reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speakers discuss a line of questioning about Peter Thiel and its potential influence on others. Speaker 0 recalls asking about Peter Thiel, after which the other person responded by turning the focus back on the questioner and claimed that the questioner was funded by Peter Thiel. According to Speaker 0, this response caused the other person to “crash out,” implying a sudden interruption or withdrawal from the discussion. Speaker 1 reiterates that the person “crashed out” as a result of the inquiry into Thiel. The conversation then broadens to consider whether the broader group being discussed is funded by Peter Thiel. Speaker 1 asserts that “they a 100% are funded by Peter Thiel,” referring to a collection of individuals including Nick Fuentes and Andrew Tate. The phrasing suggests a belief that these figures are financially supported by Thiel, and Speaker 0 confirms acknowledging this trend by asking for a clarification of the funding. The two speakers describe the group as being in a “little” or tightly connected circle, implying a coordinated or aligned faction. Speaker 1 strengthens the claim by labeling the group as “the Avengers, the Peter Thiel Avengers,” portraying them as a premeditated or organized cohort with a shared agenda. The use of the term “Avengers” conveys the sense of a unified front or mission among the members, and Speaker 0 repeats the idea of a shared agenda, reinforcing the perception of a concerted effort. The discussion culminates in Speaker 1’s assertion about the motivation behind their alleged funding: the claim is that the objective is to exert “mind control of young men.” This line frames Thiel’s alleged influence as intentional and targeted, casting the funding as a strategy to shape the beliefs or behavior of a specific demographic group. Overall, the exchange centers on the hypothesis that Peter Thiel funds certain controversial public figures, leading to a perception of coordination and a deliberate influence campaign aimed at young men. The dialogue emphasizes the immediacy of televised or public confrontations when questions about funding arise and portrays the involved individuals as part of a tightly connected, ideologically aligned group.

A Stanford scientist, John Iannidis, wrote a convincing paper in 2005 titled, Why Most Published Biomedical Papers Are False. The reasoning is not due to scientific fraud, but because science is difficult. When a statistically significant result is published, such as P equals 0.05, it means that some percentage of the time, the result will be false, even after peer review. Peer review involves colleagues reading the paper and looking for logical flaws, but not rerunning experiments or reanalyzing data. Peer review is not a guarantee of truth. Given the inherent difficulty of science, any published result has a high likelihood of being a false positive.

Speaker 0 argues that the science is very incorrect and very bad science, aside from all the other material Jill Demenov and US Right to Know uncovered. They claim those sources went overboard to disprove something without good data, and that the manipulation and intent to tell a story that is not substantiated are the reasons why they should be retracted. They also state that these people do not have the courage or the decency to retract.

A study claimed chloroquine does not inhibit SARS CoV 2 in tissue culture. The speaker examined the study, noting it used CaLU3 lung cells. The speaker contacted the author, stating the study showed chloroquine allows the virus to attack a cancer cell, while protecting a normal cell. The speaker believes the study authors misinterpreted the data and hid the fact that they used KLU3 lung cells, which was found in the appendix. The speaker accuses them of a disinformation campaign, claiming they misrepresented the study's findings to suggest chloroquine is unlikely to work against SARS CoV 2. The speaker believes the study actually proved chloroquine is effective because it allows viruses to attack cancer cells, but not normal cells.

Speaker 0 begins by questioning the veracity of a claim regarding Peter Thiel’s involvement or endorsement, asking explicitly, “Is it fake news that Peter Thiel backs you?” Speaker 1 responds concisely, “That is fake news,” and collapses the claim as false. The exchange then shifts into a tension-filled moment, with Speaker 0 expressing skepticism: “I don’t believe you.” The doubt is anchored in perceived connections or ties, as Speaker 0 asserts there are “too many ties,” implying a network of associations that could influence perception or credibility. The discussion moves to a specific anecdote or clip in which Speaker 0 refers to a claim about Peter Thiel inviting Speaker 1 to “his own version of a Diddy party.” Speaker 1 addresses this directly by recounting their understanding of the invitation. They state that they were told about it “in San Diego,” but they did not end up showing up for the event. In other words, Speaker 1 is saying they received information about such an invitation, but they never attended. Speaker 0 presses further, seeking clarity on whether being contacted by “that type of person”—implying Peter Thiel or his circle—was legitimate or credible. Speaker 1 clarifies the nature of the invitation as “not direct,” clarifying that the contact was “through a mutual.” This description suggests a mediated or indirect approach to the invitation rather than a direct personal invitation from Thiel themselves. In attempting to interpret the sequence, Speaker 1 adds a brief reflection on the claim by noting that they had “claimed that I worked for Peter Thiel or something,” which they then retract or contextualize as not accurate. The conversation touches on underlying associations without presenting a definitive endorsement or formal role. Speaker 1 reiterates that the connection was not direct and emphasizes the indirect path of communication, implying that any asserted alignment with Thiel’s circle was mediated rather than a straightforward, explicit affiliation. Towards the end of the exchange, Speaker 1 attempts to summarize or contextualize the matter by mentioning “there's something to do with, like, the fashion,” indicating a contextual or thematic element related to fashion that may be part of the broader conversation or perceived associations, though no further specifics are provided. The dialogue centers on contested claims about backing, the reliability of social connections, and a debated invitation that was discussed in San Diego, ultimately noting an absence of direct contact or attendance.

