reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @liz_churchill10
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
THEY KNEW. We MUST have Public Trials for these Monsters… Pfizer’s own data: 1000%+ spikes in cancer, miscarriage and heart damage…as Fauci and Gates REPEATEDLY STATED it was ‘Safe and Effective’… https://t.co/7zZsydETJF
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
If you poison someone and they die, you go to jail. But when Pfizer and Moderna poisoned people which caused miscarriages, myocarditis, blood clots and death…their ‘products’ were FDA approved, while governments made it mandatory…while they made billions? https://t.co/Vkj0Q1xjdP
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Oh my God. They privately worried about miscarriages and the mutations of the unborn from the ‘Covid Vaccine’…then stayed silent while pregnant women were told it was perfectly safe… “I’ve been hearing concerns about mutations as well…” CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY https://t.co/r4ZHthx27d
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
It’s been 48 hours of radio silence after Rupert Lowe exposed the Fabian Society’s grip on Britain’s politicians…and apparently the ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ doesn’t like the spotlight’… https://t.co/MWzBr6SjjZ
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
I still can’t believe this is happening… Alpha-Gal syndrome from tick bites is making more people allergic to red meat. Tim Pool connects it to Bill Gates’ lab-grown meat investments, the World Economic Forum…and also ties it to Richard Branson… https://t.co/9ilktGiCuh
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Incredible. Bill Gates followed through with this. “If people would cut down on their meat consumption, we could really help the planet” “So possibly we can use human engineering to make it the case that we’re intolerant to certain types of meat” https://t.co/sSOFvUPMas
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Patent for Hantavirus mRNA ‘Vaccine’ from 2025… https://t.co/oMrgW4TPVv
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Dr. Fauci’s daughter Allison worked for Old Twitter and silenced anyone who spoke up against the Covid Scam… She should be charged too… https://t.co/ipuM0qirsl
reSee.it AI Summary
This. Is. Insane. British farmers are being PAID to not grow food—for themselves and their citizens, to grow wildflowers. I’m literally being bribed to quit feeding the nation.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
This. Is. Insane. British Farmers are being PAID to not grow food for themselves and for their Citizens. “We’re now being paid to stop growing food and grow wildflowers. It’s insanity.” This British farmer states he’s LITERALLY BEING BRIBED to quit feeding the nation. https://t.co/v3IjCJeQjq
reSee.it AI Summary
I see this as an act of national sabotage. This treasonous Irish politician called peaceful protesters unconscionable, illogical, and difficult to comprehend; to him, the protesters are saboteurs. This is out-of-touch elitist nonsense. Kick these bastards out of office. https://t.co/XCbgFVszlz
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
“This is an ACT of NATIONAL SABOTAGE” This Treasonous Irish Politician just called the Peaceful Protesters “unconscionable, illogical, and difficult to comprehend” To him, the Protestors are Saboteurs. THIS IS OUT-OF-TOUCH ELITIST NONSENSE. KICK THESE BASTARDS OUT OF OFFICE. https://t.co/XCbgFVszlz
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
SHOCKING: The Irish Government is at WAR with its own people. Ireland’s Defence Minister CONFIRMS the ARMY is being sent to crush peaceful protesters. They’re deploying troops against Irish citizens while the Country is flooded with migrants. TREASON https://t.co/awrU1C8Cvp
reSee.it AI Summary
I published a study claiming vaccinated children were 500% more ill, then my attorney called to say my license was suspended. I studied over 3,000 kids and showed unvaccinated children were healthier than vaccinated ones.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
“I published a study proving that vaccinated children were 500% more ill…and then I got a call from my attorney saying that my licence was suspended” Dr. Paul Thomas studied more than 3,000 children and proved that unvaccinated children were healthier than vaccinated children. https://t.co/ZGBgJUWPaB
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker described observing a growing trend of patients choosing not to vaccinate over the next decade and sought to determine if he could prove differences. He collected data from his practice, examining every baby born there, and published the findings in an international journal of public health. The study, described as peer reviewed and robust, reported massive increases in several health outcomes among the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated, including four to five hundred percent more allergies, autoimmune conditions, and neurodevelopmental issues, as well as infections of all kinds.
Following the online publication of the study, he received a call from his attorney instructing him not to see any patients, not to write any prescriptions, and not to enter the office. He was told, “Your license has been emergently suspended. You are a threat to public health.” He stated, “Today is the last time I will be doing clinical medicine in Oregon.” He added, “Knowing that you guys are keeping it going, the heart of this place lives on.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And over the next decade, as more and more patients chose not to vaccinate, I got to see the difference. But I wanted to see, could I prove it? So we got all the data from my practice. We looked at every baby born into my practice and published it in an international journal of public health. What we found, and that study was peer reviewed, it was robust, we found massive increases.
I mean, we're talking four to five hundred percent more, allergies, autoimmune conditions, neurodevelopmental issues, and then we had infections of all kinds, massively increased in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated. What happened when I published that study? Within days of it being available online, I get a call from my attorney, Don't go see any patients. Don't write any prescriptions. Don't go into the office.
Your license has been emergently suspended. You are a threat to public health. What's today? Today is the last time I will be doing clinical medicine in Oregon. Knowing that you guys are keeping it going, the heart of this place lives on.
reSee.it AI Summary
I see a timeline: 2011 Epstein designs vaccine investment fund for Bill Gates; 2015 Rothschilds recommend policies to every government; 2017 Epstein edits Bill Gates PRIVATE Pandemic Simulation; 2019 Pandemic ‘happens’; THE PANDEMIC WAS PLANNED YEARS AGO BY DIABOLICAL CRIMINALS
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
INSANE. 2011: Epstein designs vaccine investment fund for Bill Gates 2015: Rothschild’s recommend policies to every Government 2017: Epstein edits Bill Gates PRIVATE Pandemic Simulation 2019: Pandemic ‘happens’ THE PANDEMIC WAS PLANNED YEARS AGO BY DIABOLICAL CRIMINALS https://t.co/7QxUrxgjbp
reSee.it AI Summary
I read that a Dutch court heard arguments claiming Covid was planned by Bill Gates, the WEF, and WHO, and that the Covid vaccine is a biological weapon; the mRNA injection is described as a military-grade bioweapon.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
On ‘Long Covid Awareness Day’ it is important to know that a court in the Netherlands heard arguments that ‘Covid’ was planned in advance by Bill Gates, WEF and WHO…and that the ‘Covid Vaccine’ is a Biological Weapon “The Covid mRNA injection is a military-grade Bioweapon…” https://t.co/6QWD28cyAg
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Incredible. “The Central Banks imposed a fake ‘Pandemic’…Epstein was involved as early as 2017 setting up the scheme…so they could make a fortune…like Bill Gates…so they could inject people…while they discussed ‘how to get rid of the poor people’…”https://t.co/q09fXRrdVP
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker argues that central banks should not be given more power, asserting that the answer is a resounding no. They claim that the high inflation beginning in 2021 was created by central banks, regardless of any explanations about wars, and assert that the economics are clear. The speaker states they could forecast from May 2020 onwards that eighteen months later there would be significant inflation because the money creation was “massive off the charts.”
They allege that central banks “imposed a fake pandemic,” referencing a conspiracy-like claim about a manufactured crisis. The speaker asserts that people such as Jeffrey Epstein are part of this narrative and that Epstein, in public records, was involved as early as 2017 in “setting up the scheme of this great pandemic for some investors to make a fortune,” naming Bill Gates as an example. The statement continues, claiming that “we can also make money injecting people with stuff and solve the problem” as discussed by Epstein and Bill Gates, and characterizes this as a matter of public record about how to “get rid of the poor people.” Finally, the speaker contends that this was used “at the same time to push digital ID.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Can we trust the central banks to give them yet more power? I think the answer should be a resounding no. The high inflation that started in '21 was created by the central banks. No matter what they tell you about wars, the economics is very clear. I could forecast it quite successfully from May 2020 onwards that eighteen months later, we'll get significant inflation because the money creation was just massive off the charts.
Then they the Central Bank imposed a fake pandemic, you know that story. And we know that people like Jeffrey Epstein is now public record, were involved as early as 2017 in setting up the scheme of this great pandemic for some investors to make a fortune such as Bill Gates. And then we can also make money injecting people with stuff and solve the problem as Epstein and Bill Gates discussed, matter of public record of how to get rid of the poor people. And of course, it was used at the same time to push digital ID.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
The same Politicians who make laws about your children…bought trafficked children from the cartels based on age and preference. “El Mencho kept a list of 221 Global Leaders, including the United States, who placed ‘orders’ for trafficked children…”https://t.co/2PpeLXmOWS
reSee.it AI Summary
I see a timeline: 2011 Gates and Epstein began planning the Pandemic; 2015 Gates partners with WHO, World Bank, MSF and the UN; 2017 simulations treated as a business model; 2019 Covid pandemic simulation occurs and later matches reality.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Beyond horrific. 2011: Bill Gates and Epstein began planning the Pandemic 2015: Gates partners with the WHO, World Bank, MSF and the UN 2017: Simulations are treated as a Business Model 2019: Covid Pandemic Simulation occurs which later happens with astonishing accuracy… https://t.co/qB5mA7bZCw
Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript discusses a narrative that connects Bill Gates, Jeffrey Epstein, and a global, pre-planned approach to pandemics, presenting a sequence of alleged events and structures designed to profit from health crises.
It begins with a claim that new vaccines and health services could be improved and costs reduced by ten to fifteen percent over the next five to ten years, and that a future pandemic will occur regardless of current efforts. It is stated that the pandemic risk is two to three percent per year and that attention to preparedness will continue, noting that the pandemic was predictable and could be far more severe in the future. One speaker asserts they had predicted the risk of a pandemic and that it came true.
The brand-new Epstein files are then introduced, claiming they show Epstein planned the whole thing from the start and expose a financial system designed around pandemics that operated long before COVID-19. The documents allegedly reveal a hidden network directly connecting Bill Gates, Jeffrey Epstein, and other powerful individuals. Epstein is said to have helped design the financial apparatus that later secured over 100 million dollars in funding for the Gates Foundation, advising JPMorgan executives on pitching a Gates Anchored Donor Fund to attract vaccine investments under the guise of philanthropy but designed to generate profits. It is claimed Gates had already invested in vaccines from the early 2000s but faced controversy over mass vaccine distribution and promises of disease eradication, which allegedly sometimes worsened problems. Gates is also quoted as saying vaccines could reduce the global population by a significant amount.
There is a point-by-point timeline: the world’s population is described as 6.8 billion, headed toward about 9 billion, with a suggestion that great work on vaccines and reproductive health could lower that by ten to fifteen percent. In 2013, the Gates Foundation allegedly created the Global Health Investment Fund, allowing private investors to fund drug and vaccine development with a stated health purpose, while offering a 60% guarantee of principal, meaning investors would risk only 40% while the remaining 60% of potential losses would be covered by philanthropic and public money. This structure is said to convert global health issues into profitable opportunities with low risk, securing funds and enabling subsequent actions.
Epstein’s role is described as expanding Gates’ influence in pandemic preparedness. The 2011 funding groundwork allegedly paved the way for broader governance, with Gates Foundation discussions in 2015 about pandemics and global responses, involving groups like the International Peace Institute, World Health Organization, World Bank, MSF, and UN officials. It is claimed Epstein acted as a back-channel intermediary to spread Gates’ influence, maintaining contacts even after funding refusals, by forwarding Gates’ articles on pandemic preparedness.
The timeline continues with 2017 being a turning point, where pandemics were discussed as business opportunities rather than disasters, and Epstein was said to broker specialists into Gates’ office for pandemic simulations. A doctor’s text is cited indicating pandemic simulation as a key credential, with Epstein recommending a connection to Gates. That year also saw the World Bank launch the first emergency financing facility, raising $320 million in bonds named to cover coronavirus risks, implying planning for a coronavirus-style outbreak years in advance.
In October 2019, six weeks before COVID-19, Event 201—a pandemic simulation modeled on a novel coronavirus—was co-hosted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum, and the Gates Foundation, focusing on government policy during a viral outbreak, distribution of drugs, media messaging, social media management, public compliance, and unified global response. Six weeks later, the real outbreak began. While the documents are not proof, and other evidence such as patents and gain-of-function funding are cited, the narrative suggests a pattern of pre-planned preparation, money, simulations, networks, vaccines, and elite alignment.
The closing question asks readers to consider who benefits when such world-stage events occur, proposing that identifying beneficiaries clarifies the situation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: On new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps ten or fifteen percent. So in the next five to ten years, for the next pandemic, we'll solve all those problems. You say the next pandemic, there will be another pandemic. Absolutely. We don't know when.
The risk per year, two percent, three percent. So we you know, we'll have to prepare for the next one. That, you know, I'd say is will get attention this time. The pandemic sadly was fairly predictable, and it won't be the last pandemic. The next one could be far more severe.
I had predicted there was a risk of a pandemic, and sadly, you know, that came true.
Speaker 1: The brand new Epstein files show that they may have planned the whole thing from the get go. These documents prove that the infrastructure needed to profit from a major global pandemic had already been meticulously planned years before COVID nineteen. It exposes a massive financial system designed around pandemics that was quietly running long before the world ever shut down. Furthermore, it also shows many of the key players who were involved. Through an extensive review of these newly released documents, investigative journalist Sait G has exposed a hidden network which directly connects Bill Gates, Jeffrey Epstein and a host of other extremely powerful individuals.
It places Epstein front and center, revealing the instrumental role he played in orchestrating the connections, brokering the deals, and guiding the strategic decisions also that Gates and his friends could plan for future pandemics years ahead of time. So the trail of evidence starts in 2011 with internal emails from JPMorgan bank showing that Jeffrey Epstein helped design the financial apparatus, which would later go on to secure over $100,000,000 in funding for the Gates Foundation. So in these emails, Epstein was advising the bank's most senior executives on how to pitch a Gates Anchored Donor Fund, specifically for the purpose of bringing in investment for vaccines. Now this would of course be masquerading as a charitable project, but was in fact designed to generate massive profits. Indeed, it set up a permanent pipeline where massive amounts of money could flow into vaccine development under the cover of philanthropy.
Now by this time, Bill Gates was already heavily invested in vaccine development, though according to Epstein was terribly frustrated. This was because the Gates Foundation had, quote, already spent billions yet there was little that could be held up as a great success. And Epstein was right. Gates had already had a long history with vaccine development dating back to the early 2000s. However, his efforts were already being met with controversy and criticism.
This was particularly true regarding the mass distribution of vaccines throughout the third world, which were later found to cause widespread infertility. It's also true of the grand promises of disease eradication through specialized new vaccines, which in many cases actually made the problem worse. Now it's also worth noting that Gates himself is on record, proudly proclaiming the vaccines could successfully reduce the global population by a significant amount.
Speaker 0: The world today has 6,800,000,000 people. That's headed up to about 9,000,000,000. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health service, We could lower that by perhaps ten or 15%.
Speaker 1: And indeed, it's phrases like this which really make you wonder about his intentions. But when we fast forward just two years into the future, this vaccine funding project that him and Epstein were colluding on would finally materialize. So in 2013, the Gates Foundation went on to create a special investment structure which they called the Global Health Investment Fund. On the face of it, it allowed private investors to inject money into drug and vaccine development for the stated purpose of improving global health. In return, would bring in steady returns between 57%.
Nothing too strange there. However, the key difference and what made this unusual was that these investors were offered a 60% guarantee of principal. And what does that mean? It means that private investors would only be risking a maximum of 40% of their original investment if things didn't go well, of course. The other 60% loss, well, that would be covered by the Gates Foundation and its partners using philanthropic and public money.
Now in plain words, private investors got to keep most of the profits if things went well, but they were mostly protected from the biggest risks by charity and taxpayer backed money. And why is this significant? Because this setup basically turned global health issues like pandemics into seriously profitable business opportunities, all with low risk. It means that there was now a real incentive to pump massive funds into these kinds of projects, and it also laid the groundwork for everything that followed later on. However, Epstein's role in this story doesn't end there.
Over the years, he continued to expand Gates' influence in the field of pandemic preparedness. Furthermore, the financial foundation from 2011 quietly paved way for something much bigger. And with the money pipeline now secured, the next phase was turning those resources into actual global governance. Fast forward just two years to 2015, documents show that the Gates Foundation was already in active discussions with several other groups about pandemics and global responses. This was way ahead of any outbreak.
