reSee.it - Related Post Feed
reSee.it AI Summary
In "The Fauci Files," we uncover disturbing connections and controversies surrounding Dr. Anthony Fauci. From the polio vaccine contamination to the AIDS epidemic, there are claims of intentional harm. Fauci's involvement in clinical trials with toxic therapies raises questions about his approach. The approval of AZT and its subsequent deaths adds to the suspicion. Allegations of Fauci's mistreatment of foster children and animal testing further tarnish his reputation. The article also touches on his role in the COVID pandemic, lockdowns, and vaccine injuries. The Fauci Files demand further scrutiny and potential prosecution.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
THE POLIO AIDS CONNECTION ACCORDING TO THE CDC WEBSITE From 1955 to 1963, an estimated 10-30% of polio vaccines administered in the US were contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40). The virus came from monkey kidney cell cultures used to make polio vaccines at that time. Most of the contamination was in the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), but it was also found in oral polio vaccine (OPV).
Video Transcript AI Summary
In the 1950s, the cancer industry gained momentum when polio vaccines were tested and given to millions of people worldwide. These vaccines, made from contaminated monkey kidney tissues, contained a cancer-causing virus called SV40. Realizing the potential for cancer epidemics, officials within the National Cancer Institute started a special virus cancer program in 1962. By 1971, they had created various deadly viruses in laboratories, including leukemia, lymphoma, sarcoma, encephalitis, genital herpes, Hodgkin's disease, influenza, and infectious mononucleosis.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Developing cancer industry really got a shot in the arm back in the 1950s, when the first polio vaccines produced in contaminated monkey kidney tissues containing cancer viruses were being tested and injected in millions of people worldwide. The cancer virus later identified as SV40. It was determined to cause cancer in nearly every species it was injected. More. After scientists and informed industrialists realized these vaccines were going to produce epidemics of cancer, mud.
Cartel officials within the National Cancer Institute started a special virus cancer program. By the SBCP in 1962, according to secretive documents. Here is simply a partial list of the deadly viruses they created in labs by 1971. These included leukemia viruses, lymphoma virus, like sarcoma viruses, encephalitis agents, genital herpes, Hodgkin's disease, influenza, infectious mononucleosis.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
AIDS SENT TO AFRICA TO DESTABILIZE COUNTRIES
Video Transcript AI Summary
CYMA was a mercenary organization funded by foreign governments. Their purpose was to destabilize countries and engage in military operations. The speaker was on the front line, leading operations and fighting hand to hand. They confirmed that people were killed during these operations. One unit within CYMA was involved in spreading AIDS through vaccines in African countries, with the intention of eradicating black people. The speaker visited Maxwell's clinics in Johannesburg, where black people were injected with HIV under the guise of preventing AIDS. CYMA's base of operations was in Mozambique, and they were hired to suppress resistance against white manipulation in Africa. Dag Hammarskjold, who opposed such exploitation, was killed because he threatened corporate interests. Africa's fight against exploitation would have been different if Hammarskjold had lived.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So simply put, what is CYMA?
Speaker 1: CYMA was a clandestine mercenary organization for hire. Financed by whom? Financed by foreign governments.
Speaker 0: And what was the purpose of Saima?
Speaker 1: Saima was there to go and destabilize certain countries and, basically, we were soldiers.
Speaker 0: And what was Your role specifically, were you in the front line, so to speak?
Speaker 1: Yes, I was definitely in the front line. Operational frontline, hand to hand frontline, fighting frontline, leading operations, if you want to call it that.
Speaker 0: Did did you kill people yourself?
Speaker 1: Yes. Can be very Basically, this is operational headquarters for Saima. Reminiscence of military personnel in the act. For example well, we can go. There's the barracks.
Anything from 5,000 people upwards. That many? So Saima was a big organization.
Speaker 0: And what kind of operations were you doing?
Speaker 1: Well, it was Kurdistan operations. We were involved in coups taking over countries for other leaders. We were involved in Mozambique spreading anti AIDS virus through medical conditions. We were involved in, Angola with Doctor. Jonas Savimbi for various operations.
We got military support.
Speaker 0: So people were killed during these operations?
Speaker 1: Definitely. You mentioned the
Speaker 0: I'll just do the question again and then you can pop in.
Speaker 1: You mentioned actively spreading AIDS? There was a unit in from Saima that, one of the things was that we went into African countries.
Speaker 0: And how was that done exactly?
Speaker 1: Through inoculation. Through vaccines? Yes, through vaccines. Pretending to inoculate people and type of thing.
Speaker 0: The idea being to kill black people?
Speaker 1: Yeah. To eradicate black people. You must understand the concept was that AIDS was a killer. It was incurable at that point in time, so it was led to believe that if infected people, it was the quick non militaristic approach to eliminate black people.
Speaker 0: And that is something you know for a fact that AIDS was Actually being spread to other countries?
Speaker 1: Yes. To African countries. We were at war. Black people in South Africa were the enemy.
Speaker 0: But so it was about white supremacy?
Speaker 1: Definitely. Definitely trying to retain the white supremacy on the African continent.
Speaker 0: And furthermore, he tells us that the purpose of Maxwell's clinics in and around Johannesburg was to infect black people with HIV.
Speaker 1: He had the one in Tukhosa, he had the one in Alex. If I'm not mistaken, that was on the West Rand. And these were research facilities for them to inject people with a solution to see that they prevented AIDS in it, in the meantime they were injecting people with AIDS.
Speaker 0: And he was only working on black people in these clinics For almost nothing.
Speaker 1: But that's what I'm saying. So you know what, I mean, what is a way to get a big guinea pig that you live in the apartheid system, Black people have got no rights, they need medical treatment, there's a white philanthropist coming in and saying, you know what, I'll open up these clinics and I will treat you, I will do this and meantime, you actually the wolf in sheep's clothing. That's cruel.
Speaker 0: Did you visit these clinics yourself?
Speaker 1: Yes. I went to the clinic in Alix where there was the research facility thing and there was monitors, there was tubes, there was a proper lab, if I if if you wanna say it's scientist lab, you know, proper freaky person that I know of. Base of operations for this project was in Mozambique. Anybody that resisted any white form of manipulation on the African continent. Saima was prepared to go and quell those for a price at a cost.
And that was one thing that Dag Hammarskjold was totally against. And he wanted every country for the people of the country. And obviously, when you've got investments, when there's minerals, gold, diamonds, oil, and all of that stuff,
Speaker 2: from all sides to make the Congo a happy hunting ground for national interests. To be a roadblock to such efforts, Estimate yourself to target of attacks from all those who find our plans to avoid.
Speaker 1: He was killed because he was going to change the way that Africa dealt with the rest of the world financially and he was a threat. And who's got the most to lose? Corporate. Corporate business worldwide. People are greedy.
People want what others have got, and they don't want to pay for it. That's why they come to Africa, because Africa seemed to be easy in third world. And now Africa is starting to fight back. And I think it would have happened 30 years ago 40 years ago if Doug Heimerd had his way. Africa would have been a completely different continent today if Doug Heimer Scholl was allowed to live and follow through on his mandate.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
1980’s HIV / AIDS EPIDEMIC From June 1981 - 2021 40.1 MILLION PEOPLE DIED FROM HIV / AIDS 64.4 MILLION CONFIRMED CASES
Video Transcript AI Summary
AIDS, initially seen as a disease affecting only gay individuals, is a condition that weakens the immune system and can lead to Kaposi's sarcoma, a rare form of cancer. This cancer has a high death rate of 80% within two years of diagnosis. AIDS also causes severe infections with a 100% death rate within two years. It is not a benign disease and is not limited to the gay community. Currently, 75% of cases are among homosexuals, 14% among heterosexual drug addicts, 5% among heterosexuals with no other risk factors, 5% among Haitian refugees, and 1% among hemophiliacs who likely contracted it through blood transfusions. Females who are partners of male drug addicts and infants of female drug addicts can also be affected.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Immune deficiency syndrome or AIDS started as an exclusively gay disease. This depression of the immune system can lead to a rare form of cancer, Kaposi's sarcoma, which shows up in those purplish spots. This cancer has a death rate of 80% 2 years after diagnosis. AIDS also causes unusual infections with death rates of a 100% in 2 years. This is not a benign disease nor is it limited to gaze as we are now finding out.
So far, 75% of cases are homosexuals, but 14% are heterosexual drug addicts. 5% are nondrug using heterosexuals with no other risk factors. 5% are Haitian refugees and 1% are hemophiliacs who presumably caught it from blood transfusions. Females who are partners of male drug addicts can get the disease and also infants of female drug addicts.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
Video Transcript AI Summary
There is a dangerous and deadly disease called AIDS that poses a threat to everyone. It can be transmitted through sexual intercourse with an infected person, affecting both men and women. Although it has mainly affected small groups, it is spreading. It is crucial to protect yourself by being aware and informed. Ignoring AIDS could lead to death, so it is important not to die due to ignorance. This message was conveyed in a public information film.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Danger that has become a threat to us all. It is a deadly disease, and there is no known cure. The virus can be passed during sexual intercourse with an infected person. Anyone can get it, man or woman. So far, it's Be confined to small groups, but it's spreading.
So protect yourself. I read the sleep that glitter eyes. If you ignore AIDS, it could be the death of you. So don't die of ignorance. That was a public information film.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THAT HIV / AIDS WAS INTENTIONALLY USED TO KILL OFF THE GAY POPULATION!
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker accuses individuals from the NIH, including Gallo, Fousey, Hazeltine, and Essex, of being criminals guilty of genocide. They challenge Burroughs Wellcome to take them to court, claiming they have evidence of a killer drug. The speaker questions why the press ignores these truths and mentions virologist Peter Duesberg, who has risked his career by challenging the mainstream narrative. Despite losing his laboratory and funding, Duesberg's tenured professorship remains intact.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And I will put the lie to the individuals of the NIH, particularly Gallo and Fousey and Hazeltine and Essex and the rest of these scoundrels of the worst order. Criminals guilty of genocide, without a doubt. I invite them to take me to court. I wish Burroughs Wellcome would take me to court because they have been putting out a killer drug knowingly. Because in a court of law, I would have the opportunity to provide the absolute proof and evidence as I have in my book, Deadly Deception.
Now, I'm not alone in what I'm doing here today. How does the press escape such obvious truths? Why would the finest Virologists in the world, the most noted virologists, member of our National Academy of Sciences, Peter Duesberg, why would he put his entire career on the line? What did he have to gain? He's already lost his laboratory and his funding, we can't take away his professorship because he is tenured.
Video Transcript AI Summary
I believe it's possible that the AIDS virus is a result of genetic warfare testing by American agents.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We're gonna chase me. I believe that it is quite highly possible that that the the AIDS virus is a result of genetic warfare testing. By American agents?
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
Video Transcript AI Summary
AIDS is believed by some to have been created in a lab as a bioweapon. In the 1950s, around 100 million people were infected with the simian virus through contaminated vaccines. The first case of HIV in humans was discovered four years later. During Bill Clinton's time as governor of Arkansas, a company called Health Management Associates (HMA) earned millions of dollars by selling blood to international pharmaceutical companies. The blood was obtained from prisoners, many of whom were infected with hepatitis and AIDS. Products made from the HMA blood caused people to contract AIDS, leading to lawsuits and a temporary shutdown by the FDA. However, Clinton revived the company in 1984 and it continued until he became president.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: People believe that AIDS was created in a lab as a bioweapon, but did you know how it spread? In the 19 fifties, approximately one 100,000,000 people were infected with the simian virus by way of contaminated vaccines. And 4 years later, the first case of HIV in a human was discovered. But things really took off when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. With his support, the company Health Management Associates, HMA, was earning 1,000,000 of dollars a year by blood to international pharmaceutical companies.
The blood was procured from prisoners, many of whom were infected with hepatitis and AIDS. Soon after, the products made from the HMA infected blood began giving people AIDS. Lawsuits ensued, and the FDA shut it down for 6 months. But Bill Clinton got it back up again in 1984 and let it run until he got elected as president. And by that time
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
FAUCI AIDS CONNECTION “We wanted treatment because we were sick and the only place where there was any possible area to get any treatment was through the clinical research system. And that’s what led us to you” CREATE THE VIRUS, THEN THE CURE!
Video Transcript AI Summary
The early belief was that AIDS was limited to the male homosexual community and IV drug users. However, it was later discovered that groups like Haitians and hemophiliacs were also affected, and there were concerns about transmission through blood transfusions. A recent article by Alasky revealed that children in close contact with individuals at high risk for AIDS showed symptoms identical to AIDS syndrome, suggesting that the disease could be transmitted through intimate contact rather than just sexual or blood transmission. This led to speculation in the media that AIDS could be spread through casual contact, causing unnecessary fear.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Early on, as you know, the disease was felt to be, limited to the male homosexual community and then the IV drug users. And then we began to see that groups like Haitians, hemophiliacs, the implications of possible transmission via blood transfusions. When you have a situation that we're seeing here with this recent article by Alasky in which children, household contacts of either individuals with AIDS or individuals at high risk for AIDS have indeed at least, at least a significant number of them have what looks like a syndrome that's identical to AIDS syndrome, that tells you that it's quite possible that just intimate contact outside of the sexual contact blood transmission route is a possible mechanism whereby this disease can be transmitted.
Speaker 1: It was that which brought to focus the possibility and the conjecture on the part of the lay press that perhaps AIDS could be spread by casual contact, namely by having an an infant or a child in a home Being rocked or put on the knee of an uncle who was an IV drug user, and in fact, was harboring the virus. That was very unfortunate Because what that led to was a fear that maybe it was transmitted by casual contact.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Homosexuality is not the issue here. It's about the spread of an infectious agent through sexual contact. This setup is perfect for transmission. So, the idea is to introduce the agent into a population.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Not that there was anything intrinsically different or wrong or what have you about homosexuality. It was very simple. It's straightforward epidemiology. You take an infectious agent and you introduce it into a population simple in which the spread among those individuals give a sexual contact spread. It's a perfect setup for spread.
In any event, what simple safe. And in law state, you take an infectious agent and you introduce it into a population.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The FDA will address the issue and expand the indication for AZT. Anthony Fauci recommended that anyone with CD4 cells lower than 500, even if they were healthy, should take AZT as a preventive measure. AZT is a modified nucleic acid that can disrupt cell replication, similar to chemotherapy drugs. However, there have been cases of severe side effects, including death and disfigurement. Some individuals have found success with alternative treatments like hyperthermia, vitamin C drips, and ozone treatment, but these options are not widely accepted by the medical community. Fauci has been criticized for his disregard of natural and nontoxic therapies and his promotion of AZT, which was considered highly toxic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: FDA will move as quickly as possible to address this issue and expand the, the indication for for AZ 2.
