reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker addresses the World Health Organization and argues that current measures like social distancing, hand hygiene, and surface disinfection are sufficient to control the spread of COVID-19. They believe that the scientific understanding of how the virus is transmitted will naturally improve over time.

The speaker explains that the COVID injections are not considered pharmaceutical products. They discuss the significance of a particular US code that states the use of emergency use authorized (EUA) countermeasure products is not considered a clinical investigation. This allows the government to remove these products from regulatory frameworks and operate in an extrajudicial space. The public health emergency announcement triggers this mechanism, and the government can make determinations without data or criteria. The speaker also mentions that the COVID pandemic was declared based on limited cases, and once a pandemic is announced, pharmaceutical regulations no longer apply. The products are classified as countermeasures, which is a vague term.

Treating people like adults and providing qualified information could have potentially prevented lockdowns. However, disagreeing with this perspective, the speaker argues that not knowing the outcome doesn't change the necessity of lockdowns. Lockdowns were implemented when the hospital system in New York was overwhelmed, aiming to halt the spread of the virus. While lockdowns have gained a negative reputation, they were considered a last resort and were never intended to be permanent.

The speaker received an email from the Department of Health, which included a link to the CDC. The CDC advised physicians to adjust the way death certificates were completed. The speaker, Dr. David Tirstein, questioned what "adjusting death certificates" meant. According to the document, if COVID-19 was considered a contributing condition, it could be listed as a cause of death. However, Dr. Tirstein pointed out that there is a specific box on death certificates for listing contributing conditions, such as emphysema or asthma. He disagreed with the suggestion that COVID-19 should be listed as a cause of death.

Understanding the origins of the pandemic is not crucial for preventing future outbreaks, according to Speaker 1. The focus should be on implementing measures like masks, vaccines, and a different approach to handling cases. Speaker 1 is involved in discussions about advancements in diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccine production to eradicate not only COVID-19 but also the flu and common cold. Speaker 0 asks if it is important to know how the pandemic started from a justice or moral perspective, to which Speaker 1 agrees but doesn't elaborate further.

There is a consensus that appears in the World Health Organization’s ten-year plan, which has been in place for a long time. The plan states that people should prepare for the coming ten years because a major infectious crisis is anticipated. In other words, the plan foretells that over the next decade there will be a significant infectious-health emergency. The speaker notes that “this was year 1,” indicating that the current year is the first year of that ten-year horizon outlined by the plan.

The speaker emphasizes the complexity of the issue, stating that the health sector alone cannot solve it. Collaboration with other departments like Homeland Security and NATO is necessary. They stress the importance of countering anti-vaccine aggression, highlighting the impact of such beliefs on public health.

In this exchange, the speakers reference the World Health Organization’s ten-year plan. The first speaker states that the plan has long warned: “for the coming 10 years, there will be a large infectious disease crisis,” and notes that “this was year 1.” The second speaker adds that the aim is to prepare and help, should a second pandemic occur, and asserts that, based on years of the speakers’ discussions, “the chance that a second pandemic comes is very large.” The first speaker reiterates that there is consensus and that the plan has anticipated a major infectious disease crisis over the decade, emphasizing that the warning has been a longstanding part of the plan.

In this video, the speakers discuss the alternative scenario of not implementing official measures when COVID-19 emerged. They suggest that if doctors were left to figure out how to treat the disease on their own, they would have inevitably made mistakes but also learned from them. They mention the example of ventilators, which were initially seen as crucial but later caused harm. The deployment of ventilators increased fear and influenced public perception of the virus. The speakers emphasize the importance of protecting vulnerable populations without unnecessarily exposing the rest of the population to risks. They also mention the comparison with the flu.

The speaker emphasizes that the virus is not yet defeated and warns of the Omicron mutation, urging continued focus and vigilance. They stress the need to be prepared to take decisive action to protect lives. Despite progress in vaccination and boosters, the scientific community predicts an unprecedented spread of the virus. Therefore, individual responsibility is crucial in the coming weeks. Adhering to hygiene rules, getting tested, and increasing vaccination rates are essential to keep the virus under control. The speaker highlights that only with more people vaccinated can we effectively combat the virus in the long term.

