reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 references an email exchange between Jeffrey Leeds and former Secretary of State Colin Powell in which Powell allegedly acknowledges that Israel “has 200 nuclear weapons” and that “the nuclear non proliferation treaty has not been signed by Israel,” and asks whether under US law the United States should cut off support to Israel because it is a nuclear power that has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Speaker 1 declines to engage: “Shouldn't you ask Colin Powell that? I I'm not gonna speak to this particular traffic, and I'm certainly not discuss doesn't have nuclear weapons? I'm certainly not going to discuss matters of intelligence from the from the podium, and I'm not I have no I have no comment.” Speaker 0 reiterates: “the email says the boys in Tehran know Israel has 200. All we targeted on Tehran, and we have thousands. I mean, that that seems to indicate that that there's a knowledge of an Israeli nuclear program, which would make USA to Israel illegal.” Speaker 1 responds: “I think I've answered your question.” Speaker 0 asks again whether the understanding is correct: “am I do I have the correct understanding of US law that that we are we are not allowed to support a nuclear power that has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty?” Speaker 1 says: “Look, we obviously support the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. I'm not a I'm not a legal expert on all the tenets of it, and I'm certainly not going to speak about the the details that you've revealed here in this email traffic. That would be inappropriate for me to discuss one way or the other. I'm not gonna There do” Speaker 0 notes that sanctions have been imposed on North Korea and Iran for nuclear proliferation, and asks why Israel is not facing any consequences in light of Powell’s alleged email. Speaker 1 reframes: “That's a very colorful way of getting back to the same question you just asked me, but I'm going to refer you back to the transcript when you see it this afternoon to what I said before to your question. So you're familiar with this email. Right? I'm not. Oh. I have not seen it. I'm not I can't speak to the email. Frankly, even if I'd seen it, Zurich, I wouldn't engage in that kind of a discussion from the podium.”

Did you say that Lyme disease is a highly likely a materially engineered bioweapon? I've made sure I put in the highly likely. Did you say Lyme disease is a highly likely militarily engineered bioweapon? I probably did say that. Did you say that And that's what the developer of Lyme our colleagues to hear it, mister Kennedy. I want them to hear it. You said yes. Did you say that exposure to pesticides

The speaker was asked what office they were elected to and if they needed support. The speaker responded that they are not the one to ask and that the person should speak with a man. The speaker then stated that they speak to over a million people.

The speaker explains that since the switch from sodium vapor lights in 2020 to LEDs in 2021, pollen has increased dramatically in Arizona. They attribute this rise to the lighting change, arguing that the warm light from the old sodium vapor lamps created female plants, whereas the LEDs have now caused plants to be male, resulting in “pollen galore” even in hot 102-degree weather. The speaker cites Doctor John Ott as the source of the idea that certain lights influence plants to become female or male. If someone is experiencing pollen issues around their house, the speaker asserts, they should avoid LEDs and instead use incandescent lighting. The speaker repeats the claim and emphasizes that the problem is due to the lighting change. They assert that “they switched all the lights” and that this is the cause of the pollen problem, labeling those affected as “Muppets.” They reference Doctor John Ott as someone whose work supports the notion that lighting can determine plant gender, and they encourage viewers to look into Ott’s work to verify this claim. In closing, the speaker reiterates the main point: pollen galore in Arizona is linked to the transition from sodium vapor to LED lighting. They advocate using incandescent lighting as a remedy and point listeners to a source (10001000bulbs.com) to find incandescent bulbs. The overall message centers on a claimed causal link between the lighting type and plant gender expression, which the speaker ties to a broader pollen issue, urging avoidance of LEDs in favor of incandescent options. Throughout, they express frustration with what they view as a misunderstanding of the pollen problem and label the situation as a consequence of the lighting switch.

- Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the possibility that a friend was murdered and suggest that both victims died suddenly from fast-moving cancer, a method they say the agency uses overseas to eliminate people. Speaker 1 admits he cannot prove this but notes the sudden deaths. - The conversation asserts that the US government has technology to infect people with fast-moving cancer and to perform cognitive and directed-energy warfare. Speaker 0 states the government has the technology to infect with fast-moving cancer and to do so absolutely. - In 1997, Speaker 1 describes a hearing on asymmetric threats where he chaired the research committee and focused on four threats: drones, cyberattacks, electromagnetic pulse (EMP), and cognitive warfare. He asserts that cognitive warfare is now being labeled by some as Havana syndrome and that directed-energy weapons are the underlying technology. - Speaker 2 recounts a recent homeland security hearing about foreign adversaries using direct weapons against US citizens, enabling incapacitation. He emphasizes the chilling nature of the briefing and criticizes current domestic leadership as foolish, corrupt, incompetent, and wicked. - Speaker 3 notes that up to 40% of the Air Force equipment budget in the 1990s was classified, making much of it “black.” He emphasizes that military and security research often precedes civilian medical science, and that servicemen were used in experiments without fully informed consent, referencing NK Ultra-era disclosures of thousands of service members used as subjects. - Speaker 4 discusses MKUltra, describing a Canadian experiment involving psychic driving with massive LSD doses, eye-tracking, and memory loss, funded by MKUltra and affecting civilians. He mentions Project Midnight Climax, where Johns were observed in brothels while subjected to LSD, and notes similar experiments by the British Royal Air Force and Army. The results of Midnight Climax are unknown, with no published after-action reports. - Speaker 3 adds that Secretary of Energy O’Leary stated under Clinton that over a half a million Americans had been used in human experiments over four decades without informed consent, including mind control, with no accountability. He argues that mind-control technology has advanced, and questions who should govern its use, given the lack of legal frameworks. - The discussion covers mind-effects research and the lack of treaties governing such technologies. They reference a European Parliament security and disarmament resolution (1999) addressing mind-effects and mind-control technology, and Russian Duma resolutions (2002) seeking similar safeguards. Zabigniew Brzezinski’s Between Two Ages is cited regarding electronically stroking the ionosphere to influence behavior over geographic areas, connecting it to HARP and other electromagnetic carriers capable of mass or individual influence. - Speaker 6 explains historical demonstrations of electronic mind control, starting with Jose Delgado’s remote manipulation of a charging bull using radio energy and electrodes, and notes later work showing noninvasive techniques to influence behavior using low-power magnetic fields. Speaker 7 reiterates Delgado’s animal studies and the potential for noninvasive methods to affect emotions and memory, with broader implications for humans. - Speaker 3 discusses the progression of research funded by DARPA and others toward higher-resolution control of brain activity, enabling controlled effects that override senses and create synthetic memories, raising questions about future justice and evidence. They describe European Parliament and NATO/US military interest in mind-control technologies and the absence of robust legal protections. - Speaker 9 presents advances in AI-enabled brain-reading and memory-altering devices, including mind-reading and emotion decoding, while Speaker 10 and Speaker 12 discuss privacy concerns, brain-data privacy laws (Colorado’s law adding brain data to privacy protections), and the availability of consumer devices that decode brainwaves. They warn that brain data can be misused by insurers, law enforcement, advertisers, and governments, with private companies often sharing data without clear disclosure. - The segment concludes with a note that devices can infer attention and thoughts, and that DARPA’s N3D program aims for noninvasive neuromodulation with implantable electrodes read/write capabilities. It references 1980s–1990s discussions of RF energy as a potential nonlethal mind-control technology, and a 1993 Johns Hopkins conference listing low-frequency weapons as attractive options.

The speaker denies saying that Europeans are parasites. They state, "I didn't said I don't know what didn't say it. I don't even know what you're talking about." The speaker then urges to move on to the next topic.

