reSee.it - Related Video Feed

There's a concerning situation with dead bees everywhere. They were thriving until heavy spraying occurred two days ago. The spraying involved a thick, bluish-gray fog that felt oppressive, similar to being in a fire. Now, I’m finding dead honeybees, and it's alarming. People need to speak up and take action against this. I feel desperate about the situation and don't want to be a part of this ongoing issue.

Speaker 0 describes a situation in New Zealand where they have been instructed to burn a perfectly healthy, strong beehive. The hives are thriving, with new queen cells forming, indicating strong colony health. Despite this, there is a directive to burn the healthy hives because Marco Gonzalez from MPI has told them that the site is abandoned. The speaker contends that Gonzalez “just wants the bee site, boom, to the south,” and asserts there is no disease present, pointing to the visibly healthy colonies. The speaker emphasizes that the hives are perfectly strong and disease-free, noting that last week staff told them to start bringing boxes to the site. They received an email from Marco Gonzalez instructing them to burn the bee hives because they were banned. The speaker insists on the observed health of the hives, showing a “brand new treatment” and stating that it is a perfectly healthy treatment. They argue that, for beekeepers, this treatment is recognized as perfectly healthy, and that the site had been recently worked—“very recently, I mean weeks ago.” The speaker also mentions that an AP2 officer had stated that this site is a perfectly healthy site and it’s great, ready for splitting. Throughout, the speaker repeatedly points to the apparent contradiction between the instruction to burn healthy hives and the evidence of robust health, absence of disease, recent treatment, and professional assessment indicating the site was suitable for splitting. They urge the listener to observe the healthy state of the hives, highlighting the new queen development and the strong, disease-free condition as key indicators of the hives’ vitality.

Speaker 0 describes a Pala Verde plant and its flowers, explaining that the flowers produce pollen. They point out that there are “tons” of bees around them while they are near the plant, and they say you can hear the bees. Speaker 0 presents this scene as an indication of the pollen’s abundance and activity around the plant. Speaker 0 then claims that the pollen can be eaten and that doing so benefits multiple parts of the body. They state that eating the pollen benefits the prostate, benefits the ovaries, and provides energy. They add that it benefits “every part of the body,” describing pollen as an all-encompassing food source. Speaker 0 refers to pollen as “the ultimate superfood,” framing it as uniquely powerful due to what it provides to the body. They also describe the yearly availability of pollen, stating that “nature gives it to you for free every single year.” Speaker 0 emphasizes that all someone has to do is “look for it” to find it, implying that the resource is reliably present and accessible each year. Speaker 0 connects their description of pollen with a further claim about vaccines. They say, “you can understand why they put pollen in vaccines,” and they explain that this is allegedly done so that people “get allergic to the pollen.” They then state a consequence of that alleged sensitization: when a person later goes to eat the pollen, they will have an adverse reaction. Speaker 0 characterizes this chain of events as “crazy,” positioning the explanation as surprising or striking in the way pollen is treated both in nature and in relation to vaccines. Overall, the transcript centers on pollen from Pala Verde flowers—its association with many bees, its claimed health benefits across the body, its described free and yearly availability, and a claim linking pollen to allergic responses and adverse reactions after eating it.

In Denmark, cows are reportedly dying and producing less milk because BeauVer has been added to cattle food. BeauVer was mandated to be added to the food in Denmark from 10/01/2025, and farmers are now reporting reduced milk production, with some cows becoming sick and needing euthanasia. An official investigation into the substance has been launched. The speaker notes this issue ties to a broader narrative they discussed previously, accusing climate advocates of pushing to add bovine additives so cows would fart and burp less. According to the speaker, Bill Gates is behind promoting substances like Bovar, arguing the goal is to move toward synthetic beef and to stop cows from farting and burping. The speaker claims it is now mandatory to add Bovar on all farms in Denmark, and asserts that it has negative effects on cows, with an official investigation underway. The speaker urges stopping this “craziness” and retreating from meddling with nature, arguing the agenda aims to attack humans by having bovir enter human tissues through consumption. They claim bovir contains a substance called tree n o p that attacks human fertility. The speaker connects these events to a broader transhumanism and elite agenda to hijack human evolution and create synthetic humans, including lab-born babies. They indicate there is much more to discuss on this topic and mention giving an in-depth lecture in November, with a link in the comments. In summary, the main points asserted are: BeauVer is being added to Danish cattle feed since 10/01/2025, resulting in cow health problems and reduced milk output; an official investigation is underway; the speaker attributes the policy to climate-change activism and Bill Gates, claiming it aims to reduce cattle methane emissions; they claim bovir/bovar is harmful to humans through tissue exposure and fertility impacts, tying this to a transhumanist agenda; a forthcoming lecture is promised with more details.