Many of those groups overlapped with the International Peace Institute, which in that same year proposed a high level expert convening in Geneva, and the topic of focus was how to most effectively address and prevent pandemics. Now although the Gates Foundation publicly declined to fund the event, it went ahead anyway and was hosted by its president Rod Larson. This meeting involved major groups like the director general of the World Health Organization, the World Bank, MSF International President, and senior UN and global health officials. Now it's worth noting that this guy Larson already knew Gates personally. In fact, he'd been dining with him at Jeffrey Epstein's residence just two years prior.
And so therefore, it's highly possible that they were at least somewhat ideologically aligned by that point. And even after the funding refusal, Epstein managed to keep the personal channel with Larson open. Did this by forwarding Gates' article on pandemic preparedness. And so what this basically shows is that Epstein was acting as a sort of back channel intermediary. Was trying to spread Gates' influence and help align ideas on pandemics across many different institutions.
And so we know that the elite were already aligning on pandemic governance years ahead, but the real shift happened in 2017. This was when the language changed completely. See, in their communications, Epstein and others within Gates inner circle were now openly discussing pandemics as though they were business opportunities. Pandemics were now treated as a standing category just like any other investment. Energy, tech, construction.
In other words, the concept of a pandemic was no longer seen as a rare disaster. Rather, these were now events that could be predicted, planned for, and potentially manufactured to turn into massive sources of revenue and resource acquisition. Furthermore, during this time, Epstein was also brokering specialists directly into Gates office for the specific purpose of simulating pandemics. One example is a text thread from Epstein's phone with an unidentified physician who cites their work experience with the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the Gates Foundation, and the World Bank. This doctor specifically mentions pandemic simulation as a key career credential, and in response to this Epstein directly recommends to connect with Bill Gates.
Now this shows that these guys weren't merely interested in pandemics as a hypothetical. No. They were investing heavily in actual simulations. Like they were preparing for something that they knew was gonna happen in the near future. And coincidentally, that same year, the World Bank launched the first ever emergency financing facility.
This was the first of its kind pandemic catastrophe fund, which supplied $320,000,000 in bonds to be sold off to private investors. Of course, it just so happens that coronaviruses were explicitly named as one of the covered risks in those bonds. So the timing here is really quite striking and also very convenient. Now at the very least, it suggests that these institutions were already planning at least financially for a coronavirus style outbreak at least three years in advance. Now when you put all of this together, what came next is almost impossible to overlook.
In October 2019, just six weeks before COVID even appeared, the world saw a full scale rehearsal, and event two zero one took place. Event two zero one was a major pandemic simulation exercise specifically modeled on a novel coronavirus. It was cohosted by the John Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum, and, of course, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And what did they do? Its main focus was looking at how to shape government policy during a viral outbreak.
How drug supplies would be distributed, how to shape media coverage, public health messaging, how to handle and limit social media posting, how to force members of the general public to comply with rules and regulations, and how countries would need to work together in a unified response. Now does this feel like a coincidence to you, or is something far more deliberate going on? I mean, how is it even possible to rehearse the exact scenario six weeks before it even happens? By this time, everything was in place. The money, the simulations, the network, the tech.
Six weeks later, the real thing begins. Now although these documents are not proof, they don't provide definitive proof. When you factor in all of the other evidence ranging from the preheld patents, coronavirus, the mRNA vaccine technology, spike proteins, the millions in dollars of funding going towards gain and function research, it really is starting to look like the whole thing might have been planned from the start. This network had already built the financial tools, the policy blueprints, the pandemic simulations, the vaccine patents, the elite connections needed to respond to and profit from a major global outbreak. It involved Epstein, Bill Gates, major financial institutions, many, many others.
The money was there. The rehearsals had happened. The coronaviruses were already flagged. Key players were already aligned years in advance. I mean, this isn't a theory.
These are literally documented events. And so at the very least, this timeline raises very extremely serious questions. Now if even after all of the accumulated evidence that has come out in the past five years that highlights there were some real serious nefarious players involved and the narrative that we were fed about COVID was not accurate. Even if all of that evidence has not convinced you, then you need to be asking yourself a very simple question. Whenever something like this happens on the world stage, to identify who the culprit really is, you just ask a simple question.
Ask yourself who benefits? And if you do that, things become more clear.
reSee.it AI Summary
Jeffrey Tucker asks at the retreat: did you know the vaccine wouldn’t be effective from the beginning and might be dangerous? The reply: it was a test of a technology. Brett Weinstein: speechless.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Crimes Against Humanity. Jeffrey Tucker: “You were at the retreat when I asked the question…did you know the vaccine wouldn't be effective from the beginning…and that it might even be dangerous…?” Answer given: “It was a test of a technology…” Brett Weinstein: Speechless https://t.co/oKrGTd6FmN
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the COVID-19 vaccine episode, challenging why the vaccine was pursued as a public health solution and exploring deeper incentives behind the program.
- A knowledgeable figure at the stand answered a burning question: did they know the vaccine wouldn’t be effective from the start and could be dangerous? The answer given was that it was “a test of a technology.” The exchange suggests the broader aim was testing an entire program of control previewed in Event 2019.
- They ask whether inoculation was necessary on billions, noting it could have been tested on a much smaller population. If shots had been basically empty or inert, the data could have been spun to claim success and end the pandemic, preventing injuries from appearing. The absence of that approach remains a mystery.
- The speakers point to high pre-vaccine seroprevalence in 2020, including studies from South Dakota showing 50-60% seroprevalence before vaccine release, implying that a saline shot or no shot could have achieved “indomicity” (immunity) without a vaccine.
- They discuss why people might fear vaccines and interpret the broader impact: the public is waking up to something terrible having occurred, as it revealed readiness to lie, potential data quality concerns, and risk to pregnant women and healthy children who might get little justification for risk.
- The disease’s lethality is framed as greatest among the very old or very sick; for others, it was less deadly, with natural evolution potentially reducing vulnerability over time.
- The mRNA platform was touted as a means to outrun mutations, but the timeline to release was still insufficient to stay ahead of natural change. They note accelerated development was the fastest vaccine in history, from detection to inoculation, reducing the timeline by about a year or two, yet not fast enough.
- Political and logistical factors delayed release; there is mention that it would not have appeared under Trump and that Eric Topol argued to delay the rollout. Fauci reportedly sent Moderna back to trials due to insufficient racial diversity in participants.
- The discussion questions whether the vaccine qualifies as a normal consumer product, given ongoing subsidies, mandates, indemnifications, wartime-like supports, and propaganda. They wonder if there has been an ongoing two-century revolt by industry against public scrutiny, with public interest repeatedly leading to pushback and rebranding.
- A central theme is the sophistication of pharma: the “game of pharma” involves owning an IP-based health claim, crafting supportive research, convincing it is safe and effective, achieving standard-of-care status, securing mandates and government funding, and leveraging ongoing propaganda. They describe pharma as a long-running arms race with deep institutional knowledge, implying that it is far more capable of shaping reality than the public realizes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You were at the retreat, I think, when we had a very knowledgeable and important person at the stand. And I asked a burning question that I've always had, which was, did they know that the vaccine wouldn't really be effective from the beginning and that it might even be dangerous? And if you already knew that why would you risk the sort of moral status or reputation of an entire industry by promising that you're going to use this shot to get out of the pandemic, that actually you knew was not going to actually produce any public health benefit, why would you do this app? And the answer came to us, a very credible answer, that it was a test of a technology. You remember that moment?
Speaker 1: I sure do. You know, this is Brownstone has many threads and many purposes, but it keeping the proper most important questions of COVID alive so that we ultimately come to understand what happened to us and why, seems to be central. And I will say I'm still I'm still wrestling even with that answer because although it very much does feel that this was a test, not just of a technology, but of an entire program of control, a program that was previewed in event two zero one in 2019. So, you know, I've asked myself and asked publicly if there's something special, if they needed us inoculated for some reason, because if they didn't, first of all, they could run a test on a much smaller population. You didn't need to inoculate billions of people in order to test this.
That could be done at a much smaller scale.
Speaker 0: Excellent point.
Speaker 1: And if they had given us shots that were basically empty, maybe technically contained something but not enough to matter, then given the sleight of hand they played with all of the data and the statistics, they could have pretended that it worked. They could have declared that it had ended the pandemic. The injuries that you and me and many others feared would emerge wouldn't have, and we would have looked like we had been worried for nothing. So I think they would have won if they had used shots that just didn't have an effect and pretended that they had saved us. And the fact that they didn't do that is still a head scratcher to me.
Speaker 0: You know, you make an excellent point, and and I think all the all the research we have bears it out. We had achieved very high levels of seroprevalence by the 2020 before the shot release. And you've seen this, the studies of South Dakota were showing fifty and sixty percent seroprevalence before the vaccine was ever released. So you're right, if they had just come out with a saline shot or just nothing, we would have achieved indomicity regardless. Already probably had.
Then you could have just said, look, see, we we fixed it with the vaccine. They didn't do that.
Speaker 1: They didn't do that and it is the reason that so much of the public is awake. And they're not fully awake. They don't know what they're awake to. But a lot of people know that something terrible happened. A lot of people fear the shots that they themselves took.
And that was either about something, either injecting people had a purpose that we don't know, or it was, you know, the greatest own goal in history because they revealed how ready they were to lie to us, that their quality control didn't exist, that they didn't think twice about it, that they would inject people who stood to gain nothing from this, people who had natural immunity, as you point to, people for whom the risk couldn't conceivably be justified, like pregnant women, young, healthy children. The fact is the disease, as much as I think it's more dangerous than we now give it credit for is certainly not deadly. You know, the data shows that it killed very vulnerable people, people who were already either very old or very sick or both.
Speaker 0: Ready to be ready to die from something, which
Speaker 1: was my It pulled them forward a few weeks. But if they had just let it run its course and, you know, run-in front of the parade and pretended that they were leading it, then the fact is COVID would have ebbed and, you know, the evolution of the virus itself would have made it less dangerous, which maybe is what happened. People who were vulnerable would be eliminated from the population. So the vulnerability of the population drops, it looks like, you know, looks like the vaccine campaign worked. And in fact, there's this question across many vaccines.
Is the stuff that they're given credit for addressing was ebbing rapidly in the first place? And, you know, is this just case after case of this industry running ahead of the parade and pretending to lead it?
Speaker 0: The great promise of the mRNA platform was that it was going to finally win the race against mutations, which has been going on for seventy five years. 'fifty seven, 'fifty eight flu pandemic, they developed an inoculation, but only after the thing became endemic, losers. Same thing happened 'sixty eight, 'sixty nine flu pandemic. There was an inoculation. By the time it came along, there wasn't a market for it.
So industrial the challenge then was we've got to speed up the process. We've got to get the shot up before natural immunity makes it irrelevant. Right? And you can imagine there's a thinking here that well in the past we were always late to the by the time that we got shot out that the virus had mutated or is already endemic. So it was a loser.
Well, if we can get the shot out really fast then we can save a lot of lives. Okay, that makes sense. And this was the time that they were going to deploy this great new technology which is all about speed. But they didn't quite make it, right? They didn't make it out in time because there's logistical issues, there's all sorts of things, there are also political issues that delayed the release of the shot.
They didn't want it coming out under Trump.
Speaker 1: Eric Topol in fact argued to delay it, revealing that he didn't care about human life either.
Speaker 0: Fauci sent Moderna back to the trials because they didn't have enough racial diversity in their trial subjects. But the whole goal was to get ahead of the mutations really to outrun nature essentially. They didn't, but that was the goal. But they tried and it was the fastest vaccine that we have on record, right? From detection to inoculation, we reduced the time by what, a year or two or something like that.
But it wasn't fast enough, like I say, and domesticity was probably here in November and December 2020, which is a fact that is so mind blowing to me when you think about it.
Speaker 1: Oh, it's stunning, and it's it's hard it's hard not to be cynical about it, you know? Okay. So it is in its own way impressive that we have radically sped up the timeline for creating vaccine injuries, but I'm not sure that's a good thing. Frankly, I think a little slower would be better.
Speaker 0: That's a really interesting point. Brett, a larger point, and I hope you kind of get my theme here. As an economist I'm very interested in the question of product viability. Like what is an innovation that has its own energy? Where is it customer base, it's efficiently produced, you've got manufacturers can profit by making it, people benefit from it enough so they're willing to trade their own property exchange to get it like hamburgers or air conditioning or anything else you can think of, right?
So the question is, do vaccines qualify in the same way as any other consumer product? I think by looking at the history going back two twenty five years, the answer is apparently in question. We don't actually know because at every single stage of this there's been some intervention that's sort of provided a subsidy, provided a mandate, provided some propaganda, here's your agency, here's your indemnification, here's your wartime mandates, here's your fancy philosophy called utilitarianism. It's been so much apparatus thrown at this one thing for two and a quarter centuries. You at some point have to ask the question, is this a really viable product in a normal society with a producer consumer relationship?
And I don't have the answer to that, but I would like to find out the answer. One possible answer is that there has been an ongoing revolt for more than two centuries that keeps being stamped down. Like one of the things that's interesting, you think about nineteenth century media, not very big, not a lot of newspapers, there certainly wasn't an Internet or even cable news shows. But when the newspapers of several cities would simultaneously get wind of a tremendous amount of vaccine deaths, they would run it on front page and then the public would panic. And then the industry had a problem.
Alright, what are we going to do now? So that's when they go to government, various things happen. Or in the case of 1822, Congress just said, Just stop this nonsense. This has got to stop. So every time there's public interest, the industry gets set back.
They panic, they regroup, they find a new strategy, a new philosophical justification, They buy out some more doctors, some more journalists. So here's how this here's how this. And this has been going on for all this time. So what what I'm wondering is if maybe this time they went too far.
Speaker 1: I think they did. And I think it's clear and we have to consolidate our gains in revealing what they did. But a couple points along the way. One, I'm convinced by your article that once again, what we have discovered is that pharma is vastly more sophisticated than we understand in its ability to pull one over on us because it is the product of a long running arms race that we only just started paying attention to. So the selective environment in the arms race has turned it into a ferociously capable bender of reality, when we've only just woken up to the fact that reality is being bent.
So we're playing catch up with a very sophisticated creature that is very well armed.
Speaker 0: Long institutional knowledge there on how to get around.
Speaker 1: Long institutional knowledge. So I've given a couple presentations at Brownstone, and I've talked about it on Dark Horse about what I call the game of pharma, right? What I learned dragged into thinking about pharma in a way that I never had before during COVID is that we saw a game play out in which treatments for COVID that were good were portrayed as bad and dangerous. Treatments that weren't any good were portrayed as effective and safe. And effectively underneath pharma, pharma is, I would argue, an intellectual property racket.
The game is you own a piece of intellectual property that has some plausible connection to health. Doesn't have to be true, it just has to be plausible. And once you have that thing, now what you need to do is it's patented, and you need to create some research that makes it look promising. You need some research that makes it look like it outcompetes what we've already got. You need to make it look safe enough, you know.
And then at the higher levels of the game, you need to get it declared the standard of care so that doctors are afraid not to prescribe it and afraid to prescribe anything else. If you're really, you know, on your game, you get it mandated, you get it paid for by the government, etcetera. So the point is it's levels of the game. And we all caught up to this during COVID. But the point is, no.
This is twenty four seven, three sixty five pharma on every one of these things. They're playing these games, And no no kidding. They're better than us. We're like novice tennis players who just walked out onto the court with pros.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Holy shit. This is how it’s done… “I am wondering if you’re all p*dophiles…because you don’t seem to care that children are being se*ually abused…so the only thing that I can ascertain is that you guys probably enjoy child p*rn…” https://t.co/31l4TyfDxm
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 accuses the group of being pedophiles for not caring about child sexual abuse, claiming they “probably enjoy child porn” and are not looking. They ask Monica: “You’re not a pedophile? Then why aren’t you doing anything about the child abuse that's happening in the county?” They assert, “If you cared, you'd want to stop it,” and imply they would act if it happened to one of their own children or grandchildren, asking, “What if it happens to your grandchild? Would it matter then?” The speaker concludes by demanding action and states, “Next speaker, please.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I am wondering if you are all pedophiles because you don't seem to care that children are being sexually abused. So the only thing I could ascertain is that you guys probably enjoy child porn. I don't know. Right? You're not looking.
I mean, if somebody claimed that I was, I would say, I absolutely am not. I wouldn't let it stand as fact, but you guys love to let it stand as fact that that's what's going on. Cause you're not willing to stop it. So, I mean, if you're willing to perpetuate it, what else could you be? You don't wanna shake your head?
Then do something about it. No, Monica? You're you're not a pedophile? Then why aren't you doing anything about the child abuse that's happening in the county? Cause you don't care.
