reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker expresses upset about a virus in vaccines but assures that it will be eliminated. They mention a person named Heiliger who was also upset. The speaker agrees with Heiliger's view that this virus is a problem for vaccines. They emphasize the need to detect and eliminate viruses. The speaker clarifies that there are already 40 different viruses in vaccines that are being inactivated. They mention a yellow fever vaccine that had leukemia virus in it, highlighting the progress in science. The speaker then discusses a conversation they had with someone about their concerns regarding the virus.

The speaker criticizes the idea that the virus has the same sequence in different countries, calling it absurd. They suggest that those who understand this concept are happy to go along with it because it prevents others from figuring things out. The speaker mentions Gerrit van den Bosch as someone who could explain the randomness of the virus. They highlight that only a small fraction of the virus molecules make it to the end, with each having the same error rate. The speaker encourages using imagination to understand this biology and suggests that programmers could create a program to simulate the virus swarm. They believe that this knowledge could be taught if desired.

Professor Luc Montagnier, a Nobel Prize winner in medicine and the discoverer of HIV, discusses his current work on the virus. He explains that he is working with a colleague on a computer rather than in a lab. Their work is based on the disease itself and the measures being taken in laboratories on patients. Professor Montagnier concludes that there has been manipulation of the virus, specifically the addition of sequences from HIV. He clarifies that this is not a natural occurrence but the result of meticulous work by a molecular biologist. However, the purpose behind this manipulation is unclear, and Professor Montagnier emphasizes that he is only presenting the facts and not accusing anyone.

The discussion centers on a cruise-ship hantavirus outbreak and how to interpret its significance without panicking. The speakers question what is actually known about hantavirus testing, the specific strains involved, and how reliable the tests are compared to COVID-19 PCR testing. They note hantavirus is an RNA virus and discuss the possibility of ivermectin as a therapeutic, while raising concerns about government secrecy and information control. Key points raised: - Hantavirus tests and strain identification: The panel asks how testing is done, whether tests distinguish the Andes virus involved on the ship, and how reliable the tests are. They point out that hantavirus is a rare infection in the United States and that historically the CDC used antibodies, while PCR is widely available but must be interpreted in the proper clinical context. - Transmission and mortality: It is stated that hantaviruses are not known to spread between humans, and the Andes virus is the exception with rare human-to-human transmission requiring very close contact. The speakers reference reported mortality rates for hantavirus (between 25% and 50%), and question how many people on the cruise may be affected given three deaths. - Vaccine and bioweapons concerns: There is skepticism about why a vaccine would be developed for a virus that is not readily transmissible between humans, with speculation about doomsday scenarios and potential bioweapons research. Moderna is mentioned as having announced vaccine work in 2024, and there is discussion about the stock decline related to COVID-19 vaccine uptake. - Ivermectin and treatment debates: The conversation revisits ivermectin as a potential antiviral for RNA viruses like hantavirus, noting patterns from the COVID-19 era of suppression of certain treatments and questioning the standards of evidence used to promote or censor therapies. A prior book, The War on Ivermectin, is referenced in relation to disinformation about the drug. - Media dynamics and public perception: The dialogue highlights concerns about how media coverage and social media influence public fear, including mentions of influencers and a pattern of rapid information spread. They discuss the possibility that the outbreak’s prominence could be driven by media or other non-pandemic factors, paralleling past COVID coverage. - Adverse-event chatter: There is mention of hantavirus appearing among listed possible adverse events for a COVID-19 vaccine, with questions about why such a link would be considered and the strength of that association. A colleague notes a surge of hantavirus literature around the outbreak, which they find unusual for a limited outbreak. - Long COVID and brain effects (aside from the outbreak): A NYU Langone Health study is cited, reporting that long COVID sufferers show changes in a brain region involved in cleaning brain tissue, linking chronic inflammation and spike protein exposure to potential early signs of Alzheimer’s disease, as part of a broader discussion on lingering effects of viral illnesses. Overall, the speakers emphasize asking cautious, clinically grounded questions about the outbreak, testing, transmission risk, and the broader media and political context, while warning against fearmongering and noting the possibility that the intense coverage may reflect patterns observed during the pandemic.

