reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0: Yes. He's one of our medical staff. He was shot inside the complex as you can see. It's now he's in very critical situation. Think he's going to pass away. Oh my god.

Speaker 1, Johnny, is being chased by Antifa. They discuss trans ideology and the danger in Gaza. Speaker 0 warns about being killed by Muslims. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of assault.

Hamas has taken control of a hospital, seizing fuel and medicine. The speaker, a medical professional, expresses their frustration at not having the necessary resources to treat patients, like a 5-year-old boy with a fracture who had to be treated without morphine. The speaker pleads for anyone listening to leave and run away from the situation.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss getting a shot. Speaker 1 administers the shot while Speaker 0 talks. Speaker 1 then applies a Band Aid and suggests a campaign slogan, "Roll up your sleeves, New York."

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 are discussing discharge rights at a hospital. The core issue is that there is no doctor’s order allowing the baby to go home, while the mother believes she can leave without such an order. Key points: - The mother argues “the mommy can go without doctor’s order, but not the baby,” and asks why the baby cannot accompany the mom. - Speaker 1 insists “there’s nothing wrong with the baby” and asks to “get the doctor up here so we can be discharged.” - Speaker 0 repeats: “There is no order for the baby to go home.” Speaker 1 counters, “There doesn’t have to be one.” - They have been "going through this for, like, the last hour," and they want to leave. Speaker 1 asks, “How long is it gonna be before the doctor gets up here?” and they say “We are calling the doctor right now. It depends on how when you get a callback.” - A hospital staff member (Speaker 2) asks to speak outside with Speaker 1, saying, “Sir, can I talk to you outside real quick?” and then notes a need for discretion regarding victims. - The routine difficulty is clarified: “There is no doctor's order for the baby to go home.” Yet Speaker 1 states, “There’s not,” and they reiterate their desire to leave: “We wanna leave.” - They discuss the process: Speaker 0 says, “Yes. We are [calling],” and Speaker 1 says, “Get the order… so we can leave.” Speaker 1 adds, “And so we can leave.” - Regarding consequences or external involvement, Speaker 1 asks about CPS: “CPS? No. They didn't? No. Nothing about CPS. Nothing.” - The dialogue emphasizes that the mother believes she should be allowed to discharge, and the baby’s discharge requires a doctor’s order, which they are not obtaining at the moment. Overall, the conversation centers on the discrepancy between the mother’s belief that she can discharge without a doctor’s order and the hospital’s apparent requirement for a formal order for the baby to be discharged. They are actively attempting to contact the doctor to issue the necessary order, while expressing frustration at the delay. CPS is mentioned but not involved, with reassurance that there has been no CPS involvement. The mother asserts that the mother can leave, but the baby cannot without the doctor’s order, and Speaker 1 keeps pressing to obtain that order so they can discharge.

Hamas is taking over the hospital, controlling supplies like fuel and medicine. The speaker, a doctor, is unable to treat a 5-year-old boy's fracture without morphine. They plead for Hamas to leave and for people to run away from the situation.

Hamas has taken control of a hospital, seizing fuel and medicine. The speaker, a medical professional, expresses frustration as they are unable to treat a 5-year-old boy's fracture without morphine, which Hamas has taken for themselves. The speaker pleads for people to leave and not stay in the area.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 are having a conversation about a situation. Speaker 0 mentions numbers and asks how things are going. Speaker 1 calls for backup and mentions medics. The conversation is intense and urgent.

Hamas has taken control of a hospital, seizing fuel and medicine. The speaker, a medical professional, expresses frustration at the lack of resources, specifically mentioning the inability to provide morphine for a 5-year-old boy with a fracture.

- The speaker notes dated 07/25/2022, reporting on developments related to baby deaths and baby funerals. They reference the UK government website, and specifically Northampton NHS in detail mentioning children's funerals, noting that contracts for this area have appeared that were previously unseen. They point to contractfinderservice.gov.uk and advise looking for “children's and babies' funerals.” They identify several awarded contracts, including one for Hertfordshire, another for Hertfordshire specifically for baby funerals, and contracts awarded for Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS, and Leicester Hospitals NHS. - The speaker mentions that the WNHS is another organization involved for those who do not want to have Mexican arranged funerals, stating that they will do that for you now. - A doctor in Australia, Dr. Luke McClinton, is described as leading the fertility services at the Mater Hospital and as a principal investigator for a series of randomized controlled trials. He is also described as the president of the Australian Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine and is labeled as “the top doctor in Australia in this field.” - The speaker asserts that Dr. Luke McClinton was sacked on Friday for not getting the jab and for attempting to release his data on miscarriages post-vaccination. They state that he has until the following Friday to exit his private practice rooms, as he is no longer allowed to practice in public or private settings. - The speaker claims that Dr. McClinton has been investigating miscarriages in couples post-vaccination and states that the “normal miscarriage rate” is between five and perhaps as high as sixteen percent. They then claim that since the introduction of the vaccine, he has found that seventy-four percent of women who are vaccinated are now having miscarriages. - The speaker reiterates the statistic: “Seventy four percent of women are having miscarriages who are vaccinated.” They suggest that this statistic would explain why hospitals allegedly want to deal directly with crematoria, with vans taking multiple babies directly to the crematorium, bypassing funeral directors. The speaker emphasizes that they had previously mentioned these points.

