reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In the presented remarks, the speaker engages the audience with a series of questions intended to reveal potential overlaps among health sector entities. The questions ask the audience to raise their hands if their companies own or control a health insurance division; if they also employ health care providers or own clinics, specialty pharmacies, or any other medical practice or pharmacy; if they own or control a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM); and if they lead a publicly traded company at which they have a legal responsibility to maximize shareholder value. These questions are designed to surface the breadth of influence held by large health care firms. The speaker asserts that the audience’s responses demonstrate a broader pattern: the largest health insurance companies are not limited to providing insurance alone. Instead, they are also involved in delivering medical services and operating pharmacies. The speaker notes that these entities diagnose and decide treatment for patients, indicating an active role in clinical decision-making beyond underwriting risk or processing claims. Further, the speaker highlights that these same large insurers are also PBMs, describing PBMs as “another form of middlemen managing drug benefits.” This point emphasizes a layered structure in which a single company can influence which drugs are preferred, covered, or reimbursed, thereby affecting patient access and pricing across the drug supply chain. The speaker concludes that these combined roles signify that large health insurers are “increasingly controlling every aspect of our health care system.” This characterization suggests a consolidation of functions—from coverage and care provision to drug benefit management—under a few dominant corporate entities. In summary, the speaker’s lines of inquiry and subsequent claims illustrate a perceived convergence: health insurance companies are simultaneously insurers, medical providers, pharmacies, and PBMs, and they are expanding their control over multiple facets of health care delivery and economics. The overarching assertion is that the largest players in the health care landscape occupy a multifaceted, integrated position that spans diagnosis, treatment decisions, pharmacy operations, and drug benefit management, contributing to a broader phenomenon of comprehensive control within the system.

The speaker discusses concerns about the World Health Organization (WHO) and its potential impact on sovereignty. They suggest that the WHO's One Health approach, which encompasses various aspects of health, could lead to a power and financial grab. The speaker believes that the WHO's efforts are part of a larger puzzle to control critical industries and establish global governance. They mention the possibility of generating fear to gain control and question whether the ability to initiate more pandemics will play a role. The speaker also mentions the UN's Our Common Agenda, which includes changing the financial architecture and promoting electronic money. They conclude by emphasizing the importance of understanding what is happening behind the scenes.

Eric Prince and Tucker Carlson discuss what they describe as pervasive, ongoing phone and device surveillance. They say that a study of devices—including Google Mobile Services on Android and iPhones—shows a spike in data leaving the phone around 3 AM, amounting to about 50 megabytes, effectively the phone “dialing home to the mother ship” and exporting “all of your goings on.” They describe “pillow talk” and other private interactions being transmitted, and claim that even apps like WhatsApp, which is marketed as end-to-end encrypted, ultimately have data that is “sliced and diced and analyzed and used to push … advertising” once it passes through servers. They argue that this surveillance is not limited to phones but extends to other devices in the home, including Amazon’s Alexa and automobiles, which they say now have trackers and can trigger a kill switch, with recording of audio and, in many cases, video. The speakers contend this situation represents a monopoly by a handful of big tech companies that can use the collected data to control markets, dominate, and vertically integrate the economy, potentially shutting down competitors. They connect this to broader concerns about political power, claiming that the data profiles built on individuals enable manipulation of public opinion, messaging, and even election outcomes. They reference banking data, noting that banks like Chase have announced selling customers’ purchasing histories to other companies, as part of what they call a broader data-driven power shift. The discussion expands to warnings about a “technological breakaway civilization” operating illegally and interfaced with private intelligence agencies to manipulate, censor, and steal elections. They argue that AI, capable of trillions of calculations per second, magnifies these risks and increases the ability to take control of civilization. They reference geopolitical events, such as China’s blockade of Taiwan, and claim that microchips sold internationally have kill switches that could disable critical military and infrastructure. They speculate about the capabilities of NSA, Chinese, Russian, or hacker groups to exploit this vulnerability, describing a world in which the infrastructure is exposed like Swiss cheese to criminals and governments. Throughout, the speakers criticize the idea that technology is neutral, asserting instead that it has been hijacked by corrupt governments and corporations. They contrast these concerns with Google’s founding motto “don’t be evil,” claiming it was contradicted by later documents showing CIA involvement and In-Q-Tel’s role, and they warn that a social-credit, cashless society rollout could be enforced by private devices rather than drones or troops. The segment emphasizes education of Congress, state attorneys general, and the public about these supposed threats. Note: Promotional product endorsements and sponsor requests in the transcript have been omitted from this summary.