Viruses don't exist, according to the speaker. They argue that the process used to prove the existence of viruses is flawed, as it relies on adding samples from sick individuals to monkey cells and observing cell death. However, even when no sample is added, the cells still die. This suggests that viruses may not be real. The speaker refutes the theory of viruses and states that the cause of illness could be exposure to toxins or other factors. They compare it to refuting the existence of an evil butt gremlin under a bed based on lack of evidence.

The speaker reflects on their previous warnings about the weaponization of nature and the dire consequences it has had. They express gratitude for the opportunity to have a public conversation about this issue. The speaker then delves into the history of coronavirus, highlighting its isolation in 1965 and subsequent modifications and experiments. They discuss the patenting of infectious replication-defective clones of coronavirus and the violation of biological and chemical weapons treaties. The speaker also mentions the financial aspects and lack of moral oversight in the development of vaccines. They conclude by calling for an end to gain of function research and corporate patronage of science without assuming product liability. (150 words)

The speaker discusses the ideology of scientists who have questioned the origins of viruses like AIDS, hepatitis, and Ebola. They mention Dr. Duisburg from the University of California at Berkeley as one of these scientists. The speaker also mentions that the COVID vaccines contained varying percentages of bioweapon material, with the booster having the highest concentration. They note that over 13 billion COVID vaccines were administered to around 5 billion people, but not all individuals received the vaccines. The speaker suggests that the PCR swab was another method of inoculating people with nanotechnology, specifically Graphene Ferric Oxide. They mention facing pushback when trying to publish their research on this topic, but eventually succeeded. However, they were subsequently attacked.

The transcript argues that deflating a “parasitic system” is necessary because oversized states and corporations cause decay, corruption, and injustice to the people, including workers, creatives, and the maimed and dying under elite rule. It cites examples such as Tanks for Kidneys RT Documentary, Organ Harvesting, Black Market Transplants, and Crimes Against Humanity to illustrate this destruction. On the mortality and harm claims related to Covid-19, the speaker estimates thirty-six million excess deaths from 2022 to 2023 plus half of 2024, totaling forty-five million excess deaths for four point five years of Covid killing protocols. They add nine million deaths from Covid killing protocols in 2020, arguing these figures reflect the impact of what they term “SARS CoV-two virus and vaccine bio weapons.” The speaker contends that terms like bio weaponized, propagandized, lured, coerced, and mandated depopulation and genocide should not be taboo because of mass propaganda, corrupted science, lack of truthful science, and censorship in mainstream media and on tech platforms. They claim that elites and many people still think SARS CoV-two is a naturally evolved virus, while “Truthful science” supposedly proves beyond any doubt that SARS CoV-two is designed and made by humans in a bio lab, pointing to the genetic code of SARS CoV-two as containing several lab-made inserts (PRRA, HIVGP120) that are described as too large and numerous and only appearing in other natural viruses that are genetically very different, making natural mutation or recombination “quasi zero.” They assert a substantial trail of documents and testimonies before and after the release of SARS CoV-two about these genetic codes, the existing biochemical technology to insert them, financing of the research, scientific documents, and patents. The speaker claims that GenTech Covid vaccines cause human cells to produce during months up to years huge amounts of the toxic spike protein of SARS CoV-two in all organs and tissues, implying greater production than typical mucosal infection in unvaccinated people, which they say would cause only cold-like illness. They describe these vaccines as “GenTech covid vaccines” and label them as bio weapons, allegedly worse than the virus itself. Finally, they claim that not only the produced toxic spike protein but also other components and contaminations of these vaccines cause serious health damage. The source is cited as Source2mia.org, with a request to like and follow.

There is a class of viruses called single stranded RNA viruses, which includes COVID strains, influenza virus, RSV virus, Marburg virus, Ebola virus, hantavirus, and others. These viruses use a common pathway called RNA dependent RNA polymerase to replicate their genetic material. The speaker has been discussing this in relation to COVID-19 for the past two years. They suggest that zinc ionophores and zinc could potentially inhibit all these strains of viruses, which has significant national security implications. The speaker urges scientists and government officials to investigate this further.

