reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Florida's pandemic response was a tremendous success. It was refreshing to be allowed to speak my scientific views in Florida during the pandemic. Pandemics are difficult and create uncertainty, but the root problem was the suppression of alternative ideas. I was personally censored by the Biden administration. Science needs free speech and tolerance for dissent to succeed. Florida provided an outlet for dissent, allowing the state government to adopt the best ideas. No state was perfect during the pandemic, but to do well, open communication is necessary, even when ideas are controversial.

The White House blames a few bad actors for spreading online misinformation. The speaker disagrees with the idea that wearing masks is the best way to prevent infectious diseases. They mention that getting vaccinated provides the best protection against infection. The speaker also addresses the misconception that vaccines can make people worse. They mention the possibility of future challenges in infectious diseases and the need for rapid response to new threats. The speaker denies funding gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology and denies lying before Congress.

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.

A speaker states that a large segment of the public feels betrayed by scientists who won't admit fault regarding COVID-19. They want to know why they were lied to and no longer care about lab funding. The speaker asks what the scientific community needs to say about lockdowns, masks, and vaccines to restore trust. Another speaker responds that they were a vocal advocate against lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and the anti-scientific approach of public health during the pandemic. They also believe that scientific institutions should be transparent about their involvement in dangerous research that may have caused the pandemic, referring to the lab leak hypothesis.

Back then, you couldn't say anything about masks or vaccines without facing censorship. It was considered a public health threat. Now, two years later, we're seeing news admitting that there were mistakes due to censorship. No one was interested in the truth or studying the situation. People were more focused on imposing restrictions and control. We need freedom to debate. It's concerning that a public organization can gather and accuse someone of lying on the internet without any consequences. Is this the solution? Is this the way forward?

Speaker 0 frames the issue as 'the corruption of science' and the 'capture of the agencies' by pharmaceutical industries, stating the goal is to restore integrity and credibility to science. Speaker 1 cites a CDC internal study: 'black boys who got the vaccine on time had a two hundred and sixty percent greater chance of getting an autism diagnosis than children who waited.' He adds that 'The chief chief scientist on that, Doctor. William Thompson, the senior said vaccine safety science at CDC, was ordered to destroy that data. And then they published it without that fact.' Finally, he asserts, 'So, you know that story. And you know of hundreds of stories like that. It happens all the time. We are being lied to by these agencies, and we're gonna change that right now.'

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 speaker states that gain-of-function research, which aims to make pathogens more virulent and transmissible, is believed by many scientists to be responsible for the COVID pandemic. They claim this research doesn't protect against pandemics or other nations, but risks accidental leaks that could cause a pandemic. According to the speaker, any nation engaging in this research endangers its population and the world. They say the proclamation will not affect most science, but will address the fraction of research that risks causing a pandemic. The executive order establishes a framework to ensure the public has a say and can reject such risks, preventing scientists alone from making these decisions. The speaker expresses pride in President Trump for signing the order to end this research and establish a regulatory framework to eliminate it.

The speakers claim that well-funded entities suppressed the truth about autism. They state that parents of autistic children who have tried to investigate the causes of autism have encountered intense resistance. They allege that studies used to support the claim that vaccines don't cause autism are easily disproven, but the media's ownership allows the lie to spread faster than the truth. One speaker believes that many find it too difficult to accept that vaccines could cause autism. They mention someone who suspects a vaccine caused their child's autism but still shamed others for not taking the COVID vaccine, illustrating the power of propaganda. People are afraid of social ostracization and are hesitant to speak their minds, often only whispering their true feelings to close friends. The speakers reference montages showing the horrible things people said about unvaccinated individuals.

"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."

The government crossed a bright red line when it suppressed scientific and policy discussions during COVID, treating dissenting voices as akin to those of international terrorists. This suppression is wrong; free speech, allowing debate among scientists, policymakers, and the public, is a fundamental American norm. The government's actions prevented this debate, leading to harmful lockdown policies, vaccine mandates, job losses, prolonged school closures, and economic devastation. This censorship, ironically, cost lives. Contrary to claims that free speech is dangerous during a pandemic, upholding the First Amendment would have saved lives and reduced the damage and destruction we experienced.

Speaker 0: There were four drugs that were being tested for Ebola. Remdesivir killed more people than placebo, and the data safety monitoring board had actually stopped the study where literally fifty three percent of Speaker 1: the patients died in the failed Ebola trial and was repurposed. It was a failed Ebola drug because it caused more harm than good in Ebola trials. It was still unpatent. It was Tony Fauci's drug of choice. The majority of hospital deaths were actually caused by Anthony Fauci because his NIH put out protocols that if the hospital systems adhered to, they got bonuses, big bonuses, lots of money, $3,000 per for putting an IV in of remdesivir. Boom. $3,000. But guess what? On top of the entire hospital stay, a 20% bonus, that could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. Speaker 0: The data was so overwhelming that remdesivir killed patients more so than placebo. The drug had to be stopped, and this was published in the New England Journal in the 2019. Speaker 2: What happened during COVID could not have happened without propaganda and censorship. And how do we overcome that propaganda and censorship? It's primarily through people not being willing to shut up.