A biopharmaceutical complex has formed, with various organizations and individuals colluding to take advantage of medical emergencies. They meet in Davos, Switzerland and have realized that during a crisis, governments will pour money into the complex. The complex includes the World Health Organization, Gates Foundation, Welcome Trust, Rockefeller Foundation, UN, Gavi, UNITATE, CEPI, and regulatory agencies like the FDA and CDC. Key figures like Scott Gottlieb and Steven Hahn are involved, with Gottlieb now on Pfizer's board and Hahn supporting Moderna. Even high-ranking officials like Deborah Birx have joined biotech companies. The Gates Foundation's investment in BioNTech yielded massive returns. Overall, it's a money-driven operation.

They argue that centralization—big pharma, the FCC, and other captured agencies—drives a problem that includes tech giants like Motorola, Nokia, Apple, Meta, and Google. They claim that programs government-sponsored at Tulane Neurosurgery and Neurology, known as MK Ultra, taught that people could be controlled through light waves. They describe a progression from cutting monkeys’ heads and wiring their heads to study behavior to the claim that we are controlled by light waves, not just by light in our environment. They point out that blue light is used by Dell, Apple, Meta, Google, and others on screens, and question why efflux or iris isn’t preloaded, suggesting the reason is that blue light lowers dopamine and melatonin, making people addicted. They attribute the discovery of this effect to the mafia rather than the CIA, linking it to the Las Vegas model: a desert city with great light and casinos that used blue light and alcohol to lower patrons’ dopamine so they would spend more money. They claim the CIA then redirected researchers to explore how to control without wires, moving from direct brain wires to semiconductors and LEDs through light. They recount that silicon valley developments with semiconductors produced LEDs, and that the early work included Delgado, a PhD researcher who implanted wires in a bull’s head to stop the animal via remote control, demonstrating a transition to wireless control. They assert that the next step was to eliminate wires and implant microchips in the brain, akin to Neuralink, enabling electrical, photoelectrical, and wireless control. They claim that researchers discovered that light could be used to control mammals, and that Meta and Google codified this through patents for blue light technology used in screens, owning the patents via patent attorneys. They reference Maria Manoulas in Los Angeles and her circle of friends connected to screens, asking whether these tools have been used to influence people and situations around them. They argue digital babysitting is successful for parents because a child becomes easier to control with screens, comparing this to a heroin addict needing a fix, explaining that exposure to electromagnetic pollution reduces beta endorphin (the natural brain opiate) and drives a need for external dopamine from drugs, alcohol, sex, or food. They claim this entire line of research originated in covert work at institutions such as Tulane, Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, and Harvard, then moved into big tech. They explain the transition from old CRT screens to blue-lit modern screens, noting that those who own the patents control the algorithms and centralize medicine for profit. They suggest a cynical view of doctors: their burnout is tied to blue-lit electronic medical records like Epic, Cerner, and Meditech, which require data input rather than patient interaction. They ask who that serves and imply it harms both patients and doctors. They challenge the idea that technology saves money, asserting instead that it increases data collection and profit through big data. They warn that AI will be used to train computers to replace dermatologists, predicting that in twenty years people will visit Walgreens and consult AI-generated, Google-algorithm-created centralized medicine. They name Maria Manoulas and her circle as part of this ecosystem.

