the Secretary of State, but before then he was the Director of the CIA. And in that position, he plotted the murder of Julian Assange, so he is a criminal as far as I'm concerned. But his lawyer called me and said, you know, you should know that anyone who tells you the contents of classified documents has committed a crime. He's threatening me. It's in my car. I'll never with my dog sitting next to me. I'll never forget this. And I said, are you really saying that to reveal that the US government had a role in the murder of a democratically elected president to say that out loud, that's the crime? What about the actual crime which is murdering a president? Like, you're covering up for that, Mike Pompeo. He had no no response at all. And so Mike Pompeo is the one who pressed Trump to keep those documents secret. And so it's like, what's crazy to me is not just that Pompeo did that. I think Pompeo was a really sinister person and a and a criminal. I think that. I think that because the facts suggest that. He was caught. Yahoo News, Mike Issachoff wrote a long piece on this several years ago. His employees went to Mike Issachoff and said, hey. Mike Pompeo was plotting to murder Julian Assange who's never even been charged with a crime in The United States as CIA director. That's illegal. You're not allowed federal employees are not allowed to just kill people they don't like. Okay? Just to set the baseline here. So that's who Mike Pompeo is, but he somehow intimidated Trump into not releasing this. Well, okay. That's all bad. Right? I think it's criminal behavior. What's crazy is how Mike Pompeo is treated. He's treated as like a republican pooh bah in good standing. He fully expects to become the secretary of defense in a Trump administration, which is like completely insane. Why would you get criminal and give him nuclear weapons? Okay. That's my view. I think it's a common sense view. And like he goes to fundraisers and dinners and everyone's like, hey, Mike Pompeo. It's like, no. You're the guy who kept information the public has right to know secret. You're the guy who plotted the murder of someone who committed no crime. You are the outlaw. You are the bad guy. But no. He's treated as like, you know, like a pillar of republican Washington. I think that's I think it's mind bending to watch that.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Did you hear Trump's take on the JFK assassination, why he didn't release the files? Yeah. I know what Trump's take is. He said that if you knew what I know, you wouldn't tell people either, which is crazy. Well, and What does that mean?
That's his position on the UAP thing as well Yeah. Actually. And that's a lot of people's position on it. I mean, you know, Trump is saying, of course, the CIA had knowledge of it. That is known.
I mean, I mean, the whole it sounds like it's so funny. There's so many levels and there's so much I don't understand. But the whole JFK conspiracy industry, and it really is an industry, more books written on that than almost any historical topic, is is filled with wackos. Right? There are a lot of wackos in there.
But it obscures that fact obscures the larger fact which is the facts themselves tell an unbelievable story. Yeah. And so whatever. I could get into it at great length. But yeah.
Yeah. They're they're still classifying documents sixty one years later. Both Trump and Joe Biden have, in violation of my read of federal law, kept those documents secret. There's no living person connected to the Kennedy assassination. It was a couple generations ago.
There's no one person whose whose secrets are being protected. It's an institution or maybe countries. There may have been countries involved too. I mean, don't know the answer, but there's clearly something worth protecting. And I know that when I I spoke to someone who'd seen the documents, okay, two years ago and I got I got one fact out of him, which is, yes, the CIA was involved.
And by CIA, CIA is a huge organization, but James Jesus Angleton, the head of the operations directorate, had knowledge of this, which I think is well known. But that that's the view of someone who saw the documents. So I thought that was news, so I went on TV and said that. The next day, I'll never forget it, I went quail hunting, and I was driving back and I got a phone call from Mike Pompeo's lawyer. Mike Pompeo was the Secretary of State, but before then he was the Director of the CIA.
And in that position, he plotted the murder of Julian Assange, so he is a criminal as far as I'm concerned. But his lawyer called me and said, you know, you should know that anyone who tells you the contents of classified documents has committed a crime. He's threatening me. It's in my car. I'll never with my dog sitting next to me.
I'll never forget this. And I said, are you really saying that to reveal that the US government had a role in the murder of a democratically elected president to say that out loud, that's the crime? What about the actual crime which is murdering a president? Like, you're covering up for that, Mike Pompeo. He had no no response at all.
And so Mike Pompeo is the one who pressed Trump to keep those documents secret. And so it's like, what's crazy to me is not just that Pompeo did that. I think Pompeo was a really sinister person and a and a criminal. I think that. I think that because the facts suggest that.
He was caught. Yahoo News, Mike Issachoff wrote a long piece on this several years ago. His employees went to Mike Issachoff and said, hey. Mike Pompeo was plotting to murder Julian Assange who's never even been charged with a crime in The United States as CIA director. That's illegal.
You're not allowed federal employees are not allowed to just kill people they don't like. Okay? Just to set the baseline here. So that's who Mike Pompeo is, but he somehow intimidated Trump into not releasing this. Well, okay.
That's all bad. Right? I think it's criminal behavior. What's crazy is how Mike Pompeo is treated. He's treated as like a republican pooh bah in good standing.
He fully expects to become the secretary of defense in a Trump administration, which is like completely insane. Why would you get criminal and give him nuclear weapons? Okay. That's my view. I think it's a common sense view.
And like he goes to fundraisers and dinners and everyone's like, hey, Mike Pompeo. It's like, no. You're the guy who kept information the public has right to know secret. You're the guy who plotted the murder of someone who committed no crime. You are the outlaw.
You are the bad guy. But no. He's treated as like, you know, like a pillar of republican Washington. I think that's I think it's mind bending to watch that.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
🚨 Wikipedia Co-Founder Larry Sanger Reveals How Anonymous For-Hire Editors Shape the Narrative on the Platform “They can libel people with impunity … and there is no legal recourse” https://t.co/wNKOcrIBpM
Video Transcript AI Summary
"There is a reliable sources group essentially that debates it." "There are PR firms, just for example, that do nothing but edit articles on Wikipedia in order to be able to insert desired factoids according to how people pay them, essentially." "It's called paid editing." "There are 833 administrators as they're called." "16 bureaucrats who can name the cops." "Only nine, fourteen point five percent are named." "85% of the most powerful accounts on Wikipedia on the editorial side are anonymous." "They can libel people with impunity as they do you." "There is no legal recourse because they are anonymous." "The Wikimedia Foundation enjoys section two thirty immunity, which means it can't be sued in The United States."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Who makes the decision on the blacklist?
Speaker 1: So there is a reliable sources group essentially that debates it. Now there are people who spend the most time probably are working full time for somebody on Wikipedia. They build up a lot of clout.
Speaker 0: What does that mean working full time for somebody on Wikipedia?
Speaker 1: Well, there are PR firms, just for example, that do nothing but edit articles on Wikipedia in order to be able to insert desired factoids according to how people pay them, essentially. So it's a thing. Oh, yes. Wikipedia PR firms, essentially. And this is not allowed officially.
It's called paid editing. Big no no. And if you do do it, then you have to announce yourself. A lot of people do it, they don't announce themselves, of course. So my point then, to answer your question, is that there are a lot of people who have built up clout over the years in the Wikipedia system, and a lot of them have been made into the leaders of the project.
There are 833 administrators as they're called. So these are sort of the rank and file cops. Mhmm. Then you've got 16 bureaucrats who can name the cops. And you've got 49 Czech users, and these are accounts that can identify the IP address of accounts.
And then there are 15 members of an arbitration committee, which is sort of like the Supreme Court of Wikipedia, deals mostly with behavioral issues as opposed to editorial. So now here's an interesting Do
Speaker 0: we know who these people are?
Speaker 1: That's what I was about to answer. Of this this power 62, because if you add up all of those accounts and there's overlap, there's 62 such accounts. Only nine, fourteen point five percent are named. So 85% of the most powerful accounts on Wikipedia on the editorial side are anonymous.
Speaker 0: Wait a second.
Speaker 1: No, it's true.
Speaker 0: So again, these are the people who are shaping Americans understanding of the world of their own country of themselves, of reality itself. And we don't know who they are because their identities are hidden.
Speaker 1: That's correct. Yes. They can libel people with impunity as they do you. And there is no legal recourse because they are anonymous. And and the Wikimedia Foundation enjoys section two thirty immunity, which means it can't be sued in The United States.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
ROGAN: “They said that [Tyler Robinson] took it apart and then put it back together again. Shut the f**k up. Do you know how much time it would take … to disassemble a rifle so that you can get it in a backpack? And by the way, it’s not going to fit.” https://t.co/0V9Cp1U2Wz
Video Transcript AI Summary
"They said that he took it apart and then put it back together again."
"To disassemble a rifle so that you can get it in a backpack."
"Not gonna fit in a backpack."
"And then somehow or another reconnects it once he gets off the roof? What? I don't I don't buy the assembly reassembly."
"They said he had a screwdriver up there."
"A screwdriver?"
"You need more than a screwdriver. You need multiple tools. Okay? You need Allen wrenches."
"It's complicated."
"Let me see. What's the fastest amount of time you can do that?"
"This Mauser is the same exact gun that supposedly this dude had in his grandpa had in World War one."
"This guy breaks down this Mauser and here it goes."
"This guy knows what the fuck he's doing."
"Adrenaline throughout his bloodstream."
"This story is horseshit."
"You don't have a drone?"
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: They said that he took it apart and then put it back together again. Shut the fuck up. Do you know how much time it would take to do that if you were highly skilled?
Speaker 1: To disassemble a gun.
Speaker 0: To disassemble a rifle so that you can get it in a backpack. And by the way, not gonna fit.
Speaker 1: Not gonna fit in a backpack.
Speaker 0: And then somehow or another reconnects it once he gets off the roof? What? I don't I don't buy the assembly reassembly. I do not buy that. They said he had a screwdriver up there.
Fuck yourself.
Speaker 1: A screwdriver?
Speaker 0: You need more than a screwdriver. You need multiple tools. Okay? You need Allen wrenches. You need, like, specific gunsmith tools.
It's complicated. Oh, I've got a video. I've got a video of a guy breaking down a Mauser, and so this Mauser is the same exact gun that supposedly this dude had in his grandpa had in World War one. So this guy breaks down this Mauser and here it goes.
Speaker 1: Let me see. What's the fastest amount of time you can do that?
Speaker 0: Many seconds. This guy's very good. Very good. So this this guy who's doing it has clearly got military experience or gun experience. I don't I don't remember, but we'll we'll see when we watch the video.
But this guy knows what the fuck he's doing, and it would take me a lot longer than it took him.
Speaker 1: And that kid, it would take up forever.
Speaker 0: Unless this kid has secretly been training like John Wick for the past six months. Unless Yeah. So watch this guy break this down.
Speaker 1: It takes two different tools to take it apart. It takes a Torx key and an Allen key. Now if I take a shot and immediately disassemble this, I have to remove the bolt, remove the magazine, grab my Allen key, hit the two bolts on the bottom, put those away in the Allen key, grab my Torx key, remove the scope, put everything in the backpack, make sure I have everything, and make my way downtown. K? Which is gonna take a lot longer for him than it is for me, especially because his fine tuned motor function, something as simple as grabbing an Allen key to a little bolt is gonna be extremely impaired due to a dump of adrenaline throughout his bloodstream.
An extreme elevated heart rate is gonna make these fine tuned skills extremely difficult. I mean, just for him to think and analyze of what needs to be done to disassemble this rifle and get away would be difficult. We're not even gonna touch the topic of him assembling the rifle on top of the groove.
Speaker 0: So the people that are listening to this, just listening, he is at thirty eight seconds right now, and all he's got, he's got the barrel away from the stock. He's removing the scope from the barrel, and he's only right now, he's forty seven seconds, and he's struggling, and he's totally calm. Yeah. And he didn't just shoot a guy. Right.
And and then he's supposed to get it in that stupid fucking backpack. It's literally, it makes no sense.
Speaker 1: And the elevator music was a nice touch, by the way. Yeah. Wasn't it?
Speaker 0: So this is this is just a narrative. Right? We watch a guy jump off the roof, and then we we supposedly find this rifle. So if you can have a guy that's in the audience that's yelling, I shot him, now shoot me. I shot him, now shoot me.
And then that guy gets arrested for child porn charges, like he's like, what is what is going on here? And then you find this rifle and then you say, oh, he assembled it and he reassembled it like, okay. I'll lie if I wish I was a cop. I'd sit in a room like, this story is horseshit. Like, none of these none of these things make any sense to me.
Like, you're telling me that this kid who's not military trained, this guy first of all, how did he get to the roof? How come nobody was looking? How come nobody was like there's a direct line of sight between where he's sitting and those roofs. You guys didn't check? You don't have a drone?
Like, that's insane. So he's on the roof. He shoots. He jumps from the roof. He jumps down 14 feet.
Speaker 1: Yeah. We saw they had didn't they have video of him jump? Somebody had a cell phone video of him jumping.
Speaker 0: There's a video of him jumping. So this guy, whoever it is, jumps off of the roof and lands whether or not he's even the guy who shot him. Maybe he thought he was gonna shoot him. Maybe he's a patsy. Maybe he did it.
Speaker 1: I feel like he's a plant. Did you see the video? Did you see that the person
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
TRUMP: “We have already taken out and are in the process of taking out mercury and aluminum … You know what aluminum is? Who the hell wants that pumped into a body? … We're having them taken out of the vaccines.” https://t.co/Gzhy0eYhNM
Video Transcript AI Summary
We've already taken out and are in the process of taking out mercury and aluminum now. You know what mercury is? You know what aluminum is? Who the hell wants that pumped into a body? And there were rumors about both of them for a long time, but, we're having them taken out.
We're having them taken out of the vaccines.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We've already taken out and are in the process of taking out mercury and aluminum now. You know what mercury is? You know what aluminum is? Who the hell wants that pumped into a body? And there were rumors about both of them for a long time, but, we're having them taken out.
We're having them taken out of the vaccines.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
🚨 TUCKER: “You hope that a year from now the turmoil we're seeing in the aftermath of [Charlie Kirk’s] murder won't be leveraged to bring hate speech laws to this country … If that does happen, there is never a more justified moment for civil disobedience than that, ever.” https://t.co/XFCBEtPSbB
Video Transcript AI Summary
"there is never a more justified moment for civil disobedience than that ever, and there never will be." "Because if they can tell you what to say, they're telling you what to think, there is nothing they can't do to you because they don't consider you human." "Hate speech, of course, is any speech that the people in power hate, but they don't define it that way." "Any attempt to do that is a denial of the humanity of American citizens and cannot be allowed under any circumstances." "That's got to be the red line." "Because, again, when they can do that, what can't they do?"
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hope that Charlie Kirk's death won't be used by a group we now call bad actors to create a society that was the opposite of the one he worked to build. You hope that. You hope that a year from now, the turmoil we're seeing in the aftermath of his murder won't be leveraged to bring hate speech laws to this country. And trust me, if it is, if that does happen, there is never a more justified moment for civil disobedience than that ever, and there never will be. Because if they can tell you what to say, they're telling you what to think, there is nothing they can't do to you because they don't consider you human.
They don't believe you have a soul. A human being with a soul, a free man, has a right to say what he believes. Not to hurt other people, but to express his views. And by the way, that thinking, and not to pile on the attorney general who's a very nice person, but that thinking that she just articulated on camera there is exactly what got us to a place where some huge and horrifying percentage of young people think it's okay to shoot people you disagree with to kill Nazis for saying things they don't like why do they believe that how did we get here is it the video games. Is it the SSRIs yet probably but what it really is.
Is twelve and then sixteen years of indoctrination in our schools at the hands of people who tell them that, who say exactly what the attorney general just said. Well, there's free speech, of course we all acknowledge is important, so so important. But then there's this thing called hate speech. Hate speech, of course, is any speech that the people in power hate, but they don't define it that way. They define it as speech that hurts people, speech that is tantamount to violence.
And we punish violence, don't we? Of course we do. They've been taught that every year of their lives. And so naturally, most of them believe it. When Charlie Kirk is shot in the throat with a 30 out six on camera, I doubt very many young Americans wanna see something like that or actually applaud the death of a man, a father, a husband.
But they've been told for their entire lives in schools exactly what Pam Bondi just told them. Well, there's free speech, but then there's also hate speech and woe to those who engage in it because it's a crime. That's a lie. And it's a lie that denies the humanity of the people you're telling it about. And so any attempt to impose hate speech laws in this country, and trust me, there are a lot of people who would like them.
There are a lot of people who'd like to codify their own beliefs by punishing those under The US code who disagree with their beliefs. Any attempt to do that is a denial of the humanity of American citizens and cannot be allowed under any circumstances. That's got to be the red line. Because, again, when they can do that, what can't they do?
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
BLUMENTHAL: “Mr. Siri, you're not a medical doctor are you?” SIRI: “No but I depose them regularly, including the world's leading ones with regards to vaccines, and I have to make my claims based on actual evidence when I go to court. I don't get to rely on titles.” Mic drop 🎤 https://t.co/Yuv046liTG
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mister Siri, we've been talking about medical issues. You're you're not a medical doctor, are you?
No, sir.
And you're not an immuno immunologist or biologist or any kind of
Or vaccinologist. No. But I depose them regularly including the world's leading ones with regards to vaccines and I have to make my claims based on actual evidence when I go to court with regards to vaccines. I don't get to rely on titles.
Okay.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mister Siri, we've been talking about medical issues. You're you're not a medical doctor, are you?
Speaker 1: No, sir.
Speaker 0: And you're not an immuno immunologist or biologist or any kind of
Speaker 1: Or vaccinologist. No. But I depose them regularly including the world's leading ones with regards to vaccines and I have to make my claims based on actual evidence when I go to court with regards to vaccines. I don't get to rely on titles.
