reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Sonia Elijah’s book, three eleven viral takeover, is described as a deep forensic investigation into the COVID era, built from years of FOIA requests, leaked documents, timelines, interviews, and scientific literature to examine unanswered questions from the period. The host, Clayton, frames the discussion around why the pandemic happened, how it happened, and which power structures created populations that largely complied with lockdowns. Elijah explains that March 11, 2020, marked more than a health response; it was a global reset. She compares it to 9/11, arguing that while 9/11 led to citizen surveillance, three eleven led to citizen compliance with the state, with mass lockdowns and surrender of civil liberties. She characterizes the day as a turning point into a new era. The book argues that COVID marked a shift from a post-9/11 surveillance state to direct citizen compliance, facilitated by weaponized fear. In the UK, messaging campaigns spent hundreds of millions of pounds to tell people that “if you go out, you’re going to kill grandma” or “you’ll die,” which helped create a climate of fear. Elijah cites hypocrisy in leadership during lockdowns, noting Boris Johnson at parties and senior New York public health officials at drug-fueled gatherings, while ordinary citizens faced harsh restrictions. The narrative includes stories such as a family member being pressured to isolate a non-COVID patient and care-home policies that contributed to elderly deaths. Elijah discusses the personal toll of the lockdowns, including experiences with hospital visiting restrictions during a family member’s stroke and the broader trauma seen in children and mental health. She cites a child psychologist and the emergence of “COVID anxiety syndrome” as diagnoses, noting that the public messaging and fear-based coercion affected behavior and well-being. The book emphasizes the role of censorship and the disinformation apparatus after three eleven. Elijah highlights a machinery of censorship, including the World Health Organization’s influence on what was deemed scientific, and the suppression of the lab-leak theory and early vaccine harms discussions. She points to the Trusted News Initiative, coordinated by BBC leadership, which she claims enabled big tech to downrank or remove dissenting voices, including doctors and scientists who advocated for early treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. The narrative includes examples of vaccine-injury discourse being shut down, with veteran platforms and media networks flagging or removing related content. Elijah details the epidemiological and testing framework that supported lockdowns, focusing on the PCR test’s use, high cycle thresholds, and the rapid antigen tests from Innova Medical Group. She argues these tests, funded through substantial procurement schemes and criticized by the FDA, helped justify continued restrictions. She discusses a “VIP lanes” procurement environment in the UK and the role of Innova and related networks in driving large-scale testing and surveillance. A major thread is the diffuse network surrounding gain-of-function research and the origins debate. Elijah discusses EcoHealth Alliance, the DEFUSE proposal, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, noting that Fauci’s NIAID funded related work after a DoD rejection. She references emails and FOIA material showing that a core group of scientists coordinated a public narrative that favored a zoonotic origin while privately wrestling with lab-leak possibilities. The Great Barrington Declaration is described as a focal point of dissent that was aggressively attacked; Francis Collins reportedly questioned “these three fringe epidemiologists,” leading to professional repercussions for Kalodorf and others. Elijah’s closing argument positions COVID as a planned, coordinated effort toward a global biosecurity state, with ambitions including digital IDs and alignment with Agenda 2030. She cites NATO involvement in disinformation policy as evidence of state and military coordination, and she frames the book as a road map to prevent future similar actions. Her aim is to empower readers with knowledge and truth as antidotes to potential future crises. The book, she says, is written to chronicle these events for humanity, hoping that awareness will reduce fear and increase vigilance.

Big tech's handling of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is concerning. They have been deferential to the CCP, which was invested in promoting lockdowns similar to those in Wuhan. Facebook and other companies elevated lockdown hysteria and suppressed those questioning it. This is troubling because lockdowns were not the norm in public health guidance before COVID, and it was a new concept influenced by China's experience. The relationship between big tech and the CCP is problematic, especially in fields like entertainment and the American economy.

Public health officials during the pandemic acted more like dictators than scientists, suppressing credible dissent. Early on, they dismissed the lab leak hypothesis as conspiracy, only recently acknowledging its plausibility. Martin Kulldorff from Harvard, Sunita Gupta from Oxford, and I proposed a focused protection strategy in October 2020, which was labeled fringe by then NIH director Francis Collins, despite support from thousands of professionals. Government agencies collaborated with social media to control the narrative around COVID science, creating a false sense of consensus. The public deserves answers about the basis for school closures, whether the harms of policies were adequately considered, and why natural immunity and vaccine transmission failures were overlooked in mandates.

It is nearly impossible to publish data that goes against the national public health narrative, preventing doctors from finding solutions. The speaker has conducted clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies, including vaccine studies, and has brought vaccines and other drugs to market. Some drugs never made it to market because they killed people. Clinical trial guidelines ensure safe drugs, but these guidelines were not followed during the pandemic, affecting everyone. COVID should have been a time for doctors to unite, but interference with research occurred. Science evolves through experiments, skepticism, and an open mind. Challenging current knowledge must be allowed to move science forward, but what the speaker witnessed during the pandemic was not science.