Speaker 0 presents several claims about aluminum exposure and environmental contamination. First, they state that peer‑reviewed studies show bees have aluminum levels in their systems that are 70 times higher than what is necessary to cause Alzheimer's or dementia in humans, and they find this alarming given the health implications for bees. They emphasize that this is “70 times more” and frame it as a concern for survival. They challenge the idea that aluminum presence is normal because it is a very abundant element. They assert that aluminum is not found in the environment in free form; it must be mined, refined, and sprayed in order to be scattered widely in the environment. They claim this process is exactly what is happening, and that the issue affects more than just bees: “Every single one of us is being contaminated.” They argue that these materials are bioavailable and accumulate in human systems. They insist that this is a fact regardless of belief, and assert that lab tests prove it. They assert there will be no hiding this issue much longer and touch on the chemical signature found in rain tests. They claim this signature matches coal fly ash, a substance the EPA has said is not harmful. They state that the EPA has been trying to get rid of coal fly ash and that it seems to serve purposes in geoengineering, with evidence increasingly indicating that toxic coal fly ash may be one of the base materials used for spraying. They suggest this provides “plausible deniability.” Overall, Speaker 0 links aluminum exposure in bees to greater human contamination, arguing that environmental aluminum results from a deliberate process of mining, refining, and spraying, rather than natural occurrence. They point to lab tests as proof and to rain-chemical signatures that match coal fly ash as part of the evidence. They further claim the EPA has downplayed the harm of coal fly ash, yet the data suggest it may be employed in geoengineering, which would allow for plausible deniability.

A speaker points out a peanut and says people become allergic because, in the 1960s, peanut oil was allegedly put into vaccines “by Pfizer,” so injecting peanut oil would supposedly cause peanut allergies. The speaker claims Pfizer owns the EpiPen used for peanut allergies, citing a book that explains Pfizer’s ownership of the EpiPen, and argues that Pfizer would then both have “made” people allergic and also own the solution carried by schools. The speaker then discusses other possible reasons people report allergic reactions when they eat peanuts. They suggest that peanuts may be processed with pesticides or chemicals, or sprayed with pesticides while growing, and that individuals might be allergic to pesticides rather than peanuts themselves. They further say that if someone is not allergic to pesticides and has not had a “peanut injection or vaccine,” the remaining factor is peanut processing: most peanut butters, they claim, are boiled and roasted, meaning peanuts are cooked twice before eating and are not in raw form. To obtain raw peanuts, the speaker says one should look to Virginia, which “grows all the raw peanuts” in the shell. They describe the peanut as “good for the prostate, ovaries, for the brain,” and for “testosterone” and “estrogen,” and say it helps push food through the stomach when there is buildup inside. The speaker also claims it can help with “the big C,” listing support for prostate cancer, breast cancer, and intestinal cancers, concluding that “that was the peanut.”