Speaker 0: Okay.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
🔥 Sen. Ron Johnson absolutely SCHOOLS Stanford Vaccine Expert Dr. Jake Scott This is embarrassing… https://t.co/DJSMIMOtr1
Video Transcript AI Summary
it's modified mRNA, and it's designed not to degrade, and there are studies that show it sticks around the body. We don't know how long. The lipid nanoparticle was designed to permeate difficult to permeate barriers, like the blood brain, like placenta barrier. Did you believe when Fauci told us that the mRNA shot would stay in the arm? In rats, it biodistributed all over the body, accumulated in the adrenal glands, in the ovaries. This encapsulated lipid nanoparticle distributes all over the body, and when it attaches to a cell, it unloads its mRNA into the cell and turns the cell into a manufacturing cell of a protein that is toxic to it. They're turning cells like a heart cell into a manufacturing site for the spike protein, which is toxic, the body attacks it. The designers of the injection knew it. And Anthony Fauci knew it, and he lied. DNA contamination ... McKernan study ... 36 to 627 times. The allowed amount is ten nanograms per dose. That saves three point two million lives. No. It didn't. It's impossible. That's entirely possible.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mr. Scott, how much do you know about the mRNA technology? A fair amount. So it is the mRNA that's encapsulating the lipid nanoparticles, is that true mRNA?
Speaker 1: It's a true mRNA?
Speaker 0: I mean, true true mRNA, your master RNA degrades very rapidly in the body. Mhmm. Correct? Correct. So the mRNA in the injection, is is it true mRNA?
Does it degrade rapidly in the body? Do you not know?
Speaker 1: I do know. Yes. It it it does.
Speaker 0: But It does. No. It it does not. It's modify it's modified mRNA, and it's designed not to degrade, and there are studies that show it sticks around the body. We don't know how long.
The lipid nanoparticle. Do you realize that it was designed to permeate difficult to permeate barriers? Like the blood brain, like placenta barrier. Did you know that? Did you believe when Fauci told us that the mRNA shot would stay in the arm?
Did you believe that? It's a simple yes, no. I mean, did you believe do you do you believe the the code injection stayed in everybody's arm? Do we believe that's what happened? Primarily.
You you think so, Were you aware of the Japanese FOIA of the study that was conducted at biodistribution where in rats, it biodistributed all over the body, accumulated in the adrenal glands, in the ovaries. They they because the lipid nanoparticles designed to permeate difficult permeate barriers, they knew the designers knew, and they did a study they would buy, distribute all over the body. But our CDC, Anthony Fauci said it was gonna stick in the arm. Now do you know what the mRNA does? It's it's not it's not a traditional vaccine, is it?
Do you do you realize that? It's it's not an attenuated or a dead virus. It's it's messenger RNA, modified RNA, This encapsulated lipid nanoparticle distributes all over the body, and when it attaches to a cell, it unloads its mRNA into the cell and turns the cell into a manufacturing cell of a protein that is toxic to it. Do realize that? Are you aware of that?
I mean, just yes or no. Mean, you know that or not? Because I talk to a lot of doctors, don't have a clue.
Speaker 1: I know a fair amount about the mRNA vaccines. Do I know about all of these studies that
Speaker 0: you're referring to? Is the study. This just this is the basic operation. Do you know how it works? It doesn't appear like you do.
Well. So, again, why would we have
Speaker 1: I just don't.
Speaker 0: Why would we have almost one point seven million adverse events dramatically understating it? Why would we have that number of deaths? It's because these little lipid nanoparticles are distributed all over the body. They're attaching to cells. They're turning cells like a heart cell into a manufacturing site for the lipid, for the spike protein, which is toxic, the body attacks it.
It causes inflammation. That's what myocarditis is. And the designers of the injection knew it. And Anthony Fauci knew it, and he lied. That's why somebody like Mr.
Rogers, Doctor. Rogers, gets so upset and is outraged by the cover up of this. That's the problem here. I've got a lot more to say. Have you heard do you know anything about, for example, the DNA contamination that's being reported?
I I wanna enter into the record the McKernan study just recently released without objection. There's no way to object. Again, have you have you heard about this? That there's there's DNA contamination in particularly the Pfizer? You're aware of
Speaker 1: that? Yes. And world's not.
Speaker 0: Do you know at what levels it exceeds the FDA recommended amounts? No. 36 to 627 times. The allowed amount is ten nanograms per dose. And this research paper shows it's 36 to 627 times higher than that.
Does that concern you?
Speaker 1: Yeah. If if that's a legitimate finding, yes. That that's not the information that I've been aware of.
Speaker 0: But but but, you know, it saves three point two million lives. No. It didn't. It's impossible. That's entirely possible.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
🚨 The U.S. Army now admits they sprayed a known carcinogen on a St. Louis neighborhood to simulate a biological attack https://t.co/IEc2xtisB9
Video Transcript AI Summary
News Nation reports a secret test in St. Louis: 'the United States Army now admits that it sprayed a chemical that contained cadmium, a known carcinogen, on a neighborhood of 10,000 people.' The Army sprayed 'zinc cadmium sulfide' into the air in Pruitt Igo. Residents say, 'We were subjects' and 'They didn't ask for our permission.' The spray came from 'planes, rooftops, vehicles' to simulate how a biological attack might spread in more than 30 tests across the US and Canada. Saint Louis was chosen for its similarity to Moscow in population density and proximity to a river. The 33 high rise buildings housed 10,000 residents before demolition in 1976. NRC (1997) warned that 'repeated exposure to zinc cadmium sulfide can cause kidney or bone toxicity or lung cancer' and noted missing records and that an independent study wasn't feasible. Army says 'inhalation exposure would not pose a health risk.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Netto a News Nation exclusive investigation into a secret government experiment that was carried out in St. Louis. Residents tell us they still remember a mysterious fog. Children would run through it. Mothers would try and close their windows against it.
For decades, they all had questions and now we're seeking answers. The United States Army now admits that it sprayed a chemical that contained cadmium, a known carcinogen, on a neighborhood of more than 10,000 people. Critics say this was done with no warning and no consent. Well tonight we return to the site of that demolished neighborhood and speak with former residents who believe the government turned them into human test subjects. Although the army admits that the test happened, it is not admitted to harming the residents.
Natasha Zoo News Nation's Natasha Zuvez investigates what was in the fog and why the truth may still be buried.
Speaker 1: The fog drifted through the streets like a ghost.
Speaker 2: That's exactly what it looked like, a thick fall.
Speaker 3: It was summertime and it was hot. We would just run through it as fast as we could and then try to just cool ourself off. It stuck to you.
Speaker 4: The spray was so foul, the spoilers, older. It made some of us have headaches, nausea, dizziness.
Speaker 5: That's what I remember. It made me sick.
Speaker 1: It wasn't the weather. It was an eerie smoke descending from rooftops, rolling from the backs of trucks.
Speaker 3: Regular flatbed truck, but it had a big machine on the back, and it had a big nozzle that really sprayed up fog you couldn't even see through. It was that thick, and it really, it we felt it as it would adhere to our skin. And as far as the guys on top of the buildings, they tried to portray them to us as maintenance workers. Mhmm. But we were like, what is the maintenance worker doing in, basically, a hazmat suit?
And they had masks and goggles.
Speaker 1: In the 1950s and sixties, in secret, the US army sprayed zinc cadmium sulfide into the air of a Saint Louis housing project, a largely black neighborhood called Pruitt Igo.
Speaker 2: It was a lose lose situation for us in Pruitt Igo. We were subjects. We were subjects.
Speaker 5: They didn't ask for our permission. We didn't ask for them to spray us. My government used me like I was a guinea pig.
Speaker 1: We're standing at where Pruitt Igo used to be here in Saint Louis, and it's hard to believe more than 10,000 people used to live here. As we bring our drone up, you can see it's mostly just an empty lot now, overgrown with trees. This used to be filled with 33 high rise buildings. It was all demolished in 1976. And according to the National Research Council, Saint Louis was chosen for spraying experiments because it had similar characteristics to Soviet targets like Moscow in terms of population density and terrain and proximity to a river.
The government now admits to a secretive series of cold war tests, including one dubbed large area coverage. More than 30 tests conducted across The US and Canada, spraying zinc cadmium sulfide from planes, rooftops, vehicles to simulate how a biological attack might spread, all to prepare for potential warfare against the Soviets.
Speaker 5: Many of us been in the military and had top secret clearances. We know how it works.
Speaker 6: We have died for America. We have fought for America.
Speaker 1: You're you are a veteran?
Speaker 6: I am United States Air Force veteran.
Speaker 1: Doctor Starks, you're a veteran as well.
Speaker 5: Yes, am. I'm an Air Force veteran also.
Speaker 1: Is there a sense of betrayal here?
Speaker 5: Definitely. Definitely.
Speaker 1: They want to know if those secret tests have anything to do with what they're observing with their own eyes.
Speaker 4: I lost my two older siblings to Kes. I lost a brother last month.
Speaker 3: I've been diagnosed recently with a rare form of lymphoma. I had cancer of the
Speaker 5: left kidney. I had partial removal of my left kidney.
Speaker 1: News nation reached out to the army for answers. They provided a one page response. It says the army's own center for health promotion and preventive medicine investigated in 1994 and found inhalation exposure would not pose a health risk. They also cite later corroborating reviews, including a 1997 review by the National Research Council. Perhaps they assumed we wouldn't read the NRC's 380 page report, but we did, and the army statement doesn't show the full picture.
In that 1997 review, the National Research Council explicitly says repeated exposure to zinc cadmium sulfide can cause kidney or bone toxicity or lung cancer if levels are high enough. And they admitted they couldn't fully assess the risk. Why? Because some army records remain classified, it says, for national security reasons. More troubling key army exposure records were missing.
And when the NRC asked the army to supply them, the army said it couldn't find them. Finally, the NRC considered conducting its own study, but concluded it wasn't feasible. In short, it did not test the site, collect samples, or test residents, and they didn't have access to all the data. Their review was based on what the army gave them and what the army either could not find or withheld. The army ends its statement to News Nation by saying, quote, none of the report contained evidence of a radioactive component to the zinc cadmium sulfide dispersion tests.
Residents say the secrecy and delays are no accident.
Speaker 3: They're waiting us out. They're waiting on
Speaker 5: all of
Speaker 2: us to die.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
🚨 WEINSTEIN: “The idea that we get myocarditis from the COVID shots is really standing in for a much starker reality … Myocarditis is the symptom of damage to the heart done by our own immune systems in response to the cells in the heart producing a foreign protein” https://t.co/xJVkbqgsyB
Video Transcript AI Summary
"Unfortunately, the mRNA platform, though it is brilliant in its conception, is fatally flawed." "the myocarditis and pericarditis that showed up as a result of COVID vaccinations are inherent to the platform, not to the messenger RNA that was delivered inside these shots." "the design of this platform is to induce your own cells to make a foreign protein which gets displayed on the surface of those cells." "there's no targeting mechanism to lead it to happen only in certain tissues, it can happen haphazardly around the body, including in places like your heart." "And what that triggers is your own immune system to see those foreign proteins and conclude the only thing they can, which is that those cells have been virally infected." "the right response, the response, the natural response of the body is to take virally infected cells and destroy them."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I have to say that independently, I've had a a very, very, top experienced oncologist in The UK, in London, one of the best in the country, who's expressed exactly the same concerns to me for a long period of time about the mRNA vaccine. So they weren't all mRNA, but the ones that were, he's been very concerned about that. What do you feel about that particular issue?
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, the mRNA platform, though it is brilliant in its conception, is fatally flawed. And although there are arguably applications where it might be useful, something like the treatment of a deadly cancer, it is not appropriate to vaccinate against a relatively mundane disease like COVID. The reason that it isn't is that the platform itself carries, hazards at its core that at the moment we have no technological fix for. So the myocarditis and pericarditis that showed up as a result of COVID vaccinations are inherent to the platform, not to the messenger RNA that was delivered inside these shots. It would, in my opinion, be almost certain to show up irrespective of what foreign protein was encoded by the vaccine in question.
And it would be no service to the public if we were to allow vaccines that have this flaw to be deployed only to discover years later that people had been injured and died because of them.
Speaker 0: In simple layman's terms, is the issue with mRNA that in an effort to provide immunity against COVID nineteen, it damages and reduces your general immunity in many people.
Speaker 1: No. I would say it's actually much worse than that. That's true. But the problem is that the design of this platform is to induce your own cells to make a foreign protein which gets displayed on the surface of those cells. That's as intended.
But because there's no targeting mechanism to lead it to happen only in certain tissues, it can happen haphazardly around the body, including in places like your heart. And what that triggers is your own immune system to see those foreign proteins and conclude the only thing they can, which is that those cells have been virally infected. And the right response, the response, the natural response of the body is to take virally infected cells and destroy them. So the the idea that we get myocarditis from the COVID shots is really standing in for a much starker reality, which is that inflammation, myocarditis, is the symptom of damage to the heart done by our own immune systems in response to the cells in the heart producing a foreign protein and triggering our immune system to attack them.
reSee.it AI Summary
I finished with a patient today and found detectable Pfizer mRNA in his body 3.2 years after the shots. This suggests that those who received the vaccine have long-term genetic material present. We need to be prepared for these findings, which align with recent observations from a Yale study.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
🚨 MCCULLOUGH: “I finished with a patient today … We have detectable Pfizer mRNA in his body now 3.2 years after the shots … So people who took these shots, they've got it long term now … This is very long acting genetic material … and we need to be prepared for it.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Finished with a patient today. He is in research. We're using a lab in Germany. We have detectable Pfizer messenger RNA in his body now three point two years after the shots. For sure. So people who took these shots, they've got it at least long term now. And I've testified in the House last year and I said, I think we've got five to fifteen years of concern here. This is very long acting genetic material. And I think we should assume that all messenger RNA coming forward is going to be very long acting in the body and we need to be prepared for it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Finished with a patient today. He is in research. We're using a lab in Germany. We have detectable Pfizer messenger RNA in his body now three point two years after the shots. For sure.
For sure. So people who took these shots, they've got it at least long term now. And I've testified in the House last year and I said, I think we've got five to fifteen years of concern here. This is very long acting genetic material. And I think we should assume that all messenger RNA coming forward is going to be very long acting in the body and we need to be prepared for it.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
Full Episode w/ @P_McCulloughMD: @drdrew
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
Similar observations were seen in the most recent Yale study: https://news.yale.edu/2025/02/19/immune-markers-post-vaccination-syndrome-indicate-future-research-directions
Immune markers of post-vaccination syndrome indicate future research directions
A small number of people report chronic symptoms after receiving COVID-19 shots. A new study provides clues for further research.
news.yale.edu
reSee.it AI Summary
RFK Jr. claimed that mRNA COVID vaccines affect every organ and turn the body into an antigen factory, linking them to increased cases of myocarditis and pericarditis in children. Nic Hulscher agreed with his statement.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
🚨 RFK JR: “The mRNA vaccines from COVID … goes to every organ. It turns your body into an antigen factory … And we've seen now these epidemics of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in kids.” https://t.co/iq1bTtCFuX
Video Transcript AI Summary
"The mRNA vaccines, you know, from COVID don't work against upper respiratory infections." "There are two problems with them." "One is they target a single protein, which drives what what's called an antigenic shift." "If it drives the virus to mutate, and it actually can prolong the pandemic." "We saw that during COVID, people took shots, mRNA shots for the original COVID variant and immediately, mutated into the Omicron virus to which the vaccine was ineffective, and that's what it does." "And the other issue is, that it the way that distributes in the body, the way that it migrates in the body, there's no control over and no predictability." "So it goes to every organ." "It turns your body into a an antigen factory where you're manufacturing antigens, and different people need different loads of antigens." "And we've seen now these epidemics of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in kids."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The mRNA vaccines, you know, from COVID don't work against upper respiratory infections. It worked very well. Let me put it that way. Hey. There are two problems with them.
One is they target a single protein, which drives what what's called an antigenic shift. If it drives the virus to mutate, and it actually can prolong the pandemic. And we saw that during COVID, people took shots, mRNA shots for the original COVID variant and immediately, mutated into the Omicron virus to which the vaccine was ineffective, and that's what it does. And the other issue is, that it the way that it distributes in the body, the way that it migrates in the body, there's no control over and no predictability. So it goes to every organ.
It turns your body into a an antigen factory where you're manufacturing antigens, and different people need different loads of antigens. And they in a regular traditional vaccine, the antigen content is very carefully controlled for that reason because you can injure people. And we've seen now these epidemics of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in kids. And for upper respiratory for some for some illnesses, mRNA vaccines may be very useful, and they they, and that would include cancers. But for upper respiratory infections, we canceled 22 trials for upper respiratory infections.
@NicHulscher - Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
@TheChiefNerd He's not wrong. https://t.co/JPbBCHqh0m
@NicHulscher - Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
🔥RFK Jr. is right — mRNA injections distribute to ALL organ systems, turning them into toxic, non-human spike protein factories for YEARS. mRNA and vaccine spike protein have been found in the heart, brain, adrenal glands, and blood of the deceased. https://t.co/FTEDocD8jq
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
🚨 RFK JR: “The mRNA vaccines from COVID … goes to every organ. It turns your body into an antigen factory … And we've seen now these epidemics of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in kids.” https://t.co/iq1bTtCFuX
reSee.it AI Summary
Last year, the WHO reported that vaccines had prevented 14.4 million deaths globally, with estimates reaching 20 million. However, new research from Stanford and Italian scientists indicates a more conservative estimate of about 2.5 million lives saved during the pandemic. The study found that 90% of these prevented deaths were among those over 60, with only 299 lives saved in individuals under 20 and 1,808 in those aged 20 to 30. It suggests that 5,400 vaccinations were needed to save one life overall, increasing to 100,000 for those under 30.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
🚨 “Last year, the World Health Organisation (WHO) claimed jabs had prevented the deaths of 14.4 million people globally in the first year alone, with some estimates putting the figure closer to 20 million. However, new modelling by Stanford University and Italian researchers suggests that while the vaccines did save lives, the true figure was ‘substantially more conservative’ and closer to 2.5 million people worldwide over the course of the pandemic. The team estimated that nine of 10 prevented deaths were in the over-60s, with jabs saving just 299 people aged under 20, and 1,808 people aged between 20 and 30 globally. Overall 5,400 people needed to be vaccinated to save one life, but in the under-30s this figure rose to 100,000 jabs, the paper suggests.”
