reSee.it - Related Video Feed

- it's that he took the COVID vaccine off the recommended schedule for children. - 95% of parents were already rejecting that advice, and actually 85% of healthcare workers rejecting that advice. - when these people in the media say that they are standing up for science, they are saying they're going against 95% of parents, and they want every single six month old in this country to have a mandated mRNA COVID injection. - There is a memo going around at the CDC and throughout HHS about how to subvert president Trump and how to subvert secretary Kennedy. - They're saying we're gonna outlast them, that the Republicans are gonna lose the midterms, that this is gonna be a flash in the pan.

There are employees in every agency, including the Department of Treasury, who have valuable experience and play important roles. The preference is for qualified individuals with unquestionable credentials to serve in these roles. Regarding mask requirements, there may be moments when masks are not put back on immediately, but the focus should be on getting more people vaccinated and implementing safety measures in schools and companies. The president was seen without a mask in a restaurant, but there are exceptions for children under 2 and those actively drinking. The question is why the president did not follow the rules.

Dr. Menares and an interlocutor debate the science behind pediatric COVID vaccination and routine immunizations, focusing on transmission, hospitalization, and risk. - The interlocutor asks whether the COVID vaccine prevents transmission. Speaker 1 answer: the vaccine can reduce viral load in individuals who are infected, and with reduced viral load, there is reduced transmission. The interlocutor reframes, insisting that the vaccine does not prevent transmission and notes decreasing effectiveness over time, citing Omicron data showing around 16% reduction when there is a reduction. - On hospitalization for children 18 and under: Speaker 0 asserts the vaccine does not reduce hospitalization for 18-year-olds; statistics are inconclusive due to small numbers of hospitalizations in that age group (approximately 76 million people aged 18 in the country, with 183 deaths and a few thousand hospitalizations in 2020–2021; numbers have since dropped). The argument emphasizes a need to discuss the issue. - On death for children 18 and under: Speaker 0 says the vaccine does not reduce the death rate; claims there is no statistical evidence that it reduces deaths. Speaker 1 responds with a more cautious stance: “It can,” but Speaker 0 counters, calling that an insufficient answer. - The discussion references the vaccine approval process and ongoing debates in vaccine committees. The interlocutor states that when the vaccine was approved for six months and older, the discussion acknowledged no proof of reduction in hospitalization or death. The argument asserts that the justification for vaccination is based on antibody generation rather than clear hospitalization/death data. The interlocutor contends that immunology measurements (antibody production) do not necessarily justify vaccination frequency. - The core debate centers on what the science supports for vaccinating six-month-olds and the benefits versus risks. The interlocutor argues there is no hospitalization or death benefit for vaccination in this age group, and notes a known risk of myocarditis in younger populations, estimated somewhere between six and ten per ten thousand, which the interlocutor claims is greater than the risk of hospitalization or death being measurable. - The exchange then shifts to changing the childhood vaccine schedule, particularly the hepatitis B vaccine given to newborns when the mother is not hepatitis B positive. The interlocutor asks for the medical or scientific reason to give a hepatitis B vaccine to a newborn with an uninfected mother, arguing that the discussion should focus on whether to change the schedule rather than declaring all vaccines as good or bad. - Speaker 1 says they agreed with considering the science and would not pre-commit to approving all ACIP recommendations without the science. Speaker 0 disagrees, asserting their position that the debate should center on the medical rationale for these specific vaccines and schedules, not on a blanket endorsement of vaccines. - Throughout, the dialogue emphasizes examining the medical reasons and evidence for specific vaccines and schedules, rather than broad generalizations about vaccines.

During a congressional hearing, Representative Miller questions Assistant Secretary Parker about OSHA's emergency temporary standard that would have required Americans to take the COVID vaccine or provide medical paperwork to their employers. Miller argues that OSHA does not have the power to force 84 million Americans to comply. Parker mentions that the Supreme Court ruled on the matter, but Miller accuses Parker of continuing to press companies to impose vaccine mandates even after the ruling. Miller expresses concern about the consequences for workers who refuse to comply and plans to introduce amendments to strip OSHA of its power. Parker defends OSHA's actions and mentions a proposed rule for healthcare workers.