The speaker discusses the logic presented in a bid to DARPA, which reminds them of similar thinking in HIV research. They believe that the proposal reflects a mindset of unquestioned authority and a desire to manipulate viruses. The speaker finds the bid's logic consistent with what they have observed in the past and believes the documents are genuine. They mention that DASIC and ECHO Health may be involved in this type of work on behalf of the Intelligence community. The Intelligence community has a long history of investing in virus isolation, including monitoring African jungles and bird populations for emerging viruses.

Dr. Cardcaine, an epidemiologist from the University of Michigan, is identified as the person who broke the story in February about a bird flu outbreak linked to the USDA research lab. He states that mainstream media are not reporting on this development. He also asserts that Peter Hotez will not tell the public about this information. According to the speaker, the current strain of bird flu in this outbreak was created in a lab through serial passage conducted in a U.S. government laboratory. The claim specifies that this lab-driven process enabled the virus to jump from traditional chickens to migratory waterfowl. From there, the outbreak purportedly spread to cows, marking a transition from poultry to other species in the ecosystem. The narrative presented emphasizes that the origin and progression of the outbreak are laboratory-generated, rather than arising solely from natural spillover events. The speaker highlights that the virus was manipulated via serial passage in a government lab, a technique used to adapt pathogens to new hosts or improve transmissibility. The sequence described claims a progression: initial adaptation in poultry, transmission to migratory waterfowl, and subsequent appearance in cattle. The speaker underscores two supplementary points: first, that major media outlets have not reported on this angle of the outbreak; second, that a well-known public figure in the field, Peter Hotez, is portrayed as someone who would supposedly not disclose this information. The overall message portrays a narrative of concealment and laboratory involvement in the emergence and spread of the bird flu across species, culminating in its presence in cows. In summary, the speaker attributes the outbreak to deliberate laboratory manipulation via serial passage in a U.S. government facility, tracing a path from chickens to migratory waterfowl and then to cows, while accusing mainstream media of omission and suggesting that Peter Hotez would not disclose these details.

The speaker explains the process of viral genome replication. They mention that the RNA dependent RNA polymerase copies the viral genome from one end to the other. However, there is a possibility for the polymerase to jump off the strand it is copying and start again. Additionally, there is an error rate of approximately one error per 10,000 bases. The speaker simplifies the process by stating that the RNA dependent RNA polymerase protein is successfully made, and now it is copying the genome. They express optimism that the process will work.

In the conversation, Speaker 0 discusses conclusions about a potential manipulation of the SARS-like virus. He states that there is a model based on the classic virus, but with modifications: the model is mainly derived from a bat coronavirus, to which sequences from HIV have been added. He clarifies that he does not know who added these HIV sequences, and he emphasizes that it is not natural, describing the work as done by a professional molecular biologist, a precise and meticulous process akin to an horologist working at the level of genetic sequences. Speaker 0 further explains that the purpose of such modifications is not clear to him. His goal is to present the facts without accusing anyone or identifying who did it or why. He posits a possibility that the aim could have been to develop a vaccine against AIDS, suggesting that small HIV sequences were inserted into the larger coronavirus sequence. He elaborates that in this virus, HIV genetic material is present as a long RNA strand, and at a certain position, small HIV sequences have been fixed into it. He stresses that these small sequences are meaningful, not trivial, because they could modify, for example, antigenic sites, thereby altering the protein exposed to a vaccine through a small sequence derived from another virus. Speaker 1 interjects, noting that there has been talk of a human origin for the virus, which has been refuted by most scientific authorities. Speaker 1 highlights that despite such refutations, there is still a perceived attempt to silence the research. He mentions that another group of highly regarded Indian researchers published something similar and were forced to retract their work. Overall, the dialogue centers on the possibility of engineered modifications to a coronavirus by inserting HIV sequences into its genome, the potential purpose behind such modifications (including the idea of vaccine development against AIDS), and the broader discussion about alleged suppression or censorship of related research, alongside mentions of scientific authorities denying a human-origin claim and the retraction of parallel work by Indian researchers.