If you cared, you'd want to stop it. If you cared if it happened to your child, you'd want to stop it. If it happened to you, you'd want to stop it. Jim, what if it happens to your grandchild? What if?
Would it matter then? Probably, right? So horrible to think about. Right. Next speaker, please.
reSee.it AI Summary
I recall Barry Josephson telling Jeffrey Epstein he had an answer to how to get rid of poor people. Ten years later, Gates demanded that the entire world be vaccinated.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Horrific. “I've been thinking a lot about that question that you asked Bill Gates, ‘How do we get rid of poor people as a whole’…and I have an answer…” -Director Barry Josephson to Jeffrey Epstein. 10 years later…Bill Gates demanded that the entire World be ‘vaccinated’… https://t.co/Byt7kk5zSd
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Oh. My. God. “Preparing for Pandemics…” “Let's discuss next steps, for example how to officially involve the WHO and CDC…” “I hope we can pull this off…” https://t.co/NKsQYBtllv
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Incredible. “George and Alex Soros operate freely and arrogantly because they’re valued CIA Agents…” https://t.co/UpodsODV6E
Video Transcript AI Summary
I outline the speaker’s central claims about George Soros, the CIA, and global political influence. The speaker contends that George Soros has been one of the CIA’s most valuable private assets for over forty years, acting as the civilian, deniable funding arm of American regime-change operations worldwide. Because of this, Soros is not only allowed in the United States but protected there, enabling him to operate with impunity, which the speaker says explains his arrogance and continued influence.
The speaker traces a pattern of Soros-backed “color revolutions” starting with Serbia in 2000, refined in Georgia in 2003, Ukraine in 2004, and the Arab Spring in 2011. They assert that logos for USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the Open Society Foundations appear in all these cases, framing Soros as central to these movements.
According to the speaker, the Arab Spring served as a trial run for Europe’s migrant crisis. They claim that in 2011 the CIA and Soros turned that playbook on Libya and Syria. Gaddafi allegedly warned in March 2011 that removing him would unleash millions to flood Europe from Africa; eight months later, Gaddafi was dead, Libya descended into chaos, and migrant waves began as predicted. By 2015–2016, the speaker asserts, battle-hardened jihadists and economic migrants were crossing the Mediterranean with iPhones, prepaid cards, and Twitter guides written in Arabic, described as the same social media mobilization tactics used in Kyiv and Tahrir Square.
Wayne Madsen is cited as having called this pattern out in 2015, described by the speaker as a deliberate CIA social-engineering operation to fracture Europe from within, applying the same playbook to new targets. The speaker then asserts that the United States has been subject to this strategy from 2020 to the present, pointing to the summer riots of 2020 as an example.
The claim continues that Soros’s Open Society Foundations donated at least $33,000,000 to groups that organized and sustained the 2020 riots, and that Soros-backed NGOs provided lawyers, maps, and logistics for the southern border caravans, as well as funding to influence police departments and district attorneys in major cities, effectively helping to elect them. The speaker argues that Soros is implementing the color-revolution playbook “on us now,” with the target being ordinary Americans rather than foreign nations.
A historical reference is made to JFK, who allegedly spoke of splintering the CIA after the Bay of Pigs betrayal, a chance JFK did not realize, leaving the world the speaker claims the CIA built. The speaker notes that Hungary, a country of 9 million, has passed Stop Soros laws and expelled his operations, asking why the United States cannot do the same, and suggests finishing what JFK started.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think I found the real reason George Soros is still allowed to operate freely inside The United States while he's been kicked out or heavily restricted in Russia, Hungary, Turkey, Pakistan, Poland, The Philippines, and a half dozen other countries. The answer is simple, and it's hiding in plain sight. George Soros has probably been one of the CIA's most valuable private assets for over forty years. He's the civilian deniable billion dollar funding arm of American regime change operations worldwide. That's why no attorney general, no congress, and no president has ever seriously moved to shut him down here.
He's not just allowed in America, he's protected. This is why both George and Alex are so arrogant. If you've seen my video on color revolutions, you already know the script. Soros bankrolled this prototype in Serbia in 2000, refined it in Georgia in 2003, Ukraine in 2004, and the Arab Spring in 2011. The same USAID, NED, and Open Society Foundations logos appear in every single one.
The Arab Spring was the trial run for Europe's migrant crisis. In 2011, the CIA and Soros turned that playbook on Libya and Syria. Gaddafi warned the West in March 2011 that if you take him out, millions would flood Europe from Africa. Eight months later, he was dead and Libya was chaos and the migrant waves began exactly as he had predicted. By twenty fifteen, twenty sixteen, battle hardened jihadist and economic migrants were streaming across the Mediterranean with iPhones, prepaid cards, and Twitter guides written in Arabic, the same social media mobilization tactics used in Kyiv and Tahrir Square.
Wayne Madsen called it straight in 2015. This was a deliberate sorrow CIA social engineering operation to fracture Europe from within. Same playbook, new target. And now we have America, 2020 to present. Remember the twenty twenty summer riots?
Soros Open Societies Foundations gave at least $33,000,000 to the groups that organized and sustained them. How about the southern border caravans? Soros backed NGOs provided the lawyers, the maps, and the logistics. How about to fund the police and DA's in every major city? Soros money elected them.
They're running the color revolution playbook on us now. Only this time, the target isn't Belgrade or Damascus, it's you. And this is why JFK was right. After the Bay of Pigs betrayal, president Kennedy reportedly told AIDS he wanted to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds. He never got the chance.
Sixty two years later, we're living in the world the CIA built. One where a Hungarian born billionaire who collapsed the Bank of England can pour unlimited dark money into American elections and street movements, and nobody in power dares touch him. Because he's not a liability, he's their most successful off the books contractor. The only question left, if Hungary, a country of 9,000,000 people can pass Stop Soros laws and kick his operations out, why can't we? Maybe it's time we finish what JFK started.
reSee.it AI Summary
A user alleges Epstein emails show Marina Abramović invited celebrities to view her 'Spirit Cooking' performances and that she partnered with Bill Gates' first company, Microsoft. A responder links a Wikileaks email about spirit cooking.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Jeffrey Epstein emails prove that Marina Abramović, an artist widely known for her ‘Spirit Cooking’, invited celebrities to view her performances. Marina Abramović also partnered with Bill Gates first company, Microsoft.
@NotOpCue - Not Op Cue
@liz_churchill10 Here is her Wikileaks email on spirit cooking:
@NotOpCue - Not Op Cue
@RedpillDrifter Cannibals Spirt Cookers Adrenochrome Users
@NotOpCue - Not Op Cue
From: Marina Abramovic To: Tony Podesta Spirit Cooking Dinner (@wikileaks) "I am so looking forward to the Spirit Cooking dinner at my place." Cannibalism/human meat for sale: Cannibal Club Human Farming Project 🔍 What Is #Adrenochrome ?🐇🕳️ 💊 https://humorousmathematics.com/post/what-is-adrenochrome-follow-the-white-rabbit
What Is Adrenochrome? Follow The White Rabbit...
It's about time the world got informed about the elites preferred drug of choice and its disturbing torturous methods of production. Adrenochrome, a chemical known by "modern science" since at least the 1930's, is a chemical compound with the molecular formula C9H9NO3. For the purpose of this summary we are primarily focusing on the natural version of adrenochrome and not the synthetic equivalent, as the elites use the most addictive and expensive stuff. To put this in laymens terms adrenochrome
humorousmathematics.com
@NotOpCue - Not Op Cue
From: Marina Abramovic To: Tony Podesta Spirit Cooking Dinner (@wikileaks) "I am so looking forward to the Spirit Cooking dinner at my place." Cannibalism/human meat for sale: Cannibal Club Human Farming Project 🔍 What Is #Adrenochrome ?🐇🕳️ 💊 https://humorousmathematics.com/post/what-is-adrenochrome-follow-the-white-rabbit
What Is Adrenochrome? Follow The White Rabbit...
It's about time the world got informed about the elites preferred drug of choice and its disturbing torturous methods of production. Adrenochrome, a chemical known by "modern science" since at least the 1930's, is a chemical compound with the molecular formula C9H9NO3. For the purpose of this summary we are primarily focusing on the natural version of adrenochrome and not the synthetic equivalent, as the elites use the most addictive and expensive stuff. To put this in laymens terms adrenochrome
humorousmathematics.com
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Turns out that Bill Gates had incestuous relationships on Epstein’s Island too… “Bill Gates has an incestuous relationship with Dr. Fauci…that goes back 20 years…and they have all kinds of corrupt, financial entanglements…” -HHS RFK Jr. https://t.co/45jS0zmSjr
Video Transcript AI Summary
Gates allegedly has incestuous and financially corrupt entanglements with Anthony Fauci dating back twenty years. The transcript claims Gates pays Fauci, and they have “all kinds of really corrupt financial entanglements.” It describes Gates bringing Fauci to his $189,000,000 house in Seattle in 2000, sitting him down, and saying he wants to form a partnership. Fauci’s account is that Fauci would develop the drugs and pass them on to drug companies like Merck, Sanofi, Gilead, and Johnson and Johnson. Gates would then guarantee markets in Africa through his control of WHO. It is asserted that those companies don’t want to give vaccines to Africa because it’s uncertain, with Botswana reportedly wanting them this year and not next year, and Gates, by controlling WHO, allegedly controls those countries because WHO pays for health ministries and supplies all HIV medications, forcing these countries to do what WHO tells them to do. The claim is that Gates can require those companies and countries to buy the vaccines and that he is invested in the companies.
The transcript also states Gates has investments in tobacco companies, processed foods, Coca Cola, Cargill, Monsanto, Philip Morris, Kraft, and cheese. It alleges he has stakes in virtually all oil companies, portraying him as not caring about climate or public health but about control. It asserts Gates appeared daily on TV as a public health expert. According to the speaker, Gates’s message was that people should shut down, lock down, wear a mask, and that it would never end until they took the vaccine he was making for them.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Gates has these incestuous relationships with with Anthony Fauci that go back twenty years where he's, you know, paying Fauci and they have all kinds of really corrupt financial entanglements with each other. They, you know, he brought Fauci to his house in 2000 and his $189,000,000 house in Seattle brought him into the den, sat him down and said I want to have a partnership with you. The way that Fauci explains it is that Fauci would develop the drugs and then pass them on to the to the drug companies, Merck, Sanofi, Gilead, Johnson and Johnson. Gates would then guarantee markets in Africa through his control of WHO. Wow.
Those companies don't wanna give vaccines to Africa because it's very uncertain. Know, Botswana has a government this year that says, yeah, we want them and not next year. And Gates, because he controls WHO, he controls those countries because WHO pays for their health ministries and supplies all their HIV medications they have to do what WHO tells them to do. So he can require those companies, those countries to buy the vaccines from these companies and he then is invested in the companies, you know, and by the way, AIDS has no pretension that he gives a crap about public health. His other investments are in tobacco companies, in processed foods, in Coca Cola, in Cargill, in Monsanto, Philip Morris, Kraft, you know, cheese.
Then all the oil companies, which he owns stakes and virtually all of them. So he's not a guy who cares about climate, or who cares about public health. He's a guy who cares about control. Listen, you saw him every day. He was on TV, Doctor.
Gates as a public health expert. What was his message? You gotta shut down. You gotta lock down. You gotta wear a mask, and it will never end until you take your vaccine, which I'm making for you.
Right.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
This video was proof that Zuckerberg had foreknowledge of Crimes Against Humanity regarding the LETHAL ‘Covid Vaccine’ which makes him COMPLICIT in the deaths of MILLIONS. https://t.co/CuxJL7ldT7
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 cautions about the long-term side effects of directly modifying a person’s DNA and RNA to encode antibodies. They raise concerns that such genetic or molecular modifications could lead to unforeseen consequences over time, including potential mutations or other risks that might arise downstream as a result of encoding these antibodies.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Caution on this because, we just don't know the long term side effects of of basically modifying peoples, the DNA and RNA to, to directly encode in a person's DNA and RNA, basically, the ability to to to produce those antibodies and whether that causes other mutations or other risks down downstream. So
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
ARREST HIM…we already know it was the Marxist from Kenya… “Joe Biden WAS NOT running the show. Our new report EXPOSES how Biden's decline was real and his aides covered it up. Aides didn't even know WHO was operating the autopen to sign official documents and pardons…” https://t.co/nEmgUTtYSh
Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript centers on a heated discussion about President Joe Biden’s health, cognitive fitness, and who was calling the shots within the White House during his presidency. Key points and claims raised include:
- The campaign and public discourse about the president’s fitness or age were prominent, with questions such as “Was the number one issue in the campaign the president's fitness or his age?” and assertions about visibility, including whether “you ever see president Biden in a wheelchair?” While some speakers note aging and physical signs—“I noticed that, you know, he shuffled more,” and “he has more stumbling over words and gasps than he did” — others maintain confidence in his capabilities, claiming he was “on top of things” and that “his mental acuity is great. It's fine. It's as good as it's been over the years.”
- There are allegations of a cover-up by insiders. The narrative asserts “new information now on the people in his inner circle and how the cover up actually operated,” with “Senior aids that worked here until just a couple months ago, the beginning of this year, manipulating an ailing president for their own gain.” A figure asks, “How much were you paid for your role in the campaign in 2024?” with the response “Just a little bit short of $4,000,000.” The implication is that financial incentives influenced actions.
- Internal discussions about the president’s decline and how it was handled are described as ongoing. “The official word from Biden world about all these new stories is that nothing has been revealed this week that shows that president Biden was anything but effective president.” There is mention of a senior-level discussion about whether the president should have a cognitive exam.
- Testimony from Annie Thomas Seen, former senior adviser to Biden, is presented as significant. She “has now taken the fifth,” and the transcript notes “There is now a pattern of key Biden confidant seeking to shield themselves from criminal liability for this potential conspiracy.” She invokes the Fifth Amendment when asked about being told to lie about the president’s health.
- There are explosive claims regarding Hunter Biden’s role. One speaker says, “Hunter was driving the decision making for the family. He was almost like a chief of staff.” There are references to an uptick in activity when Hunter Biden was around, and discussions about pardons for Hunter, with the line “Yes. Were you in favor of Hunter Biden getting a pardon?” indicating support for clemency.
- The “auto pen” controversy is described. Speakers discuss whether the president’s name was “hand signed” or “auto pen” used for documents, with questions such as “Did he hand sign all executive orders?” and claims that “the auto bin” or “auto pen” was used and that some believed others may have instructed staff to use it. There is mention that some staff “did not know who was operating the Obalon/auto pen,” and that “an executive order” and “memo” details existed but were not definitively known to those questioned.
- Media portrayal and public perception are addressed. Some speakers accuse the legacy media of denial about cognitive decline, while others defend the president’s sharpness, noting that this debate is framed by evolving video and audio coverage, including discussions of “cheap fakes” versus real footage.
- Additional context touches on Medicare drug price negotiations as a policy objective, with a line about “the ability of Medicare to negotiate drug prices with big pharma,” and the belief that “if we finally beat Medicare” would be a significant achievement. There are repeated assertions that those who knew and understood cognitive issues took control, implying a broader conspiracy.
- Throughout, witnesses emphasize that their statements are contextualized within interviews and testimony, with ongoing questions about who was directing the White House and the true state of the president’s health and decision-making.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Was the number one issue in the campaign the president's fitness or his
Speaker 1: age? Did
Speaker 0: you ever see president Biden in a wheelchair?
Speaker 2: I do not recall ever seeing president Biden in a wheelchair. And
Speaker 3: new information now on the people in his inner circle and how the cover up actually operated.
Speaker 4: Senior aids that worked here until just a couple months ago, the beginning of this year, manipulating an ailing president for their own gain.
Speaker 5: How much were you paid for your role in
Speaker 6: the campaign in 2024?
Speaker 5: Just a little bit short
Speaker 1: of $4,000,000.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry. How much? $4,000,000. You believe that the president should stay in the race. Your own financial stake in the matter was a factor in any way in your vice president?
Speaker 5: I I don't believe that.
Speaker 4: And when it comes to president Biden's decline, the official word from Biden world about all these new stories is that nothing has been revealed this week that shows that president Biden was anything but effective president.
Speaker 2: Yes. I noticed that he was aging in terms of his physical condition. I noticed that, you know, he shuffled more.
Speaker 7: But he has more stumbling over words and gasps than he did, you know, at the beginning of the term.
Speaker 8: His rhetorical skills were not as strong as they had been, and his speeches were less effective, I thought.
