reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In the early days of the pandemic, there was significant fear-mongering about COVID-19 death rates. Initially, a 3.4% death rate was reported by the World Health Organization, which many claimed was accurate. However, later data indicated the death rate was actually much lower, under 1%. President Trump suggested this lower figure, facing criticism for contradicting the WHO. Despite the backlash, experts, including Dr. Fauci, acknowledged that the death rate could be considerably less than 1%. The conversation highlights how misinformation can spread, especially from influential figures, and raises concerns about the responsibility of leaders to rely on scientific data.

We initially didn't grasp the low fatality rate of the disease, which mainly affects the elderly, similar to the flu but with some differences.

There was never a scientific consensus on many topics related to COVID-19. Before the pandemic, most scientists held views contrary to the prevailing narrative. A small group of influential scientific bureaucrats took control of the public discourse, dominating media and influencing politicians. This led to a catastrophic response to the pandemic, and the repercussions will be felt for a long time.

The Spanish flu didn't start in Spain, but in the US as a bacterial pneumonia outbreak from a vaccine experiment on soldiers. The Rockefeller Institute led the mass vaccination program, causing the spread of the disease. Survivors became carriers, infecting others. Similarities to COVID-19 include closed societies, shedding, and safety measures for the greater good.

The speaker mentions that many in the administration were concerned about the coronavirus as early as January or February. They believe that if action had been taken earlier, such as implementing social distancing and diagnostic testing, the situation would be better. Currently, the US is near a plateau in the number of cases, particularly in places like New York. However, it may take time for the numbers to decrease significantly. The reliability of models predicting the number of deaths is questioned, as they are only approximations. The outcome will depend on collective actions, such as social distancing and the development of therapies.

In 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation published a document predicting a pandemic leading to authoritarian control and surveillance. China's quick response was praised. The document also mentions Event 201, a simulation of a coronavirus outbreak in 2019. Misinformation was highlighted as a major issue during the pandemic. The World Health Organization warned of a highly lethal respiratory pathogen causing a global catastrophe. Bill Gates previously warned of a major pandemic causing millions of deaths. The current situation is seen as a result of long-term planning.

The speaker mentions that many in the administration were concerned about the coronavirus as early as January or February. They believe that if action had been taken earlier, such as implementing social distancing and diagnostic testing, the situation would be better. Currently, the US is near a plateau in the number of cases, particularly in places like New York. However, it may take time for the numbers to decrease significantly. The reliability of models predicting the number of deaths is uncertain, and the outcome will depend on the collective reaction of the country, including measures like social distancing and the development of effective therapies.

We are addressing real and critical threats related to a novel coronavirus called CAPS, which is similar to the viruses that caused the SARS epidemic and MERS outbreaks. We need to be prepared for a fast-moving and highly lethal pandemic of a respiratory pathogen. This disease is more transmissible than SARS or MERS and as contagious as influenza. The virus can be easily transmitted through the air, making everyone susceptible. Asymptomatic individuals can also spread the virus, leading to a severe pandemic that affects people worldwide. Many countries will be affected simultaneously.

In Davos, in January 2020, we had a conversation about a vaccine for COVID-19. At that time, COVID-19 wasn't a major concern, and we were focused on developing the vaccine.

During the Spanish flu, one-third of the world population was infected. Contrary to its name, it didn't start in Spain and it wasn't a flu virus. It was a bacteria that originated in the US and was spread through soldiers. The Rockefeller Institute was responsible for the mass vaccination program, led by Dr. Frederick Gates. Survivors became carriers, infecting others, similar to shedding in COVID times. The parallels between then and now are striking, with disease outbreaks, societal closures, and the pursuit of safety. The connections between Frederick Gates and Bill Gates, as well as the Rockefeller Initiative then and now, are intriguing.

In 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation published a document predicting a pandemic like COVID-19. It described a scenario where governments imposed strict measures, citizens gave up privacy for safety, and misinformation spread. Event 201, a simulation hosted in 2019, eerily mirrored the pandemic. Experts warned of a highly infectious virus causing global catastrophe. The current situation is seen as a result of long-term planning.

