TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @liz_churchill10
@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.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
BLM and ANTIFA are associated with the CCP and they’re using Unrestricted Warfare. China is engaging in Hybrid Warfare against the United States from within. Hybrid Warfare is a way of fighting a War, against another Country, without using Troop on Troop Combat. https://t.co/ExyJ74IIte
Video Transcript AI Summary
US Special Operations Command reports China is waging hybrid warfare, including economic theft, propaganda, and drug warfare. The book *Unrestricted Warfare* details military strategy without direct confrontation, blurring lines between war and non-war.
Critical theory, originating in the 1930s, aims to subvert Western civilization. Critical race theory, a derivative, divides America into white oppressors and non-white victims, promoting a narrative of systemic white supremacy.
China seeks to surpass the US without bloodshed, exploiting internal divisions fueled by social media bots. Counterfeit goods from China account for 3.3% of global trade, including fake currency and N95 masks. Fentanyl, shipped from China via drug cartels, causes numerous overdose deaths in the US.
Chinese hackers have stolen military plans and attacked US infrastructure. Unit 61398, a Chinese PLA cyber warfare unit, is linked to cyber attacks against US companies. The "fifty-cent brigade" steers online conversations to align with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) line.
Black Lives Matter (BLM), founded by Marxists, is portrayed as a CCP-influenced movement exacerbating racial divisions in the US. A study links BLM to over 90% of riots in America. The CCP criticizes US race relations while persecuting its own minorities. BLM is characterized as a CCP column waging war on American soil.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There was a recent report from US Special Operations Command saying China is waging hybrid warfare in The United States. Hybrid warfare is a way of fighting war against another country without using troop on troop combat. And so that includes economic theft, financial warfare, propaganda warfare, drug warfare, smuggling warfare, basically every kind of warfare you can think of that doesn't involve, you know, troops killing each other on a battlefield.
Speaker 1: Unrestricted Warfare is a book on military strategy written in 1999 by two colonels in the People's Liberation Army, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. Rather than focusing on direct military confrontation, they examine a variety of other means. All boundaries lying between the two worlds of war and non war, of military and non military, will be totally destroyed. If a soldier asks, Where is the battlefield? The answer would be, Everywhere.
MAX HORKHYMER. The revolution won't happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities.
Speaker 2: And, the numbers of the Communist Party USA boom in the 1930s And they established a school of thought called critical school or critical theory, which was essentially the incessant criticism of all things Western civilization in the hope that they could help over time, they knew it would be a long subversive battle, divorce the American people from their belief and their their traditional philosophy and founding values. That morphs over a few decades into what became known as critical legal theory in the nineteen sixties and seventies timeframe. And by far its most political variant and the the grandchild of critical theory in Herbert Marcuse's school of thought is now critical race theory.
Speaker 1: Critical race theory is taught in schools, universities and even military institutions all over The United States. It portrays America as a white supremacist nation. Its purpose is to divide the world into white oppressors and non white victims. According to the narrative, all white Americans are guilty oppressors who have benefited from their white skin. Every dysfunctional condition in black, urban communities can be traced to slavery and its aftermath.
There is no place for the individual choice initiative. It requires people to think of themselves as either racists or victims or allies, nothing more and nothing less. The deeper you go into the mindset, the more you are invested in it, and the more your behavior is affected by it. CRT really represents a classic, textbook case of Coercive Thought reform, otherwise known as brainwashing.
Speaker 2: I think that there's nothing more personal view that Xi Jinping would like to see more than to win a war against The United States without shedding blood.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: And to assume their position as a regional hegemon in the Asia Pacific region, and then assume their place on the world stage, America having lost its brilliance. Mhmm. As we worry about, you know, critical race theory, for example, and they feed that on social media constantly. Yeah. They have a bot they armies of bots doing all that.
They have armies of bots that would do I mean, Xi Jinping would would love for nothing more to watch us rot like this from the inside because it means that there will be no great power competition between The United States and and China. There will not there will not need to be. We're talking about needing to be strong warriors in the defense department, rightly so. And we do that all at the same time that we're talking about establishing racial quotas, for example, or making sure that we're avoiding toxic masculinity or the patriarchy. So I think China's involved.
Yeah. I think happily so. I don't know that they initiated it. I think that Marxism has found a welcome home in the university for decades. And it's never found a welcome home in The United States because we were hanging on to something largely Judeo Christian values.
We were also hanging on to a belief in America's founding philosophy.
Speaker 3: And
Speaker 2: as we divorce ourselves from our culture, our roots and our and our founding philosophy and Judeo Christian values, for example, there is a vacuum that's left in the human soul that has to be filled with something. And that's exactly what ideology is and does. It's a philosophy combined with a moral imperative. And Marxism provides just that, including salvation on this earth. Almost
Speaker 1: 70% of all counterfeits seized globally come from China. China is the main producer of counterfeit articles imported into The United States. Counterfeit and fake goods accounted for 3.3% of all global trade, worth $5.00 $9,000,000,000 in 2016. This is not limited to consumer goods. 20,000 counterfeit drivers' licenses were seized at Chicago Airport in 2020.
Counterfeit n p 95 masks produced in China which offer little to no protection and harm health workers were seized all over The US.
Speaker 4: On Saturday, federal officials announced the seizure of $900,000 in counterfeit cash at the international falls point of entry. According to a release from the US Customs and Border Protection, the bills were found in a rail container that originated in China.
Speaker 1: The introduction of counterfeit money into circulation can cause the currency to inflate, the value drops, and if the currency inflates enough, the country's economy can collapse.
Speaker 3: You can go by
Speaker 4: the street names, China White or China Girl.
Speaker 1: Fentanyl is being shipped from China to The United States using alliances with drug cartels. Fentanyl overdose deaths in The US have been doubling every year, killing tens of thousands of Americans.
Speaker 5: Bank's final day seemed to be a carefree one, summer vacation, playing at the community pool. But when the 10 year old got home, he started throwing up. His mother later found him unresponsive in his room and called 911. He was pronounced dead at the hospital.
Speaker 1: Give me 10 carefully chosen hackers. And within ninety days I would then be able to have a nation lay down its arms and surrender. Over the past decade, Chinese operatives have stolen plans for the latest fighter aircraft, missile defense systems, submarine technology, ships and helicopters. They have also attacked critical infrastructure systems like the power grid or water supply.
Speaker 6: Chinese hackers could reach into American society. The systems that run the country are infrastructure and preserve order, like power systems, air traffic, financial industry.
Speaker 1: Every major US company has been hacked at some stage by China. In May 2014, five Chinese government officials were charged with launching cyber attacks on numerous US companies.
Speaker 3: A seven year Internet hunt zeroed in on one neighborhood in Shanghai and finally this 12 story building, the source of thousands of cyber attacks against 141 US companies spanning 20 industries. Whose building is it? According to a new report confirmed by US intelligence, it's the headquarters of unit six one three nine eight, the cyber warriors for China's People's Liberation Army.
Speaker 7: This is a war for your mind, and the army is the fifty cent brigade. Essentially, they're professional trolls. Their job is to scan social forums online and course correct any conversation that might be veering away from the Party line. According to a leaked propaganda directive, should that happen, their job is to steer the conversation into safer waters using any one of these six different points.
Speaker 1: Black Lives Matter was founded in July 2013 by three activists. Alicia Garza, Patrice Colors and Opal Tometi. It has been known for some time that they are all Marxists.
Speaker 8: And I was speaking to this young person from Arizona who's trying to fight SP ten seventy. And I was he he grabbed a book and he said, it's like Mal's red book. And I was like, man, that's what I was thinking.
Speaker 1: While portraying itself as a spontaneous grassroots movement concerned with addressing racial inequality, it is in reality part of the C CCP's undeclared but very real war on The United States Of America. BLM is influenced and directed by Liberation Road, Left Roots, Asians for Black Lives, and the Chinese Progressive Association Founded in 1972, CPA was the creation of a Maoist communist group iwarkun or Righteous and Harmonious Fists. Alex Tom, a former chairman of CPA, described its primary purpose as to uplift the Chinese communist revolution. Black Lives Matter exploits the long ended crimes of slavery and Jim Crow to exacerbate racial divisions in modern America to the benefit of the CCP.
Speaker 9: According to a new study, the Black Lives Matter movement is linked to more than nine in 10 riots across America. The study defines riots as demonstrations in which any demonstrator engages in violently disruptive or destructive acts as well as mob violence. According to the data collected by The US Crisis Monitor, The US experienced 637 riots between May 26 and the September 12. Out of these, 91% of those were riots linked to the Black Lives Matter movement.
Speaker 1: While the CCP merciless persecutes its own minorities, it purportedly cares deeply about US race relations.
Speaker 10: Black lives matter. Their human rights need to be guaranteed. Racial discrimination against minorities is chronic sickness in American society. The current situation shows the severity of a racial discrimination and police violence there, as well as the urgent need to resolve these issues.
Speaker 1: Black Lives Matter is effectively a CCP column waging war on American soil. And it's time that Americans, and especially those serving in law enforcement, recognize BLM as such.
Speaker 11: Who would be opposed to the Black Lives Matter? But if they can see that it's a scam, that it's actually using Black people as cannon fodder for the revolution that will actually bring communist Chinese to power, that will reduce the power, the psychological, this sort of, moral power of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Speaker 2: Rawhide at eight.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Please watch ‘Plandemic: InDOCTORnation’, a brilliant film which perfectly explains how the ‘Covid Pandemic’ was an orchestrated event that had the sole purpose of committing Global Genocide. PLEASE share everywhere. https://t.co/mBG0ZtOmTy
Video Transcript AI Summary
This event simulates a pandemic emergency board meeting where global businesses and governments collaborate to solve emerging problems. Conspiracy theories arise, blaming pharmaceutical companies or the UN for releasing the virus. Arrests and penalties are suggested for spreading falsehoods, even if it means controlling information access. Protests and riots erupt, causing public distrust in government and economic turmoil.
Linguistic genomics identified coronavirus patents as early as 1999. The CDC patented the virus in 2003, controlling proprietary rights and profiting from it. Gain of Function Research on coronavirus was later offshored to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Some believe the virus was lab-designed, not a natural occurrence.
Google's search engine and fact-checkers like Snopes and PolitiFact are accused of manipulating information. The WHO is criticized for inaccurate advice and being influenced by the Communist Party of China.
Event 201, a pandemic simulation, occurred months before COVID-19. The Rockefeller Foundation's "Lockstep" scenario predicted authoritarian control. The "Great Reset" is seen as a coordinated agenda stripping away liberties.
Bill Gates and his foundation are scrutinized for their influence on global health, vaccine initiatives, and investments in controversial technologies. Concerns are raised about vaccine safety, liability protection, and potential harm in developing countries. The COVID-19 vaccine is being developed and distributed rapidly, but there are concerns about safety testing and potential side effects.
The pandemic is seen as a test of humanity's liberty. Medical freedom is emphasized. The need to reclaim humanity and avoid tyranny is highlighted.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: On behalf of our center and our partners, the World Economic Forum and the Bill Melinda Gates Foundation, I'd like to extend a very warm welcome to our audience here in New York, as well as our larger virtual audience participating online today. The event two zero one scenario is fictional. Today's scenario is going to simulate meetings of a multi stakeholder group called the pandemic emergency board.
Speaker 1: We're at the start of what's looking like it will be a severe pandemic, and there are problems emerging that can only be solved by global business and governments working together.
Speaker 2: There has been some conspiracy theories that are around about the potential that pharmaceutical companies or the UN have released this for their own benefit.
Speaker 3: And maybe this is a time for us to showcase some cases where we are able to to bring forward some bad actors and leave it before the courts to decide whether they have actually spread some fake news.
Speaker 4: Signs to severe pneumonia. In related news, a significant demand for personal protective equipment like N95 masks and gloves are on the rise. Patients are overwhelming healthcare facilities. People are avoiding public spaces out of fear of infection and in compliance with public health recommendations. Our US affiliate has just released polling results on public expectations for a vaccine, and sixty five percent of those polled are eager to take the vaccine even if it's experimental.
Speaker 5: I am not optimistic about having the vaccine in time to be relevant during this pandemic.
Speaker 6: With enough money and political will, anything is possible.
Speaker 7: Penalties have been put in place for spreading harmful falsehoods, including arrest.
Speaker 8: If the solution means controlling and reducing access to information, I think it's the right choice.
Speaker 9: The world saw large scale protests and in some places riots. This led to violent crackdowns in some countries and even martial law. The public lost trust in their respective administration. Economists say the economic turmoil caused by such a pandemic will last for years. The societal impacts, the loss of faith in government, the distrust of news, and the breakdown of social cohesion could last even longer.
We have to ask, did this need to be so bad?
Speaker 10: I'm the developer of linguistic genomics, which was the first platform on which you could determine the intent of communication rather than the literal artifact of communication. But we've also used that technology for a number of other applications in defense intelligence and finance. And most notably, in the early 2000s, my company was responsible for bringing down what was at the time one of the largest tax frauds in US history. We maintained a series of inquiries into every individual, every organization, and every company that is involved in anything that either blurs the line of biological and chemical weapons or crosses that line in any of 168 countries. In 1999, there were a million patents digitized by IBM, and those million patents were the first time human innovation had been put into an electronic digital searchable format.
We took that information and we did a very simple exercise using our linguistic genomics technology, where I made the horrific assessment that approximately one third of all patents filed in The United States were functional forgeries, meaning that while they had linguistic variations, they actually covered the same subject matter. In 1999, patents on coronavirus started showing up, and thus began the rabbit trail.