Speaker 5: We talked about age. We knew it was an issue, and we tried to design a strategy. We
Speaker 0: had a discussion at the senior adviser level about whether the president should have a cognitive exam.
Speaker 3: Flashback now to the legacy media's complete denial of the president's cognitive decline.
Speaker 9: Start your tape right now because I'm about to tell you the truth, And f you if you can't handle the truth. This version of Biden is the best Biden ever.
Speaker 7: His mental acuity is great. It's fine. It's as good as it's been over the years. He is sharp.
Speaker 0: He is on top of things.
Speaker 8: Do you regret saying that president Biden had a mental acuity? He had a sharpness to him.
Speaker 10: I said what I believe to be true.
Speaker 8: And you think he was as sharp as you?
Speaker 10: I said I had not seen decline, and I hadn't.
Speaker 5: He is just fine. How people interpret that is up to them.
Speaker 11: We're watching testimony of this woman here, Annie Thomas Seen. She's the former senior adviser to president Joe Biden. She was the third person
Speaker 12: set to appear before James Cumber's committee.
Speaker 11: She has now taken the fifth. There is now a pattern of key Biden confidant seeking to shield themselves from criminal liability for this potential conspiracy.
Speaker 9: Were you ever told to lie about the president's health?
Speaker 1: On the advice of counsel, I must respectfully decline to answer based upon physician patient privilege and in reliance on my right under the fifth amendment of the constitution.
Speaker 9: Let the record reflect that doctor O'Connor has invoked the fifth amendment right against self incrimination. Doctor O'Connor, did you ever believe the president was unfit to execute his duties as president.
Speaker 5: And we can tell you that he will have the same answer with respect to any questions that are asked.
Speaker 9: Did any unelected official or family member of president Joe Biden execute the duties of the president's Did Joe Biden, a member of his family, or anyone at the White House ever instruct you to lie regarding his health?
Speaker 1: On the advice of counsel, I respect and resigned to answer the questions pursuant to my fifth amendment rights under the constitution.
Speaker 13: And if that wasn't shocking enough, Dick Tapper claims Hunter Biden was basically acting like the chief of staff.
Speaker 4: Hunter was driving the decision making for the family. He was almost like a chief
Speaker 9: of staff. Did you notice an uptick ever when Hunter Biden was around?
Speaker 7: Yes. Towards the end, I think he was living with the president.
Speaker 4: They were lying not just to the public. They were lying to other Democrats. Have you ruled out
Speaker 8: a pardon for your son?
Speaker 5: Yes. Were you in favor of Hunter Biden getting a pardon?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 9: Did you ever ask Joe Biden if the allegations regarding his son were true?
Speaker 14: No. Ian Sams, who was the White House spokesperson, interacted with him two times. Two times.
Speaker 15: Well, I think it's really important to to take the sound bite and understand the context.
Speaker 12: How
Speaker 4: often would you say that you interacted with the president in person?
Speaker 15: I interacted with him pretty infrequently. I think I met with the president a handful of times during my tenure in White I gotta say that doesn't look anything like the president that I know. When I deal with him, he's sharp. He's asking tough questions. That's the president Biden that so many of us experience every single day.
Speaker 4: You know, I think it's missing some context.
Speaker 15: I don't.
Speaker 14: So it raises serious concerns and serious questions about who was calling shots in the White House. If the White House spokesperson is being shielded from the president of The United States, who was operating the Obalon?
Speaker 6: Page, was it an issue for you or for president Biden?
Speaker 5: No. It was. Right? It was not a concern.
Speaker 9: Do you think president Biden was fully in command that night during the debate?
Speaker 2: I do believe that he was fully in command that night during the debate.
Speaker 5: I knew it very difficult to get past some of the visual things that were causing people concern about the president's future.
Speaker 9: The voters' concerns about president Biden were wrong? Yes.
Speaker 8: He often would confuse names. Do you think
Speaker 9: it got worse as you knew him? Yes.
Speaker 5: Are you sure you're being honest with yourself when you say you have the mental and physical capacity to serve another four years?
Speaker 2: Yes. I am. I did not have the experience that it took him longer to answer. Simple question.
Speaker 5: He could stumble. He he was a stumble son physically.
Speaker 9: What is a cheap fake?
Speaker 0: It was something that we did not coin. It was something that the media coined.
Speaker 9: Did you or did anyone ever verify if the videos you were talking about were in fact cheap fakes? I believe so. But there were instances where videos were circulated of president Biden appearing confused or
Speaker 5: freezing for a moment that were real. Correct?
Speaker 0: Not that I recall.
Speaker 1: She told you this real video of Biden getting lost in an Italian field was fake. Now she's saying, yeah. My White House was broken, and I'm switching parties.
Speaker 8: And was suffering from a cold that really constrained his voice and constrained his his ability to to be forceful in the debate.
Speaker 9: Do you attribute president Biden's performance that night to him being under the weather?
Speaker 7: That's my assumption.
Speaker 12: The ability of Medicare to for the ability to for the us to be able to negotiate drug prices with the big pharma companies.
Speaker 9: Had you ever seen him have a cold or a flu before?
Speaker 7: Yes. Did he ever behave the way that he did during the debate? Not that I not that I ever saw.
Speaker 5: It was clear what he was trying to say.
Speaker 12: Dealing with everything we have to do with look. If we finally beat Medicare.
Speaker 13: It was the people that knew he was cognitively impaired and that took over the auto pen. They stole the presidency of The United States.
Speaker 9: Do you know who the people who were actually operating the auto bin were?
Speaker 7: I do not.
Speaker 9: Do you know any of the actual staff who were using the auto bin?
Speaker 7: No. You don't
Speaker 5: know their names?
Speaker 9: No. Have you never seen a decision memo laying out the breakdown of when the president should hand sign a particular set of documents? Not prior to prep.
Speaker 4: Did he hand sign all executive orders?
Speaker 2: He did not. He hand signed many executive orders, but he did not hand sign all executive orders.
Speaker 9: Can you read your response?
Speaker 7: I approve the use of the auto pen for the execution of all the following parties. Thanks, Jay Z.
Speaker 9: Did you yourself write this email?
Speaker 7: I do not believe I
Speaker 14: That auto pin was used excessively, and yet no one can say for certain that Joe Biden was given the orders to use the auto pin.
Speaker 15: We've been pretty transparent from the very beginning with providing information as it occurs throughout this process.
Speaker 0: That we anticipated that her report was gonna come out and that we didn't feel an entire interview before the Super Bowl talking about classified documents was going to help the cause too much.
Speaker 1: I think you can
Speaker 14: question the validity and the legality of those pardons and and executive orders, and that's huge.
Speaker 8: But, president is absolutely sharp fit on top of his game.
Speaker 15: So they're just making up lies to attack the president.
Speaker 9: But do you think his mental acuity had declined?
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
How TF was this possible? “Yale received $1B in gov't funds and works closely with the intelligence state…used guilt, embarrassment, anger, and ‘trust the science’ messages to get people to take the ‘Covid Vaccine’ months before it was even developed…” https://t.co/aBMGRzMg1L
Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript describes a Yale University study conducted at the CI supercenter nine months before a COVID-19 vaccine was available. In July 2020, four months before any vaccine was announced and nine months before public rollout, Yale tested multiple messaging strategies to influence willingness to vaccinate once a vaccine existed. The study involved about 4,000 participants and used random assignment to different messages, including a control condition about bird feeding.
The messages tested were:
- Baseline control: a passage on the cost and benefits of bird feeding.
- Vaccine safety baseline: three-fifths of the sample received a message about the effectiveness and safety of vaccines, using the words “Safe and effective, safe and effective, safe and effective.”
- Personal freedom: one fifteenth of the sample received a message about how COVID-19 is limiting personal freedom and how vaccination would help preserve it.
- Economic freedom: one fifteenth received a message about how COVID-19 is limiting economic freedom and how vaccination would help preserve it.
- Self-interest: one fifteenth received a message that vaccination is the best way to prevent illness for oneself, stressing personal health.
- Community interest: one fifteenth emphasized the dangers to loved ones and encouraged vaccination to protect them.
- Economic benefit: one fifteenth described how COVID-19 is wreaking havoc on the economy and that vaccination would strengthen the economy.
- Guilt: one fifteenth were shown a message about the danger COVID-19 presents to health of family and community, asking them to imagine the guilt if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.
- Embarrassment: a variation asking participants to imagine the embarrassment if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.
- Anger: a message aiming to stir anger about not getting vaccinated.
- Trust in science: a message promoting vaccination as backed by science, even though no vaccine existed yet.
- Brave/hero framing: one fifteenth described frontline workers as brave and implied those who choose not to vaccinate are not.
The transcript notes this as part of testing how different emotional or value-based framings (interventions) might influence vaccine uptake, with strong negative language and profanity directed at the concept and institutions involved. It characterizes the effort as exploring which emotions—guilt, embarrassment, anger, trust in science, bravery—could best persuade compliance, even before a vaccine existed. The speaker also comments that this reflects a nexus between universities, behavioral modification, and psychological operations, and includes inflammatory asides about Yale’s connections and motives.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Here are the different messages they tested nine months before a COVID vaccine was even available at Yale University, the CI supercenter at the end of university world. Then it asked the participant to imagine the guilt they would feel if they don't get vaccinated and spread the disease. Fucking Yale University, the hairy armpit of the Central Intelligence Agency. Nine months before there even fucking is a vaccine to imagine the guilt they will feel if they don't meanwhile, they were pretesting safety and the safe and effective safe and effective. There hadn't even been one.
There was no vaccine at that point in July 2020. The first one wasn't even announced until four months later and wasn't available till nine months later. But the drilling and saving effective, you don't even have one yet. You're not even through the basic testing phase. Guilt message.
Is guilt more powerful than economics? Embarrassment message. Control message about bird feeding. See this? I got a big fat fucking bird for you.
I just put this in my notes. Sort of apropos of nothing, but I just thought it was interesting because we talk a lot about the nexus between intelligence in universities and behavioral modification, psychological operations, these sorts of things. I just saw this today, and I I love I love it. Let me I mean, I don't love it, but I I love that it's out there. So in July 2020, this would be seven months into COVID, four months into COVID arriving here in The US, and almost a year before the vaccines rolled out.
Four months before any vaccine was announced. Yale University, four months before a vaccine was even announced, when exactly did the first COVID vaccines come out? Or or, like, when was the first COVID nineteen vaccine available to the public? When did the rollout start? 04/19/2021 that all US states had opened vaccine eligibility to residents 16 or over.
April 2021. So that's almost so July 2020 is nine months before the vaccines were even available to the public, and Yale University does this thing. The study tests different messaging about vaccinating against COVID nineteen once the vaccine becomes available. We will compare the reported willingness to get a COVID nineteen vaccine at three and six months of it becoming available. So it was 4,000 this is a study on 4,000 people 4,000 people around Yale.
What they did is they hit them with this remember, intervention is this term from the censorship industry, which just means censorship technique. That's the word that's used in blob craft for overthrowing a country or militarily invading. We call those interventions. And here, the intervention, the intrusion on your sovereignty, the way they're messing with you, the intervention. So here are the different messages they tested nine months before a COVID vaccine was even available at Yale University, the CIA supercenter at the end of the university world.
A control message, which I think they said was about birds. I'll just scroll down to it. This is on clinicaltrials.gov. K? So, basically, they were like, okay.
They they knew people would not wanna take these bullshit vaccines. And again, I'm not judging if you if you took one. It's just my stance on this is is pretty hard. So they had the sham comparator control where before they would get them to agree to a shot in their arm, they do a control message about bird feeding. Two fifteenths of the sample.
So that's what's 4,000 divided by 15? Like 20 something, like low 20 something. So, like, 200 some people. I guess four fifths would be, like, 400, probably 500 people, basically. Of the sample will be assigned to the pure control, which is a passage on the cost and benefits of bird feeding.
Okay? So that's their baseline. Totally random. Okay? Then they had a baseline message.
Three fifths of the sample will be assigned to a control group with a message about the effectiveness and safety of vaccines. So and they they're dedicating three fifth three fifteenths of the sample to this because they wanna be really sure what the messaging about just saying safe and effective safe and effective safe and effective is. Now notice these were the words exact words that were rolled out. Safe and effective, safe and effective, safe and effective. But nine months before a COVID vaccine was even available, that was the Yale University baseline message, emphasized safety and effectiveness.
That gets crazy. Other message, personal freedom message. One fifteenth of the sample will be assigned to this intervention, which is a message about how COVID nineteen is limiting people's personal freedom. And by working together to get enough people vaccinated, society can preserve its personal freedom. Well, society doesn't have personal freedoms.
Individuals in societies have personal freedoms. That's what the that's what the personal in personal freedoms stands for. The next intervention, hit them with an economic freedom message. One fifteenth of sample, we signed this intervention, which is a message about how COVID nineteen is limiting people's economic freedom. And by working together, get enough people vaccinated, society can preserve its economic freedom.
Society has it? The next intervention, self interest message. One fifteenth will be assigned this intervention, which is a message that COVID nineteen presents a real danger to one's health even if one is young and healthy. Getting vaccinated against COVID nineteen is the best way to prevent oneself from getting sick, so appeal to their self interest. Okay.
That's fine. Community interest is a message about the dangers of COVID nineteen to health of loved ones. So get your loved ones vaccinated. Okay. Alright.
Economic benefit message, which is a message about how COVID nineteen is wreaking havoc on the economy and the only way to strengthen the economy. Have you seen every single one of these messages during the rollout? And this was nine months before. Uh-oh. But then it gets weird, Yale.
Guilt message. One fifteenth of the sample will be assigned this message. The message is about the danger that COVID nineteen presents the health of one's family and community. The best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated. Society must work together.
Then it asks the participant to imagine the guilt they would feel if they don't get vaccinated and spread the disease. Fucking Yale University. The hairy armpit of the Central Intelligence Agency and its role in the you know, as the sort of economic hitman on behalf of the multinational corporations like Pfizer and J and J. They're lab testing if they can get people nine months before there even fucking is a vaccine To imagine the guilt they will feel if they don't and, you know, they were pretesting safety and safe and effective safe and effective. There hadn't even been one.
There was no vaccine at that point in July 2020. The first one wasn't even announced until four months later and wasn't available till nine months later. But the drilling and safe and effective, you don't even have one yet. You're not even through the basic testing phase. Guilt message.
Is guilt more powerful than economics? Embarrassment message. This message is about the danger that it presents We have to work together. Then ask the participant to imagine the embarrassment they will feel if they don't get vaccinated and spread the disease. I mean, just imagine this shit.
You know, you're one of these researchers at Yale University, and you got some 18 year old college kid who's volunteered to be a guinea pig so they can get $25 for lunch money. Okay. Thank you, Stephanie, for coming in today. I want you to imagine the abject humiliation you will feel for trying to be a defiant independent free thinker and defying Lord Pfizer. And how embarrassed you will be going back to the Parcheesi session, playing Settlers of Catan back in your dorm room, and how embarrassed you will feel that you did not get vaccinated and all of your friends did.
Other, anger message. Anger. They're testing all the human emotions. Nine months before there even fucking is a vaccine to see what emotion can we stir in them that will make them most likely to comply with the government. It asks the participant to imagine the anger they will feel if they don't get vaccinated.
Let's try a trust in science message. Oh, that sounds familiar. Trust the science. Trust the science. Yeah.
Nine months before science even cooked up its little Frankenstein. Vaccine the message is vaccination is backed by science. There is no vaccination at this point. But when we have one, we want you to be emotionally preloaded. If one doesn't get vaccinated, that means one doesn't understand how infections are spread or who ignores science.
Doesn't even make sense. One doesn't understand who ignores science? You know, it's a good thing these people are idiots because this is an incredible amount of power. And if they were really, really good at their jobs, if they were a savant, if they were as really as passionate about this and as talented as like Stephen Miller is on immigration, god, we would have been fucked. Not brave message.
One fifteenth of sample will be assigned this message, which describes how firefighters, doctors, and frontline medical workers are brave. Those who choose not to get vaccinated against COVID nineteen are not brave. See this? I got a big fat fucking bird for you. That EL thing.
That EL thing, man.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
How TF was this possible? “Yale received $1B in gov't funds and works closely with the intelligence state…used guilt, embarrassment, anger, and ‘trust the science’ messages to get people to take the ‘Covid Vaccine’ months before it was even developed…” https://t.co/aBMGRzMg1L
Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript describes a study conducted at Yale University nine months before a COVID-19 vaccine was available, in which researchers tested different messaging strategies to influence willingness to vaccinate once vaccines existed. The setting is described as the “CI supercenter at the end of university world” and includes vocal commentary criticizing Yale as a pretext for psychological operations.
