reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims that ivermectin, not the vaccine, saved people from COVID. They criticize the use of ventilators for COVID patients, citing pulmonary edema risks. A nurse's story about a stroke post-vaccination highlights a lack of documentation and discouragement of questions by senior staff. The nurse was reassigned after questioning. Translation: The speaker believes ivermectin, not vaccines, saved people from COVID. They criticize using ventilators for COVID patients due to risks of pulmonary edema. A nurse's experience with a stroke post-vaccination reveals a lack of documentation and discouragement of questions by senior staff. The nurse was reassigned after asking questions.

In the video, the speaker discusses the significant reduction in confirmed influenza cases in the United States and Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. They mention that in the US, there was a 99.995% reduction in cases, while in Canada, the numbers dropped from 55,379 to 69. The speaker suggests that this may be due to a renaming of cases or the high cycle thresholds used in PCR testing. They also mention discrepancies in reporting and vaccination status data in Newfoundland and Labrador. The speaker notes that all 11 deaths reported in a specific period were fully vaccinated individuals, and they personally know unvaccinated individuals over the age of 70.

In this video, the speaker discusses their conclusions on all-cause mortality and the pandemic. They claim that if governments had not taken any extraordinary measures, there would have been no excess mortality beyond the usual trend. They argue that the measures implemented by governments caused varying levels of excess mortality in different jurisdictions. Additionally, they assert that the COVID-19 vaccination campaign itself resulted in excess mortality, with different doses and age groups being associated with peaks in deaths. The speaker promises to provide specific numbers in their presentation.

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.

This video criticizes the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). It argues that the WHO misrepresented the case fatality rate (CFR) and infection fatality rate (IFR) of the virus, causing unnecessary fear. The video also questions the validity of asymptomatic transmission and highlights the negative consequences of lockdown measures, such as increased poverty, mental health issues, and disrupted education. It criticizes the effectiveness of mask mandates and PCR testing, and warns of the erosion of civil liberties. The speaker urges viewers to push back against the threats to our civilization.

In the video, the speaker discusses the mistakes made in Wuhan during the first wave of the pandemic. They mention that 80% of the people put on ventilators died. The speaker posted on Twitter about the issue, stating that putting people on intubated ventilators for an extended period was a big mistake. They argue that this treatment, not COVID itself, is damaging the lungs. Despite receiving criticism for not being a doctor, the speaker highlights their experience in building life support systems for spaceships. The video ends with a sarcastic remark about their critics.

The speakers discuss the expected mutation of the virus and the impact of vaccination. They acknowledge that as people become immunized, the virus will try to find ways to evade the vaccine. The more people are vaccinated, the more pressure is put on the virus to mutate. Some virologists warn that vaccinating the entire world with narrow immunity could lead to the emergence of superbugs. They urge for the use of the right vaccine in the right place and caution against mass vaccination during a pandemic. They argue that current interventions and mass vaccination may be causing more harm than good, driving the emergence of more infectious and potentially lethal variants.

In this video, the speakers delve into the controversy surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as treatments for COVID-19. They express frustration with the restrictions placed on these medications and emphasize the importance of doctors' involvement in patient care. The speakers highlight their own positive experiences with these treatments and criticize the politicization of medical decisions. They also discuss conflicting scientific studies and the influence of pharmaceutical companies. Additionally, the conversation touches on the use of fluvoxamine and the challenges faced by the speakers within their institution, leading to their departure. Overall, the video emphasizes the need for a balanced and evidence-based approach to medical treatments.

In the video, the speaker discusses the mistakes made in Wuhan during the first wave of the pandemic. They mention that 80% of the people put on ventilators died, and doctors admitted that they had put too many people on intubated ventilators. The speaker posted on Twitter about this issue, stating that the treatment of intubated ventilators was damaging the lungs more than COVID itself. They received criticism for their opinion, but defended themselves by mentioning their experience in building life support systems for spaceships. The video ends with a sarcastic remark about their critics.

In this video, the speaker reflects on their PowerPoint slide pack from April-May 2020, which contained facts and data about the COVID-19 pandemic. They discuss various points, including the low death rate, the lack of difference between countries with and without lockdowns, the ineffectiveness of masks, and the correlation between flu shots and increased risk of respiratory infections. The speaker emphasizes the importance of not forgetting this information and encourages viewers to share the facts and data to counter mainstream bias. They also express gratitude to their supporters.

In the video, the speaker mentions that 80% of people put on ventilators died. They had spoken to doctors in Wuhan who admitted that they made a mistake by putting too many people on intubated ventilators during the first wave of the pandemic. The speaker posted about this on Twitter, suggesting that the treatment with ventilators was damaging the lungs more than COVID itself. Some people criticized the speaker for not being a doctor, but the speaker defended themselves by mentioning their experience in building life support systems for spaceships.

