reSee.it - Related Video Feed

- We need to stop trusting the experts. - We were told at the beginning of COVID, don't look at any data yourself. Don't do any investigating yourself. Just trust the experts. - And trusting the experts is not a feature of science. It's not a feature of democracy. It's a feature of religion, and it's a feature of totalitarianism. - In democracies, we have the obligation, and it's one of the burdens of citizenship, to do our own research and make our own determination. - And we're gonna give people gold standard science. We're gonna publish our protocols in advance. - We're going to tell people what we're doing, and then we're gonna use data, and we're gonna publish the peer reviews, which is never published by CDC studies. We're going to publish any time that we can the raw data, and then we're going to require replication of every study, which never happens at NIH now. That's something new that we're bringing in, is that every study will be replicated.

Humanity's tendency to focus on unnecessary details is criticized, particularly in the context of individuals like Fauci. The speaker questions Fauci's expertise in areas like electron microscopy and medicine, accusing him of having a personal agenda and lying to the public. They argue that the majority of people lack the ability to judge good scientists, leading to a problem in how science is evaluated and funded. The speaker challenges Fauci to debate someone knowledgeable on the topic, highlighting a desire for balanced discussions.

Anthony Fauci and his understanding of evidence-based medicine is questioned by Speaker 0 and Speaker 1. They both agree that he seems to lack this understanding. Speaker 0 clarifies that they don't believe Fauci is intentionally misleading, but rather that his repeated phrase "trust the science" is akin to trusting a psychopath. Speaker 1 finds the concept of "trust the science" to be vague and questions its meaning, likening it to witchcraft.

From the start, the lines were drawn regarding the virus's origins. I believed it came from a lab, while others disagreed. My position as head of the CDC was undermined, and I was told it was a White House decision. I find that hard to believe; it seems like a cover-up. Why would we share advanced biotechnology with China? I doubt the measures in place will be foolproof; issues will arise. There have been multiple lies throughout this situation.

There will be other health crises in our country, and there will be other gurus who will undermine the trust of our citizens on a large scale. Some may even target our institutions. We are here to make laws, to protect the most vulnerable, and to remind everyone of the obvious. The obvious is based on science. We can debate ideas, but we cannot claim expertise we do not have and put the safety of our fellow citizens at risk for personal gain.

The speaker criticizes Dr. Fauci, claiming he lacks knowledge about electron microscopy and medicine. They accuse him and other administrative figures of having personal agendas and making up rules. The speaker believes that the public cannot distinguish between good and bad scientists, which is a problem in the scientific community. They mention a request for Dr. Fauci to debate someone knowledgeable on the subject.

Humanity questions why experts like Fauci delve into unnecessary details. Fauci lacks understanding of electron microscopy and medicine, suggesting he is unfit for his role. Top officials are disconnected from the reality at the bottom, driven by personal agendas rather than public health. They create and change rules as they please, with Fauci even willing to lie to the public on TV.

Fauci lacks knowledge in various areas and shouldn't be in his current position. He misunderstands microscopy and medicine. Most top officials are just administrators and lack understanding of the situation. Fauci has been invited to debate someone knowledgeable on the subject, but he hasn't accepted. The president of the University of South Carolina even asked him to debate in front of the student body.

Humanity's obsession with unnecessary details is criticized, particularly targeting Fauci's lack of expertise in electron microscopy and medicine. The speaker questions the competence of top officials in healthcare, accusing them of having personal agendas and making arbitrary rules. They express frustration with the inability of most people to recognize true scientists. A challenge to debate was issued to the president of the University of South Carolina, highlighting a lack of willingness to engage in open discussion.

Humanity's tendency to focus on details and listen is questioned by one speaker. They criticize Dr. Fauci, claiming he lacks knowledge in various fields and shouldn't be in his position. The speaker believes that those in power have personal agendas and make up their own rules. They accuse Fauci of lying and state that the public cannot distinguish between good and bad scientists. Science is criticized for being judged and funded by people who don't understand it. The speaker challenges Fauci to debate someone knowledgeable on the subject. They mention an invitation from the president of the University of South Carolina to have a balanced discussion.

