reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Public health officials during the pandemic acted more like dictators than scientists, suppressing credible dissent. Early on, they dismissed the lab leak hypothesis as conspiracy, only recently acknowledging its plausibility. Martin Kulldorff from Harvard, Sunita Gupta from Oxford, and I proposed a focused protection strategy in October 2020, which was labeled fringe by then NIH director Francis Collins, despite support from thousands of professionals. Government agencies collaborated with social media to control the narrative around COVID science, creating a false sense of consensus. The public deserves answers about the basis for school closures, whether the harms of policies were adequately considered, and why natural immunity and vaccine transmission failures were overlooked in mandates.

We must address anti-vax campaigns to save lives. I am willing to collaborate with the government on emergency legislation to combat misinformation. The discussion of censorship on morning TV in the UK is concerning, as it threatens freedom of speech and individual rights. It is important to be skeptical about products and protect our collective duty to question.

"Today's misinformation is always tomorrow's truth. It's always the government who wants to censor people who are critical of the government." "Europe is trying to police everyone and shake down American tech companies, which is exactly what the digital markets act looked like. That is what's at stake here, and that is not how our First Amendment works." "Everything our government here in The United States told us about COVID turned out to be false. If you criticize any of the things they initially told you, you had to be censored." "When Elon bought Twitter, now it's a place where the first amendment and free speech are right where they need to be." "The spillover effect it can have on, American content being seen by European users." "The answer to stupid speech, bad speech, and wrong speech is more speech." "the hallmark of Western culture is free expression." "There were 12,183 arrests for offensive post online." "Global Alliance for Responsible Media." "Disinformation governance board."

Our universities have failed to provide public access to information and foster balanced debate during the past 3 years. Decisions and policies related to COVID-19 have threatened society, economy, politics, and health. Rights were suspended, businesses destroyed, and medical access restricted. Non-compliance was criminalized, and opposition was suppressed. Instead of offering balanced information and forums for debate, universities silenced faculty who questioned or criticized. Translation (if needed): Our universities have not shared information and encouraged fair discussions about COVID-19 decisions and policies, leading to negative impacts on society.

Currently, there is too much convergence between the government, the National Assembly, and the general press, which is unhealthy. There needs to be checks and balances, debates, and many decisions being made are authoritarian and lack scientific substance. For example, forcing people to take an experimental vaccine without giving them a choice is unethical and goes against the principles of medical experimentation. In the future, we will look back and question how such things were allowed to happen. The communication world is starting to collide with reality, whether it's about vaccines or other issues. The vaccines were rushed and not properly evaluated, and there have been adverse effects reported. The number of complaints against the vaccines will continue to rise. It's important to understand the risks and benefits and not exaggerate the severity of the disease.

I don't care if it's a small business or a large corporation; when the government threatens you, you should take it seriously. Blame the government for the issues we're facing. Those upset about free speech now are just mad they can't control the narrative anymore. For years, they've spread misinformation and now they're worried about others doing the same. It's not about the danger of misinformation; it's about losing control. They were wrong about everything and forced compliance, and now they resent others having the same freedom. It's absurd to pretend their concerns are about safety when it's really about power.

Misinformation is a complex issue. Some false information may not be harmful, so censoring someone for being wrong can be questionable. However, during the early stages of the COVID pandemic, there were health implications and limited time to verify scientific assumptions. Unfortunately, the establishment wavered on facts and requested censorship of information that turned out to be debatable or true. This undermines trust.

There was never a scientific consensus on many topics related to COVID-19. Before the pandemic, most scientists held views contrary to the prevailing narrative. A small group of influential scientific bureaucrats took control of the public discourse, dominating media and influencing politicians. This led to a catastrophic response to the pandemic, and the repercussions will be felt for a long time.

We must address anti-vax campaigns to save lives. I am willing to collaborate with the government on emergency legislation to combat misinformation. The discussion of censorship on morning television in the UK is concerning, as it threatens freedom of speech and individual rights to be skeptical about certain products.

I fell for the propaganda and got double vaccinated, only to realize I was misled about ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, masks, and social distancing. I faced censorship, slander, and conspiracy accusations for speaking out. Wikipedia is controlled by intelligence agencies, labeling controversial topics as conspiracy theories.

"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."

The government crossed a bright red line when it suppressed scientific and policy discussions during COVID, treating dissenting voices as akin to those of international terrorists. This suppression is wrong; free speech, allowing debate among scientists, policymakers, and the public, is a fundamental American norm. The government's actions prevented this debate, leading to harmful lockdown policies, vaccine mandates, job losses, prolonged school closures, and economic devastation. This censorship, ironically, cost lives. Contrary to claims that free speech is dangerous during a pandemic, upholding the First Amendment would have saved lives and reduced the damage and destruction we experienced.