Nobody was forced to have a vaccine, according to Speaker 1. However, Speaker 2 argues that essential workers face the ultimatum of getting vaccinated or losing their jobs. Speaker 3 emphasizes that coercion is not consent, but it won't matter for authorized workers who want to keep their jobs. Speaker 4 mentions the fines imposed on employers and individuals for not complying with vaccination requirements. Speaker 5 discusses the effectiveness of mandates in increasing vaccination rates. The conversation highlights the disagreement among Australians regarding whether or not people were forced to get vaccinated.

There is a debate about implementing a vaccine mandate, but the speakers have different opinions. Speaker 0 is against it, while Speaker 1 believes it cannot be enforced. Speaker 2 thinks it is proportionate, but Speaker 3 emphasizes the need to increase vaccine willingness without mandating it. Speaker 4 mentions the right to refuse vaccination and the government's promise against a mandate. Speaker 2 reiterates that there will be no vaccine mandate, and Speaker 0 insists on the need for one. However, Speaker 2 clarifies that not using the vaccine won't result in losing basic rights. They believe a solution leading to a vaccine mandate will be found.

Trump is often blamed for ordering federal workers back to the office, but he wasn't the first to do so. Biden has been urging federal employees to return to work since March 2022, yet many have refused. Trump, however, is more insistent, stating that employees must return or risk losing their jobs. The narrative that Trump is solely responsible for separating families is misleading; Biden has been advocating for a return to the office for years. If federal workers are unwilling to work in person, they may need to consider different employment. The attitude of demanding things go a certain way reflects a childish mindset, and it's essential to recognize that Trump is not the originator of this call to return to work.

The transcript describes a contentious exchange about the COVID-19 vaccine and the roles of public health figures and political leaders. Key points include: - Speaker 0 asserts there was a “fake vaccine” pushed by Antony Fauci and Deborah Birx, accusing Trump of failing to fire them and allowing them to “destroy the said economy,” impose “fascist restrictions,” and promote a vaccine that Speaker 0 claims has “killed and maimed breathtaking numbers of people.” The vaccine is described as self-replicating and not proven safe or effective, with the period framed as Trump’s Christmas message in 2020 during Operation Warp Speed. - Speaker 1 counters that millions of doses of a safe and effective vaccine were delivered, thanking scientists, researchers, manufacturing workers, and service members, calling it a “Christmas miracle.” - Speaker 0 then reframes Trump’s stance, labeling the vaccine push as aligned with the agendas of Gates, Fauci, Klaus Schwab, and the World Economic Forum, calling them “the deep state” and asserting that Trump was pushing their agenda rather than opposing it. - A year later, in late 2021, Speaker 0 notes ongoing consequences of the vaccine and the pandemic, while Speaker 1 repeats positive messaging about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness, and asserts that those who do not take the vaccine may experience more severe illness if they become very sick and go to the hospital. Speaker 1 emphasizes that the vaccine “worked” and that taking it provides protection, while non-vaccination is framed as a personal choice. - In the ensuing exchange, Speaker 1 makes a historical analogy, claiming the vaccine is “one of the greatest achievements of mankind,” noting that during the Spanish flu there were no vaccines, and claiming three vaccines were developed in less than nine months, whereas it would normally take five to twelve years. - Speaker 2 interjects, noting that more people died under Biden than under Trump during the year being discussed, and that more people took the vaccine that year, prompting a defense from Speaker 1 that the vaccine is effective and reduces the severity of illness, while if one contracts COVID, the illness is minor with vaccination. - The sequence ends with Speaker 0 labeling what was said as “utter, utter mendacity” and “Lying.” Overall, the transcript centers on a polarized debate over the vaccine’s safety and efficacy, the motivations and actions of public health officials and political leaders, contrasting claims that the vaccine was a dangerous, coerced plot with claims that it was a safe, efficacious public health breakthrough. It also juxtaposes Trump’s mixed public positions from 2020–2021, ranging from criticism of the vaccine push to praise of the vaccine as a major achievement.