Speaker: Noted claims about the Amish and COVID. - The speaker traveled to Lancaster County, Amish country, visiting the house of a relative of Gideon King, described as the one person, the only known person in the Amish community who supposedly died from COVID. They say there may be up to five people, but the names of five people were not provided. A $2,500 reward on Twitter was offered for names of more than five people in Lancaster County who died from COVID; no one could name more than one person, and they all named Gideon King. - The speaker visited the house of Sam King, a relative of Gideon King. Sam said he doesn’t know if Gideon actually died from COVID. They think Gideon died in the hospital. - If there were five Amish people who died, this would mean the Amish death rate was 90 times lower than the infection fatality rate of the United States. - The explanation offered: this is possible because the Amish aren’t vaccinated and didn’t follow a single guideline of the CDC. They did not lockdown, did not mask, did not social distance, did not vaccinate, and there were no mandates to get vaccinated in the Amish community. - The speaker asserts there are no autistic kids in the Amish community, claiming it is very rare to find kids with ADD, autoimmune disease, PANDA, PANS, epilepsy, or other chronic diseases. - The speaker states the US government has studied the Amish for decades, but there has never been a report released to the public. The stated reason is that such a report would show that not following guidelines leads to better health. - The speaker concludes there is no public report after decades of study because it would be devastating to the narrative and would show that the CDC has been harming the public for decades.

The speaker claims the Biden administration covered up science related to the COVID shot. Information related to vaccine complications was allegedly censored as COVID vaccine hesitant content. The speaker alleges the heart inflammation in young, healthy men and boys was not disclosed as soon as it should have been, resulting in thousands of kids developing myocarditis unnecessarily. The speaker suggests the administration knew the shot didn't stop transmission but kept it secret. The head of the FDA is cited as saying the Biden administration suppressed information about myocarditis damage to children. The speaker believes this sounds criminal, especially considering mandates for school, work, and travel.

The Pfizer COVID vaccine was not tested for its ability to stop the transmission of the virus before it entered the market. The speaker acknowledges that they had to work quickly to understand the situation and move at the speed of science.