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
The 180 here is a head scratcher 🤔 https://t.co/IziN61S9mF
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers question how someone could be convicted of 34 crimes while no one on Epstein's list has been charged, suggesting a possible effort to protect pedophiles and asking why the FBI would protect the "largest scale pederist in human history."
One speaker claims everyone in politics has a vice "much worse than alcoholism." There is a call to release the Epstein list. One speaker says the DOJ may release the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients and that it is sitting on their desk to review, directed by President Trump. They claim to have flight logs and names that will come out.
One speaker says they will never let the story go because of what they heard from a source about Bill Clinton on a plane with Jeffrey Epstein. Another speaker expresses disbelief that people are still talking about Epstein.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: How is it that my father could be convicted of 34 crimes, but no one on Epstein's list has even been brought to light? How is I'm trying to figure out how that's possible. Right? But It's almost like they're trying to protect those pedophiles for some reason. I can't imagine why.
Right? We're Why is the FBI protecting the greatest pederist, the the largest scale pederist in human history?
Speaker 1: Simple. Because of who's on that list. Everybody in politics has a vice that's much worse than alcoholism is is
Speaker 2: the way that I put it.
Speaker 1: But we we Release the list.
Speaker 2: Seriously, we need to release
Speaker 1: the f list. That that is an important thing. The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients? Will that really happen?
Speaker 3: It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive, by president Trump. In this case, in Epstein's case, it is incredibly disturbing. We have, flight logs. We have information, names, that will come out.
Speaker 1: I'm not ever gonna let this story go because of what I heard from a source about Bill Clinton on a plane with Jeffrey Epstein. I'm not letting it go ever, ever. Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy's been talked about for years. You're asking we have Texas, we have this, we have all of the things we and are people still talking about this guy, this creep?
That is unbelievable.
reSee.it AI Summary
I read 'Dissolving Illusions' and it made me rethink my views on vaccines. I used to believe the polio vaccine was the key to ending the epidemic, but now I have more questions. I sense there's a deeper story behind the narrative we've been told about vaccines being a miracle cure.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
🚩 Joe Rogan Read 'Dissolving Illusions' and Now Has More Questions About Vaccines "It's widely credited that the polio vaccine is what stopped that [epidemic]. I used to wholesale believe that until this pandemic and now I question everything...I have a feeling that there's a lot more to the story than what the general narrative is that we've been given, that vaccines are this amazing cure." @joerogan @TheoVon
Video Transcript AI Summary
DDT was in widespread use as a pesticide when polio cases were prevalent. DDT is no longer used in America, but it is still used in other countries where polio-like symptoms are common. One of the effects of DDT poisoning is polio-like symptoms, called encephalopathy.
Polio was something that was going on in the early part of the twentieth century, and it's widely credited that the polio vaccine is what stopped that. The speaker questions the general narrative that vaccines are an amazing cure. They believe there are other factors, such as hygiene. The book "Dissolving Illusions" is about the origins of vaccines, what vaccines have done to stop disease spread, and the negative side effects.
There are side effects to vaccines, and they don't want to advertise those problems. One person was addicted to the COVID vaccine and did seven inoculations. A doctor told a lady in the neighborhood to stop getting boosted, but she wanted to go to LA to get boosted.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A lot of the cases of polio that we talk about from back in the day Mhmm. DDT was in widespread use back then, widespread use as a, pesticide. And they were using DDT to kill bugs that they thought carried diseases. But the problem is DDT exposure is insanely toxic. Now we know that.
Now DDT, they don't use it anymore in America. Yeah. But they still use it in other countries where polio like symptoms are very prevalent. One of the side effects one of the effects of DDT poisoning is polio like symptoms. I think it's called encephalopathy.
See what that is. DDT side effects.
Speaker 1: We didn't have a lot of polio, I don't think, in our area.
Speaker 0: Well, polio was something that was going on in the early part of the twentieth century. You know? And it's widely credited that the polio vaccine is what stopped that. I used to wholesale believe that until this pandemic, and now I question everything. Now I'm like, I don't know.
I don't know what the truth is with whether it's smallpox or polio. I I have a feeling that there's a lot more to the story than what the general narrative is that we've been given. They said vaccines are this amazing cure. I think there's a lot of other factors, And I think one of the other factors was hygiene, and it's the book is called dissolving illusions, and it's all about the, origins of vaccines and what vaccines have done to, you know, stop disease spread and what the negative side effects have been. And it's just like, there's a lot of negative side effects, man.
And to pretend that it's safe and effective Mhmm. Like, when you're administering things to millions, if not hundreds of millions of people, like, there's gonna be some problems, and they don't want to advertise those problems. They they don't want to make those problems publicly known.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. There's side effects. Yeah. You can't fucking can't whisper. You can't see far.
There's all kind of fucking side effects. Dude, we had a guy who broke into, Walgreens and did, like, seven, he was addicted to the fucking COVID vaccine. He did, like, seven inoculations.
Speaker 0: I got a lady in my neighborhood that keeps getting boosted. Her doctor told her, stop getting boosted. Doctor's like, no more. She's like, I gotta go to LA. I need to get boosted.
The doctor's like, it's enough.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
Bill Gates on the Recent GAVI Cuts: “All the progress we've made is at risk … Think of a mother who will bring a baby wheezing for breath to a health center and because the vaccines aren't available, that baby will not survive.” https://t.co/cugGIFZmIC
Video Transcript AI Summary
This is a challenging time, and all progress is at risk due to tight budgets and tough trade-offs. Aid is down by $30 billion this year alone. Cuts in health resources, combined with the financial situation in low-income countries, will cause setbacks. Without available vaccines, babies will not survive, and measles epidemics will continue due to fewer resources for primary health care.
The life of a child could have been saved by a vaccine that costs just 30¢. Trend lines will briefly go into reverse. It is unknown if progress will resume in two, four, or six years. With the return of resources and the advantage of an incredible pipeline of innovation, new drugs, and new vaccines, progress will resume.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Of course, this is a challenging time. All the progress we've made is at risk. Budgets are tight, and we all have to show our priorities when there's tough trade offs to be made. There's no denying this is a global health crisis. The US cuts and other funding cuts, aid in total has gone down by 30,000,000,000 this year alone.
It reinforces the incredible values being shown by the people who are showing up here today and being incredibly generous. But with the cut in health resources, along with the financial situation a lot of these low income countries are in, we are going to have a few years where things will go backwards. As we think about this, you know, think of a mother, who will bring a baby wheezing for breath to a health center. And because the vaccines aren't available, that baby will not survive. Think of a health worker trying to deal with a measles outbreak who, because there's less resources for that primary health care system, our vaccines that measles epidemic will continue.
This is agonizing. I mean, and we have to put ourselves in the position of the parents, who lose these children and how tough it must be for them to realize, that the life could have been saved by a vaccine, that costs just 30¢. So, you know, our trend lines will briefly, go into reverse. I believe that we can come back. I believe that we will resume, that incredible progress that you saw.
I don't know if it'll be in two years or four years or six years, but I do know that as we, bring these resources back and we take advantage of an incredible pipeline of innovation, new drugs, new vaccines, lots of amazing things, to help with these diseases, we will resume progress.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
TUCKER: “Laura Loomer, the world's creepiest human, I don't even know where she came from or who she is exactly but she's running around saying, ‘I'm Donald Trump's defender.’ It's bizarre.” https://t.co/OwJKrIP5y1
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mark Levin and others are using a "Trump skin suit" despite disliking him personally and disagreeing with his agenda, economic views, and foreign policy. Some at Fox News harbor contempt for Trump. It's frustrating to see figures like Levin and Laura Loomer, described as bizarre, championing Trump and claiming to define American interests, despite their lack of interest in the United States. Allowing such individuals to control a movement focused on serving America is an offense against reality and dangerous for the country. These people washed out of the Democratic party and now they're trying to take over the Republican party. Figures like John Bolton and Bill Crystal shouldn't be allowed to take over the Trump White House. The speaker doesn't want to relive past mistakes like Iraq and accuses Levin, Loomer, and others of being ignorant and irresponsible in their demands for military action, lacking understanding of the consequences.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But Levin, again, doesn't care about The United States, and they're all wearing the Trump skin suit right now because they think it suits their purposes. These are people who hated Trump. They're anti Trump. They're never Trump, and that would include a lot of people on Fox News who I worked with for fifteen years. I know what their political views are.
I they're my colleagues. They hate Trump. They hate him personally. They hate his agenda. They hate his economic views, and they really hate his foreign policy views, which in private they describe as insane and isolationist.
He's a Nazi and all this stuff. I mean, they really have contempt for him. They kept him off the air at Fox News while I was there against my protests. So so that's just that's all true, and it's very frustrating as a literal person who cares about what's true to see people jumping up Mark Levin or Laura Loomer, that's world's creepiest human. I don't even know where she came from or who she is exactly, but she's running around.
I'm I'm Donald Trump's, you know, defenders. It's bizarre. Champion. Champion. And and I'm and I'm the arbiter of what it means to be for America, someone who, again, has no interest in The United States.
Demont demonstrated no interest. So I think it's just important. It's not a matter of score settling, and I don't I don't care what Mark Levin does in his private life. I don't care what his opinions are. Laura Loomer, I'm not even really sure who she is.
However, if people like that are able to take over a political movement whose stated goal is to serve The United States, first and foremost, America first, make America great again. If those people can take control of that political movement, first of all, it's an offense against reality and truth, but second, it's really dangerous for the country. When they washed out of the Democratic party, this this the same people, and now they're trying to take over the Republican party. You know, how about no? Unbroken track record of failure, unbroken track record of ideas that hurt The United States in measurable ways, impoverished The United States, put us in unpayable debt, killed a ton of people, destabilized the world, caused a refugee crisis in Europe, destroyed Europe.
You know, that's a lot of destruction for for one group of of people and one set of really bad ideas, the John Boltons, the Bill Crystals. Can they be allowed to take over the Trump White House? No. How about no? Just as an American.
I mean, I don't and I don't really care what people think of me at this point. I'm 56. You were wrong. Well, I yeah. I've been wrong many many times.
I'll be wrong many many more times. But the one thing I am is sincere. I really mean it. I don't care about the effect on me. I just I don't wanna relive Iraq.
And I know the people who did it. I've lived among them. I defended it. I repeated their talking points. Not doing that again.
And we came really close to doing that again because of Mark Levin and Laura Loomer and the rest of these morons who've never even left New Jersey. Like, they don't know anything about the world. That's the other thing. They're dumb. They don't know they don't not only they don't know the population of Iran, they don't know anything.
They don't know the nations that border it. They just they just don't know anything. And I'm not making an argument for expertise or having been there, but I am making an ex an argument for being responsible when you demand that the US military do certain things. Okay. Then tell me what happens next.
They can't. Because, again, they don't care.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
Full Episode: @afterpartyemily
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
Fmr. ACIP Chair Dr. Carol Baker in 2016: “I have the solution ... We'll just get rid of all the whites in the United States ... Guess who wants to get vaccinated the most? Immigrants ... We need not lose the big picture.” https://t.co/vT7rwmje1n
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims the fight against vaccine hesitancy is being won at the family, physician, and health center level. They are focusing on strategies against vaccine refusers, not those with mere hesitancy.
The speaker suggests that the U.S. could eliminate its white population to improve vaccination rates, citing Houston's diversity as a model. They claim Hispanics are a political designation, not a race or ethnicity, and that immigrants are the most willing to get vaccinated, contrasting this with Donald Trump's comments about immigrants bringing disease. The speaker asserts that vaccination rates are better in Mexico and that the well-educated in the U.S. are more hesitant, urging a focus on the "big picture."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The battle is being fought. One family, one physician, one health center. That's why we're doing as well as we are. We're talking about the minority and strategies against the minority. So I have the solution.
Every study published in the last five years, when you look at vaccine refusers, I'm not talking about, well, hesitance, most of them we can talk into coming to terms, but refusers. We will just get rid of all the whites in The United States because Houston is the most diverse city in the entire United States. There are seven Asian languages spoken in that city. I have been a minority for more than twenty years in the city of Houston and the majority is we call Hispanic, that is not a race or an ethnicity, that is a political designation. But a lot of them are from Central, South America, Mexico.
Guess who wants to get vaccinated the most? Immigrants. Part of That's what made Donald Trump's comment about bringing disease rules to funding. Are risk when they come here. Immigrants.
And better vaccination rates in Mexico. It is the well educated in terms of pieces of paper that they put on their wall. People that have been here a long time, and it's very unfortunate, and but I think we need not lose the big picture.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
🚨 JD Vance says DOGE found that for "every dollar we were spending on humanitarian assistance, $0.12 was actually making it to people who needed it." https://t.co/2J2Reu6DWs
Video Transcript AI Summary
Doge has saved at least $170-200 billion. On day one in the White House, they had to stop a payment, but nobody knew where the computer was that wired the money. There was a lot of waste and grift in the federal government.
Many people were "slurping." Humanitarian programs send money for medicine and food, but the money is contracted out, and there are three or four middlemen. Marco Rubio estimated that 88 cents of every dollar was collected by middlemen, so only 12 cents made it to the people who needed it. Elon Musk was doing it for free because he doesn't need money.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Was helpful?
Speaker 1: It was. Yeah. It was. And I mean, look, Doge continues within the White House and within the executive of of the country. I mean, look, you we there's a lot of ways in which we are wasting the American people's money.
Yeah. Sometimes spending it on crazy stuff. Sometimes spending it on, like, actually counterproductive stuff. I think Doge has saved already at least a hundred and 70, maybe $200,000,000,000. Hopefully, it's gonna save more.
But, yeah, I think it was very Oh,
Speaker 0: that's so much money.
Speaker 1: How could ton of money.
Speaker 0: How do they not how would you not even notice that if that much
Speaker 1: There's so much I could tell you about this. Okay. So one of the crazy things we all figured out, like, first week or so we're in the White House, okay, is there was a payment that should be stopped because the president signed an executive order to stop a payment.
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: And this is like day one of the White House. We're like, okay, how do we stop this payment? Yeah. Because somebody's trying to make this payment, and nobody knew where, like, the computer was that actually wired the money from The US taxpayer to this entity. God.
Dude, the the amount of waste and the amount of just grift in the federal government was off the charts. It's still it's it's getting better, but there's still a lot more I think we can find.
Speaker 0: Who was getting it all? I don't know one person that was getting next to something extra, I don't think. Well Unless everybody was slurping.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Mean, a lot of people were slurping, man. You you look at you look at what so for example, there are all these humanitarian programs that we have where we send money for people, for medicine, for food. Oh, yeah. Okay?
But like, you think I think like what I thought before I got in the government, what most Americans think is, okay, so we send a hundred thousand dollars to this group to buy food for like poor kids in Africa. Okay? And what actually happens is it's not a hundred thousand dollars that go to the food for the poor kids in Africa Right. That the NGO, the non government organization that gets that money contracts it out to somebody else.
Speaker 0: Right. So there's
Speaker 1: a subcontracted out to somebody. There's like three or four middlemen. And what you know, Marco Rubio, who's the secretary of state, he's a very good friend. What he told me is that his best estimate after he had his team look at it, is that 88¢ of every dollar was actually being collected by middlemen.
Speaker 0: No way.
Speaker 1: So every dollar we were spending humanitarian assistance, 12¢ was actually making it to people who needed it. That's crazy. So there's a lot of waste, man. A lot of crazy stuff.
Speaker 0: So Elon was putting in a lot was Elon doing it for free all that time?
Speaker 1: Was doing it for free. Yeah. He was it
Speaker 0: for free.
Speaker 1: He was doing it for free. I mean, he doesn't need money. Right? That's the one thing Elon does not does not need.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
NEW — FOIA Documents Show FEMA and the Biden Admin Covered Up Health Risks In East Palestine “They basically nuked the town with chemicals” https://t.co/3MCGnCWipx
Video Transcript AI Summary
Following the burning of five tankers of vinyl chloride in East Palestine, new documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act reveal coordination between FEMA, the White House, the National Security Council, the EPA, and the Department of Justice, expressing serious concerns about health, toxins, and unmet needs. These documents, which FEMA initially refused to release, indicate awareness of a "really toxic plume" and the potential for cancer clusters.
The agency acknowledged that the occurrence of a cancer cluster at East Palestine is not zero and discussed the need for a "tripwire" to identify them. These concerns were discussed internally, up to the White House level, regarding the dangers of cancer clusters and whether to release the unmet needs report. The report was never released, and the FEMA coordinator sent by Biden allegedly wouldn't meet with residents and was nicknamed "the ghost of October." An email revealed the FEMA coordinator was told not to engage with residents. Residents describe this as criminal negligence.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: After officials burned five tankers, a 16,000 gallons of toxic vinyl chloride over East Palestine You ready? I'm ready. Let's get out of here. We basically nuked the town with chemicals so we could get a railroad open. Residents here were sick and crying out for help.
My eyes feel like they're gonna fall out of my head. They're bulging out of my head. In September 2023, '7 months later, president Biden issued an executive order sending a FEMA executive to East Palestine to assess the unmet needs of the community. But new documents from FEMA obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show extensive coordination between FEMA, the White House, National Security Council, EPA, and the Department of Justice voicing serious concerns about health, toxins, and the unmet needs of East Palestine following the train derailment. But publicly, their message was nothing to see here.