Professor Luc Montagnier, Nobel Prize winner in medicine and discoverer of HIV, discusses his current work on the virus. He explains that he is not working in the lab but rather on a computer with a colleague, analyzing the measures taken in laboratories on patients. He concludes that there has been manipulation of the virus, with sequences from HIV added to the original bat virus model. However, he does not know who is responsible or the purpose behind it. Montagnier emphasizes that he is only presenting the facts and not accusing anyone.

There is a claim that viruses do not exist and have never been found in nature. It is stated that no scientific publication can prove otherwise. The lack of evidence is attributed to the inability to isolate and purify viruses. This is seen as a problem in the field of biology, as the connection between viruses and diseases is not proven. The speaker emphasizes that this information is important for everyone to know.

The U.S. intelligence community has officially opened an investigation into more than 120 U.S. taxpayer-funded biological laboratories operating overseas, including 40 in Ukraine. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard says the probe aims to identify where the labs are located, what pathogens they contain, and what research is being conducted. Gabbard has previously accused officials of misleading the public about the existence and scope of U.S.-backed bio labs overseas, including claims tying the issue to the Biden administration and figures such as Anthony Fauci. The discussion references claims made during the Biden administration by Victoria Nuland, who admitted bio labs are in Ukraine and funded by the United States but said they were only for defensive research, while dismissing accusations as Russian disinformation. Questions are raised about claims of Russian findings, including reported COVID vaccine samples in labs during Russia’s takeover of territory, and claims of AIDS research on Ukrainian military personnel. Senator asks Ukraine-specific questions about chemical or biological weapons and whether there is doubt that any biological or chemical incident in Ukraine would be carried out by Russians. Ukraine is described as having biological research facilities, with concern that Russian troops may seek control of research materials, and statements that efforts are underway with Ukrainians to prevent research materials from falling into Russian hands. The exchange asserts that Russian propaganda blames Ukrainians for plots involving biological weapons and coordination with NATO, and that it is “classic Russian technique to blame on the other guy what they’re planning to do themselves.” Doctor Merrill Nass, a biological warfare epidemiologist and author, says it is notable that the government acknowledges such facilities, including about 40 in Ukraine and over 100 elsewhere, and adds that many countries have studied biological weapons agents, treatments, and vaccines since at least World War II. Nass argues that the law prohibits developing biological weapons and references the Biological Weapons Convention, noting that the treaty has no enforcement mechanism, and that there is no way to send teams to investigate other countries’ labs. He suggests there have been roadblocks to obtaining details, and that labs outside the United States reduce oversight. The conversation also discusses the idea of incentives and loopholes: Nass states that the U.S. has no legal control over private labs and that, in the U.S., it is possible to build high-containment laboratories and have scientists create whatever they like without a prohibition. Nass describes historical U.S. development and stockpiling of biological weapons agents, mentions evasion of antibiotics and vaccines, and argues that international restrictions do not prevent potential development efforts elsewhere. Nass says that specific biological weapon use is not known to have occurred within the United States except that “the potential exception of COVID,” asserting the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine should never have been developed “the way it was developed for COVID” because it included “the most toxic, problematic parts” of the virus. He also recalls work as a consultant to the Cuban Ministry of Health in 1993 regarding illness attributed to cyanide poisoning, describes reports that the CIA sent African swine fever virus to Cuba through Panama to dissidents, and notes that Cuba reportedly had to kill half a million pigs due to that outbreak. When asked whether researchers can be controlled and whether answers will emerge about roughly 120 labs, Nass says accountability and oversight are limited, citing a senate hearing where senators said the intelligence community is not under anyone’s control and is not accountable. He adds that if answers cannot be obtained in the U.S., they would not likely be obtained in other countries. Nass argues that lab-produced viruses could be distinguished from naturally occurring ones by analyzing genomes, describing prior work on reconstructing an epidemic and claiming that attention to whether viral genomes are natural or unnatural will enable future differentiation. He notes that he believes the risk of severe consequences reduces the likelihood of use. The segment ends with plans to bring Nass back as the investigation unfolds.