The speaker, referred to as Snake venom guy, argues that the notion of snake venom being present in water is nonsense. They claim that there is no snake venom in the water. They recount a separate anecdote about a man who has been bitten by rattlesnakes 200 times and is now immune to snake venom. The speaker emphasizes that they are not advising others to go out and test this, but they present this as a factual point about immunity. Regarding exposure to venom, the speaker explains a sequence: if someone were exposed to venom in water (the alleged scenario), that exposure would result in immunity. They further claim that drinking snake venom has no effect, and that venom only becomes dangerous when it enters the bloodstream. The speaker likens the entry of venom into the blood to the way a vaccine operates, implying that venom only poses a danger once it reaches the blood. The speaker reiterates that there is no snake venom in the water. They also make a broader assertion about the snake venom topic by asserting that the person who discusses this venom story “works for the nicotine companies.” They describe these nicotine companies as “big tobacco in the pharmaceuticals.” In their framing, nicotine products are repeatedly mentioned, with the speaker underscoring “Every time, nicotine, nicotine, nicotine, all the nicotine products, pharmaceutical companies, and big tobacco.” In summary, the speaker disputes the presence of snake venom in water, asserts that a person bitten by rattlesnakes 200 times has become immune, and claims that exposure or consumption of venom would not be dangerous unless it enters the bloodstream, where it would act similarly to a vaccine. They conclude by connecting the individual involved in the venom discussion to nicotine companies, describing those entities as a fusion of big tobacco and pharmaceutical interests, repeatedly highlighting nicotine products in association with pharmaceutical companies and big tobacco.

The speaker discusses the origin of Lyme disease, asserting that it came from lab 257 on Plum Island, just outside Connecticut, about 25 miles from Lyme, Connecticut, where the first case was described. They claim this with a high degree of probability and reference the book Bitten as evidence. The speaker states that when Nazi war criminal doctors were executed in Nuremberg, at least one was spared and brought to the United States so that his mind could be used by the US military for biodefense, and that he was placed on Plum Island. The speaker says this individual openly believed that an incredible form of biowarfare was infecting ticks, and that Lyme disease is “that” and then “shows up 25 miles away.” The speaker adds that this is not the only related finding nearby: they mention “half, rat, half deer carcasses” found in the Hamptons, the last town being Montauk, noting that it washed up in Montauk in the nineties. They describe this as part of “a bunch of mad scientists doing things,” suggesting a connection to Lyme disease as something resulting from such experiments, and claim that “we all these people have Lyme disease.” The speaker then asks how many physicians know that it came from lab 257, asserting that approximately one percent know this. They comment on a broader philosophy: “just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it, and sometimes we can cause more harm than we can good by messing with mother nature.” Throughout, the speaker maintains that Lyme disease originated from a laboratory experiment linked to Plum Island and heavily implies misconduct or dangerous experimentation by scientists, tying these claims to Lyme disease’s appearance in nearby regions.

Speaker 0 asks how much USAID money went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina to create weaponized coronaviruses. Speaker 1 rejects the implicit accusation and says they don't have the specific details of USAID funding at their fingertips. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is stating for certain that no USAID money went to the Wuhan Institute. Speaker 1 says they are happy to take questions from those in the audience who treat every person respectfully, and calls on someone else. Speaker 0 asks what Speaker 1 is denying. Speaker 0 says it's a non-denial denial.

The speaker says it is “really important” that “there are no viruses jumping,” “no spike proteins jumping,” “no snake venom in the water,” and “no parasites or germs jumping.” They describe this as “just technology,” and reference “before and after” as evidence, stating that the same technology was “rolled out into people’s pockets.” The speaker then claims that after it was rolled out into people’s pockets, people “started getting really, really sick.”

The speaker briefly discusses the topic of safety and asks what has been learned about serious side effects. The statement is repeated three times.

The speaker was asked about USAID funding for work in Wuhan and creating weaponized coronaviruses. They denied the accusation and stated they did not have specific details. When pressed if USAID money went to Wuhan, they avoided a direct answer and requested respectful questions. The conversation ended with the speaker being accused of giving a non-denial denial.