You advocated for vaccines but now support limiting online speech. There are concerns about migration levels in the UK. You have a responsibility to be accurate, which you claim to be 95% of the time.

Speaker 0: There were four drugs that were being tested for Ebola. Remdesivir killed more people than placebo, and the data safety monitoring board had actually stopped the study where literally fifty three percent of Speaker 1: the patients died in the failed Ebola trial and was repurposed. It was a failed Ebola drug because it caused more harm than good in Ebola trials. It was still unpatent. It was Tony Fauci's drug of choice. The majority of hospital deaths were actually caused by Anthony Fauci because his NIH put out protocols that if the hospital systems adhered to, they got bonuses, big bonuses, lots of money, $3,000 per for putting an IV in of remdesivir. Boom. $3,000. But guess what? On top of the entire hospital stay, a 20% bonus, that could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. Speaker 0: The data was so overwhelming that remdesivir killed patients more so than placebo. The drug had to be stopped, and this was published in the New England Journal in the 2019. Speaker 2: What happened during COVID could not have happened without propaganda and censorship. And how do we overcome that propaganda and censorship? It's primarily through people not being willing to shut up.

There are concerns that discrediting public health officials could lead to a lack of trust in vaccines, similar to what is happening in Russia. Attacks on me are attacks on science, as everything I have said is based on scientific evidence. It is clear that science and the truth are under attack.

In 2019, the Canadian government removed the crime of spreading false news from the Criminal Code. This raises concerns about trusting a government that takes our money, restricts effective treatments, and fails to investigate the safety of promoted vaccines. Additionally, the parliament we elect allows mainstream media to freely lie without consequences.

I don't care if it's a small business or a large corporation; when the government threatens you, take it seriously. Blame the government, absolutely. I'm not calling anyone a hero, but the frustration is valid. To those upset about others speaking freely now, stop complaining. You've created misinformation for years and are now angry that you can't control the narrative. It's not about danger; it's about control. You were wrong about everything, and now that others have a voice, you dislike it. If misinformation is the concern, what are we really discussing? It's absurd to pretend this new freedom is dangerous when people start making their own choices.

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.

Let's take a moment to remember how people behaved in 2020. It's important to remember that these are the same individuals who urged us to trust the science.

Once there was a law proposed by Darmanin, I'm not sure where it stands now, that would punish scientifically or medically stating something contrary to the government with a fine of 15,000 euros or imprisonment. It's quite something. It's as if they were considering silencing those who disagreed with the government at any given moment. I don't think we've ever had constraints or obligations to only communicate the official version of science in our country's history. It's reached an unimaginable level of dictatorship. This existed in Gaullist countries under Stalin. Translation: Once there was a law proposed by Darmanin, I'm not sure where it stands now, that would punish scientifically or medically stating something contrary to the government with a fine of 15,000 euros or imprisonment. It's quite something. It's as if they were considering silencing those who disagreed with the government at any given moment. I don't think we've ever had constraints or obligations to only communicate the official version of science in our country's history. It's reached an unimaginable level of dictatorship. This existed in Gaullist countries under Stalin.

There was never a scientific consensus on many COVID-related topics. Before the pandemic, most scientists held opposing views. A small, influential group of scientific bureaucrats seized control of the public narrative, dominating media and influencing politicians. This led to a disastrous response to COVID, and the repercussions will be felt for a long time.

COVID-19 originated in a lab, and it took too long to acknowledge this due to the suppression of debate through accusations of racism. Big tech censored discussions about the virus's origins in the name of preventing misinformation, which ironically led to more confusion. We must learn from this history to avoid repeating mistakes. As president, I commit to holding accountable those responsible for the pandemic's origin, including using financial measures against the CCP and investigating U.S. officials who may have contributed to the crisis through gain-of-function research. It's time to move beyond complaints and focus on solutions. You have my commitment to do just that.

Censorship has always been done by those who aren't the good guys. They've been silencing arguments for a long time, claiming it's for the greater good. They use virtue as a weapon, always in the pursuit of tyranny. Anyone trying to silence one side of an argument, be it about COVID-19, immigration, or anything else, is evil and seeks to control people's minds.

I was accused of being part of a propaganda effort to censor those questioning the origin of the virus. I stand by my assertion that the virus is not a lab construct, which aligns with the intelligence community's conclusion. I cannot control how my work is used. It is wrong to censor and lie to the public, and I should have done better.

We broke the public's trust by silencing one side of the debate, labeling experts as trustworthy and critics as dangerous. As a journalist, I heard stories of suffering and pain from people affected by lockdowns and vaccine mandates, but these stories were not being told. This burden affected my well-being as these people trusted me to share their truth.