Criticism of Fauci is often dismissed as anti-science. RFK's book, "The Real Anthony Fauci," presents referenced claims about Fauci's actions, including his funding of bioweapons research in Wuhan through EcoHealth, a nonprofit. This funding is tied to gain of function research, which some argue should be more accurately described as "death maximization." The conversation questions the purpose of such research, highlighting the lack of cures despite the funding. The implication is that the focus on enhancing viruses for research contradicts the goal of finding cures.

"Your government doesn't censor those people as a way to do the best that it can." The speaker recalls being interviewed by a major newspaper and "I bring up doctor Peter McCullough every time" when asked "what evidence? What proof?" They argue that "the world's leading heart doctor" and "the most published heart doctor in the world was censored during COVID." They question whether "the government was just doing the best that it could under the circumstances," answering "Like, no." The speaker asserts that "The best a government that considers itself to be in a free nation does not go out of its way to censor world renowned scientists, doctors, the number one heart doctor in the world in doctor Peter McCullough, the most published ICU doctor the world in doctor Paul Merrick, the inventor of the technology itself, doctor Robert Malone." "Your government doesn't censor those people as a way to do the best that it can."

Humanity's tendency to focus on unnecessary details is questioned by the speaker. They criticize Dr. Fauci, claiming he lacks knowledge in various fields and shouldn't hold his current position. The speaker suggests that most top officials are merely administrators with their own personal agendas, disregarding the public's health. They accuse Dr. Fauci of lying on television despite being paid by the people.

Speaker 0 criticizes Dr. Fauci, claiming he lacks knowledge in various fields. Speaker 0 argues that administrative figures like Fauci are disconnected from the realities at the bottom and have personal agendas. They accuse Fauci of making up rules as he goes and lying to the public.

Mister Siri, we've been talking about medical issues. You're you're not a medical doctor, are you? No, sir. And you're not an immuno immunologist or biologist or any kind of Or vaccinologist. No. But I depose them regularly including the world's leading ones with regards to vaccines and I have to make my claims based on actual evidence when I go to court with regards to vaccines. I don't get to rely on titles. Okay.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the origins of COVID-19, focusing on claims that the virus originated in a Wuhan lab and the handling of scientific debate around the lab-leak hypothesis. - Speaker 0 states that for two years Republicans connected the dots and exposed evidence supporting the belief that COVID-19 was developed and leaked from the Wuhan lab, while Democrats hindered hearings and blocked truth-seeking. He asserts mounting evidence supports a lab-origin theory and frames the hearing as a pursuit of truth for Americans who suffered from the pandemic. He notes Doctor Redfield pointed to the lab-leak hypothesis early on and urged Fauci to investigate both the lab and natural hypotheses. - Speaker 0 recalls a February 1 meeting convened by Jeremy Farrar with 11 top scientists across five time zones, inviting Fauci to join, with a preference for a tight, confidential group. He says Redfield was excluded from the call, and asks why he was excluded. - Speaker 1 confirms that in January and February 2020 he spoke with Fauci, Farrar, and Tedros about pursuing both hypotheses, and as a clinical virologist argued it was not scientifically plausible that the virus jumped bat-to-human and became highly infectious; he notes that coronaviruses differ from Ebola and that intermediate hosts are involved for SARS and MERS, and that they never learned to go human-to-human in those contexts. - Speaker 0 asks why Redfield was excluded from the calls. Speaker 1 responds that he was told there was a desire for a single narrative and that his viewpoint differed. - Speaker 0 references emails after the conference call in which four of the 11 scientists said the genetic sequence was inconsistent with evolutionary expectations, but three days later those scientists drafted the paper Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2 arguing the opposite. He asks how those scientists could conclude certainty about a natural origin after three days. - Speaker 1 describes the process as unfortunate and says the approach in January–February 2020 was antithetical to science, noting that science involves debate, which he claims was squashed. - Speaker 0 asks if Fauci used the Proximal Origin paper to hide gain-of-function research and to what extent the paper hides the truth. Speaker 1 declines to discuss Fauci’s motivations but calls the paper inaccurate and part of a narrative intended to negate the possibility that COVID-19 came from a laboratory. He emphasizes that the pandemic did not start in January at the seafood market and that infections date back to September. - Speaker 0 notes an email from 01/27/2020 stating NIH had a monetary relationship with the Wuhan Institute via EcoHealth Alliance, and asks if Fauci intentionally lied under oath about NIH funding of gain-of-function research. Speaker 1 asserts there is no doubt NIH funded gain-of-function research and says American tax dollars funded such research not only through NIH but also via the State Department, USAID, and the DOD. - The exchange ends with Speaker 0 signaling time and introducing Ms. Dink.

