TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In a discussion about China's compliance with chemical and bio weapons treaty obligations, Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's knowledge on the matter. Speaker 1 expresses concerns about compliance but cannot confirm whether China was in compliance in 2005 or currently. Speaker 0 further asks about China's offensive biological weapons program and the collaboration between the Academy of Military Medical Sciences and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Speaker 1 acknowledges the collaboration and mentions the involvement of private organizations and the Chinese military. Speaker 0 inquires about the CDC's presence in Wuhan, but Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer.

Speaker 0 argues that anyone can file a complaint with a law enforcement authority for murder conspiracy and demand arrests and prosecutions. He points to a 2013 press release claiming that DARPA awarded Moderna Therapeutics up to $25,000,000 to develop messenger RNA therapeutics, noting that DARPA is the Pentagon and claiming the Pentagon bought, paid for, and envisioned these mRNA shots. He contends Fort Detrick was involved in developing COVID-19 at the UNC BSL-3 and asserts the Pentagon is on both sides of the argument, developing the weapon and the alleged vaccines. Speaker 1 asks whether there is any liability shield for deploying a biowarfare weapon and whether the narrative about congressional liability for Pfizer is a SIOP. Speaker 0 agrees that civil liability is separate from criminal liability, stating in his book Resisting Medical Tyranny that executives at companies developing these mRNA shots are guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. He cites a Portugal report claiming that upwards of 300,000 Americans had been murdered by the mRNA Franken shots and invokes the JAB resolution, describing it as a Nuremberg crime against humanity and a violation of the Nuremberg Code. He defines a Nuremberg crime against humanity as murder, extermination, and other inhumane acts committed against civilians. Speaker 1 asks about liability for government officials who approved the vaccines. Speaker 0 says FDA officials who approved the shots could be indicted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder, noting the FDA’s involvement in developing COVID-19 as an offensive biological warfare weapon at UNC BSL-3, including a cited contract listing National Center for Toxicological Research and FDA as contributors. He claims the FDA, which approves the vaccines, was involved in this development. Speaker 1 questions the CDC and media accountability, noting the CDC’s recommendation of the vaccines and media promotion of boosters. Speaker 0 says the CDC, including Director Milensky (appointed by Biden, from Harvard Medical School), is complicit, and claims the CDC has a history dating back to the Reagan administration of handling offensive biological warfare projects, including shipping weaponized agents to Saddam Hussein with implications for U.S. troops after Gulf War I. Speaker 1 asks whether there are lawmakers with intel on gain-of-function biowarfare. Speaker 0 mentions Senator Rand Paul as having a strong understanding, but asserts that some lawmakers were threatened and obstructed after consulting him, recounting an experience with Walter Jones of the House Armed Services Committee who briefly engaged but then did not follow up, implying threats prevented action. Speaker 1 asks how citizens should respond, and Speaker 0 advocates reporting to sheriffs, district attorneys, and state attorneys, noting progress with a Collier County health freedom declaration. They discuss enforcement mechanisms, seizure, and incineration of stockpiles, and trial and sentencing for those responsible. Speaker 0 condemns China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology as a bioweapons lab, alleging it was a Chinese counterpart to Fort Detrick, with the Chinese president seeking his own BSL-4 program and an offensive biowarfare arsenal. Speaker 1 notes U.S. funding and international bioweapons labs, including Ukraine and Taiwan, and ends by referencing Lindsey Graham and a speaker labeled as a professor Boyle.

The speakers discuss concerns about unwanted attention on the relationships between Western virologists and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Speaker 1 claims that money was sent to a Chinese lab that was not following proper protocols and was conducting gain of function research, suggesting that this is where the virus originated. Speaker 0 agrees with this statement.