Virologists are using pseudo scientific methods and changing the meaning of words to support their anti scientific practices. The COVID-19 fraud is centered around virology's claims. It is important to expose virology's fallacies to prevent future viral pandemics.

The speaker discusses the Furin cleavage site found on the surface of the virus and its spike proteins. They explain that two enzymes, Furin and TMPRSS2, play a role in cutting the spike protein. The speaker mentions that the Spike protein is abundantly expressed in the respiratory tract, which is relevant to the virus's impact on the respiratory system. They also highlight the presence of a unique insert called PRRA in the virus, which is not found in similar viruses. The speaker questions the origin of this insert and mentions a patent from Moderna that includes a similar sequence. They find this odd and intriguing.

You may have heard about the cruise ship stranded for days near Cap Verde, where a rare virus outbreak killed three people and sickened a few more. The illness is allegedly due to hantavirus, described as an airborne virus that comes from rodent droppings, urine, or saliva, and that also transmits from human to human. The speaker contrasts this with the COVID story, which was said to come from a bat and a pangolin and some wet market. A reference is also made to January 2020, when people were stranded on an Italian ship. There is a plot twist in this account: one woman left the ship and collapsed at the airport in Johannesburg, which the speaker says probably infected other people, drawing a parallel to the movie Contagion. The speaker claims that fake news media are sharing this blogger’s video on purpose to spread fear among the public. The message conveyed is that all parties want people to feel safe, but fear campaigns typically begin with the World Health Organization saying there is nothing to worry about, while “we’re monitoring the situation” in case people fall for it. The speaker asserts that once monitoring is in place, the story is amplified, the fear meter is cranked up, and mandates follow. In closing, the speaker urges keeping the story right where it belongs, implying it should not be amplified or believed.

The panel discusses replication (replicon) vaccines and their potential dangers, focusing on how they differ from conventional messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines and what new risks might emerge as this technology develops. Key points and concerns raised - Replicon vaccines concept and fundamental differences - Replicon vaccines use replication-capable genetic material, so the embedded genetic information not only makes antigen proteins but also multiplies inside the cell. They are described as having both constitutive function (the ability to make proteins) and, crucially, the capacity to replicate, which distinguishes them from traditional, non-replicating mRNA vaccines. - It is explained that replication introduces additional mutation and recombination opportunities, because the RNA genome is copied more than once, and the process can produce variants that differ from the original design. - Central dogma exceptions and viral biology - The speakers explain that while the central dogma (DNA → RNA → protein) generally governs biology, some viruses violate this, with RNA viruses that replicate via RNA-dependent replication and even some reverse-transcribing retroviruses that convert RNA to DNA and integrate into genomes. This context is used to frame why replicon vaccines could behave unpredictably. - Potential risks of replication and spread - A core concern is that the replicon approach might allow the vaccine genome to spread beyond the initial target cells, potentially reaching other cells and tissues, or even spreading to other people via exosomes or other means. Exosomes can transport DNA, RNA, and proteins between cells; thus, the replicon genome could in theory be disseminated. - The possibility of homologous or heterologous recombination between replicon genomes and wild-type viruses could yield new variants. The panel emphasizes the difficulty of controlling such recombination in a living system. - Specific material and design considerations - The use of viral components like spike protein genes in replicon vaccines raises concerns about how these proteins might mutate or recombine during replication, potentially altering antigen presentation or safety. - A concern is raised about the lack of repair mechanisms in RNA replication (as opposed to DNA replication), which could make error rates higher and lead to unpredictable changes. - The panel notes that current replicon vaccine designs (including those using alphavirus backbones) inherently carry high mutation and recombination risk, and that the replicating systems may encounter unpredictable evolutionary dynamics inside the human body. - Safety signals and clinical anecdotes - The speakers cite cases of adverse events temporally associated with vaccines, including vascular inflammation and thrombosis, stroke-like events, and myocarditis, to illustrate that immune responses to vaccines can be complex and occasionally severe. They emphasize that such observations do not establish causality, but argue they warrant careful scrutiny. - There are references to cases of acute vascular and neural complications following repeated vaccination, and to broader immune dysregulation phenomena, including IGG4-related disease and immune dysregulation syndromes that can involve multiple organs. - One example concerns a patient who developed sudden limb problems after the third dose, requiring surgery; another describes myocardial involvement after multiple doses and subsequent inflammatory sequelae. - DNA contamination and analytical findings - Kevin McKernan’s analysis of certain Japanese CoronaVac vaccines is cited: both DNA contamination and the presence of SV40 promoter elements were detected in some vaccine lots, with DNA amounts exceeding some regulatory benchmarks in at least one case. The concern is that DNA contamination, or the presence of promoter sequences, could influence integration or expression in unintended ways. - It is noted that vaccines using lipid nanoparticles can potentially deliver nucleic acids into cells; in the presence of exons or promoter sequences, there could be unintended cellular uptake and expression. - Implications for public health and policy - The panel underscores the need for caution, thorough investigation, and long-term observation of any replication-based vaccine platform before broad deployment. There is a call to evaluate risks, monitor long-term outcomes, and consider the possibility that replication-competent constructs could drive unforeseen evolutionary dynamics within hosts or communities. - There is contention about how information is communicated to the public, with particular emphasis on avoiding misinformation while ensuring that scientific uncertainties are transparently discussed. - Broader scientific context and forward-looking stance - The speakers discuss how the field’s approach to gene-based vaccines is evolving rapidly, and they stress that the compatibility of replicon systems with human biology is not yet fully understood. - They frame their discussion as not merely about current vaccines but about the trajectory of vaccine platforms: if replication-based or self-dispersing systems prove too risky or unpredictable, the prudent path might be to favor conventional, non-replicating strategies until safety, efficacy, and containment of unintended spread are more firmly established. Closing and takeaways - The session closes with emphasis on careful evaluation of replicon vaccines, awareness that viral genetics can behave differently in humans than in theory, and a call for continued discussion, independent verification, and transparent communication as the technology develops. - Throughout, speakers acknowledge the complexity of immune responses to vaccines, the potential for unexpected adverse events, and the importance of safeguarding public health while advancing vaccine science.