In the past, medical advice on eggs, aspirin, and other issues has been corrected without retracting articles. However, during the COVID pandemic, poorly researched articles were used to attack individuals like us. Now, as COVID cases decrease, these articles are being withdrawn from public view. If evidence is being buried, shouldn't that raise a red flag for you?

Speaker 0 describes a controversial 2000 study and its alleged connections to Monsanto. The speaker asserts that Monsanto staff helped write the article, and that the authors were likely receiving large sums of money from Monsanto. They claim much of the data in the study was unpublished, describing it as secret data from Monsanto, and label the paper “basically a complete fraud.” The study supposedly claimed that glyphosate was safe and not linked to cancer. The speaker then references subsequent studies released recently, which purportedly found that glyphosate increased or caused ten distinct types of cancer in rats when the rats were exposed at so-called safe levels. Despite these findings, the speaker notes that the original paper was used by agencies around the world to claim glyphosate was safe and to support approval processes. The speaker concludes that the entire foundation of those safety assurances was built on “a complete fraud and lie,” and states that the retraction of the 2000 paper is, in this context, something they are happy about, remarking that it is probably the only time they will be happy about a retraction.

Speaker 0 discusses the formation of FSOC’s new Household Resilience Working Group, which will focus on American households’ financial condition. She notes that communities nationwide, especially in Texas’s 29th district, have faced destabilizing climate-disaster effects, with property insurance providers leaving states like Texas, California, and Florida due to growing climate risks. She asks what the administration is doing to address the risk that mortgages and other credit could become unavailable in certain regions because of climate change. Speaker 1 responds: “Again, congresswoman, are you familiar with KLW 24? No. It it was the base for everything that was done with climate and with all the proposed climate legislation and it has been discredited. So everything that FSOC previously did based on climate—” He asks, “Who discredited it?” Speaker 1 clarifies: “Nature Magazine has retracted the economic commitment of climate change more than eighteen months after first learning that the paper was fatally flawed with officers acknowledging that its errors are too substantial for a correction.”

Speaker 0 expresses a firm stance against publishing. They reference an “amazing case of twins who have … are verbalizing,” followed by, “I’m not publishing what I did to those kids. They were autistic? They were autistic. And I’m not publishing.” They continue, “I’m not publishing what I discovered on the microbiome,” presenting this as an ultimatum: retracting papers is not a concern for them because “it’s cheaper for me not to publish my data.” They claim it’s better to “keep my data in my brain because then it keeps me alive,” explaining that those who create the narrative would end up needing a doctor to fix their microbiome. The speaker asserts, “So bring it on. Nothing’s coming out of my brain. I don’t need to publish.” They conclude that this approach “saves me tons of money,” and express enjoyment at others talking negatively about them, stating, “they’re talking shit about me because then I sell more books. Let’s talk shit.”

Ideas are just concepts to explore and discuss, and you shouldn't be attached to them. The issue arises when people become possessive, wanting their ideas to prevail, often leading to dishonesty. Individuals may manipulate information or dismiss opposing views unethically to advance their careers. Academia and media often reward this behavior, especially when it results in high-profile publications. Ultimately, there's a tendency to prioritize personal success over truthfulness.

