reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asks why Speaker 1 doesn't feel safe in the US, to which Speaker 1 responds that they believe there will soon be a wave of forced vaccinations disguised as voluntary ones. Speaker 1 mentions that the World Health Organization has been working on vaccines that cause permanent sterility and that illegally approved vaccines contain a substance called squalene. Speaker 2 explains that squalene is used to make vaccines more immunogenic but can also cause adverse reactions. Speaker 1 claims that the US government wants to provoke a pandemic using a live attenuated virus. The conversation ends abruptly.

Speaker 0 describes a Pala Verde plant and its flowers, explaining that the flowers produce pollen. They point out that there are “tons” of bees around them while they are near the plant, and they say you can hear the bees. Speaker 0 presents this scene as an indication of the pollen’s abundance and activity around the plant. Speaker 0 then claims that the pollen can be eaten and that doing so benefits multiple parts of the body. They state that eating the pollen benefits the prostate, benefits the ovaries, and provides energy. They add that it benefits “every part of the body,” describing pollen as an all-encompassing food source. Speaker 0 refers to pollen as “the ultimate superfood,” framing it as uniquely powerful due to what it provides to the body. They also describe the yearly availability of pollen, stating that “nature gives it to you for free every single year.” Speaker 0 emphasizes that all someone has to do is “look for it” to find it, implying that the resource is reliably present and accessible each year. Speaker 0 connects their description of pollen with a further claim about vaccines. They say, “you can understand why they put pollen in vaccines,” and they explain that this is allegedly done so that people “get allergic to the pollen.” They then state a consequence of that alleged sensitization: when a person later goes to eat the pollen, they will have an adverse reaction. Speaker 0 characterizes this chain of events as “crazy,” positioning the explanation as surprising or striking in the way pollen is treated both in nature and in relation to vaccines. Overall, the transcript centers on pollen from Pala Verde flowers—its association with many bees, its claimed health benefits across the body, its described free and yearly availability, and a claim linking pollen to allergic responses and adverse reactions after eating it.

Speaker 0 suggests solving the problem by spraying hotspots in a specific area to test its effectiveness. Speaker 1 mentions that the district commissioner informs people about a new medicine that kills mosquitoes and other insects. Some Africans are skeptical, fearing poisoning or witchcraft. To prove its safety, the entomologist eats porridge sprayed with the solution, but the audience remains unconvinced. The chief spokesman objects, believing the medicine is a dangerous poison that could harm the entire tribe.

The speakers frame a broad concern about control over resources and exposure to external interventions. Speaker 0 emphasizes individual agency in food-related choices: “I put into my mouth. I can control what I feed,” and notes that while people can decide how to grow their food and whether to spray pesticides, they cannot control “the experiments over my head.” They describe a sense of invasion and threat, stating, “Within an hour, it spreads out. It creates a blanket. We're in a war. This is a war against me, you, our children, our grandchildren, and generations to come. This is war raised upon us.” They claim the programs involve “spraying tons of patented aerosol balloons into our skies without public consent,” naming substances such as aluminum and barium, and assert these actions are “targeting your food, your water, and it's coming in multiple different ways.” When asked how to verify these claims, Speaker 1 mentions that “states have bills to ban it,” suggesting a political dimension to the issue. Speaker 0 expands on the political and legal landscape, stating that “I think there are now 32 states that have taken an attempt at this,” and that the issue has “become a huge issue.” They argue that if ordinary citizens knew “the truth of what's going on and what they're being exposed to without their consent,” they would be outraged and would take action. They call for accountability, declaring, “I don't want some creep ramming chemicals down my throat without my permission. We need to prosecute those people that are doing it.” The exchange also touches on strategy and momentum. Speaker 0 asks whether they should “stand in one spot and say enough is enough” and whether, if others don’t listen, they should “take it to the next step.” They reflect that they have been pursuing this issue “for a while,” indicating ongoing effort and persistence. Overall, the dialogue centers on perceived loss of individual control over exposure to environmental interventions, the belief in large-scale, covert aerosol programs, legislative responses at the state level, a call for accountability and prosecution, and the contemplation of continued collective action in response to what is described as an ongoing, war-like threat.

The conversation centers on the safety of glyphosate. Speaker 0 says, “I do not believe that glyphosate in Argentina is causing increases in cancer,” and adds, “You can drink a whole quart of it and it won't hurt you.” They even offer, “It's here. I'd be happy to actually,” and insist, “Not really? I know it wouldn't hurt me.” The other person resists, insisting that glyphosate is dangerous, and asks about drinking one glass, to which the response is, “I'm not an idiot,” followed by, “I know so.” The discussion touches on the claim that glyphosate is not dangerous to humans, while also noting that “People try to commit suicide, but then it fail fairly regularly,” implying a different perspective on the danger. The exchange continues with a push-pull about the reality of the risk, as the other participant asks for a direct interview about golden rice, and the response shifts to, “Interview me about golden rice. That's what I'm talking about.” The interaction ends with the statement that the interview is finished and a closing insult: “You're a complete jerk.” The overall exchange juxtaposes denial of cancer risk from glyphosate with provocative offers and counterpoints, culminating in a switch to a topic about golden rice and a dismissive closing remark.