Mark Zuckerberg stated he was ordered by the White House to suppress mentions of vaccine injuries on Facebook and Instagram. He expressed being stunned by this order from the federal government to deny facts. According to the speaker, they sued the Biden administration and obtained documents showing that 37 hours after taking office, a White House group was formed to suppress dissent regarding government policy. The speaker claims they were the first target, with Facebook being told to remove them from Instagram, which Facebook did. The speaker asserts they had almost a million followers and posted no vaccine misinformation, challenging Facebook to identify any factual errors in their posts, which were cited and sourced to government databases or peer-reviewed publications.

Obama created an agency to censor dissenting voices, Twitter moderators were told to censor vaccine hesitancy content. A Bitcoin investor was arrested for warning about CBDCs, mainstream figures charged with child rape. Clinton's campaign staff monitored news linking Bill Clinton to Jeffrey Epstein.

"Your government doesn't censor those people as a way to do the best that it can." The speaker recalls being interviewed by a major newspaper and "I bring up doctor Peter McCullough every time" when asked "what evidence? What proof?" They argue that "the world's leading heart doctor" and "the most published heart doctor in the world was censored during COVID." They question whether "the government was just doing the best that it could under the circumstances," answering "Like, no." The speaker asserts that "The best a government that considers itself to be in a free nation does not go out of its way to censor world renowned scientists, doctors, the number one heart doctor in the world in doctor Peter McCullough, the most published ICU doctor the world in doctor Paul Merrick, the inventor of the technology itself, doctor Robert Malone." "Your government doesn't censor those people as a way to do the best that it can."

I'd bet my career that strategies to influence compliance are meticulously planned and executed. One telltale sign of a psychological operation is the need to silence dissenting voices. If questioning is stifled and people are publicly shamed for sharing information, especially when they aren't making outlandish claims, it's a psyop. Throughout history, silencing or shaming individuals has been a hallmark of psyops. Look at Harvard and Stanford doctors being deplatformed for their views. The Great Barrington Declaration is another example where experts were silenced and treated as fringe, with documented strategies to discredit them. Even the government contacted social media platforms to remove people. Hopefully, we've learned from the last few years and recognize these tactics.

In 2020, the speaker was asked to stop going on the press by the dean of the university and the dean of the medical school. The speaker's academic freedom was threatened due to a study on measuring antibodies in the population, which has now been replicated globally. The speaker was ordered to redo the study, and the medical school administration interfered even before the paper was submitted for publication. The speaker wrote about how Stanford failed the academic freedom test.

Mark Zuckerberg allegedly stated he was ordered by the White House to suppress discussion of vaccine injuries on Facebook and Instagram. The speaker claims to have sued the Biden administration and obtained documents showing that 37 hours after taking office, a White House group was formed to suppress dissent regarding government policy, and the speaker was their first target. Facebook was allegedly told to remove the speaker from Instagram, which they did, despite the speaker's claim that all vaccine-related posts were cited and sourced to government databases or peer-reviewed publications. According to the speaker, Facebook told the White House that the information was not misinformation, but the White House called it "malinformation"—factually true information inconvenient for the government. The speaker asserts that numerous individuals, including O.J. Botticello, Marty Makary, Dr. Oz, and Vinay Prasad, were also censored.

Pharmaceutical companies paid $1.06 billion to reviewers at major medical journals, allegedly corrupting the peer review process. Studies from the CDC, FDA, and Pfizer purportedly revealed major breaches in COVID-19 vaccine safety signals during pregnancy, but these findings were allegedly ignored. Independent researchers who published findings contradicting pharmaceutical industry narratives faced persecution, censorship, and threats to their medical licenses and board certifications. The speaker claims this happened to them personally.

Twitter censored the speaker's account in 2021 for sharing COVID vaccine-related information. Internal emails reveal that a Twitter employee named Michael Vincent Coe flagged a tweet for violating COVID misinformation policies. Coe, who has a business administration degree, dismissed the claims without providing evidence. Another Twitter employee, Joseph Guay, also flagged a tweet related to DARPA, questioning their involvement in funding vaccine research. Guay acknowledged that the article linked in the tweet discussed the topic accurately, but deemed the speaker's context as harmful and false. Both employees left Twitter around the same time. The speaker's lawyers are considering legal action.

The government's involvement in big tech censorship is a severe violation of civil liberties. The Biden administration's actions led to a decrease in social media impressions. Cases like Genghis v. HHS and Missouri v. Biden highlight government influence on tech companies to silence certain voices. Experts like Bhattacharya and Kulldorff faced censorship for their views on lockdowns. The government's constant direction to social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to control information is concerning.

The speaker filed their first lawsuit against the Biden administration after discovering their name in briefings created by Stanford, funded by the Bill Gates Foundation, as part of the Virality Project. This project analyzed information to identify sources of COVID vaccine hesitancy, monitoring social and mainstream media. The speaker claims these briefings were sent to the White House, which then directed social media companies to censor specific content. Following a press conference with Senator Ron Johnson in July 2021, support groups were shut down. The speaker's activities in June and July 2021 were documented, noting the impact of "unverified claims of vaccine injury." The speaker believes the timing of this report and the subsequent censorship was not coincidental, preventing them from speaking on social and mainstream media. The speaker was shocked to find their legal and ethical actions tracked and relevant to the White House, even by their own political party.