Key context and timeline:
- In July 2020, nine months before a COVID-19 vaccine was available in the general public.
- The first COVID-19 vaccines were announced four months later and available nine months after July 2020.
- The rollout began with all US states opening vaccine eligibility to residents 16 or over on 04/19/2021.
- The study involved 4,000 participants around Yale and examined messaging about vaccinating against COVID-19 once the vaccine became available, comparing reported willingness to get a vaccine at three and six months after it became available.
Study design and interventions:
- The sample was randomly assigned to different messaging conditions and a control.
- Control condition (about birds) is described as a baseline sham comparator with a passage on the cost and benefits of bird feeding.
- A “baseline message” emphasized safety and effectiveness, described as “the exact words that were rolled out: Safe and effective, safe and effective, safe and effective.”
- Other messages tested included:
- Personal freedom message: COVID-19 is limiting personal freedom; by working together to get enough people vaccinated, society can preserve its personal freedom.
- Economic freedom message: COVID-19 is limiting economic freedom; by working together, society can preserve its economic freedom.
- Self-interest message: COVID-19 presents a real danger to one’s health even if one is young and healthy; getting vaccinated is the best way to prevent sickness.
- Community interest message: Dangers of COVID-19 to the health of loved ones; get your loved ones vaccinated.
- Economic benefit message: COVID-19 is wreaking havoc on the economy; the only way to strengthen the economy is to vaccinate.
- Guilt message: The danger that COVID-19 presents the health of one’s family and community; the best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated; society must work together; participants are asked to imagine the guilt they would feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.
- Embarrassment message: The danger that COVID-19 presents the health of one’s family and community; participants are asked to imagine the embarrassment they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.
- Anger message: Test of the emotion of anger to see what can be stirred to increase compliance.
- Trust in science message: Vaccination is backed by science; “Trust the science” (noting the paradox that science had not produced a vaccine at that point).
- Brave message: Firefighters, doctors, and frontline workers are brave; those who choose not to get vaccinated are not brave. The commentary emphasizes “I got a big fat fucking bird for you” in reference to the putative study.
Notable commentary:
- The speaker interjects provocative remarks about Yale, the CIA, and pharmaceutical companies, describing the project as testing whether guilt or other emotions are more powerful than economics, and repeatedly condemning the pre-vaccine testing of messages meant to precondition people emotionally.
Overall takeaway:
- Nine months before any vaccine existed, Yale tested a range of messaging strategies—ranging from safety claims to appeals to personal, economic, and communal impacts, plus guilt, embarrassment, anger, trust in science, and bravery—to predict or influence willingness to vaccinate once vaccines were available.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Here are the different messages they tested nine months before a COVID vaccine was even available at Yale University, the CI supercenter at the end of university world. Then it asked the participant to imagine the guilt they would feel if they don't get vaccinated and spread the disease. Fucking Yale University, the hairy armpit of the Central Intelligence Agency. Nine months before there even fucking is a vaccine to imagine the guilt they will feel if they don't meanwhile, they were pretesting safety and the safe and effective safe and effective. There hadn't even been one.
There was no vaccine at that point in July 2020. The first one wasn't even announced until four months later and wasn't available till nine months later. But the drilling and saving effective, you don't even have one yet. You're not even through the basic testing phase. Guilt message.
Is guilt more powerful than economics? Embarrassment message. Control message about bird feeding. See this? I got a big fat fucking bird for you.
I just put this in my notes. Sort of apropos of nothing, but I just thought it was interesting because we talk a lot about the nexus between intelligence in universities and behavioral modification, psychological operations, these sorts of things. I just saw this today, and I I love I love it. Let me I mean, I don't love it, but I I love that it's out there. So in July 2020, this would be seven months into COVID, four months into COVID arriving here in The US, and almost a year before the vaccines rolled out.
Four months before any vaccine was announced. Yale University, four months before a vaccine was even announced, when exactly did the first COVID vaccines come out? Or or, like, when was the first COVID nineteen vaccine available to the public? When did the rollout start? 04/19/2021 that all US states had opened vaccine eligibility to residents 16 or over.
April 2021. So that's almost so July 2020 is nine months before the vaccines were even available to the public, and Yale University does this thing. The study tests different messaging about vaccinating against COVID nineteen once the vaccine becomes available. We will compare the reported willingness to get a COVID nineteen vaccine at three and six months of it becoming available. So it was 4,000 this is a study on 4,000 people 4,000 people around Yale.
What they did is they hit them with this remember, intervention is this term from the censorship industry, which just means censorship technique. That's the word that's used in blob craft for overthrowing a country or militarily invading. We call those interventions. And here, the intervention, the intrusion on your sovereignty, the way they're messing with you, the intervention. So here are the different messages they tested nine months before a COVID vaccine was even available at Yale University, the CIA supercenter at the end of the university world.
A control message, which I think they said was about birds. I'll just scroll down to it. This is on clinicaltrials.gov. K? So, basically, they were like, okay.
They they knew people would not wanna take these bullshit vaccines. And again, I'm not judging if you if you took one. It's just my stance on this is is pretty hard. So they had the sham comparator control where before they would get them to agree to a shot in their arm, they do a control message about bird feeding. Two fifteenths of the sample.
So that's what's 4,000 divided by 15? Like 20 something, like low 20 something. So, like, 200 some people. I guess four fifths would be, like, 400, probably 500 people, basically. Of the sample will be assigned to the pure control, which is a passage on the cost and benefits of bird feeding.
Okay? So that's their baseline. Totally random. Okay? Then they had a baseline message.
Three fifths of the sample will be assigned to a control group with a message about the effectiveness and safety of vaccines. So and they they're dedicating three fifth three fifteenths of the sample to this because they wanna be really sure what the messaging about just saying safe and effective safe and effective safe and effective is. Now notice these were the words exact words that were rolled out. Safe and effective, safe and effective, safe and effective. But nine months before a COVID vaccine was even available, that was the Yale University baseline message, emphasized safety and effectiveness.
That gets crazy. Other message, personal freedom message. One fifteenth of the sample will be assigned to this intervention, which is a message about how COVID nineteen is limiting people's personal freedom. And by working together to get enough people vaccinated, society can preserve its personal freedom. Well, society doesn't have personal freedoms.
Individuals in societies have personal freedoms. That's what the that's what the personal in personal freedoms stands for. The next intervention, hit them with an economic freedom message. One fifteenth of sample, we signed this intervention, which is a message about how COVID nineteen is limiting people's economic freedom. And by working together, get enough people vaccinated, society can preserve its economic freedom.
Society has it? The next intervention, self interest message. One fifteenth will be assigned this intervention, which is a message that COVID nineteen presents a real danger to one's health even if one is young and healthy. Getting vaccinated against COVID nineteen is the best way to prevent oneself from getting sick, so appeal to their self interest. Okay.
That's fine. Community interest is a message about the dangers of COVID nineteen to health of loved ones. So get your loved ones vaccinated. Okay. Alright.
Economic benefit message, which is a message about how COVID nineteen is wreaking havoc on the economy and the only way to strengthen the economy. Have you seen every single one of these messages during the rollout? And this was nine months before. Uh-oh. But then it gets weird, Yale.
Guilt message. One fifteenth of the sample will be assigned this message. The message is about the danger that COVID nineteen presents the health of one's family and community. The best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated. Society must work together.
Then it asks the participant to imagine the guilt they would feel if they don't get vaccinated and spread the disease. Fucking Yale University. The hairy armpit of the Central Intelligence Agency and its role in the you know, as the sort of economic hitman on behalf of the multinational corporations like Pfizer and J and J. They're lab testing if they can get people nine months before there even fucking is a vaccine To imagine the guilt they will feel if they don't and, you know, they were pretesting safety and safe and effective safe and effective. There hadn't even been one.
There was no vaccine at that point in July 2020. The first one wasn't even announced until four months later and wasn't available till nine months later. But the drilling and safe and effective, you don't even have one yet. You're not even through the basic testing phase. Guilt message.
Is guilt more powerful than economics? Embarrassment message. This message is about the danger that it presents We have to work together. Then ask the participant to imagine the embarrassment they will feel if they don't get vaccinated and spread the disease. I mean, just imagine this shit.
You know, you're one of these researchers at Yale University, and you got some 18 year old college kid who's volunteered to be a guinea pig so they can get $25 for lunch money. Okay. Thank you, Stephanie, for coming in today. I want you to imagine the abject humiliation you will feel for trying to be a defiant independent free thinker and defying Lord Pfizer. And how embarrassed you will be going back to the Parcheesi session, playing Settlers of Catan back in your dorm room, and how embarrassed you will feel that you did not get vaccinated and all of your friends did.
Other, anger message. Anger. They're testing all the human emotions. Nine months before there even fucking is a vaccine to see what emotion can we stir in them that will make them most likely to comply with the government. It asks the participant to imagine the anger they will feel if they don't get vaccinated.
Let's try a trust in science message. Oh, that sounds familiar. Trust the science. Trust the science. Yeah.
Nine months before science even cooked up its little Frankenstein. Vaccine the message is vaccination is backed by science. There is no vaccination at this point. But when we have one, we want you to be emotionally preloaded. If one doesn't get vaccinated, that means one doesn't understand how infections are spread or who ignores science.
Doesn't even make sense. One doesn't understand who ignores science? You know, it's a good thing these people are idiots because this is an incredible amount of power. And if they were really, really good at their jobs, if they were a savant, if they were as really as passionate about this and as talented as like Stephen Miller is on immigration, god, we would have been fucked. Not brave message.
One fifteenth of sample will be assigned this message, which describes how firefighters, doctors, and frontline medical workers are brave. Those who choose not to get vaccinated against COVID nineteen are not brave. See this? I got a big fat fucking bird for you. That EL thing.
That EL thing, man.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
WOW. “Charles James Kirk. Mr. College Drop out does not know whats coming tomorrow. Be ready. This isn’t a threat. It’s a promise…”https://t.co/j4gDIuqlLn
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Oh. My. God. President Trump calls out the VACCINE TERRORISTS…https://t.co/dJLDTn9xbX
Video Transcript AI Summary
- "This is this is thimerosal, which is labeled very toxic."
- "Has cumulative effects, can cause damage to the kidneys, to the respiratory system, skin, to the nervous system."
- "Specifically warns on here that it can cause reproductive and developmental toxicity, meaning that it can cause things like autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. This is immensely toxic stuff."
- "And this is what's in the vaccine."
- "Vaccines are a big one because, of course, you're directly injecting it."
- "the influenza vaccine is now recommended for all pregnant women, all infants, all children on a yearly basis."
- "They add thimerosal at each step because the factory is not clean and not sterile."
- "Thimerosal, twenty five micrograms of mercury per dose."
- "They weren't aware that even the word Thimerosal meant mercury."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Show them the thimerosal bomb, which we keep in a metal container because we're a
Speaker 1: little afraid of it, and it's a very fine powder.
Speaker 2: This is this is thimerosal, which is labeled very toxic. Has cumulative effects, can cause damage to the kidneys, to the respiratory system, skin, to the nervous system. Specifically warns on here that it can cause reproductive and developmental toxicity, meaning that it can cause things like autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. This is immensely toxic stuff.
Speaker 0: And it's a vaccine.
Speaker 2: And this is what's in the vaccine. It's important to to realize we're talking about a whole range of products. Vaccines are a big one because, of course, you're directly injecting it. For example, this is tetanus vaccine. This one expires.
It's a lot dated now in 02/2007. Here's the thimerosal. 1 to October is a preservative. Perhaps the the biggest one in The US, at least, that's ex for exposure to mercury is the influenza Influenza vaccine is now recommended for all pregnant women, all infants, all children on a yearly basis. You're supposed to
Speaker 1: You have last year's influenza? Understand that Thimerosal is not added at the end. It's not like, well, that factory next year can make Thimerosal free. Thimerosal, you either have to have a thimerosal free factory or you have to not have one. They add thimerosal at each step because the factory is not clean and not sterile.
So you either have to have an expensive sterile factory where you don't need thimerosal or you have to have one that produces thimerosal. It's gonna need thimerosal or something the whole time. It needs to be stopped.
Speaker 2: This is, the influenza vaccine from Adventist Pasture, their flu zone. Thimerosal, twenty five micrograms of mercury per dose.
Speaker 1: I'd like to point out that a lot of people didn't know, and and I'm one of
Speaker 2: them.
Speaker 1: I've given 2,000 RhoGAM shots. I've been in vaccines for thirty five years. I didn't know that RhoGAM had Thimerosal in it. So I think a lot of the doctors were unaware. They weren't aware that even the word Thimerosal meant mercury.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
HHS RFK Jr. knows that ‘pathogens’, like Lyme Disease…are coming from Taxpayer-funded Biolabs. THIS IS WHY they FEAR HIM. “Did you say Lyme Disease is an engineered Genetic Bioweapon…?” “Yes…”https://t.co/o0SzMJj38n
Video Transcript AI Summary
Did you say that Lyme disease is a highly likely a materially engineered bioweapon? I've made sure I put in the highly likely. Did you say Lyme disease is a highly likely militarily engineered bioweapon? I probably did say that. Did you say that And that's what the developer of Lyme our colleagues to hear it, mister Kennedy. I want them to hear it. You said yes. Did you say that exposure to pesticides
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Move on. Did you say that Lyme disease is a highly likely a materially engineered bioweapon? I've made sure I put in the highly likely. Did you say Lyme disease is a highly likely militarily engineered bioweapon? I probably did say that.
Did you say that And that's what the developer of Lyme our colleagues to hear it, mister Kennedy. I want them to hear it. You said yes. Did you say that exposure to pesticides
Video Transcript AI Summary
Lyme disease wasn't a problem problem a noticeable problem till the mid seventies. Three virulent tick-borne diseases showed up near Lyme, Connecticut, across from Plum Island, the US's biological weapons program site. Late sixties marked the peak of that program, and these three diseases—Lyme arthritis caused by the spirochete, Rickettsia (Rocky Mountain spotted fever), and Babesia (a cattle parasite)—appeared. Polly Murray, a Lyme housewife, documented it and pressed local health departments and the CDC for seven years before response. Alan Steer, a Yale-trained CDC EIS officer, investigated but couldn't identify the causative agent. Willy Bergdorfer found the spirochete, said it causes the bull's eye rash, and that "Just take two weeks of dike doxycycline, and the problem will go away." It didn't, and the backstory looked secretive.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I found in my research for my book is Lyme disease wasn't a problem problem a noticeable problem till the mid seventies. And what my research said is that there are actually three really virulent tick borne diseases that's that showed up right around Lyme, Connecticut at the mouth of the Connecticut River, which is right across from Plum Island, which was The US's, anti animal crop, headquarters for the biological weapons program. So late sixties, the the peak of the biological weapons program in The US, these three freaky diseases showed up. So that was Lyme arthritis caused by the spirochete. There was a, Rickettsia, which is, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and then there was a cattle parasite.
It was the second time it was found in man in that area called Babesia. And that's that's actually I got Lyme and Babesia, which can be fatal, and it's a serious disease.
Speaker 1: So all three so you have a cluster effectively of these three previously rare diseases right across the water from the US government's biological weapons testing facility. Is that is that what you're saying?
Speaker 0: Yeah. And, it it it's if you're, like, working for the CDC and on look on on the lookout for natural versus unnatural, disease outbreaks, having three new tick borne diseases show up, extra deadly disease causing, than in the past, it would raise it it would raise it would get their attention, and there would be investigations, which is what happened.
Speaker 1: That sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me just because you have previously rare diseases show up all at once across from a biological weapons facility doesn't mean, so okay. So CDC investigated this. What did they find?
Speaker 0: Well, it a housewife in Lyme, Connecticut, Polly Murray, was the first one to start documenting, and she started pounding on the doors of local health departments and the CDC. And it really took her seven years before the CDC responded, and a doctor named Alan Steer showed up and started, from Yale. He's a CDC EIS officer and started investigating it. And he they he figured out it was tick borne, but he couldn't figure out the causative agent. And at that point, The US's number one tick researcher, Willy Bergdorfer, a Swiss American tick guy who was in, NIH's Rocky Mountain Laboratory, came out to investigate.
And that's where he found I mean, the public phasing story is he found the spirochete. It causes this bull's eye rash. He said that's what's causing all the disease, and, the panic should stop. Just take two weeks of dike doxycycline, and the problem will go away. But it didn't, and that's where my book took out off.