Speaker 1: It showed that FEMA knew, health care was the number one issue.
Speaker 0: Leslie Pacey is an investigator with the Government Accountability Project. They sued to get these documents when FEMA refused to turn them over.
Speaker 1: They also knew that they called this plume a really toxic plume. They knew that there would be the potential for cancer clusters.
Speaker 0: The agency noted the occurrence of a cancer cluster at East Palestine is not zero and expressed the need for a, quote, tripwire to identify cancer clusters.
Speaker 1: It was only discussed internally, and it actually was discussed all the way up to the White House. There's White House officials and National Security Council officials discussing the dangers of the cancer cluster potential and the health issues and discussing whether or not to release the unmet needs report to the public and to the media.
Speaker 0: They never released the unmet needs report to the public or the media, and the FEMA coordinator sent here by Biden wouldn't meet with residents.
Speaker 2: A lot of us emailed and called that person and never got through. Eventually, was something said we he didn't need our anecdotal reports.
Speaker 1: He was nicknamed by residents, as the ghost of October because they were expecting him to be there in October, but never could get ahold of him.
Speaker 0: Now we know why. This email reveals that the FEMA coordinator was told not to engage with residents. Residents here say it's criminal negligence. How does that make you feel?
Speaker 2: It's infuriating. We're supposed to believe that's not how our country runs, and I'm starting to see that that's how our country has always run.
reSee.it AI Summary
I criticized Trump for suggesting American families should have more children, pointing out that immigrants are the ones contributing significantly to our population growth. I emphasized that immigrants, both legal and undocumented, have positively impacted our economy by having larger families.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
Hillary Clinton Slams Trump for Encouraging American Families to Have More Children, Says That’s What Immigrants Are For “The people who produce the most children in our country are immigrants … One of the reasons why our economy did so much better was … because we had a lot of immigrants, legally and undocumented, who had a larger than normal family.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
There's a blatant effort, exemplified by Vance, Musk, and others, to send the message that women should have more children and return to their "born" purpose. This includes talk of cash benefits for more children or medals for having six children.
This is happening while programs supporting child rearing, like Medicaid, paid family leave, quality child care funding, and Head Start, are being cut. The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 advocates a return to the nuclear family and a Christian nation, with an emphasis on producing more children.
The speaker finds this odd, as immigrants, who have larger families, are targeted for deportation. The US economy has benefited from immigrant replenishment. This is viewed as an attempt to return to the lifestyles and economic arrangements of the past.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: As I posted the other day, this very blatant effort to basically send a message, most exemplified by Vance and Musk and others, that, you know, what we really need from you women are more children. And what that really means is you should go back to doing what you were born to do, which is to produce more children. And they are talking about, you know, cash benefits for the more children you have. This has been tried, by the way, in other countries and it has not worked. Or metals if you have six children.
While they are contemplating, cutting Medicaid, while they have no interest in paid family leave or funding quality child care, they're cutting head start. I mean, go down the list of all the programs that support child rearing and the care of children and create, you know, some safety net for women who are in the workforce, the formal workforce, as well as, you know, raising children. So this is another performance about concerns they allegedly have for family life. But if you had read the Heritage Foundation's Project twenty twenty five, despite Trump saying he knew nothing about it, if you had read it, it's all in there. It's all in there.
Return to the family, the nuclear family, return to being a Christian nation, return to producing a lot of children, which is sort of odd because the people who produce the most children in our country are immigrants and they want to deport them. So none of this adds up. But, you know, one of the reasons why our economy did so much better than comparable, advanced economies across the world is because we actually had a replenishment, because we had a lot of immigrants legally and undocumented, who, had a, you know, larger than, normal, by American standards, family. So this is just another one of their, you know, make America great again by returning to the lifestyles and the economic arrangements of not just the nineteen fifties. I mean, let's keep going back as far as we can, and, you know, see what happens.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
RFK JR: “The 76 shots that children in this country receive … None of them have been safety tested in pre-licensing studies against a placebo, which means we don't understand the risk profile for those products. That's something that I intend to remedy.” https://t.co/awCwMsIEnW
Video Transcript AI Summary
Vaccine recommendations typically come from the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices (an outside consulting committee at CDC) and VRBPAC (within FDA), which recommends vaccine licensure. These committees only adopted evidence-based medicine about twelve years ago.
The speaker states that during their administration, they want safety studies prior to vaccine licensure and recommendation. They claim vaccines are exempt from pre-licensing safety testing, and the COVID vaccine was the only one tested in a full placebo trial. They assert that the other 76 shots children receive between birth and 18 have not been safety tested against a placebo, meaning the risk profile is not understood. The speaker intends to remedy this.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What's the role of the secretary of HHS as far as recommendations of vaccine? And just discuss it a little bit further.
Speaker 1: Well, the vaccine recommendations, senator, are normally made through the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices,
Speaker 0: which
Speaker 1: is an outside consulting committee at CDC. There's another committee called VRBPAC, which is within FDA that actually recommends whether the vaccines get licensed or not. And so that's where the recommendations come from. And traditionally, they have not done evidence based medicine. They'd only adopted evidence based medicine about twelve years ago.
And what we've said during our administration is we want to have safety studies prior to the licensure and recommendation of vaccines. Vaccines are the only medical product that is exempt from pre licensing safety testing. So the only vaccine that has been tested in a full blown placebo trial against an under placebo was the COVID vaccine. The other 76 shots at children in this country received between birth and 18 years old, none of them have been safety tested in pre licensing studies against a placebo, which means we don't understand the risk profile for those products. And that's something that I intend to remedy.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
🔥 Dave Smith & Douglas Murray Get Into a HEATED Debate Over “Trusting the Experts” https://t.co/meXxPKvTcB
Video Transcript AI Summary
Since 9/11, the U.S. has been in a state of perpetual war built on lies, such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. This creates skepticism towards official narratives.
One participant questions the focus on past mistakes and argues against characterizing someone based on a single error, especially when they have extensive content. Another participant says that this person isn't a historian, but puts out hours of history. It's argued that people often claim no expertise while discussing topics at length.
One participant says they are pushing for liberty, free markets, peace, and avoiding catastrophic wars, citing concerns about a potential attack on Iran. Another participant differentiates between a country having a military engagement and being at war, stating the U.S. hasn't been at war for 25 years, but rather engaged in interventions abroad.
One participant expresses feeling the impact of American wars, citing costs and degradation to the country. The discussion touches on whether one needs to be an expert to have an opinion, with a call for more experts. One participant defends their right to speak out against lockdowns and vaccine mandates during COVID-19, questioning whether they should have remained silent.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I do also think that one of the bigger kind of the bigger picture dynamics to all of this is that we have at least since 09/11 been in a state of perpetual war. And all of these wars have been disasters. They have been so many lies involved in selling all of them. I mean, the whole Iraq war, the whole war in Afghanistan just lying the whole way through. I mean, I remember literally having conversations with Green Berets in the middle of the war in Afghanistan.
And they're like, George w Bush is telling you that the army we're building up there is really successful. This thing's gonna fall in a week without us. And then all through the Obama administration, it's just like lie after lie after lie with disastrous wars. And so this does create a fertile ground for people to say, I wonder if they were lying about all these wars. Sure.
Again, I'm not really trying to argue about World War two. I'd rather argue about these wars today.
Speaker 1: I think the interesting is whether you're busy watering it.
Speaker 2: Well, should you not talk about mistakes that were made
Speaker 1: if overall? Absolutely. Okay. You should. Absolutely.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: All for going back and looking at mistakes.
Speaker 2: So what are you what is your argument then?
Speaker 1: It's a very weird thing to go back, zone in on a man, say this one thing is a mistake and should characterize him, and you ignore everything else.
Speaker 2: You're taking him out of context when he's
Speaker 0: when you're talking about
Speaker 2: Daryl, who's done what was it? Thirty plus hours?
Speaker 1: So what? Thirty plus hours of podcasting. You do that in a week.
Speaker 0: I'm Yeah. But it's a very it's a very different it's a very different.
Speaker 2: He's not doing a podcast like talking to people.
Speaker 1: Okay. Nor is he doing scholarly work. Nor is he working in the archives clearly. Come on. I mean, this is he is not the historian of our era.
Speaker 2: He's not complaining to me.
Speaker 1: This is the thing, Joe. This is like punching jelly.
Speaker 2: No. But you you don't you don't consume his
Speaker 1: work. What I'm saying because I don't need to consume endless versions of a revisionist history. I
Speaker 2: He's not a comedian.
Speaker 1: Historian or podcast? He would be historian or actual historian. You say he doesn't claim to be a historian, but he's pumping out tens of hours of history.
Speaker 2: Stan Carlin. He doesn't claim to be a historian either.
Speaker 1: You see my point about the move. It's like some weird jujitsu move.
Speaker 0: No. I don't
Speaker 1: Where you say hang on. You know all about this as well. You say, I'm not a historian, but I'm gonna spend my time talking about history. I'm not a journalist, but I'm gonna spend my time talking about this thing. I'm not an expert on this, but I'm gonna spend my time talking about this thing.
It's a weird move. Yeah? No. You don't think?
Speaker 0: No. I'm a free American. I can talk about what I like to. So I don't want.
Speaker 1: What's the point here? You can. But So what's the point? The point is what are you pushing? What are you watering?
Speaker 0: Am I pushing? Yes. Liberty, free markets, peace, prosperity, not getting in another stupid catastrophic war, which we're on the precipice of right now. That's what I'm pushing.
Speaker 1: What are we on the precipice of?
Speaker 0: Well, I think you weren't you just talking about it the other day? Everyone I hear on the inside says we're about to attack around. I think you just said something about that the other day. Am I wrong about that? I thought I saw in one of your interviews that you did.
Possibly. Okay.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean we are on the verge of a war. I mean, you keep referring to we being in wars. There's a very big difference between a country having a military that's engaged and a country being at war. This country has not been at war for twenty five years. You have not been fighting for the American homeland for twenty five years.
Speaker 0: Yes. We haven't that's true. We haven't had a war on our shores. We've been picking on third world countries halfway around the world.
Speaker 1: Well, you haven't been randomly picking on them. I mean, Afghanistan, you went
Speaker 0: I didn't say it was random.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Right. Okay. It wasn't like you suddenly decided to bomb again Myanmar or something. You you went to Afghanistan to find Bin Laden and take revenge for nine eleven and stop an attack like that happening again on the American homeland.
That is very different from a country being at war.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But that's a that's a total mischaracterization of the war in Afghanistan. It's one thing to say. That might be an accurate characterization of the special operations mission in late two thousand one, but then we thought then we thought a twenty year regime change war against the Taliban.
Speaker 1: You got dragged into the quicksand of war. Oh.
Speaker 0: Yes. Okay. Fine. But Fine. I thought it wasn't a war.
Like, what I I don't get the argument.
Speaker 1: Was a war. It's your it's your use of we as if you're personally, like, suffering this war.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You're tax payer. We We're
Speaker 1: tax payer. Pay for it. Okay. Fine.
Speaker 0: Douglas, would you go if I went back and corrected you on every time you've used the term we to refer to your government or something like that, like, if I were to say, oh, we just imposed tariffs on China, would you point out that I didn't and it was the Trump administration?
Speaker 1: You take it obviously very personally, and that that's your right to do so, of course. I'm just trying to make sure we're accurate here.
Speaker 0: What what do you think I'm I'm taking personally?
Speaker 1: Judge that. The American wars.
Speaker 0: Sure. Yeah. I think they've they've killed hundreds of thousands of people and cost my country $8,000,000,000,000 and Sure. And degraded my country very much.
Speaker 1: And there's a very good argument to make on that. I'm still slightly bemused about this move from, I'm an expert on this, and I have views, to I'm a comedian.
Speaker 0: I've never claimed to be an expert on anything. This is the problem, Joe.
Speaker 1: I mean, if if if if somebody
Speaker 2: says You have to claim to be an expert on something to have an opinion on something?
Speaker 1: You don't have to be. You don't have to be. But was an issue. I'm not a historian, but I'm pumping out history.
Speaker 0: But what
Speaker 1: do mean an expert, but I'm talking all the time about this.
Speaker 2: You're not even talking about specifically on what he just said.
Speaker 1: No. I'm saying this is my point about this you say, I'm not an expert.
Speaker 2: So what's the solution? To not talk about it?
Speaker 1: No. It's to have more experts around.
Speaker 0: Well, the expert class hasn't done a great job.
Speaker 1: This is follow the science. Absolutely. Agree with that. I said to you, I agree with that. I know.
But one of the problems is
Speaker 0: all of COVID Fire away. I I will put my track record against any of the expert class on COVID. I'm glad to do that. So should I have just shut up? Should I have shut up by opposing lockdowns and opposing vaccine mandates?
No. Without black the argument the time. Realize right. The entire argument that you're making. Let the experts handle this.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
Full Episode (#2303): @joerogan
reSee.it AI Summary
I was approached by someone claiming to be from a high-level PR agency, who said a government agency hired them to create a negative narrative about me, labeling me as anti-vaccine. They warned me that I would be targeted aggressively for speaking out about vaccines and autism.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
🚨 Jenny McCarthy Says the Government Hired a PR Firm to Smear Her For Talking About Vaccines & Autism “Someone came to me in person and said I am a PR agency, a very high echelon one, and I was approached by a government agency to create a narrative against you and it's going to be calling you anti-vaccine … They're going to come after you hard.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Someone from a PR agency told the speaker that a government agency wanted to hire them to create a PR campaign against her, framing her as "anti-vaccine." The PR person turned down the job but wanted to warn her, saying the agency would come after her hard, even though she states she has always said she is not anti-vaccine. The speaker claims she wasn't scared initially because she felt she had faith and truth on her side. However, she says things became difficult when she started losing jobs, impacting her ability to provide for her son's therapy as a single mother. She says she relied on writing her books and persevering despite the attempts to "cancel" her. She notes that her son is now 22, and she is still present and active.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: After that, things kinda got crazy, not immediately. I had about six months of just enormous amounts of parents going, thank you. I'm looked at not crazy now. People kept saying I was crazy. And then I had someone come to my organization, Generation Rescue, and say to me, listen.
I was approached by, let's just say, a government agency to be hired. And what I do is I set up PR campaigns to go against the narrative. And I'm telling you privately because I turned them down, but I wanted to give you forewarning that it's happening because they're gonna hire someone else. The only reason I said no is because my child went through the same thing, and I didn't wanna be part of it. And I'm Hold
Speaker 1: Hold Hold on. I have chills all over my body. I need you to tell me that whole thing all over again. Yeah. Because the shock almost didn't let everything sink in.
And I if I'm having that, somebody else is having it. Yeah. Someone came to you.
Speaker 0: Someone came to me in person and said, I I basically am a PR agency, a very high echelon one. And I was approached by a government agency to create a narrative against you, and it's gonna be called your anti vaccine. And I turned down the job, but I wanted to privately and secretly this I couldn't we couldn't do an email. We couldn't do a phone call. I to come to you in person and let you know this, that they're going to come after you with and hard.
And I said, well, how are they gonna do that when I've clearly said in every interview I'm not anti vaccine? Like, I'm just telling the story of my child of what happened and how I'm getting him better. And they said, doesn't he said, doesn't matter. They're gonna come after you with everything they've got, and they've, you know, they've got the media on their side. So just to just this is just a heads up.
And I was like, well, thank you very much. And I didn't believe them. I was like, there's no way because I preface it in my book. I've prefaced it everywhere. You know?
Speaker 1: So you didn't even get scared. I didn't get scared.
Speaker 0: I would have a heart attack. I know. I didn't get scared. I didn't get scared. You know what?
When you feel like you have your faith in your corner
Speaker 1: And truth.
Speaker 0: And truth. That's exactly right. So I'm a tough chick. I'm from the South Side Of Chicago. You know?
I've gone through enough. I think I went almost to an all girl Catholic school. So, you know, I think it gave me a good armor. So when it started happening, it didn't really hurt me until it started taking jobs away from me. Because I was a single mother still trying to heal my son, pay for speech therapy, ABA, and cancel I was the beginning of kind of that cancel culture.
It didn't cancel culture wasn't even abrades yet, But I would get calls from certain jobs and be like, we're taking off this campaign. So it was that that was the hard part because I was a single mom. If I was some rich bitch that didn't give a shit, I it probably wouldn't have affected me, but it was just the job as because sticks and stones bring them. I don't care. Yeah.
But it was that kind of you know? And so I just heavily relied on still writing my books and not giving up and still, like, going, you can try to cancel me, but I'm still going to be here. And now looking back, my son is 22 years old, and I'm still here.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
Jon Stewart is ‘Horrified’ to Learn About Hungary’s State Media “You have a media machine that purposefully lies to its people to maintain a political fiction and get themselves power … It would never happen in the United States.” https://t.co/lp6vJ21Spm
Video Transcript AI Summary
If a media machine purposefully lies to its people to maintain a political fiction and gain power, that is an authoritarian system, not a democratic one. If that ever happened in the United States, we would be horrified and furious to learn of a media organization designed to bend reality and manipulate facts to maintain power. I can't imagine living in a country where a media organization knowingly lies to its audience and calls for news people to be fired for telling the truth. If something like that happened in the United States, it would be a dark day indeed. I appreciate you raising the alarm.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So you're saying if you have a media machine that purposefully lies to its people to maintain a political fiction and get themselves power, that that is the hallmark of an authoritarian system, not a democratic system. Absolutely. Well, if we were ever to get something like that in The United States, we would be horrified, furious to know that there was an entire media organization designed to bend reality, to manipulate facts, to maintain power. It would if I may, and I don't mean I'm I'm not trying to slam Hungary. It would never happen in The United States.
It's just not I I almost can't even conjure it. Imagine it. It must be very difficult to live in a country where one media organization out of whole cloth, knowingly, explicitly, maybe even in meetings behind the scenes might say, we're lying to our audience. Holy shit. And then call for news people to be fired for telling the truth.