- Speaker 0 notes that vaccines and boosters are readily available, testing has been dramatically scaled with millions of rapid tests, and that 82 percent of adult Americans have taken the vaccine. He states that those not vaccinated are nine times more likely to be hospitalized or die from the virus, and emphasizes that the country is in a different place than a year ago, with ongoing work to fight the virus. - On the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR), Speaker 0 explains that the release totals 50,000,000 barrels, with 18,000,000 already congressionally required and accelerated by the president to provide immediate relief. The remaining 32,000,000 comes from an exchange, putting barrels on the market now in exchange for their return in the future. He describes the exchange as a tool matched to the current economic environment and notes the aim to lower costs for the American people, particularly gas prices ahead of the holiday season, while acknowledging the pandemic’s impact on the global cost of goods and gas. He also mentions pressing OPEC+ to increase supply and using every tool at the administration’s disposal to help working families. - When pressed about the 50,000,000 barrels figure, Speaker 0 refrains from further detail beyond the explanation that 18,000,000 were congressionally required and the rest come from the exchange arrangement. - On China, Speaker 0 clarifies that the president did not intend to separate China publicly, saying China may do more, but the president does not want to speak for any country. He notes that the president has had conversations with other countries and that the national security team has communicated with them; announcements will be made by those countries themselves. Speaker 1 asks whether the president spoke with Xi Jinping; Speaker 0 confirms they did talk, as referenced in a readout issued afterward, and that the president asked China to discuss helping with supply, without detailing further. - Regarding Ukraine, Speaker 1 asks for updates on White House assessments and plans for a possible phone call with President Putin. Speaker 0 says there is nothing to preview at this time, but reiterates that the United States remains in very close contact with European partners.

Speaker 0 claims to have been in a meeting at a well-known estate owned by an African president. They were asked to be part of a new agenda for 2020 but declined. Speaker 1 agrees that it doesn't seem like a coincidence. Speaker 0 mentions that some members of the shadow government are not in America, including Bill Gates, who has been involved behind the scenes with his finances and the WHO. Speaker 0 addresses a personal message to Bill Gates and questions the impact of his supposed work in Africa.

Speaker 0 believes all COVID documents under seal in the United States should be unclassified. Speaker 1 agrees and states they are complying with congressional subpoenas for all NIH documents related to COVID-19. This will reveal what the U.S. government knew and discussed leading up to the pandemic. However, the Chinese government is not providing the same level of transparency. For example, the NIH requested lab notebooks from the Wuhan experimenters, but they were not shared.

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 speakers discuss the possibility of the COVID-19 virus originating from a lab leak rather than bats. Speaker 1 brings up American labs in Ukraine and questions their purpose. Speaker 2 mentions that Ukraine has biological research facilities, which they are concerned about falling into the hands of Russian forces. Speaker 1 suggests that the existence of these labs was buried and wonders if they were involved in creating anthrax or other unknown substances. Speaker 0 admits to not having knowledge about this topic.

Speaker 0 asks if USAID funded coronavirus research in Wuhan, China. Speaker 1 denies funding gain of function research but acknowledges the PREDICT program, which ended in China in 2019. Speaker 0 mentions that the GAO found that some grants from the $200 million program went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where the lab leak suspicion originated. Speaker 1 is unsure about funding the Academy of Military Medical Sciences but acknowledges the lack of records. Speaker 0 states that they have been requesting records for months but received no documents from USAID. Speaker 1 reiterates that the PREDICT program ended in 2019. Speaker 0 asks who ran the PREDICT program, and Speaker 1 responds with UC Davis.

The speaker is asked if the WHO will consider Taiwan's membership, but there is no response. The question is repeated, but still no answer. The speaker then mentions wanting to discuss Taiwan's handling of the virus and plans to call someone named Dr. Auerd for more information. The speaker briefly mentions that China has done a good job in containing the virus. They thank the host for inviting them and wish them luck in their battle in Hong Kong.

The speaker states the virus was not isolated. Live animal samples are irrelevant. The speaker suspects the origin is different than originally thought. China's government is presenting the city where the virus emerged as the city that defeated it in a new patriotic film.

Speaker 0 asks if Americans should take a vaccine if it is released before or after the election. Speaker 1 says they would take it if public health professionals recommend it, but not if Donald Trump does. Speaker 0 then asks Vice President Pence about safeguards for presidential disability. Pence defends the Trump administration's handling of the pandemic and criticizes the swine flu response during Biden's vice presidency. He accuses the senator of undermining confidence in a vaccine. Speaker 0 interrupts and ends the conversation.

The speaker repeatedly questions why the virus is being referred to as the Chinese virus. They assert that calling it the Chinese virus is not racist and emphasize that it originates from China.

The speaker was asked if there were any plans to travel to the southern border, to which they replied that there were none at the moment. When asked about sharing thoughts with other countries, the speaker mentioned that they have been talking with several countries already. There was also a question about which country would be the first to receive the US vaccine, but the speaker did not provide a direct answer.