Borax is claimed to “pull fluoride out of the body,” with the speaker saying that taking “a little bit of a pinch of borax” can remove fluoride from the system. The speaker identifies borax as sodium tetraborate and references “the borax conspiracy,” describing a man who traveled with “a little pinch of Borax” and claimed he was helping people with arthritis, osteoporosis, pain, inflammation, and fluoride-related issues. The speaker asserts that this man was “shut down in the nineteen eighties.” The speaker says the topic is “something to look into,” and adds that there is a “document from 1893” describing a fellow who supposedly did “5,000 studies on the benefits of Borax.” The speaker claims that “nobody wants to talk about that” and states that “PubMed pulled all of that off.” The speaker further claims that PubMed involvement relates to “salt and the salt beds,” encouraging the audience to think about “sitting in a salt bed” or “sitting in a salt lake” and describing these as healing, stating that “that’s what borax connects you back to.” The speaker then describes an event where “poison control came after” them after they first talked about borax. The speaker says the Florida poison control responded by saying that borax is toxic, and frames it as an issue of selective enforcement: instead of going after vaccines, “they said that borax is toxic.” The speaker repeats the idea that “we won’t go after the vaccines,” claiming that “that cold off ten percent of the population linking to blood clots, died suddenly,” is part of what the speaker believes poison-control messaging overlooks. The speaker states, “Borax is dangerous. That’s what they tell you.” The speaker advises viewers to “go to earthclinic.org” and “look into Borax,” saying they “highly recommend” checking it out and positioning the message as “solutions.” The speaker also expresses strong opposition to medical interventions, saying they are “so over the system” and describing it as “murder by injection,” stating that injections are “poisoning the people” and “culling the population.” The speaker concludes by saying they hope the information brings “truth” and encourages sharing with others to help “enlighten somebody else,” so people can “be aware” and “know about murder by injection.”

Speaker 0: I don't have it because I don't want it. Speaker 1: I don't trust you. I need proof of vaccination to exist. Some of us resist the lies and pseudoscience on TV. The government abuses power, confuses and scares people. I may be wrong, but I won't complain. I'm a singer who uses my brain and middle finger. I won't take anything. Vaccine passports won't affect me. Hell no, I won't get it. Hell no, I don't trust the government. Hell no, I won't comply.

Speaker 0 accuses Bill Gates of releasing billions of genetically modified mosquitoes and says Gates talked about using mosquitoes to deliver an mRNA vaccine so people wouldn’t know what was happening. The speaker asserts that the EPA approved this, and claims the mosquitoes are genetically modified to get rid of malaria. The speaker questions Gates’ motives, asserting that Gates has never done anything to help humanity or the 13 families, and insisting Gates cares about pushing vaccines to control the population, including “by pushing a button and billions of people just drop where they’re standing,” and by controlling the rest of the population. The speaker says the issue isn’t avoiding shots, but that vaccines are being put into everything people are exposed to—food, water, air—and now into mosquitoes so they can inject people. The speaker claims that everyone on the planet currently has the mRNA spike protein in them and urges detoxing from it and following a detox protocol until the 13 families and their puppets are removed from power. The speaker encourages watching a video about Gates and the mosquitoes. Speaker 1 reframes the issue by saying Bill Gates is turning the world into a banquet for genetically engineered mosquitoes, and that this is being done with EPA approval. The claim is that the people were not consulted, and some are unhappy about it. The executive director of the Florida Keys Environmental Coalition is quoted as saying the EPA forgot its middle name, Protection, and that the EPA has not shown any investigation proving that this experimental insect won’t create infinitely more problems than it will solve. Speaker 2 adds that no independent scientists have corroborated anything claimed by the vendor, and describes the mosquitoes as genetically engineered, blood-sucking insects carrying deadly diseases being released into neighborhoods. Speaker 0 reiterates that this is “crazy stuff” but true, noting Gates talked about it in speeches two years ago and that it was launched into the population, with Florida being bombarded.

Speaker 0 questions understanding of vaccine causing myocarditis, mentioning Pfizer's awareness. Speaker 1 doubts if vaccine was tested for stopping transmission before market release. Speaker 0 believes vaccination was optional, not forced.