Speaker 0 contends that the top organization that managed Operation Warp Speed and the pandemic was not a public health agency but the NSA, a spy agency, with the Pentagon as the second agency. He asserts that vaccines were developed not by Moderna and Pfizer, but by NIH, whose patents are owned 50% by NIH, and that vaccines were manufactured not by Pfizer or Moderna but by military contractors. He claims Pfizer and Moderna were paid to put their stamps on those vaccines as if they came from the pharmaceutical industry. Speaker 1 responds by stating it’s not warp speed, but has been happening since 06/10/1980 when entering a Fort Detrick military installation, where the sign was turned around with then-president Richard Nixon. He says, “Oh, we’re just gonna cure cancer,” but asserts they turned the sign around on the bioweapons lab, making it a historic landmark at Fort Detrick where they had the gas chamber for the end and a plaque was placed when a new lab was built. He characterizes it as all part of a “plague of corruption” and claims that those involved are protecting themselves because the government, and they played the game. Speaker 1 further alleges that it does not matter whether it is Deborah Birx or Robert Redfield, because they injected the military with HIV in the nineties, and that they know it. He references “HIV p n l four three” and claims to know the plasmid and the exact one, asserting that he knows the people who were injected and that this data exists in his freezer.

The speaker repeatedly questions why the FBI is always referenced for information. They press the other speaker, who claims to have communicated with the FBI, about details of an investigation. Despite being asked about shell casings and explosives, the speaker deflects, insisting on referring to the FBI for answers. The questioning becomes more intense, with accusations of withholding information and covering up. The speaker continues to evade direct answers, emphasizing the ongoing criminal investigation.

The caller expresses concern about conspiracy theories and asks for clarity from Mr. Kennedy. He denies being an anti-vaxxer or conspiracy theorist and defends his views on 5G causing cancer and government surveillance. He clarifies that he never said atrazine causes transgenderism but believes it is an endocrine disruptor. He mentions the need to study chemical exposures and their impact on public health. When asked about the scientific basis for his claims, he points to studies listed on his website and thousands of studies on endocrine disruptors. He mentions Dr. David Carpenter as a reputable scientist in this field.

The discussion focuses on the idea that new “COVIDs” could emerge in the form of ticks, specifically ticks that cause a rare dangerous red meat allergy. The speakers reference that this concept has been heard before, including at Davos. The question raised is what precautions people can take against ticks that trigger red meat allergy. Speaker 1 argues that the phenomenon could involve human engineering, suggesting that people can become intolerant or allergic to certain foods or proteins, and that there may be analogs in nature. Speaker 1 cites existing examples of intolerances, including milk intolerance and intolerance to crayfish. Speaker 1 then points to a specific example: the lone star tick. Speaker 1 says that if the lone star tick bites you, “you will become allergic to meat,” and indicates that the mechanism can be described. Speaker 1 frames this as something that could be done through “human engineering,” claiming that it might be possible to make it the case that people become intolerant to certain kinds of meat or certain kinds of bovine proteins, and also states that addressing “really big world problems” might be possible through human engineering. Speaker 0 then shifts to a discussion of messaging and media influence, saying that Tucker Carlson—described as “controlled opposition”—came out and told some of the truth, that this “is part of what controlled opposition does,” and that it involves telling people some of the truth “in your face,” but “most people won’t even listen.” Speaker 2 provides additional claims about tick-borne disease and alleged historical activity. Speaker 2 says that the “same organism” causes Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever and calls it “the most deadly tick borne disease in The United States.” Speaker 2 also states that it was a germ being weaponized by the US military “at the time,” and that they tried to “stuff it in ticks.” Speaker 2 then asks what tick weaponization is, and recounts comments attributed to Willie. According to Speaker 2, Willie said he spent “over a decade” in the biological weapons program, as a contractor to Fort Detrick, working on weaponizing fleas, ticks, and mosquitoes. Speaker 2 says that Willie’s work involved mass-producing them, “trying to make new diseases,” and “mixing bacteria and virus in ticks,” with the intent described as “the perfect stealth weapon,” likened to “poor poor man’s nuke.” Speaker 0 responds by saying the material is hard to digest and “so evil,” and that it is hard to believe it could happen in the United States. Speaker 0 then agrees with the earlier point that it did “and maybe,” but the statement ends there.