- 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 expresses concern about the death of a patient and questions if the hospital staff may have caused it. They discuss the lack of proper care and negligence in the hospital, with patients not being coded and families being misled. The speaker decides to go undercover and record their experiences. They mention the inappropriate use of ventilators and the lack of qualified staff. The video also touches on the financial incentives for admitting patients and the suppression of alternative treatments. The speaker highlights the importance of early treatment and criticizes the focus on ventilators.

In this video, the speaker expresses their disagreement with wearing masks to prevent the spread of the virus. They claim that masks do not effectively stop an aerosolized virus and can actually cause harm. The speaker argues that engineering controls should be implemented instead, as they provide a 90% risk reduction compared to masks' less than 1% reduction. They criticize the credibility of experts advocating for masks and urge viewers to follow them for alternative information. The speaker also mentions the limitations of KN95 and N95 respirators. They conclude by emphasizing the importance of dilution and destruction technologies in healthcare settings.

A nurse and a doctor discuss the use of ventilators in hospitals during the pandemic. The nurse reveals that some floors were carrying out actions that other floors refused to do, essentially causing harm to patients. The doctor mentions that ventilators were used to protect healthcare workers, even though they had a high fatality rate for patients. The lack of transparency with patients and families is highlighted, as well as the reluctance to explore alternative treatments like Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine. The speaker also mentions the incentivization of using certain drugs and protocols that led to unnecessary deaths.

The speakers in the video discuss the effectiveness of wearing masks. They state that wearing a mask when not infected does not significantly reduce the risk of transmission. They also mention unintended consequences such as people touching their face and contaminating the mask. The evidence on mask usage is described as weak and variable, with no real trials conducted. The World Health Organization initially advised against wearing masks but later changed their stance due to political pressure. Face coverings have become mandatory on public transport and in shops and supermarkets.

In this video, the speakers discuss the use of ventilators in treating COVID-19 patients. They mention that a high percentage of people put on ventilators have died. The first speaker shares that doctors in Wuhan admitted to making a mistake by putting too many people on ventilators for an extended period, which actually damages the lungs. The second speaker questions the demand for ventilators and suggests that non-COVID patients typically use them for 3 to 4 days, while COVID patients are kept on them longer to get them back to work. They emphasize the need for more ventilators and criticize the allocation of limited supplies. The video ends with a statement about the desire for businesses to make money.

In this video, the speaker expresses their disagreement with wearing masks to protect against the spread of the SARS CoV 2 virus. They claim that masks do not effectively stop an aerosolized virus and can actually cause harm. The speaker suggests implementing engineering controls instead and questions why people are so focused on masks when they provide less than 1% risk reduction. They criticize the credibility of experts who advocate for mask-wearing and encourage viewers to follow their own advice. The speaker also mentions the need for proper respirators in healthcare settings.

In the video, the speaker discusses the mistakes made in Wuhan during the first wave of the pandemic. They mention that 80% of the people put on ventilators died. The speaker claims that they posted on Twitter about doctors in Wuhan admitting to putting too many people on intubated ventilators for a long time, which they believe damaged the lungs more than COVID itself. They mention receiving criticism for their opinion, but defend themselves by stating their experience in building life support systems for spaceships. The video ends with a sarcastic remark about twiddling knots.

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.

The speaker discusses the use of ventilators in treating COVID-19 patients. They mention that the concept of using ventilators came from China as a way to protect healthcare workers. However, they point out that many patients put on ventilators in New York City were dying, with a 90% fatality rate in some Texas hospitals. The speaker questions why alternative treatments like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine were not considered when the chances of survival were so low. They also mention the incentivization of using certain drugs and protocols that may have contributed to unnecessary deaths.

Scientists and the general public initially followed the guidance of Fauci and the NIH without question, while demonizing those who suggested the Lab Leak theory. However, now the theory is widely accepted, along with many other previously censored conspiracies. People believed they were doing the right thing by following guidelines to stop the spread of the virus, but we need to remember what happened. The speaker emphasizes the importance of not forgetting this playbook for future situations. They mention Bill Gates' actions and how he withdrew his investment in a company and started downplaying the vaccine's effectiveness. They also note the disappearance of the flu and warn against forgetting these events.

In the video, the speaker discusses the mistakes made in Wuhan during the first wave of the pandemic. They mention that doctors in Wuhan admitted to putting too many people on intubated ventilators, resulting in a high mortality rate. The speaker posted about this on Twitter, stating that the treatment (ventilators) was causing more harm than the disease itself. Some people criticized the speaker for not being a doctor, but they defended themselves by mentioning their experience in building life support systems for spaceships. The video ends with the speaker expressing their indifference towards the criticism.

The speaker discusses how quick action and isolation could have extinguished COVID-19, citing the success with SARS. They criticize political interference and the WHO for mishandling the pandemic, leading to a global crisis. Despite pointing out these failures, the speaker feels unappreciated for providing factual information.