The healthcare industry profits from our sickness, depression, and infertility, making chronic disease a lucrative business. Pharma and food industries are interconnected in fueling this cycle. We are encouraged to rely on pills, fear the system, and keep consuming.

- The report centers on nearly a year of investigation into the Tony Blair Institute (TBI) and Larry Ellison, the world’s second-richest man, highlighting a close relationship between Ellison and the Israeli government, including Benjamin Netanyahu, and noting Ellison’s donations to Friends of the IDF as their biggest donor. Oracle, co-founded by Ellison, is described as on the verge of taking over the US version of TikTok, a platform influential with American youth. - The narrative emphasizes Ellison’s advocacy for the use of social media as a battlefield and identifies Oracle’s potential role in global information control through AI and data strategy. - Safra Catz, Oracle’s former CEO, is quoted as saying she wants to embed love and respect for Israel into American culture. The transcript also notes a controversial LinkedIn policy stance on hate speech, with a claim about “from the river to the sea.” - It is claimed that David Ellison, Larry Ellison’s son, owns Paramount, which recently took ownership of CBS News, run by Ari Wise, described as a “self-proclaimed Zionist fanatic.” The report asserts that anti-Zionism is equated with anti-Semitism in the narrative. - The event coverage includes a Dubai World Leaders Summit in February where Ellison, interviewed by Tony Blair, spoke about AI. Ellison allegedly proposed unifying national data into a single, easily consumable database for AI models. - The investigation indicates the UK government is starting to unify its data, with Blair’s Institute advising on this effort. Blair is depicted as a long-time advocate for ID cards and digital ID cards, proposing to bring together all personal data in one place. - The discussion contrasts the potential benefits of digital ID (faster, cheaper, more reliable interactions with the state) with the potential dangers of centralized personal data controlled by a single private company, noting Blair’s push and Oracle’s willingness to take on the role. It is noted that Ellison advocated for ID cards as far back as 2001. - The conversation expands to health data: a call to consolidate health care data, diagnostic data, electronic health records, and genomic data into a single unified data platform, arguing the NHS has a rich but fragmented population data set not easily accessible to AI models. These models are said to be trained mainly on data from the Internet, implying national health records are particularly valuable and not publicly available. - The report asserts deep TBI involvement in Keir Starmer’s government, creating a risk that valuable UK data could be co-opted by Ellison and Oracle for private gain. It claims Oracle has earned over £1.1 billion in UK government contracts and Ellison has already benefited from such arrangements. - It is alleged that Blair and Ellison have maintained a long relationship, with Blair appearing in Ellison’s yachts and on Lanai. Blair has recorded a video for Oracle; Ellison’s wealth and ventures are described through the rhetorical question about the difference between Larry Ellison and God, implying Ellison’s outsized influence and wealth. - The piece asserts the potential for surveillance-driven monetization through AI and data consolidation, with Ellison stating that citizens will be on their best behavior as data is constantly recorded, “the camera’s always on,” and that recordings are accessible only with a court order. - The report finishes by noting the influence of the Tony Blair Institute in UK policy, its international reach, and the concern that its promotion of big-tech and AI boosterism may overshadow the needs of local populations. It calls for further independent media scrutiny of big-tech lobbying and its impact on policy, inviting support for Double Down News on Patreon.

Universities, health organizations, and other institutions are in need of funding, while big multinational corporations have the money to provide it. These corporations use their financial influence to gain control. They give grants for research, collaborate on projects, and pay individual professors, doctors, and researchers. They may also fund educational programs that align with their interests. Although these arrangements are supposed to be independent, it is clear that corporations prioritize supporting their own products. If organizations do not comply, they risk losing funding. This financial influence is how the medical establishment is swayed.

The key focus is on well-being, which has shifted over the past 20 to 30 years towards expensive remediation rather than wellness and prevention. The FDA plays a crucial role in this discussion. It raises the question of whether it's worthwhile to continue promoting costly drugs while neglecting preventive measures and overall wellness.