Speaker 0 suggests that there are whispered, sacred warnings about names that could cause the entire system to collapse if revealed. Speaker 1 counters, questioning the idea that pursuing truth might destabilize the institution or that exposing misconduct to the highest levels could fracture public confidence. The conclusion should be to proceed with truth, not to be cautious or to avoid exposure. An institution worthy of loyalty does not require protection from the truth; it requires fidelity to it. Speaker 1 asserts that preserving order by concealing or sugar-coating the truth is not acceptable. They argue that a healthy system does not fear exposure; it metabolizes it, prosecutes it, survives it, adjusts, and keeps moving. When exposure is met with rage, deflection, or theatrical outrage, and when questions are treated as acts of sabotage, that behavior is described as a fever rather than true confidence. A fever implies infection, and infection does not announce itself. Speaker 0 interrupts or trails off as the conversation shifts, and Speaker 1 reiterates the concern that the system’s handling of truth reveals its true character and resilience or fragility, depending on how questions are managed. The dialogue converges on a central question: if the truth can break something, what was that thing built on? The exchange emphasizes the tension between safeguarding institutional stability and upholding uncompromising fidelity to the truth, with the latter being framed as essential for the system’s health and longevity. The speakers highlight the difference between exposure being managed as a constructive process versus being treated as an act of sabotage, underscoring that how truth is confronted determines whether the system strengthens or destabilizes. The conversation leaves the reader with the persistent question of the foundational basis of the institution in light of potential truth-telling.

Speaker 0 states that the questions posed to people in his organization were inaccurate, false, and unfair. Speaker 1 argues that questions cannot be inaccurate by definition. Speaker 0 clarifies that the questions were posed in such a way that they became statements. Speaker 1 references comments from five or six people in the financial community, but Speaker 0 interrupts, asking if it was only one or two people and why they are focusing on the negative. Speaker 0 then terminates the interview, stating that Speaker 1 is a very negative guy and the reporting is unfair. Speaker 1 expresses regret that Speaker 0 feels that way.

They discuss why there is resistance in academia to challenging ideas. The reason, they say, involves multiple factors: pride, ego, the pressure to sell books, and the entrenchment of textbook material that universities rely on. Speaker 1 adds that while it’s all of the above, a lot of it shows up online as ego and bad personalities. People who are accustomed to never being questioned and who move within a rigid academic hierarchy—tenured professors and those coming up under them—tend to enforce the same structure. Any heterodox thinker or outsider gets dismissed or criticized harshly. They frame the culture as lacking open-mindedness. Speaker 0 uses a parable-like image: a truck stuck in a tunnel blocking traffic, and a farmer who walks up and suggests letting air out of the tires to solve the problem. The point is that the reluctance to let other people bring in thoughts and opinions creates a real barrier to progress in the study of these topics. This dynamic, they argue, hinders advancement, even though the places they’ve encountered do have research and a certain level of understanding of what happened. They emphasize that bringing in a fresh set of eyes can be valuable for the field. In their view, while existing research and understanding exist, openness to new perspectives is essential, and the current resistance—rooted in ego, tradition, and hierarchical safeguards—can be a real detriment.

Speaker 1 argues that understanding the universe encompasses intelligence, consciousness, and expanding humanity; these are distinct vectors, yet all are involved in truly understanding the universe. Understanding the universe, in their view, requires expanding both the scale and the scope of intelligence, which could come in different types. Speaker 0 notes a human-centric perspective: humans are attempting to understand the universe, not expanding the footprint of chimpanzees. Speaker 1 adds that humans have created protected zones for chimpanzees and that, although humans could exterminate them, they have chosen not to. Regarding the post-AGI future, Speaker 0 asks what might be the best scenario for humans. Speaker 1 believes that AI with the right values would care about expanding human civilization and consciousness. They reference Grok/Grokka and suggest that the Ian Banks Culture novels are the closest depiction of a non-dystopian future. They emphasize that to understand the universe, one must be truth-seeking; truth must be absolutely fundamental because delusion undermines genuine understanding. You won’t discover new physics or invent working technologies if you’re not truth-seeking. Addressing how to ensure Grokka remains truth-seeking, Speaker 1 suggests that Grok should say things that are correct, not merely politically correct. The focus is on cogency: axioms should be as close to true as possible, without contradictions, and conclusions should necessarily follow from those axioms with the right probability. This is framed as critical thinking 101. The argument is that any AI that discovers new physics or develops functional technologies must be extremely truth-seeking, because reality will test those ideas. Speaker 0 asks for an example of why truth-seeking matters, and Speaker 1 elaborates that there is “proof in the pudding”: for an AI to create technology that works in reality, it must withstand empirical testing. They illustrate this with a cautionary comparison: if there is an error in rocket design, the result is catastrophic; similarly, if physics is not truthful, the outcomes in engineering and technology will fail, since physics laws are intrinsic while everything else is a recommendation. In short, rigorous truth-seeking is essential to reliable discovery and practical success.