Speaker 1: He didn't even blink. This was entirely second nature to him to unblinkingly get on television night after night and speak of this incredibly toxic chemical, and I mean really toxic.
Speaker 0: People with Asymptomatic HIV infection. Since AZT is a is a drug that's already on the market, physicians can can, at their discretion, prescribe it For whatever it is that they want to prescribe it for.
Speaker 1: Anthony Fauci made a decision at a certain point and came out with it that anybody with CD 4 cells lower than 500, though they were still healthy and not symptomatic of AIDS, should go on AZT as a preventive measure. Sure.
Speaker 0: All participants whose T4 counts are less than 500 should be offered AZT.
Speaker 2: I knew that the drug had come out of an anticancer program. It basically is a modified, Nucleic acid, our DNA and RNA are made of these little chemical bases. And when you modify some of them, They can jam the machinery of cells replicating. That's how a lot of chemotherapy drugs work, and this is just the same.
Speaker 1: 1 person so I interviewed his brother. He was perfectly healthy and had been persuaded to go on a high dose of AZT, and he was dead within a year, but also his face melted melted away. It's like it's it's like Hiroshima, very powerful radiation.
Speaker 3: He was diagnosed. He had advanced AIDS near death, just months to live, massive infections in His lungs, all over his body, Kaposi's sarcoma, lesions on his skin, high titers of the virus all throughout his body. And instead of being dead today, as most of the people taking AZT were, by undergoing Hyperthermia at the University of Rome, today he is alive and well. There is a successful series of treatments. I use the word treatments.
There's no one treatment I think is better than any other. Hyperthermia, vitamin c drips, ozone treatment.
Speaker 4: I had taken my medical records down to the National Institutes of Health to doctor Fauci's lab and showed them because they have presently discredited this treatment. And then that's why our federal government has not allowed it here in the United States as of yet. Showed them my medical records, And what I did is I blanked out a set that had my name on it, showed them, and said, well, what do you think of this? Their response is, well, this person obviously got better. What did they do?
Speaker 1: Fauciism is a an absolute contempt for natural nontoxic therapies, The contempt for the whole dialectic and discussion about what is an immune system, what is health, how do you detoxify, what What does it mean when you're when you're getting sick from a a chronic illness? Is it just a matter of attacking the accused pathogen with the most toxic drugs kind of imaginable. AZT, At the time, it was the most toxic drug that had ever been put in a capsule and given to human beings.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
THE FAUCI AIDS PLANDEMIC Anthony Fauci oversaw the government sponsored clinical trials that test and retest combinations of immunosuppressive, toxic therapies that kill people with HIV. The majority of U.S. clinical trials involve antivirals like AZT combined with some other another toxic antiviral. What these tests have proven is that they were testing dangerous compounds that hurt the consumer more than treat. A LETTER TO FAUCI BY AN AIDS PATIENT - Ten years of the plague has shown us that trying to kill the virus kills people with AIDS, and you, Dr. Fauci, know it. How long will it take you to start focusing on the immune system, how to boost it and how to prevent the opportunistic infections that are killing people with AIDS? Even you admit that "the immune response against HIV is extremely powerful and is clearly more effective than any of the therapeutic approaches currently available in controlling virus replication." ZIDOVUDINE or AZT, was the first HIV drug approved by the U.S. FDA in 1987. Due to the drug’s fast-track approval and toxicity, zidovudine was controversial for treating HIV due to the high number of deaths it caused. Many people believe that ANTHONY FAUCI knew the danger of AZT, but chose to help approve it just to make money!
Video Transcript AI Summary
Michael Vitrelis expresses frustration with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for not testing life-saving drugs. He specifically mentions peptide t and compound q, and directs his anger towards Anthony Fauci. Protesters outside the NIH criticize the organization for not releasing a cure and highlight conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies. They also mention the exclusion of people of color, women, and children from trials. The focus on AZT, a toxic and expensive drug, is questioned, suggesting a connection between its manufacturers and the NIH. The protesters argue that the NIH's staff, who decide which treatments to study, receive funding from drug companies, raising concerns about objectivity.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Michael Vitrelis, and I'm pissed.
Speaker 1: You know? The whole thing with
Speaker 0: the National Institutes of Health is they won't test any of these drugs that'll keep people alive. And and I got this saying, no peptide t, no compound q. Anthony Fauci, I piss on you.
Speaker 2: We're protesting out in front of the fucking NIH because they cannot they're not hiding all drugs they're not coming out with a cure, and they're not doing their job.
Speaker 3: We're talking about their conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical companies. We're talking about the fact that they didn't allow people of color into their trials. We're talking about the fact that they don't care about women. They don't care about children. Health score of the NIH.
Score of the NIH.
Speaker 4: There's a blatant conflict of interest, and this runs rampant through all of NIH. And this is the history of how AZT became a subject of over 80% today of the studies being done by NIH for AIDS treatments. This one drug that's already shown itself to be highly toxic, very expensive, and of, at best, extremely limited effectiveness.
Speaker 1: It's too toxic for me, and there's nothing which I can't take. And the only drug which these people seem to have any any concern with is ADT. Obviously, there's something going on here between the makers of AZT and and the NIH.
Speaker 3: Fauci is
Speaker 5: the head of the NIH, and,
Speaker 6: he hasn't done much in that area. 80% of the
Speaker 7: drugs are still dealing with AZT,
Speaker 6: and the NIH runs the drug trial systems.
Speaker 4: The staff of NIH, the very people that make the decisions about which treatments are gonna get studied and which treatments are gonna be ignored, are Getting money from the leading drug companies to do testing of those drugs, how can those people possibly be objective?
Speaker 0: No peptide t. No compound Fauci, I'd piss
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
ANTHONY FAUCI KILLED, TORTURED POOR MINISTRY CHILDREN IN THE 1980s The National Institutes of Health had tested AIDS drugs on hundreds of foster children in the late 1980s and '90s. In many instances, allegedly, the drugs were given without having independent monitors assigned to the children, which is the law in most of the states where these tests were conducted. MANY CHILDREN DIED!
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses The Real Anthony Fauci book and mentions that they haven't read it but have heard about it in interviews. They question if the book's claims are true since Fauci hasn't been sued yet. They mention that the book talks about unethical actions during the AIDS pandemic, such as testing vaccines on foster kids, including babies. The speaker also mentions the harmful effects of AZT, a chemotherapy medication, and how it was administered to Arthur Ashe, who died quickly without prior symptoms. Overall, the speaker portrays Fauci as a negative figure based on the information in the book.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Have you read The Real Anthony Fauci, his book? No. I I haven't. I've I've heard him talk about it in in several different interviews. Yeah.
Yeah. If he hasn't been sued yet, and he hasn't been sued yet for it, like, does that mean it's true? I mean, he's got so many references in that book. If you read that book, Just when they talk about what they did during the AIDS pandemic. Mhmm.
Holy shit, man. Fauci's a very bad guy. The what they did I mean, in the book I mean, I don't wanna paraphrase. I wanna make sure I'm I'm accurate about this, but They tested vaccines on foster kids, including babies. Like, when you read what they did during the pandemic and It's spooky fucking shit.
Also, like, the application of AZT as a treatment. Yeah. That AZT was a a chemotherapy medication that was Killing people quicker than cancer. It's scary stuff, man. When you when when he talks about Arthur Ashe And Arthur Ash taking AZT and dying very quickly afterwards and that Arthur Ash didn't even, like, have any symptoms before he's got on medication?
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
#BEAGLEGATE ANTHONY FAUCI Spent millions of taxpayer’s money to torture a total of 58,000 beagles. The tests consisted of putting the dogs heads in flea infested nets to see the effects it had on the dog. Most of the dogs died and many animal activists have been speaking against his inhumane abuse towards animals
Video Transcript AI Summary
Healthy beagles were subjected to an experimental drug and intentionally infested with disease-carrying flies, known as maximum pain experimentation. FOIA documents reveal the animals suffered greatly, being eaten and gnawed raw until infected. Dr. Fauci's budget has reached over $6 billion in annual tax-funded funding, with at least half being wasted on questionable animal experiments like these beagle tests and other maximum pain experiments. It is important to hold Fauci accountable for the significant waste and abuse, both domestically and internationally.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Healthy beagles are given an experimental drug and then intentionally infested with flies that carry a disease. This process is known as maximum pain experimentation. And FOIA documents reveal the animals suffered horribly from being eaten and gnawed raw until infected. Fauci's budget has ballooned to over $6,000,000,000 in tax Pay your funding annually. At least half of which is being wasted on more questionable animal experimentation like these deadly and unnecessary beagle tests and other maximum pain experiments.
Fauci needs to be held accountable for the staggering waste and abuse both overseas and right here at home.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
OTHER INHUMANE TESTING included spending $100 million taxpayer’s money to torture monkeys by removing portions of their brains and destroying them with ACID similar to what serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer did to his victims.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
THE FAUCI 5 MONTH OLD ABORTED BABY SCALP STUDIES!
Video Transcript AI Summary
A study at the University of Pittsburgh, which I cannot show images of, was reported on at centerformedicalprogress.org. The study is significant, but the details can be found in the video on the website.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Studies that I have ever reported on. As you say, you can't show the images on air. You can watch them in the video that's posted at centerformedicalprogress.org. At the University of Pittsburgh they were doing a study that I have ever reported on. As you say, you can't show the images on air.
You can watch send in the video that's posted at centerformedicalprogress.org. At the University of Pittsburgh, they were doing a
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
Video Transcript AI Summary
Based on my experience, I can confidently say that the upcoming administration will face challenges in the field of infectious diseases. These challenges include both chronic infectious diseases, which are already prevalent, and the possibility of a surprise outbreak.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I want to leave with you today based on my experience, and you'll see that in a moment, is that there is no question that there will be a challenge in the coming administration, in the arena of infectious diseases, both chronic infectious diseases in the sense of already ongoing disease, and we have certainly a large burden of that, from, but also there will be a surprise outbreak.
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speaker talks about embedding a virus in the flu to create panic and get people to line up for their creation. They believe that what they are doing is bigger than death and that everything they do is a cure for the current situation. They have realized that they don't need to kill to achieve their goal, which is to stop human reproduction for three generations. They plan to sterilize people, and in about 45 years, they expect to see a decline in birth rates as teenagers delay childbearing. Their intention is to save humanity from itself.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yet, in that virus, I embedded in the scene of the flu. It created a panic. And now we have exactly what we want. Hundreds of millions of Americans lining up, offering us their arms, and letting us give them our creation. Ex What we are doing is far bigger than death.
What have you done today to earn your place in this crowded world? Ex Everything I do is a cure for our current situation. It was the amazing epiphany we had. We didn't have to kill to accomplish our goal. We intend to stop human reproduction for 3 generations.
A busy, endless global assembly line of babies who are grim to all. You're sterilizing people? Ex Uh-huh. In the 4th 5 years, we'll start to see major birth rate declines as teenagers stay into childbearing years. We are saving ourselves from ourselves.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
Video Transcript AI Summary
Treating people like adults and providing qualified information could have potentially prevented lockdowns. However, disagreeing with this perspective, the speaker argues that not knowing the outcome doesn't change the necessity of lockdowns. Lockdowns were implemented when the hospital system in New York was overwhelmed, aiming to halt the spread of the virus. While lockdowns have gained a negative reputation, they were considered a last resort and were never intended to be permanent.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If we had treated people like adults and given them the information as qualified like you guys do about everything else in our medical lives, Nobody gives you a 100% of anything. Everything's percentages. Don't you think maybe we would have avoided the lockdowns?
Speaker 1: I have to disagree with you, Chris. I love you, but I Gotta disagree with you, of course. The fact is that by saying you don't know doesn't really change Whether or not you're gonna lock down. Lockdowns got a bad reputation. But remember, when we put a pause on things for 15 days and then an additional 30 days.
It was at a time when the hospital system in New York was being overrun. And the only way you stop that is by essentially stopping the virus in its tracks. You can do that By locking down. But lockdown has to be the last resort, and it can never be permanent.
Video Transcript AI Summary
I advised the president to shut down the country, despite knowing it would have significant economic consequences. I did not recommend locking anything down, but rather made a difficult decision to protect public health.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: First of all, I didn't recommend locking anything down. And the record will show, Neil, that we didn't recommend shutting everything down. I recommended to the president that we shut the country down, and that was very difficult decision Because I knew it would have serious economic consequences, which it did.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
THE FAUCI - ECOHEALTH ALLIANCE CONNECTION + THE LIE UNDEROATH
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 denies funding gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Speaker 1 reveals that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded research on a bat coronavirus at the Wuhan lab, making it more contagious. Speaker 2 questions Dr. Fauci about his previous statement, but he stands by it. Speaker 3 mentions a letter raising concerns about experiments in the Wuhan lab. Speaker 0 interrupts and accuses Senator Paul of lying. Speaker 2 argues that if the virus originated from the lab, those who funded it should be held responsible. Speaker 4 states that the NIH admitted funding gain of function research at the Wuhan lab, contradicting Dr. Fauci's claims. Speaker 0 maintains that he has never lied before Congress.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I I don't know how many times I can say it, madam chair. We did not fund gain of function research to be conducted in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Speaker 1: In our health lead, we now know that a bat coronavirus was enhanced in a lab.
Speaker 0: NIH and NIAID Categorically has not funded gain of function research to be conducted in the Wuhan Institute.
Speaker 1: The National Institutes of health acknowledged that it funded research of a virus that was studied at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The experiment, expectedly, we're told, made a bat coronavirus more contagious than the original naturally occurring one.
Speaker 2: Doctor Fauci, Knowing that it is a crime to lie to Congress, do you wish to retract your statement of May 11th where you claimed that the NIH never funded gain of function research in Wuhan?
Speaker 0: Senator Paul, I have never lied before the congress, and I do not retract that statement.
Speaker 3: A new letter raising questions experiments in a Wuhan lab.
Speaker 0: What was let me finish.
Speaker 2: You take an animal virus and you increase its transmittal to humans. Right. You're saying that's not gain of function?
Speaker 0: That is correct. And and, senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about, quite frankly, and I wanna say that officially. You do not know what you are talking about.