The transcript presents a critical examination of Bill Gates, portraying him as transforming from a software magnate into a global health power broker whose wealth and influence have reshaped public health, vaccine development, and population policy. It argues that Gates’ philanthropic activities are not purely charitable but are deployed to extend control over health systems, global research agendas, and even the reproductive choices of people worldwide. Key claims and points are detailed across several strands: - Public image and power shift: Bill Gates is described as no longer a “public health expert” yet becoming a central figure in billions of lives, guiding medical actions and vaccine strategies. The program asserts that Gates’ reinvention through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been aided by a sophisticated public relations apparatus and by directing media coverage of global health issues. - Foundation scale and reach: The Gates Foundation is depicted as the world’s largest private foundation, with assets reported as tens of billions of dollars and a broad remit in global health, development, growth, and policy advocacy. Its influence extends to funding media outlets, think tanks, and reporting units across multiple outlets (BBC, NPR, Our World in Data, ABC, among others), creating what the program calls “tentacles” across global health. - Partnerships and funding of global health initiatives: Gates is credited with initiating and funding major global health vehicles, including: - Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, with seed funding and ongoing commitments that have shaped vaccination markets. - The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and other public-private partnerships that coordinate vaccine development and immunization programs. - Support for CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations), the World Health Organization’s vaccine initiatives, and other pandemic preparedness efforts. - The World Health Organization’s funding profile, described as heavily dependent on Gates Foundation support, with Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted as a non-medical doctor connected to Gates-backed initiatives. - The “Decade of Vaccines” and vaccine policy: Gates is credited with launching a decade-long vaccine initiative, including a pledge of billions of dollars to vaccine development and distribution. This is linked to the creation of a global vaccine action plan and to Gavi’s role in establishing vaccine markets. The narrative asserts that vaccines have been used to steer global health policy and to secure roles for private firms in public health decision-making. - Vaccine development concerns: The program raises concerns about the safety and speed of vaccine development, criticizing the eighteen-month timeline Gates advocates for a universal vaccine, and questioning the use of new technologies (DNA and mRNA platforms) and rapid deployment with limited testing. It highlights potential safety risks, including historical vaccine-associated disease enhancement and concerns about broad immunization in a short period. - Vaccine safety and regulation: It is claimed that vaccine safety at scale is hard to guarantee and that liability protections for vaccine makers and public health officials have been enacted (e.g., a U.S. declaration granting liability immunity for COVID-19 countermeasures), a point framed as enabling risk-bearing without accountability. - Population control framing: A central thread is the assertion that Gates seeks to reduce population growth through health improvements, vaccines, and reproductive health services. The transcript traces Gates’ interest in contraception and population issues to his family background and to Rockefeller-era eugenics historical contexts, arguing that discussions about fertility, contraceptive technologies, and demographic trends have long-term population implications. It cites specific Gates Foundation activities in reproductive health, including funding for innovative birth-control delivery methods, depot injections, implanted devices, and efforts to develop digital identity tied to health services as tools within a broader population-control framework. - Digital identity and biometric ID: The narrative emphasizes Gates’ involvement with biometric identification through Gavi and ID2020, noting partnerships with Microsoft and the Rockefeller Foundation, the Aadhaar system in India, and the World Bank’s ID4D initiative. It argues that vaccination programs, biometric identity, and cashless payments are being integrated into a comprehensive “population control grid,” enabling state and private actors to track, truncate, or deny access to services based on identity and health status. - Data, surveillance, and privacy concerns: The piece contends that the push for digital IDs, digital health records, and biometrics will erode privacy and enable broad government and corporate surveillance, linking health data to financial services, voting, housing, and welfare. It highlights projects involving digital certificates, immunity passports, and real-time health data collection via microneedle patches and barcode-like skin markers, suggesting these innovations could be used to control access to services. - Epstein connections and broader conspiracy context: The program references alleged connections between Gates and Jeffrey Epstein, including flight logs and involvement in philanthropic funding discussions, framing these ties as part of a broader pattern of influence. It also points to prior associations with notable figures (Buffett, Rockefeller, Soros) and critiques of Gates as aligning with a “population control” ideology. - The underlying motive and conclusion: Throughout, the narrative asserts that Gates’ wealth is being used not for charity alone but to build an overarching system of control—over health institutions, research funding, public policy, identification, and financial systems. It contrasts his public image as a generous philanthropist with alleged hidden agendas, suggesting that the real aim is to shape global governance and human behavior through vaccination, identification, and digital infrastructure. - Final framing and call to action: The closing sections urge viewers to recognize Gates’ influence as part of an ideology rather than a single person’s plan. It frames the situation as a broader movement that could continue beyond Gates personally, urging awareness and action to resist what the program deems a population-control regime embedded in global health and digital identity initiatives. In sum, the transcript portrays Bill Gates as a central figure driving a multifaceted, globally interconnected program—through the Gates Foundation, Gavi, CEPI, and related partnerships—that allegedly reconfigures vaccine policy, global health governance, reproductive health, biometric identification, and digital payments into a cohesive system of population control and surveillance, using philanthropy as a veneer for power and control.