Speaker 11: March 2003, panic grips Hong Kong as a deadly new virus sweeps through the city.
Speaker 10: In 02/2003, the Center for Disease Control saw the possibility of a gold strike, and that was the coronavirus outbreak that happened in Asia. They saw that a virus they knew could be easily manipulated was something that was very valuable, and in 02/2003, they sought to patent it. And they made sure that they controlled the proprietary rights to the disease, to the virus, and to its detection, and all of the measurement of it. We know that Anthony Fauci, that Ralph Baric, that the Center for Disease Control, and the laundry list of people who wanted to take credit for inventing coronavirus were at the hub
Speaker 12: of this story. From 02/2003 to 02/2018, they controlled 100% of the cash flow that built the empire around the industrial complex of coronavirus.
Speaker 13: The World Health Organization has officially named the new coronavirus their sleeping the virus The
Speaker 7: World Health Organization is a pandemic. An international public health emergency.
Speaker 10: Well, we know that the coronavirus manipulation started with doctor Ralph Baric in 1999.
Speaker 14: The major characteristics of SARS, MERS, and SARS coronavirus too. It's a good way for you
Speaker 10: Ralph Baric is the researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who is famous for his chimeric coronavirus research. In 02/2002, there was a recognition that the coronavirus was seen as an exploitable mechanism for both good and ill. On 04/25/2003, the U. S. Center for Disease Control filed a patent on the coronavirus transmitted to humans.
Under 35 U. S. Code Section 101, nature is prohibited from being patented. Either SARS coronavirus was manufactured, therefore making a patent on it legal, or it was natural, therefore making a patent on it illegal. If it was manufactured, it was a violation of biological and chemical weapons treaties and laws.
If it was natural, filing a patent on it was illegal. In either outcome, both are illegal. In the February, the CDC filed a petition with the Patent Office to keep their application confidential and private. They actually filed patents on not only the virus, but they also filed patents on its detection and a kit to measure it. Because of that CDC patent, they had the ability to control who was authorized and who was not authorized to make independent inquiries into coronavirus.
You cannot look at the virus, you cannot measure it, you cannot develop a test kit for and by ultimately receiving the patents that constrained anyone from using it. They had the means, they had the motive, and most of all, they had the monetary gain from turning coronavirus from a pathogen to profit.
Speaker 6: Developing and owning a coronavirus vaccine has become a biotech arms race with political overtones.
Speaker 10: This vaccine gold rush is starting to bother me. Gold rush. Let's keep that in mind. And so somewhere between 02/2012 and 02/2013, something happened. The federal funding for research that was feeding into places like Harvard, Emory, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, that funding suddenly became impaired by something that happened at the NIH, where the NIH got this little tiny moment of clarity and said, I think something we're doing is wrong.
And in 2013, the NIH said, Gain of Function Research on coronavirus should be suspended. The National Institutes of Health had a moral and social and potentially legal reason to object to research. But the letters that were sent to the researchers essentially said, You are receiving notice that we're telling you to stop. And now on the bottom of the page, we're going to clarify what stop means. Keep going.
But when the heat gets hot in 02/1415, what do you do? You offshore the research. You fund the Wuhan Institute of Virology to do this stuff that sounds like it's getting a little edgy with respect to its morality and legality. But do you do it straight way? No.
You run the money through a series of cover organizations to make it look like you're funding a US operation, which then subcontracts with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The US could say China did it. China could say The US did it. And the cool thing is both of them are almost telling the truth.
Speaker 15: Where did the coronavirus come from? There is a new investigation into its origins. US intelligence tell NBC News that they are examining whether the virus accidentally came from a Chinese lab.
Speaker 16: Chinese officials pushing back against that claim on Thursday, tweeting that it might be the US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan.
Speaker 17: I was the first person in the world to look at an epidemic and study its characteristics and prove that it was due to biological warfare and was not a natural occurrence. So I published that twenty eight years ago. Early
Speaker 12: in
Speaker 17: this pandemic, I did not think the coronavirus was a natural occurrence from bats. I feel quite convinced that this was a laboratory designed organism. There have been hundreds and hundreds of leaks from high containment laboratories that do research on pathogenic coronaviruses and other potentially lethal organisms. I was particularly interested in a paper that came out in Nature Medicine by five scientists claiming that it was definitely a natural occurrence rather than a lab construct. But the arguments they used did not hold water.
They didn't really make a lot of scientific sense. And yet all kinds of very important people started parroting what this paper said. And so that got me scratching my head saying, Why are these people risking their reputation when it's obviously illogical, doesn't hold water? Somebody must have made them publish this, and somebody must have told these other people that they have to say it's it's a great piece of science.
Speaker 18: You were quoted as saying it was a meticulous job done professionally.
Speaker 19: It could be done by some somebody very expert in molecular biology, I think.
Speaker 10: See, the problem with all of this is the evidence is right in front of our face. And when confronted with evidence, we are told fact checkers are somehow transcendent.
Speaker 18: The pace of our modern world makes it nearly impossible for working people to research the events and policies that shape their lives. When seeking answers to life's most pressing questions, where do we go first? Google. Enter the subject, hit go, and there it is, only what they want us to see. In today's culture of copy and paste journalism, it's common for hundreds of unrelated outlets to feature the exact same report.
This is not the result of laziness. This is by design. When we see identical headlines across seemingly unrelated platforms, the logical mind concludes, well then, it must be true. The illusion that numerous news sources have arrived at the same conclusion gives us confidence to share the chosen narrative. And just like that, we become the unwitting pushers of propaganda.
Search engines are the holy grail for those seeking to control the narrative.
Speaker 20: Google is already more powerful in terms of its control over people's lives than almost every government on the planet.
Speaker 18: As the most influential search engine in the world, through its ubiquitous reach, Google has more power to influence US elections than any foreign nation.
Speaker 10: You testified before this committee. You said subsequent elections, Google and Facebook and Twitter and big text manipulation could manipulate as many as 15,000,000 votes in a subsequent election.
Speaker 14: And the methods that they're using are invisible. They're subliminal. They're more powerful than most any effects I've ever seen in the behavioral sciences, and I've been in the behavioral sciences for almost forty years.
Speaker 16: The blacklist is something that Google said didn't exist, and they test testified that under oath.
Speaker 3: And nothing but the truth shall help you God. I do.
Speaker 16: Now me as an engineer, I just did a search on Google's internal search engine, and guess what I found? It had blacklisted search terms like cancer cures. Why is Google deciding what people can and cannot search for?
Speaker 18: What was once an efficient tool for navigating the world of information is now a network for global surveillance, data collection, and social engineering. Now let's take a look at a few of the most commonly used fact checkers, beginning with Snopes. The husband and wife duo of David and Barbara Mikkelsen founded Snopes.com in 1995. They had no journalism background or training whatsoever. They built their fact checking empire by using Google as their primary verifying source.
The Mikkelsen's divorced in 02/2015. Barbara sued David for embezzling money that he had allegedly spent on prostitutes as well as a lavish honeymoon with his new wife who worked as an escort in Las Vegas before joining the Snopes cast of characters. In 02/2017, David Mechelson's new business partners filed a lawsuit accusing Mikkelsen of multiple counts of fraud and embezzlement. Snopes proclaimed to be the Internet's go to source for discerning what is true and what is total nonsense. Yet one glance at their history of fact free checking tells another story.
When doctor Mikrovitz claimed she was arrested without a warrant and jailed without a charge, Snopes rated her statement false. Had they bothered to explore the arrest documents, they would have seen that indeed there was neither a warrant nor signatures to officiate a charge. A fact that I confirmed with members of Doctor. Mikovits' legal team. Was there a search warrant?
No. And was she ever charged?
Speaker 21: No. Never charged with the crime.
Speaker 1: A % correct. Judy has never been charged with any crime.
Speaker 18: Facebook's fact checking arm, PolitiFact, is owned by the Pointer Institute, which has received substantial funding from big pharma allies such as Google and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Like Snopes, PolitiFact has a history of misleading the public. In February, PolitiFact, Snopes, and FactCheck.org raced to squash the notion that coronavirus and its treatments were patented. They reviewed only three of the 4,452 publicly available patents, which unmistakenly show that SARS coronavirus detection and treatment have been widely patented by both the public and private sectors.
Speaker 6: Facebook's founder pledged to the WHO, saying they would remove false claims and block exploitative ads.
Speaker 22: They're working with the World Health Organization and with the NHS, so they have a hotline, if you like, from those official sources.
Speaker 18: Wikipedia is the go to destination for introductions to people, places, and things. Wikipedia is supported by the Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit parent organization with a long history of politically tied funders. Many named, many anonymous. What exactly does a Wikipedia donor receive in exchange for their generosity? What began as an unbiased open source platform is now weaponized to undermine the work and reputation of anyone deemed a threat to its stakeholders.
And once they smear you, they lock you out for making corrections to your own bio. In summary, most independent fact checkers are neither independent nor factual. Simply put, they are political spin machines.
Speaker 10: And so what they have done is they have decided that there is an approved narrative. If it is in line with the CDC's public pronouncements, and if it is in line with the World Health Organization public pronouncements, it is presumed to be correct. I don't have to remind many Americans that the Center for Disease Control was the one that said you should use DDT in your homes.
Speaker 23: Used right, it is absolutely harmless to humans and animals. Remember the name DDT. It spells certain death
Speaker 1: A scientific panel today reported that pesticides may indeed represent a grave threat to mankind.
Speaker 24: Remember the swine flu scare of 1976? That was the year the US government told us all that swine flu could turn out to be a killer, and Washington decided that every man, woman, and child in the nation should get a shot to prevent a nationwide outbreak, a pandemic. Well, forty six million of us obediently took the shot. Did anyone ever come to you and say, there's the possibility of neurological damage if you get into a mass immunization program?
Speaker 25: No. No one ever did. No.
Speaker 26: I can't believe that they would say that they did not know that there were neurological illnesses associated with influenza vaccination. That simply is not true. We did know that.
Speaker 24: Then he's lying.
Speaker 10: I guess you would have to, make that assumption.
Speaker 24: Then why does this report from your own agency list neurological complications as a possibility? You didn't feel it was necessary to tell the American people that information. Doctor. Censer's CDC also helped create the advertising to get the public to take the shot. The vaccines are safe, so roll up your sleeve.
And now Americans are claiming damages from Sam amounting to 3 and a half billion dollars. By far the greatest number of the claims, two thirds of them, are for neurological damage or even death.
Speaker 27: There are serious concerns tonight about how well the CDC controls dangerous germs at its own labs after yet another safety lapse.
Speaker 18: For the third time in a month, the CDC acknowledged deadly pathogens were handled incorrectly in government labs.
Speaker 10: That CDC is the CDC that allegedly is looking out for your public health. When we start with the assumption that the official dogma has to be the objective standard, then what fact checkers look for is a piece of published media that confirms the statement made by that particular organization. And then debunkers and conspiracy theorist blower uppers come in and say, we're going to make this thing clearly the scam that it is. Every media outlet that is in the public media right now has planted evidence, and they have re ranked pages. So if you look today at face mask wearing, and if you look today at social distancing studies, you will see the studies that used to be number one, number two, number three on the pages of page rank search don't exist anymore.
What is there are studies that wind up having headlines that support the common narrative. They're planting evidence to back into the narrative of the story that they're looking for. Because it turns out that after every single effort to disrupt the electoral process has failed, you suddenly have nature's gift, COVID nineteen. You're gonna be hearing more about advanced guidelines. Because if you can keep people from assembling, guess what they're not talking about?
They're not talking about the issues of the campaign. If you can keep people in their homes, the only source of information that you can have is what you curate for them. Now I know how to target my electorate. They're in the only place I allowed them to be, being fed the only message I'm allowing them to hear through a media that I control.
Speaker 18: Since the invention of the printing press, there's been a battle to control disseminated information. In the early nineteen hundreds, oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller took control of every newspaper and news editor of his era. He became America's First Billionaire, paving the way for the power hungry ever since. Thus began the gold rush for the modern world's most precious resource, the narrative.
Speaker 1: Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to a major circulation, American journal?
Speaker 18: During a senate committee investigation, it was revealed that the CIA had been conducting a covert operation to infiltrate and control US media. They called it operation mockingbird.
Speaker 28: We do have people who submit pieces to American journals.
Speaker 1: Do you have any people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks?
Speaker 28: This, I think, gets into the kind of details, mister chairman, that I'd like to get into in executive session.
Speaker 18: Over 3,000 CIA contracted and trained operatives are placed in key positions within top media outlets. Posing as editors and journalists, these well paid actors never dared to question the effect of their lies on the world beyond their cozy studio.
Speaker 10: How often does the CIA manipulate the media in this way?
Speaker 29: It goes beyond your wildest imagination. Setting up student organizations so they could draw radical students in, 5,000 university professors co opted to help the CIA manipulate people's minds. Journalists in The US, including big name journalists, co opted to function routinely to help the CIA put out stories and biases to the world. As
Speaker 1: this 1952 CIA memo says, the aim is controlling an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will.
Speaker 30: It's a great brainwashing process to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.
Speaker 29: Would you say that continues today?
Speaker 1: Well, I yeah. I would think probably for a reporter, it would continue today. But because of all of the revelations, I think you've gotta be much more careful about it.
Speaker 7: So how do we know that operation mockingbird still is in an effect? Well, we don't.
Speaker 18: It was the telecommunications act of 1996 that opened the door for predatory corporations to monopolize the industries of print and broadcast.