I mean, if something like that happened in The United States, it would be a dark day indeed. So I appreciate you raising the alarm bells for us.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
This is incredible. The former head of the CDC, Dr. Robert Redfield, says he hasn’t studied the childhood vaccine schedule. When Del shows him the safety studies used to license the Hep B vaccine for one day old babies, he disagrees with the CDC recommendation. Watch this👇 https://t.co/hSvvAMhc1H
Video Transcript AI Summary
The childhood vaccine schedule is managed by a vaccine advisory group with CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics representation. Changes would come to my desk for review, but this committee is very influential in vaccine policy.
Regarding the hepatitis B vaccine, I'm surprised it's given to day-old babies based on limited safety data from a study with only a five-day review period and no placebo group. The FDA likely extrapolated adult data, but I don't think this establishes safety for newborns. I would prefer to see this vaccine given to older children.
I disagree with the heavy-handed approach to vaccines, as it increases hesitancy and distrust. Doctors should educate, not badger or threaten, people about vaccines. I'm not a big advocate for one-year-olds getting the hepatitis B vaccine unless the mother is hepatitis B positive and the baby is at high risk.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Have you looked at the childhood
Speaker 1: No. I have not.
Speaker 0: Schedule at all?
Speaker 1: No. I mean, I have. I mean, the schedule historically, but I haven't really studied it in in recent times.
Speaker 0: So so it's fair to say that the guy that was head of CDC, which is who's in charge of the recommended schedule for for children's vaccines, but no more added. I mean, other I guess COVID was, but not during
Speaker 1: your time. But I didn't agree with that.
Speaker 0: You didn't agree with that. And I don't agree with it now. So if it's not being added, where is let me before I get in this, you know, as you step into CDC, we think of CDC really as that childhood schedule is a huge part of it, but it's not really on your radar.
Speaker 1: It's really on that vaccine advisory group that you talked about that you went to. They Yeah. Which which I have CDC people on. Yeah. But that's really the group that and you know, and they also have, as you know, the American Academy of Pediatrics on it.
And if they were to change recommendations, that would come up to my desk, you know, to review. Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 0: So if something, you know, if something has to be readjusted, something added, then it gets then it gets kicked to you.
Speaker 1: It would get kicked up for review. But in general, you know, that vaccine committee is a pretty, pretty powerful committee when it comes to vaccine policy in The United States.
Speaker 0: I wanna get I'm I'm gonna throw something at you here. I've just pulled up on my computer. This is the Recombivax, HPV vaccine.
Speaker 1: Which vaccine?
Speaker 0: The hepatitis B vaccine, which you have some understanding of hepatitis B. You said you worked on that. This is given to day one old babies, and I just want you to read out loud just this this is on this is the FDA's website, 6.1 clinical trial experience.
Speaker 1: Because clinical trials are conducted under a variety of varying conditions, adverse rates observed in the clinical trials of vaccine cannot be directly compared to rates in clinical trials of another vaccine and may not reflect the rates observed in practice. How far do you want me to go? I want
Speaker 0: to just read into the what they how they came to the safety on this product.
Speaker 1: This is three clinical studies, four thirty four doses for Combivacs at five micrograms were administered to 147 healthy infants and children up to the age of 10. They were monitored for five days after each dose. This is what we talked about. How many people? How long?
Okay. Adverse reactions were reported at point two percent and ten point four of injections respectively. So the systemics was point two and the injection site was
Speaker 0: That's enough. I mean, I just really wanna get to no placebo group. No placebo group. There's no placebo group. Hundred and forty seven children and a five day safety review.
There's two products like this. The other hepatitis B, I could show you has a four day safety review period. Yeah. It's a product given to day one old babies. Yeah.
Did they establish safety? Can is there any way on earth to establish safety of a product in a five day safety review?
Speaker 1: I I wouldn't I wouldn't I wouldn't come to that conclusion. Right? I suspect what they've done by the committee is that the FDA's
Speaker 0: That's the FDA. This is this is the insert that comes with the vaccine. This is what they're bragging.
Speaker 1: The FDA
Speaker 0: This is how we Yeah. Decided to The
Speaker 1: FDA, you know, probably extrapolated, whether that's appropriate or not, we can argue Yeah. That data that they had from adults and adolescents. Okay? I'm not a big advocate that the hepatitis v vaccine is a vaccine that is really needs to be prioritized for newborns. I'd rather see that vaccine as a vaccine along with the human papillomavirus vaccine that we consider for 10, 11, 12, 15 year olds.
But no, I would not say that establishes it. It basically just builds on the fact that they had this adult data. And I'm I'm actually relatively surprised that then they would change the indication. So I don't know what the indication was before, but say the indication was the vaccine was approved for people over the age of two or over the age of five. I'm surprised that based on that limited data, they now said it's approved for people.
What did you say? How many days old?
Speaker 0: One. Yeah. I'm surprised.
Speaker 1: There's there's like in California. The other side
Speaker 0: of I've gotten calls, just so you know, from people that have watched our work. They get call I get called from the hospitals in California. I'm trying to leave the hospital having given birth, and they're being threatened that they're
Speaker 1: gonna call child protective services Don't let them have the vaccine.
Speaker 0: If they don't give this vaccine to their babies.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I don't agree with them.
Speaker 0: So then See, I don't
Speaker 1: agree with any of the heavy handed Yeah. Approach to vaccines. Right. And all I think they do is accentuate hesitancy and lack of public trust. I'm a public health person, and I have a lot of patients that talk about vaccines.
And I don't badger them when they say no. I or make the argument why I think it's to their advantage. Mhmm. And when they say no, so be it. When they come back, I have the discussion again, so be it.
I've argued that doctors need to spend more time educating people about why they think that vaccine's a benefit to them and and not badgering people, threatening people. What happened with COVID was so wrong. So I would not you know, if you had if asked me to weigh in on whether one year old should get hepatitis B vaccine, I'm not a big advocate of that. Now if we were in Southeast Asia, and the mother that just gave birth to that baby had e antigen positivity, and that baby was high risk for hepatitis B infection, I may say, hey. Let's let's get that kid vaccinated.
Okay? Because there's good data that they'll be less likely to become a chronic carrier. But in America, and the mother's not hepatitis B positive?
Speaker 0: I mean, we're testing her. We already know. And the only the only risk would be the mom's body.
Speaker 1: I don't see it.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
ELON: "The government funded NGO's are a way to do things that would be illegal if they were the government, but are somehow made legal if it's sent to a so-called nonprofit ... It's a gigantic scam. Maybe the biggest scam ever." https://t.co/7anMtEF4gY
Video Transcript AI Summary
The whole NGO thing is a nightmare because government funded NGOs are essentially government organizations, an oxymoron, and a loophole. It's a way for the government to do things that would be illegal if they did it directly. People cash out and become very wealthy through these nonprofits, paying themselves enormous sums.
It's a gigantic scam, maybe the biggest ever. There are millions of NGOs, tens of thousands of them large. Someone can get an NGO up for a fairly small amount of money. Soros was really good at this, he figured out how to hack the system. He's a genius at arbitrage. You leverage a small amount of money to create a nonprofit, lobby the politicians to send a ton of money to it, and turn a $10 million donation into a billion-dollar NGO, which the government continues to fund every year.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The the whole NGO thing is a is a nightmare, and it's it's a misnomer because if you have a government funded nongovernmental organization, you you're you're simply a government funded organization. It it it's a it's an oxymoron.
Speaker 1: Right. It's a loophole.
Speaker 0: Yes. It it basically, the government funded NGOs are a way to do things that that would be illegal if they were the government, but are somehow made legal if it's sent to a so called nonprofit. But these but these nonprofits are then used to people cash out these nonprofits. They become very wealthy through nonprofits. They pay themselves enormous sums through these nonprofits.
Speaker 1: That's it's so insane that that's been going on for so long.
Speaker 0: It's a gigantic scam. Like, one of the biggest maybe the biggest scam ever.
Speaker 1: And how many NGOs?
Speaker 0: I think there's a total number of NGOs, probably millions. But in terms of large NGOs, tens of thousands. I mean, it's it's actually it's it's it's kind of a a hack to the system where, you know, someone can get an NGO stood up for for a fairly small amount of money. Like, Soros was really good at this. Like, he really George Soros is like a system hacker.
Like, he he figured out how to hack the system. He's a genius at arbitrage. I mean, these days, he's he's pretty old, but a genius at arbitrage. So he he figured out that you could leverage a small amount of money to create a nonprofit, then lobby the for the politicians to send a ton of money to that nonprofit so you can take what might be, you know, a $10,000,000 donation to a nonprofit to create a nonprofit and leverage that into a billion dollar not NGO. And nonprofit is a weird word.
It's just a nongovernmental organization. And and then you can. The government continues to fund that every year, and it'll have a nice sounding name, like the Institute for Peace or something like that. But, really, it's a graphic machine.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
DATA REPUBLICAN: “We have sitting members of Congress that actually sit on the NGOs right now. They vote in Congress for money for themselves, and they sit on the same NGOs that they're voting to get money for. It is a huge conflict of interest and it's buried very deep.” https://t.co/zIMHxx8mA0
Video Transcript AI Summary
During the Reagan era, we created NGOs to fight communism by establishing a soft power structure to influence the world. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was created and split into the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute. Both Democrats and Republicans were under the NED, with the intention of offering balanced perspectives as they influenced the world.
But when communism fell, these NGOs didn't disband; they grew in power and money. They now see themselves as protectors of democracy, viewing any challenge to them as a challenge to democracy itself. Both Democrats and Republicans are heavily involved, even to the point where sitting members of Congress vote for money for these NGOs while sitting on them. They believe they're doing good, protecting the Western world, but it's also about the money. They tell themselves a good story.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But do you think you're going to find a lot of corruption not only with Democrats, but also with Republicans?
Speaker 1: I've liked it. Oh, I already did. You said this threat You see, the structure of the NGOs, the worst government associated one was invented in during the communist regime during Reagan. And we did this in order to fight communism around the world, fight the spread of communism. And what they did was they ended up setting off setting up a soft power structure to influence the world, to stop the spread of communism in the eighties.
Well, the communism that we were fighting. So they created a situation structure where the Republicans and the Democrats work together. And then they decided to create the NED, and it splits. That splits. So the NED is split into the National Democrats and then the International Republican Institute.
Democrats, Republicans are both under the NED. And the NED was designed to influence the world to stop the spread of communism. So they thought it would be fair. We'll give some money to the Republicans, some money to the Democrats so that when they influence the world, they're getting both perspectives. But So when the communism in your your fighting fell, the NGOs did not disband.
Somehow, they got bigger. They got more money. They got more power. And now they've truly become They label themselves the protectors of democracy. And now they believe that any challenge to them is challenging, quote, unquote, democracy.
But, really, it's the democracy they set up in this soft power structure underneath Arnold.
Speaker 0: And it's Democrats and Republicans?
Speaker 1: As I cannot tell you enough how much both are involved. It is everywhere. Members. Now we even have members of Congress. So we have sitting members of Congress that actually sit on the NGOs right now.
They vote in Congress for money for themselves, and they sit on the same NGOs that they're voting to get money. It is a huge conflict of interest, and it's buried very deep.
Speaker 0: Is it all about the money?
Speaker 1: I think they'll be better. They're the way I look good. Listen, I think they believe they're doing a good mission. I believe that they've told themselves that I think they truly believe that without their influence that the Western world will fall. And it means that their power is top priority.
And that also means that their are the top priority. So yes, to answer your question, it is all about the money. But they tell themselves a good story. You know, all villains do.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
Did You Know Drugs Like Ozempic Were Derived From Lizard Venom? “The venom has helped create different type 2 diabetes drugs like Byetta for more than a decade. It's also evolved into other treatments like Ozempic, which is derived from Gila monster venom.” https://t.co/xaoT0b7k5w
Video Transcript AI Summary
Gila monsters, iconic in the Southwest desert, spend most of their lives underground and are one of only two venomous lizards in the world. Although their bite is painful and they latch on, their venom has a lifesaving property.
The venom lowers blood sugar and acts like insulin, making it useful in treating type two diabetes. A protein in the venom, similar to one in humans, increases insulin production, slows the gut, and regulates blood sugar.
The venom has been used to create type two diabetes drugs like Byetta for over a decade and has evolved into other treatments like Ozempic. Medications are now made without using venom directly. These reptiles contribute to our lives and can save lives one bit of venom at a time.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Gila monsters are one of those desert animals we are told to stay away from, but it turns out they're important to modern medicine.
Speaker 1: If you're like me, you're scratching your head thinking how can this actually be possible? Twelve news journalist Jade Cunningham taking a closer look at how these reptiles are really helping to bring lifesaving treatments to people with diabetes. Though
Speaker 2: we don't often see them,
Speaker 3: they spend about 90% of their life underground.
Speaker 2: Gila monsters are well known in Arizona.
Speaker 3: I think it's the iconic Southwest Desert animal.
Speaker 2: One of only two venomous lizards in the world.
Speaker 3: If you are bitten, it likely will hang on and they hang on pretty well.
Speaker 2: It's bite can be extremely painful
Speaker 3: and the longer they hang on, the more venom they're getting into your system.
Speaker 2: But that venom,
Speaker 3: it lowers blood sugar. It acts like insulin
Speaker 2: has actually been lifesaving.
Speaker 3: It's used to treat type two diabetes.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think it's it's amazing.
Speaker 2: Valley Wise Toxicologist Doctor. Dan Quan says a protein in the lizard's venom is similar to one in humans that increases insulin production.
Speaker 4: It's a glucagon like protein or glucagon like peptide and that targets certain cells in the body, the pancreas that says, hey, I'm full. It kind of slows the gut down. It regulates blood sugar. It does all of these things that we've we've discovered throughout time.
Speaker 2: As a result, the venom has helped create different type two diabetes drugs like Byetta for more than a decade. It's also evolved into other treatments like Ozempic, is derived from Gila monster venom.
Speaker 4: So a lot of times they will will extract the venom and then they would do their testing on it. And then they have techniques now where they they make the medications without actually using venom.
Speaker 2: So the next time you're lucky enough to see a Gila monster
Speaker 4: All animals out there are can contribute to all kinds of things in our life.
Speaker 2: No. While deadly.
Speaker 3: A lot of venomous animals are are persecuted heavily. So I it's nice to let people know, like, hey, we really need these. Besides the environment needs them, we need them as well, and they can help us.
Speaker 2: These reptiles can help save lives one bit of venom at a time. Jake Cunningham, twelve News.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
MICHAEL FRANZESE: “The evidence that was uncovered by the GOP investigation on Joe Biden and Hunter Biden and his family … There was more evidence than there was in any one of my racketeering indictments. Joe Biden is treasonous.” https://t.co/7HXZUH7R7I
Video Transcript AI Summary
I've dealt with racketeering indictments, and the evidence against Joe Biden and his family is more substantial than in any of those cases. Biden is treasonous; he sold out his vice presidency for money. He's a liar who lied about everything, including the laptop, with intelligence agencies backing him up.
He had shell companies to collect money, which I know firsthand. He doesn't even know how to tell the truth and destroyed the country. You may say we weren't at war and he wasn't selling secrets, but he did it for the money, giving his unqualified son a job in an energy company.
I like Trump for the policies he put in place as president. I don't know him personally.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But he took it to a different level. So, yes, I don't think it's I don't think it was all just lawfare.
Speaker 1: Yeah. These crimes that they alleged, these are all nonsense.
Speaker 0: They're not all nonsense. I just listed why they weren't.
Speaker 1: No. Let let me no. You don't care. You just like him. I like who you like.
No. I don't like it. To the logic about
Speaker 0: it or the facts.
Speaker 1: No. No. You just like him. No. No.
It's okay. I'll give you You're entitled. Let me give you logic and facts. Okay? Yeah.
I told you I had three racketeering indictments. Three. Okay? I know this statute inside out and upside down.
Speaker 0: We're back to you now.
Speaker 1: No. No. No. No. I'm coming to a point.
I will tell you this. The information and the evidence that was uncovered by the GOP investigation on Joe Biden and Hunter Biden and his family. There was more evidence than there was in any one of my racketeering indictments. Joe Biden is treasonous. That was that was I wasn't made to him.
No. I agree. I'm agreeing
Speaker 0: with you.
Speaker 1: Okay. He's treasonous?
Speaker 0: He's not treasonous.
Speaker 1: Yes. He is. He sold out his vice presidency. That's treason for money.
Speaker 0: For fuck's sake. You just don't like him, so that's treason.
Speaker 1: But your guy Bill, no no no no. Let me tell you. You know why I don't like him? No for
Speaker 0: fuck's sake.
Speaker 1: I don't like him because he he's he's a liar. Let let me finish my point.
Speaker 0: I didn't say anything.
Speaker 1: He's a liar. He was never competent to be president. He lied every single he lied about everything.
Speaker 0: I lied about I lied about the huge fan.
Speaker 1: He lied about the laptop. He lied about everything. He had 51 him and his his his cohorts there got 51 intelligence agencies agents to lie about the laptop after they knew that the FBI had authenticated it. Absolute liar. Okay.
Okay. As far as that, let let me tell you this.
Speaker 0: Not a huge fan.
Speaker 1: He had eighteen eighteen shell companies that did nothing. There was no brick and mortar behind him. There was no employees. All they did was collect money. How do I know about that?
I had 21 shell companies when I was collecting defrauding the government a tax on every dollar, yes. I know the whole system. He sold out his vice presidency. He sold it out. He's treasonous.
Yeah. He did. And he and he lies. And the guy lies he he don't even know how to tell the truth. And he destroyed the country.
Treasonous. If we were at war
Speaker 0: and he was selling secrets to them, we weren't.