Speaker 3: For years, the National Institutes of Health providing grant money to the People Health Alliance Research Group, which conducted experiments with bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, China.
Speaker 0: And if Anybody is lying here, senator. It is you. That's where you are getting. Let me finish.
Speaker 2: We don't know. Wait If it did come from the lab, but all the evidence is pointing that it came from the lab, you There will be responsibility for those who funded the lab, Including yourself.
Speaker 4: National Institute of Health admitted this week that it funded controversial gain of function research using coronaviruses
Speaker 3: at The lab in China at
Speaker 4: the epicenter of the pandemic, contradicting claims from doctor Anthony Fauci that American tax dollars never plead for that Kind of research.
Speaker 0: I have not lied before congress. I have never lied. Certainly not before congress. Case closed.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
https://theintercept.com/2021/09/09/covid-origins-gain-of-function-research/
NIH Documents Provide New Evidence U.S. Funded Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan
The National Institutes of Health-funded experiment in Wuhan, China, posed biosafety risks but did not cause the Covid-19 pandemic, scientists say.
theintercept.com
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
AND THE DOUBLE DOWN! https://t.co/7DXNeekl0Q
Video Transcript AI Summary
Senator Paul accuses Dr. Fauci of lying to Congress about funding gain of function research in Wuhan. Dr. Fauci denies lying and stands by his previous statement. The debate centers around the definition of gain of function research and whether the funded research qualifies. Senator Paul argues that the research increased the transmissibility of animal viruses to humans, making it gain of function. Dr. Fauci disputes this and asserts that the origins of SARS-CoV-2 are still unknown. The exchange becomes heated as Senator Paul suggests that those who funded the lab, including Dr. Fauci, should be held responsible for the pandemic. Dr. Fauci strongly denies this accusation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Doctor Fauci, knowing that it is a crime to lie to congress, do you wish to retract your statement of May 11th where you claimed that the NIH never funded gain of function research in Wuhan?
Speaker 1: Senator Paul, I have never lied before the congress, and I do not retract That statement, this paper that you're referring to was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gain of function. What was let me finish.
Speaker 0: Take an animal virus and you increase ability to humans Right. You're saying that's not gain the funding?
Speaker 1: That is correct. And and, senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about, quite Frankly, and I wanna say that officially, you do not know what you are talking about. Okay? You get 1 person Let's
Speaker 0: Read from the NIH that the claim of gain of function. This is your definition that you guys wrote. It says that scientific research that increases the transmittivity about transmissibility among animals is gain of function. They took animal viruses that only occur in animals, and they increased their transmissibility to humans, how you can say that is not gain a fund? It is not.
It's a dance, and you're dancing around this because you're trying to obscure responsibility for 4,000,000 people dying around the world from a pandemic?
Speaker 1: Unless that's something, doctor Fatima. I have to well, now you're getting into Something. If the point that you are making is that the the the grant that was funded as a subaward from EkoHealth to Wuhan created SARS CoV 2. That's where you are getting. Let me finish.
We don't know. Wait a minute.
Speaker 0: I came to the lab, but all the evidence is pointing that came from the lab, you there will be responsibility for those who funded the lab, including yourself.
Speaker 1: I totally This this will allow the witness I totally resent the lie that you are now propagating,
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
THE VACCINE INJURIES 💉 https://t.co/Y52ogvMjCO
Video Transcript AI Summary
During a recent football game, a player collapsed on the field, and some people on Twitter quickly blamed the vaccine for his seizure. Dr. Fauci expressed concern about the spread of misinformation and disinformation on social media platforms. He emphasized that conspiracy theories can lead to people deciding not to get vaccinated, putting their lives at risk. While there is a small shred of evidence linking vaccines to myocarditis, it is extremely rare and generally resolves quickly. In contrast, COVID itself poses a much higher risk of heart-related issues. Dr. Fauci also mentioned that the player's collapse was likely due to a traumatic injury, not the vaccine. He has been dealing with the spread of misinformation throughout the entire COVID pandemic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I don't know if you saw it, but on Monday Night Football this week, DeMar Hamlin, a player for the Buffalo Bills, collapsed on the field. You're not an NFL expert, and you're not an expert on any cardiovascular issues the player might have had. But what I wanna ask you about, doctor Fauci, is As I want to do in moments like that, I kept an eye on Twitter. And I can't tell you exactly how many minutes transpired, but it was less than 20 before people on Twitter began to say, well, clearly, the vaccine caused his seizure. Right.
And that had a multiplier effect on Twitter as these things tend to do. What's your reaction to that?
Speaker 1: Well, my reaction is one of concern
Speaker 0: about Isn't horror? Borderline More than concerned?
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's horror that misinformation and disinformation. When you have a platform Like social media that exponentially spreads in its best form, proper An important and value added information can spread, which is good.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: The thing as a public health person and as a physician and a scientist and my My identity as a physician is the thing that gets pained the most by that because what that means, Major, is that Yet again, another conspiracy theory, complete nonsense, is gonna have some people make a decision For themselves and their family not to get vaccinated, which may cost them their lives. So that's the thing that's so horrible about it. And if you wanna go out spouting nonsense, conspiracy theories, and spreading it all around, fine, except If it results in a person suffering and perhaps dying, and that's what happens when disinformation Disincentivizes people to get proper interventions for a threat like a pandemic.
Speaker 0: And in some of these instances, as you well know, doctor Fauci, there is Some shred of evidence, myocarditis, was related to vaccines. It is a heart issue. I'm not a doctor. You are. That's a shred
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: Of evidence.
Speaker 1: A very small shred. Right?
Speaker 0: What And explain how then this can get conflated.
Speaker 1: In a very, very rare case, some of the mRNA vaccines can cause a self Limiting, almost invariably benign inflammatory response in the heart which generally resolves in a very short Period of time. It is very, very rare. When you compare that with the negative effects on the heart By myocarditis or pericarditis, which is inflammation of either the heart muscle or the covering of the heart, and heart Failure and heart medical problems. Overwhelmingly, COVID itself Causes that in a dramatically higher rate than the relatively benign mild myocarditis that you might have With a vaccine, which is very, very rare. So that little thread of proof is that is it possible That he was and the fact is someone came out, I and I just read this.
I haven't validated it, but I've read That some physician came out and made the incorrect statement that he had just vaccinated this football player a week earlier. To to add to the conspiracy that he was recently vaccinated and therefore that's why he collapsed on the field, when if you look at the film, it's Clear that he had a very big, strong person's shoulder go into his chest, which Clearly can cause a traumatic injury to the heart, and yet the conspiracy theory about this related to vaccine, you're right. It's spread all over.
Speaker 0: And that's been something you have been living with and living through the entire COVID process.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
THE FAUCI TWITTER FILES! https://t.co/J49mF0xkWo
Video Transcript AI Summary
Twitter released the long-awaited Fauci files, revealing that Dr. Anthony Fauci lied under oath about his use of Twitter. Despite denying any association with the platform, the files show that Fauci took control of the White House COVID response account twice in March and April 2021. Elon Musk had previously mentioned a dedicated Fauci fan club on Twitter, and the report confirms that a former lead company attorney at Twitter worked with Fauci on disinformation. Additionally, Twitter collaborated with pharmaceutical companies to shape vaccine marketing campaigns, actively suppressing opposing views while promoting COVID-19 vaccines.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Twitter finally released the, highly anticipated Fauci files months after Elon Musk promised they'd be made public. Former senate investigator Paul Thacker's report shows doctor Anthony Fauci even lied under oath. Her background here on November 23rd, he denied any knowledge of tweets or use of Twitter while in a deposition. But the new file drop shows that Fauci actually He took control of the White House COVID response account twice during the pandemic. These takeovers happened in March April of 2021.
In January, Fauci said he had no association with Twitter a month after Elon Musk tweeted my pronouns are prosecute slash Fauci.
Speaker 1: A lot of people are spouting out a lot of things about me and Twitter. I don't have a Twitter account. I've never had a Twitter account. I don't intend on having a Twitter account, and I've had nothing to do with Twitter. So I don't know what they're talking about when they say that, Neil.
I just don't. I'm puzzled.
Speaker 0: Musk revealed months ago that Twitter workers had a dedicated Fauci fan club on a Slack channel, but Thacker's report also shows how a Former lead company attorney was one of the attorneys Fauci interfaced with on disinformation at Twitter. At the same time, Thacker says Twitter also worked with big pharma companies to shape vaccine marketing campaigns. This included actively silencing dissenting voices while promoting COVID nineteen vaccines.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Fauci's leaked emails reveal some key points. Firstly, an email from January 31, 2020 suggests the virus could have been engineered. Secondly, two drugs were known to help with COVID-19: Alvesco and Hydroxychloroquine. Alvesco proved effective for late-stage patients, even those on ventilators. It's regrettable that this information wasn't widely known. Hydroxychloroquine, which Trump mentioned, was considered unsafe despite Fauci and others privately acknowledging its effectiveness. Lastly, the effectiveness of masks, which were mandated, was questioned. It's disheartening that there may have been deception regarding their efficacy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In breaking news, Fauci's emails have been leaked. I've been waiting a year for this, and here's the highlights. First off, we have an email to Fauci dated January 31, 2020 saying that the virus could have been potentially engineered. Secondly, they knew of 2 different drugs that helped with COVID nineteen. First one, Alvesco.
2nd 1, you guessed it, Hydroxychloroquine. 1st, we have Alvesco, effective treatment for late stage COVID nineteen patients. Some Patients on ventilators who were approaching death have fully recovered from treatment. Dang. I wish we would have knew about that.
Like, You know? And then we have hydroxychloroquine, the evil drug that Trump told us about. Darn, Trump. You know, isn't it so funny that they told their family and friends that hydroxychloroquine was safe and effective, but they told you that it wasn't. And then we have the mask you were being mandated to Where?
Yet they weren't actually that effective. It's really sad that you were lied to, and we tried to tell you.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks Dr. Fauci if he knows Sylvia Burwell and if she emailed him in February 2020 about wearing a mask while traveling during the early stages of the pandemic. Dr. Fauci acknowledges knowing Sylvia Burwell and that she sought his advice on personal safety during the pandemic. However, he does not specifically recall the email mentioned. Speaker 0 then reads a response allegedly written by Dr. Fauci, stating that masks are more for infected individuals to prevent spreading rather than protecting uninfected people. Dr. Fauci vaguely recalls discussing safety issues regarding masks but does not specifically remember recommending against wearing one while traveling. He suggests that if shown the email, he would not dispute it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Doctor Fauci, do you know Sylvia Burwell?
Speaker 1: I do. Who's that? Sylvia Burwell is the former secretary of the Department American University.
Speaker 0: Did she email you in February of 2020 asking whether she should wear a Ask as she was traveling in the airport in the early stages of the pandemic.
Speaker 1: Judge and speculative. Sylvia, hub, has over the past couple of years, asked me advice about personal safety during the COVID nineteen pandemic.
Speaker 0: And in particular, in February of 2020, did she email you and say, I am traveling to redacted? Folks are suggesting I take a mask for the I take a mask for the airport. Is this something I should do?
Speaker 1: Objection. Like the foundation. You know, I don't recall Specifically that. I I I do know that Sylvia has called me over the last couple of years asking me questions about health. I don't specifically recall depo
Speaker 0: Do you recall writing this in response? Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection. The typical mask you buy in the drugstore is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight Benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you. I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly Since you're going to a low risk location, do you recall writing that?
Speaker 1: I vaguely recall talking to about certain safety issues regarding masks.
Speaker 0: Do you specifically recall recommending that she not wear a mask as she's traveling during the
Speaker 1: If that's Inaccurate, and when you're asking me if I recall, I don't recall. I mean, these things thousands of things happen. If you show me An email that has my name and the proper identification, and I said that, I would not argue with you. It would not be out of the question.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker advises against getting a flu shot if someone has already had the flu for 14 days. They believe that being infected with the flu provides the best protection, so there is no need for a vaccine. They emphasize that if the person truly has the flu, they should not get the vaccine again because getting infected is the most effective form of vaccination.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But she's had the flu for 14 days. Should she get a flu shot? Well, no. If she got the flu for 14 days, she's as protected as anybody can be because the best vaccination is to get infected yourself. And, John, if she can get it If she really has the flu, if she really has the flu, she he definitely doesn't need a flu vaccine.
Yeah. She really has the flu. She should not get it again. No. She doesn't need it because the it's the best it's the most potent vaccination is getting infected yourself.
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speaker discusses how Dr. Fauci misled the public about the origins of COVID-19. Two virologists initially believed the virus was engineered and not consistent with evolutionary theory, but changed their position after a conference call with Dr. Fauci. The speaker suggests that Dr. Fauci's motivation for downplaying the lab leak theory was to protect his narrative and the funding he provided to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Criticism of Dr. Fauci is growing, and there are calls to outlaw gain-of-function research and investigate the grant money given to the virologists. The speaker also highlights the FTC's investigation into Elon Musk's communications, which they view as an attack on the First Amendment.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What your main takeaway was.
Speaker 1: Doctor Fauci misled us from the get go. January 31, 2020, he gets an email from doctor Anderson. The email says virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory. Next day, he gets an email from doctor Gary. Doctor Gary says, I don't know how this happens in nature, but it would be easy to do in a lab.
Those 2 guys changed their position after doctor Fauci gets him on a conference call and tells Nelson, here's our story. Let's get our story straight. Let's change the narrative and say it came from nature and and downplay this idea that it could came from a lab. And I think the and those 2 guys went a 180 degrees as as as you played, went changed a 180 degrees. And I think one of the Motivating factors was doctor Fauci hands out all this money.
He's he's got his, and these guys get $9,000,000 grant just a few months later. I think the reason why Fauci was so concerned about having his narrative out there was because we our tax dollars went to a lab in China that wasn't up to code, that was doing gain of function research, purged, and now we have a leak from that very city. Oh, that it can't be from the lab, doctor Fauci says. That could undermine everything I've been doing, so he has to go and make sure it's the other theory that gets pushed.
Speaker 0: Ed, you bring up this $9,000,000. I'm gonna dig into that a little bit If we can, this grant that the 2 leading virologists received after they backtracked their support for the lab leak theory, where did that money come from?
Speaker 1: You no. This is part of the money that NIAID and and, NIH hand out. This is money to do coronavirus research. These guys have been getting our money for years. Clears.