Speaker 31: This bill protects consumers against monopolies. It guarantees the diversity of voices are
Speaker 18: Today, a handful handful of corporate empires own and control the vast majority of everything you read, hear, and watch. From the biggest movie studios, television and radio networks, newspapers and magazines, to the vast universe of Internet news and entertainment sites.
Speaker 10: Amazon has transformed its operations in response to COVID nineteen to protect employees and keep the packages flowing. To protect employees and keep employees safe
Speaker 32: and healthy while still delivering those packages to the company is keeping its safe. The company is keeping its employees safe. Millions of Americans staying home.
Speaker 6: Millions of Americans staying at home.
Speaker 33: And that is how it works. It's like a house of mirrors where you're seeing the same thing over and over and over again, except it's distorted.
Speaker 7: There's an industry that is paid to go after and target journalists, whistleblowers, and inundate our consciousness and the images we see to try to ruin, destroy, or smear the idea that they don't like or the person who's delivering it. You smear somebody with
Speaker 34: falsehoods and all the rest, and then you merchandise it. And then you write it, and they'll say, see, it's reported in the press so they have that validation that the press reported the smear, and then it's called the wrap up smear. Now I'm gonna merchandise the press's report on the smear that we made. And it's it's a tactic.
Speaker 35: Welcome back, everybody.
Speaker 18: News personalities are not the only high paid actors to serve the propaganda machine. Most late night talk shows are owned by the same corporate overlords and thus follow the same script, only laced with a laugh.
Speaker 11: Our main story tonight concerns conspiracy theories.
Speaker 18: Last week tonight with John Oliver featured a skit entitled coronavirus conspiracy theories.
Speaker 11: Like the claim that the moon landing was faked.
Speaker 18: First thing to note here is that mister Oliver opens with commentary about conspiracy theories that are completely unrelated to coronavirus. This
Speaker 36: is
Speaker 18: a standard tactic used by propagandists to set a tone so that anything that follows will be seen through the lens of absurdity.
Speaker 11: Plandemic, a pseudo documentary filled with a hodgepodge of conspiracy theories.
Speaker 18: Mister Oliver then does his best to debunk doctor Judy's claim that she was arrested but never charged with a crime.
Speaker 11: She was absolutely criminally charged.
Speaker 18: This was not an oversight, but a blatant lie. Prior to the taping of this episode, mister Oliver had the official arrest documents that clearly proved that doctor Judy was never charged with a crime. Mister Oliver then attempts to debunk the idea that a beach, aka nature, holds any value in boosting our body's natural immune system. Instead of challenging the point with science, he kills it with a smear.
Speaker 11: Everything that you just said is insane.
Speaker 35: Television is not the truth. We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true. But you people sit there day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds. We're all you know.
You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spending here. You're beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. This is mass madness, you maniacs. In God's name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion.
So turn off your television sets. Turn them off now. Turn them off right now. Turn them off and leave them off. Turn them off right in the middle of the sentence.
I'm speaking to you now. Turn them off.
Speaker 10: In 1979, the world decided that we needed the Bayh Dole Act because we needed to reform our patent system. And one of the modifications was we allowed recipients of federal funding to patent and retain economic interest in the research that the public paid for. You get a $5,000,000 grant from the taxpayer, and then you get to charge the taxpayer a premium for the technology they paid to develop.
Speaker 7: Pfizer's going to get nearly $2,000,000,000 Moderna receiving $438,000,000 in taxpayer money, and yet both companies have said they will not sell the vaccine at cost. They're going make a profit on it. Should pharmaceutical companies profit off this vaccine research that taxpayers have helped fund?
Speaker 10: The Bayh Dole Act failed the American people because rather than standing on the shoulders of giants, we now kneel at the feet of greed. My systems flagged anomalies when I started seeing nonprofits and corporates and cover financing for coronavirus programs in the late summer and fall of twenty nineteen. Our first red flag came out when we read the world at risk scenario. Now there is an organization called the Global Monitoring Preparedness Board. This organization is a part of the World Health Organization and this board includes Doctor.
Elias from the Gates Foundation and Anthony Fauci from NIAID. These two individuals, plus the director of the Center for Disease Control in China, come out with a recommendation that says that by September 2020, '2 global pandemic preparedness exercises have to be completed. And one of them has to be done on the release of a respiratory pathogen. That then gave rise to an October event, Event two zero one.
Speaker 0: Behalf of our partners in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Speaker 18: Event two zero one took place five months before COVID-nineteen was declared a pandemic. The participants of the event are some of the same people that are now deeply involved in the real pandemic and profiting from it as well. Event two zero one was a scripted multi camera live event that was broadcast globally via the Internet. An event of this complexity and magnitude would take months to write, prep, and produce, placing the conception date at least one year prior to the actual pandemic.
Speaker 10: There is no question that there will be a surprise outbreak.
Speaker 18: Anthony Fauci knew as early as February that we would see an outbreak before the end of twenty twenty. Even Bill Gates, a man with no medical training, knew it was coming.
Speaker 37: If we start now, we can be ready for the next
Speaker 10: epidemic. Every single thing that you have seen play out in front of your eyes, all of them laid out in their tabletop exercise, which by the way fact checkers have said has nothing to do with the coronavirus outbreak. Just happenstance. This is that wonderful universe of improbabilities where events just co emerge and then nature conveniently backs itself into our architecture. That's that's the scenario we're supposed to accept.
Brilliant.
Speaker 4: Some countries have banned travel from the worst affected areas.
Speaker 1: The president has made a decision to suspend all travel to The United Kingdom and Ireland.
Speaker 32: Dis and misinformation circulating over the Internet.
Speaker 38: Across the world, misinformation about the virus is being shared online.
Speaker 4: A significant demand for n 95 masks and gloves are on the rise.
Speaker 6: The demand for n 95 masks to prevent the deadly airborne virus has surged.
Speaker 10: We could eventually have 52,000,000 treatment courses per year, but it will take many months to get there.
Speaker 6: We're still many months out from having something that we can really deploy to the public.
Speaker 4: And sixty five percent of those polled are eager to take the vaccine, even if it's experimental.
Speaker 10: The new poll finds that forty nine percent of Americans say they would get a COVID-nineteen vaccine should an effective one be discovered.
Speaker 18: I'm curious. Who wrote the Event two zero one script? If the visionaries of the event knew at least one year in advance what was needed, why didn't they take care of those things? Considering that Bill Gates has donated half of his fortune to make the world safer, why didn't he help to better prepare our hospitals and frontline workers? Why didn't any of the events wealthy sponsors do something?
Speaker 37: Now here we are, you know, we we didn't simulate this, we didn't practice.
Speaker 0: On behalf of our partners in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Speaker 37: So both the health policies and economic policies, we find ourselves in unchartered territory.
Speaker 18: Event two zero one was not the first scripted exercise to prophesize the future with astonishing accuracy. Leaders of global health and business have been seeding reality with fictional scenarios for several decades.
Speaker 0: The scenario obviously is fictional.
Speaker 18: One year prior to event two zero one, many of the same sponsors, hosts, and actors came together to produce a tabletop pandemic simulation for a fictional virus they branded, Klade X.
Speaker 27: One year to produce a vaccine for this is too long.
Speaker 1: We should have stockpiled, we didn't, but we're gonna have to look at that vaccine question to see if we can speed up the delivery.
Speaker 7: And if we do not have the public with us, we're in big trouble.
Speaker 18: In 02/2010, the Rockefeller Foundation released a 54 page document called scenarios for the future of technology and international development. Page 18 features the pandemic scenario, lockstep, a world of tighter top down government control and authoritarian leadership with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback. China's government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified.
Speaker 38: It's the United Nations in lockstep with the World Economic Forum. In what they are boasting will be the great reset of all our economies and of all our personal liberties.
Speaker 1: Now is a historical moment, a time.
Speaker 39: This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset.
Speaker 11: It is an opportunity we have never had before and may never have again.
Speaker 1: We must not miss this unique window of opportunity.
Speaker 40: Reading from the COVID nineteen, the great reset book by Klaus Schwab and his coauthor, if no one power can enforce order, our world will suffer from a global order deficit. Think about that. Reread that sentence. If no one power can enforce order, our world will suffer from a global order deficit. In short,
Speaker 1: we need a great reset.
Speaker 38: But how do the World Economic Forum and the United Nations intend to bring about this great reset they keep promising us? Well, they need national and state governments, other bodies to play along. And one of the key tools they are using is a three word slogan, build back better.
Speaker 6: We will build back better from the COVID crisis.
Speaker 7: Build it back better.
Speaker 11: Become back stronger and build back better.
Speaker 39: Build Canada back better.
Speaker 38: Build back better has bizarrely been the slogan for all sorts of different political groups around the world. Bill Clinton used it to promote the Clinton Foundation Foundation after the Haiti hurricane disaster.
Speaker 31: The recent cholera outbreak serves as a stark reminder of the urgency we face to address the strengthened reconstruction efforts in Haiti to help the people build back better.
Speaker 36: Haitian activists stage a protest outside Hillary Clinton's Manhattan office. The demonstrators claim billions of dollars were stolen through the Haiti reconstruction commission headed by Bill Clinton. They also say Haiti was used as a cover for foreign governments to funnel kickbacks of possibly hundreds of millions of dollars through the Clinton Foundation.
Speaker 41: Given that Clinton himself was the one who who coined this term build back better, there's been very little transparency and accountability despite all these buzzwords, you know, sustainable development community consultation.
Speaker 38: Any disaster can be the perfect excuse to build back better by using the money that should be going to disaster relief to instead subsidize the UN agenda at the same time as making renewables investors very rich.
Speaker 13: So behind the great Haiti disaster story, that is used to cover up what big pharma, big oil, big bank is actually doing.
Speaker 40: The absolute first thing we have to keep in mind with The Great Reset is that this has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of virus or disease or anything of the sort. This is a coordinated agenda that has been years in the making. This this isn't meant to end.
Speaker 38: The so called great reset, which is deliberately designed to strip away your liberties and your rights using the tools of oppression and the opportunity provided by the COVID pandemic.
Speaker 42: Here we are now with an economy in crisis, but with an incredible opportunity, And not just to build back to where we were before, but better.
Speaker 16: It designed your cute and adorable pal Grover with a message for listeners of the great reset. I know a thing or two about resetting. Mhmm. I reset my alarm clock every morning. But you are talking about resetting the entire world.
Speaker 10: We are living in a time where leadership unfortunately is compromised. And by that I mean that individuals are placed in power for their ability to be influenced, not their merits of leadership. Nothing could be clearer than the leadership of the World Health Organization.
Speaker 18: The World Health Organization is the institution granted exclusive power to guide and protect the health and wellness of humanity. The WHO is sustained by private donations, the bulk of which are made by pharmaceutical and biotech corporations who have a vested financial interest in the organization's support. In 2017, the Associated Press reported that The WHO routinely spends about 200,000,000 a year on travel expenses, more than what it spends to fight some of the biggest problems in public health, including AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined. The WHO's repeated issuing of inaccurate and bad advice is not merely the result of incompetence, but rather the direct result of the Communist Party of China deliberately buying out WHO's leadership.
Speaker 43: On the nomination of the executive board appoints doctor Tedros Adhanom Gebriasis as director general of the World Health Organization.
Speaker 18: Tedros Gebriasis is the World Health Organization's first director general that isn't a medical doctor.
Speaker 35: No, Tedros for WHO. No, Tedros for WHO. The
Speaker 18: appointment to the organization's highest position was controversial given that in his previous role as Ethiopian's health minister, Tedros was accused of covering up three major health epidemics.
Speaker 44: Tedros is no stranger to controversy. As a former minister of health in Ethiopia, he has been accused of an alleged cover up of three possible cholera epidemics.
Speaker 18: Prior to his appointment, Kedros was a high ranking member of the Tigray People's Liberation Front, a brutal and corrupt political group responsible for crimes against humanity, including bombings, kidnappings, tortures, and killings. How does a man with such a controversial past score the top position at the world's most influential health organization?
Speaker 1: Have known Bill and Melinda for many, many years now.
Speaker 18: While serving as Ethiopia's Health Minister, Tedros became intimately intertwined with both the Gates Foundation and the Clinton Foundation.
Speaker 31: The health minister of Ethiopia, One of the ablest public servants I ever worked with.
Speaker 18: With the backing of the two most powerful foundations on earth and the full support of the Communist Party of China, Tedros was a shoo in.
Speaker 1: We will have many body bags in front of us if we don't behave.
Speaker 10: You cannot find a person promoting this scenario that's not part of the interlocking directorates of the World Health Organization, the CDC, the NIAID, or the organizations that are the philanthropic cover organizations that fund them. We now know that there are over 1,300 patents currently issued and held by organizations that are multiply recipients of funding through the Gates Foundation, through EcoHealth Alliance, through the Sherlock Biosciences connection back into open philanthropy, and all of them also have links directly to NIAID Anthony Fauci's funding sources. If you have conflicts of interest in the funding and in the decision making and in the inside knowledge that you have between competing or competitor organizations, that is a violation of the antitrust laws of The United States. These are federal crimes.
Speaker 18: If you have the power to immediately fix whatever's wrong with our current medical system, where would you start?
Speaker 17: Conflicts of interest. About forty or fifty years ago, pharmaceutical CEOs actually went to jail if they knowingly sold a bad product and concealed information about the problems with that product. Since then, all they have done is paid fines. And so selling a product and concealing information about it is okay because paying the fine is considered the cost of doing business. How did the pharmaceutical industry come to capture the rest of the medical industry?