Speaker 1: How do we know he did this for the money? Bill, how do we know he did this for
Speaker 0: the money? I know what he did for the money. He got his ne'er do well crackhead son a job in an energy company when he knew nothing about energy. Is that okay? It's not okay, but when you have no perspective on what is the bigger crime, you just like the guy you like.
Speaker 1: No, it's not. Everything he does you see through rose colored glasses.
Speaker 0: No, you won't. And this other guy
Speaker 1: No, you won't.
Speaker 0: It's okay.
Speaker 1: It's what most of the country is like. I would tell you.
Speaker 0: Just don't ask me to respect it as as critical thinking.
Speaker 1: I like I like Donald Trump for the policies that he put into this country, and I think during his time as a president I didn't know him before that. I met him one time thirty years ago with Roy Cohn for five he probably wouldn't have even remembered me. We had a little meeting. I had to meet with Roy Cohn. He happened to be there.
That was it. I don't know him. I have nothing to do with him. Let me tell you something. I don't I'm not know of anybody.
I just like the job he did as president.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
🚨 PIERS MORGAN: "I was with one of the top cancer experts in Britain for lunch a couple of days ago, who was utterly scathing about the long-term impact of the mRNA vaccines ... and says that they're reaping a whirlwind in the world of cancer as a result of the vaccines." https://t.co/9HPkIgBlRV
Video Transcript AI Summary
I'm skeptical about the COVID vaccine, especially the mRNA vaccines. I recently spoke with a top cancer expert in Britain who was very critical of the long-term effects of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. According to this expert, we may see a significant increase in cancer cases as a result of these vaccines. While I believe the vaccines saved lives, I question whether we had enough time to fully understand the potential long-term consequences.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He's very skeptical as many people are, about the COVID vaccine, particularly the mRNA vaccines. I was with, for what it's worth, one of the top cancer experts in Britain, for lunch a couple of days ago who was utterly scathing about the long term impact of the mRNA vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna, and says that they're reaping a whirlwind in the world of cancer, for example, as a result of, of the vaccines. Not to say that I personally believe they saved many lives, but did we have enough time to examine the potential consequences? Almost certainly not.
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared insights from biologist Heather Heying regarding mRNA vaccines, highlighting concerns about the immune system potentially attacking its own cells, especially in critical areas like the heart. This raises questions about the implications of such immune responses. Additionally, Dr. Paul Offit discussed a possible causal link between vaccination and myocarditis/pericarditis, suggesting that the spike protein might mimic heart muscle proteins, leading to unintended immune reactions against the heart.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
Biologist Heather Heying Drops Some Inconvenient Truths on the Science Behind mRNA Vaccines "Your immune system starts going after your own cells, which is not a disaster if it's a cell in your nose or in your deltoid. But what if it's a cell in your heart? Then you start to have problems because those cells are not going to regenerate." Full Episode w/ @HeatherEHeying: @JillianMichaels
Video Transcript AI Summary
There's new information suggesting shedding might be real. The mRNA platform creators called them vaccines instead of gene therapy because gene therapy would require testing to ensure it doesn't shed onto others. We're giving your body the code to make the virus's spike protein, creating immunity.
If SARS CoV-two never appears without the spike protein, your immune system will recognize and respond to it. However, there's no guarantee your body will stop producing it. The injected mRNA is stabilized to be more permanent and coated in lipid nanoparticles to protect it from enzymes that break down free-floating RNA. These nanoparticles can cross the blood-brain barrier.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There is some new work out this week that is suggesting that shedding may actually be real. And what Robert Malone, who was one of the creators of the mRNA platform, has said is this is precisely one of the reasons that they called them vaccines rather than gene therapy. Because if they'd called it gene therapy, they would have been required to test before bringing to market these products to make sure that they didn't shed onto people who had never been transacted. Hold on, though.
Speaker 1: JK. Just a sec. Hold on a second. Okay. So just a minute.
Sorry. Okay. We're giving somebody the code to make the spike protein of the virus. This creates immunity. How, though?
Because now you've got just the spike protein of the virus. So arguably, the spike protein won't kill you because it's not the whole virus, but your body knows how to take out the spike piece. So if you get COVID, it'll kill it. Am I sort of right there?
Speaker 0: Yes. Exactly. So In theory. Assuming and, you know, there's a lot, a lot of black boxes in there. But assuming that SARS CoV-two never shows up without the spike protein Got it.
If if your body is making the spike protein and your immune system goes, oh, spike protein, that's foreign, that's not self, I'm definitely gonna be able to respond to that if I ever see it again, when SARS CoV-two shows up covered in spike proteins, your body doesn't notice that it's got the SARS CoV-two part that's not the spike protein doesn't matter because it's covered in spike proteins. I mean, you're right. It's been going to spike protein. Got it. So that's, like, that's the logic, and that part of the logic seems kind of elegant with so many caveats.
There's no way to, make sure that your body stops making this. Right. So you've now got a code to make spike protein that's going into your cells that were perfectly healthy cells, and now they're producing spike protein, and your immune system's like, oh, that cell, which is actually you, but it's now making spike protein, is now recognized as foreign by your immune system, so your body starts go your immune system starts going after your own cells, Which is, you know, not a disaster if it's a, you know, cell in your nose probably or in your deltoid, but what if it's a cell in your heart? Oh my god. Then you start to have problems because those cells are not gonna regenerate.
So you also have the mRNA that's being injected is not actually the original SARS CoV-two mRNA. It's been stabilized to make it more permanent by replacing one by replacing the uracil with something called pseudouridine so that it doesn't decay even at the rate that it normally would. Oh, god. Okay. And one more thing, and there's probably more, but just off the top of my head, the m r mRNA doesn't tend to exist just in your body.
You have these things called RNAases, which ACE just is the, like, name for an enzyme that takes apart a thing. So you have these these enzymes in your body that take apart RNA when it's just free floating in your body because it's not where it's supposed to be. And so in order to get this transfection agent into the cells where supposedly you want it, I don't, but supposedly you want it, you have to protect it further, and so it's coated in these lipid nanoparticles, which themselves the blood brain barrier. Right. Oh my god, Heather.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
Related:
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
Make America Healthy Again! 🇺🇸 https://t.co/XQHMYN5TG0
Video Transcript AI Summary
I've seen an upwelling of optimism across the country, and I'm ready to take our nation back. That's why I'm proud to introduce my running mate, Nicole Shanahan.
This campaign is about what is sacred: health, families, and caring for this land. America leads the world in chronic illness, but we can fix this. This is a spiritual journey for me, and I believe the most unifying theme for all Americans is our love for our children.
We can unite to give them the protection, health, and future they deserve. Former President Trump and I are forming an alliance to make America healthy again. The Make America Healthy Again movement is strong and bipartisan, driven by moms and people wanting a healthy nation. If you're sick, you only have one dream: to get better. I promise we're going to make America healthy again.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We are told today that our nation is hopelessly divided, but I found something different as I travel this country. I have witnessed an upwelling of optimism that I've never seen before. Something is stirring in us. Let's go take back our country. R.
P. Junior is just about ready to make headlines with his running mate choice. And I'm so proud to introduce to you my fellow lawyer, a brilliant scientist, technologist, a fierce warrior mom, Nicole Shanahan.
Speaker 1: This campaign is so much more than politics. This campaign is about what is sacred, health and our families in this beautiful land that deserves much greater attention and care than we've given it.
Speaker 0: Robert f Kennedy junior's favorability is skyrocketing. Bobby Kennedy just got up and said, America leads the world in chronic illness.
Speaker 2: This is a real issue that we all face, and we're all being poisoned. And they're profiting off of it. It. But when someone like RFK Junior comes along and says, hey, I think we can fix this. It's like give him a chance.
Speaker 0: This is a spiritual journey for me. For nineteen years, I prayed every morning that God would put me in a position to end this calamity. Most unifying theme for all Americans is that we all love our children. If we all unite around that issue now, we can finally give them the protection, the health, and the future that they deserve.
Speaker 3: Some have called this an unlikely partnership. Former president Trump and Robert f Kennedy junior have formed an alliance. Former president Trump says he'll work with Robert f Kennedy junior to make America healthy again.
Speaker 0: Tonight, I'm very pleased to welcome Robert f Kennedy junior. Don't you want healthy children? And don't you want a president that's gonna make America healthy again?
Speaker 1: The MahaMAGA unity movement is very, very strong in The United States right now. Arguably, it is the largest movement in the world.
Speaker 0: Maha should be entirely bipartisan. This is people wanting to make America healthy again. The most powerful new force in American politics is these moms of the make America healthy again. This is
Speaker 3: a transcendent powerful movement, and it crosses party lines.
Speaker 1: I'm a mother to a child with special needs, and I will dedicate the rest of my life to fighting on behalf of children and their right to be healthy and their right to thrive.
Speaker 0: If you are a well person, you have the American dream at your feet.
Speaker 4: But if you're sick, you only have one dream,
Speaker 0: and that's to get better. And I can promise you that we are gonna make America healthy again.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
TULSI: “Mr. President, this is what I've dedicated my life to and it is truly humbling to be in this position, to serve in your administration, help to rebuild that trust, and ultimately to keep the American people safe.” https://t.co/xkqsgZkJOH
Video Transcript AI Summary
I want to thank you, Mr. President, for entrusting me with the critical role of Director of National Intelligence, especially now. I recognize the American people's diminished trust in the intelligence community due to its weaponization and politicization. I'm committed to refocusing our intelligence community, empowering the dedicated patriots who serve, and prioritizing the safety, security, and freedom of all Americans. This aligns with the mandate you received from the American people.
Also, your message about aspiring to be remembered as a peacemaker deeply resonates with service members, veterans, and medal of honor recipients. We appreciate your understanding of the cost of sacrifice and your commitment to making war the last resort. Thank you for your leadership.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mister president, first and foremost, I just wanna say thank you from the bottom of my heart for the trust that you have placed in me, to fulfill this critical position as director of national intelligence, at any time, but specifically during this time. Unfortunately, the American people have very little trust in the intelligence community, largely because they've seen the weaponization and politicization of an entity that is supposed to be purely focused on ensuring our national security. So I look forward to being able to help fulfill that mandate that the American people delivered to you very clearly in this election, to refocus our intelligence community by empowering the great patriots who have chosen to serve our country in this way and focus on ensuring the safety, security, and freedom of the American people. As you've said, Mr. President, this is what I've dedicated my life to, and it is truly, humbling to be in this position to serve in your administration, help to rebuild that trust, and ultimately to keep the American people safe.
Last thing I'll mention that in your, National Prayer Breakfast speech, you made a statement about your legacy of wanting to be remembered as a peacemaker. You know that I can speak for many of my fellow service members who are here today, veterans, medal of honor recipients, how deeply that resonates with us for those who volunteer to put their lives on the line when duty calls, but to have a present commander in chief who recognizes the cost of that sacrifice and ensuring that war is the last resort, not the first. So thank you for your leadership on behalf of my friends here and all who wear the uniform. We're grateful. Thank you.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
Well that’s not good👇
@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️♂️💼🥋
Why don't you know about this? That time a definitive govt. study concluded flu shots don't work in the elderly-- and didn't make a difference with mortality in any age group. The more of the elderly population that got flu shots, the more the death rate increased." NIH wouldn't give permission to any of the study authors to do an interview with me. Why? Step #2 of sending me down the rabbit hole on vaccines and govt. coverups. @RepThomasMassie Much more in my bestseller: Follow the $cience https://www.amazon.com/Follow-Science-Sharyl-Attkisson/dp/0063314916/ref=sr_1_1
Video Transcript AI Summary
We're taking a closer look at protecting seniors from the flu, following studies questioning the effectiveness of flu shots for older people. While most flu deaths occur in those 65 and older, mass vaccinations haven't done the job.
Despite a sharp increase in seniors getting vaccinated over twenty years, flu deaths among the elderly continue to climb. Studies adjusting for various factors still show that flu shots haven't reduced deaths in this group. This same conclusion has been observed in other countries, including Australia, France, Canada, and The UK.
The CDC is exploring new strategies, but still advises seniors to get flu shots, as they might lessen flu severity or prevent other complications. The focus may shift towards vaccinating children and others who could transmit the flu to the elderly.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The CDC is taking a closer look at how best to protect seniors from the flu. The agency is holding a symposium about that and other issues this week. It all follows a series of studies that question the effectiveness of flu shots given to older people. Here's Cheryl Atkinson with our report.
Speaker 1: Millions of seniors swear by their annual flu shots. After all, ninety percent of people killed by the flu are 65 or older. That's perfect. But CBS News has learned that behind the scenes, public health officials have come to a new and disturbing conclusion. Mass vaccinations of the elderly haven't done the job.
Doctor Walter Orenstein was among the first to notice the problem when he headed up the Centers for Disease Control's National Immunization Program. He says it's now become a consensus among public health experts.
Speaker 2: What is absolutely clear is that there is still a substantial burden of deaths and hospitalizations out there that has not been prevented through the present strategy.
Speaker 1: Here's what scientists have found. Over twenty years, the percentage of seniors getting flu shots increased sharply from fifteen percent to sixty five percent. It stands to reason that flu deaths among the elderly should have taken a dramatic dip, making an X graph like this. Instead, flu deaths among the elderly continue to climb. It was hard to believe, so researchers at the National Institutes of Health set out to do a study adjusting for all kinds of factors that could be masking the true benefits of the shots.
But no matter how they crunched the numbers, they got the same disappointing result. Flu shots have not reduced deaths among the elderly. It's not what health officials hope to find. NIH wouldn't let us interview the study's lead author, so we went to Boston and found the only co author not employed by NIH, doctor Tom Reichardt.
Speaker 3: We realized that we had incendiary materials.
Speaker 1: Doctor Reichardt says they thought their study would prove vaccinations had helped.
Speaker 3: We, we were trying to do something mainstream. That's for sure.
Speaker 1: Were you surprised? Astonished. Did you check the date a couple of times to make sure?
Speaker 3: Well, even more than that, we've looked at other countries now. And the same is true.
Speaker 1: That study, soon to be published, finds the same poor results in Australia, France, Canada, and The UK. And other new research stokes the idea that decades of promoting flu shots in seniors and the billions spent haven't had the desired result. The current head of national immunizations confirms CDC is now looking at new strategies, but stops short of calling the present policy a failure.
Speaker 4: There's an active dialogue into how we can do better to prevent influenza and its complications in the elderly.
Speaker 1: So what's an older person to do? The CDC says they should still get their flu shots, that it could make flu less severe or prevent other problems not reflected in the total numbers. But But watch for CDC to likely shift in the near future more toward protecting the elderly in a roundabout way by vaccinating more children and others around them who could give them the flu. Cheryl Atkinson, CBS News, Washington.
503 - Service Unavailable Error
amazon.com
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
🍿🍿🍿
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
Excellent summary 👇
reSee.it AI Summary
I asked about the worst animal testing experiments, and Goodman highlighted the disturbing reality of funded experiments that taxpayers remain unaware of. He believes if people knew the extent of the situation, they would be outraged and protesting.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
MACE: "What is the worst animal testing experiment you've ever heard of and uncovered?" GOODMAN: "There's a lot of nightmarish stuff that we're being forced to fund and taxpayers ... don't even know how bad the situation is. If they did, they would be marching in the streets." 🎥 @NancyMace @JustinRGoodman @WhiteCoatWaste
Video Transcript AI Summary
The worst animal testing I've encountered involved breeding kittens, forcing them to eat cat meat, and then killing them—thousands of them. The Department of Justice was also conducting live animal training exercises involving stabbing, shooting, and blowing up animals. We successfully stopped and defunded that. Additionally, NIH and Fauci-funded experiments in Tunisia involved placing dogs' heads in mesh cages filled with biting flies. These are just a few examples of the horrific, taxpayer-funded animal testing that's happening. The public is unaware of the extent of this cruelty, and if they were, they would be outraged.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What is the worst animal testing experiment you've ever heard of and uncovered? There's some really bad ones out there. What is the absolute worst one you've ever heard of and and uncovered?
Speaker 1: The kitten cannibalism was pretty horrendous. Breeding kittens just to force them to eat cat meat and then killing them even though they were perfectly healthy after they collected their feces out of litter box. I mean, that's literally what was happening. They were doing that to thousands and thousands of kittens. The DOJ until recently was stabbing, shooting, and blowing up live animals for training exercises.
We were able to cut that and defund that. The experiments that the NIH funded and Fauci funded in Tunisia where they were putting the dogs in heads in mesh cages and filling them with biting flies. Yeah. There's a lot of nightmare stuff that we're being forced to fund, and taxpayers don't like it, and they don't even know how bad the situation is. If they did, they would be, you know, marching in the streets.
reSee.it AI Summary
I watched Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent clarify the importance of the DOGE program, emphasizing his alignment with Elon Musk on reducing waste and enhancing government accountability. He highlighted that this initiative represents a significant audit of government spending, with potential for substantial cost savings for the American public. Bessent expressed disappointment with media portrayals, asserting that the team involved is highly trained and methodical, aiming to achieve meaningful results.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
WATCH: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent Sets the Record Straight on @DOGE "Elon and I are completely aligned in terms of cutting waste and increasing accountability and transparency for the American people. I believe that this DOGE program ... is one of the most important audits of government we have seen." "There's a big agenda and I think that there are gigantic cost savings for the American people here. I think it's unfortunate the way the media wants to lampoon what is going on. These are highly trained professionals. This is not some roving band going around doing things. This is methodical and it is going to yield big savings." CC: @elonmusk
Video Transcript AI Summary
Concerns exist regarding the Doge team's access to sensitive payment systems. The team, comprised of two Treasury employees, has read-only access for operational improvements, not system modification. They cannot alter systems; that authority resides with the Federal Reserve. The team has never had the ability to change systems and wouldn't be granted such access. There's no engagement with IRS data, despite the IRS's outdated systems. We haven't blocked any payments, despite Elon Musk's tweet. This program aims for significant cost savings for the American people, a methodical process that shouldn't be misrepresented. We are aligned on cutting waste and increasing accountability and transparency.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mister secretary, we are inside the cash room at the charging department. It is almost impossible to overstate how important the work that is done in this building is to The US financial system. Yet right now, there is widespread concern about the Doge team's access to sensitive payment systems. Are you worried at all that that access and that tinkering, of the payment systems could affect the treasuries market or cause any disruption?