The speaker questions the amount of money that went from USAID to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and their collaborator at the University of North Carolina. The other speaker rejects the accusation and doesn't have the specific details about USAID funding. The first speaker asks if they are certain that no USAID money went to Wuhan, but the second speaker avoids answering and asks for respectful questions. The first speaker insists on a denial, but the second speaker dismisses it as a non-denial denial.

Speaker 0 presents a line of inquiry and a set of provocative claims about Monsanto. The conversation begins with a question about whether the listener has heard of the Monsanto family and what they associate with the name. The reply prompts the common stereotype that the name is linked to chemicals—specifically “the chemical, the nasty, like, shitty chemicals.” Building on that stereotype, Speaker 0 then introduces a controversial and broader assertion: that Monsanto is not only connected to chemicals but originated as a powerful, Caribbean Jewish pirate-style family. The claim continues with a provocative framing: they “got started in the big slave trade in New Orleans.” The speaker states that the Monsanto family were slave traders first, positioning them as “one of the most prominent” in that historical trade, and argues that their involvement in slavery preceded their later involvement in chemical ventures. The speaker emphasizes a causal thread or progression: the family’s early prominence in slave trading laid the groundwork for their later notoriety in chemical industries, leading to the claim that they “poisoned us with chemicals.” This phrase is presented as a historical fact in the speaker’s view, highlighted by the assertion that it is “a fact” that is not discussed openly. The speaker contrasts this alleged history with contemporary public discourse, noting that many people are talking about Monsanto on platforms like TikTok, but “no one talk[ing]” about the alleged slave-trading origins and the supposed early acts of poisoning associated with the family. In sum, Speaker 0 frames Monsanto as a name associated with chemicals in public perception, but counters with a narrative that the Monsanto family began as slave traders in New Orleans, describing them as a prominent lineage tied to the slave trade before transitioning into chemical enterprises, and asserting that they “poisoned us with chemicals” as a matter of historical fact that remains under-discussed in popular discourse. The speaker points to online chatter about Monsanto on TikTok as evidence that the topic is discussed superficially, without addressing these claimed origins.

Speaker 0 expresses concern about farmers, especially those with cattle, sheep, goats, and horses, finding boxes of ticks on their farmland. The central questions are why people would want to spread ticks and make this a problem for farmers. They propose starting research to determine what is happening, noting that this issue is not isolated to a single farmer but affects many farmers. The speaker mentions Pfizer as a company releasing new products to help get rid of Lyme disease, but says this cannot have nothing to do with the situation. They assert a general distrust by saying, “We all know we can trust our government.” The question is raised again: does anyone have ideas about what is going on? The speaker reiterates the concern about “boxes full of ticks in open fields on people’s properties” and concludes that something is really weird.

Speaker 0 asks about the amount of money from USAID that went to Wuhan and their collaborator at the University of North Carolina to create weaponized coronaviruses. Speaker 1 rejects the accusation and admits to not having the specific details of USAID funding. Speaker 0 presses for a clear answer, but Speaker 1 deflects and requests respectful questions from the audience. Speaker 0 insists on a denial, calling Speaker 1's response a nondenial denial.