And it's because they had so much money to bribe the NIH, the CDC, the FDA, the professional associations, you know, the journals, the medical schools, and everyone else.
Speaker 18: Around the same time that John D. Rockefeller seized US media, he also hijacked US medicine. When it was discovered that drugs could be produced from petroleum, America's top oil mogul ordered his army of propagandists to invert reality accordingly. Medicines used for thousands of years were suddenly classified as alternative, while the new petroleum based, highly addictive, and patentable drugs were declared the gold standard. After buying the German pharmaceutical company that manufactured chemicals of war for Adolf Hitler, Rockefeller leveraged his political influence by pressing Congress to declare natural healing modalities unscientific quackery.
Rockefeller then took control of the American Medical Association and began offering massive grants to top medical schools under the mandate that only his approved curriculum be taught. Any mention of the healing powers of herbs, plants, and diet was erased from most medical textbooks. Doctors and professors who objected to Rockefeller's plan were crucified by the media, removed from the AMA, and stripped of their license to teach and practice medicine. Those who dared to speak out were arrested and jailed. Evidence began to emerge that petroleum based medicines were causing cancer, Mr.
Rockefeller founded the American Cancer Society through which he suppressed that information. John D. Rockefeller is duly credited as the founder of the pharmaceutical industry and the reason that medical error is currently the third leading cause of death in America. This is not an indictment against doctors. More than anyone, they are under the stranglehold of the single largest lobbying power in Washington.
Every year, the pharmaceutical industry spends at least twice the amount as big oil to influence laws, policies, and public perception. Thanks to mister Rockefeller, the architect of American monopolies, no industry has more power over our lives than big pharma.
Speaker 10: Part of the problem, and this by the way goes back to the nineteen eighties with Microsoft, is Bill Gates found out that it was very difficult to manufacture a way to navigate through the patent universe, saying that it's Microsoft holding the patents. And he became the architect of a very cunning program of putting patents in holding companies that didn't have anything to do with the named of the organization.
Speaker 18: According to legend, young Bill Gates built his computer empire out of his garage. Reality tells another story, that Bill Gates was born into wealth and privilege. Both his grandfather and great grandfather were banking muggles. His father, William Gates senior, was a prominent Seattle based lawyer and political lobbyist. Through his father, Bill Gates learned the ins and outs of law and politics and how to manipulate those governing forces.
Speaker 1: I'm Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft.
Speaker 18: Bill Gates dropped out of college to start Microsoft. He is credited with inventing the operating system that became Windows. However, he played no part in the invention of Windows. The fact is he bought an existing operating system from Seattle Computer Products, had it modified, then licensed it to IBM. That didn't stop him from taking all the credit.
Speaker 1: I don't see Bill Gates as this great creative person. I see him as an opportunist.
Speaker 18: While Microsoft's cofounder Paul Allen was struggling with cancer, Bill Gates seized the opportunity by attempting to cheat him out of his share of the company's fortune.
Speaker 45: They were basically talking about how they were planning to dilute my share down to almost nothing and it was really a shocking and disheartening moment for me.
Speaker 6: And you were sick?
Speaker 45: I think I was still probably in the middle of radiation therapy.
Speaker 18: Gates's business strategies came under fire in 1998 when the United States Department of Justice sued Microsoft for antitrust violations.
Speaker 10: This is tape three of the videotape deposition of Bill Gates on September
Speaker 18: During the eighteen month trial, Gates gave hours of videotape testimony.
Speaker 46: What were the non Microsoft browsers that you were concerned about in January of nineteen ninety six?
Speaker 1: That month. Yes, sir. And what about it?
Speaker 46: What non Microsoft browsers were you concerned about in January of nineteen ninety six?
Speaker 1: I don't know. What do you mean concerned?
Speaker 46: What is it about the word concerned that you don't understand?
Speaker 1: I'm not sure what you mean by it.
Speaker 10: The justice department has charged Microsoft with engaging in anticompetitive and exclusionary practices designed to maintain its monopoly in personal computer operating systems.
Speaker 18: In a move to overshadow the negative press, Gates invested $100,000,000 to set up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Overnight, Bill Gates transformed his public image from ruthless tech monopolizer to the world's most generous philanthropist.
Speaker 37: I'm pleased to announce that we're pledging an additional billion dollars to sex.
Speaker 24: We had the chance to witness Bill Gates two point o, the man you don't know.
Speaker 18: The rebranding campaign paid off. His net worth swiftly doubled, earning Bill Gates the title of richest man in the world.
Speaker 6: You've invested $10,000,000,000 in vaccinations over the last two decades, and you figured out the return on investment for that. And it kind of stunned me. Can you walk us through the math?
Speaker 18: In a Wall Street essay, Bill Gates declared vaccines the best investment I've ever made.
Speaker 37: There's been over a 20 to one return. So if you just look at the economic benefits, that's a pretty strong number compared to anything else.
Speaker 18: The Gates Foundation expanded rapidly into a massive, vertically integrated, multinational corporation controlling every step in a supply chain that reaches from its Seattle based boardrooms to the villages of Africa and Asia.
Speaker 7: Is the world's largest private philanthropy causing harm? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has made millions of dollars each year from companies blamed for many of the same social and health problems the foundation seeks to address. The Gates Foundation has investments in 69 of the worst polluting companies in The US and Canada. Other companies in the foundation's portfolio have been accused of transgressions including forcing thousands of people to lose their homes, supporting child labor, defrauding and neglecting patients in need of medical care. The Gates Foundation has not provided details.
Speaker 10: William H. Gates III and Melinda French Gates.
Speaker 18: As a top donor to both The WHO and the CDC, no one man has more power than Bill Gates to influence and control the health and medical freedom of all people.
Speaker 37: Normalcy only returns when we've largely vaccinated the entire global population.
Speaker 39: This will be the new normal until a vaccine is developed.
Speaker 1: Until we find a vaccine, going back to normal means putting lives at risk.
Speaker 17: We need to produce it and to deploy it in every single corner of the world.
Speaker 43: Full vaccination of our children and pregnant women.
Speaker 18: Development of new vaccines, therapeutics,
Speaker 7: and diagnostics. And that effectual vaccines and therapeutics are developed.
Speaker 30: Will divide up fewer new sites.
Speaker 16: Vaccines. Vaccines.
Speaker 47: We've already bought the syringes. We already know where it's gonna happen. We're thinking about what that's going to be. It's all part of this plan.
Speaker 48: Our military is now being mobilized. So at the end of the year, we're gonna be able to give it to a lot of people very, very rapidly.
Speaker 18: In 1986, president Ronald Reagan signed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, granting total immunity to vaccine manufacturers. After a decade of lawsuits related to vaccine injuries and deaths, vaccine makers were going bankrupt. In a move to coerce policymakers, vaccine companies threatened to stop making vaccines until they could be legally shielded from liability. To this day, when someone is injured or killed as the result of an adverse reaction, it is The US taxpayers that pay for the damages.
Speaker 49: Welcome back. Were several Indian tribal girls used as guinea pigs? The report alleges that two American farmer giants' untested vaccine was administered to thousands of tribal girls without proper study and paperwork.
Speaker 18: India was among the hardest hit after Bollywood celebrities were incentivized by the Gates Foundation to urge the public to submit to mass vaccinations. In 02/2009, tribal children were administered the HPV vaccine. Over 24,000 girls were told they were being given wellness shots, in many cases without the informed consent of a parent or guardian.
Speaker 50: The people that were administering these vaccines lied to the guardians of these girls and told the girls, Oh, this is gonna cure cancer. You're never gonna have cancer. And these girls became severely injured. Seizures, some of them developed cancer. And seven girls died and there was no insurance, there was no assistance for them, and the Gates Foundation denied that it had been clinical trials.
And it was so bad that the parliament in India created a task force, they studied it, and they kicked out the Gates Foundation.
Speaker 43: But India is a barbaric country. Things happen here in a very barbaric way. But I was surprised to find an American organisation operating in broad day life, doing things in a very, very, let's say, Indian fashion. And so the route I took was that I want the whole procedure to be investigated. The Indian Parliament formed a committee and it was to me a rather surprising move because you generally don't often have such a high level inquiry into matters affecting poor people.
And that was such an extraordinary report. I don't think the Indian Parliament has ever come out with such a scathing report. And the government officials came up and said, we shouldn't have authorised this. We're sorry. We're not going to allow them again.
And now they are back doing their same old tricks again.
Speaker 51: The good news is that human clinical trials can start as early as July 2020 for India's First COVID Nineteen indigenous vaccine that's been developed by Bharat Biotech.
Speaker 43: So you can imagine how the manipulation of the media by the media, the manipulation of public opinion by leaders from all political parties unanimously saying, we want a vaccine. And the worst thing is they are taken as philanthropists, whereas what this actually is, is the acquisition of political and financial power. And I think the second most populous country with 1,300,000,000 people is going to be a good base for pharmaceutical companies to make a killing and also kill a lot of people in the process. Yes, I just find it a pity that we haven't been able to get any benefit for the girls who suffered, you know. It's so terrifying as to what they're actually doing with the world.
Speaker 37: We're taking things that are, you know, genetically modified organisms, we're injecting them in little kids' arms. We just shoot them right into the vein.
Speaker 18: A 2018 scientific study released in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health concluded that over four hundred and ninety thousand children in India developed paralysis as a result of the gate supported oral polio vaccine that was administered between the years of 02/2017. Using all the usual sleight of hand, US based media and fact checkers rushed to bury the story. But thanks to the meticulous work of a team of Indian researchers and doctors, the inconvenient truth lives on the nih.gov website.
Speaker 10: It's my honor to introduce Bill and Melinda Gates.
Speaker 18: Without any medical training, Bill and Melinda Gates founded the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, through which they fulfill their agenda to vaccinate the world. The foundation has been sued by the governments of some of the poorest and most vulnerable nations for causing serious harm through experimental vaccine programs.
Speaker 6: If you just look at health care workers around the world, they deserve to get the vaccine first. Here in The United States, really, it's going to be Black people who really should get it first and many indigenous people.
Speaker 52: Vaccines were always taught to us that it was safe, it was healthy. This is things that we had to do. But given the position that I am in now as a state legislator and looking at these studies and reviewing a lot of these studies, it's very scary. And I want the African American community to open up their eyes.
Speaker 53: Of all the places that mister Gates could have gone in the world, why did he settle on Africa? It's not because he cares about people that look like me. He cares about an agenda.
Speaker 17: African bodies have been used as lab rats for many years for big pharma. They are using us for trials. They are using us for testing. But as an African, I say no more.
Speaker 21: Africans, they're tired of becoming the guinea pigs of the world. Their antennas are raised, they are telling each other all over social media. They're on high alert right now.
Speaker 19: There is a policy of the American government. It's called the Kissinger Report, which was produced in the mid seventies, and it explicitly states that the purpose of the foreign policy in Africa was to reduce the population because they have a great mineral resources there. And the time Kissinger and those involved with the Carter administration wanted to shrink the population make sure that the Africans do not develop and do not use the resources for themselves because we in The States we need them. There is a concerted effort of foreign powers to control the population of Africa.
Speaker 54: Some children did survive the botched vaccinations last month and will recover, but fifteen, all under the age of five, died from fever, vomiting, and diarrhea.
Speaker 55: Human errors contributed to the unfortunate deaths of the children.
Speaker 21: How can you believe big pharma but not believe these parents when they tell you that their children have been injured by big pharma? I don't care how big this corporate machine looks. As a parent, I can tell you, these people will never stop fighting for their kids.
Speaker 18: Questionable initiatives that Bill Gates is involved in. Here's a few of the highlights. Gates is one of the key funders in the stratospheric controlled perturbation experiment designed to block out the sun in an effort to control global warming by releasing massive amounts of calcium carbonate and other materials into the upper atmosphere. Critics, including environmental scientists, have called the project a global genocide experiment. Gates has invested over $1,000,000,000 in Earth Now's global surveillance project.
The project will launch hundreds of satellites into space, which will allow for the twenty four seven monitoring of all people everywhere. In partnership with MIT, Bill Gates has developed a new technology that allows vaccines to be injected under your skin along with your medical records. The quantum dot tattoo will implant an invisible certificate that can be scanned by authorities using a cell phone app and infrared light.
Speaker 37: Eventually what we'll have to have is certificates of who's a recovered person, who's a vaccinated person. So who's eventually there will be this digital immunity proof.
Speaker 18: The EPA recently approved an experimental use permit to Oxitec, a biotech company funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In an effort to fight malaria, Oktutech will soon release millions of genetically modified mosquitoes in various US states. According to the NIH website, programs are being developed to allow human immunization via mosquito bite. It was Science Magazine that coined the phrase flying syringes.
Speaker 7: Would you raise your hand please?
Speaker 6: Do you solemnly swear
Speaker 7: the testimony you're about to give in the matter now pending?
Speaker 32: A shocking new report from the New York Times sheds light on the connection between Microsoft founder Bill Gates and the late Jeffrey Epstein. You report these two men met at least six times.
Speaker 56: Well, believe that there were more. This included visits to the mansion, seeing each other in Seattle, flying on Epstein's plane.
Speaker 18: When flight logs revealed that Gates had been a passenger on the Lolita Express, he claimed that he didn't know that the private jet belonged to Epstein. He also denied that he and mister Epstein were involved in any business deals. However, an expose by the New York Times revealed that not only did Bill Gates initiate a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein well he was convicted of sex crimes, but the two were also involved in the process of co founding a multibillion dollar charitable fund.
Speaker 32: Why would they ever set up a charitable trust benefiting Jeffrey Epstein?