I started looking at the backstory and wondering what really happened, and, people associated with that disease weren't acting in the normal way. Normally, when you discover a a dangerous new disease, you say, oh, this is horrible. Give us money. We'll research it. But instead, it just became more and more secretive.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
ARREST Bill Gates. TODAY. “The overall study found that after 10 years…17% of the unvaccinated children had a chronic health issue while 57% of the vaccinated children had chronic health issues. These findings are troubling because vaccines cause immune system disregulation…” https://t.co/DHG8Igr1mh
Video Transcript AI Summary
02/2013: The Institute of Medicine, commissioned by HHS, reviewed the safety of the CDC’s childhood schedule and concluded, "the studies designed to examine the long term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted." Lacking safety evidence, the IOM could only say, "There is no evidence that the schedule is not safe," and noted it is "possible to make the comparison" using data like the vaccine safety data link, though "to date, the government has still not conducted this comparison." In 2017 ICAN pressed for such a study. Dr. Zervis at Henry Ford recruited a team; a 2000–2016 study of 16,000 vaccinated vs 2,000 unvaccinated found higher rates in the vaccinated for asthma (4.29x), atopic disease (3.03x), autoimmune disease (5.96x), neurodevelopmental disorders (5.53x), including developmental delay (3.28x) and speech disorder (4.47x). After ten years, 17% unvaccinated vs 57% vaccinated had at least one chronic health issue. The study was not published, "shoved in a drawer" because it did not fit beliefs; "doctor Zervos ... doesn't wanna lose his job" and "doctor Lemoretta ... does not wanna make doctors uncomfortable." "We can protect children from infectious disease, and we can protect children from vaccine harms."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Leading up to, 02/2013, the Institute of Medicine was commissioned by the United States Department of Health and Human Services to review the entire body of existing scientific literature to assess the safety of the CDC's childhood schedule as a whole. HHS paid the IOM to do that. After the IOM engaged in that task with a panel of multidisciplinary scientists, it concluded, quote, the studies designed to examine the long term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted, have not been conducted, end quote. That's the Institute of Medicine's finding after reviewing the entire body of scientific literature. Meaning, the IOM could not find studies comparing as you would do to study the safety of a product, an exposed group, meaning kids that got vaccines, the childhood schedule with unvaccinated children, kids who got no vaccines, which is what you would need to assess the safety of the schedule.
Lacking evidence to support safety, the best the IOM can conclude was, quote, there is no evidence that the schedule is not safe, end quote. This, of course, also means the IOM cannot find evidence to conclude that the schedule is safe. The IOM report did say it is, quote, possible to make the comparison, meaning through vaccinated and unvaccinated children, through analyses of patient information contained in large databases such as the vaccine safety data link, end quote, which used to be housed at the CDC. But to date, the government has still not conducted this comparison. By the way, the CDC conducted published a white paper in 2015 on how to do that study.
Has it been done? I don't know. Has it been published? No. In 02/2017, one of our clients, senator Johnson said earlier, the Informed Consent Action Network, wanted to see this exact study of comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated children.
As the, trailer you just watched noted, Del Bigtree, ICANT CEO, had met doctor Marcus Servis at one point, who was the head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Medical Center. And he agreed to meet and to potentially do the study. He is a, conducts clinical trials for vaccines, including for the Moderna COVID nineteen vaccine. He's a validly pro vaccine. And when we met him, we argued that this was an opportunity to shut the anti vaxxers up about their claim that unvaccinated children are healthier.
To our surprise, doctor Zervis said he would conduct the study. He recruited a chief epidemiologist and two statisticians within Henry Ford to do so. These were mainstream scientists who no doubt held orthodox views regarding vaccines. In early twenty twenty, I received a copy of the study. It showed the results of the analysis comparing children enrolled in Henry Ford from 2000 to 2016 from birth onward who had no vaccines compared to those who had one or more vaccines.
This study was based on actual medical records. Meaning, finally, a large vaccinated versus unvaccinated study using health data from a major United States health institution, something, as the IOM pointed out, never existed before. The study began by explaining it set out to reduce vaccine hesitancy by assuring parents the CDC vaccine schedule is safe instead. What these researchers found was that vaccinated children had four point two nine times the rate of asthma, three point zero three times the rate of atopic disease, five point nine six times the rate of autoimmune disease, and five point five three times the rate of neurodevelopmental disorders, which included three point two eight times the rate of developmental delay, and four point four seven times the rate of speech disorder. All of these findings were statistically significant.
There was also other conditions for which there were numerous cases in the vaccinated group, but zero in the unvaccinated group. Hence, a rate cannot be calculated, including brain dysfunction, ADHD, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and ticks. For example, there were two hundred sixty cases of ADHD in the vaccinated group, and there were none in the unvaccinated group. In this study, there were around sixteen thousand kids in the vaccinated group, by the way, and around two thousand in the unvaccinated group. So the rate, of course, between those is important, and that's what the study compared.
These findings were troubling, including because these chronic health issues can be caused by immune system dysregulation, and vaccines can cause immune system dysregulation. Citations for this are in my written submission. Overall, the study found that after ten years, seventeen percent of the unvaccinated children had a chronic health issue, while fifty seven percent of the vaccinated children had at least one chronic health issue, often multiple. That's seventeen versus fifty seven percent. The only real problem with this study and why it didn't get submitted for publication is that its findings did not fit the belief and the policy that vaccines are safe.
Had it found vaccinated children were healthier, it no doubt would have been published immediately. But because it found the opposite, it was shoved in a draw. We have repeatedly urged doctor Zervos and La Mirada to submit the study for publication. They have affirmed the study was well designed and conducted, but doctor Zervos has said he doesn't wanna lose his job. And doctor Lemoretta has said she does not wanna make doctors uncomfortable.
This is a real world example of how the science around vaccines gets corrupted. How only studies that confirm the beliefs and policies that vaccines are safe get published. Everything else gets shoved in a draw. This selection bias is dangerous and results in corrupting all the science concerning vaccine safety. We can protect children from infectious disease, and we can protect children from vaccine harms.
We should and we must do both.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Julian Assange went to Prison for over 5 years for exposing Treasonous War Criminals like Tony Blair and George Bush. https://t.co/mV1vWQaTUc
Video Transcript AI Summary
Twenty years ago, The US and UK invaded Iraq. Tony Blair is free to go on television and has made money, the same with George Bush. Julian Assange languishes in Belmarsh Prison because he told the truth about this war. Blair set up his own press conference paid for by the immense wealth, he was made envoy for peace in The Middle East and given a knighthood last year, while the people who told the truth about the war faced penalties from the prevent system. The truth is all of these were lies. The project for a New American Century was essentially about trying to redraw the world on pro US lines. China is today the second biggest military power in the world. Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, and the rise of ISIS/Al Qaeda; Saudi Arabia and Israel as allies; war dehumanizes. We need independent media; subscribe to Double Down News on Patreon.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Twenty years ago, The US and UK invaded Iraq. Today, Tony Blair is free to go on television, has made a huge amount of money, the same with George Bush. At the same time, Julian Assange languishes in Belmarsh Prison because he told the truth about this war.
Speaker 1: Light them all up. There
Speaker 0: is something deeply wrong with the society with those kind of priorities. When you look at the people who brought us the war in Iraq, the people who used everything at their disposal, the state machine, parliament, the media. When you look at what all those people did, nobody has faced any of the consequences. Even when the Chillcot report reported, Tony Blair set up his own press conference paid for by the immense wealth which he now has, the many houses that he has. He was made envoy for peace in The Middle East.
He was given a knighthood last year. Whereas all the people who told the truth about the war, the people who marched, what happened to them? The Muslim community penalized by the prevent system for telling the truth and for standing up for their rights. The people like Julian Assange imprisoned in Belmarsh for all these years for telling the truth. I remember Tony Blair the day of February 15 when we had so many people marching in London.
He said even if a million people march in London, that's not as many as Saddam Hussein killed. Well, the war in Iraq ended up killing more people. He talked about human rights, this is about democracy, about it's getting rid of a dictatorship. After he stopped being Prime Minister, what did he spend his time doing? Advising dictators.
The truth is all of these were lies. All of them were things where they said we are going to make things better and actually they made it worse. Not just in Iraq. In the last twenty years armament worldwide, the amount of money spent on military has doubled. Nearly $2,000,000,000,000 are now spent on arms every year, making the world a much more dangerous place.
We've now got conflict not just between dictator in The Middle East and the biggest imperial power in the world, The United States. We've now got effectively a proxy war in Ukraine between two major imperial powers and both of them with nuclear arms. We've got the much more real possibility of war with China. Again, this will be a nuclear war and therefore the devastation of humanity. Exactly the opposite of what we were told twenty years ago has turned out to be the case.
It's a more dangerous world. Iraq's a much more dangerous place. We have far more refugees than we had then. The Taliban in Afghanistan back in control. Terrorism has grown, and indeed where did ISIS and Al Qaeda come from?
Well, in Iraq they came from British occupied Basra Province where they were formed in prison where many Iraqis were in prisons. And the shameful thing is that the people who created the war are still being given awards, are still making huge amounts of money, and in the case of Tony Blair, is still being invited onto the BBC to give his views on absolutely everything, instead of being in the dock at The Hague, which is where I think most people in Britain would like him to be. From the very beginning, from the time he went to Bush's ranch in the 2002, Tony Blair was absolutely fully committed to every aspect of the war in Iraq. He lied about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, which had never been found because they didn't exist, and there were all sorts of people who said so at the time, including the UN weapons inspectors who you might think would be people who did have some particular knowledge about this. This was all dismissed by Blair, by Alastair Campbell when they devised a dossier.
This is the man who promoted the dossier. Was over the Evening Standard that day, Iraq can attack Britain in forty five minutes. I think a period of silence from Alastair Campbell would be welcomed by everybody, instead of which he seems to be in podcasts and on couches all over the TV studios. This tells you something about the lack of integrity and the lack of morals of so much of our media coverage. I think the media role was very, very important, and again, that hasn't really been held to account at all.
If you look at the broadcast media, particularly the BBC, it was an absolute disgrace. I remember Andrew Maher, who was the political correspondent who, just after the war started, said Tony Blair had won this argument.
Speaker 1: He said that they would be able to take Baghdad without a bloodbath, and that in the end, the Iraqis would be celebrating. And on both of those points, he has been proved conclusively right, and it'd be entirely ungracious, even for his critics, not to acknowledge that tonight he stands as a larger man and a stronger prime minister as a result.
Speaker 0: Twenty years on, this is so important because it's not just about the past. It's not just about the present. It's also about the future. And this question of war is gonna become a bigger and bigger question over the next two or three years. The project for a New American Century was essentially about trying to redraw the world on pro US lines.
American hegemony had to be maintained and had to be extended. Many of Bush's key advisers were people who were part of that project. They could see that China was a rising power. It's a rising power economically. It was also becoming a major military power.
China is today the second biggest military power in the world. It has long been a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and it has long been a nuclear power. So the project saw the threat of China as a very real one. They wanted change the politics of the Far East, of the Pacific, in terms of the rise of China and to strengthen The United States in that region. They also wanted to redraw the politics of the Middle East, and that particularly meant boosting Saudi Arabia and Israel as their two closest allies in the region against Iraq and against Iran.
And that's a policy that's continued. The Middle East itself, there are very few democratic governments, and that is to do with the way in which imperial powers decided on a particular form of government which really didn't care about democracy. They were concerned with having regimes which were closely connected to them politically, economically, economically, and militarily, and that's what's been created. Yes. Saddam Hussein was a dictator.
He was a dictator who was put into power through the acts of The United States, but he was by no means unique in that region. Saudi Arabia, for example, had been engaged in a war against Yemen for seven years. No question about regime change. The murder of a journalist carried out at the behest of members of the Saudi royal family. Nothing is done.
You know, we're talking here about extremely undemocratic states. The British government, United States governments are perfectly happy to work with those people as long as they keep the area secure for oil profits. That's the bottom line. We had many, many Iraqis in this country who campaigned with us against the war in Iraq. Not because they liked Saddam, actually they had suffered.
They'd been put in prison. They'd suffered terrible torture. They'd suffered all sorts of things at his hands. So they knew exactly what was going on, but they also knew that the war was not going to make it better for ordinary Iraqis. Actually, it would mean, as it has meant, a breakup of the country, a complete destruction of lives, of livelihoods, of huge numbers of refugees who are treated appallingly when they get to any of the countries that were involved in the war, the impact of things like depleted uranium, all sorts of terrible things that the Iraqi people have suffered.
Perhaps the most shocking one was the revelation of what happened in the Iraqi prison of Abu Ghraib, where American troops were torturing people, were photographing them in the most degrading way, were treating them like animals, were doing all these sorts of things. This is not only in contravention of every international legal agreement about the way in which prisoners of war, or indeed any prisoners, should be treated. It also told you exactly what the occupation was about. The occupation was about repression and cruelty and putting down the people who dared to stand up against the American invasion. And Abu Grave showed that in the most terrific terms.
But you know, you can't separate a brutal war, shock and awe, the bombing of cities which took place, the invasion, the cruelty, the siege of Fallujah, all these things around, you can't separate that from the repression that followed. They're very much part of the same thing. If you're invading a country and occupying a country, one of the things you have to do is to dehumanize the population that you're occupying because you have to justify what you're doing. And that's what they did. War is embedded in the kind of society we live in.
We live in a society which is imperialist, which is about conquering other countries and extracting money from other countries. We live in a society where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. So they don't care about whether your hospital is crumbling. They don't care if the roof of your children's school is leaking. They don't care if you can't afford to eat or eat and you have to choose or maybe these days you can't even afford both.
They really don't care about those things. What they do care about is preserving their wealth and power and their ability to spread that wealth and power. And war and weapons are absolutely central to their ability to do so. This is locked into their system, and that's why they do it. And that's why we have to fight against it.
We've got a mainstream media which is really not open to any views which don't coincide with a very, very narrow consensus. We need independent media so much. It's so important that we can get alternative views out. That's why it's important to subscribe to Double Down News on Patreon.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
‘We need more money to fight the War’ -Zelensky https://t.co/KwtBWLN9QK
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Canada has FALLEN. A THIRD Province implements the ‘Climate Lockdown’ SCAM. They said NOTHING about the onslaught of churches that the dirty Communists burned down…but if you go for a walk in any forest…you go to prison. https://t.co/Xd2ULf9RIV
Video Transcript AI Summary
effective today, new fines will range from $50,000 to a $150,000. For a first offense, when a ticket is issued, fines will increase from $75 to $50,000. And imprisonment in default of payment will increase from three days to up to six months. For a subsequent offense, fines will increase from a $150 to $75,000. Imprisonment for not paying will increase from six days to up to six months. It's very clear that these penalties for violating the regulations needed to be higher, and everyone needs to take this very seriously. It's for deterrence and for punishment. Increasing fines is one tool we have in our toolbox to present to protect innocent Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, their families, and their communities, which is why we have taken that step. We continue, if you know anything, if you are aware in any way of suspicious activity, please call our line at 729-2192.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So as we said, we have taken decisive action to help address the situation. Yesterday, we announced we would increase fines for violating the forest fire regulations. And as I said today, we'll share the details. So effective today, new fines will range from $50,000 to a $150,000. For a first offense, when a ticket is issued, fines will increase from $75 to $50,000.
And imprisonment in default of payment will increase from three days to up to six months. For a subsequent offense, fines will increase from a $150 to $75,000. Imprisonment for not paying will increase from six days to up to six months. Where there's a summon summons issued, a first offense fines will increase from $500 to $50,000 to a $100,000 range and imprisonment will increase from up to three months to up to one year. For a subsequent offense, fines increase from a minimum of $1,000 to 75,000 to a $150,000, and imprisonment in default will be increased from up to three months from up to one year.
It's very clear that these penalties for violating the regulations needed to be higher, and everyone needs to take this very seriously. And I think it's very clear that the size of the increases and the penalties including imprisonment that we mean business, and we want people to listen and take this seriously. Increasing fines is one tool we have in our toolbox to present to protect innocent Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, their families, and their communities, which is why we have taken that step. I also understand and I've seen there's a lot of information on social media and some, of course, is true, but as I warned earlier this week, some is untrue. So I want to continue to encourage people to get their information from official and trusted sources such as Government of Newfoundland and Labrador websites and social media, the Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, and Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services.
And I also want to encourage people to follow Doctor Fitzgerald's advice when it comes to air quality.
Speaker 1: I hope folks become aware of that, look at it, and say, do I really want to have my family impacted by that through a $100,000 fine or six months in prison? That's where this have landed. My final comment, the Resource Enforcement Division of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture encourages those. We continue, if you know anything, if you are aware in any way of suspicious activity, please call our line at 729-2192. 729-2192.