- Speaker 0 describes a doctrine where an agent or pathogen works best as a binary weapon if followed by mass exposure with vaccines, noting the insistence on gene transfection technologies to create a peptide with a prion-catalyzing epitope and pointing out that lipid nanoparticles are highly labile and inflammatory, constituting a combination of chemical and biological warfare. - Speaker 0 adds that if this was a weapon release, it may be done and now data will reveal its effects, and expresses doubt about how much trust can be placed in normal scientific methods and institutions to relay data to the public, inviting Speaker 1’s thoughts. - Speaker 1 (Stephanie) says the discussion has been an incredible and difficult ride since things began unfolding, with questions about natural versus lab-based origins, vaccine development versus biowarfare, and concerns about funding by China for bioweapons, acknowledging the impossibility of definitively answering many questions. - Speaker 0 agrees that ambiguity is the point and calls it the strength of the weapon. - Speaker 1 asks why someone would inject something to inflict a bioweapon on the entire population, suggesting population control as a possible motivation. - Speaker 0 notes the need to consider literature from top transnational power structures and corporations, asserting that it is not hidden. - Speaker 1 recalls prior concerns about population-control vaccines, referencing reports about vaccines used in Argentina and Africa that allegedly caused infertility, describing an example where a vaccine given to teenage girls could lead to antibody development to a fetus, making infertility less detectable over time. She mentions a memory of a “benign disease” vaccination program in Argentina that led people to suspect infertility, and notes that it could be a stealth method. - Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the idea that vaccines may have had effects on fertility and reference terms like human chorionic something, with Speaker 1 acknowledging possible occurrences in India as well as Africa and Argentina. - Speaker 0 refers to bioaccumulation seen in reproductive organs and cites pharmacokinetic studies beginning in Japan, noting the vaccine’s presence in the placenta and testes and recalling reports of harmful effects on male reproductive organs. - Speaker 0 mentions Anna Burkhart’s data as dark regarding spike protein expression in reproductive organs found in autopsies, while acknowledging uncertainty about how much weight to attribute to that data, but maintaining that biowarfare cannot be dismissed. - The discussion returns to the mechanism of biowarfare being distinct from a pathogen, describing a scenario where exposure leads to effects years later due to the disease mechanism being induced, rather than immediate pathogen-driven illness.

Speaker 0 discusses Lyme disease origins, asserting it came from lab 257 on Plum Island just outside of Connecticut, 25 miles from Lyme, Connecticut, where the first case was described. He says this with a high degree of probability and points to the book Bitten as a source. He claims that when Nazi war criminal doctors were executed in Nuremberg, at least one was spared and brought to the United States so his mind could be used by the US military for so-called biodefense, and that he was put on Plum Island. He states that this individual openly believed that an incredible form of biowarfare was infecting ticks, and that Lyme disease is what resulted. He then notes that Lyme disease shows up 25 miles away, and adds that this is not the only thing that showed up close by. He claims they found half rat, half deer carcasses in the Hamptons, in the last town Montauk, and that it washed up in Montauk in the nineties. He describes this as evidence of “a bunch of mad scientists” doing things, and asserts that all these people have Lyme disease. Regarding awareness, he asks how many physicians know that it came from lab 257, answering “Approximately one percent.” He comments that people are not honest with themselves, that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it, and that sometimes we can cause more harm than we can good by messing with mother nature.

The speaker questions whether the government was guessing or lying when they said that vaccinated individuals couldn't get the virus. The other speaker, who was part of the previous administration, acknowledges that there was evidence of natural reinfection during the global pandemic and that the vaccine was based on natural immunity. They suggest that the vaccine may not necessarily outperform natural infection. The first speaker then asks if the government was lying when they said the vaccine couldn't transmit the virus, to which the second speaker responds that it was more of a hopeful belief. The first speaker concludes that the government's statements were not truthful, leaving the options of guessing, lying, or hoping as possible explanations.