Speaker 56: That it was all about philanthropy, that Bill Gates just wanted to find new sources of money.
Speaker 18: Why would one of the richest men in the world choose to partner with the world's most notorious pedophile? A deeper dive into Epstein's world revealed that the two men had more in common than meets the eye. Like Gates, Epstein was a billionaire philanthropist with a passion for science, health, education, and children. The Jeffrey Epstein Foundation donated millions of dollars to top universities, science institutes, medical schools, early education programs, youth initiatives, and international peace accords. Bill Gates is either the most misunderstood man alive or one of the most convincing con men to ever live.
Is he a benevolent hero or a malevolent opportunist? Bill Gates. Personally, I would love to believe that one of the richest men in the world is giving away his fortune for the better men of humanity. I wanna believe that endearing smile. I wanna believe that his heart is as soft and warm as his sweaters.
At the very least, I wanna believe that he's unaware of the damage he's done.
Speaker 57: I'm happy to announce that we've discovered a vaccine. We no longer have to live in fear. Everyone can get back to their normal lives.
Speaker 58: It's the great hope galvanizing the world, a vaccine for COVID nineteen. But are we being sold alive? After all, COVID nineteen is the seventh coronavirus to strike mankind, and we've never found a vaccine for any of them.
Speaker 59: The shortest time anybody's ever found a vaccine against any disease that I'm familiar with is about seven years. The average time is twenty. To be talking about a magic bullet coming in months, it borders on the absurd.
Speaker 37: People like myself and Tony Fauci are saying eighteen months.
Speaker 10: A year to a year and a half.
Speaker 37: If everything went perfectly, we could do slightly better than that, but there will be a trade off. We'll have less safety testing than we typically would have. And so governments will have to decide, you know, do they indemnify the companies and really say, let's let's go out with this.
Speaker 50: Something that people should know about COVID nineteen vaccines is they fall today under the PREP Act, which came into being after nine eleven and after an anthrax scare. And this law gives virtually blanket liability protection. It's basically impossible to get any kind of compensation if you're injured. So people need to understand that if you take COVID nineteen vaccines, you are absolutely on your own. If you're permanently injured, if you lose your job, if your health care expenses go through the roof, tough luck.
Speaker 7: Volunteers all across the country began getting shots today as part of the final phase of testing for an experimental vaccine being developed by the NIH and the drug company Moderna. The side effects for the Moderna vaccine sound concerning. We looked. After the second dose, at least eighty percent of participants experienced a systemic side effect. So are these vaccines safe?
Speaker 37: Well, FDA not being pressured will look hard at that. The FDA is the gold standard of regulators, and their current guidance on this, if they stick with that, is is very, very appropriate. You know, the the side effects were not super severe. That is it didn't cause permanent health problems for the things that are they you know, Moderna did have to go with a fairly high dose. And so, you know, to get the antibodies
Speaker 10: This isn't a management story. If your goal is to make this beautiful earth that we live on an exclusive playground for the entitled few, then populations that get in the way are a problem. And it is the empirical impulses of individuals who have decided that by outranking the rest of humanity, they can dictate upon humanity the conditions of their existence.
Speaker 60: Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them.
Speaker 55: This bill enables the police to enter a home without a warrant. Madam speaker, the police have never held that power.
Speaker 7: We will find out who lives in the house.
Speaker 43: And if
Speaker 16: it's someone that is refusing, we will definitely consult with our health officer to look into next steps.
Speaker 6: So the sheriff's department and the health department showed up at her door with orders for her and her husband to wear ankle monitors. The couple says they never denied self quarantining.
Speaker 25: You will no longer be able to leave home. Only one person will be able to go shopping once per day. Recreational activity is now no longer allowed. You will be allowed to have one hour of exercise no further than five kilometers from your home.
Speaker 12: Are you serious just for not having a mask? For no mask. Are you serious?
Speaker 61: We will shut you down. We will cite you. And if we need to, we will arrest you, and we will take you to jail.
Speaker 54: You know the old expression about snitches? Well, in this case, snitches get rewards. Some people are ratting their neighbors out, calling the police, but others are turning to the Internet where social distance shaming has gotten ugly. In
Speaker 7: a time of crisis, trying to force compliance upon a population by making neighbors and friends distrust one another is exactly the opposite tactic we actually need.
Speaker 55: When human societies lose their freedom, it's not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It's usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. That's what I fear we are seeing now.
Speaker 10: This is a cognitive dissonant moment, which is being imprinted in your brain just like remember the Great Depression, remember nine eleven.
Speaker 1: Oh my god. Weapons of mass destruction.
Speaker 10: We are being conditioned to have the excuse for unbelievable acts of tyranny, which will be justified by remember 2020. And your loved ones, those that die, those that are infected, they're being used as cannon fodder, which is the ultimate desecration of their honor and integrity. And this is also a test of humanity to see how much of our liberty we will let go before we finally draw the line under enough. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence stated, unless we put medical freedom into constitution, a time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others. That time is now.
Well, this
Speaker 37: won't be the last pandemic that we face. 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.
Speaker 10: This is not a time for us to go in a mob frenzy, find the perpetrators and haul them into the town square and pillory them. This is a moment for us to recognize that every decision that is being made today by any of the conspiring is parties made perfect sense in each increment when each one of those decisions was made. The sum of those incremental steps has led to devastation because they lost touch with their fellow humanity. But that's an invitation for each one of us to examine how we're living and how not a single decision we make, not one, in any moment is without consequence. This is our moment to reclaim our humanity.
Speaker 32: Another one and a half
Speaker 18: Our lives are shaped and guided by stories. The stories we're told become the stories we tell. The more we hear them, the more we believe them.
Speaker 38: And the investigation
Speaker 18: When used as a tool, they help us to better understand who we are, where we came from, and where we're going. When used as a weapon, they can be deadly. One of the most dangerous stories we've been told is the one that goes something like this. Humanity is a failed experiment. We are parasites, a cancer, a virus.
Speaker 24: Human beings are a disease.
Speaker 18: It is a myth that permeates our movies, our music, our media, and our minds. As they say, repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth. Perhaps that was the goal of the authors of that story.
Speaker 62: We feel too afraid to have kids, because we feel that we're heading towards civilization breakdown as a result.
Speaker 18: Fear shuts down the part of our brain designed to solve problems. Without that ability, we look for others to guide and save us. In doing so, we lose touch with our most primal nature. We forget that we are an extension of the most brilliant and resilient ecosystem in the universe. We stop eating food grown from the earth and begin consuming products processed from machines.
We trade medicines that heal for drugs that harm. We abandon love and liberty for debt and dependency. The good news is our story is not over. The climax has yet to come. That moment when the hero rises from defeat, summoning a force they forgot they had.
A force within, a force of nature.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
“President Trump states this was Treason at the highest levels…” “It appears the Autopen was used by Ron Klain, Anita Dunn and Bob Bauer…I have a high-ranking Biden Official come forward…” -Weaponization Director, Ed Martin. https://t.co/1S8UeZD0IK
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on the legality and appropriateness of Joe Biden's use of an autopen, particularly concerning pardons. It's claimed that the Trump administration believes Biden's autopen use may be unconstitutional if he wasn't fully competent or if others used it on his behalf.
A former US attorney claims to have contacted senior Biden officials early on regarding Biden's competence and the pardons, receiving some responses. The speaker argues that incompetence could invalidate contracts and pardons, even though the pardon power is plenary. He alleges a whistleblower from the 2020 Biden campaign identified three "gatekeepers"—Clayne, Anita Dunn, and Bob Bauer—who controlled access and potentially profited from it. While not yet verified, this information is deemed potentially scandalous. The speaker clarified that he contacted the Biden family and others in the US attorney's office.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The president, if you were with us on the morning meeting, you saw talked at length, two stops before he went into the meeting with the house conference, talked to the media, and he talked a lot about this issue of the auto pen. All presidents use auto pen, but there seems to be a sense in the Trump administration that Joe Biden, and it's something Ed I think is working on, that Joe Biden used the auto, or people used the auto pen to sign things on Joe Biden's behalf, including pardons, that may be not legally constitutionally permissible if it wasn't actually the president and it was, it was some robot or whatever you call the auto pen. So here's number three. This is a truth social post from the president about this topic. And again, he talked about at length this morning.
Joe Biden was not for open borders. He never talked about open borders. We're criminals of all kinds. Alright. Blah blah blah.
Go through the process. It was the people that knew he was cognitive impaired and took that and that took over the auto pen. They stole the president of The United States and put us in great danger. This is treason at the highest level. So Ed, where did this start, this notion that the auto pen was improperly used?
And what evidence have you seen for the president's accusation?
Speaker 1: Well, I'll make a little news for you, Mark, here. Was in the office as US attorney for about five days when I wrote to a number of senior Biden officials in the White House saying, what did you know about Joe Biden's competence and the pardons? And I got some responses, and so I've been looking at this for a while. Again, I think the question is more about competence. If you have someone who's not competent, they can't enter into a contract.
Right? And if you do enter into a contract, you've committed fraud. The question is whether you use a tool to trick people into entering into a fraud. So I look. I the the the Biden pardons are unprecedented.
The ones right before Christmas that he did, people forget this. I think it's a couple thousand pardons that were done. Did he know about that? Did he really understand? Look.
The pardon power is plenary, but but the guy has to be competent to do it. Now you come forward to this question broadly of the auto pen. Auto pen's completely obviously legal if you're competent. And there there there must be a trail that shows who was in charge of the auto pen. I know this exists, like I worked for a governor, we had a system for an auto pen to be able to use it.
And so right now we have unprecedented conduct, the pardons, unprecedented admissions, the books as well as the staffers. I had a whistleblower in my office 10 ago, senior senior Democrat saying, look, it was these three people that controlled access and they were making money off of it. I don't know if I believe it yet, but the point is I think we have to get to the bottom of it for the American people and to protect the process, and that's what we're doing. And and and by the way, make it all way to the bottom. It may not be criminal, but it certainly should be a scandal of the first order.
Maybe in human history or maybe American history, I sound like the president there, but in American history to have this kind of conduct.
Speaker 0: Ed, I'm from Maryland, not North Carolina, so I'm not that bright. I I did I miss what the news was? You said you'd make news. What was the news you made?
Speaker 1: The news was that nobody knows until, that I was writing to, these folks at the US attorney's office and including the Biden family. I don't think anybody has that has seen that. So my point is I'm bragging about being there early. Everybody got to this a hundred and twenty days later.
Speaker 0: Did they reply or you just send them letters?
Speaker 1: No. They did. What?
Speaker 0: What did they say?
Speaker 1: Well, a couple of them lawyered up and one of them wrote directly. I won't talk about what they said.
Speaker 0: And can you and and you probably won't tell us, but but can you characterize who the the whistleblower was? Is this someone who worked
Speaker 1: in the Biden White House? Biden Biden campaign, 2020 campaign at the highest levels.
Speaker 0: 2020. And and who are the three people they said were doing
Speaker 1: this for money? This is the one who's well, let me say it carefully. Yeah. The the the the gatekeepers, different characterization of who was using the access, but the gatekeepers were Clayne and Anita Dunn and Bob Bauer. And those three were really dominant characters in the White House.
Rickety a little bit and obviously Jill, but I think that was the three. But I was with this person and I said, what about Susan Rice? What about some of these others? And they said, no, these were the ones.
Speaker 0: Okay, I will politely and gently say tell you his name is pronounced Rachetty.
Speaker 1: Okay, well.
Speaker 0: Soft, just so you know.
Speaker 1: Just so I know, okay. I'll make sure if I meet him, I'll tell, I'll get it right.
Speaker 0: Okay, he's a very nice guy. Think you'd like him if you met him.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
This is Treason. “Anita Dunn was reportedly one of the main people running the country while Joe Biden suffered obvious mental and physical decline. The same Anita Dunn that was ON CAMERA praising Mao…” https://t.co/UVUThJJNK7
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Treasonous Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were RUNNING the White House under Joe Biden. “Obama is very involved…” ARREST them both for Treason. https://t.co/4BuHUuP2Qz
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tyler Robinson, a special advisor at the Small Business Administration (SBA), reports to Arthur Plews, chief of staff for SBA administrator Isabel Guzman. Guzman is described as indirectly campaigning for President Biden by visiting battleground states and highlighting the Biden economy. This may be a violation of the Hatch Act.
Robinson identifies Jeff Zients, White House chief of staff, as the second most powerful person in Washington, stating that Zients' approval is essentially the President's approval. He also names five or six long-time advisors to Biden: Ron Klain, Steve Ricchetti, Anita Dunn, Gene Sperling, and Biden's sister Valerie, who run the Biden Foundation. Robinson suggests these advisors, along with Zients, heavily influence the President's decisions.
Robinson claims Hillary Clinton remains involved, communicating with people in the White House, possibly Neera Tanden, to influence policies. He also discusses the SBA's desire to offer direct loans to small businesses, competing with banks, but says they lack the budget and legislative approval.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And so what would what's your title? Like
Speaker 1: Special adviser. I work for the chief of staff, like, direct
Speaker 0: Oh, you report to the chief of staff? So author is the chief of staff to Guzman.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Isabella Guzman.
Speaker 0: So she's basically a spokesperson for Biden? Yeah. She's indirectly campaigning for Biden. Yeah. Administrator Guzman said, basically, are are doing going to these critical battleground states Yeah.
To basically campaign for president Biden.
Speaker 1: Anytime we go, we try to visit with the member of congress if they're a democrat. The White House was like, yes. Go. Don't invite the other senator because he's a republican, and don't invite the two members of congress because they're republicans. This guy named Jeff Sainz.