"The man thinks you can take a blood sample and stick it in an electron microscope and if it's got a virus in there, you'll know it." "He doesn't understand electron microscopy and he doesn't understand medicine and he should not be in a position like he's in." "Most of those up there on the top are just total administrative people and they don't know anything about what's going on at the bottom." "They've got an agenda which is not what we would like them to have, being that we pay for them to take care of our health in some way." "They change them when they want to and they smugly like Tony Fauci does not mind going on television in front of the people to pay his salary and lie directly into the camera."

The speaker claims that those who oppose the pharmaceutical industry are punished, while those who support it, like Anthony Fauci, rise to the top. Fauci, who has been in his position for 50 years, is highly paid and serves the agency's ambition. The speaker accuses the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of abandoning its mission to understand why Americans are sick and instead focusing on developing drugs for profit. The NIH earns billions of dollars from the Moderna vaccine, with Fauci's employees benefiting from patents and royalties. The speaker suggests that the agency's commercial interests have overshadowed its regulatory responsibilities.

I cannot understand how anyone can recommend the mRNA vaccination and sleep well at night. They seem afraid to admit they were wrong. I want to give you a chance to address your colleagues, fellow pathologists, and medical professionals. My advice is to always question what so-called experts say. You don't need top scientists, you need experienced doctors who think critically. In the past, people died from the flu without it being turned into a pandemic or locking people away.

Speaker 0 criticizes Fauci, claiming he lacks knowledge in various areas. He questions Fauci's understanding of electron microscopy and medicine, suggesting he is unfit for his position. Speaker 0 also asserts that most top officials are merely administrators who lack understanding of the situation. They mention that Fauci has been invited to debate someone knowledgeable on the subject, citing an example of the president of the University of South Carolina asking him to participate in a debate in front of the student body.

The speaker criticizes Dr. Fauci, claiming he lacks knowledge in electron microscopy and medicine. They believe that most top officials, including Fauci, have personal agendas and make up their own rules. The speaker argues that the majority of people cannot judge good scientists, which is a problem in science today. They mention that Fauci has been asked to debate someone knowledgeable on the subject, as they believe he lacks understanding.

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.

Humanity's tendency to focus on unnecessary details is criticized, particularly in the context of individuals like Fauci. The speaker questions Fauci's expertise in areas like electron microscopy and medicine, suggesting he lacks the necessary knowledge. The issue of administrative figures making decisions without proper understanding is highlighted, with a call for more qualified scientists to be involved in decision-making processes. Fauci is challenged to debate someone knowledgeable on the subject, but declines.

Dr. Fauci was criticized for claiming he represents science. Many people see him as similar to Nazi doctor Joseph Mengele, not science. Some believe he will be remembered as the greatest mass killer in history once the truth about COVID is revealed.

I really hope Bobby can do some good things because he cares deeply and has stood up for important issues, even when it hurt him. I used to believe the propaganda against him, thinking he was just an anti-science nut. But after reading his book, I realized it was real. If it wasn't, he would have been sued. The book blew my mind with information about how Fauci got principal investigators from respectable colleges onto committees that chose AZT, a highly toxic and ineffective drug, as the treatment. They started using that, and I don't know how many people that killed. Fauci did some extraordinarily evil stuff and he knows what he did.