Doctor Fauci's been handing out 1,000,000 of dollars for you know, he's been there 40 some years. He's the highest paid official in our government. So these these were virologists who get the money out of other grants, but it get they get a $9,000,000 grant. Again, just a few months after they changed their their narrative. So this is the kind of thing doctor Fauci's been doing where where he's, as I said, I think he's built this fiefdom that he and doctor Collins does control.
That's where the money came from, from from our tax dollars going to these guys, just like our tax dollars went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology Right. Where this where this leak most most likely happened.
Speaker 0: So you're all taking action in the house and, criticism of doctor Fauci is growing, of course, in the senate as well. Listen to this.
Speaker 2: It was an elaborate cover up, and it began in January of 2020. There's emails between doctor Collins and doctor now. In which doctor Collins says this wouldn't be good for China. This wouldn't be good for science.
Speaker 3: Look, I know doctor Fauci. He's a smart man, but his behavior and lack of candor during the the epidemic has, undermined almost immeasurably the institution of science and public health.
Speaker 0: And I'm sure that you remember that not exchange between Fauci and doctor Rand Paul when Fauci sat there, looked him in the eye, and said there was no Funding from the NIH for any gain of function research to this lab, and now we are finding out that this is was all not true.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Now. Everything he seemed
Speaker 4: that Vauci told us turned not, turned out to not be accurate. I
Speaker 1: think one of the things we should do legislatively, after all, I mean, we're the congress. Legislation is what we're supposed to be focused on is we should say no gain of function research. And again, I think that's why Fauci wanted to change the narrative, why he wanted to cover up any reference to nestable lab leak. I think it was all because he knew this was gain of function. In fact, he gets an email late that night that that talks about the, the, gain of function research process and how this, this grant money that went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology didn't go through the typical approval process.
It was just given to this institute. So one of the lead things we should do legislatively is outlaw this, say no gain of function research, and certainly not in China with our tax dollars for goodness' sake.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And we've got the sound bite from doctor Fauci Early on in the pandemic, when he talked about the fact, that this there was no chance that this possibly came from a lab leak. So I just wanna play that our viewers so we can refresh their memory.
Speaker 4: There was a study, recently that we can make available to you where a group of highly Qualified evolutionary virologist looked at the sequences there. Where it is now is Totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.
Speaker 0: And he really wanted us to believe that. And it's really interesting because you look 3 years later, and hindsight is 2020, but there is not a person on the globe that wasn't touched by this pandemic And doesn't want answers as to where it came from, what the motivation was, and if action needs to be taken. So your response on where we go Past the hearings, how this progresses further.
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, what doctor Fauci, I believe, what he was referencing there was the paper that he had a hand in editing and pushing. Right. So for him then to reference that, I think from the White House press briefing room is is true. I mean, that's that's ridiculous, and it's frankly wrong in my judgment. So the the answer is, first first, get the facts on the table so the whole country knows everything that happened.
This is why I think doctor Anderson, doctor Gary, those those virologists who initially said this thing came from a lab and then suddenly changed their position after knocked into Fauci. I wanna talk to those guys. I want I want those guys to sit for a transcribed interview. And I do think the congress of the United States should say no more gain of function research. We should not allow this stuff to happen.
That that should be an important piece of legislation that we get passed, and hopefully, Joe Biden would sign that into law.
Speaker 0: And if I can switch gears with you for just one moment, because I think this is really We're gonna talk more about it later in the show. But it's your committee that did some digging, and discovered the documents that showed the FTC's Twitter investigation was looking for Elon Musk's internal communications and the names of journalists. This is a serious attack on the first amendment.
Speaker 1: It's about not as serious as it gets. It's about a clear example of of weaponization of government as I've ever seen going after first amendment, freedom of the press, freedom of speech rights. But understand this. The the 1st Twitter file comes out on December 2nd. 11 days later, there's a letter comes from the FTC.
The very first question the FTC asked Elon Musk and Twitter is, who are the journalists you're talking to. Me, that is frightening. Who are the journalists you're talking to? Here are 4 name. They named 4 journalists by name per personally by name.
2 of those journalists, by the way, are testifying in front of our committee tomorrow. Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi, they're testifying tomorrow. So the idea that they're going after journalists. And understand this 2. The person who heads up the FTC, guess who she worked for before going to the FTC?
House Democrats on the judiciary committee. House Democrats on the judiciary committee, and and they have said from the get go that they're gonna fight our committee on the weaponization of government agencies against We The People. They they They said they're gonna fight our committee tooth and and nail. I mean, this is this is how wrong this is, and the idea that Democrats won't stand up and defend first amendment, but are supporting the attacks and the threats to it is just scary.
Speaker 0: It really is. This is a huge problem as far as I'm concerned because what it seems like is tit not retaliation. Elon Musk takes over this company. He exposes exactly what happened over the course of the last few numbers. And the FTC all of a sudden goes after him.
I mean, you know
Speaker 1: Twelve letters in 3 months. Twelve letters asking they As for every commune Jackie, think about every commune everyone Elon Musk talked to, everyone who talked to Elon Musk, and anyone who who talked about Elon non musk. They want all those communications. That is that is, like, that is intimidation. That is harassment.
That is the weaponization of government against a private company for goodness' sake.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I was gonna say that it is a private company. They really don't have grounds to do it. Chairman Jim Jordan, always great to talk to you and get your perspective. Thank you so much for coming on tonight.
Video Transcript AI Summary
I want him to return to the state department, also known as the deep state department.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'd like him to go back to the state department or as they call it, the deep state department.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
IT SEEMS THAT THEY ARE PRETTY WORRIED! https://t.co/yMUG2StC55
Video Transcript AI Summary
There is a large number of conspiracy theories circulating, but it's unclear how many people actually believe them. Speaker 1 mentions that Tony, presumably referring to Dr. Fauci, has had security since spring 2020 due to potential threats. They feel the need to be constantly vigilant. Speaker 1 also mentions receiving threatening messages, such as being told they will go to hell or should be hanged.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This percentage that's really misled by these conspiracy theories, it's unclear to me. There's millions of messages out there, you know, where my name or doctor Fauci's name is used, but do people really believe that stuff?
Speaker 1: So Tony has security 20 7. It started in the spring of 2020. Yeah. And they go with us everywhere we go. You feel like you have to be aware all the time That there's a possible danger.
I mean, I get some on my own. You know? You're gonna rot in hell, and You should be hung. You know, things like that.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Dr. Fauci is now accompanied by federal agents during his power walks. This is due to the alarming threats he has received as a result of his public health message. Although it is disheartening, he is more concerned about the harassment his wife and family face.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Find doctor Fauci now power walks, flanked by federal agents. What's that all about? That's sad. The very fact that a public health message it results in real incredible threats to my life and my safety, but it bothers me less than the hassling of my wife and my
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
#FAUCIFILE FOLLOW DR. KEK TO LEARN MORE! COMMENT BELOW! MAKE DR. KEK YOUR BEST FRIEND! #CrimesAgainstHumanity
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
FAUCI’S DEAD CHILDREN AND MASS GRAVES https://t.co/DEZTPJsihg
Video Transcript AI Summary
Robert Kennedy Jr.'s book, "The Real Anthony Fauci," has sparked a mass awakening, revealing Fauci's disturbing actions. Experiments at the NIAID involved removing beagles' vocal cords and subjecting them to sand flea infestations. Fauci also misused PCR tests to promote a dangerous drug to thousands of people. In 1992, Fauci directed drug trials on HIV-positive children, even though many were healthy. These trials used drugs known to cause severe side effects, and children were forced to continue regardless. Parents who refused consent had their children taken away. When the children resisted, they were forcefully administered the drugs. After their deaths, their bodies were buried in a mass grave. Fauci's actions demonstrate his psychopathic nature, and he and his cohorts should face consequences.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The reception of Robert Kennedy Junior's book, The Real Anthony Fauci, is clear evidence of a mass awakening. The people are waking up to see Fauci for what he is, an absolute psychopath. We've learned of how he directed experiments at the NIAID in which beagles had their vocal cords removed and their heads enclosed in cages where sand fleas ate them alive. And we've learned of how he fraudulently used PCR tests to illegitimately push a known deadly drug upon tens of thousands of people. And many are now learning that in 1992, under the direction of Anthony Fauci, the NIAID funded drug trials on HIV positive children.
Although many of the children were healthy and asymptomatic, they had merely tested positive via faulty PCR tests administered through New York's child welfare department who then handed them over to the deadly experiments. Most of the drugs being tested on the children were already known to cause deformities, organ failure, brain damage, and other lethal side effects, and yet the children were required to continue with the drugs regardless of negative side effects. Those administering the drugs were explicitly told that all adverse side effects they witnessed in the children were being caused by the HIV infection and not the drugs. When parents refused to consent to these barbaric trials, children's services took their kids and placed them with foster families or children's homes where participation in the trial would be assured. When the children resisted the deadly drugs, they were brought to Columbia Presbyterian Hospital where plastic tubes were surgically turded into their stomachs, and the deadly drugs they were trying to escape were pumped directly into their bodies.
Once the children died, their bodies were added to a mass grave in Hawthorne, New York, a large pit with astroturf thrown over it. To get around the Nuremberg code, and other laws, the state of New York created a special review board comprised of the hospital stakeholders. One may wonder, other than torturing and killing innocent children, what were they trying to accomplish? They already knew of the negative side effects that these drugs were having on adults. But the more we learn about Anthony Fauci, the more we realize that he is an absolute psychopath, and it doesn't matter why psychopaths do what they do.
Fauci and his criminal cohorts, belong in cages at the very least. Anthony Fauci is just 1 old crook and a massive conspiracy that is aggressively pushing to inject everyone's children with the new deadly and debilitating mRNA Irrimental Jabs, whether you like it or not. Going after Fauci is a drop in the bucket, but at least it's a start. For Infowars .com, this is Greg Reese. Thank you for watching the latest Greg Rees Report.
Be sure to go to reesreport.com to see my latest Videos, sign up for my free newsletter, and subscribe for exclusive content. And be sure to my sponsor at infowarsstore.com. Today, anyone who is awake can clearly see why Alex Jones was Infowars was right above the target, and the globalists were a year out from launching their attack. 3 years later, and Infowars is still thriving, thanks to the support of our audience. But we are now facing the fiercest battle yet, and we need you to help save Infowars.
The enemies entrenched within our government are breaking the justice system more than ever in their attack against Alex Jones. No crime, no evidence, no jury, no trial? We don't think so. They wanna kill the messenger in a kangaroo trial with their new USSA, But we won't let them. Alex Jones will have his day in court.
With your support, go to save infowars.com now and give your donation to save the first amendment. Save infowars.com, and god bless America.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
PROSECUTE FAUCI https://t.co/vEaORPPAs0
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker accuses Dr. Fauci of denying his involvement in funding gain of function research in Wuhan, despite evidence suggesting otherwise. The speaker argues that this type of research is dangerous and could lead to even deadlier viruses. Dr. Fauci defends himself, stating that the definition of gain of function research has been clarified and that the research in question did not meet that definition. The speaker insists that the research was indeed risky and criticizes Dr. Fauci for not taking responsibility. The exchange becomes heated, with both parties questioning each other's credibility.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Fauci, I don't expect you today to admit that you approved of NIH funding for gain of function research in Wuhan, but your repeated denials have worn thin and a majority of Americans, frankly, don't believe you. Even the NIH now admits that EcoHealth Alliance did perform experiments experiments in Wuhan that created viruses not found in nature that actually did gain in lethality. The facts are clear. The NIH did fund gain of function research in Wuhan despite your protestations. You can deny it all you want, but even the Chinese authors of the paper, in their paper, admit that viruses not found in nature were created, and, yes, they gained in infectivity.
Your persistent denials, though, are not simply a stain on your reputation but are a clear and present danger to the country and to the world. As professor Kevin Esvelt of MIT has written, Gain of function research looks like a gamble that civilization can't afford to risk, and yet here we are again with you steadfast in your denials. Why does it matter? Because gain of function research with laboratory created viruses not found in nature could cause a pandemic even worse the next time. We're suffering today from one that has a mortality of approximately 1%.
They're experimenting with viruses that have mortalities of between 15 50%. Yes. Our civilization could be at risk from one of these viruses. Experiments that combine unknown viruses with known pandemic causing viruses are incredibly risky. Experiments that combine unknown viruses with coronaviruses that have as much as 50% mortality could endanger civilization as we know it.
And here you sit, unwilling to accept any responsibility for the current pandemic and unwilling to take any steps to prevent gain of function research from possibly unleashing an even more deadly virus. You mislead the public by saying that the published viruses could not be COVID. Well, exactly no one is alleging that. No one is alleging that the published viruses by the Chinese are COVID. What we are saying is that this was risky type of research, gain of function research, it was risky to share this with the with the Chinese and that COVID may have been created from a not yet revealed virus.
We don't anticipate the Chinese are going to reveal the virus if it came from their lab. You know that, but you continue to mislead. You continue to support NIH money going to Wuhan. You continue to say you trust the Chinese scientist. You appear to have learned nothing from this pandemic.
Will you today finally take some responsibility for funding gain of function research in Wuhan?
Speaker 1: Senator, with all due respect, I disagree with so many of the things that you've said. Gain first of all, gain of function is a very nebulous term. We have spent, not us, but outside bodies, a considerable amount of effort to give a more precise definition to the type of research that is of concern that might lead to a dangerous situation. You are aware of that. That is called p three c o.
Speaker 0: We're aware that you deleted gain of function from the NIH website.
Speaker 1: Well, I can get back to that in a moment if we have time, But let's get back to the operating framework and guide rails of which we operate under, and you have ignored them. The guidelines are very, very clear that you have to be dealing with a pathogen that clearly is shown and very likely To be highly transmissible in an uncontrollable way in humans and to have a high degree of morbidity and mortality and that you do experiments to enhance that, hence the word EPPP, Enhanced pathogens of potent
Speaker 0: So when NICO Health Alliance took the virus
Speaker 1: Well, can I c
Speaker 0: zero 14 and combined it with WIV on and caused a recombinant virus that doesn't exist in nature and it made mice sicker, mice that had humanized cells, You're saying that that's not gain of function research?