And by getting Jeff Jeff's sign off, you're getting the president's sign off. People call him, like, the second most powerful person in Washington. Most times, like, hey. Whatever the size this guy says is what the president says.
Speaker 2: Who would you
Speaker 3: say is the most powerful person at the White House?
Speaker 0: Jeff. Jeff is the most powerful person at the White House?
Speaker 1: Other than, like, the president-in-law. There's probably, like, five or six people that have worked for Jeff Biden and have worked for him for
Speaker 4: thirty years.
Speaker 1: One of them is Ron Clay. Ron worked for Biden when he's, like, a center bird. There's a guy named Steve Rachey. He's, like, a senior adviser at the White House. Anita Dunn.
Yeah.
Speaker 4: She's a senior adviser at White
Speaker 1: House. And
Speaker 0: Jean Sperland. Jean Sperland.
Speaker 1: He's an economics guy. Oh, his sister. Biden's sister. She, like, runs the Biden Foundation. They're the people that run his different
Speaker 0: Do you would you
Speaker 1: If they put all his desk in, like, anything
Speaker 5: he knows to prophesize.
Speaker 0: So the I feel like Barack Obama's still very, like, involved.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 0: He is.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Hillary was being interviewed.
Speaker 0: And she said, I still talk to the White House every day.
Speaker 1: She has people that are, like, super close to her that are still, like, senior people in the White House.
Speaker 0: So who is she talking to at the White House?
Speaker 1: Probably near Tandon.
Speaker 0: I hope that Hillary is still involved behind the scene
Speaker 1: because No. She is.
Speaker 7: Not a week goes by without a news headline about potential medical supply shortages, threats to our infrastructure, or power grid. And you remember what they pulled during the last pandemic. Certain medications were mysteriously out of stock. No way will I ever let that happen again. In today's unpredictable world, it's all about being prepared for who knows what they have in store for the next pandemic.
Our friends and supporters at The Wellness Company have designed this unique prescription based medical emergency kit that is packed with eight potentially lifesaving prescription only medications, including Z Pak and ivermectin, which I used myself while out on the road and starting to feel a bit under the weather. Health is everything, and this is a great opportunity to order a wellness company medical emergency kit. The wellness company medical emergency kit stands ready to treat over 30 common ailments, ensuring you'll have access to vital medications when you need them most. And now save $45 per kit when you order using the code o m g. Get ready to write this down.
Get your wellness company medical emergency kit at twc.health/0mg. That's twc.health/0mg. That's twc.health/0mg, and save $45 per kit today when you use code o m g. Meet the newest subject in our latest investigation into the DC swamp, Tyler Robinson. Tyler is a special adviser working at the Small Business Administration.
Speaker 0: You're you're in politics. Right? Yeah. Okay. How long have you been in politics?
Speaker 1: Since, like, 2012.
Speaker 0: And so what would what's your title? Like
Speaker 1: Special adviser. I work for the chief of staff.
Speaker 0: I'm directing. Oh, you report to the chief of staff. What's the person?
Speaker 1: His name is Arthur.
Speaker 0: Okay. The guy? Arthur. Arthur. So Arthur is the chief of staff to Guzman, and then you report to Arthur.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 7: Tyler explains he reports directly to a man named Arthur Plews, the chief of staff in the office of the administrator at the SBA, who reports to SBA administrator Isabel Guzman. Guzman was sworn in as administrator of the by Kamala Harris in 02/2021. Tyler says he can't do anything overtly political, but confirms the SBA is indirectly campaigning for Biden and, quote, helping retain members of congress to get reelected.
Speaker 0: You're politically appointed.
Speaker 1: The the administrator is the most traveled member of the cabinet. Like, pretty much every week.
Speaker 0: You need a boss? Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 1: Pretty much every week, she goes somewhere in the country Nice. And, like, talks to small business owners and gets on local news and says, like Wow. This is what the Biden economy
Speaker 5: is
Speaker 0: doing for
Speaker 1: you guys in this area.
Speaker 0: So she's basically a spokesperson for Biden? Yeah. So she can tell Biden's
Speaker 1: accomplishments. She, yeah, we can tell their she can't, like, go on stage and be like or go on there and just be like, hey, Joe. Vote for Joe Biden. Like, that's illegal.
Speaker 0: So she's indirectly
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Like, campaigning for Biden? Yeah. Yeah. She's indirectly campaigning for Biden?
Yeah.
Speaker 1: Like, yeah, there's just certain rules for, like, political appointees Yeah. And what we're allowed to say and, like, do
Speaker 0: You and your boss? Yeah. What's her?
Speaker 1: Isabella Guzmar. She's from California. We were born in this area of Pennsylvania, which is a huge swing state.
Speaker 0: It's a huge swing state. Yeah. Got it.
Speaker 1: You know, a state that Biden needs to win to win the presidency.
Speaker 0: Ah.
Speaker 1: And we're not saying, hey. Go vote for Joe Biden. But we're saying, hey. Because we passed this law and this law that no Republicans voted
Speaker 0: for Mhmm.
Speaker 1: That only Democrats voted for and
Speaker 0: passed Yeah.
Speaker 1: You know, we are like, at that time, that trip, we announced that we the administration was investing $5,000,000. This is going directly to that community.
Speaker 0: So why can't you help Biden?
Speaker 1: There's, like, a it's called the Hatch Act.
Speaker 7: Unofficially campaigning for Biden and other elected Democratic officials to small businesses across the nation is a potential violation of the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act mandates that civil service employees in the executive branches of the federal government abstain from any active part in political campaigns. Several members of the Biden administration have already received warnings from the office of special counsel and watchdog groups for violations of the Hatch Act, including housing and Irving development secretary Marsha Fudge, former White House press secretary Jen Psaki, and former White House chief of staff Ron Klain. Tala describes Guzman as a spokesperson for Biden and as the most traveled member of the cabinet as she uses her position to help get Democrats like Montana senator John Tester reelected.
Speaker 0: Administrator Guzman said, basically, are are doing going to these critical battleground states Yeah. To basically campaign for president Biden.
Speaker 1: Anytime we go, we try to visit with a member of congress if they're a democrat.
Speaker 0: Why do you need a member of congress
Speaker 1: to vote? Because then we can help them get reelected as well. So we're going to Montana because senator Tester is a because he's the democrat senator from Montana. Okay. Like, he's in the tougher election race.
And that's, like, a seat we need in the senate to maintain a majority. Like, if he loses
Speaker 0: If he loses Montana, we're screwed.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's harder to win somewhere else. We all like, as an office, we're going. The White House was like, yes. Go.
Invite senator Tester. Don't invite the other senator because he's a republican. And don't invite the two members of congress because they're republicans.
Speaker 0: So you the White House authorized you guys to go Yeah. Campaign for this senator people. What kind of campaigns do you does the SBA run to help Biden?
Speaker 1: I mean, we can't do anything, like, overtly political. Like, we can't send out, like, an email to all businesses, like, vote Joe Biden.
Speaker 7: Tyler Robinson continues to describe the inner workings of the Biden White House by mentioning Jeff Zients, the White House chief of staff. Tyler states, quote, by getting Jeff's sign off, you're getting the president's sign off, labeling him as the second most powerful person in Washington DC.
Speaker 1: Down the line, it was up to, like, the president and the chief of staff.
Speaker 0: The chief of staff to the president approved it?
Speaker 1: It's a guy named Jeff Seitz.
Speaker 0: Jeff Seitz?
Speaker 1: Seitz. Within the White House, there's something called the Office of Cabinet Affairs.
Speaker 0: Office of Cabinet Affairs.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. They yeah. They're responsible for, like, overseeing all the different cabinet agencies, like, cabinet secretaries.
Speaker 0: And your boss is one of the cabinet secretaries. So
Speaker 1: So they tell us
Speaker 0: it went all the way up, basically, for approval. So Jeff is the final approver.
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess it would be the president, but in reality, it's probably Jeff. Yeah.
Speaker 0: So the president also has to sign off on this.
Speaker 1: Yeah. By getting Jeff's sign off, you're getting the president to sign off.
Speaker 0: Oh, this Jeff guy's powerful.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Realistically, they are people call him, like, the second most powerful person in Washington. Because most of the time, it's someone that's close to the president.
Speaker 0: Uh-huh.
Speaker 1: And, like, who has always been with them and, like, their most trusted adviser.
Speaker 0: Uh-huh.
Speaker 1: So, like, generally, most times, it's like, hey. Whatever the size this guy says is what the president says.
Speaker 0: So Jeff can sign off on things without the president?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. I would imagine if you, like, ask people to the White House to see what staff was, I doubt anybody outside of Washington to see what
Speaker 0: Why is he so stealth?
Speaker 1: This is kind of a role.
Speaker 0: Because that gives him more power.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: More, like, ability to do things, get things done. Yeah. Because if he if everyone knows about him.
Speaker 1: If you follow politics, know who, like, the chief of staff is. But, like, the average American wouldn't know
Speaker 0: who he is. But he is he appointed or elected? He's appointed. He's appointed by who?
Speaker 1: Biden. Biden. Yeah.
Speaker 7: Tyler even goes so far as to state that Jeff Zientz runs the White House. When he was 35 years old, Fortune magazine named Zents in his forty under forty list with a net worth of $149,000,000. He has held many corporate and government positions, including being on the board of Facebook and the chief operating officer of DGB Enterprises, a holding company for several companies.
Speaker 0: He's not elected by American people American voters, but he's appointed by Biden. And he can basically be the acting president.
Speaker 1: Not acting president, but, like, he runs the White House.
Speaker 0: He runs the White House.
Speaker 1: Like, he's responsible for everybody that works there. Uh-huh. He likes to set helps set the set the presence agenda. Uh-huh. Like, controls what gets said, all that.
Speaker 0: Is he is Jeff more powerful than Harris?
Speaker 1: In some ways, yes. In some ways, no.
Speaker 0: And is Jeff more powerful than Kamala?
Speaker 1: Like, not legally, but
Speaker 0: In practice, he is?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Who would you
Speaker 3: say is the most powerful person at the
Speaker 0: White House? Jeff. Jeff? Yeah. Jeff is the most powerful person at the White House.
Speaker 1: Other than, like, the president-in-law.
Speaker 0: So all buck stops, like, like, all roads lead to Jeff's?
Speaker 1: Jeff. Jeff and the president. Yeah.
Speaker 7: Okay. Recently, counsel Robert Herr characterized Biden in his final report as showing diminished faculties and faulty memory in which Biden did not remember even within several years when his son Beau died. This report and Biden's general demeanor compel many Americans to speculate there must be other people in charge and making the most important decisions for the American people. Tyler Robinson has a lot to say about Biden's shadow advisers that were never selected or voted for by Americans and lists them directly by name, stating there are five or six people who are Biden's closest advisers and have worked for him for over thirty years.
Speaker 1: I mean, Joe Biden, like, he's just been he's been around for so long. He has, like, a solid group of people around him that, like, they they're his closest adviser. Like, he has a group of people, like, five there's probably, like, five or six people that work for Jeff Biden and have worked for him for
Speaker 0: For thirty years.
Speaker 1: They go on TV sometimes. One of them is Ron Clay.
Speaker 0: Ron Clay?
Speaker 1: Ron Clay. Okay. He was the first chief of staff. He left. Okay.
Speaker 0: Before Jeff?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 1: And he also worked Juan worked for Biden when he's, a senator. Oh. He worked for long time, and then he worked formally as vice president. And then he worked for he worked for Obama for a little bit.
Speaker 0: So he's been he's worked with a lot of people.
Speaker 1: He helped run the Hillary campaign. So he's like one of them. There's guy named Steve Rachet. They're old friends. He's worked for Biden for, like, years.
He's, like, a senior adviser at the White House. Anita Dunn, she is senior adviser. So, yeah, she's
Speaker 4: senior adviser of my house.
Speaker 7: One of these advisers is a DC insider named Anita Dunn, who once named Chinese communist revolutionary Mao Zedong as one of her two favorite political philosophers in a speech to a high school graduation. Coincidentally, Dunn, a former managing director of prominent Democratic consulting firm SKDK, just so happens to have downplayed the significance of Acorn in a 02/2009 appearance on CNN. As you recall, I pose as a pimp and with my colleague as a prostitute exposed Acorn, which led to federal investigations and the congressional defunding of Acorn.
Speaker 1: Gene Sperling. Gene Sperland. He's an an economics guy.
Speaker 0: Okay. So that's four people?
Speaker 1: Yeah. His six. Oh, his sister. Biden's sister is like your uncle.
Speaker 0: Biden's sister? What's her name? Valerie. Valerie Biden?
Speaker 1: Yeah. She, like, runs the Biden Foundation Oh. At a university dorm. Oh, I see.
Speaker 0: So all five of them were personally picked and appointed by Biden to basically run the show for him.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the president can't do everything. Yeah. So you have to delegate.
Yeah. They're the people that run his different
Speaker 0: part. Would you say those five people plus Jeff do more than the president himself?
Speaker 1: It kinda depends.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But they have ability to make decisions for the country without having to necessarily get the president sign off.
Speaker 1: They I mean, they have to get the president sign off. But
Speaker 0: Yeah. But, like, how often would the president say no?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Exactly.
Speaker 0: Right? So if if it ends up on his the president's desk, then he'll probably sign up on it.
Speaker 1: If they put it on his desk saying, like, hey. We think
Speaker 5: he can do this to prophesize.