Speaker 0 argues that the widespread concern about ticks is misplaced. He states that the only reason a person could be potentially allergic to a tick is if they were vaccinated as a kid with gelatin in the MMR vaccine or some childhood vaccines, leading to alpha-gal syndrome: if a tick bites them, the sugar in the bite causes a reaction. He asserts that people are looking at ticks as the problem, but not at vaccines, wireless toxicity in the home (like WiFi) and its extrapolation into nature, or the consumption of pesticides, which he says are the true causes of issues such as Lyme disease, diagnosed with a PCR test. He claims that tests are cranked up to diagnose illness even when it’s unclear if the illness exists, because “we live in the land of make believe.” He emphasizes that ticks are part of nature, as are bees and scorpions, and that everything is natural to be there. He then explains that imbalances arise when something that eats ticks is killed off. Specifically, birds eat ticks, so killing birds with wireless technology, cell phone towers, and related “garbage” eliminates natural tick predators, resulting in more ticks. Consequently, people blame the ticks for illness, but he says the root cause is the destruction of nature and the resulting imbalance. He argues that the presence of many animals with ticks is due to a lack of countermeasures, and rejects the idea of a bioweapon tick, stating that such notions are nonsense. In his view, the real issue is that people are messing with nature, causing imbalance, and then introducing toxins into their bodies, which further disrupts balance. He concludes that this combination—disruption of natural ecosystems and bodily toxin exposure—explains the situation with ticks and related illnesses. Overall, the speaker presents a linked set of claims: tick allergies may stem from vaccine ingredients like gelatin, vaccines and wireless toxicity in homes contribute to health problems such as alpha-gal syndrome and Lyme disease, PCR-based Lyme diagnoses may be unreliable or inflated, natural imbalances caused by removing tick predators (like birds) due to wireless infrastructure lead to higher tick prevalence, and the notion of engineered bioweapon ticks is rejected in favor of a viewpoint that nature’s balance is being disturbed and toxins contribute to health issues.

Speaker 0 asserts that microwave radiation around people is severely limited by practical constraints, yet cites a report from the Army on millimeter waves that references three hundred fifty studies showing clear biological effects even below thermal thresholds and below established safety guidelines. The claim emphasizes that the subjects in these studies were aware of what was happening in a substantial portion of cases, ranging from thirty percent to eighty percent, because skin and eyes are disproportionately affected by wireless radiation. The argument is that such exposure would impact the skin and nerves, thereby affecting the entire nervous system, and would also expose eyes to military-grade wireless radiation. The speaker further contends that this exposure would involve placing directed radiation in front of people’s homes and forcing it into their rooms, describing the situation as absolutely absurd. A video is mentioned from FCC proceedings in which one of the five G engineers reportedly states that directed beams are being aimed into people’s windows at levels not permitted in their own safety laboratories or safety guidelines. The speaker reiterates that the FCC did not treat this as a pressing issue, describing the stance as shrugging it off and indicating that it isn’t something to be discussed at that time. Key points highlighted include: - The Army report on millimeter waves referencing three hundred fifty studies showing biological effects below thermal and safety guideline levels. - A significant portion of study subjects purportedly aware of the exposure, due to the skin and eyes absorbing a disproportionate share of wireless radiation. - The assertion that exposure could affect the skin and nervous system, with particular emphasis on neurological impacts and ocular exposure. - The claim that directed beams could be placed in front of residential windows and forced into people’s rooms, described as absurd. - A video excerpt from FCC proceedings where a five-G engineer supposedly admits to directing beams into people’s windows at levels not allowed in safety labs. - The speaker’s claim that the FCC dismissed the issue as not needing discussion at that moment. Overall, the speaker builds a narrative that there are documented biological effects at non-thermal exposure levels, that individuals could be knowingly exposed in everyday environments, and that regulatory bodies have not treated the issue with the urgency or seriousness implied by the presented evidence.