The speaker received an email from the Department of Health informing them that the CDC was changing the way death certificates were completed. They were now allowed to list COVID-19 as a cause of death, instead of just listing it as a contributing condition in the designated box. The speaker disagreed with this change, as they believed COVID-19 should be listed in the contributing conditions box, along with other conditions like emphysema, asthma, and influenza.

The speaker received an email from the Department of Health with a link to the CDC. The email informed the speaker, who is a physician, that there would be changes in how death certificates are completed. The speaker explains that the change allows COVID-19 to be listed as a cause of death if it is considered a contributing condition. However, the speaker disagrees and believes that COVID-19 should be listed in the box for contributing conditions, not as a cause of death.

The speaker discusses three approaches to address the current situation. Firstly, they mention the importance of testing and contact tracing to control the spread of the issue. Secondly, they highlight the significance of developing effective treatments to combat the problem. Lastly, they mention the potential of a vaccine, which is expected to be available in the next year or two. The speaker suggests that instead of referring to the vaccine as the "final solution," it might be better to call it the "best solution" to avoid any negative connotations.

An aggressive action can alter the expected shape of an infectious disease outbreak, which is significant for China and the rest of the world.

Speaker 0 asks about the accuracy of claims that asymptomatic carriers exist and that children can be super-spreaders, questioning whether these ideas are true. Speaker 1 responds that these notions are complete nonsense and have never been shown; they are claims that have been spread as facts, and they consider that “criminal.” They state that the idea of asymptomatic carrier spreading the disease Covid-nineteen—which they describe as the pneumonia, not a cough but the pneumonia Covid-nineteen—is untrue and is backed by zero data. They emphasize that there is not a single case in the world documented, and conclude that the whole business is a fake. Speaker 0 follows up by asking whether these ideas are the basis for mask-wearing and many of the associated measures. Speaker 1 confirms, stating that this is “the inhuman part” of forcing people to wear masks “because of no reason,” describing it as taking away people’s rights as humans without reason.

When an infectious disease outbreak occurs, aggressive actions can change its expected shape.

- 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 emphasizes the need for a pandemic treaty to handle future pandemics effectively. They mention the importance of actions like restricting individual liberties, sharing information and resources, and providing funding for pandemic control efforts. However, they acknowledge that the means to carry out these actions are currently lacking. Despite the challenges, progress is being made, and member states' commitment to the International Health Regulations (IHR) is inspiring. The speaker mentions that the Final Package of Proposed Amendments for the World Health Organization (WHO) will be submitted to the director general in January 2024 for consideration by the World Health Assembly.

China has shown that taking necessary measures can save lives and prevent thousands of cases of a challenging disease.

The speaker received an email from the Department of Health with a link to the CDC. The CDC advised physicians to adjust the way death certificates were completed. The adjustment meant that if COVID-19 was thought to be the contributing condition, it could be listed as the cause of death. However, the speaker disagreed and mentioned that there is a separate box on death certificates for listing contributing conditions such as emphysema, asthma, and influenza. They were being told that with COVID-19, it could be listed as the cause of death.

Speaker 0 questions the rationale behind implementing stringent interventions for people who will soon die anyway. Speaker 1 responds, stating that the choice was difficult and required a delicate balancing act throughout the pandemic. They explain that driving down the virus necessitates taking actions that can have damaging consequences in other areas. Speaker 1 acknowledges that their previous statement may not have been intended for public broadcast but was an attempt to summarize the problem. They express the need for a swift assessment of the benefits, impacts, and costs of the interventions.

In response to a question, the speaker mentions that there is an answer to the situation. They defer to someone named Howdy, who was their mentor, to speak. The speaker then mentions that in states with evidence of community transmission, certain places like bars, restaurants, food courts, gyms, and other venues where people gather should be closed. However, they clarify that they haven't explicitly stated that governors in those states should close everything.

The speaker emphasizes the PCR test as the foundation of the current situation, stating that without it, there would be no cases or public health emergency. They question the necessity of measures taken, pointing out the absence of excess mortality before the vaccination campaign. The speaker suggests focusing efforts on addressing the PCR test as the key issue.