Speaker 0: So these people these five people plus Jeff are really the ones running the show.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's like that for everyone else.
Speaker 0: Most of
Speaker 1: the time, they're, like they're not people who ever served in government office or, like, elected office, but they're people that have worked in government.
Speaker 0: So they they were never elected by the voters? Yeah. But they But
Speaker 1: they you know, they worked in
Speaker 0: senate for thirty years.
Speaker 7: Tyler Robinson goes on to mention Obama and Hillary Clinton still having close ties to the White House, going as far as stating Hillary influences policies and helps advise select members of the Biden administration.
Speaker 0: I feel like Barack Obama's still very, like, involved.
Speaker 1: No. He is.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Hillary was being interviewed.
Speaker 0: And she said, I still talk to the White House every day.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm she has people that are, like, super close to her that are still, like, senior people in the White House.
Speaker 0: Forking for president Biden?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: So who is she talking to at the White House?
Speaker 1: Probably Nirah Tandon. Who? The director of the domestic policy council.
Speaker 0: Nir what's his name?
Speaker 1: Nirah Tandon. Okay. She
Speaker 0: Oh, she
Speaker 1: Yeah. She worked for Hillary for a while.
Speaker 0: And she now works for president Biden. You think she's one of the people that Yeah. Hillary would talk to regularly? Yeah. To what?
To influence policies? Or much power yes?
Speaker 1: Just get insight. Yeah.
Speaker 0: And I hope that Hillary is still involved behind the scene
Speaker 1: because No. She is.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. So she's talking to this one lady for domestic a
Speaker 1: lot of international stuff.
Speaker 0: With whom?
Speaker 1: They have, like, the Clinton issue.
Speaker 0: Does she talk to anyone else besides this Nera lady?
Speaker 1: I'm sure.
Speaker 7: Internal SBA policy and plans, Tyler Robinson discusses how the SBA wants to get into the lending business to provide loans to small businesses that cannot get loans from private banks.
Speaker 1: She had her congressional testimony and, like, we didn't want her to mention that, like, we would like to do direct funding to small businesses because the Republicans hate that.
Speaker 0: So you guys think that it's bad for her to advocate for direct funding?
Speaker 1: Well, if we bring it up, they're just gonna yell at us.
Speaker 0: Okay. So what did you guys say instead? Or what what would be the alternative
Speaker 1: to that? The the line we kept going back to is we're not allowed to do that. We don't wanna compete with banks and financials. But
Speaker 0: in reality, do you guys compete with banks?
Speaker 1: For the small dollar loans, we would like to. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Are you guys competing?
Speaker 1: We're not allowed to. We don't have the budget to do it.
Speaker 0: Why do you guys wanna compete with banks?
Speaker 1: For the same reason I was talking about. Not don't wanna compete with banks. We I I think a way to expand access to capital for business owners is, like, those banks that wanna don't wanna do, like, a $10,000 loan. They're gonna get that loan from nowhere else unless they go put on their credit card for super high interest rates or go to, like, someone who's gonna do it at high interest rates where we if congress provided us the funding and help give us the collection agency, like, the ability to collect, we would we'd be fine with us. Like
Speaker 0: So you guys would be acting like banks? A lender. Yeah. A lender.
Speaker 1: But that's
Speaker 0: we can't do that. Why?
Speaker 1: We don't have the budget
Speaker 0: to do it.
Speaker 1: Like, you have to get it. That money has to be approved, and we have to be the legislature has to, like, approve the power to do that.
Speaker 0: I see. There's no way they can
Speaker 1: Yeah. They could, but they won't because
Speaker 7: they like private business. OMG's hidden footage reveals Tyler Robinson's special adviser to SBA administrator, Isabel Guzman, making important confessions about who is actually making decisions in the executive branch. These advisers are not merely political bureaucrats, but increasingly insular group of insiders with their hands in every aspect of party politics in corporate America, from health care companies and investment firms to media outlets and tech companies. If you're on the inside, please send us a tip to our signal page, DM us on x or Instagram, and subscribe to on the inside every Wednesday from 4PM to 6PM eastern. Stay tuned.
I've had it with all my personal and private information being exposed and exploited by big tech and big government, so I'm joining my friend Eric Prince, and I'm switching to my new unplugged phone. Protect your privacy. Get your very own unplugged phone. Go to unplugged.com/0mg. That's unplugged.com/0mg.
Take your privacy back. Unplugged.com/0mg.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Just horrific. “I state without reservation that the United States Government, under Biden and Harris…was the World’s largest Child-trafficking Organization in Modern History. The probability that children are being abused at this very moment is 100%…”https://t.co/uxV7XEZlPH
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker states the U.S. federal government is the world's largest child sex trafficking organization. They claim that under President Biden's open border policies, the U.S. has experienced the largest mass invasion in history, costing hundreds of billions of dollars and resulting in a significant demographic shift.
The speaker asserts that Biden, Harris, and Mayorkas intentionally weaponized illegal immigration to transform America, leading to a surge in child trafficking. They state that over 550,000 unaccompanied alien children (UACs) will have been lost by the end of the current administration, compared to 30,557 UACs accounted for during President Trump's last year.
The speaker claims that HHS and ORR admitted to losing contact with over 85,000 UACs in 2023, a number that an inspector general later revised to over 320,000. They allege that DHS, HHS, and ORR created policies to expedite the movement of UACs to unvetted sponsors, resulting in children disappearing into labor and sex trafficking. The speaker's research indicates the federal government knowingly facilitated these criminal acts.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I state without reservation that the United States federal government is the world's largest child sex trafficking organization in modern history. The probability that thousands of these UACs are being raped at this very moment is 100%. Chairman Higgins, ranking member Correa, Chairman Bishop, ranking member Ivy, and the members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about the evil of child trafficking caused by the open border policies under President Joe Biden and his administration. I served in the United States Border Patrol for twenty four years until I retired as a deputy patrol agent in charge in San Diego sector. I worked under five presidential administrations and only one president secured the border, president Donald Trump.
Border Patrol agents went from working and being supported by the greatest border president in American history to the worst, president Joe Biden. My last year in the border patrol was Joe Biden's first year in office. On his first day in office, I watched in disbelief as 94 executive orders cascaded down from Washington DC, obliterating every immigration policy that had been provided, the most secure border in America's history. Border Patrol agents were forced to carry out unconstitutional orders that violated every law in the Immigration Nationality Act. President Biden, through Department of Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, created policy out of thin air, ignored federal immigration law, and facilitated the largest mass invasion into America that the world has ever seen.
The United States Of America will have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in four years to fund the needs of over 50,000,000 illegal aliens that populate our nation. Between one in six and one in seven residents in America is an illegal alien. America has suffered the greatest demographic shift in modern history. After serving in the United States Border Patrol for twenty four years, spending a year researching and writing a bestselling book entitled, The Intentional Destruction of American Immigration System and filming two documentaries, I state with complete certainty that Biden, Harris, and Mayorkas intentionally, strategically, and purposely weaponized illegal immigration and used it as a tool to fundamentally transform America. Inside this invasion, the unspoken evil of child trafficking, and more specifically child sex trafficking, has flourished.
At the end of this current administration, the number of children trafficked will have grown to over 550,000 unaccompanied alien children children known as UACs. This horrific number of children will have been arrested, released into America, and then lost. To put this into context, during President Trump's last year in office, Customs and Border Protection arrested 30,557 UACs who were accounted for and not lost. Conversely, in the first year of Biden's presidency, CBP arrested 147,975 UACs, most of which are unaccompanied for and lost. 2023, Correctional Hearings Health and Human Services Javier Bacera and Director of Office of Refugee Resettlement Robin Marcos forced to admit that their agency had no contact with over 85,000 UACs.
They were lost. What did DHS, HHS, and ORR do to correct this humanitarian disaster? Nothing. In fact, all three agencies created further policies and procedures to increase the efficiency of moving UACs from the border to the interior of The United States to unknown and unvetted sponsors. Unaccompanied alien children were being handed off to total strangers.
Then they disappeared into the darkness of labor and sex trafficking. In fact, a year later in August of twenty twenty four, the inspector general with oversight over over DHS issued a report stating that number lost UACs was not 85,000, it was over 320,000. My business partner, Ryan Matt, and I spent six months traveling across America filming a documentary titled, what is treason trafficked? The evil of child sex trafficking is difficult to digest and understand. However, after conducting numerous interviews with officers, agents, and whistleblowers from every alphabet agency and department, it was made clear to us that the federal government knowingly and actively facilitated these criminal acts.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
DOGE must investigate this and this must be outlawed. “Today, over 100 Members of Congress support a Bill to fund Ozempic with Medicare at $1,500 a month. Most of these members have taken money from the manufacturer of that product…” -HHS RFK Jr. https://t.co/DrseGnYTHE
Video Transcript AI Summary
Over 100 members of Congress support a bill to fund Ozempic with Medicare at $1,500 monthly, with most having received money from Novo Nordisk, its manufacturer. Approval for Medicare would extend to Medicaid, with potential recommendations for Americans as young as six for obesity, a condition claimed to be preventable and recently rare. With 74% of Americans obese, the total cost of Ozempic prescriptions could reach $3 trillion annually.
Ozempic has made Novo Nordisk the biggest company in Europe, yet the Danish government recommends diet and exercise instead. The company's value relies on projected Ozempic sales in America. For half the cost of Ozempic, every American could receive regeneratively raised organic food and obese Americans could receive gym memberships.
The speaker questions why Congress is supporting Novo Nordisk over American farmers and children, suggesting Novo Nordisk's funding of medical research influences media, politicians, and medical schools.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Today, over a hundred members of congress support a bill to fund Ozempic with Medicare at $1,500 a month. Most of these members have taken money from the manufacturer of that product, a European company called Novo Nordisk. As everyone knows, once the drug is approved for Medicare, it goes to Medicaid. And there is a push to recommend Ozempic for Americans as young as six over a condition obesity that is completely preventable and barely even existed one hundred years ago. Since seventy four percent of Americans are obese, the cost of all of them if they take their Ozempic prescriptions will be $3,000,000,000,000 a year.
This is a drug that has made Novo Nordisk the biggest company in Europe. It's a Danish company, but the Danish government does not recommend it. It recommends a change in diet to treat obesity and exercise. Virtually Novo Nordisk's entire value is based upon its projections of what Ozempic is going to sell to Americans. For half the price of Ozempic, we could purchase regeneratively raised organic agriculture or organic food for every American, three meals a day, and gym membership for every obese American.
Why are members of congress doing the bidding of this Danish company instead of standing up for American farmers and children? Because Novo Nordisk is one of the largest funders of medical research, The media and politicians and the medical schools all go wrong with them.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Bill Gates is scheduled to face a Civil Trial in Europe on November 27, 2025 where his Attorneys will represent him. “He’s been indicted in the Netherlands for lying to the public about the ‘Covid Vaccine’…” “He’s going to have to go to trial…” -HHS RFK Jr. CROWD CHEERS. https://t.co/C5I52lbBUu
Video Transcript AI Summary
Bill Gates reportedly donated $50 million to Kamala Harris's campaign via a 501c4, which is an organization allegedly set up to conceal large money donations. According to the New York Times, this was Gates's first donation in twenty years, during which he had remained bipartisan and stayed out of politics. When asked, Gates stated he donated zero to the 2020 campaign but felt the need to donate to Harris's campaign because it was different than any other. Separately, Gates was reportedly indicted in The Netherlands for lying to the public about the COVID vaccine and will have to go to trial. The speaker suggests Gates donated to Harris to avoid trial in the United States.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And I read an article that from the New York Times that Bill Gates had just donated $50,000,000 to Kamala Harris's campaign. And the article said that it was the first donation that he's made in twenty years. He stayed out of politics, and he's been bipartisan. It was a dark money donation. He didn't intend for it to be public.
He routed the donation through a five zero one c four, which was an organization that was set up to conceal large money donations to the Harris campaign. Now he he said when the times asked him, he said he had donated zero in the 2020 campaign when president Biden was running against president Trump. He said this campaign is different than any other. And so he felt the need to do this now. Do you think Bill Gates made that donation out of a patriotic impulse?
Do you think he made it out of a humanitarian impulse? No. Do you think he made it because he wants global health? No. Or because he wants to make America healthy again?
Well, there was something else. Another article about Bill Gates that came out today that said he's just been indicted. He's been indicted in The Netherlands for lying to the public about the COVID vaccine. And he's gonna have to go to trial. You think that he wants to go to trial here in The United States Of America?
You think maybe that's one of the reasons he chose to give $50,000,000 to Kamala Harris? Yeah. Oh.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
This is what the Deep State FEARS… RFK Jr. correctly explains at a New York Post Event that ‘Covid’ is a Bioweapon that ‘ethnically targets people’. He also states that the U.S. has spent $100M’s on Biolabs in Ukraine to develop similar Bioweapons. https://t.co/qrjWoneikt
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker asserts that the US and China are developing ethnically targeted microbes, with hundreds of millions of dollars invested. COVID-19 is cited as a possible example of an ethnically targeted bioweapon, disproportionately affecting certain races. According to the speaker, Caucasians and Black people are more susceptible to COVID-19, while Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people are more immune due to genetic differences in ACE2 receptors. The speaker claims the Chinese are spending heavily to develop ethnic bioweapons, and that US labs in Ukraine are collecting Russian and Chinese DNA for racial targeting purposes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And we need to talk about bioweapons. The web I know a lot now about bioweapons because I've been doing a book out for the past two and a half years and on and, you know, the the what we the technology that we now have to develop these microbes, we have we've put hundreds of millions of dollars into ethnically targeted microbes. The Chinese have done the same thing. In fact, COVID nineteen, there's an argument that it is ethnically targeted. COVID nineteen attacks certain races disproportionately.