Speaker 1: Good. Well, Solea, thank you for asking me about that because there's a lot of misinformation out out there. First of all, when you say the Doge team, these are treasury employees. There are two treasury employees, one of whom I personally interviewed in his final round. There is no tinkering with the system.
They are on read only. They are looking. They can make no changes. It is an operational program to suggest improvement. So we make 1,300,000,000.0 payments a year.
And this is two employees who are working with a group of long standing employees.
Speaker 0: The letter that the Treasury Department sent sent earlier this week talked about how the team currently does not have, access to change the system. Have they, at any point this year, had the ability to make changes?
Speaker 1: Absolutely not. This is no different than you would have the at a private company. And by the way, the ability to change the system sits over at the Federal Reserve. So it doesn't even lie in this building. So they could make suggestions on how to change the system, but we don't even run the system.
Speaker 0: And if they ask for, if they request the ability to change the system, would you grant that?
Speaker 1: No. Again, they have no ability to change the system. I have no ability to grant that change. That they can make suggestions. Then it would go to the Federal Reserve.
And just like any large ERP system, there would be test, there would be this, there would be that. And then the Fed will determine whether these changes are robust or not.
Speaker 0: As the secretary of treasury, you also oversee the IRS. Do you know what kind of access the team has to IRS data or individual taxpayer data?
Speaker 1: Well, I'm glad you asked that too because, look, the IRS, the privacy issue is one of the biggest issues. And under over the past four years, we've seen a lot of leaks out of there. The IRS systems are quite poor. When I started in college in 1980, I learned the program in COBOL. I think there are 12 different systems at the IRS that still run on COBOL.
But as of now, there there is no engagement at the IRS.
Speaker 0: Elon Musk, just a few half an hour ago tweeted out that Treasury needs to stop approving certain payments. Has your staff tried to block any payments here at Treasury?
Speaker 1: We have not. And I'm glad you asked that too. And just to put in perspective, Elon and I are completely aligned in terms of cutting waste and increasing accountability and transparency for the American people. I believe that this dose program in my adult life is one of the most important audits of government or changes to government structure we have seen. That when I was in my 20s, we had the grace report and there's some great suggestions that came out of that.
Never let implemented under Clinton and Gore. I think it was to government efficiency or reduce government. Nothing happened. So, President Trump came in. There's a big agenda.
And I think that there are gigantic cost savings for the American people here. And I think it's unfortunate the way the media wants to lampoon what is going on. These are highly trained professionals. You know, this is not some roving band going around doing things. This is methodical and it is going to yield big savings.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
🚨 TED CRUZ: “USAID was flowing money to Gaza, that was going straight to Hamas and they were doing everything they could to hide that.” https://t.co/nan0F5NPpe
Video Transcript AI Summary
Biden's USAID has wasted taxpayer money on questionable projects: $1.5 million for DEI in Serbia, $2 million for sex changes in Guatemala, $6 million for tourism in Egypt, and $15 million for contraceptives in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. This spending is alarming for American taxpayers. President Trump aims to stop such funding, addressing issues like USAID's support for Hamas. The urgency for change has never been clearer, especially after blocking funds that could aid terrorism. The backlash from Democrats and media against figures like Elon Musk shows their discomfort with these reforms. Musk's efforts align with Trump's mission to eliminate wasteful spending and restore accountability in government.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We know some of the egregious waste and spending we saw. So for example, the Biden USAID spent $1,500,000 for advancing DEI in Serbia. They spent $2,000,000 for sex changes in Guatemala. They spent $6,000,000 for tourism in Egypt. They spent a million dollars to help disabled people in Tajikistan become climate leaders.
They spent another million dollars for Hamas, a Hamas linked charity, and they spent $15,000,000 for contraceptives and condoms in Taliban controlled Afghanistan. Now, if you're a left wing radical activist, that's music to your ear ears. But if you're just just an American taxpayer, that is horrifying, which is why President Trump has come in and said enough is enough. We're gonna stop this nonsense.
Speaker 1: This is what is so truly incredible that president Trump, along with the Doge team, led by Elon Musk, come in in about two weeks, rip up what has been going on, and USAID funding terrorism and coups and regime change and just ungodly, ungodly grotesque goulash around the globe for forty some odd years, it's been a problem. Two weeks, we're done, senator. We're done.
Speaker 0: Well and look, this this was desperately needed under Joe Biden. I blocked one of the senior appointees to USAID because USAID was flowing money to Gaza that was going straight to Hamas, and they were doing everything they could to hide that. And and and we're not gonna do that. We are not going to allow this to happen. And I gotta say, it's really striking to see the reaction, of Democrats and a lot of folks in the media, where they have convinced themselves that Elon Musk is is the devil.
I like the title of your segment just a moment ago about Doge Derangement Syndrome. Because it really is that Elon is living rent free in their brain, and and I'm grateful that that that he is working round the clock to root this out and and end it. And it's exactly what President Trump was elected to do.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
HAKEEM JEFFRIES: "They are raiding the government, attempting to steal taxpayer money. That's what the situation at the Treasury Department is all about." https://t.co/kc7fXZlJaf
Video Transcript AI Summary
The government has failed to address the high cost of living while attempting to misappropriate taxpayer money. The situation at the Treasury Department highlights this issue. To combat unlawful access to the Treasury's payment system and protect personal and confidential information, we will soon introduce the Stop the Steal Act.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: They've done nothing as it relates to lowering the high cost of living. At the same time, they are raiding the government, attempting to steal taxpayer money. That's what the situation at the Treasury Department is all about. We will introduce the Stop the Steal Act, in short order, to prevent unlawful access with respect to the Department of Treasury's payment system connected to people who are trying to steal personal, sensitive, and confidential information.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY: “The USAID are screaming like they're part of a prison riot because they don't want us reviewing the spending. But that's all @elonmusk is doing. And he's finding some pretty interesting stuff … Just what the President said he was going to appoint Musk to do.” https://t.co/etfGizrxEI
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump promised to review federal spending, and that's what Musk is doing. Some Democratic colleagues are upset about this review, but it's necessary. For four years, the focus has been on who should pay more taxes, while Republicans are asking where the money went.
Examples of questionable spending include $520 million for ESG investments in Africa and $45 million for DEI scholarships in Burma. Democrats are not defending this spending but are instead focused on process and authority. Musk has the president's backing to examine these expenditures. It would be beneficial to compile this spending into a booklet and publicly address each item, challenging Democrats to defend it, which they likely cannot do.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now President Trump ran for office saying, I'm gonna review every single penny in the federal budget. Now how are you gonna review the spending in the federal budget without reviewing the spending? And that's what mister Musk is doing. Now my many of my Democratic colleagues and some of the, the tofu eating will karate at the USAID are screaming like they're part of a prison riot because they don't want us reviewing the spending. But that's all mister Musk is doing, and he's finding some pretty interesting, stuff to my to my friends who who are upset.
I would say with respect, you know, call somebody who cares. Yeah. They better get used to this. It's USAID today. It's gonna be Department of Education tomorrow.
And really, here's what's going on. For 4 years under president Biden, the people in charge ask one simple question. Who needs to pay more in taxes? Who needs to pay more in taxes? Well, that's not the question that the Republicans and president Trump are gonna ask.
Our question is what the hell happened to the money? And that's all that's going on.
Speaker 1: 520,000,000 for consultant driven ESG investments in Africa, 45,000,000 to DEI Scholarships in Burma. Why are your democratic colleagues seemingly more freaked out about cutting USAID? This is our money. Do you know how much it a $1,000,000 is? 520?
I mean, the we have we're spending 100 of 1,000,000 of dollars over the years on this madness. What are they thinking? We have 4 trillion debt.
Speaker 0: If if you notice, my Democratic colleagues in the USAID officials, they're not defending the spending. All they're talking about is process. Oh, it's an insurrection, and Elon Musk doesn't have the authority. Well, sure he has the authority. The president gave it to him.
And all he's doing is looking at the spending. Just what the president said he was going to appoint Musk to do. Here's what I hope Rubio and must do. I would put together all this absurd spending into a booklet. I'd call a press conference, and in front of God and country and the corporate media and the USAID folks and my democratic colleagues, I'd go over it item by item by item, every bit of it.
The DEI comic books, the transgender operas, the funding of, gain a function research. I'd go over every bit of it and say now, do you want to defend this? And they won't. They can't.
reSee.it AI Summary
I find it incredible that we can now data mine the government after years of them data mining us. The tables have turned, and in just weeks, we've built an information structure about our government. It's a significant shift for our liberties.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
Dave Smith & Nicole Shanahan on DOGE: “It is incredible that we now have the ability to data mine the government. They've been data mining us mercilessly for years and years against our very liberties, and the tables are flipped … We have information structure now about our government and it's been accomplished in a matter of weeks, which is incredible.” Full Episode w/ @NicoleShanahan: @ComicDaveSmith @elonmusk @DOGE
Video Transcript AI Summary
The establishment is particularly anxious about the Justice Department, National Intelligence, and Health Department due to past crimes against the American people. Powerful individuals fear exposure of their actions. Recent revelations show USAID's funding of bioweapons and gain-of-function research linked to COVID origins. There's now a capability to data mine government information, which has been done against citizens for years. A team called Doge, composed of software engineers, is efficiently analyzing government budgets and activities, uncovering information in weeks that would have taken years and millions of dollars. This shift in information access, aided by social media, allows the public to see government actions, yet those who claim to protect democracy seem concerned about this transparency.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But isn't it interesting that the positions that you see the establishment freaking out the most were the justice department, the head of the deep state, the director of National Intelligence, and then the health department. It's like these areas where there is just and part of the, I think, issue is that, there have been such crimes committed against the American people from these power centers that now you have powerful people who are really, and I must say, probably legitimately scared to death that somebody might open the books and expose what they've been doing to the American people. That's one of these things that's tough to to brush aside.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, look at just the news today. USAID, hey, funded bioweapons research, gain of function research, links to COVID origins. You know, it it is incredible that we now have, the ability to data mine the government. Yeah.
They've been data mining us mercilessly for years years years against our very liberties. They've been mining us, and, we're flip the tables are flipped. Doge is is if you look at actually from an organizational standpoint, what is Doge? It is a bunch of software engineers. It is, a bunch of researchers and data mining capacity that is exceptional, stuff that you would see from, you know, the leading tech companies in Silicon Valley, engineers, you know, going in and just doing these massive data crawls, data dumps.
They have the ability, to use all kinds of different, you know, AI tools to read documents and compile all of this incredible, data meta metadata. And it's, they're able to then query it in ways that we've never been able to do before. If the agencies wanted to accomplish this themselves, just internally, it would cost 1,000,000 of dollars. It would cost years to do, and it would never get done. Let's just face it.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Oh, no question. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So what Doge is is it is a, department department team, allocated. This is what I've heard. And so HHS has its own Doge team, predominantly software engineers. And they're they're raking through all of the, budgets, the, you know, all of the activity that's happened over, you know, a a a good amount of time. All of the current positions that are being hired, what those positions are being paid, what those people are expected to do.
I mean, we have information structure now about our government that and we it's been accomplished in a matter of weeks, which is incredible. And the expense, I mean, let's talk about how Doge in and of itself is exemplary of efficiency. So it's it's it's just it's saving us so much money to get to the answers that the American people so desperately want.
Speaker 0: Yeah. No. That's that's exactly right. And then, of course, also, you you mix in there the the the kind of monopoly on information that the corporate media has been for so long, and that's shattered now. And so not only can Doge get these this information, but Elon Musk has, you know, like, whatever his Twitter following is is the biggest in the world.
And so now everybody can see it. And it's not that now the American people can actually be aware of what their government is doing. And yet all these these people who, you know, like, have been talking about threats to democracy for so long, you would think they would be really excited that the people can finally see what's going on in the government, and yet they're the ones who are very concerned about that. And that tells you quite a bit.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m trying to wrap my head around the fact that Fauci’s NIAID and @USAID allocated over $40M in taxpayer money to a Wuhan scientist studying bat coronaviruses, who ended up being “patient zero” for COVID-19, with funding wrapping up in 2019. This info came from a FOIA request by @WhiteCoatWaste.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
Let me get this straight. Fauci’s NIAID and @USAID sent over $40M in U.S. taxpayer “support” to a scientist in Wuhan who was working on “bat coronavirus emergence” research, who also became “patient zero” for COVID-19? And the completion date for that funding was … in 2019??? This document was obtained via FOIA by @WhiteCoatWaste. Give them a follow. @elonmusk
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
COVID Origin: WCW investigation proves U.S. Govt Funded “Patient Zero”
If lead Wuhan white coat Ben Hu is patient zero, then White Coat Waste Project's investigation reveals the origin of COVID.
blog.whitecoatwaste.org
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
Tucker Carlson on Whether the Jan. 6th Tapes Contain Evidence of Federal Agent Influence "There were a lot of things going on there that were clearly part of something that was not organic" @TheRedactedInc @ClaytonMorris @TuckerCarlson https://t.co/H97mVf6RZO
Video Transcript AI Summary
We had full cooperation from the Capitol Police and the speaker's office, but we couldn't show that FBI agents were in the crowd, which they admitted. Ray Epps was not just a civilian; he encouraged violence and was defended by the January 6th committee. There were clear signs of federal involvement, but I didn't want to wrongly accuse anyone without proof. Recent trials revealed FBI misconduct, including hiding evidence. We need to crowdsource the footage from January 6th, as it belongs to the public. The narrative of a violent insurrection is misleading; it was a political demonstration among many that year. Intelligence about the event was withheld from Capitol Police, suggesting a motive to create a politically damaging situation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: No. We had, full cooperation from the Capitol Police and from the speaker's office, but what we couldn't do, which is the main thing I wanted to do, which is show that there were FBI agents in the crowd. And there were, and the FBI's admitted that. But it's obvious to me they played a pivotal role. Ray Epps clearly was working for somebody.
He was not a pure civilian. He encouraged violence and then the January 6th committee and Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney and Bennie Thompson and Adam Schiff, they all defended him. He's their friend? What? He's not an insurrectionist.
He's an ally? Like, explain that. It's it it it violates common sense. Okay? But we couldn't answer a lot of these questions because we couldn't identify the people positively.
And because we couldn't, we couldn't put their video on the screen because what if we're wrong? I mean, I tried to be as responsible as we could be. Like, there were a lot of things going on there as you know that were clearly part of something that was not organic. It was very obvious. Guys with earpieces, breaking things, and then running away when they're filmed.
Like, what is that? And some of these people are so obviously cops. I mean, it's absolutely ridiculous. You know? Right.
Some, like, body builder type with short hair and a MAGA hat. He's got oh, spare me. A guy with a gun. You know, this was you know, I know what's going on here. A lot of this was clearly influenced by federal agents or informants.
It it was. Okay? But I didn't want to suggest that someone was a federal agent or informant unless I knew for a fact because you really could get someone in trouble. Right? If you're like, this is the guy, and, like, we don't know.
I do know for I mean, it's very clear that something very strange is going on with Ray Epps. We've named him repeatedly. We've invited him on the show repeatedly. I mean, don't don't lie to my face. Like, the Rayaps thing is is
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: You know, isn't, isn't organic. Sorry.
Speaker 1: Well, we know from the Proud Boys trial this week that an FBI agent was caught lying on the stand in front of a judge. Right? Turns out that the FBI hid evidence from defense attorneys. I mean, this came out in trial. This is not just us, you know, bullshitting here.
And that according to according to the defense attorneys, unless they're lying in this, and it's possible, there was initially thought maybe the criminal informants there that wanted this information scrubbed, removed from the records. We now know that actually it might have been an agent who wanted this information scrubbed from the records. And of course, we were wondering, oh, my gosh, in these 41 hours that Tucker is going to have here, will we be able to see any more evidence of the Fed's involvement? So it appears without that facial recognition, what's the next step then? If we don't have that, what will happen with this footage?
Will anyone else be able to kinda go through it with facial recognition? Will Kanye be able to do it?
Speaker 0: I'm what you need is crowdsourcing here. I mean, you need of you need this to be in as many hands as possible. McCarthy has said and I don't have ownership of this footage. It's publicly owned, of course. It's not owned by the congress.
They don't own anything. There are this is like this is like it's insane, actually, how they treat the US government like they own it. I mean, that's like your housekeeper pretending she owns your bank account. Like, these are our servants. Okay?
But they get these attitudes and it's hard to disabuse them of them. But, but I he has said, you know, we're gonna turn this over to the public, and I that can't come soon enough as far as I'm concerned. We've I mean, we're a prime time TV show. We're not, you know, in the fabled news division. We're an opinion show.
So, you know, we've kind of reached the limits, and it was only our show. Like, there was no other element of the company I worked for, and there was no other news organization helping in any way. So I'm not I'm not whining, but, we've kind of done what we could do. And from my perspective, like, the core claims about January 6th were a lie. It was not a violent insurrection, a deadly insurrection.
It was a violent political demonstration, one of many in the year in which it took place. From January of 2020 to January of 2021, there were a lot of violent political demonstrations, including one at the White House where, I'm sure, injured then at January 6th. So if we could kind of leave it there and stop lying about it, I'm not defending vandalism or hooliganism or violence in January 6th. Of course not. I abhor that.