Doctors, politicians, and even us journalists have made numerous inaccurate or false statements about this virus. We will now attempt to explain why we have been so wrong.

The speakers discuss the possibility of the Sarscov 2 virus being a laboratory-made chimera. They mention that it is possible to create a virus in the lab that is indistinguishable from a natural one. They also mention a database created by Professor Shi, containing information on over 20,000 bat and rodent viruses. The database included details such as GPS coordinates, virus type, and whether the virus was sequenced or isolated. However, the webpage containing this information was removed from the web in June 2020.

There is a discussion about the possibility of someone tampering with people's DNA, specifically by removing the ADA gene to shut down their immune systems. This is believed to be done through a virus called the Spartan virus. The process used is called CRISPR Cas9, which cuts genes at a specific location. It is suggested that the government may be involved in hiding this technology and using it for their own agenda, including a takeover of America. There are also mentions of weather wars, electromagnetic waves, and the militarization of police forces. The conversation ends with a mention of a potential attack on America by terrorists.

This is not coronavirus. It is a very different virus, and it is known: hantaviruses have been around for quite a while and there is significant detail already understood about them. The situation is not SARS CoV-2 and is not the start of a COVID pandemic. It is an outbreak seen on a ship in a confined area, with five confirmed cases so far. Officials say they are providing information through a press conference to address the questions being raised, and they emphasize that this is not the same situation as one seen six years ago. They state that the virus does not spread the same way as coronaviruses. Instead, they say transmission is associated with close, intimate contact, and that most hantaviruses do not transmit between people at all. Most hantaviruses are transmitted from rodents or from rodents’ feces or saliva in their droppings to people. The exception highlighted is the Andes virus, which has been identified here. Officials say they have seen some human-to-human transmission with this particular virus. They reiterate that actions on board are precautionary to prevent any onward spread, and that many steps are being taken right now to minimize the risk further.