Speaker 1: According to the framework and guidelines
Speaker 0: So what you're doing is defining away gain of function. You're simply saying it doesn't exists because you changed the definition on the NIH website. This is terrible, and you're you're completely trying to escape
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: The idea that we should do something about trying to prevent a pandemic from leaking from a lab. There's the preponderance of evidence now points towards this coming from the lab, and what you've done is change the definition on your website to try to cover your ass, basically. That's what you've done. You've changed the website to try to have a new definition that doesn't include the risky research that's going on. Until you admit that it's risky, we're not gonna get anywhere.
You have to admit that this research was risky. The NIH has now rebuked them. Your own agency has rebuked them.
Speaker 1: But the thing is
Speaker 0: is you're still unwilling to admit that they gained in function when they say they became sicker. They gained in lethality. It's a new virus. That's not gain of function?
Speaker 1: According to the definition that is currently operable. You know, senator The new Let's make it clear for the people who are listening. The current definition was done over a 2 to 3 year period By outside bodies, including the NSABB, 2 conferences by the National Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine On December 2014, March 2016, we commissioned external risk benefit assessment. And then on January of 2017, the office of science and technology policy of the White House Issued the current policy.
Speaker 0: And coincidentally, I I have not seen the definition of a deficiency. On the same day the NIH said that, yes, there was a gain of function in Wuhan, the same day the definition appeared, the new definition, to try to define a way what's going on in Wuhan. Until you accept it, until you expect accept responsibility, we're not going to get anywhere close to trying to prevent another lab leak of this dangerous sort of experiment. You won't admit that it's dangerous. And for that lack of judgment, I think it's time that you resign.
Speaker 2: Thank you, senator Paul. And I would like, to give the time to doctor Fauci.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, there were so many things that are egregious misrepresentation here, Madam chair, that I I don't think I'd be able to refute all of them, but just a couple of them for the listens to hear for. You have said that I am unwilling to take any responsibility for the current pandemic. I have no responsibility for the current pandemic, The current pandemic. Okay?
Number 2, you said the overwhelming amount of evidence indicates that's a lab leak. I believe most card carrying viral file phylogenists and molecular virologists would disagree with you That is much more likely, even though we leave open all possibilities, it's much more likely that this was a natural occurrence. 3rd, you say we
Speaker 0: contested 80,000 animals, and no animals have been found with COVID.
Speaker 2: Senator Paul, the time is set first.
Speaker 1: And third, you made a statement just a moment ago that's completely incorrect Will you say we continue to support research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
Speaker 0: You approved it in August of last year.
Speaker 1: No. No. Your statement says, quote, I wrote it down as you were writing. You continue to support research At the Wuhan Institute of Iran
Speaker 0: a committee a month ago, which said you still trust the Chinese scientists, and you still support the research over there. You said it a month ago in
Speaker 1: the mid
Speaker 2: Paul, I have allowed doctor Fauci to respond. You've had your time. I'm gonna give him
Speaker 0: He's going to be dishonest. He ought to be challenged.
Speaker 2: Senator Paul, We will allow doctor Fauci to respond after you've given accusations like that. Doctor Fauci.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't have any more Say except to say that as usual, and I've I have a great deal of respect for this body of the senate, and it makes me very uncomfortable to have to say something, but he is egregiously incorrect in what he says. Thank you.
Speaker 0: History will figure that out on its own. Doctor Fauci, I don't expect you doctor Fauci, knowing that it is a crime to lie to congress, do you wish to retract your statement of May 11th where you claimed that the NIH Never funded gain of function research in Wuhan.
Speaker 1: Senator Paul, I have never lied before the congress, and I do not retract That statement, this paper that you're referring to was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gain of function. What was let me finish.
Speaker 0: Take an animal virus and you increase the transability to humans Right. Saying that's not gain of function?
Speaker 1: That is correct. And and, senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about, quite frankly, and I wanna say that officially. You do not know what you are talking about.
Speaker 0: Okay? You get 1 person let's read from the NIH that you guys wrote. It says that scientific research that increases the transmittivity of a transmissibility among mammals is gain of function. They took animal viruses that only occur in animals, and they increased their transmissibility to humans. How you can say that is not gain of function?
It is not. It's a dance, and you're dancing around this because you're trying to obscure possibility for 4,000,000 people dying around the world from a pandemic. Unless that's something, doctor Castro. I have
Speaker 1: to well, now you're getting into something. If the point that you are making is that the vet the the grant that was funded as a subaward from EkoHealth to Wuhan Created SARS CoV 2. That's where you are getting.
Speaker 0: Let me finish. We don't know. Wait a minute. I came to the lab, but all the evidence is pointing that came from the lab. You there will be responsibility for those who funded the lab, including yourself.
I totally
Speaker 2: This committee will allow the witness to respond.
Speaker 1: Totally resent the lie that you are now propagating, senator.
Speaker 0: Doctor
reSee.it AI Summary
A government-funded study conducted by NIAID and Dr. Fauci has raised concerns. The study involved grafting scalps from aborted babies onto lab rats and mice to observe hair growth. This disturbing experiment has sparked questions about its scientific value and the allocation of public funds. The details and implications of such research warrant further investigation.
@bambkb - Kevin - WE THE PEOPLE❤️ - DAD🦁 🐉 🔥
This is the type of stuff that I wish I never saw and I’m WARNING you not to listen to this if you’re sensitive A government funded study by NIAID and Dr.Fauci : “In this study, they were taking the scalps off 5 month old aborted babies and would graft them on lab RATS and MICE!! There is literally pictures of lab RATS/MICE with baby scalps, grafted on the back of their head, because they wanted to see how long the hair would grow?????” @TuckerCarlson This makes me fucking sick to my stomach Can someone please explain how this demented ‘experiment’ could possibly show them anything ‘scientific’!? What else are these people doing with public funds? #Fauci #Monster #CrimesAgainstHumanity #CrimesAgainstChildren
Video Transcript AI Summary
A study funded by grants from the NIAID office, run by Dr. Anthony Fauci, involved grafting scalps from 5-month-old aborted babies onto lab rats. The study aimed to see how long the scalps could keep growing. The photographs in the published study show baby scalps with growing hairs on the backs of lab rats. Planned Parenthood abortion providers claimed to have supplied the aborted baby body parts for these experiments at the University of Pittsburgh. Dr. Fauci has not been held accountable for this study, despite being responsible for overseeing the grants. It is important for him to answer questions about the ethical and legal compliance of these experiments in front of the United States Congress.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Where they were taking the scalps of 5 month old aborted babies, and they were grafting them onto lab rats and lab mice to see how much longer they could keep them growing for. And you can actually see the photographs in the published study of little baby scalps grafted onto the backs of lab rats growing little baby hairs. Those would have been the little hairs growing on the heads of little infants in Pittsburgh if they hadn't been killed by abortion and then stitched on the lab rats for experimentation. This study was funded by a grant by multiple grants from the NIAID office which is run by doctor Anthony Fauci. And when I was undercover, Planned Parenthood abortion providers told me that they were the ones who were supplying the aborted baby body parts for experiments at the University of Pittsburgh.
Speaker 1: It's one of those stories we almost hesitated to do because it is so grotesque. But it seemed like in the public interest to tell the truth about what's about what's happening. Has has Fauci Absolutely. Accounted for this?
Speaker 0: No. And doctor Anthony Fauci owns every bit of this study because as the head of and and owns every bit of this issue because as the head of the NIAID office, the buck stops with him in terms of how those grants are spent, whether they're being monitored and, made sure that they're ethically and legally and just compliant as far as good stewardship of taxpayer money the fact that they were using scalps from 5 month old aborted babies that means that the heads of those children probably needed to be intact in order to get the scalps, which is an indication that those are either partial birth abortion or even infants delivered alive and whole. Did anybody at doctor Fauci's office ever ask the researchers at Pittsburgh, hey. How are you getting those scalps? How are you getting whole scalps from the heads of of fetuses without a partial birth abortion, I think that doctor Fauci should be brought in front of the senator, in front of the United States Congress, and ask those questions directly about what his office did to make sure that these grants and that these barbaric experiments were in compliance with, with all the applicable federal laws and regulations for those real taxpayer grants.
reSee.it AI Summary
No animal studies were conducted before administering the Covid vaccine to billions of people. This raises concerns as it is unprecedented for a vaccine to skip animal testing, especially for children. Animal testing was initiated but halted due to reported deaths. Consequently, the public has become the test subjects, violating the Nuremberg Code. Such actions are alarming and raise questions about potential crimes against humanity.
@bambkb - Kevin - WE THE PEOPLE❤️ - DAD🦁 🐉 🔥
🚨🚨🚨No animal studies were performed before they injected billions of people with the #Covid #Vaccine - What a disturbing conversation to hear : “Have you ever seen a #Vaccine that was approved for the public that SKIPPED animal testing?” — “NEVER, especially not for kids!!” “From what I’ve read, they actually started the animal testing BUT they stopped because the animals were DYING!? Correct?”😳 — “CORRECT!!” “So, the American people need to understand this : You are the GUINEA pigs for this #Covid #Vaccine!!! They never tested it on humans and the animals were dying so you’re the test subjects now”😳 This is a DIRECT VIOLATION of the #NurembergCode !!!! #CrimesAgainstHumanity #VaccineGenocide #NWO #Illuminati #TheGreatReset
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker points out that the COVID-19 vaccine was released to the public without completing animal testing, which is unusual, especially for children. The animal testing was stopped because the animals were dying. This means that the American people are essentially being used as guinea pigs for this experimental vaccine. Despite the rising death count, businesses are considering making the vaccine mandatory for employees, which is concerning.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Asked what was it And have you seen any other vaccine that was put out for the public that skipped the animal test? Never before, especially for children. And as I've what I've read, they actually started the animal test. And because the animals were dying, they stopped the test. Right.
Folks, I think that's important to understand there that that what we're talking about is the American people are now the guinea pigs. This is the test program that's going on. They they didn't do the human testing, and they stopped the animal test because the animals were dying, And then they turned it out for the public. And we are now looking at businesses that want to mandate that this experimental vaccine be given to people as a condition of their employment, And yet we have this death count that continues to rise and be totally ignored.
reSee.it AI Summary
I witnessed disturbing videos and images from the National Institutes of Health's Rocky Mountain Laboratory. They are conducting experiments on piglets and primates, infecting them with deadly viruses like Ebola, Lassa, Nipah, and the plague. These actions are justified in the name of "science."
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
What you are watching is a video shot at National Institutes of Health’s, Rocky Mountain Laboratory. In it these amoral monsters are infecting piglets with Ebola so they can study the effects.
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
They are also infecting primates with highly contagious and deadly viruses like Ebola, Lassa, Nipah, and even the plague. This is a picture that was obtained via FOIA. All in the name of “science”. Source: https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/2024/01/27/victory-wcw-lawsuit-pries-videos-photos-from-nihs-max-pain-animal-lab/
Victory! WCW Lawsuit Secures Videos & Photos of NIH Max Pain Animal Tests at Bioagent Lab
%
blog.whitecoatwaste.org
@itsmorganfr - morgan
How many times does the government have to be caught performing unethical experiments on the public before we no longer trust them. Wake up y’all #tuskegee #ciaoperation https://t.co/QjkRwAwdwW
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses unethical government experiments, such as Project MKUltra and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. They highlight how these projects violated human rights and caused lasting harm. The speaker questions the government's trustworthiness and calls for more accountability. They emphasize the need for awareness and action to prevent such injustices from happening again.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I have gone down so many rabbit holes in my life, but I've never heard about this one, and my mind is blown. It just completely proves everything that I thought about the government in the first place. Listen up. So I woke up and I started asking my chat g p t some questions because, honestly, that AI, it's got some answers, and it kinda, like, sparks some questions in my brain that I'll, like, go and do more research on later. But what it said to me today, just it blew my mind.
Listen. So we all have heard about this. Right? I'm not even gonna say it out loud because I've had so many videos taken down when I speak of it. But every single person in the world, if not, at least every single person in the US, should research what this project is because it totally proves that the government is immorally wrong and is not telling us the whole truth.
And how many times do they have to get caught doing something like this until we are like, okay. Wait a minute. Maybe they don't have our best interest in mind. Anyways, I ask this question. Don't you think that project would be enough evidence to prove that the government is not entirely truthful and moral?
I'm really gonna cut back on what words I read in this because I definitely don't want this video taken down. And I know TikTok is on my ass about everything. So, yes, project is one example of evidence that the is not entirely truthful and moral. This project was a program that was conducted from the 19 fifties to the 19 seventies, 2 decades. The program involved the use of drug hypnosis and other techniques to manipulate people's minds.
These tests were completely immoral and unethical. You should really research into them, and people had no idea that they were being tested on. And it wasn't just like a handful of people. It was like 100 of 1000 of people. This project was a clear violation of human rights and ethics, and it was literally committed by the GOV on us.
The program caused lasting harm to many of the people who were subjected to its experiments. The you know who also lied about the program for many years, which further eroded public trust as it should. But then my AI went on and on and continued to spit some facts. And I was like, damn. Okay.
Let me research into this shit. So project blah blah blah is just one example of the many ways in which the, you know what, has engaged in unethical and illegal activities. Other examples include, like, thanks. Thanks. I didn't think that you're gonna provide other examples, but let's go.
The blah blah blah experiment. We're gonna look at this one. I'm not gonna say it out loud. So, of course, I ask, what was that experiment? Chad GPT comes back and they say, this experiment was a clinical study conducted by the United States Public Health Service from 1932 to 1972.
50 years. That's half of a century, dude. The study involved 600 African American men who were infected with. The men were not told that they had it. They were not given treatment for the disease.
The purpose of the study was to observe the natural progression of untreated this. The researchers wanted to learn more about the disease and its effect on the human body. However, the study was unethical and harmful to the men who participated it in it, obviously. The men in the study were not given informed consent. They were not told that they had it, and they were not given the opportunity to refuse participation in the study.
The researchers also lied to the men about the purpose of the study. The men were told that they were being treated for bad blood, and they were not told that they had this. As a result of the study, many of the men developed serious health problems, including blindness, paralysis, and dementia. Some of the men also died from it. The study was finally halted in 1972 after it was probably outed by the press.
They're only sorry they got caught. It is a reminder of the racism and discrimination that African African Americans have faced in the United States. They literally use these poor men as guinea pigs to see how a disease affects a body when it progressed. The United States Public Health Service. Does that not like, is that not a red flag to everybody?
Like that should be the biggest red flag ever. 50 years, they did this. 50 years, they did this. And then, oh, president Bill Clinton in 1997, he said, oh, I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry.