The speaker asserts that Tehran was nearly rendered uninhabitable by drought, which was, in part, engineered by US radar systems blasting energy to ionize the atmosphere and steer clouds away from Iran. He claims rains have returned after large radar installations around the Persian Gulf were destroyed by Iranian drones, leading to record rainfall in Tehran after a period when evacuations were considered for a city of nine to ten million people. He acknowledges additional damage to Iran’s infrastructure from kinetic warfare by the United States, describing geoengineering as another layer of warfare. He broadens the claim to describe a globalist “deep state” that wages war on multiple levels, listing engineered famine, engineered energy scarcity, pesticides and herbicides to cause cancer and depopulation, weaponized ticks causing Lyme disease, vaccines, and the weaponization of information. He asserts weather control in the United States is intentional, with storms, hurricanes, floods, and droughts used to compromise domestic food supplies. He argues that global elites require scarcity to maintain control, and that efforts are aimed at destroying sources of abundance, including rainfall and sunlight, noting Oregon’s ban on rainwater collection on private property and recounting a court case against a rancher who collected rainwater. The talk links neonicotinoids, organophosphates, and glyphosate to the decline of pollinators and colony collapse, tying these to a broader depopulation agenda. He contends that vaccines and other policies disarm populations and facilitate control, culminating in a claim that Western European governments are waging war on their own people by shutting down energy infrastructure, immunizing illegals, and undermining national heritage. He accuses the French, German, and British governments of national treason and portrays European policies as intent on destroying their nations. A central concept is the “pinch,” a global depopulation effort aimed at eliminating billions by forcing humanity through difficult years with damaged energy infrastructure, scarce food, eroded rule of law, cratering money supplies, and hyperinflation, while social cohesion collapses and trust erodes. He suggests that while many will be killed, survival is possible for those who prepare, emphasizing survival skills, stored food, and self-sufficiency through decentralization. To support this preparation, he promotes resources and strategies for decentralizing life, such as stockpiling essentials and moving toward off-grid capabilities, including domestic energy options, and maintaining financial assets in gold and silver. He encourages viewers to use available resources for survival planning and to share information within their networks. He concludes with a personal note about surviving the “pinch” and signs off as Health Ranger.

The discussion centers on concerns about the safety of pediatric vaccines, the governing framework for vaccination and related notifications, and how schools and child-care settings handle cases where vaccination is incomplete. Key points raised by Speaker 0 (in Japanese) include: - The number and variety of pediatric vaccines have been increasing, with regular schedules reaching up to about 30 doses from birth. - Some vaccines include additives such as thiomersal (mercury-containing) and, in the case of influenza vaccines given after six months, thiomersal and aluminum compounds, causing anxiety about brain development and cancer risk. - Thiomersal is described as an organomercury compound that biodegrades to ethylmercury; its linkage to neurodevelopmental disorders has been asserted in materials from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW). The materials indicate thiomersal and other additives (e.g., aluminum compounds) can be associated with concerns about cancer risk and memory impairment. The presenter cites materials labeled as current vaccine formulations like “Beugen” (B型肝炎ワクチン) containing thiomersal and organic silver derivatives, and notes concerns about aluminum compounds. - The speaker emphasizes that even with explanations from experts that trace amounts are unlikely to have measurable effects, caregivers remain cautious, influencing decisions about vaccinating their children. - There is a claim that disease risk reduction and broader environmental exposure concerns (e.g., artificial sweeteners, nicotine residues, colorants) contribute to vaccine hesitancy, especially given declining birth rates yet rising incidences of developmental disorders, dementia, or behavior-related conditions. - The speaker asks for the audience’s attention to the confusion surrounding vaccines and their additives, seeking to understand why some guardians opt not to vaccinate. Key organizational questions and clarifications provided by Speaker 1: - Under the Public Health Vaccination Act, local governments issue vaccination recommendations and encourage vaccination, including sending vaccination advisories that specify the timing and method. The notices concern vaccines such as the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), human papillomavirus (HPV), and Japanese encephalitis vaccines. The advisory notices are not mandatory, but vaccination is strongly encouraged. - When a guardian declines vaccination, it does not constitute abuse or neglect according to the law; preventive services and enforcement do not classify non-vaccination as neglect. Speaker 3 and Speaker 4 address practical and ethical concerns in child-care and education contexts: - In child-care facilities, there is no legal right to label a guardian as neglect simply for non-vaccination, though vaccination status is recorded in health forms. They stress the goal of preventing punitive treatment of guardians and promoting fair, informed medical care for children. - Questions are raised about whether vaccination histories influence admission or screening processes for child-care and school enrollment. The response indicates vaccination status is not a disqualifying factor for admission, and the health information form includes vaccination history; non-vaccinated children should not be disadvantaged in enrollment. - It is acknowledged that some guardians and teachers may hold misconceptions about vaccines, including concerns about toxins. The discussion calls for improved information sharing among health services, childcare, and education officials to reduce misinformation and support informed decisions. Speaker 2 (Takena Kazuko, Head of Childcare Family Division) and Speaker 4 (Ministry or Education official) respond to concerns about information sharing and the role of staff training: - They emphasize the distinction between compulsory vaccination guidance and voluntary advisories, reiterating that withholding vaccination is not automatically considered neglect. - They agree on the need to prevent punitive attitudes toward guardians, to inform teachers and childcare staff about how to communicate vaccine information, and to ensure consistent understanding across health, childcare, and education sectors. - A request is made to improve public awareness so that vaccination decisions are respected and differences in opinion are honored. Overall, the transcript details regulatory mechanisms for vaccination recommendations, the non-punitive stance toward non-vaccination in guardians, and the need for better information sharing and respectful dialogue among public health, childcare providers, and schools to address vaccine hesitancy without resorting to neglect determinations.