The speakers discuss the achievements of the World Health Organization (WHO) in the past two years. They mention that the WHO is passing amendments to international health regulations, which member countries must actively opt out of to avoid accepting them. They express concern about the power given to the WHO's director general during a pandemic, as they can decide what actions to take. The speakers also mention that the definition of a pandemic has been changed, potentially leading to a situation where even a small number of cases in different countries could be classified as a pandemic. This would allow the WHO to seize governing powers of member states.

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.

I will not call on you if you yell, and you're wasting time because Dr. Fauci has to leave soon. I'm not engaging in a back-and-forth. It's not your turn. Don't look at me; it's your first question. You should call on people across the room. She has a valid question about the origin of COVID. I hear the question, but we're not proceeding as you wish. This is disrespectful. I'm done with this. Simon, I'm finished with you right now. Go ahead.

Speaker 0 believes all COVID documents under seal in the United States should be unclassified. Speaker 1 agrees and states they are complying with congressional subpoenas for all NIH documents related to COVID-19. This will reveal what the U.S. government knew and discussed leading up to the pandemic. However, the Chinese government is not providing the same level of transparency. For example, the NIH requested lab notebooks from the Wuhan experimenters, but they were not shared.

The speakers discuss concerns about unwanted attention on the relationships between Western virologists and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Speaker 1 suggests that money was sent to a Chinese lab that was not following proper protocols and was conducting gain of function research, which is believed to be the origin of the current situation. Speaker 0 agrees with this statement.

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.

A member of the World Health Organization team reveals that some researchers at a Wuhan lab studying coronaviruses got sick with flu-like symptoms in the fall of 2019. However, there were only 1 or 2 cases, which is not significant. China claims that the lab researchers tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 in March-April 2020, and there is no credible evidence of a lab leak. A 300-page joint report between the WHO and China will be published soon, but concerns have been raised about the WHO team's lack of proper access and the need to clear their report with Chinese scientists. China insists it has been transparent, while the Biden administration questions its transparency.

The speaker expresses confidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology is the origin of the virus. They criticize the World Health Organization (WHO) for acting as a public relations agency for China, despite receiving significant funding from both China and other countries. The speaker believes that the WHO should not make excuses for mistakes that have resulted in numerous deaths worldwide.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss hate speech and content moderation on Twitter, as well as COVID misinformation policies and broader editorial questions. - Speaker 0 says they have spoken with people who were sacked and with people recently involved in moderation, and they claim there is not enough staff to police hate speech in the company. - Speaker 1 asks if there is a rise in hate speech on Twitter and prompts for personal experience. - Speaker 0 says, personally, they see more hateful content in their feed, but they do not use the For You feed for the rest of Twitter. They describe the content as something that solicits a reaction and may include something slightly racist or slightly sexist. - Speaker 1 asks for a concrete example of hateful content. Speaker 0 says they cannot name a single example, explaining they have not used the For You feed for the last three or four weeks and have been using Twitter since the takeover for the last six months. When pressed again, Speaker 0 says they cannot identify a specific example but that many organizations say such information is on the rise. Speaker 1 again pushes for a single example, and Speaker 0 repeats they cannot provide one. - Speaker 1 points out the inconsistency, noting that Speaker 0 claimed more hateful content but cannot name a single tweet as an example. Speaker 0 responds that they have not looked at that feed recently, and that the last few weeks they saw it but cannot provide an exact example. - The discussion moves to COVID misinformation: Speaker 1 asks about changes to COVID misinformation rules and labels. Speaker 0 clarifies that the BBC does not set the rules on Twitter and asks about changes to the labels for COVID misinformation, noting there used to be a policy that disappeared. - Speaker 1 questions why the labels disappeared and asks whether COVID is no longer an issue, and whether the BBC bears responsibility for misinformation regarding masking, vaccination side effects, and not reporting on that, as well as whether the BBC was pressured by the British government to change editorial policy. Speaker 0 states that this interview is not about the BBC and emphasizes that they are not a representative of the BBC’s editorial policy, and tries to shift to another topic. - Speaker 1 continues pushing, and Speaker 0 indicates the interview is moving to another topic. Speaker 1 remarks that Speaker 0 wasn’t expecting that, and Speaker 0 suggests discussing something else.