Speaker 0 acknowledges reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with the Pfizer vaccine but seems unsure about the mechanism behind it. Speaker 1 asks if the vaccine was tested for its ability to stop virus transmission before being released. Speaker 2 questions if people were forced to get vaccinated to keep their jobs and asks Speaker 0 to retract their statement. Speaker 0 clarifies that everyone had the choice to get vaccinated or not, and they don't believe anyone was forced.

President Biden and OSHA did not threaten or demand anyone be fired for not complying with the vaccine mandate. The discussion then shifts to the effectiveness of mask mandates for 2-year-olds and above, with Speaker 2 clarifying that they don't have the authority to force anyone to do anything. Speaker 1 questions if states were encouraged to adopt student vaccine mandates, citing an article where the Education Secretary expressed support for such mandates. The committee members express frustration with officials denying their actions, including the Health and Human Services Secretary's statement on mask mandates for young children. The administration is accused of rewriting history, but Speaker 2 argues that the rule in question is not a vaccine mandate.

President Biden and OSHA did not threaten or demand anyone be fired for not complying with the vaccine mandate or showing their papers. The discussion then shifts to the effectiveness of forcing 2-year-olds to wear masks, with Speaker 2 clarifying that they don't have the authority to force anyone to do anything. Speaker 1 questions if states were encouraged to implement student vaccine mandates, referencing an article that supports this claim. The committee members express their frustration with officials denying their actions, including the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Finally, Speaker 3 states that the rule in question is not a vaccine mandate.

Speaker 0 questions if anyone was forced to get vaccinated, specifically referring to a comment made by Dr. Kuat. Speaker 1 confirms that they made the comment and states their belief that nobody was forced to receive the vaccine. They explain that mandates and requirements are determined by governments and health authorities, and that individuals were given the choice to get vaccinated or not. Speaker 0 disagrees, suggesting that many Australians would disagree with Speaker 1's statement.

During a congressional hearing, Representative Miller questions Assistant Secretary Parker about OSHA's emergency temporary standard that would have required Americans to take the COVID vaccine or provide medical paperwork to their employers. Miller argues that OSHA does not have the power to force 84 million Americans to comply. Parker mentions that the Supreme Court ruled on the matter, but Miller accuses Parker of continuing to press companies to impose vaccine mandates even after the ruling. Miller expresses concern about the consequences for American workers who refuse to comply and plans to introduce amendments to strip OSHA of its power. Parker defends OSHA's actions and mentions that the rule allowed for testing as an alternative to vaccination. The discussion also touches on a new COVID-19 rule for healthcare, which Parker says is still under review.

The speaker questions President Biden and OSHA's plan regarding non-compliance with the vaccine mandate. Speaker 0 denies any threats or demands for firing. Speaker 1 denies forcing anyone to do anything, claiming lack of jurisdiction. Speaker 0 questions the effectiveness of mask mandates for 2-year-olds. Speaker 1 denies encouraging student vaccine mandates, despite evidence suggesting otherwise. The speaker criticizes officials for distorting facts and rewriting history. The administration is accused of abusing power and the Supreme Court's rebuke is mentioned. The speaker concludes by stating that the vaccine mandate is not actually a mandate.

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.

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.

The speaker questions whether OSHA has the authority to mandate vaccinations for 84 million Americans. Speaker 1 mentions that the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter. Speaker 0 criticizes Speaker 1 as an unelected bureaucrat, stating they cannot force people to take an experimental vaccine or show their papers. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of attempting to fire 84 million workers and asks if they believe the court was wrong. Speaker 1 acknowledges that the court's decision is final. Speaker 0 quotes Speaker 1's statement to Reuters, where they express disappointment with the ruling but state that they will continue to encourage employers to implement safety measures.

Speaker 0 questions if it was Dr. Puert who made the comment that no one was forced to have the vaccination. Dr. Puert confirms that it was indeed him who made the comment. Speaker 0 then challenges Dr. Puert's statement, mentioning that during COVID-19 in Australia, people, including nurses and doctors, were required to get vaccinated to keep their jobs. Dr. Puert maintains his belief that nobody was forced to get vaccinated, stating that mandates or requirements are determined by governments and health authorities. Speaker 0 disagrees, suggesting that many Australians would not agree with Dr. Puert's perspective.