Speaker 0 presents a brief sequence of statements that touch on safety, health metrics, and perceptions of credibility. The first item is a directive: "You can take out the master." This appears to be a spoken instruction or suggestion about taking out a person or entity referred to as the master, though the exact context or rationale is not provided within the excerpt. Following this, Speaker 0 references a numerical estimate for a case fatality rate, stating, "The case fatality rate's, like, point one to point three according to." The sentence trails off, but the claim offered is that the case fatality rate is in the range of 0.1 to 0.3, according to an unspecified source. Speaker 0 then questions the accuracy of that figure with, "Is that right?" indicating a moment of seeking confirmation or clarification about the cited rate. The remark "That's that's reassuring" conveys a subjective reaction to the presented fatality rate, suggesting that the speaker finds the figure comforting or reassuring, though no further justification is provided within the transcript to explain why the rate would be reassuring. The next line states, "USC Everybody here has been vaccinated anyway." This asserts that all individuals at the University of Southern California (USC) present have received vaccinations, implying a protective or mitigating factor regarding health risk in the immediate environment. The following lines introduce a collaboration or communication with USC and Los Angeles County Public Health: "USC and LA County Public Health So it's a hoax." This fragment indicates a claim or allegation that is being directed at USC and the LA County Public Health department, suggesting that something being discussed or claimed is a hoax. The abruptness of the phrase leaves the specific subject of the hoax unclear within this excerpt. Finally, Speaker 0 adds, "I don't know if it was a hoax," expressing uncertainty about whether the hoax claim is accurate. This closing line reinforces the ambiguity present in the discussion and underscores a lack of definitive information about the hoax allegation. In sum, the transcript contains four interrelated threads: an instruction to "take out the master," a cited case fatality rate (0.1 to 0.3) with a request for confirmation, a reassurance tied to universal vaccination at USC, and an uncertain assertion about a hoax involving USC and LA County Public Health. The speaker’s reactions range from seeking validation and reassurance to expressing doubt about the hoax claim.

The speaker claims a CIA whistleblower will testify before a Senate committee that the intelligence community has covered up the origin of COVID for years. The speaker asserts evidence shows the U.S. government funded research in Wuhan and that the virus likely escaped from a lab, adding that CIA scientists concluded it came from a lab leak and that someone later “scribbled out” their conclusion at 2AM and changed the report. The speaker frames CIA involvement as part of a larger effort involving military-related covert operations, stating the CIA has two reasons to live: covert support for the State Department or for the military. The speaker argues that over time, long-term CIA covert actions become USAID programs for logistical reasons, especially when scaling beyond a small “need to know” group and security-clearance constrained operations. The speaker says covert action requires secrecy, skiffs, close-hold communications, and a small number of people, so a public-facing program is needed to broaden participation. In that model, the speaker says USAID or state department programs can engage the private sector, nonprofits, universities, researchers, activists, and media, with public messaging and political support to help scale the underlying aims while keeping the core plan secret. The speaker links this asserted COVID narrative to historical biological warfare and “gain of function” research, citing declassified documents from the 1950s and Operation Northwoods-era plans involving Cuba. The speaker claims Cold War U.S. military and CIA planning included “gain of function” research and the dropping of disease-infected ticks and insects over Cuban agricultural areas to induce crop failures and economically destabilize Cuba without a conventional military invasion. The speaker further claims the plans involved making biological agents appear to be of natural origin and avoiding traceable external attribution, describing discussion of using “nonlethal insect borne biological warfare agents” and coordinating planning information with specific people and labs. The speaker states that, according to their account, biological warfare planning involved references to Fort Detrick and the Rocky Mountain lab in Montana, which they say also played a key role in both COVID-19 and Lyme disease. They claim the same lab used for Lyme was connected to plans for accidental releases intended to look natural. From there, the speaker argues that COVID-origin research ties into personnel and timelines. They claim that in 2015 the CIA and ODNI reached out to Ralph Baric to discuss coronavirus evolution and adapting coronaviruses to humans, and that shortly afterward Baric collaborated with Zheng Li Shi (“the bat lady”) on research funded through USAID’s PREDICT program. The speaker also claims that in 2018 Baric and Zheng Li Shi were listed as collaborators on a DARPA proposal involving a furin cleavage site, and that in January 2020 Baric was summoned by ODNI biological sciences experts to brief officials on coronavirus origins, discussing a possible accidental lab release at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The speaker asserts Avril Haines, then deputy head of the CIA, later became head of ODNI and played a key role in the Event 201 simulator. The speaker concludes by tying these threads back to the alleged CIA-to-USAID scaling mechanism and to CIA contractors and censorship efforts, claiming that the CIA’s role explains why CIA-walked scientists concluded a lab leak and why the conclusion was allegedly altered. They also discuss NIE/DOD/USAID/NED linkages, asserting that NED is suited for the role of supporting covert objectives with indirect public-facing infrastructure.