The speaker mentions that many in the administration were concerned about the coronavirus as early as January or February. They believe that if action had been taken earlier, such as implementing social distancing and diagnostic testing, the situation would be better. Currently, the US is near a plateau in the number of cases, particularly in places like New York. However, it may take time for the numbers to decrease significantly. The reliability of models predicting the number of deaths is questioned, as they are approximations and depend on various factors such as our collective reaction and the development of therapies. The outcome is not predetermined and will depend on our efforts to control the virus.

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.

The Gates Foundation is redirecting its efforts and funding towards finding therapeutics and vaccines for COVID-19. They are focusing on testing, drug discovery, and vaccine development. While vaccines may take around 18 months to become widely available, therapeutics like manufactured antibodies and using the blood of recovered patients could be available in 4 to 6 months. However, the impact of these interventions on reducing death rates and overloads is uncertain. The foundation is particularly concerned about developing a vaccine that is effective and safe for older people, as they are at higher risk. Safety and efficacy testing across different age groups and demographics is challenging, and governments will need to be involved in the decision to distribute a vaccine worldwide.

During the Spanish flu, one third of the world population was infected. Contrary to popular belief, it didn't start in Spain and it wasn't a flu virus. Instead, it was a bacteria that caused severe pneumonia. The Rockefeller Institute in New York injected soldiers at Fort Riley, leading to the rapid spread of the bacteria. The American population was then vaccinated by the Rockefeller Institute, with Doctor Frederick Gates in charge. Those who survived became carriers and spread the bacteria to others, similar to shedding in COVID-19. The parallels between the past and present, with the Rockefeller and Gates involvement, raise interesting questions about disease development and vaccination for our safety.

In China, a strange case of atypical pneumonia is reported by an eye doctor. Within 11 days, the first PCR kits to test for the virus are shipped. The World Health Organization accepts a PCR protocol as the gold standard for testing. A study on clinical symptoms related to COVID is published, followed by a study on asymptomatic transmission. All of these developments occur within a compressed timeframe of just 26 days. The speaker argues that each step was premeditated and false.

During the Spanish flu, one third of the world population was infected. Contrary to popular belief, it didn't start in Spain and wasn't caused by a flu virus. Instead, it originated in the US and was caused by a bacteria that led to severe pneumonia. The Rockefeller Institute was involved in injecting soldiers at Fort Riley, which resulted in the rapid spread of the bacteria. The American population was also vaccinated under the supervision of Dr. Frederick Gates. Survivors became carriers and spread the bacteria to others, similar to shedding in COVID-19. This historical event draws parallels to the present, with Bill Gates being associated with vaccination efforts, just like the Rockefeller initiative.

We didn't prepare for this. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, along with our partners, are facing unknown circumstances in both health and economic policies. This event is not the first planned exercise.

There was never a scientific consensus on many COVID-related topics. Before the pandemic, most scientists held opposing views. A small, influential group of scientific bureaucrats seized control of the public narrative, dominating media and influencing politicians. This led to a disastrous response to COVID, and the repercussions will be felt for a long time.

During COVID, I traveled the country and saw many undiagnosed diseases that could have been treated early, but resulted in COVID deaths. I also witnessed the deterioration of our health system in rural areas, where access to healthcare is limited. The hub and spoke model, designed to get very sick people into regional medical centers, was overwhelmed. COVID highlighted issues with chronic disease management. Similar to early HIV treatment, we initially only treated symptomatic individuals, which was just the tip of the iceberg. When we started finding and treating asymptomatic individuals early, before they showed disease, they could thrive.

In early February, experts at the foundation expressed concern about the inability to contain the virus due to extensive travel without diagnosis. At that time, the fatality rate and the fact that it mainly affected the elderly were not fully understood. This lack of awareness and slow response from the world, including the United States, was a worrisome period.