The discussion centers on COVID-19 misinformation and the roles of public figures and disinformation spreaders. Speaker 0 questions whether doctor Fauci is involved in a plot to kill millions. Speaker 1 says he cannot confirm involvement but asserts Fauci is not an innocent bystander and is aware of his actions; he doesn’t have the information to determine the extent of Fauci’s involvement. Speaker 2 identifies Dr. Dirashid Bhattar as one of the top spreaders of COVID-19 disinformation on social media, citing the Center for Countering Digital Hate, noting Bhattar once had more than a million followers. The dialogue includes several false or debunked claims attributed to Bhattar. Speaker 1 states that “More people are dying from the COVID vaccine than from COVID,” a claim Speaker 2 labels as not true, along with Bhattar’s assertion that “the Red Cross won’t accept blood from people who have had the COVID vaccine,” and his claim that “most who took COVID vaccines will be dead by 2025.” Bhattar’s broader theory is that COVID was a planned operation, politically motivated as part of a secret global plot to depopulate the earth. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 believes the pandemic was planned; Speaker 1 responds affirmatively but says he has no idea who is behind it. Speaker 2 warns that praising or repeating Bhattar’s views is dangerous, noting Bhattar’s use of false or twisted information to distrust vaccines. The conversation touches on whether the COVID vaccine works; Speaker 1 says the vaccine is “very effective at what it was designed for perhaps,” but “not preventing death.” Speaker 0 challenges this, and Speaker 2 counters that Bhattar doubles down on vaccines being more dangerous than the virus, even in the face of data. A numerical claim is raised: “6,340,000,000 doses of this vaccine have been given,” with implications if the claim were true. Speaker 1 says vaccines are designed with ingredients published and that each vaccine appears to be different, though he concedes not being a vaccine developer. Speaker 2 notes Bhattar has been removed from Facebook and Instagram for disinformation but remains active on Twitter, Telegram, and his own site. Speaker 0 references a September 5 retweet of a photo suggesting AstraZeneca was made in 2018; Speaker 1 acknowledges it could have been fake and questions why Bhattar would share such content. A combined exchange discusses questioning agencies and the consequences of misinformation, with Speaker 0 accusing Bhattar of contributing to a mass misinformation problem and Speaker 1 acknowledging the existence of a large follower base that has received false information. The dialogue closes with a mention of a statement from North Carolina’s Board of Medicine prior to COVID, implying regulatory context or action.

Government officials allegedly coerced Facebook and Twitter to censor posts via threatening emails, according to the transcript. A Biden White House official, Rob Flaherty, purportedly sent explicit threats to Facebook demanding content removal. High-ranking government officials had a special portal to flag content to senior executives at Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter, outsourcing censorship. Universities like Stanford and the University of Washington were allegedly used to flag "wrong think," which then led to government pressure on social media companies. The speaker asserts this network, like the "story of COVID," was about power and control, with entities exceeding their authority. The OSHA vaccine mandate is cited as an example of an agency overstepping its original purpose.

This video discusses a government scandal involving the censorship of social media posts during the 2020 elections and the COVID-19 pandemic. The speaker highlights deceptive framing devices used by the Washington Post to downplay the scandal. The so-called "academics" involved in the censorship were actually government cutouts, working closely with the Department of Homeland Security. They colluded with tech platforms to flag and remove posts, using tactics like delegitimization and pressuring companies through regulatory threats. The speaker exposes the close relationship between these academics and the government, as well as their revolving door positions. The censorship efforts targeted millions of posts and narratives, effectively silencing discussions on election integrity and COVID-19.

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.

If an opinion requires people to be silenced, it's a psyop. When people are silenced or publicly shamed for sharing basic information, not outlandish claims, it's a psyop, no matter what. Public shaming is a key component. Look at the Harvard and Stanford doctors who were removed from the internet for disagreeing. The Great Barrington Declaration is another example; people who disagreed with the government's approach were silenced and treated as fringe, not respected physicians. Even crazier, these strategies of silencing dissenters were openly discussed in emails. The government contacted Twitter to remove people. Mark Zuckerberg even spoke about the FBI contacting Facebook. Hopefully, people have learned from the past four years and recognize this behavior.

Retired mathematician Norman explains how he became involved in political commentary after questioning the COVID narrative. Despite his prestigious career and expertise in risk analysis, his views were labeled as conspiracy theories and misinformation. He faced censorship, being disinvited from conferences, and even had his Wikipedia page hacked. Norman's research papers on the subject were suppressed, and he was treated as an outcast in academic circles. His talk at an NHS conference unrelated to COVID was canceled due to his Twitter posts about vaccines. Norman's dissenting voice made him a sought-after figure in the freedom movement.