Polish scientists have uncovered a troubling link between cell phone towers and the global decline of bees. Bees exposed to electromagnetic radiation suffer from what researchers call cellular starvation. Their cells can't use nutrients properly. This weakens their energy, navigation, and even reproduction. Since bees pollinate much of our food, their decline threatens global food security. Colonies near high radiation areas showed reduced activity and shorter lifespans. While more research is needed, this discovery is a wake up call to balance modern technology with the health of our planet's most vital pollinators.

I've noticed a lack of insects lately, especially bees and butterflies. Normally, they're all over the place, but this year, they're scarce. The weather has been strange, affecting grass growth and forcing me to use silage. I wonder if it's due to chemicals in the atmosphere or some other reason. It's worrying because it will impact everyone. Have you noticed this too? Let me know your thoughts.

The speaker lays out a series of provocative claims about nicotine and associated public health narratives. They begin by posing a rhetorical critique: “Can you hear about nicotine? I’ve talked about nicotine so many times.” They argue that doctors promote nicotine and even tell people to use nicotine, recalling a historical assertion that doctors used to tell people to smoke cigarettes while they were pregnant. This leads to a broader contention about the origins and motivations behind nicotine products. The speaker then asserts that all nicotine products currently on the market are controlled by big pharma. They specify examples such as nicotine gums and nicotine patches and assert that “all the nicotine products, they’re all synthetic.” This is presented as a blanket characterization of the entire nicotine product market, tying it to pharmaceutical interests. A visual claim follows: “the picture of the nicotine receptors was on an electric eel.” The speaker asks, “Are we electric eels?” as a way to question the basis for some scientific imagery or representations used in the discussion of nicotine receptors. This line is used to provoke skepticism about the sources or imagery used in nicotine-related science. The argument then shifts toward a broader environmental and technological frame. The speaker references “snake venom in the water” as part of a cascade of concerns, and they remark, “once again, aren’t looking at the cell phone towers which were installed in front of their house.” They claim people are worried about snake venom in the water while neglecting other pervasive concerns. They note that “there’s a billion chemicals in the water,” emphasizing the long-standing presence of numerous substances in aquatic environments and suggesting a focus on these dangers. In a final, pointed claim, the speaker asserts that vaccines “have been culling the population since 1626.” This claim is used to argue that vaccines are part of a long-standing pattern of population reduction. The closing sentiment ties the earlier points together: “That’s nicotine. … You have been sold. You have been sold by the same systems which were poisoning the people in 2020 who were making the same products to poison the people in 2020.” Overall, the passage presents a chain of criticisms regarding nicotine’s promotion, the pharmaceutical control of nicotine products, questions about scientific imagery, environmental health concerns, and a historical accusation about vaccines and population management, concluding with the assertion that the audience has been sold by the same systems referenced.

The speaker is voicing a concern about a noticeable absence of insects this year. They point to a buddleia plant, which usually attracts butterflies and bees, but this year has seen hardly any insects on it. They note there are a few flies, but nothing like what’s normally expected, and no bees or bumblebees anywhere nearby, not even wasps. They emphasize this lack of insects is unusual and worrying. They describe the surrounding conditions: yesterday was overcast but warm, with a “blanket” of dull weather persisting through the summer, resulting in poor grass growth. They opened the silage clamp because there isn’t enough grass, and they spread slurry as rain approaches, yet they still observe poor growth. They question whether a conspiracy is involved, wondering if chemicals sprayed into the atmosphere are changing the weather. They insist they can’t be the only one to notice the absence of insects and fear the broader impact: if insects are scarce, it will affect everyone. In summary, the speaker reports an unusual year with very few insects (no bees, bumblebees, or wasps; few flies), connects it to poor grass growth and agricultural concerns, and speculates about weather modification or spraying in the atmosphere, describing the situation as worrying and something that will affect people broadly. They invite others to share their thoughts, emphasizing they don’t believe they’re the only observer.