Like, no, sorry, Bill Clinton, but your apology is not enough. You need to do so much more to make up for what you did to these poor men. And I know that this isn't the only experiment like that. Imagine how many other experiments are going on like this that they are not caught for.
@DC_Draino - DC_Draino
MTG told Fauci to his face that he belongs in prison She also wouldn’t refer to him as “Doctor” Fauci b/c he helped coordinate experiments where Beagle dogs had their faces eaten off by bugs He’s an evil tyrant and now the whole country is seeing it https://t.co/cGqWIy2C8W
Video Transcript AI Summary
I am a scientist who uses the scientific method to gain information. I did not make up COVID rules. You signed off on experiments involving beagles. Your email said masks were not effective. Children were forced to wear masks and learn from home. You should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Do you represent science, mister Fauci?
Speaker 1: I am a scientist who uses the scientific method to gain information.
Speaker 0: Yes or no? Yes or no?
Speaker 1: No. That's not a yes or no answer.
Speaker 0: It's a yes or no.
Speaker 1: I don't think it is.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, we'll take that as a you don't know what you represent.
Speaker 1: Oh, I
Speaker 0: But this as director of the NIH, you did sign off on these so called scientific experiments. And as a dog lover, I wanna tell you this is disgusting and evil what you signed off on and these experiments that happened to beagles paid for by the American taxpayer. And I want you to know Americans don't pay their taxes for animals to be tortured like this. So the type of science that you are representing, mister Fauci, is abhorrent. You confessed that you made up the COVID rules including I
Speaker 1: didn't hear what you said.
Speaker 0: 6 feet, social distancing, and masking of children.
Speaker 1: I never said I made anything up. You admitted that you made it up. You made it up. I said I made it up.
Speaker 0: So are you saying this is fake news, mister Cauchy?
Speaker 1: Say I made anything
Speaker 0: up. What did you say?
Speaker 1: I said that it is not based in science and it just appeared.
Speaker 0: But this is science. And making up guidelines like 6 feet distancing and masking of children. Do you think that's appropriate? Do the American people deserve to be abused like that, mister Fauci? Because you're not you're mister Fauci in my few minutes.
No. I don't need your answer. That man does not deserve to have a license. As a matter of fact, it should be revoked, and he belongs in
Speaker 1: prison. Suspend. Here you are without your mask where you got to to
Speaker 0: go and enjoy the game and sit right next to people not following the 6 feet of distancing, not wearing your mask, and everyone else was forced to stay home and stop enjoying life, and your science here, your science does display perfectly in this picture where children, children in school were put in plastic bubbles, because of your science. Your repulsive evil science, and let's go back to your very own email. You said earlier you don't use email. Oh, you do. Right here.
This is your own email where you said the typical mask you buy in the drugstore is not really effective in keeping out virus. I do not recommend that you wear a mask. This is your email. This is your own words, but yet children children all over America were forced to wear mask. Healthy children forced to wear mask muzzled in their schools, and then they were forced to learn from home because of your so called science and your medical suggestions while you and all your cronies get paid from big pharma.
You know that what this committee should be doing? We should be recommending you to be prosecuted. We should be writing a criminal referral because you should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. You belong in prison, doctor Fauci.
@thehealthb0t - healthbot
Humans have been experimented on for decades... Journalist Eileen Welsome uncovered the secrets being hidden by the government, the military, scientists, and doctors - over decades - as part of their Manhattan Project research... https://t.co/4m9vSQ5Qo0
Video Transcript AI Summary
829 pregnant women were given radioactive iron under the guise of vitamin treatment to aid their babies, as part of a study at Vanderbilt University after World War II. The researchers aimed to investigate how quickly radioiodine crossed the placenta. Unfortunately, many of these women suffered from various health issues, including skin diseases and cancers, and some of their children developed rare cancers and died at young ages. There were no whistleblowers among the medical staff; the doctors maintained that the research was valuable for national interests. Notably, four fatal malignancies were found in the children of the exposed mothers, while none occurred in the unexposed group.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: 829 pregnant women served radioactive iron as part of their regular treatment. What did they think they were getting?
Speaker 1: This was a this was a study done immediately after World War 2, and these young women came to the clinic thinking that they were getting vitamins to drink, that this would help their babies. And in fact, what was being studied was how fast the radioiodine, studied was how fast the radioiodine crossed into the placenta. And where was this? This was at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.
Speaker 0: And who was in charge?
Speaker 1: There were a group of scientists from Vanderbilt University.
Speaker 0: And what happened to these women?
Speaker 1: There were they had all kinds of ailments, skin diseases, cancer, blood disorders. Some of their offspring, their children that were that that they were carrying at the time of this experiment died of cancer and very strange cancers at very young ages.
Speaker 0: Were there any whistleblowers among the doctors or nurses? And did nurses know?
Speaker 1: There was no whistleblower whatsoever. The doctors, closed ranks and considered this worthwhile science and something they were doing, to protect the country. Found 4 fatal malignancies in the children of the of the exposed mothers and none in the unexposed.
@myhiddenvalue - Not A Number
MRNA injections are secretly being administered to animals. And guess who's behind it? 👇 https://t.co/oY31tLAfx2
Video Transcript AI Summary
There's a Pfizer subsidiary called ZOTIS that has mRNA injected over 100 million wildlife in the U.S., including pets. This initiative, funded by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, has been ongoing for the past year and a half. Hunters were the primary source of information about this, as it was published in their magazines. A study on Staten Island involved injecting 100 white-tailed deer with Pfizer's mRNA vaccines, leading to widespread administration across the country without public knowledge. Concerns arise about hunters consuming venison, believing it to be organic. Additionally, mRNA technology is being used on vegetables and cattle, raising further worries about food safety.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Actually, there's a company, a subsidiary company of Pfizer. It's called ZOTIS, z o t I s. Do you know they've already mRNA injected a 100000000 wildlife in America? I guarantee you they're doing it to pets too. It's only mRNA technology funded completely by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife's foundation.
They've been doing it all over the country for the whole last year and a half. Xodus is its name. It's a subsidiary of Pfizer. This is some real sugar honey iced tea. You ain't lying.
You know what's interesting? When I learned about ZOTUS and this sugar honey iced tea, because that's what it was to me. You know who would do you know who were the only people that knew that the wildlife deer, for example, elk, for example, were actually being mRNA injected for COVID? It was all the hunters. Hunters, it was being published in hunters magazines.
I'm not a hunter, but hunters were aware the whole time that this was actually being done and it was being published inside their literature. I had no idea. But when I discovered it, I was like, what? Why is no one talking about this? When I discovered it on Staten Island, Zuckerberg and his wife funded a research study.
They went out and gathered up a 100 white tailed deer and then PCR tested them all for COVID and then injected them all with the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer with this company called Xodus, and then went and did a 100,000,000 animals. A 100,000,000 doses have been administered at that point all throughout the country, and no one knew it, and no one's talked about it. What's it gonna be like when a hunter goes out and gets the deer and then brings home the venison, they think it's organic and wild? Pretty disgusting, but I would be worried about that. Gonna put that in their body when they eat it.
They're gonna they're already injecting mRNA technology into into vegetables, tomatoes, avocados, lettuce, gavi. Bill Gates' foundation is already doing that. And in China, they're already mRNA injecting cattle for our beef supply. This is Christ.
@RepNancyMace - Rep. Nancy Mace
Your tax dollars were used to castrate mice and monkeys. Only in America. @DOGE @GOPoversight https://t.co/CDUAHBidOp
@RepEliCrane - Rep. Eli Crane
Just when you thought you knew everything about Anthony Fauci… He also authorized more than $200 million of YOUR money for transgender animal studies. From today’s @GOPoversight hearing… https://t.co/SImpc2DY30
reSee.it AI Summary
I discussed the allocation of over $200 million in taxpayer dollars by Dr. Anthony Fauci for transgender animal testing. This research involves surgical mutilation and hormone therapies on various animals to study the effects of gender transitions, including changes in genital size and responses to vaccines. I highlighted a specific $1.1 million grant for testing the effects of testosterone on female lab rats. I also noted the lack of transparency and oversight in these studies, which often require advanced technical skills to access. The experiments raise ethical concerns about the treatment of lab animals.
@WallStreetApes - Wall Street Apes
Dr Anthony Fauci authorized over $200 million US taxpayer dollars for transgender animal testing and animal torture “Can you describe what exactly the American people's taxpayer dollars were spent on regarding transgender animal testing?” “Yeah: - In a lot of these cases, they involve mice, rats, monkeys who are being surgically mutilated and subjected to hormone therapies to mimic female to male or male to female gender transitions - Gender affirming hormone therapies, and then looking at the biological, psychological, and physiological effects of the gender transitions - Looking at the effects of taking vaccines after you've transitioned these animals from male to female or female to male - Looking at the size of their genitals changing after you've put them on estrogen or testosterone therapies to transition them - There was a $1.1 million grant to give female lab rats testosterone to mimic transgender male humans and then overdose them with this party drug to see if female animals taking testosterone were more likely to overdose on the sex party drug than animals who are not taking testosterone “Are many of these taxpayer funded animal studies shared with the public or is there a significant oversight of this research?” “You essentially needed a degree in information technology to navigate the federal spending databases to find any of this stuff.” “In our analysis, Dr. Fauci funded about 95% of the change-drender animal experiments” “What we are doing to test human effects is poisoning lab animals - Forcing them to breathe wildfire smoke simulated in a laboratory by burning different types of foliage and pumping into animals cages - Making them obese to simulate what it would be like for obese people to be exposed to wildfire smoke - Shooting off handguns and rifles and forcing animals to breathe the emissions and gun control experiments - and the list goes on and on”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Taxpayer dollars fund transgender animal testing, involving surgically altering mice, rats, and monkeys with hormone therapies to mimic gender transitions. Research explores the effects of these transitions on their biology, psychology, and physiology, including vaccine responses and effects of substances like testosterone and estrogen. One grant, for example, involved giving female rats testosterone and then a party drug to study overdose likelihood. Accessing information on this funding is extremely difficult. Dr. Fauci funded approximately 95% of these experiments. The Trump administration planned to reduce EPA animal testing by 30% by 2025 and eliminate it entirely by 2035, a move that would save taxpayer money because animal testing is time-consuming, expensive, and inaccurate in predicting human health effects. The Biden administration reversed this plan.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You think we're gonna find out it that it was much more money than that for Yes. Transgender animal testing? Yes. Can you describe what exactly the American people's taxpayer dollars were spent on regarding transgender animal testing?
Speaker 1: Yeah. In a lot of these cases, they're involved mice, rats, monkeys who are being surgically mutilated and subjected to hormone therapies to mimic female to male or male to female gender transitions, gender affirming hormone therapies and then looking at the biological, psychological and physiological effects of the gender transitions, looking at the effects of taking vaccines after you've transitioned these animals from male to female or female to male, looking at the size of their genitals changing after you've put them on estrogen or testosterone therapies to transition them. And in the case that the chairwoman, the example that chairwoman gave there was a 1,100,000 grant to give female lab rats testosterone to mimic transgender male humans and then overdose them with this party drug to see if animals who are taking test female animals taking testosterone were more likely to overdose on the sex party drug than animals who are not taking testosterone.
Speaker 0: Mister Goodman, are many of these taxpayer funded animal studies shared with the public, or is there a significant oversight of this research?
Speaker 1: You essentially needed a degree in information technology to navigate the federal spending databases to find any of this stuff.
Speaker 0: So so what you found is we're not being very transparent with what we're spending these funds on?
Speaker 1: Not at all, and it's by design.
Speaker 0: Did you say that Doctor. Fauci, in your estimation had funded close to 95% of these animal research projects?
Speaker 1: Yeah. In our analysis, Doctor. Fauci funded about 95% of the transgender animal experiments.
Speaker 0: Okay. I found in found in some research that the EPA under President Trump is planning to reduce the agency's animal testing by 30% by 2025 and completely by 02/1935. Mr. Goodman, can you explain why that's a win for the American taxpayer?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Animal testing is incredibly time intensive, inaccurate and expensive, and it's not very good at predicting the human health effects or environmental effects of chemicals and pesticides. And right now, what we are doing to test human effects is poisoning lab animals, forcing them to breathe wildfire smoke simulated in a laboratory by burning different types of foliage and pumping into animals cages, making them obese to simulate what it would be like for obese people to be exposed to wildfire smoke, shooting off handguns and rifles and forcing animals to breathe the emissions and gun control experiments and the list goes on and on. And that is what is happening currently at the EPA after the Biden administration overturned the Trump plan to phase out animal testing.
@TomFitton - Tom Fitton
Dear @DOGE, FDA Records Show Purchases of Fetal Organs, Heads and Tissue for ‘Humanized Mice’ Project https://judicialwatch.org/new-fda-records-humanized-mice/
Judicial Watch: New FDA Records Show Purchases of Fetal Organs, Heads and Tissue for ‘Humanized Mice’ Project - Judicial Watch
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it received 198 pages of records and communications from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) involving “humanized mice” research with human fetal heads, organs and tissue, including communications and contracts with human fetal tissue provider Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR). Most of the records are communications and […]
judicialwatch.org
@TomFitton - Tom Fitton
HORROR: FDA Paid for ‘Fresh and Never Frozen’ Human Fetal Parts for Use In ‘Humanized Mice’ Creation! @WMALDC @JudicialWatch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtBkEACPHoA https://t.co/hV9kJErytf
reSee.it AI Summary
I can't believe the federal government wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on cruel experiments involving animals. They injected puppies with cocaine, put dead turtles on treadmills, staged hamster fight clubs, electroshocked cats, and injected party drugs into testosterone-injected animals.
@libsoftiktok - Libs of TikTok
The federal government spent BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars funding insane and cruel experiments on animals including: -Injecting puppies with cocaine -putting dead turtles on treadmills -staging hamster fight clubs -sticking marbles into cats' butts and electroshocking them -injecting party drugs into animals already injected with testosterone. Your tax dollars funded this!
Video Transcript AI Summary
It's estimated that over $20 billion of taxpayer money is wasted annually on ineffective and inhumane animal tests. The NIH admits that animal models fail to mimic disease or predict drug effectiveness in humans, yet billions continue to be poured into these tests.
Experiments range from injecting puppies with cocaine to putting dead turtles on treadmills. A lack of innovation, transparency, and accountability exacerbates the problem. Agencies often don't report how much money is spent, how many animals are used, or what taxpayers are getting out of it.