Just don't tell me it's the same as 911. If you start talking like that, if you start lying to me, I'm gonna push back. Clearly, Nancy Pelosi wanted this to happen. There was a lot of intel that it was going to happen. That intelligence was kept from line officers at the Capitol Police.
I know that because I've talked to them and including some of their supervisors, and they all say the same thing. We were not given this intelligence. Well, why is that? They were the front line in this. Why would you keep it from them?
And I of course, the answer is you would only do that if you wanted it to be ugly and discrediting for the political party associated with it. And, that's obvious. That's obviously what happened.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
Calley Means Makes a Plea to @SenBillCassidy to Support RFK Jr & the MAHA Movement "We are at a fork in the road for American health ... That road goes through Senator Bill Cassidy ... As Bill Cassidy votes, will go the way of MAHA and RFK." Full Episode w/ @calleymeans: @megynkelly
Video Transcript AI Summary
Today’s discussion highlights a critical moment for American health, focusing on Senator Bill Cassidy's influential role. His vote could significantly impact the direction of health policy, particularly regarding vaccines. Cassidy pressed Bobby Kennedy on whether he would unequivocally state that vaccines do not cause autism, which Kennedy refrained from answering directly. The emphasis here is on rebuilding trust in public health institutions, advocating for ongoing scientific inquiry rather than definitive statements. The decline in public trust is attributed more to health authorities than to Kennedy. The conversation underscores the importance of addressing vaccine safety concerns without oversimplifying the complexities involved, especially for individuals with unique health situations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You've sat through it all. How did today differ from yesterday, and how are you feeling?
Speaker 1: Megan, there's a lot weighing on on, I think, the country right now. We're at a true inflection point for American health from your, you know, first interview with Bobby years ago, putting him on the national scene or really helping with that to that incredible endorsement with Donald Trump of bringing millions of maha moms to this coalition that elected him. We are at a fork in the road for American Health, and I'll just be really blunt. The takeaway from this hearing is that road goes through senator Bill Cassidy. Senator Bill Cassidy is a very influential senator.
He's a doctor. He's a physician. He's chair of the health committee. And I'll just be blunt. As Bill Cassidy votes, will go the way of Maha and RFK.
And and and I'd love to, if it's okay with you, Megan, make a direct plea to senator Cassidy because I I I know he cares very much about public health and trust in public health, and I know he is legitimately still considering this vote. And the crux of senator Cassie's final message and his final question to Bobby Kennedy is, will Bobby Kennedy definitively say, unambiguously, that vaccines don't cause autism? And Bobby Kennedy wouldn't answer that question directly. I think it's inappropriate
Speaker 0: for me to do justice. We have that. Let me play it, and then you take it on the back end. Watch.
Speaker 2: Does a 70 year old man, 71 year old man who has spent decades criticizing vaccines and who is financially vested in finding fault with vaccines, can he change his attitudes and approach now that he'll have the most important position influencing vaccine policy in the United States? I recognize, man, if you come out unequivocally, vaccines are safe, it does not cause autism, that would have an incredible impact. That's your power. So what's it going to be? Will it be using the credibility to support lots of articles or will it be using credibility to undermine?
And I've got to figure that out from my vote.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, Kelly.
Speaker 1: Megan, this is honestly, it's hitting on one of the most important I think the most important issue in the country, which is trust in our institutions and trust in science. The way to increase trust in science is not for the HHS secretary to make a religious, basically, opinion, a a fully 100% firm opinion one way or the other. It's for the HHS secretary to say, senator, we are going to continue to conduct science on every question, particularly the most taboo questions, particularly the questions that we've been told are settled science. We how many times do we need to be reminded of the corporate capture of institutions, the breakdown institutions? Is it that controversial to say that vaccines can be one of the greatest inventions in American history, but also the fact that the 2 largest vaccine makers, GlaxoSmith, Klein, and Merck, have settled 1,000,000,000 of dollars of criminal penalties
Speaker 0: in
Speaker 1: the past 5 years, and their findings should be continually subjected to science that in order to gain trust in public health, we need to be able to ask questions and have continued trust in science. This is the key question. It is inappropriate for, and against frankly, Bobby Kennedy's nature, to give a specific opinion. And he's not coming in to HHS with opinions. He's coming into HHS to set a process where the metric of success is that according to Gallup polls and other polls, Americans trust science more.
Americans trust vaccines more. The the absolute implosion of of public trust and and public health is not because of Bobby Kennedy. It's because of the public health authorities themselves. And I think Bocasci understands and knows that.
Speaker 0: Can I could I just say that because I I had a very visceral reaction to that sound bite? That's the first I've heard that. And I really feel like how dare he try to extract that statement from RFKJ. And, I mean, there are millions of Americans who either are personally or their children have been vaccine injured based on different vaccine experiences. It doesn't mean the vaccine's always on unsafe.
It does depend on the vaccine's always on unsafe. It does depend on the on the person sometimes, but how dare he try to get him to say out loud, vaccines are safe, and I favor vaccine well, like, which vaccines? The COVID vaccine? Because I can tell you, I, along with a lot of other Americans, have had very negative experiences with that, and I would be outraged if I heard him issue such a sweeping declaration. I mean, as you well know, is it safe for a 15 year old boy who, you know, might have a heart murmur, senator Cassidy?
Why should RFKJ say it is? Kids could get killed. Like, that's that's a crazy thing you try to get him to say at the end there, and I I'm glad RFKJ won't do it.
reSee.it AI Summary
I defended RFK Jr.'s stance on vaccines during his confirmation hearing, emphasizing the need for open debate rather than blind submission to government authority. I criticized the reluctance to engage in nuanced discussions, which fosters public distrust in government. It's essential to acknowledge the complexities of the issue instead of simply dismissing differing viewpoints.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
🔥 Sen. Rand Paul Defends RFK Jr's Vaccine Stance on Day 2 of His Confirmation Hearing "These are the nuances you're unwilling to talk about because they there's such a belief in submission. Submit to the government, do what you're told, there is no discussion. There ought to be a debate. You're not gonna let him have the debate. You're just gonna criticize and say it is this and admit to it or we're not going to appoint you. But it's more complicated than that. And this is why people distrust government. You're unwilling to have these conversations." @SenRandPaul @RobertKennedyJr
Video Transcript AI Summary
Will you assure mothers that the measles and hepatitis B vaccines do not cause autism? If the data supports it, I will. The vaccine discussion is oversimplified. Parents are concerned about giving a hepatitis B vaccine to a newborn when the disease is primarily transmitted through drug use and sex. I vaccinated my children but chose to delay the hepatitis B vaccine until school age. There needs to be an honest debate about vaccines, especially regarding COVID-19, where risks differ significantly between age groups. Healthy children are at minimal risk from COVID. We should remain open-minded about vaccine safety and autism, as we don't fully understand its causes. Science evolves, and we must be humble in our conclusions. The rationale for immediate vaccination against hepatitis B exists, but if a mother's status is known, vaccination can be delayed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Will you reassure mothers unequivocally and without qualification that the measles and hepatitis B vaccines do not cause autism?
Speaker 1: Senator, I am not going into the agency with any
Speaker 0: That's kind of a yes or no question because so if you're because the data is there. And that that's kind of a yes or no. And I I don't mean to cut you off, but that really is a yes or no.
Speaker 1: If the data is there, I will absolutely do that.
Speaker 0: Now there is the data just because I used to do hepatitis B, as I've said. I know the data is there.
Speaker 1: You know, I think the discussion over vaccines is so oversimplified and dumbed down that we never really get to real truths and it's why people up here are so separated from real people at home. So we talk about hepatitis b. It's a terrible disease. It could lead to liver failures, the chairman said. But the reason you have distrust from people at home, why they don't believe anything you say, they don't believe government at all, is you're telling your my kid to take a hepatitis b vaccine when he's one day old.
You get it through drug use and sexually transmitted. That's how you get hepatitis b. But you're telling me my kid has to take it at one day old. You're not. That's not science.
And so every person with a bit of common sense, even people who don't resist vaccines, I vaccinated all my kids. I believe vaccines are one of the modern miracles beyond all pale. The Speckled Monster is a great book about the introduction of the smallpox vaccine in 17/20 into our country, all miracles. But I'm not a one size fits all. It's not all or nothing.
I chose to wait on my hepatitis B vaccine and we did it when they went to school. Does that make me an awful person? Does that make me an anti vaxxer because I questioned the government dictate of whether I do it? And I'm not speaking for anybody else. I'm only speaking for myself.
But for goodness sakes, let's have an honest debate about these things. The COVID vaccine, if you ask me my opinion, the reporters run up and down the hall and they say, you still anti vaccine? No. I'm pro vaccine. But on the COVID vaccine and on the COVID illness, there was a 1,000 fold or more difference between the elderly and children.
If you don't acknowledge that, you're committing malpractice. You're showing your ignorance. If you say a 6 month old must be mandated to get it, the science is not there. So all this blather about the science says this and the science says that, no. It doesn't.
The science actually shows that no healthy child in America died from COVID. Look it up. No healthy child died from COVID. And so the thing is, is that it's a 1000 fold greater. So if you asked me my advice as a physician, if you were 65 or older or overweight and some other conditions, I would have said, hell, yes.
I'd take the COVID vaccine. The risks of the disease were real and much greater than the vaccine. But if you ask me, should my healthy 6 month old get it? See, these are the nuances you're unwilling to talk about because there's such a belief in submission. Submit to the government.
Do what you're told. There is no discussion. There ought to be a debate. You're not gonna let him have the debate because you're just gonna criticize and say, it is this and admit to it or we're not going to appoint you. But it's more complicated than that.
And this is why people distrust government because you're unwilling to have these conversations. And go home, ask your Democrat young mothers, your Republican young mothers, if they're vaccinating their kid for hepatitis b and they're like, well, do I have to do it on day 1 as this precious little baby? Is there a science to say you shouldn't do it? Probably not, but it's my kid. You know?
It's like, I there isn't clear cut science saying not to, but on autism, there's no good science of anything to show what causes autism. We don't know. It's a profound disease. I know many moms here and dads who have kids with autism. I know them personally.
I've met their kids. But the thing is is they saw their kids developing completely normal, maybe speaking a 100 words go to no words at about 15 months of age. Now, there isn't proof. There isn't proof that the vaccines cause it. That's true.
There isn't proof that it cause it, but we don't know what causes it yet. So should we be at least open minded? We take 72 vaccines. Could it be? I don't know, but we shouldn't just close the door and say we're no longer because we believe so much in submission, we're not going to have an open mind to study these things.
And so it's sort of this crazy notion. Schizophrenia, I would put in the same notion. You have a kid who's completely normal to 18 or 19 and their brain goes haywire. How does that happen? It's the most bizarre disease.
Shouldn't we be open? Could it be our food? It might be vaccines. It might be our food, but autism is more common. I don't know about the schizophrenia statistics, but autism is more common.
Shouldn't we want to be open minded? Instead, we're so close minded and we're so consensus driven that the science says this. Well, science doesn't say anything. Science is a dispute, and 10 years from now, we could all be wrong. We were told in the beginning, 20 years ago, they did this enormous study and they said, everybody over 50 should take an aspirin.
I thought, well, that's a pretty good idea. It makes sense. But you know what? 20 years later, they measured it and they found if you had no heart disease and you were taking aspirin, your chance of dying from a brain bleed or from a stomach bleed were greater than the risk of heart disease. You have heart disease, they still say take an aspirin.
If you don't, they've changed your mind 20 years later. But would you have all said I was crazy and I should no longer be in public discourse if I had said 20 years ago, I don't feel like taking an aspirin. I ride my bike all the time. I'm afraid it might hit my head, but that's what country's about. It's what dissent is about.
So just ask you to look at the larger picture and give the guy a break who says, I just want to follow the science where it leads without presupposition. I think really what we have up here is presupposition. You've already concluded. It's absolute that autism isn't caused by it. We don't know what causes autism.
So we should be more humble in what we say. Sorry, I didn't get to a question.
Speaker 0: For the record, if a child was born to a hepatitis B mother, that child may have a 95% chance of becoming a chronic carrier. But if
Speaker 1: the child vaccinate those people and nobody's against that.
Speaker 0: But if
Speaker 1: the child That's a very small percentage in the red area. That is not what we're talking about. 99.9% of kids don't have a hepatitis b mom. And could they wait a while? Could they get vaccinated 3 months or a year?
Yes. So, again, for the
Speaker 0: record, if the mother's hepatitis B status is known, then that can be delayed. The problem is oftentimes, or at least a significant percentage of the time, the mother's status is not known, if she's hepatitis B positive, a vaccine on day 1 of life prevents chronic hepatitis B 95% of the time. So it really depends upon the knowledge of the mother's hepatitis B status. And when they used to do just, okay, we know the mother's status or not, there's mothers that snuck through. Their status was unknown.
We can blame the OBs, but, yeah, Marshall. But for the record, there is an absolute rationale for that. But you are right. If the mother's status is definitively known, then it can be safely delayed.
reSee.it AI Summary
I admitted I was "completely wrong" for pushing the COVID vaccine, believing scientists when they said it prevented transmission. I became overly censorious and regret not being more skeptical. Next time, I'll approach these issues with the critical eye a journalist should have.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
Piers Morgan Admits He Was "Completely Wrong" for Pushing the COVID Vaccine "When the scientists said if you have the vaccine you can't transmit the virus, I believed them and I became wrongly censorious, really badly censorious ... Next time around with any of these things, I'm going to be a lot more skeptical. As a journalist should be. I'm pretty ashamed of not being that to start with." Full Episode w/ @TuckerCarlson: @PiersUncensored
Video Transcript AI Summary
COVID significantly changed my perspective. I became emotionally involved due to personal losses and the poor handling of the pandemic in Britain. I mistakenly believed that vaccination prevented virus transmission and criticized those who chose not to get vaccinated, thinking they were endangering others. Later, it was revealed that vaccination did not significantly affect transmission, leading me to realize I had been misled.
Having received the vaccine, I reflect on how institutions influenced our beliefs. Moving forward, I plan to approach similar situations with more skepticism. It's important to acknowledge our mistakes and shortcomings; the real issue is not who was wrong, but who is willing to admit it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now where I was completely wrong was you mentioned COVID and
Speaker 1: it
Speaker 0: was interesting. I've it really changed my thinking about these things. In COVID, I got very, I think, overly emotionally engaged, because I knew people who were dying of COVID and it was awful and in Britain we handled it very badly. But I got led down a line which I wish I hadn't been led down. I'll give an example.
When the scientists said you you if you have the vaccine you can't transmit the virus, I believed them and I became wrongly censorious, really badly censorious. I was saying to people if you don't have it now knowing that if you have it you can't transmit the virus you're gonna go and kill old people and you kill people. It's not about you, it's about the people you may infect and kill and it turned out to be completely wrong. They later said months months later actually there's no difference whether you have the vaccine or not in terms of transmitting the virus. And at that point, I realized I've been misled completely.
Speaker 1: Had you already gotten the vaccine? Yeah. Did you know that it made you impotent when you got it? I heard that. Isn't that That's not true.
Speaker 0: I can't confirm that's not true.
Speaker 1: But but here's the
Speaker 0: point here's my point though.
Speaker 1: Such a dick. I can't control myself.
Speaker 0: No. I but that's why I like you. They probably get on so well. The, the but the interesting point about both of them was that we were both kind of traduced by institutions into taking a position about something which turned out to be wrong. Oh, yeah.
And it really has made me I just think coming out of the pandemic in particular, I've just now next time around with any of these things
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: I'm gonna be a
Speaker 1: lot more skeptical as a journalist should be. Yes. So I'm pretty I'm
Speaker 0: pretty ashamed of not being to start with.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But, you know, we're if you don't wind up ashamed in midlife Mhmm. About things that you've done, then you're lying to yourself.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: We should all be ashamed of our shortcomings, and, really, the question is not who was wrong. The question is who admits it.
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared how 20 years ago, NIH scientists claimed amyloid plaque caused Alzheimer's, leading to a halt in exploring other hypotheses. Now, we know those studies were fraudulent, resulting in 800 funded studies and a lost two decades in finding a cure. This needs to change.
@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd
RFK JR: "20 years ago NIH scientists did a study on amyloid on Alzheimer's in which they said it was caused by amyloid plaque. After that NIH shut down studies of any other hypothesis. Twenty years later we now know that those studies were fraudulent. NIH has funded 800 studies on a fraudulent hypothesis and we've lost 20 years in figuring out how to a cure for Alzheimer's. And that's just one example. I could give you hundreds. We need to end that."
Video Transcript AI Summary
The gold standard in scientific research requires replication, which is currently lacking at the NIH. At least 20% of NIH budgets should be allocated to replication studies, and all science should be published with raw data and peer reviews. A notable example is a 20-year-old NIH study on amyloid and Alzheimer's, which incorrectly claimed amyloid plaques were the cause. This led to the cessation of alternative hypotheses and resulted in 800 studies based on a fraudulent premise, wasting two decades in the search for a cure. It's crucial to eliminate outdated practices and ensure transparency and replicability in scientific research.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The gold standard, means real scientific research with replication of studies, which very rarely happens now at NIH. We should be giving at least 20% of the NIH budgets to replication. We should have make sure that all the science is published with the raw data. We should make sure that the peer reviews are also published. We and I'll give you a quick example.
20 years ago, NIH scientists did a study on amyloid on Alzheimer's, which they said it was caused by amyloid plaque. After that, NIH shut down studies of any other hypothesis. 20 years later, we now know that those studies were fraudulent. NIH has funded 800 studies on a fraudulent hypothesis. And we've lost 20 years in figuring out how to a cure for Alzheimer's.
And that's just one example. I could give you 100. We need to end that. We need to end the old boy system. We need to have replicatable science and be completely transparent about broad data.