Two men suspect more are coming to harm bee hives. They accuse the government of destroying hives along the coast to eliminate pollination for profit. Urging others to share this information, they express concern for the bees and criticize the government's actions. One man, with bee tattoos, declares his love for bees and disavows any monetary motivation.

The speaker says they’ve noticed a major change in insect activity this year and believes others may have as well. They point to a “buddlier” plant with flowers that typically attract many butterflies and bees, but they report seeing no bees or butterflies at all this year—only a few flies. They mention that flies are usually a major nuisance at this time of year, but there are far fewer than expected, with only a few flies around. The speaker also describes looking at cows in their yard and notes the weather: yesterday was overcast, warm, and today is open/cloudy. Despite warmth, they say grass growth has been poor under the persistent blanket of summer weather. They report opening a silage clamp due to barely having any grass and applying a lot of slurry because rain is expected again. They suggest a possible connection to atmospheric chemicals and weather changes, asking whether spraying chemicals could be causing the lack of insects, though they do not know. They emphasize that they have not seen any bee, any bumblebee, or any wasps, and they conclude that “something is going on,” calling it worrying because it could affect everyone. They say nothing is growing properly and end by asking viewers to share their thoughts.

Speaker 0 centers the discussion on the veneration of the honeybee and makes a stark, unsettling assertion: bees are being murdered. The speaker claims that over half of the world’s bees died last year, presenting this as a staggering loss with wide-reaching consequences. They quantify the impact by noting that the United States alone lost $600,000,000 because bees pollinate and are responsible for one third of our food sources. This framing emphasizes the bees’ crucial role in food production and the economic stakes attached to their decline. In addressing the question of what is killing the bees, the speaker rejects the idea that climate change is the primary culprit, suggesting that this notion is being pushed upon the public. Instead, they assert that pesticides are a major contributing factor. Beyond pesticides, the speaker states a more alarmist and conspiratorial view by asserting beliefs that five g and chemtrails are killing the bees, and they insist that this is not an accident. They describe the situation as genocide, framing it as a deliberate or systematic attack rather than a random environmental phenomenon. The speaker further characterizes the situation with apocalyptic language, calling it the “bee apocalypse” and attributing the responsibility to the elite. This framing links the alleged deaths of bees to a broader, conspiratorial elite-driven agenda, suggesting intentional harm or neglect at the highest levels of power and influence. A dramatic consequence is emphasized: when the bees die, humans have four years left. This urgent timeline is presented as a direct result of the bees’ disappearance, underscoring the belief that pollination by bees is indispensable to human survival and global food systems. The speaker also cautions against adopting artificial intelligence as a substitute for bees, arguing that we are at the verge of losing our heritage to the most important creature that’s ever existed on this planet. Throughout, the emphasis remains on the essential, irreplaceable role of bees in the ecosystem and food production, paired with a sense of imminent doom if action or understanding does not align with the speaker’s asserted explanations.