In the exchange, Speaker 1 advocates that a solution to vaccination uptake may require some form of mandatory vaccination, noting that federal officials resist that term. Speaker 2 adds that once people feel legally empowered, educational institutions will require vaccination, with colleges, universities, and employers like Amazon and Facebook signaling that anyone wanting to study or work there must be vaccinated. He asserts that making life difficult for people will cause them to drop ideological objections and get vaccinated. Speaker 0 challenges whether all objections to COVID vaccinations are “ideological bullshit,” insisting that is not what was being referred to and arguing that the claim about making it hard for people to live was made in a broader context about education, travel, work, and overall life, and that she takes offense at the interpretation. Speaker 0 then references Miss Allison Williams, who testified before the committee about losing her job after seeking an exemption from ESPN’s vaccine mandate. Williams’ case involved recommendations from bureaucrats and a fertility expert, highlighting that she and her husband, who were pursuing pregnancy with medical guidance, should not have been forced to vaccinate. Speaker 0 contends she was fired because “you made it hard” as described in the statement, preventing her from working, living, and making health decisions with her healthcare professional, thereby impacting American society’s ability to flourish and self-determine certain rights—stating that America should take offense at this. The dialogue shifts to Doctor Fauci. The speaker addresses him directly, calling him “doctor of fear” and stating that Americans do not hate science but hate having their freedoms taken. The speaker accuses Fauci of inspiring and creating fear through mass mandates, school closures, and vaccine mandates, claiming these policies have destroyed the American people’s trust in public health institutions and will have ripple effects for generations. It is asserted that fear has manifested in areas such as education and the economy, and the speaker concludes by separating their stance from science, saying, “I disagree with you because I disagree with fear.” The exchange ends with Speaker 0 yielding.

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

The former health and human services cabinet secretary faced questioning on Capitol Hill regarding the COVID vaccine. Representative Mary Miller raised concerns about the CDC's data showing an increase in myocarditis among young men and teenage boys who received the vaccine. She questioned why the Biden administration continues to promote the vaccine for this demographic, as they are at higher risk for myocarditis. The speaker supports Miller's stance and urges others not to give in on mask mandates, social distancing, closures, or new mandates. The speaker concludes by emphasizing the importance of non-compliance.

No children died from COVID in 2020, so there is no need for them to be vaccinated. The government's role in this situation cannot be denied, and many Americans are outraged and angered by the lack of accountability. The worst thing to happen to our country and the world, in my opinion, is the ongoing vaccine mandates.

Speaker 0 argues that 'the trustworthiness of the information that we actually receive from the news media' is a major problem and notes that 'the easiest thing for our democratic colleagues to do is to scare people.' He asks, 'COVID nineteen was politicized?' Speaker 1 answers, 'the whole process was politicized' and says 'we were lied to about everything... the vaccines would prevent transmission' and 'they prevent infection'—claims he says are contradicted by 'the animal studies and the clinical trial showed.' He accuses the CDC of letting 'the teachers union' write school-closure orders that 'hurt working people all over the country, and then pretend it was science based.' He adds examples: 'Martin Koldor from Harvard' was 'ejected [from COVID]... because he wasn't in the orthodoxy'; 'FDA during COVID' officials 'Gruber and Krausz' criticized Biden mandates; Biden said, 'I would never take that vaccine, the Trump vaccine' then mandated it and fired top FDA officials who said it had not been properly tested.' The exchange ends with 'Yes.'

During a discussion, Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about a comment made regarding vaccination. Speaker 1 confirms making the comment and Speaker 0 challenges it, stating that people in Australia were forced to get vaccinated to keep their jobs. Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that vaccine mandates are determined by governments and health authorities, and nobody was forced to take the vaccine. Speaker 0 disagrees, suggesting that many Australians would not agree with Speaker 1's viewpoint.