Speaker 0 talks about soldiers involved in scandals. Speaker 1 shares a story about confronting soldiers who didn't know how to use weapons properly. She threatened to shoot if they didn't move, highlighting the dangers of untrained fighters in combat situations.

Speaker 0 urges everyone to make noise, stating that if anything happens to them, it will be another war crime added to Israel's list. Speaker 1 reports they are being intercepted, assures everyone present is safe and unwounded, and emphasizes that no one was wounded until the time they ordered their vote. Speaker 1 asks to raise the alarm.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 exchange a tense, fragmented interaction in a waiting room scenario. Speaker 0 expresses frustration about waiting two hours for a specialist and acknowledges the overall overload in healthcare, the low pay, and the sometimes rude behavior they perceive, while emphasizing that their own intent is simply to know when the doctor will arrive. Speaker 1 reassures that the doctor is on the way and asks for a little more patience, noting they are currently working amid the same pressures. Speaker 0 seeks a rough estimate of the doctor’s arrival time, to which Speaker 1 responds that they are busy with work. Speaker 0 again tries to engage, and Speaker 1 shifts to a broader complaint, stating that they are trying to do their job despite enormous workload, low pay, and sometimes quite rude behavior. Speaker 0 acknowledges understanding but reiterates the two-hour wait. Speaker 1 interrupts Speaker 0 to continue making a point about the environment, saying, “Luister eens, wij proberen gewoon ons werk te doen. Ondanks de enorme werkdruk in de zorg. Ondanks de lage beloningen, ondanks de soms nogal onbeschofte” (Listen, we are simply trying to do our jobs, despite the enormous workload in healthcare, despite the low pay, despite the sometimes rather rude). Speaker 0 again mentions the two-hour wait. Speaker 1 then brings up aggression they have faced, including verbal abuse and physical aggression, stating, “Ondanks alle agressie die wij over ons heen krijgen. De scheldpartijen, de fysieke” (Despite all the aggression we receive, the swearing, the physical). Speaker 0 denies being aggressive and clarifies that they only want to know roughly when the doctor will have time. The exchange intensifies as Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of having an aggressive tone and warns that if Speaker 0 does not sit calmly, they will call security. Speaker 0 protests that there is nothing wrong with their tone, recounting the two-hour wait, and Speaker 1 reiterates concerns about tone, insisting that Speaker 0’s tone is not acceptable. Speaker 1 ultimately declares that enough is enough and that aggression toward care workers must end, concluding with “Handen af ten zorg. Toch?” (Hands off the care, right?) and a momentary pause that implies security involvement. The interaction centers on a stressful delay in care, the pressures faced by healthcare workers, and a conflict over tone and boundaries amid a high-demand, high-stress environment.

They are witnessing medical negligence and deaths in a hospital, with patients not dying from COVID. Instances include incorrect intubation, wrong medications, and lack of proper care. Despite efforts to advocate for patients, the situation remains dire. The speaker expresses frustration at the lack of action and concern for the patients' well-being.

Speaker 0 challenges the doctor, asking if they are being forced to put their child on ADHD medicine or risk CPS involvement. Speaker 1 asserts that the medication is recommended for the child and that following the doctor’s instructions is in the child’s best interest. The doctor states they will be forced to call CPS if the guidance isn’t followed and emphasizes doing what’s best for the child, framing it as not a favor but a necessity. Speaker 0 contends the child has not shown ADHD symptoms and asks for a second opinion, to which Speaker 1 responds that they are the doctor. Speaker 0 reiterates that they are being told either to put the child on medication or CPS will be called, calling this forcing. The doctor clarifies that they asked about a second opinion, maintains they are the doctor, and says if the patient doesn’t trust their doctor, they shouldn’t be coming there, which Speaker 0 finds unreasonable. Speaker 1 repeats that they are not threatening, but are trying to do what’s best for the patient and their child, and adds that if you love your child enough you will listen to their words. Speaker 0 pushes back, stating you cannot tell them how to feel about loving their child, and reiterates that the doctor is still the doctor, with Speaker 1 acknowledging the child’s importance but underscoring their medical role.