The the the the that are most immune to COVID-nineteen are because of the structure of the genetic structure of genetic differentials among different races of the receptors of the ACE two receptor. COVID nineteen is targeted to attack Caucasians and black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese. And we don't know whether it was deliberately targeted at that or not, but there are papers out there that show you know, the racial and ethnic differential and the impact of that. We do know that the Chinese are spending hundreds of millions of dollars developing ethnic bioweapons, and we are developing ethnic bioweapons.
That's what all those labs in the Ukraine are about. They're they're collecting Russian DNA. They're collecting Chinese DNA so we can target people by race.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
HERE WE GO 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 SHUT DOWN the BIOLABS that are causing the ‘Pandemics’ Tulsi Gabbard explains… https://t.co/pjpNjcR0Zl
Video Transcript AI Summary
There are 25 to 30 US-funded bio labs in Ukraine researching dangerous pathogens. Because Ukraine is an active war zone, these labs could be compromised and release deadly pathogens that know no borders. If breached, these pathogens will spread throughout Europe, the United States, and the rest of the world, causing suffering and death.
To protect people, these labs need to be shut down immediately, and the pathogens they hold need to be destroyed. The Biden-Harris administration needs to work with Russia, Ukraine, NATO, and the UN to implement a ceasefire until the labs are secured and the pathogens destroyed. The US funds around 300 bio labs around the world engaging in dangerous research, including gain of function. These labs should have been shut down two years ago. The administration and congress need to act now for the health and well-being of every person on this planet.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Here are the undeniable facts. There are 25 to 30 US funded bio labs in Ukraine. According to the US government, these bio labs are conducting research on dangerous pathogens. Ukraine is in an active war zone with widespread bombing, artillery, and shelling, and these facilities, even in the best of circumstances, could easily be compromised and release these deadly pathogens. Now like COVID, these pathogens know no borders.
If they are inadvertently or purposely breached or compromised, they will quickly spread all throughout Europe, The United States, and the rest of the world causing untold suffering and death. So in order to protect the American people, the people of Europe, the people around the world, these labs need to be shut down immediately, and the pathogens that they hold need to be destroyed. Instead of trying to cover this up, the Biden Harris administration needs to work with Russia, Ukraine, NATO, the UN to immediately implement a ceasefire for all military action in the vicinity of these labs until they're secured and these pathogens are destroyed. In addition to all this, The US funds around 300 bio labs around the world who are engaging in dangerous research, including gain of function similar to the lab in Wuhan where COVID nineteen may have originated from. Now after realizing how dangerous and vulnerable these labs are, they should have all been shut down two years ago, but they haven't.
Now this is not a partisan political issue. The administration and congress need to act now for the health and well-being of every American and every person on this planet.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
I still can’t believe Pierre bashed President Trump at his concession speech. Of all things to say, he chose to criticize America and the most popular President in American History. “We’ll stare down tariffs and other irresponsible threats from President Trump…” https://t.co/fYBJNOcv5C
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker congratulates Prime Minister Carney on leading the minority government and acknowledges opportunities for debate while emphasizing unity as Canadians. They affirm their duty to hold the government accountable and propose better alternatives, but will always put Canada first. Facing tariffs and threats from President Trump, Conservatives will collaborate with the Prime Minister and all parties to defend Canada's interests. The goal is to secure a new trade deal that eliminates tariffs while safeguarding Canadian sovereignty and its people.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So I would like to congratulate prime minister Carney on leading this minority government. No. No. We'll we'll have plenty of opportunity to to debate and disagree, but tonight we come together as Canadians. We will do our job.
Yes. We will do our job to hold the government to account. But first, we congratulate people from all political backgrounds on participating in the democratic process. And as I said, while we will do our constitutional duty of holding government to account and proposing better alternatives, we will always put Canada First as we stare down tariffs and other irresponsible threats from president Trump. Conservatives will work with the prime minister and all parties with the common goal of defending Canada's interests and getting a new trade deal that puts these tariffs behind us while protecting our sovereignty and the Canadian people.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
I never thought I’d watch a White House Briefing where a British Media Influencer outright asks the Press Secretary if they’d consider Political Asylum for the Brits facing prison for posting memes on Social Media. https://t.co/C2rYEpp6Q1
Video Transcript AI Summary
A speaker claims that in Britain, over a quarter of a million people have been issued non-crime hate incidents, and people are imprisoned for reposting memes and social media posts. They ask if the Trump administration would consider political asylum for British citizens in this situation.
Speaker 1 responds that they have not heard this proposal or discussed it with the president, but they will speak to the national security team to see if the administration would entertain it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is in Britain we have had over a quarter quarter of a million people issued non crime hate incidents as we speak there are people in prison for quite literally reposting memes. We have extensive prison sentences and for for tweets, social media posts, and general free speech issues. Would the Trump administration consider political asylum for British citizens in such a situation?
Speaker 1: Well, to your latter question, it's a very good one. I have not heard that proposed to the president nor have I spoken to him about that idea, but I certainly can and talk to our national security team and see if it's something the administration would entertain.
Speaker 0: Yes, please.
Speaker 1: To your
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Straight out of a Horror Movie ‘Klaus Schwab’ of the World Economic Forum steps down from causing Global Tyranny. https://t.co/PDURwcGOGy
Video Transcript AI Summary
Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF), was born in Germany, where his father's company, Escher Weiss Ravensberg, used slave labor for Nazi weapons manufacturing. Schwab later joined the board. The WEF, founded in 1971, is a private organization that gathers world leaders, executives, celebrities, and influencers in Davos, Switzerland.
Schwab says he created the global shapers community to shape the future and that the WEF penetrates cabinets. He called for a "great reset" detailed in his book, "COVID-19: The Great Reset," aiming to replace independent governance with a one-world government and central bank-controlled digital currency.
Schwab views communist China as a model and invited Xi Jinping to Davos. Yuval Noah Harari says AI and data allow hacking and manipulation of humans, ending free will. Data is key to controlling the future.
China uses COVID tests to collect genetic data and employs a social credit system to monitor and control citizens, rewarding good behavior and punishing "bad citizens." Some view Shanghai as the world's largest prison.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Some people would say this revolution is characterized by the fight of robots against human beings, and we will win this fight.
Speaker 1: Professor Klaus Schwab was born in 1938 in Ravensburg, Germany, where Nazi crimes against humanity were committed. His father, Eugene Wilhelm Schwab, was the managing director of Escher Weiss Ravensberg, a company that used slave labor to manufacture weapons of war for the Third Reich. While Claus' father was at the helm, the Nazi party awarded Escher Weiss Ravensberg the title of National Socialist Model Company. Years later, Klaus Schwab joined the board of directors at Escher Weiss Ravensberg, where he played a key role in the development of South Africa's nuclear weapons program during the darkest years of the racist apartheid regime. Today, Claus Schwab is the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum.
Speaker 2: If you'd like to meet the people who are supposed to repair the state of the world or give a piece of your mind to the bankers who helped get us into this mess, we can tell you where to find a lot of them. The World Economic Forum.
Speaker 1: Founded in 1971, the World Economic Forum is an international private organization which receives billions of tax free dollars from its members and their global enterprises. Every year, the WEF brings together its members with world leaders, big pharma executives, tech titans, Hollywood Celebrities, Media Personalities, and Internet influencers to meet in the secluded mountains of Davos, Switzerland.
Speaker 2: It is a tiny town folded into the Swiss Alps, a village where you could but we're we're in States, but turns out there are two Davos', one you see and one you don't. After hours, there are hundreds of private parties where deals are done. People who can't be seen together in public can meet here.
Speaker 0: Your royal highnesses, excellencies, distinguished heads of state and government, the future is built by us, by a powerful community as you here in this room.
Speaker 3: Klaus Schwab, the founder of the WEF, is particularly upfront and even proud of his ability to shape and influence world politics.
Speaker 0: I created the community of global shapers as a means, as a force to shape our common future.
Speaker 3: And, of course, their global young leaders program is a grooming ground so that when they ultimately infiltrate cabinets
Speaker 0: We penetrate the cabinets.
Speaker 3: They will likely tend to govern a certain way.
Speaker 0: Nobody will be safe if not everybody is vaccinated.
Speaker 3: The names in the countries he mentioned ended up being some of the most dystopian and authoritative during this pandemic.
Speaker 0: Names like miss Merkel, Vladimir Putin, and so on.
Speaker 3: Other names? Jacinda Ardern, Sebastian Kurz, Mauricio Macri, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Ma, Gavin Newsom, And And And
Speaker 0: proud represent such a world better than you, prime minister?
Speaker 1: In 02/2014, Klaus Schwab called for the great reset
Speaker 0: We need a great reset.
Speaker 1: Which he positioned as the solution to the world's most urgent issues. The dark reality of Schwab's agenda is detailed in his bestselling book, COVID nineteen, the great reset. His endgame mission is to replace independent governance with a top down control, one world government, and a central bank controlled digital currency.
Speaker 4: When they say, you'll be happy, what they mean is, you'll be enslaved. That's why they're talking about a great reset. That's why they're talking about introducing this quasi communist, quasi socialist agenda. They know we've run the course where we cannot continue down the path of the ever increasing indebtedness because we have a generation that quite literally cannot afford to buy a house.
Speaker 5: Millions of Americans are priced out of buying a home.
Speaker 4: And so it's easy to tell that generation, we're gonna forgive your college debt.
Speaker 0: Student debt relief.
Speaker 4: And set your expectations lower. You're gonna rent forever. We're gonna celebrate the tiny house movement. We're gonna do all of these things which sound cool because they're shaping our narrative so that we become capable of expecting less. What we need to do is not expect less.
We need to remove inefficiencies so we can experience more. And that's the subtle distinction that the great reset is missing.
Speaker 1: Like most globalists, Schwab regards communist China as a shining model of how he intends to transform the world. We now welcome his excellency, Xi Jinping. China has made significant economic and social achievements under your leadership.
Speaker 6: Chinese influence on global affairs is growing. The founder of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, says that this is what motivated the group this year to invite president Xi Jinping to deliver the keynote address in Davos.
Speaker 7: Schwab said Xi's presence was a sign of the shift from a unipolar world dominated by The United States to a more multipolar system in which rising powers like China will have a step up and play a bigger role.
Speaker 0: I think it's a whole model for many countries, but we have to go one step further. It's a systemic transformation the world. Artificial intelligence, the metaverse, synthetic biology, our life in ten years from now will be completely different, and who masters those technologies will be the master of the world.
Speaker 1: Similar to his protege, Justin Trudeau, Claus Schwab makes a fascinating case study, yet he too is merely the master of his own world, economic forum.
Speaker 8: Science is replacing evolution by natural selection with evolution by intelligent design. Not the intelligent design of some god above the clouds, but our intelligent design and the intelligent design of our clouds, the IBM cloud, the Microsoft cloud, these are the new driving forces of evolution. Today, we have the technology to hack human beings on a massive scale. And by this, I mean that if you have enough data and you have enough computing power, you can understand people better than they understand themselves, and then you can manipulate them in ways which were previously impossible. You know, the the whole idea that humans have this soul or spirit and they have free will, that's over.
Now how exactly will the future masters of the planet look like? This will be decided by the people who own the data.
Speaker 5: Foreign powers can collect, store, and exploit biometric information from COVID tests.
Speaker 9: US intelligence officials tell CBS News that China is trying to collect Americans' DNA in hopes of controlling the future of health care.
Speaker 5: China's test kits are a tool to help China compile genetic data.
Speaker 4: The Chinese aren't the only ones exploring this technology. The US is working on
Speaker 3: it as well. White House is ramping up its COVID response, announcing Americans can once again get free COVID test kits.
Speaker 10: Bill Gates is again in a storm of controversy. Gates is found to have strong connections with the Chinese Beijing Genomic Institute, and the BGI is also known to have deep ties with the Chinese Communist Party's military.
Speaker 8: Data is the most important asset in the world. Those who control the data control the future, not just of humanity, but the future of life itself.
Speaker 11: Everywhere she goes, Oh Young Houyu is followed. What she buys, how she behaves, is tracked and scored to show how responsible and trustworthy she is. It's called the social credit system. A person's reputation is scored on a scale of three fifty to nine fifty. It's big data meets big brother, expanding how the government monitors, understands, and ultimately controls its 1,400,000,000 citizens.
Speaker 12: A good score brings benefits, but people with low scores lose rights. The cinema names and shames people considered untrustworthy, blastering their details, even their addresses across big screens. And information collectors are paid to report on their neighbors. The supreme court has created a blacklist for so called bad citizens.
Speaker 13: By using the mechanism of social credit, we'll be able to establish a blacklist of people. These punishments will serve as a whip to rebuild moral values.
Speaker 11: And few here are willing to criticize it, something that may pose a risk itself for a bad score and the life that comes with it.
Speaker 10: It may seem scary, but it's just like that here. We're used to it. And anyway, we don't have a choice. China wants obedient citizens. Criticism or resistance among the population is virtually nonexistent.
This
Speaker 9: woman's door was kicked in by police when she refused to go to quarantine.
Speaker 11: Now these videos show rows of metal containers which are being used to house COVID nineteen patients, some of them have complained that very little food is left for them in the freezing metal boxes. Chinese government officials now installing fences in Shanghai, blocking people from leaving their homes.
Speaker 4: For some, Shanghai feels like the world's largest prison.