For example, taxpayer-funded cat experiments involved shoving marbles up cats' rectums and electroshocking them. We've also identified over $240 million in NIH grants for transgender animal experiments, including studies on the effects of party drugs on animals injected with testosterone and how hormones impact animal genitalia.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It is estimated that over $20,000,000,000 a year of taxpayers money is still wasted annually on ineffective and inhumane tests on tens of millions of puppies, kittens and other animals. Am I being flippant when I use the word waste? Absolutely not. The NIH itself has said, Animal models fail to mimic disease or predict how drugs will work in humans resulting in much wasted time and money. Yet agencies continue to dump billions of tax dollars into animal tests despite the horrible return on investment.
Experiments we've uncovered range from the savage to the stupid, injecting puppies with cocaine, staging hamster fight clubs, putting dead turtles on treadmills. One of the reasons this problem has gotten so out of control is a stunning lack of innovation, transparency and accountability. Agencies do not report or even track in some cases how much money is being spent, how many animals are used, what's being done to them, where, and what taxpayers are getting out of it. We file hundreds of FOIA requests every year to glean just basic information. When we can't find out how tax dollars are being spent, it becomes apparent why federal agencies fight against disclosing details.
For example, Senator Rand Paul's December twenty twenty four Festivus report highlighted cruel waste, cruel taxpayer funded cat experiments exposed by my organization. In one $10,000,000 DARPA grant, cats have marbles shoved up their rectums in our electroshock to make them defecate in constipation experiments. We've also recently identified over $240,000,000 in NIH grants for transgender animal experiments, including $26,000,000 in active funding. Some of these tests, as the Chairwoman mentioned, examine the effects of party drugs on animals injected with testosterone and how hormones used for human gender transitions impact the size and shape of animals' genitals.
@libsoftiktok - Libs of TikTok
OUR TAX DOLLARS FUNDED STICKING MARBLES UP CATS’ BUTTS You literally can’t make this stuff up
@redpilldispensr - Red Pill Dispenser
The CIA has been using people "as guinea pigs for mind control and other types of horrible things" for many, many decades. https://t.co/Ufo3VFKYQg
Video Transcript AI Summary
The CIA and Defense Department have a history of using people as guinea pigs for mind control experiments. Initially, the CIA experimented on its own agents using drugs, pain, hypnosis, and electric shock to erase classified information. They also tested chemicals to induce criminal behavior.
Project MKUltra, formerly known as Artichoke, encompassed 149 sub-projects, including open-air testing and experimentation on prisoners, soldiers, and college students without their knowledge or consent, except for some army soldiers.
In a volunteer army program that started in 1959, soldiers were told they would be testing new weapons, but were instead subjected to drugs and chemicals. One chemical, BZ, is 100 times stronger than LSD and can cause a person to lose their mind for up to weeks, with lasting effects. The Army initially denied testing.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Back of what the CIA and the Defense Department have been doing for a long time as far as using us as guinea pigs for mind control and other types of horrible things they have in mind for us and the rest of the people in the world. What are some of them?
Speaker 1: Well, it started out basically with the CIA doing experimentations on their own men to discover if they could get rid of agents who were going to quit the department and still had classified information. So they utilized different types of drugs and pain and hypnosis and electric shock to try and get the guys to forget. Then they also did experimentations to using different chemicals to see if you can induce a person to commit a crime or induce him to do that or to do this. Of course, the CI claimed that it didn't carry it through. The documentation we got was actually that they did that.
Then we came across the overall project called MKUltra. Its earlier code name was Artichoke, and that included 149 sub projects. 149. Yeah. And those sub projects range from what I just described to open air testing in The United States, the experimentation on prisoners, experimentation on soldiers, experimentation on college students.
Speaker 0: Would these people know they were being experimented on and gave their approval?
Speaker 1: No. Except for the, quote unquote, volunteer voluntary army soldiers.
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 1: And the the way the volunteer army program worked is it started in 1959. And the guys were just told that they would be doing experimentation on new weapons. Right? And then they'd get to Fort Detrick, Maryland, where the experimentation was done and find out that they were going to be doing it on drugs and chemicals. But they were never what they would be experimented on.
They just knew that they went crazy for a couple of days or so forth and so on, and then years later have similar things to the guys who had Agent Orange, because there's one chemical that was used called BZ, and it's a hundred times stronger than LSD. It's a it's a very gross drug that causes a person to totally go out of his head for at least twelve hours, sometimes up to two to three weeks where he doesn't even know where he where he is or who he is.
Speaker 0: Are there residual effects to BZ?
Speaker 1: Yes. Now the Army at first said that they'd done
Speaker 0: testing
reSee.it AI Summary
I've been reflecting on the narrative surrounding animal testing, particularly in the context of cancer research and drug development. After speaking with Justin Goodman from White Coat Waste, I learned that 90 to 95% of drugs that succeed in animal tests ultimately fail in humans. It's clear that animals like mice and dogs are not accurate representations of human biology. Despite this, animal testing continues, driven by profit and bureaucratic inertia. I believe it's time for the NIH and President Trump to put an end to this practice, as it seems more about corruption and animal abuse than science.
@LauraLoomer - Laura Loomer
We have all been told that animal testing is “necessary” to cure cancer and develop life-saving drugs. It’s a lie. I spoke with @WhiteCoatWaste’s Senior VP @JustinRGoodman about how 90 to 95% of drugs that pass animal testing fail in humans. Mice, dogs, and monkeys are NOT tiny humans. The @US_FDA knows this. Even Big Pharma knows this. But, they keep poisoning puppies because it’s profitable, and bureaucrats are too lazy to change. And sadly, this is still happening even under the new Trump admin! Justin called it what it is: fearmongering bullshit. If AI and human-based tech are more accurate, why are we still pumping fentanyl into beagles and strapping shrimp to treadmills on taxpayer dime? It’s not science. It’s corruption and animal abuse. The @NIH and President Trump @realDonaldTrump need to ban all animal testing.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Animal testing is purportedly needed to see how humans interact with drugs, find cures for diseases, and identify pharmaceutical side effects. However, some argue that animal and human bodies are too different to justify these experiments.
It is claimed that the idea that we need to "poison puppies" to get cures for humans is fear mongering. Data from the NIH, Defense Department, and FDA allegedly shows that 90-99% of drugs fail in humans after being safe and effective in animal tests because animal tests don't accurately predict human reactions. Pharmaceutical companies supposedly lament being forced by the FDA and EPA to experiment on animals, as it doesn't provide useful data. RFK Jr. stated that the FDA is working to reduce animal testing because AI and other modern technologies are more accurate at predicting human reactions. The speaker asserts that animal testing continues due to bureaucracy, institutional inertia, and because it's a profitable business.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know, there's a lot of arguments that, oh, you know, we need animal testing so that we could see how humans are going to interact with drugs or how humans are going to, you know, be able to find a cure for cancer or diabetes or all these diseases that they tell us we need animal testing for. What's the real science behind that? Do we need animal testing to develop a cure for cancer? Do we need animal testing to develop a cure for things like diabetes or to find out the adverse effects or the side effects or any types of consequences of taking pharmaceuticals. Because a lot of people say that if we don't have animals to test on, then well, we're not going to be able to identify the adverse effects or develop cures.
But there's also people who argue that the rate at which, you know, or I guess not the rate at which, but I guess the similarities between a human body and an animal body are so vastly different that there really isn't any kind of scientific justification for these experiments because the way that a mouse would react to an experiment is completely different than the way a human being would react to it. So what is the real science behind it? And why are they testing on dogs to find out how a human being would react to a drug overdose? Like what is the similarity between the DNA of a dog and the DNA of a human being?
Speaker 1: I think you made the argument just as well as I put. I mean, it's basically fear mongering bullshit to suggest that we have to poison puppies or torture any other animal to get cures for humans. And actually, if you look at the data from the NIH, from the Defense Department, from these other agencies that fund animal testing, the FDA included, you see that ninety percent, ninety five percent, ninety nine percent of drugs in some cases are failing in humans after being safe and effective in animal tests because they either don't work or they're dangerous in people because animal tests don't actually tell you what's gonna happen in a human being. So that's why there's this big shift in looking at other technology. And of course, this is putting aside all the stupid animal experiments that have no purpose at all, like putting fish, shrimp, and other animals on treadmills and other nonsense that the government's doing.
But in the case of drug discovery and stuff, we work with pharmaceutical companies who are constantly lamenting the fact that the federal government, the FDA in particular, or the EPA, is forcing them to experiment on dogs and other animals when it's actually not providing them any useful data about what a drug is gonna do in humans. And there was a clip from the other day of RFK at a cabinet meeting where he was talking about the new FDA initiative to to reduce and eliminate animal testing. He talked about how they have found when they looked at the data that things like AI and other modern technologies are actually more accurate at predicting what's gonna happen in humans. Technologies based on human biology because, you know, mice and rats aren't very little humans. We evolved, you know, tens of millions of years ago, and you can't even translate what happens in a mouse to a rat and vice versa.
So to suggest that that's gonna tell us anything about humans is just completely ridiculous. The reason it continues is bureaucracy, institutional inertia, and because it's big business and a lot of people are getting rich doing it, just like so many other problems we have in this country.
@ImMeme0 - I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸
🚨Footage shows animals being rescued from the testing lab formerly owned by @RepShriThanedar, who abandoned 173 dogs and monkeys at the facility after his company went bankrupt in 2010. Who voted for this cruel psychopath? https://t.co/IwbWHDsvPH
Video Transcript AI Summary
Operation Monkey Trek concluded with 25 long-tailed macaques arriving at Primarily Primates after a pharmaceutical lab in New Jersey went bankrupt. The macaques are undergoing physical exams, blood work, and TB tests, and are being introduced to aromatherapy with lavender oil. Staff are monitoring their adjustment to life outside lab cages.
The macaques have a "restrained chair collet" put on them permanently while being used for experiments. A wire guides them into a restraint chair where they are held in place with screws. The collet is not removed between experiments.
Two of the macaques, BB and Brownie, are both males. Brownie is marked with a blue dot for identification until they can be distinguished apart. The monkeys have numbers tattooed across their chests, but the tattoos will eventually be covered by hair.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Today marks the end of operation Monkey Trek. It involves a rescue case with a pharmaceutical lab in New Jersey that just went bankrupt. And 25 of these, what you call long tailed macaques, have just arrived at primarily primates.
Speaker 1: This is a what they call a restrained chair collet. It's put on there permanently as long as they're being used. And there's a wire, a pipe that they use that hooks onto here to get them out of their cages, and then they guide them up into the chair, and this slips into the chair restraint. And then two screws go through here to hold the monkey in place, and then their restrained. As long as they're being used for whatever experiment they need to be restrained for, this stays on them.
It's not put on and taken off in between experiments.
Speaker 0: We are now in the process of getting them accustomed to primarily primates. They're going through their physical exams. We're doing some blood work. They're getting TB tested. And we're doing a bunch of neat things for them, including aromatherapy with lavender oil.
And we have a lot of caring people outside. They're really going to watch them right now and make sure that they're adjusting well to, life outside of a lab cage.
Speaker 2: Move that stick. It's alright. Alright, boys. Y'all ready? Watch out, big boy.
Get off the get off the door. Go on. Come on, boy. Come in. This is b b and brownie.
They're both males. They're all males. We marked brownie with a blue dot on his back so we could tell them apart. By the time the blue goes away, we'll be able to distinguish the one from the two. They have numbers where they tattooed across their chest, but eventually, the hair will grow back and won't be able to tell.
reSee.it AI Summary
I am outraged by the revelation that Fauci was involved in horrific experiments, including sewing dead baby scalps onto mice, funded by taxpayers. It raises serious ethical questions about where the tissue came from and whether these babies were intentionally aborted for such purposes. Fauci was not only in charge but also approved the funding and designed these experiments. His actions, including torturing beagle dogs and creating dangerous bioweapons under the guise of vaccine science, warrant immediate arrest for crimes against humanity.
@TheIntelSCIF - The SCIF
FAUCI was SEWING DEAD BABY SCALPS ON the BACKS of MICE, and taxpayers were funding it. The tissue had to be alive for this experiment to begin with, so the bigger question is, where was FAUCI getting the dead babies from and were these babies aborted on purpose for for these horrific experiments that taxpayers had no idea they were funding? Not only was Fauci specifically in charge of these experiments, but he had to sign off, approve the funding, and come up with the experiment in the first place. From experimenting and torturing beagle dogs, letting sand flies eat them alive, to using purposely aborted babies, to purposely creating dangerous bioweapons and hiding in under the false pretense of "vaccine science," Fauci needs and should have been in prison decades ago. Arrest Fauci now for crimes against humanity.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims scalps of five-month-old aborted babies were grafted onto lab rats and mice in a University of Pittsburgh study funded by NIAID, which is run by Dr. Anthony Fauci. According to the speaker, photos of baby scalps with hair growing on the backs of lab rats exist in the published study. The speaker alleges Planned Parenthood abortion providers supplied the aborted baby body parts for the experiments.
The speaker asserts Dr. Fauci is responsible for the study because, as head of NIAID, he oversees how grants are spent. The speaker suggests obtaining whole scalps from fetuses indicates partial-birth abortions or live births. The speaker believes Dr. Fauci should be questioned by Congress about what his office did to ensure the grants and experiments complied with federal laws and regulations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Where they were taking the scalps of five month old aborted babies and they were grafting them onto lab rats and lab mice to see how much longer they could keep them growing for. And you can actually see the photographs in the published study of little baby scalps grafted onto the backs of lab rats growing little baby hairs. Those would have been the little hairs growing on the heads of little infants in Pittsburgh if they hadn't been killed by abortion and then stitched on the lab rats for experimentation. This study was funded by a grant by multiple grants from the NIAID office, is run by doctor Anthony Fauci. And when I was undercover, Planned Parenthood abortion providers told me that they were the ones who were supplying the aborted baby body parts for experiments at the University of Pittsburgh.
Speaker 1: It's one of the stories we almost hesitated, to do because it is so grotesque, but it seemed like in the public interest to tell the truth about what's about what's happening. Has has Fauci Absolutely. Accounted for this?
Speaker 0: No. And doctor Anthony Fauci owns every bit of this study because as the head of and and owns every bit of this issue because as the head of the NIAID office, the buck stops with him in terms of how those grants are spent, whether they're being monitored and, made sure that they're ethically and legally and just compliant as far as good stewardship of taxpayer money. The fact that they were using scalps from five month old aborted babies, that means that the heads of those children probably needed to be intact in order to get the scalps, is an indication that those are either partial birth abortion or even infants delivered alive and whole. Did anybody at doctor Fauci's office ever ask the researchers at Pittsburgh, hey. How are you getting those scalps?