Speaker 0: Hey, glad to see you guys. You're patriots. Look at this guy, covered in blood. Are you okay? Need medical attention? I'm good, thanks. I got shot in the face with a plastic bullet. Can you leave the senate wing? We will. I'm making sure they respect the place. This is sacred. That's it.

Speaker 0 asks about Palestinians in hospitals and babies on life support in Gaza whose power has been cut off by Israelis. Speaker 1 dismisses the question, saying they are fighting Nazis and don't target civilians. Speaker 0 tries to have a conversation, but Speaker 1 interrupts and raises their voice. Speaker 0 asserts their role as the host and asks Speaker 1 to address the situation, but Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of shame. The conversation becomes heated and Speaker 1 refuses to engage further.

The speakers discuss the situation in Gaza, with one person claiming that hospitals have been turned into Hamas bunkers. They argue that Hamas is responsible for the civilians being trapped and that if they want to save lives, they should surrender. The other person challenges this claim, stating that no intelligence reports or governments have confirmed the hospital as a bunker. They emphasize the need for evidence and express skepticism about the claim. The conversation ends with the assertion that the truth will be revealed after the war.

We're two doctors from Australia. We're here in Gaza at the moment. most of our patients are kids and pregnant women. there was no water, no food and people living in the hospital everywhere. no internet and no electricity. the bombs outside the hospital front door. The f 35 parts are not non lethal. They are absolutely lethal. at least 10 to 20 dead on arrival or GCS three that we can't do anything about. The only thing that we have is ketamine. There was zero internet. We've got no WiFi.

A nurse and a doctor discuss the use of ventilators in hospitals during the pandemic. The nurse reveals that some floors were carrying out actions that other floors refused to do, essentially causing harm to patients. The doctor mentions that ventilators were used to protect healthcare workers, even though they had a high fatality rate for patients. The lack of transparency with patients and families is highlighted, as well as the reluctance to explore alternative treatments like Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine. The speaker also mentions the incentivization of using certain drugs and protocols that led to unnecessary deaths.

Hamas is taking control of a hospital, seizing fuel and medicine. The speaker, in disbelief, urges people to leave and warns that there is nothing left to treat patients, even a 5-year-old boy who needs morphine. The plea is for people to run away and not stay in the dangerous situation.

Speaker 1 discusses the importance of their mission to care for children in Gaza. They admit to being unprepared for the danger and violence present in the area. Speaker 0 offers assistance, mentioning the sound of explosions nearby and the possibility of seeking shelter. Speaker 1 shares advice from their Palestinian sister-in-law, advising them to stay away from windows, stay close to corners of walls, and open their mouth to prevent their eardrums from being affected by pressure.

Speaker 0 questions why they should leave their family and who will care for their patients. They believe they have the right to proper healthcare and didn't spend years in medical school just to think about themselves. They ask if this is the reason they became a doctor.

Hamas has taken control of a hospital, seizing fuel and medicine. The speaker, a medical professional, expresses concern about the lack of resources, specifically mentioning the absence of morphine for treating a 5-year-old boy's fracture. The speaker pleads with anyone listening to leave and run away from the situation.

The transcript captures a speaker proposing a range of aggressive, potentially violent tactics intended to deter or disrupt a group described as “these guys.” The core ideas center on creating fear and incapacitation of medical providers or their allies, and broadly targeting the environments they rely on. Key points include: - A suggestion to create a deterrent by equipping medical providers with syringes loaded with substances (saline or other drugs) and using them as a scare tactic. - Advice to use poison ivy/oak exposure, processed into water, to create a hazardous effect via a water gun aimed at faces or hands, as a method to disrupt the opposing group. - A plan to locate the individuals through dating apps (Tinder, Hinge) and use laxatives to incapacitate them, rendering them unable to continue activities for a day. - The notion that such actions could be highly deniable, and that the perpetrator might also risk personal illness. - The objective stated is to target places where the group eats or sleeps, making their lives miserable by interfering with meals and lodging, and by communicating with staff at those locations for additional ideas. - Additional ideas include leaving dead fish in rooms and other toxic tactics to maintain ongoing disruption and unrest. Overall, the speaker outlines a campaign of sabotage, intimidation, and disruption aimed at weakening the target group by affecting their health, safety, and daily routines, with an emphasis on deniability and spreading misery in their living and eating environments.