Speaker 0 discusses claims about peanuts, vaccines, and Pfizer. The speaker asserts that in the 1960s, peanut oil was put into vaccines, and that when injected, people would become allergic to peanuts. The speaker names Pfizer as the company behind both the vaccine claim and the ownership of the EpiPen for peanut allergies, stating that Pfizer “owns the EpiPen for the peanut allergies” and that they also control the schools’ required equipment and supplies related to peanut allergies. The discussion then shifts to alternative explanations for peanut allergies. The speaker suggests that if peanut oil didn’t cause the allergies, the allergy could be due to peanuts being processed with pesticides or chemicals, as peanuts are in the ground when grown. They propose that pesticide exposure could be the culprit and note that many people who react to peanuts might be reacting to pesticides rather than peanut oil itself. Next, the speaker argues that peanut processing contributes to allergies, noting that peanut butters are typically boiled and roasted, meaning they are cooked twice before consumption, implying they are not raw peanuts. The speaker mentions Virginia as a place that grows raw peanuts in the shell and claims these raw peanuts are “absolutely beautiful.” The speaker then extols the purported health benefits of peanuts, claiming they are good for the prostate, ovaries, brain, testosterone, and estrogen, and that they aid digestion by moving food through the stomach. They extend these claims to cancer, asserting that peanuts can help with prostate cancer, breast cancer, and various intestinal cancers. Overall, the transcript blends allegations about a vaccine-induced peanut allergy linked to Pfizer and the EpiPen with hypotheses about pesticide exposure and peanut processing as allergy causes, and concludes with asserted health benefits and cancer-related claims associated with peanuts.

Speaker 0 describes higher frequencies as potentially impacting bees and insects because the wave size can resonate with insect size, leading to greater absorption. He shows a study with heat-map images of higher frequencies on the honeybee, noting five insects were examined and bees at different life stages were tested; higher frequencies resonated with the bees and were more highly absorbed, potentially causing biochemical changes that can affect bee behavior. He notes other studies on their website showing impacts to honey production and bee reproduction, including cases where bees did not return to a hive when wireless radiation was near it. Speaker 1 states, “For decades, there has been irrefutable evidence that electromagnetic waves have an influence both thermally and non thermally on living beings, including people.” Speaker 2 adds that five g has triggered irrational fears, but experts are concerned, and Daniel Favre is among hundreds of scientists who think precautionary steps should be taken. Favre signed appeals to the United Nations and European Union asking for the health effects of it to be reassessed. Danielle has been looking into the impact of electromagnetic fields on honeybees for years. Speaker 1 elaborates: in a practical setup, a cell phone emits the waves while another phone receives the waves, and a device records the sound of the colony in the beehive via a microphone under the hive. The waveform thickening indicates greater colony sound intensity; when phones are active, the colony is disturbed, and once the phone is off, the colony returns to normal noise. Speaker 2 emphasizes that implementing five g safely for people and the environment requires more time for independent research and for digesting information from thousands of published papers, citing Enrico Stura, an electronic engineer specializing in molecular biophysics. Speaker 1 adds that “The electromagnetic waves produced by personal telecommunication systems during reasonable periods of time lead to demonstrable and proven DNA damages.” Speaker 0 references a study on radio frequency radiation injuries around mobile phone base stations, conducted as a field study for years, observing trees in line of sight of cell antennas showing damage that led to felled trees over time. He notes photographs showing the antenna and the crown fitting, and mentions studies on impacts to plants, stressing the broader concern about widespread antennas in Montgomery County, the United States, and the world.

The speaker says they have “tons of bees” and also a tarantula wasp. They describe the bees as “happy” and highlight the tarantula wasp as “super friendly.” The speaker states that both bees and the tarantula wasp are pollinators, and says that when people say “I gotta get rid of them,” the advice is to “only get rid of your pollinators.” They add that “happy birds, happy bees,” and explain that the buzz sound is an “electrical charge.” They further claim that when a big swarm of bees comes around, it is “a lot of electricity.”

Speaker 0 argues against labeling certain plants as weeds, stating that destroying them would mean destroying the land. They point out that the plants produce flowers, which come from them, and these flowers help butterflies, bees, and all the other pollinators. The speaker notes that “Monsanto wants to sell you some poison to get rid of the bees, the pollinators, and then Walmart will sell you, guess what, robotic bees.” They question whether viewers are watching the same video. The speaker concludes by asserting that “Monsanto says destroy the weeds because it destroys the beets.”

According to the speaker, Albert Einstein said humanity would only have four years to live if all the bees were destroyed. The speaker believes humanity will only have four years to live if bifidobacteria are destroyed, and claims we are close to that point. The speaker states that after analyzing a thousand stool samples with deep genetic sequencing, bifidobacteria are present in less than five percent of people. The speaker further claims that out of those thousand samples, only about twenty had bifidobacteria present above ten percent, which the speaker finds alarming.