Alright. Thank you so Yep. It feels better? You guys get sprayed? Here. Here. Take this one.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they got the vaccination and if they are okay. Speaker 1 confirms they got vaccinated and that it worked. Speaker 0 then mentions trusted sources and compares it to finding out about the moon landing or aliens. Speaker 1 responds by saying that Speaker 0's statement is idiotic and lacks rational thought. Speaker 1 concludes by saying that nobody in the room gained anything from listening to it.

Speaker 0 states that permanent residents in the U.S. are mandated to be up to date on CDC-recommended vaccines, but this is not mandated for those entering the country illegally. Speaker 0 claims that measles cases in New Orleans are coming from people entering the country from elsewhere. Speaker 0 asks if the federal government should mandate that those becoming U.S. citizens be up to date on their immunizations. Speaker 1 states they are strongly pro-vaccine, an advisor to a vaccine company, and supports the CDC vaccine schedule.

Speaker 0 questions the seriousness of the European Commission's proposal, asking if they are really not forcing people to be vaccinated. Speaker 1 clarifies that they were not allowed to enter the parliament without a green certificate. Speaker 0 asks about the transparency of disclosing redacted versions of contracts, questioning how trust can be built without knowing the contents. They also inquire about the responsibility for side effects, stating that EU citizens should know the price of vaccines and not be forced to be vaccinated against their will.

The speaker expresses concerns about vaccines and their impact on the immune system. They mention their frustration with the lack of transparency from organizations like the WHO and CDC. They believe that interventions in the immune system without proper understanding are foolish. The speaker questions whether various groups, such as pregnant women and the elderly, were included in vaccine testing. They consider such omissions insulting.

Speaker 0 questions if anyone was forced to get vaccinated, specifically referring to a comment made by Dr. Kuat. Speaker 1 confirms that they made the comment and states their belief that nobody was forced to receive the vaccine. They explain that mandates and requirements are determined by governments and health authorities, and that individuals were given the choice to get vaccinated or not. Speaker 0 disagrees, suggesting that many Australians would disagree with Speaker 1's statement.

Speaker 0 asks about the accuracy of claims that asymptomatic carriers exist and that children can be super-spreaders, questioning whether these ideas are true. Speaker 1 responds that these notions are complete nonsense and have never been shown; they are claims that have been spread as facts, and they consider that “criminal.” They state that the idea of asymptomatic carrier spreading the disease Covid-nineteen—which they describe as the pneumonia, not a cough but the pneumonia Covid-nineteen—is untrue and is backed by zero data. They emphasize that there is not a single case in the world documented, and conclude that the whole business is a fake. Speaker 0 follows up by asking whether these ideas are the basis for mask-wearing and many of the associated measures. Speaker 1 confirms, stating that this is “the inhuman part” of forcing people to wear masks “because of no reason,” describing it as taking away people’s rights as humans without reason.

Speaker 0 questions if Speaker 1 washed their hands before touching the ice. Speaker 1 offers to get new ice and claims to have treated it with a chemical. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being pro-chemical and pro-Monsanto. Speaker 1 denies this and they engage in a conversation about various topics. Speaker 0 expresses love and a desire to bring people together. Speaker 1 mentions questioning the pharmaceutical industry and Monsanto in the past. Speaker 0 believes vaccines are an attempt to harm people, while Speaker 1 disagrees. Speaker 0 claims that billionaires hate regular people. The conversation ends with a mention of Bernie.

Speaker 0 explains that each brand of vaccine is different, including Moderna. Speaker 1 asks if they can see the safety studies for all the vaccines, but Speaker 0 says the information given to patients does not contain that. Speaker 1 asks which vaccine they are giving, and Speaker 0 confirms it is the one they are giving. Speaker 1 questions why the package insert is intentionally blank, and Speaker 0 says the safety studies are inside. Speaker 1 asks how this is informed consent, and Speaker 0 suggests talking to CVS. Speaker 1 expresses concern about not knowing what they are injecting, and Speaker 0 agrees it is a valid point. Speaker 0 admits they cannot answer which studies prove the vaccine is safe and effective.