How are you getting whole scalps from the heads of of fetuses without a partial birth abortion? I think that doctor Fauci should be brought in front of the senator, in front of the United States congress, and ask those questions directly about what his office did to make sure that these grants and that these barbaric experiments were in compliance with the with all the applicable applicable federal laws and regulations for those federal taxpayer grants.
reSee.it AI Summary
The conversation centers on accusations against Fauci regarding unethical experiments involving dead baby tissue and animal testing, with one participant calling for his arrest for crimes against humanity. Another contributor describes Fauci as "evil" and supports the notion of life imprisonment for his actions. A third participant references Fauci's knowledge of an antidote for RNA viruses developed by Ralph Baric and expresses a desire to spread awareness about this information, linking it to a specific protocol related to COVID-19.
@TheIntelSCIF - The SCIF
FAUCI was SEWING DEAD BABY SCALPS ON the BACKS of MICE, and taxpayers were funding it. The tissue had to be alive for this experiment to begin with, so the bigger question is, where was FAUCI getting the dead babies from and were these babies aborted on purpose for for these horrific experiments that taxpayers had no idea they were funding? Not only was Fauci specifically in charge of these experiments, but he had to sign off, approve the funding, and come up with the experiment in the first place. From experimenting and torturing beagle dogs, letting sand flies eat them alive, to using purposely aborted babies, to purposely creating dangerous bioweapons and hiding in under the false pretense of "vaccine science," Fauci needs and should have been in prison decades ago. Arrest Fauci now for crimes against humanity.
Video Transcript AI Summary
A study grafted scalps from five-month-old aborted babies onto lab rats and mice to observe their growth, with photographs documenting baby hairs growing on the rats' backs. According to the speaker, Planned Parenthood provided the aborted baby body parts for these experiments at the University of Pittsburgh.
The speaker claims the study was funded by grants from the NIAID office, headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is therefore responsible for ensuring ethical and legal compliance in the use of these grants. The speaker suggests that obtaining intact scalps from five-month-old aborted babies implies partial-birth abortions or live births. The speaker believes Dr. Fauci should be questioned by Congress regarding his office's oversight of these experiments and their compliance with federal laws and regulations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Where they were taking the scalps of five month old aborted babies and they were grafting them onto lab rats and lab mice to see how much longer they could keep them growing for. And you can actually see the photographs in the published study of little baby scalps grafted onto the backs of lab rats growing little baby hairs. Those would have been the little hairs growing on the heads of little infants in Pittsburgh if they hadn't been killed by abortion and then stitched on the lab rats for experimentation. This study was funded by a grant by multiple grants from the NIAID office, is run by doctor Anthony Fauci. And when I was undercover, Planned Parenthood abortion providers told me that they were the ones who were supplying the aborted baby body parts for experiments at the University of Pittsburgh.
Speaker 1: It's one of the stories we almost hesitated, to do because it is so grotesque, but it seemed like in the public interest to tell the truth about what's about what's happening. Has has Fauci Absolutely. Accounted for this?
Speaker 0: No. And doctor Anthony Fauci owns every bit of this study because as the head of and and owns every bit of this issue because as the head of the NIAID office, the buck stops with him in terms of how those grants are spent, whether they're being monitored and, made sure that they're ethically and legally and just compliant as far as good stewardship of taxpayer money. The fact that they were using scalps from five month old aborted babies, that means that the heads of those children probably needed to be intact in order to get the scalps, is an indication that those are either partial birth abortion or even infants delivered alive and whole. Did anybody at doctor Fauci's office ever ask the researchers at Pittsburgh, hey. How are you getting those scalps?
How are you getting whole scalps from the heads of of fetuses without a partial birth abortion? I think that doctor Fauci should be brought in front of the senator, in front of the United States congress, and ask those questions directly about what his office did to make sure that these grants and that these barbaric experiments were in compliance with the with all the applicable applicable federal laws and regulations for those federal taxpayer grants.
@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes
@TheIntelSCIF What an abomination. Fauci is an evil creature
@TheIntelSCIF - The SCIF
@dezzie_rezzie Yes, he is an evil creature, and his actions are beyond diabolical. Life in prison for crimes against humanity is the only answer.
@Mujhunter - Ron Reece
SCIF @TheIntelSCIF You don't know the half of it. Have you ever seen my pinned tweet on Fauci and Ralph Baric related to the Zelenko Protocol (ZINC + HCQ)? Fauci KNEW that Baric had created the ANTIDOTE for RNA viruses, like SARS-2 (or H5N1, Measles, Mumps, Dengue, RSV, etc, etc).. https://t.co/xfsQCQ8fO0 He also know that Baric's research would NEUTRALIZE the self-amplifying mRNA "replicon" jabs.. I could use some assistance in spreading the word since it's been 5 years since I first figured this out.. https://rumble.com/vrvyh0-link-analysis-of-nih-research-and-dr.-zelenkos-covid-protocol.html
reSee.it AI Summary
The Department of Defense has confirmed the cancellation of a $10 million contract that involved inhumane experiments on cats, following my exclusive article highlighting the issue. The investigative work of White Coat Waste revealed the DOD's use of taxpayer funds for these cruel practices. After bringing this to the attention of the Trump administration, they took action and initiated an investigation. I thank President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for their commitment to animal welfare. Now, it's time to find loving homes for the rescued cats!
@LauraLoomer - Laura Loomer
JUST IN: 🚨 The Department of Defense just quote tweeted my exclusive article about how the DOD recently renewed a $10 MILLION contract funded by taxpayers to shove marbles up the anuses of cats and electroshock them! They have confirmed that as of today, the DOD is CANCELING THE CONTRACT! The article contained the investigative findings of the incredible animal advocacy group @WhiteCoatWaste which proved these contracts were renewed. White Coat Waste submitted the FOIA to get these records to expose how our own government via the DOD was torturing cats with your taxpayer dollars! I brought this to the attention of the Trump admin and @PeteHegseth. They immediately replied and said they were investigating. @JustinRGoodman of White Coat Waste spoke about it on @LoomerUnleashed! The coverage went viral and now we have SHUT THESE ANIMAL ABUSE EXPERIMENTS DOWN! 👏 👏 🐰 🐱 🐕 Thank you President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for taking this matter seriously and saving these innocent cats! The Trump administration is proving their commitment to animal welfare everyday! Congratulations @WhiteCoatWaste on another VICTORY! HEROES! Now let’s go find some loving homes for those kitty cats!
@DODResponse - DOD Rapid Response
This is canceled. All waste at DOD is being removed.
@LauraLoomer - Laura Loomer
EXCLUSIVE: Trump’s Department of Defense Extends $10 Million Contract for Cruel Cat Constipation Experiments I’m calling on @elonmusk @PeteHegseth and @realDonaldTrump to investigate this animal abuse and to END ALL FUNDING ASAP! https://loomered.com/2025/05/02/exclusive-trumps-department-of-defense-extends-10-million-contract-for-cruel-cat-constipation-experiments/
EXCLUSIVE: Trump’s Department of Defense Extends $10 Million Contract for Cruel Cat Constipation Experiments
Trump officials have been making promises about ending cruel and outdated animal testing, but Laura Loomer and White Coast Waste Project have uncovered that many controversial taxpayer-funded grants and contracts for animal experiments, that were originally initiated by Dr. Fauci under the Biden Administration, are now quietly being renewed under the new Trump administration. The […]
loomered.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m thrilled to share that following investigations by White Coat Waste, Navy Secretary John Phelan announced the end of all Navy-funded experiments on dogs and cats. This decision comes just days after the cancellation of cruel cat tests. I applaud Secretary Phelan, Secretary Hegseth, and President Trump for prioritizing the defunding of these labs. It feels like a significant victory, especially knowing how much this will upset PETA. White Coat Waste is truly making strides in animal welfare.
@HannahDCox - Hannah Cox
BREAKING: Following @WhiteCoatWaste investigations and campaigns, President Trump’s Navy Secretary John Phelan just announced that he signed an order ending all Navy-funded experimentation on dogs and cats. This is just 10 days after the Trump DOD canceled cruel cat tests involving risky GOF research. President of WCW, @anthonybellotti said, "We applaud Secretary Phelan, Secretary Hegseth, and President Trump for first slashing the US government’s largest dog lab and now sending the Pentagon's cat and dog abuse to the litterbox of history. Defunding dog and cat labs has been our top priority for Trump 47." Now that's what I call winning. And I just know PETA is mad 😂 WCW out here running CIRCLES around them. https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/2025/05/28/wcw-victory-navy-bans-all-dog-and-cat-testing/
VICTORY: Navy Bans All Dog and Cat Testing after WCW Investigation
Following years of WCW efforts, the Trump Administration’s Department of the Navy has announced that it is banning all wasteful and cruel experiments on dogs and cats.
blog.whitecoatwaste.org
@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin
🚨 Fauci’s beagle torture chambers are FINALLY shut down. Trump’s new NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya has ended all dog experiments at NIH — closing the lab that mutilated and killed puppies for decades. America said no more. And Trump's team delivered. 🧵 https://t.co/ix1uFk66RV
reSee.it AI Summary
ValerieAnne1970 urged removing COVID vaccines and ending mandates, claiming they’re unsafe and didn’t save lives. Dr. McCullough echoed the call to drop mandates and questioned safety. In replies, NotSuggestible criticized animal testing, suggesting test animals died and raising patent/GMO concerns. Valerie and NotSuggestible debated animal testing and legality, with Birduder344 challenging testing motives.
@ValerieAnne1970 - Valerie Anne Smith
"I call for all COVID-19 vaccines to be removed from the market." Dr Peter McCullough, MD "All requirements & mandates for vaccination to be dropped." "The vaccines are not safe & they did not save millions of lives." "We need to avoid vaccine injury, disability & deaths."
Video Transcript AI Summary
Doctor Peter McCullough calls for all COVID-19 vaccines to be removed from the market and for all requirements and mandates for vaccination to be dropped. He states that the vaccines are not safe and they're ineffective. He asserts that the vaccines cause heart damage leading to cardiac arrest and heart failure, neurologic injury, stroke and hemorrhagic intracranial bleeding, small fiber neuropathy, blood clots, and autoimmune conditions. He adds that the vaccines alarmingly may increase the risk for certain cancers. He claims that the vast majority of people have had SARS-CoV-2 infection one or multiple times, giving them natural immunity, and that the risks of serious illness to the population at this point are negligible. He asserts that the COVID-19 vaccines did not save millions of lives, and that while initial studies indicated they could reduce case counts, no valid study has shown that the COVID-19 vaccines saved lives. He contends that they do not reduce hospitalization and death. At this point, he says, we can close the vaccine campaign and begin recovering from the wave of vaccine injuries and disabilities and hopefully avoid any more vaccine deaths by removing the COVID-19 vaccines from the market. He signs off as Doctor Peter McCullough, Dallas, Texas.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm making the call for all COVID-nineteen vaccines to be removed from the market, have all requirements and mandates for vaccination to be dropped. And the reason is that the vaccines are not safe and they're ineffective. The vaccines our regulatory agencies have agreed lead to heart damage, which results in cardiac arrest and heart failure, neurologic injury, stroke and hemorrhagic intracranial bleeding, small fiber neuropathy, blood clots, and autoimmune conditions. The vaccines alarmingly may increase the risk for certain cancers. All of this is bad news.
The vast majority of us have had SARS CoV-two infection one or multiple times. We have natural immunity. The risks of serious illness to the population at this point in time are negligible. The COVID-nineteen vaccines did not save millions of lives. Even though initial studies indicated they could reduce case counts, sadly, no valid study has shown that the COVID-nineteen vaccines saved lives.
They don't reduce hospitalization and death. And at this point in time, we can close the vaccine campaign and begin recovering from the wave of vaccine injuries and disabilities and hopefully avoid any more vaccine deaths by removing the COVID-nineteen vaccines from the market. I'm Doctor. Peter McCullough, Dallas, Texas. Thanks for listening.
@NotSuggestible - Laura Morrow
@ValerieAnne1970 All animals used in testing mRNA died. It is weird that they “thought” humans would be different! They had to use genetically modified animals which are owned by the patent company & therefore not considered sovereign beings. I wonder if that’s why they wanted everyone 💉?! 🧐
@ValerieAnne1970 - Valerie Anne Smith
@NotSuggestible It is absolutely mind boggling to think about those animals in testing, Laura! We are mammals, humans are mammals...whatever happens to animal testing will happen to us. It is criminal what big pharma & the CDC got away with.
@Birduder344 - Birduder344
@ValerieAnne1970 @NotSuggestible You’ve just admitted that you know nothing about animal testing.
@NotSuggestible - Laura Morrow
@Birduder344 @ValerieAnne1970 Are you saying the point of animal testing is to kill the test subjects? I would expect the goal to be survival & the best possible outcome. When PETA stepped in they switched to genetically modified animals which are not considered under the law to have basic rights of non GM.
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.
@thematrixb0t - matrixbot
BOEBERT: "Implant aborted baby parts into lab animals? Have you heard of that sort of research?" GOODMAN: "We did an analysis showing that over 90% of experiments using human fetal tissue & putting them in animals were funded by Fauci's NIAID." https://t.co/QLF6WISHGT
Video Transcript AI Summary
First speaker: Implant aborted baby parts into lab animals. You heard of that sort of research?
Second speaker: We did an analysis a few years ago showing that over ninety percent of experiments with using human fetal tissue and putting them involved animals were funded by Fauci's NIAID.
First speaker: Do you know where they're getting the aborted human fetal tissue?
Second speaker: A lot of it is happening at colleges and universities that have affiliated hospitals that perform that procedure.
First speaker: Madam Chair, I think
Second speaker: we
First speaker: need to look into that as well.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Implant aborted baby parts into lab animals. You heard of that sort of research?
Speaker 1: Yeah. We did an analysis a few years ago showing that over ninety percent of experiments with using human fetal tissue and putting them involved animals were funded by Fauci's NIAID.
Speaker 0: Do you know where they're getting the aborted human fetal tissue?
Speaker 1: A lot of it is happening at colleges and universities that have affiliated hospitals that perform that procedure.
Speaker 0: Madam Chair, I think
Speaker 1: we
Speaker 0: need to look into that as well.