Friendship is based on shared values, and the group shares a lifelong vision to make the country healthy with evidence-based, replicable science. This will challenge the current system, which is destroying our health due to misaligned economic incentives and public health. The speaker met with heads of pharmaceutical companies, stating the desire to live in a place where companies profit by making people healthy, rather than the current alignment against each other. The healthcare system has perverse incentives that force people to do the wrong thing. The country has become a sick care system instead of a health care system, and the people in the group will change that.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the COVID-19 vaccine episode, challenging why the vaccine was pursued as a public health solution and exploring deeper incentives behind the program. - A knowledgeable figure at the stand answered a burning question: did they know the vaccine wouldn’t be effective from the start and could be dangerous? The answer given was that it was “a test of a technology.” The exchange suggests the broader aim was testing an entire program of control previewed in Event 2019. - They ask whether inoculation was necessary on billions, noting it could have been tested on a much smaller population. If shots had been basically empty or inert, the data could have been spun to claim success and end the pandemic, preventing injuries from appearing. The absence of that approach remains a mystery. - The speakers point to high pre-vaccine seroprevalence in 2020, including studies from South Dakota showing 50-60% seroprevalence before vaccine release, implying that a saline shot or no shot could have achieved “indomicity” (immunity) without a vaccine. - They discuss why people might fear vaccines and interpret the broader impact: the public is waking up to something terrible having occurred, as it revealed readiness to lie, potential data quality concerns, and risk to pregnant women and healthy children who might get little justification for risk. - The disease’s lethality is framed as greatest among the very old or very sick; for others, it was less deadly, with natural evolution potentially reducing vulnerability over time. - The mRNA platform was touted as a means to outrun mutations, but the timeline to release was still insufficient to stay ahead of natural change. They note accelerated development was the fastest vaccine in history, from detection to inoculation, reducing the timeline by about a year or two, yet not fast enough. - Political and logistical factors delayed release; there is mention that it would not have appeared under Trump and that Eric Topol argued to delay the rollout. Fauci reportedly sent Moderna back to trials due to insufficient racial diversity in participants. - The discussion questions whether the vaccine qualifies as a normal consumer product, given ongoing subsidies, mandates, indemnifications, wartime-like supports, and propaganda. They wonder if there has been an ongoing two-century revolt by industry against public scrutiny, with public interest repeatedly leading to pushback and rebranding. - A central theme is the sophistication of pharma: the “game of pharma” involves owning an IP-based health claim, crafting supportive research, convincing it is safe and effective, achieving standard-of-care status, securing mandates and government funding, and leveraging ongoing propaganda. They describe pharma as a long-running arms race with deep institutional knowledge, implying that it is far more capable of shaping reality than the public realizes.