Speaker 2: On the fines, so between 50,000 and 150,000, how did we arrive at those numbers, and why did you decide to go that high with those?
Speaker 0: So we looked at other fines, I guess, across the country. We certainly looked at where ours were, and they were incredibly low. And that's not surprising given the fact that, you know, wildfire season like this certainly wasn't contemplated when I would when that legislation was drafted. I mean, times change, and here we are now. I think it was definitely appropriate to increase the fines by a serious significant amount, not only to send a message that it mean that we mean business, but to punish individuals in the event that they do break the regulation.
So, you know, those those laws and those penalties always have several factors into why they're why we arrive where they are, and it's for deterrence and for punishment.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Did someone say Cyber Attack? “Pay attention to the frightening scenario of a comprehensive Cyber Attack which will bring to a complete halt…power supply, transportation, hospital services…the Covid Crisis would be seen as a small disturbance…”-Klaus Schwab https://t.co/gW7Njik3ho
Video Transcript AI Summary
A comprehensive cyber attack could halt power, transportation, and hospital services, crippling society. In comparison, the COVID-19 crisis would be seen as a small disservice relative to such a major cyber attack.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Pay insufficient attention to the frightening scenario of a comprehensive cyber attack, which would bring to a complete halt to the power supply, transportation, hospital services, our society as a whole. The COVID nineteen crisis would be seen in this respect as a small disservice in comparison to a major cyber attack.
reSee.it AI Summary
The conversation began with a call to arrest Hillary Clinton, referencing her potential indictment and a statement about taking down influential figures in Washington. A response highlighted Clinton's invitation to George Soros into American politics, expressing concern about the implications.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
ARREST Hillary Clinton. “If I’m indicted…I’ll take half of D.C. with me…” GOOD. We can’t wait 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 https://t.co/w1AC0dPMHB
Video Transcript AI Summary
Hillary Clinton was accosted and accused of being a "super predator" responsible for millions of deaths. She was called a genocide supporter and accused of facilitating the genocide of Palestinian people. The speaker demanded to know what Clinton had to say for herself.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hillary Hillary Clinton. Hi. Excuse me. Has anybody told you you are the super predator? Has anybody told you you are the super predator?
You're responsible for the deaths of millions. Bill Clinton, you're a genocide supporter. Fuck you, you piece of shit. Clinton, you're responsible for genocides. You're for atrocities.
You're literally helping fucking facilitate the genocide of a Palestinian people. What the fuck you have to say for you, you, Hillary. Oh, you have a great night.
@TonyQuinnTQ - Antonio Quintero🇺🇸
@liz_churchill10 The day Hillary Clinton invited George Soros into American politics. Take the swamp…this is SCARY AS HELL https://t.co/xmVyEJgNDG
Video Transcript AI Summary
Hillary introduced George Soros, stating the country needs fearless people like him. Soros expressed pride in being introduced by Hillary, admiring her understanding of open society and her effectiveness in Central Asia. He stated that he is engaging in the electoral process for the first time because he feels the need to stand up and do something. He said that through his foundations, he has provided financial support for people who believe in the idea of an open society.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Been given an extraordinary blessing. And at this moment in time, our country needs us, and we need people like George Soros who is fearless and willing to step up when it counts. So please join me in welcoming George Soros.
Speaker 1: I'm very very proud to be introduced by Hillary. I've seen her in operation. I have great great admiration for her. I see her deliver a speech at in Davos about open society that explained the ideas better than anybody else that I've heard. I've seen her visit Central Asia, where I have foundations, and she was really very effective, more effective than most of our statesmen.
And I think she hit the nail on the head when she said that there are people who have never been involved in a very active way in electoral politics who now feel the need to do so. And I stand here before you as such a person. It is the first time that I feel that I need to stand up and do something really and become really engaged in the electoral process in in this country. In in my foundations, basically, I I have provided financial support for people in those countries who believed in the idea of an open society.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Every ‘Influencer’ that received money to promote the ‘Covid Vaccine’ must be prosecuted with aiding and abetting Mass Murder. https://t.co/vRLLxW2Pcl
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
We need ARRESTS. RIGHT NOW. “Johnson & Johnson Lead Scientist CONFESSES their J&J ‘Covid Vaccine’ was NOT ‘Safe and Effective’ while revealing ‘Lack of Research’…” -O’Keefe Investigations Report THIS IS A WAR CRIME. https://t.co/FIErXcixAG
Video Transcript AI Summary
A lead regulatory scientist at Johnson & Johnson, Joshua Rees, was secretly recorded stating the company's COVID vaccine was "not safe and effective" and that J&J "just throw[s] the vaccine creation to the wind and see what happens." He said the government pressured pharmaceutical companies to quickly create the vaccine.
According to Rees, the typical clinical trial testing process was skipped, and the vaccine was tested on lab route models to "see if it works." He acknowledged the lack of research done on the products and stated that the government made a deal with pharmaceutical companies to solve the problem.
Rees also discussed weighing the worst potential side effects against the benefits, stating, "Cancer patient's gonna die anyway," so the focus is on quality of life. The CDC has pulled the J&J vaccine due to declining use, but Rees was aware of its ineffectiveness. When confronted on camera, Rees initially denied his identity.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Do you have any idea of the lack of research that was done on those products?
Speaker 1: Why did it say that it's safe and effective? But, like, he didn't know.
Speaker 0: There's no proof. I mean, none of that stuff was safe and effective. Wanted it. We gave it to them. It's like, alright.
You know what? Cancer patient's gonna die anyway. I'm sure somebody's
Speaker 2: gonna get sued for that stuff eventually.
Speaker 3: Hi, Josh. Are
Speaker 4: you Josh Rice from Johnson and Johnson?
Speaker 3: You're you're gonna deny your identity?
Speaker 2: Yes, sir.
Speaker 5: And you said that your vaccine was not safe and effective? You said that. Deep
Speaker 6: inside Johnson and Johnson's global machine is a scientist, a lead scientist whose very approval or disapproval of J and J products can change millions of American lives. Meet Joshua Rees, a lead regulatory scientist at Johnson and Johnson. Joshua, in his role, leads the creation and execution of regulatory strategies for new and existing products across Johnson and Johnson.
Speaker 0: We run the whole soup to nuts, like not only we're working on the products, but everything that has to do with the drug. We have to make sure that you understand how to use the drug, how to be able to, you know, prescribe certain pieces of information, how to communicate that to the patient.
Speaker 6: Now according to a Johnson and Johnson press release from December 2021, the safety and well-being of those who use the Johnson and Johnson vaccine continues to be our number one priority. Now for the first time ever, an official from Johnson and Johnson admits to our hidden cameras that the Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccine was, quote, not safe and effective, unquote. And the company wanted to, quote, just throw the vaccine creation to the wind and see what happens, unquote.
Speaker 1: You know, they're like, Joe Biden says that it's safe and effective, but, like, he didn't know
Speaker 0: There's no proof. I mean, none of that stuff was safe and effective. We didn't do the typical test. Like, the typical process that's why it takes so long to get a product on market. Typical process is all this clinical trial testing and stuff in a small population.
This was just let's test it on some, you know, lab route models, analyze and see if it works and stuff like that, just throw it to the wind and see what happens. Are people gonna know that?
Speaker 6: Like, the
Speaker 0: patients do. That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: I'm sure somebody's gonna get sued for that stuff eventually.
Speaker 6: The lead regulatory scientist for Johnson and Johnson went into detail about how the federal government applied heavy pressure on big pharma in order to hastily create the Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccine, encouraging speed over efficacy or safety.
Speaker 0: Do you have any idea the lack of research that was done on those products? Like, are you you shouldn't be surprised that this happened. It was pretty much the government kinda made a deal with pharmaceutical companies and kinda pressured the pharmaceutical companies because we're we're not gonna say no to help, like, the government. Like, the government's like, yo. These three big ass companies, we need help.
We need to figure this out. You're you're solving this problem.
Speaker 1: Was that operational warp speed?
Speaker 0: I mean, we basically just had a race to figure out who could solve it best. People wanted it. We gave it to them.
Speaker 6: The CDC has previously announced they're pulling the j and j vaccine from use in The United States. J and J claims this is due to the vaccine's declining use and the company's strategic shift away from the vaccines. But as you just heard, J and J's own regulatory scientist was well aware of the ineffectiveness of their own COVID vaccine.
Speaker 0: There's something side effect that's gonna happen. It's more or less, alright. What's the worst side effect that's gonna happen? And is that better than the benefit that the consumer's gonna get? It's like that's that's the interesting thing that I found about it because it's like, alright.
You know what? Cancer patients gonna die anyway. So quality of life is the question in that instance as opposed to whether you're curing something. You're not curing anything at that point. It's just, alright, are you gonna have a nicer six months?
Speaker 6: Now I caught up with Joshua Rye in Toms River, New Jersey on the Jersey Shore to get clarification on what he meant by his comments on hidden camera. What led him to say this? What led him to tell a total stranger that his product was not safe and effective? Here's a little sneak peek of how this went. This is one of the most extraordinary interactions ever, maybe rivaling the one that I had with the other guy inside Pfizer back two and a half years ago.
Speaker 4: Are you Josh Rice from Johnson and Johnson?
Speaker 3: You're you're gonna deny your identity?
Speaker 0: Yes, sir.
Speaker 5: And you said that your vaccine was not safe and effective. You said that. You know? Where is he going? He's gonna run away.
He's going in the women's restroom. Are you confused?
Speaker 6: I I am a human man. I am allowed to take a pee in the man's restroom. You shouldn't be surprised that this happened. We have no idea people get some of pee I got it from your mouth. No.
No. No. No. Stand behind what you said and explain to us what you meant by it. Undercover investigations like these carried out by our OMG undercover journalists are pulling back the veil on the corruption and lies in our government, in our corporations, in the pharmaceutical industry.
Remember, sometimes sixty, seventy, 80% of revenue for cable news organizations and other organizations in the news business come from big pharma. The last time we did an undercover investigation into big pharma, like Pfizer, just a couple weeks later, I was indefinitely suspended from the organization I created. But we are going to report the news and tell the truth without fear and without favor. But we need you to reach out to our tip line at tips@okeifmediagroup.com or send us a message on our signal, that's (914) 491-9395. You can even connect with me on Menekt, the app, and ask me James O'Keefe a direct question.
I'll get back to you. One of our reporters will get back to you at the other tip lines. Thank you and stay tuned.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
One year ago, CNN showed up to cover President Trump’s Pennsylvania Rally…live on air…which they had not done before. They knew. CNN is a Propaganda Stronghold for the CIA. https://t.co/Wk8VOnseLn
Video Transcript AI Summary
Secret Service whistleblowers are reportedly furious about the agency's response to security failures. Senator Josh Hawley says whistleblowers told him the lead site agent for the Butler rally was known to be inexperienced and incompetent. According to the whistleblowers, she didn't enforce security protocols, IDs weren't checked, and most agents were Homeland Security agents who had never worked a rally before.
Hawley says the site agent didn't ensure a clear line of sight for agents, and that security was a "total free for all." Whistleblowers are concerned that the agent is still in charge of security for political events and possibly investigating herself. The whistleblowers are reportedly coming forward because they are scared this will happen again. The Trump campaign was allegedly worried when she was assigned to Butler.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Fox News alert. Secret Service whistleblowers are coming out of the woodwork, furious about last week's press conference where the director, Ron Roe, admitted the agency failed but wouldn't fire anyone. Trump's entire predictive detail's been an illusion. The rally in Butler was the first time the Secret Service sent countersnipers to a Trump event. And those snipers were communicating by text message without Wi Fi.
Only the locals had radios and according to the Washington Post, the Secret Service wasn't even in the same room as they were. They were in a completely different command center on the opposite side of the farm. Basically, the Secret Service was playing a big game of telephone while Crooks was stalking the grounds. Who signed off on this disastrous plan? According to whistleblowers who've spoken to senator Josh Hawley, it all comes down to the lead site agent who they claim is inexperienced and incompetent.
Senator Josh Hawley's been speaking with these whistleblowers and he joins us now. Senator, what have these whistleblowers been telling your office?
Speaker 1: Well, what they've been saying, Jesse, is that this individual, the site agent, the lead agent was known to the Trump campaign to be inexperienced, to be ineffectual, to be frankly incompetent at their job. Well, I'm also told by whistleblowers that on that day, she was not enforcing the normal security protocols. She was not checking people's IDs. She did not use secret service agents. Most of the agents there that day were not secret service agents.
They were homeland security agents. And get this, Jesse, most of them had never worked a rally before. And yet this is who she chose to staff the event with, and she didn't train them or integrate them. From top to bottom, it was a total disaster. Jesse, it is a miracle, a miracle.
Not only that Trump is alive, but that more good Americans were not killed. It's unbelievable.
Speaker 0: You're saying that the site agent in charge of this security in Butler wasn't checking IDs? What what what do you mean? She was just letting people in?
Speaker 1: That is what whistleblowers tell me is that IDs were not checked to allow individuals into secure areas, Jesse. In other words, it was a total free for all. Whistleblowers portray to me a circumstance, a a situation that was totally out of control where people were milling around including in what were supposed to be highly secure areas. Nobody knew who they were. By the way, it was also the lead site agent's job to make sure that the line of sight for where Trump was was clear, that agents could see all angles, and she didn't do that.
In fact, I'm told that the line of sight was obstructed, means that agents from different angles couldn't really see around Trump, couldn't see potential dangers to Trump. This is pretty textbook stuff, Jesse. And what whistleblowers say to me is none of it was done properly. None of it was done by the book. And frankly, when you know all that, it's amazing more people weren't killed.
This person needs to be fired as does anybody who had leadership on that day.
Speaker 0: This person is still doing security. They're still in charge of security for political events. Why isn't why aren't they sidelined and under investigation themselves?
Speaker 1: This is exactly what the whistleblowers who are coming to me, Jesse, want to know. And in fact, we know that this individual is still doing all those things because the director confirmed it. He told me under oath that, yeah, this individual is still working events. In fact, he said still doing investigations, which raises the question, is she investigating herself?
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is insane. And I'll just say this, Jesse.
Speaker 0: Sure.
Speaker 1: Whistleblowers are coming forward from the Secret Service because they can't believe what leadership is doing. They cannot believe that the Secret Service is not taking action to clear out the rock, frankly. They're scared to death this is gonna happen again, but we can't let it happen again. We've gotta get the facts.
Speaker 0: Was this site agent for Butler, was she one of these Cheadle hires? You know how Cheadle has an agenda? She just promotes people without merit. Was that person a person like that?
Speaker 1: I don't know the answer to that. All I'm told by these whistleblowers is that this individual was inexperienced, that she was known to the campaign to be frankly not very good at her job. They had concerns about this individual before the Butler rally. Again, when she was assigned to Butler, the campaign was worried. They thought, uh-oh, This has not gone well before, and my gosh.
It didn't go well that day.
Speaker 0: Alright. Well, I'm I'm very glad these whistleblowers are speaking out to your office. Please keep the public posted on on some of these developments because the more and more we hear about it, just the angrier I get. Thank you again.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
“Bill Gates was addicted to Jeffrey Epstein…” https://t.co/nAnammsLpn
Video Transcript AI Summary
Bill Gates was questioned about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which he claims was limited to dinners. He admitted he shouldn't have had them. When asked if Melinda Gates warned him about Epstein's potential to sexually compromise people, Bill Gates denied it, stating it was just dinner.
Melinda Gates stated that Bill's association with Epstein was upsetting to her and played a role in their divorce. She met Epstein once and regretted it immediately, describing him as "abhorrent" and "evil personified," causing her to have nightmares. The speaker questions why Bill Gates continued to associate with Epstein to the point where Melinda felt the need to intervene and suggests that Bill Gates should not be taken seriously.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So last we checked in with Bill Gates on the question of his close friend Jeffrey Epstein, Gates was telling us, well, he's dead. So who cares? But, thankfully, for once, the media did something right and today asked Bill Gates about Jeffrey Epstein anyway. And here's how that went.
Speaker 1: One of the issues that's dogged you is is that of your relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Do you regret the relationship that you maintained with him against Melinda's advice and wishes?
Speaker 2: Oh, I've said that I'm I mean, this is you're going way back in time. But, yeah, I
Speaker 1: New audience.
Speaker 2: I will say for the, you know, over a 100 time. Yeah. I shouldn't have had dinners with him.
Speaker 1: Epstein had a way of sexually compromising people. Is that what Melinda was warning you about?