- The discussion opens with a critique of how public health authorities in the United States and much of the media discouraged experimentation with COVID-19 treatments, instead pushing vaccination and portraying other approaches as dangerous. The hosts ask why treatments were sidelined and treated as heretical to question. - Speaker 1 explains that the core idea was to stamp out “vaccine hesitation,” which he frames not as a purely scientific issue but as a form of heresy. He notes a broad literature on vaccine hesitancy and contrasts it with the perception of the vaccine as a liberating savior. He points to a Vatican €20 silver coin (2022) commemorating the COVID-19 vaccine, described by Vatican catalogs as “a boy prepares to receive the Eucharist,” which the speakers interpret as an overlay of religious iconography with vaccination imagery. They also reference Diego Rivera’s mural in Detroit, interpreted as depicting the vaccine as a Eucharist, and a South African church banner reading “even the blood of Christ cannot protect you, get vaccinated,” highlighting what they see as provocative uses of religious symbolism to promote vaccination. - They claim that the Biden administration’s COVID Vaccine Corps distributed billions of dollars to major sports leagues (NFL, MLB) and that many mainline churches reportedly received money to push vaccination, with many clergy not opposing the push. The implication is that monetary incentives influenced public figures and organizations to advocate for vaccines, contributing to a climate in which questioning orthodoxy was difficult. - The speakers discuss the social dynamics around vaccine “heresy,” using Aaron Rodgers’ experience with isolation and shaming in the NFL and Novak Djokovic’s experiences in Australia to illustrate how prominent individuals who questioned or fell outside the orthodoxy faced punitive pressure. They compare this to a Reformation-era conflict over doctrinal correctness and describe a psychology of stigmatizing dissent as a tool to enforce conformity. - They argue the imperative driving institutions was the belief that the vaccine was the central, non-negotiable public-health objective, seemingly above other medical considerations. The central question they raise is why vaccines became the sole priority, seemingly overriding a broader, more nuanced evaluation of medical options and individual risk. - The conversation shifts to epistemology and the nature of science. Speaker 1 suggests medicine often relies on orthodoxies and presuppositions, rather than purely empirical processes. He recounts a Kantian view that interpretation depends on preexisting categories, and he uses this to argue that medical decision-making can be constrained by established doctrines, which may obscure questions about optimization and safety. - They recount the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and discuss Sara Sotomayor’s dissent, which argued that liability exposure is a key incentive for safety and improvement in vaccine development. They argue that the current system creates minimal liability for manufacturers, reducing the incentive to optimize safety, and they use this to question how the system encourages continuous safety improvements. - The hosts recount the early-treatment movement led by Peter McCullough and others, including a Senate hearing organized by Ron Johnson in November 2020 to discuss early-treatment options with FDA-approved drugs like hydroxychloroquine. They criticize what they describe as aggressive pushback against such approaches, noting that McCullough faced professional sanctions and lawsuits despite presenting peer-reviewed literature. - They return to the concept of orthodoxy and dogma, arguing that the medical establishment often suppresses dissent, citing YouTube removing a McCullough interview and the broader pattern of silencing challenge to the vaccine narrative. They stress that the social and institutional systems prize conformity and punish those who deviate, creating a climate of distrust toward official health bodies. - The discussion broadens into metaphysical and philosophical territory, with references to the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. They propose that elites—whether religious, political, or scientific—tend to prefer “taking care” of people through control rather than preserving individual responsibility and free will. The Grand Inquisitor tale is used to illustrate a recurring human temptation: to replace personal liberty with a protected, paternalistic order. - They discuss messenger RNA (mRNA) technology as a central manifestation of Promethean or Luciferian intellect—humans attempting to “read and write in the language of God.” They describe the scientific arc from transcription and translation to mRNA vaccines, noting Francis Collins’s The Language of God and the idea of humans “coding life.” They caution that mRNA vaccines involve injecting genetic material and point to the symbolic and ritual power of vaccination as a form of modern sacrament. - The speakers emphasize that the mRNA approach represents both a profound scientific achievement and a source of deep concern. They discuss fertility signals and potential adverse effects, including myocarditis in young people, and cite the July 2021 NEJM case study as highlighting safety concerns for myocarditis in adolescent males. They reference the FDA deliberative-committee discussions, noting that some influential voices publicly questioned the risk-benefit calculus for young people, yet faced pressure or dismissal within the orthodox framework. - They describe post-hoc investigations and testimonies suggesting that adverse events (like myocarditis) might have been downplayed or obscured, and they assert that public trust in health institutions has eroded as a result. They mention ongoing debates about whether vaccine-induced changes might affect future generations, referencing studies about transcripts of mRNA in cancer cells and liver cells, and they stress the need for independent scrutiny by scientists not “entranced” by the vaccine program. - The dialogue returns to the broader human condition: a tension between curiosity and restraint, knowledge and humility. They return to Dostoevsky’s moral questions about free will, responsibility, and the limits of human knowledge, concluding that scientific hubris can lead to dangerous consequences when it overrides open inquiry and accountability. - In closing, while the guests reflect on past missteps and the need for integrity in medicine, they underscore the ongoing questions about how evidence is interpreted, how dissent is treated, and how society balances scientific progress with humility, transparency, and respect for individual judgment.

The speaker believes there hasn't been an open-minded investigation into the etiology of autism because it's dangerous for scientists to ask the question. They risk being incorrectly labeled as "anti-vaxxers," which could end their careers. This suppression of scientific curiosity prevents finding answers. The speaker has organized an initiative within the NIH to address the question of autism's etiology in a wide-ranging manner, not limited to vaccines.

Doctors and politicians have promoted vaccines, but refuse to acknowledge potential harm. Many Americans who received the vaccine may face unknown risks. The truth must be revealed to prevent future harm from the mRNA platform.

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.

COVID-19 originated in a lab, and it took too long to acknowledge this due to the suppression of debate through accusations of racism. Big tech censored discussions about the virus's origins in the name of preventing misinformation, which ironically led to more confusion. We must learn from this history to avoid repeating mistakes. As president, I commit to holding accountable those responsible for the pandemic's origin, including using financial measures against the CCP and investigating U.S. officials who may have contributed to the crisis through gain-of-function research. It's time to move beyond complaints and focus on solutions. You have my commitment to do just that.

Autism is a complex disorder with multifactorial ideology. We are continuing to investigate multiplicity of potential causes with no areas of taboo. One area that we are closely examining, as the president mentioned, is vaccines. Some forty to seventy percent of mothers who have children with autism believe that their child was injured by a vaccine. President Trump believes that we should be listening to these mothers instead of gaslighting and marginalize them marginalizing them like prior administrations. Some of our friends like to say that we should believe all women. Some of these same people have been silencing and demonizing these mothers for three decades because research on the potential link between autism and vaccines has been actively suppressed in the past.