Universities, health organizations, and others seek money from big corporations to influence research and opinions. By funding research, paying individual professionals, and supporting programs, corporations ensure loyalty and favorable outcomes. This financial influence shapes the medical establishment, even if it appears independent on the surface.

In 2016, the UN decided to give everyone a digital identity for daily use, integrating driver's licenses, bank accounts, media, and health records. The EU and UN also introduced a global vaccination strategy to provide digital health certificates to all people. This sets the foundation for a social credit system similar to China's. Initially, it involves medical data, but financial information and personal IP addresses will eventually be linked to biometric data. The true agenda behind this is not about climate, helping people, trade, or public health. They ignore our arguments because they have a different agenda. We need to understand why ICU capacity isn't being increased and why they want to maintain pressure on healthcare and vaccinations. They manipulate public opinion for a nitrogen and climate lockdown, weakening social cohesion and pitting us against each other instead of fighting for our collective rights and freedom.

This is a conspiracy involving corporations, government, media, and big tech players. They aimed to create a COVID surveillance economy, but the vaccine has hindered their plans. The evidence against them is growing, and resistance is increasing. We need to convince those who doubt us that we are not conspiracy theorists. Wall Street is showing interest in this, and capital will flow into this space. It's sad but true. Social proof can convince people who don't want to look at the data. If you think everything is fine, know that people are waking up and investing in this cause. It's time to wake up.

We are the top funder, but Bill Gates is also a big funder of the World Health Organization. Bill Gates and the Communist Chinese Party have significant influence, overshadowing the United States. A small group of elites, including Bill Gates, could pass a global pandemic treaty and make amendments without needing approval from all member nations. This power grab is unprecedented in human history and will drastically impact our future if not stopped. Pay attention and take action before it's too late.

If action isn't taken now, future opportunities may be lost. The current discourse around free speech is alarming, especially regarding vaccine misinformation. Bill Gates recently advocated for AI to eliminate such misinformation from the internet, emphasizing the urgency of addressing this issue. The pharmaceutical industry has heavily influenced trusted institutions like the NIH and Harvard Medical School, with the FDA largely funded by pharma as well. There's a significant conflict between those seeking gradual change and those calling for radical reform. As we approach an important election, we must consider whether we need incremental improvements or a complete overhaul of our systems. We are in a pivotal moment, facing existential threats that may not be fully recognized.

Many believe national healthcare is necessary like in Canada and the UK. Hillary Clinton tried to implement it with electronic medical records, but it can control doctors. Doctors may push harmful treatments like implants and mind control through vaccines. Medicine is more corrupt than politics, leading to harm or death for many patients.

Big food, big pharma, big chemicals get super wealthy. Right? What is the product of health care? It's a healthy body. If we take The US population and compare it to the world, we're at the very bottom when it comes to health, yet we spend the most for health care. Over $4,100,000,000,000 every single year.