Speaker 2: No. I mean, it it's no. I I had dinner with him, and that's all.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It was just dinner. What my ex wife said about our divorce and Jeffrey Epstein had nothing to do with sex. So what did his ex wife this is Bill Gates, one of the world's richest men, a guy who got rich selling horrible software and then buying up all our farmland and forcing medicine on you you don't want. What did his ex wife say about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein?
Well, we actually have the tape. Watch this carefully.
Speaker 3: Well, it was also widely reported that Bill had a a friendship or business or some kind of contact with Jeffrey Epstein and that you were not, that that was very upsetting to you. Did that play a role in the divorce at all in this process?
Speaker 4: Yeah, as I said, it's not one thing, it was many things. But I did not like that he'd had meetings with Jeffrey Epstein, no.
Speaker 3: And you made that clear to him?
Speaker 4: I made that clear to him. I also met Jeffrey Epstein exactly one Did you? Yes, because I wanted to see who this man was. And I regretted it from the second I stepped in the door. He was abhorrent.
He was evil personified. I had nightmares about it afterwards.
Speaker 0: So Bill Gates' wife is describing a man, her former husband, who was somehow addicted to seeing this guy, Jeffrey Epstein. Why is that? Why would he keep going back to the point his wife at this stage got an intervention by going with him? And why do we keep taking Bill Gates seriously? He's very rich, of course.
But that's not a reason to treat him as a serious person, and we should stop.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Didn’t they say the camera stopped working? https://t.co/uh85UMZZYQ
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
“We must reject the Prophets of Doom…” -President Trump to WEF “Clearly the Trump Administration is a danger to the World…” -Soros to WEF https://t.co/UpvLonNbXK
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims the "great reset" is a globalist agenda that Donald Trump is uniquely positioned to stop. Trump allegedly angered globalists at Davos by rejecting their vision. George Soros and others warned of the dangers of Trump's reelection.
The speaker questions why figures like Jeffrey Sachs, who supports socialist policies and abortion, advise the Vatican. Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement, the World Health Organization, and threatened to leave the World Trade Organization, actions praised by the speaker.
The speaker alleges the coronavirus pandemic was unleashed after Trump declared war on globalism at the UN in 2019, and that globalists are using COVID-19 restrictions to destroy the U.S. economy and force acceptance of the "great reset." The speaker urges listeners to resist these measures, support Trump, and recognize that the attacks against him are part of a larger effort to prevent him from strengthening America and thwarting the "new world order."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Everyone's in on the great reset. Well, almost everyone. There's one guy who's got the power to do something to stop, and he knows exactly where I'm going. And they made a mistake. They tried to get Trump on their side.
So they invited Donald Trump to Davos, I think, a couple of times. But in January, when Donald Trump, I think, really began to see the beast that he was up against, he went to Davos, yeah, to the World Economic Forum, and he stuck a mega finger in their eye.
Speaker 1: We're committed to conserving the majesty of God's creation and the natural beauty of our world. But to embrace the possibilities of tomorrow, we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse. These alarmists always demand the same thing, absolute power to dominate, transform, and control every aspect of our lives. We will never let radical socialists destroy our economy, wreck our country.
Speaker 0: Two days after Donald Trump gave that speech, the 89 year old leftist weirdo billionaire George Soros made an emergency intervention where, at Davos, once again, warning that the US twenty twenty election will determine the, quote, fate of the whole world. Now in the context of Davos, take a look at this one more time. This is a month after Donald Trump addressed Davos and stuck the MAGA finger in their face. Here's what Francis, the Vatican, and Jeffrey Sachs had to say in response.
Speaker 2: And it is a dangerous country right now. It will be absolutely dangerous if Trump wins reelection. Trump wins reelection. Trump wins reelection.
Speaker 0: Francis invited this guy to the to the Amazon Senate as an honored guest and adviser. He's also Bernie Sanders' adviser. What's he doing in the Vatican? Why is this guy who's a promoter for socialist out and out socialist Bernie Sanders? What's he doing advising the pope?
Why does he have entree to the Vatican friends? Sacks supports abortion and contraception, but that's not a problem for the Vatican. For the Vatican, for Pope Francis, and for his friends at the UN, Donald Trump is the problem. Obviously, friends.
Speaker 3: Clearly, I consider the Trump administration a danger to the world, but I regard it as a purely temporary phenomenon that will disappear in 2020.
Speaker 0: Do you get it? Do you see why there's so much hate for Trump? Because with all of his faults, again, he's the capitalist. He's not the globalist. He never will be one of them, which is why he pulled The United States out of the Paris climate agreement.
Donald Trump pulled The United States out of the World Health Organization. That's Bill Gates and company. And now he's threatening to pull The United States out of the World Trade Organization. People say, yeah. Well, Donald Trump got married twice.
He's a bad guy. Really? He's right in the face of the demons on this, friends. Nobody ever said he was a saint. He's knocking the sacred cows of the United Nations down all over the world right now.
Speaker 2: The general assembly routinely votes a 185 against The United States on almost everything right now.
Speaker 0: And remember, speaking of the United Nations, in November of twenty nineteen, again, right before COVID landed, Trump went to the UN, the floor of the general assembly, and he declared war on globalism.
Speaker 1: Wise leaders always put the good of their own people and their own country first. The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots.
Speaker 0: And shortly after the speech at the UN, Donald Trump delivered what do you think happened? The coronavirus was unleashed on the world, and Trump's booming US economy went on life support. Do you think that was an accident? So when they tell you, when they tell all of us to stay home, wear your mask so grandma doesn't get sick, please understand what's really going on here. They don't care about your grandmother.
They don't care about old people, these people. They don't care about babies. They want them aborted so that they can save the common home, abort babies, millions of them all over the world. They don't care about babies. They don't care about old people.
In fact, if you wanna save your grandma, tell the globalists to stay the hell away from her. Remember how some of them like Cuomo and characters like this were running COVID recovering patients through nursing homes? That's how much they care about grandma. And the name of the game now is to bring The United States economy to its knees, get it out of the way so that everyone will want the great reset. Make the new normal so intolerably abnormal that even you and I maybe, you know, at some point in the near future, we'll be begging for the vaccines because we'll be driven crazy by that point.
Begging for whatever else is gonna keep us safe according to our jailers and our handlers and our zookeepers. You see? That's what they want. That's why they keep using this term new normal. You know, we do to fight back?
Go to work. Go back to school. If you're healthy, take off the mask. And for heaven's sake, go back to church and pray that Trump wins in November. That's what the reset was on.
That's what the Russia hoax was all about. That's what that's what the the, impeachment hoax was all about. Don't you see? For four years, I've been trying to stop this man because if he strengthens America, if he makes it great again, if he brings the economy back again, the reset won't happen. The new world order is gonna be set way back.
Who knows when they're gonna have another COVID opportunity like this one again, and they know it. So ask yourselves why they hate this man. These folks, these men, they hate God. They hate the unborn. They hate the traditional family.
They hate you, and they hate Donald Trump, whose political opponents, by the way, right now are knocking statues of saints to the ground. They're beating up cops and they're burning flags. You say you don't like Trump. I'm sorry, friends, but who cares? That doesn't really matter anymore.
But you think of Trump's personality or his tweets. Look at the big picture. The choice is simple, friends. Stand with America right now or fall with the new world order in the not so distant future. There's no other choice.
I'm Michael Matt from Remnant TV, and we'll see you next week.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Nothing to see here…just the Democrats engaging in Child Trafficking during the Biden-Obama Administration. “One person had 42 children delivered to one address…” -HHS RFK Jr. https://t.co/vWQK2juqpF
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
This is EXACTLY how they stole the 2020 Election… 1. Covid was a plot. 2. It was released intentionally. 3. Vaccines (Biological Weapons) were already in place. 4. The result was a STOLEN ELECTION and TRILLIONS of Dollars laundered on a global scale. https://t.co/dJYhjyVBee
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims the DOD distributed COVID-19 vaccines and required absolute immunity, making the DOD the target for lawsuits, which would be difficult to win without the data they are hiding. They believe EcoHealth Alliance created SARS CoV-2 in the Wuhan lab with the DOD or CIA's approval, transferring the necessary technology to the CCP.
A study showed a 12 nucleotide sequence in a Moderna patent from 2016 perfectly matched SARS CoV-2, suggesting the disease was developed in the mid-2010s. The speaker presents military medical records showing a soldier receiving COVID-19 immunizations by Moderna in 2014, suggesting the need to investigate the real history of COVID. They also claim to have Pfizer documents discussing shedding and a Komunardi approval agreeing to a study based on oncolytic gene products for gene therapy shedding.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Are so profound that it's mind blowing. Do you understand that when you got well, I don't know if you got the shot. When when someone got the shot, they didn't get it from Pfizer or Moderna. They got it from the DOD. The DOD distributed this.
The contract with our federal government requires it to distribute this. The DOD had to ensure that there was absolute immunity. So before we could if you want to sue someone right now, you're going to have to sue the DOD. Good luck. If you get through them by proving intentionality, which is very difficult without the data which they continue to hide, this is why I'm encyclopedic in my knowledge of what occurred because I've been trying to figure out how to sue these guys and I have to get the data to prove the intentionality.
I will tell you that I think there's a number of claims. I've looked at a Ricoh claim, which I think I could credibly make. I'll tell you that that claim would cost me 5 to $8,000,000 my cost to litigate. I don't have 5 to $8,000,000. And if I didn't have 5 to $8,000,000 I'd risk sanctions because I'd be bringing in case that I couldn't manage.
So there are mechanisms moving forward. Now, before we get to how to get around this, because if the vaccines are safe and effective, why do they need liability shield? I mean, why do we need 50 layers of liability for something that was so safe and so effective? Why is it that we passed law after law after law way before this whole COVID thing was going down to ensure that this sort of liability protection might be in place? And I'm going to answer this because I want to bring something up that that hasn't been touched on here.
So we have the case in New York. I developed the case it's against EcoHealth Alliance for the creation of SARS CoV-two in the Wuhan lab. That case alleges that EcoHealth Alliance worked with the CCP in the Wuhan lab and created well, this nightmare that we've had. Let me ask you something. Does anybody in this room believe that we could transfer the technology necessary to do that sort of genetic engineering, that sort of bioweapon development.
And I say bioweapon because remember, dual use research under the law, bioweapon gain of function two sides of the same coin. Does anybody believe that we transferred that sort of technology to a CCP lab without an okay from the DOD or CIA? I got news for you. They knew exactly what was going on. We have a ton of evidence on this.
I'm gonna tell you further. I have right here in front of me from a report that we sent to a couple of people here in Congress before the twenty twenty two election. It got about as much response as you guys are getting. That there was a there was a study. Doctor Malone could probably comment on this better than I can.
But that study showed that there was a 12 nucleotide sequence that they found in a Moderna patent, which was a perfect reverse match to what we have in SARS CoV-two. That patent was filed in 2016. Thanks David Martin for a lot of his patent research. But the thing that I want to tell you about, according to our case, and the data and evidence that we've submitted, we believe that this this disease was actually developed in the mid twenty teens ish. We don't have a hard date but around there.
We we hope that with discovery, we'll get a more specific date. Now, I want to share something else and this is this is speculative and I was very hesitant to bring this forth. But I'm going to tell you because I have to keep the individual who gave me this data anonymous to protect them. So I have and if we can put it up, want to show you what I've got. This is a declaration from me signing because I cannot have this whistleblower's name anywhere.
I witnessed this whistleblower do this. I have a separate declaration which I will not make public. The whistleblower has brought forth to me, and I'm using whistleblower in a general term, but I have the military records military medical records from this individual. And they were obtained through a court proceeding. I can't say any more than that, but I will tell you that I will testify under oath.
I'll put my hand on a Bible and put my license at risk saying that I can confirm that I've done my due diligence on this as I would to present this to the court. Now it would be challenged under the rules of evidence, I'm sure, but I want to share this and I'm only sharing this so that you with subpoena power can ask a question. Scroll down to the next page please. Do you see what that what that says? That blacked out page which we had to black out because of the fact that it was personally identifiable medical information and also would have put the person at risk.
You see the date there? November 14 at Erwin ACH Fort Riley, Kansas COVID-nineteen immunization Moderna. Five different instances. And following this page you'll see five different instances where this person's medical record, you see at the very top twenty fourteen at Irwin ACH Fort Riley, Kansas COVID-nineteen immunization by Moderna. Now I'm not suggesting, well, guess I am suggesting that maybe we should ask why it is that this soldier was apparently seen five times in 2014 for COVID-nineteen immunization.
Now, again, I'm not going to go out and tell you that this proves that this was built five, ten years ago or that the timeline was entirely fraud. I'm going to tell you that we ought to look into it. And if we're going to ask questions, we ought to ask real questions. Our DOD and CIA were involved with this. To what extent?
How long has this been involved? This was created in a lab in one of the greatest enemies to The United States Of America. I'll let you fill in some blanks on the legal implications here. The lies and remember also, I can't foyer the DOD. I can't foyer the CIA.
I ain't going get anywhere with that. You know as well as I do where that's going to go. It's a really interesting thing that the same DOD who I have these records from and who seem to be implicated in numerous other aspects of this and who are willing to take the blame and sign the contracts would have had to sign off when the technology transfer is necessary to do this with communist China. I want to ask the question, what's the real history of COVID? The representative Davidson asked earlier about what Operation Warp Speed?
Well, maybe that timeline wasn't true. I don't know. I'm not a scientist and cannot say anything other than this is the evidence I have. And this is one small part of it. It's interesting going back over the questions that were asked.
You mentioned shedding earlier. Someone asked about shedding. I can show you Pfizer documents where they talk about shedding. I can not only show you Pfizer documents where they talk about shedding. I can show you that in the Komunardi approval, they agreed to do a study and the study protocol was based on oncolytic gene products for gene therapy, something, something, something shedding.
Okay. They admit their study. You don't run a multimillion dollar study unless there's a reason for it.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Can someone please audit this War Pig’s bank account? Now? https://t.co/qK2SgMZqfm
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Horrific. “73.9% of deaths after the ‘Covid Vaccine’ are due to the shot. The IMMEDIATE withdrawal of the ‘Vaccine’ is essential to prevent further loss of life. The continued administration of these products now constitutes MASS NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE…” https://t.co/ARz1g7sUqI
Video Transcript AI Summary
The McCullough Foundation has conducted over 20 scientific studies exposing the harms of COVID-19 shots. A systematic review of autopsy findings proved a causal link between mRNA shots and death, so Brazil is putting kids at risk. A study found a 37% life expectancy reduction in those who received two or more doses.
The largest COVID-19 vaccine safety study ever conducted, with 99 million people, found a 500% increased risk of myocarditis and a 200-300% increased risk of spinal cord inflammation, as well as Guillain Barre syndrome. A study of 85 million people found a 300% increased risk of heart attacks, strokes, arrhythmias, and coronary artery disease. Another study showed people with strokes who got mRNA shots are producing spike protein in their cerebral arteries for up to 17 months. People are producing spike in their vital organs, reducing their life expectancy, risking death and cardiovascular damage, and it's dangerous to give these to children.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: At the McCullough Foundation, we have conducted over 20 scientific studies all published in the peer reviewed literature now, exposing the harms of these shots. And, I I I'll I'll go over some of the most glaring ones. And so, one of our studies, a systematic review of autopsy findings and deaths after COVID nineteen vaccination, actually proved a causal link between these mRNA shots and death. And so what Brazil's doing, they're putting these kids at risk of death. A study by Alessandro and colleagues found a thirty seven percent life expectancy reduction in those who received two or more doses.
And so they're reducing the life expectancy of these kids, and it's just an absolute disaster. We now know few recent studies that are absolutely shocking that we are so we have the and we have the largest COVID nineteen vaccine safety studies ever conducted. The one, ninety nine million people in it. They found, five hundred percent increased risks of myocarditis, about two hundred, three hundred percent increased risks of spinal cord inflammation. And then we have Guillain Barre syndrome in that study.
So that just that study proved it wasn't safe for human use. And then we have last week, the largest study with eighty five million people, and it just came out. They found three hundred percent increased risks, heart attacks, strokes, arrhythmias, and coronary artery disease. And then we had another study last week that came out that showed people with strokes who got mRNA shots are producing spike protein in their cerebral arteries, so in their brains, for up to seventeen months. Or that's at least how long it looked.
And so we have people now producing spike in their vital organs, reducing their life expectancy, risking death, risking cardiovascular damage, and it's absolutely dangerous. It's absolutely terrible that they're giving these to children.