- The group discusses investing in technologies to address warming climate by emitting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to block some warming. The particles are said to stay in the air for about one year, and the approach is described as similar to a mini volcanic eruption. They mention talks with airplane manufacturers about emitting their technology into the atmosphere to help with global warming. - They avoid the term climate engineering, preferring to call it aerosol injection, describing the droplets formed in the air that stay for a year. The concept is framed as an engineered approach, with one speaker noting, “It’s modeled kind of a mini volcanic eruption, actually.” - Kennedy Ritchie, who runs a company called Floor Air, is referenced as having on his website the goal to “decarbonize the aviation industry.” He reportedly told the interviewer he was trying to eliminate contrails entirely but discussed cloud seating as well. - A speaker notes that aviation fuels contain sulfur, which naturally produces sulfur dioxide emissions and has a cooling effect. There is mention that the work largely originated in the military, and that military groups are typically more closed about their procedures. A suggestion is made that it would be interesting if governments began engaging in weather modification over each other’s territories. - The Airborne Snow Observatory is cited as a real-world example connected to weather modification and upper-atmosphere monitoring. It is described as a commercial spin-off of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory snow monitoring technology used to help water managers and scientists, measuring snow depth and snow water equivalents to provide accurate snowpack data. - The room references include notable figures mentioned earlier in the day, such as Al Gore and Larry Fink, as the discussion continues to focus on geoengineering, weather modification, and airplane trails. - There is a controversial claim about the composition of the atmospheric “cocktail” being sprayed, with a speaker asking about aluminum oxides and other oxides, which is then linked to the materials allegedly part of the spray above people’s heads. - The conversation touches on the affordability and practicality of sulfur dioxide deployment, asserting that it is “pretty cheap to do it” and feasible for one or two people to manage, highlighting the perceived ease and potential accessibility of this approach.

Se pregunta qué fue lo que rociaron y causó dolor de garganta y estornudos: "¿qué fue lo que rociaron y empecé a y empecé a estornudar?" Mencionan "Inocubo, sí." Se afirma que "dice que está de" y que "la OMS lo avala, pero" y que "Lo avala y lo y obliga No es obligación. Bolivia echarlo." Se añade que "la OMS también fue la que hizo lo de las vacunas, y salieron muchas cosas de las vacunas malas." "No podemos ni opinar en eso." Expresan dudas sobre "aquí más mosquitos, más dicho, no lo sé, que que no traigamos nada de España." Como pasajeros, "tenemos derecho a saber qué es lo que nos están echando," porque "vienen niños" y "Sea alérgico, ¿no? A alguno de los compuestos que que vienen." "La verdad que ni se ve muy bien, son muy chiquitos." We have: Se pregunta qué fue lo que rociaron y causó dolor de garganta y estornudos: "what was sprayed and I started sneezing?" They mention "Inocubo, yes." It is stated that "dice que está de" and that "the OMS approves it, but" and that "It approves it and it and obliges; It is not mandatory. Bolivia to throw it out." It is added that "the WHO was also the one who did the vaccines, and many things from the vaccines were bad." "We cannot even opine on that." They express doubts about "here more mosquitoes, more said, I don't know, that we shouldn't bring anything from Spain." As passengers, "we have the right to know what they are spraying on us," because "children come" and "be allergic, right? To some of the compounds that come." "The truth is it doesn't look very clear, they are very small."

- 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 says they do not believe that glyphosate in Argentina is causing increases in cancer, and claims that someone could drink a whole quart of it “and it won’t hurt you.” Speaker 1 responds that they have some available and asks if Speaker 0 wants to drink some. Speaker 0 indicates they would be happy to drink it but not really, stating “I know it wouldn’t hurt me.” Speaker 1 says, “I know this is dangerous,” and Speaker 0 rejects the idea that it is dangerous to humans, saying people try to commit suicide and that it fails fairly regularly, and “it’s not dangerous to humans.” Speaker 1 presses Speaker 0 about drinking “one glass,” but Speaker 0 says, “I’m not an idiot,” and instead shifts the topic, saying, “Interview me about golden rice. That’s what I’m talking about.” The conversation ends with Speaker 1 stating “Except it…” and Speaker 0 concluding, “Then the interview is finished.” Speaker 1 agrees with “That’s a good way to solve things,” and Speaker 0 calls Speaker 1 “a complete jerk.”

I want to see the testing kit before it's used. Ethylene oxide in the kit is a carcinogen and mutagen, linked to cancer and DNA damage. The kit is sterilized dry, but becomes wet in the nose, potentially harmful when inhaled. It's killing people. Do you still want the test?

The speaker states they are "physically taking" the vaccine, not receiving it as intended. They claim the National Action Task Force will send the substance to a lab to test what "they're poisoning everybody with." The speaker says they have to leave because the police are being called. They express dislike for being combative but hate "that they're doing this to people," who are lined up to receive it. The speaker reiterates they are "taking" the vaccine "for the greater good of everyone" because they are going to test it in a lab to see what it is. The speaker states they are shaking and nervous.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 engage in a conversation about COVID laws. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 has just vaccinated someone. Speaker 1 expresses concern about people having fits outside the vaccination center, referring to it as a "death bus" and accusing Speaker 0 of killing people. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 questioning Speaker 0's actions.