Speaker 0: I think what a lot of people aren't really familiar with is the bioengineering aspect of this, and we only need to look to this recently published headline from the Daily Mail, which was resurfaced, declassified CIA files that revealed a chilling blueprint to manipulate Americans' minds through covert drugging with vaccines. And it's not just vaccines that was in that blueprint. It's also the food, the water supply, pretty much altering our state of mind and our biology through all of these methods. And this is going back all the way to the fifties. One can only imagine how far they've come now, but you've been digging into this, and you have a bit of an idea as to how far they've come. To us about your latest research. Speaker 1: So you're absolutely right. And this has been, you know, a slow progression. Nothing is just being, you know, introduced new. I mean, it the technology has advanced, but it's been going on for decades decades, hundreds of years. And when you think about pharmaceuticals, the the apparatus of pharmaceuticals, they are all they it is medicinal chemistry, which is synthetic materials, synthetic biology, engineered bacteria, yeasts, molds, and all of those things like you just said. We have we are being assaulted with these these materials, which are now considered devices, you know, with the manipulated EMF and frequencies. And all of those are to exactly what you just said, weaken the system. And really this pro this slow progression of a we're in the midst of a forced evolution to become providers of a synthetic material, hybrid synthetic material. So we'll continue to produce as we do because the humanity's biological systems are by design meant to thrive and recycle and and repurpose themselves, but to survive. And so we accept these synthetic materials, and we and our body slowly begin to make accommodations to those mutations, natural mutations, but also so much of these so much of the synthetic material is coded to go in and trigger a mutation or to forcibly cause a mutation. So we literally are walking around. I mean, all of us, and it goes from the tiny little mushroom that's growing in the woods to, you know, aquatic life to every single biological electrical system, the nervous system, you know, is based on frequency. It's based on electricity. And so that is that's what's being attacked is the nervous system and the immune systems of every living being. Speaker 0: Now you're talking about some very important things here, Lisa. You've sent me this article from Medium titled the synthetic nervous system, a blueprint for physical AI. And in this article, it talks about how for the past decade, AI has lived primarily in a box, but now, our, you know, our interaction with AI has been linguistic and digital. We've cracked the code apparently, completely on generative AI, unlocking the ability to, listen to this, manipulate symbols, pixels, and code at scale, but we're now entering a far more complex epoch, the era of physical AI. And they are talking about the transition from AI that thinks to AI that acts. So they're saying the intelligence behind humanoid robots. They also give, you know, autonomous systems and things of this nature. My concern is that their plan stated goal is that they want humans to integrate with AI. This is something that even Elon Musk itself has said we need to do in order to stay relevant. And your research shows that they're already in the process of doing that. Talk to us a little bit about that. Speaker 1: Yes. And probably have. We and and, you know, I think that life as we know it will fairly stay the same because what the integration is through, and you've heard of this, is the digital twin. You know, assigning each of us a representative in the AI ecosystem, ecosystem, which which is is a a digital twin. But that digital twin is able to function and, perform because it is it is based off of your data, your biological data, your, that they are going in and removing and stealing through the infiltrators and facilitators that is vaccines, bioengineered foods, bioengineered bacteria. The, you know, the pharmaceutical industry is the perfect setup, and it's only one of one setup that goes in, and now these are all synthetic material devices. They work off of Wi Fi. They're software platforms, and they are all digital. And they are being monitored by the Department of Energy, HHS, MITRE now, these private companies and private oligarch, you know, tech companies that all have access to our free our our inner, you know, biological data DNA and and everything. And so that the AI platform, in order for it to succeed and for its longevity, there has to be a cohesive connection between humanity because we are the fuel that is going to feed that AI ecosystem. And it cannot it it's not gonna be one or the other. It has to work cohesively, and and they have to be joined. And how the the joining of those literally is through an infiltration system, which is primarily vaccines and engineered pathogens.

The speaker discusses concerns about the World Health Organization's (WHO) power and financial grab through the creation of the One Health approach. They suggest that this approach could lead to a control of various industries and a push for global governance. The speaker questions whether the ability to generate fear and initiate more pandemics will play a role in this power struggle. They also mention the UN's efforts to change the financial architecture and promote electronic money. The speaker concludes by emphasizing the importance of understanding the hidden agenda behind these developments.

During COVID, some people saw the actions of figures like Dr. Fauci, Bill Gates, the WHO, and Klaus Schwab, and wondered why more people didn't notice. This narrative has been ongoing since at least 1910, aiming to discredit chiropractors, naturopaths, nutritionists, and functional medicine doctors. Pharmaceutical companies pay doctors kickbacks and fund the schools that educate them. These doctors often sit on government boards, creating a system that protects its members and exploits vulnerable, sick individuals. Pharmaceutical companies, which educate doctors, prioritize profit over people's well-being, and are unconcerned about the millions of deaths they may have caused as long as they profit.