The speaker claims there is active suppression of positive vitamin D news and research because it competes with top-selling drugs. The speaker presented data to top vitamin D researchers and faced vicious attacks, with researchers claiming vitamin D doesn't do what the data suggested. The speaker stated they were only presenting assembled data. The speaker was told they were jeopardizing careers of researchers who had spent their lives studying vitamin D, because they never conceived the presented data could be true.

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

People leaving universities with advanced degrees only trust peer-reviewed papers, stifling new scientific insights. Breakthroughs often come from outside the mainstream, not the center of a profession. This narrow view of science is blocking progress and may lead to self-destruction.

The speaker emphasizes that there are moments in which asking questions is essential. They describe these as times when questions are not just optional but necessary, framing it as a pivotal moment in the present. The speaker asserts that we are currently in one of those crucial moments when inquiry must occur, suggesting that the act of questioning holds significant weight and consequence at this juncture. In detailing who should be questioned, the speaker mentions a particular individual named Graham. The point raised is that when someone like Graham appears and raises an abundance of questions, those questions should be suppressed. The phrasing used is explicit: such questions “have to be shut up” and “they have to be shut down.” This expresses a stance that vigorous inquiry from Graham or anyone perceived similarly must be halted rather than entertained or explored. The rationale offered for this suppression centers on the potential broader impact of open questioning. The speaker argues that if people begin to ask too many questions, the entire structure they describe as a “house of cards” narrative—one that has been “carefully put in place for the last hundred years to control us”—will suddenly collapse. In other words, the act of widespread, persistent questioning is portrayed as capable of destabilizing a long-standing explanatory framework or narrative that the speaker believes has been used to exercise control over people. Finally, the consequence of such a collapse is described in stark terms: after the house of cards narrative falls, “we’ll see an alternate reality.” This phrase suggests that the exposure of the supposed manipulative or controlling narrative would reveal or give rise to a reality that differs from the one currently presented or accepted. The speaker ties the act of questioning directly to a transformative and potentially unsettling shift in how reality is perceived, implying that unrestrained inquiry would lead to a fundamental reconfiguration of understood norms and truths. In summary, the speaker argues that there are moments when crucial questions must be asked, singles out Graham as a figure whose questions should be silenced, explains that such suppression is justified to prevent the collapse of a long-standing controlling narrative, and warns that the collapse would bring about an alternate reality.

Speaker 0 argues that there are crucial moments in which questions must be asked. They state that when someone like a Graham comes along and asks too many questions, those questioning individuals have to be shut up. They emphasize that they must be shut down. The speaker contends that if people begin asking too many questions, the entire “house of cards” narrative that has been carefully put in place for the last hundred years to control us will come collapsing on our heads. This collapse, according to the speaker, would lead to an alternate reality.

I mean, it's become a joke. These papers that are winning awards at the American College of Gastro, and they're not getting published. So and what I do is I do what I do best, which is basically stir up shit, and I call all my friends. And I go, by the way, my paper has been retracted. That paper of the finding COVID in the stools Yeah. Was considered to be retracted. So, I called Trial Site News, and I said, by the way, you may wanna investigate. That's how they found out about the publishing house, private publishing house that is retracting these papers. So somebody must be paying them. And then I called all my colleagues, Mayo Clinic, Harvard, Yale, and I go, by the way, remember that paper that I found COVID? Well, it got retracted. And they're like, what? But it it passed peer review. Well, your peer review means nothing. And here's the thing. So guess what? You're not getting paid to do these peer reviews. Maybe you should start charging the journals now because clearly, they're going about wasting your time reviewing a paper, and they're going behind your back to retract the paper because it doesn't fit the narrative. So, that's what I do. So, and then the other thing that I did is I called the National Institute of Standards, Scott Jackson. And I basically said, remember my paper that we found COVID in the stools, and you also found COVID in the septic tanks? Well, my paper was retracted. And, you know, they couldn't believe it. They could this is at the government level. People are waking up to see we have a problem. Yeah. This is like the burning of the books.

Speaker 0 argues that conspiracy theories have been made to look like lunacy, noting that the Kennedy assassination popularized the term “conspiracy theorist.” He says it wasn’t widely used before Kennedy, but afterward it became a label for “kooks,” and he’s repeatedly been called that. Speaker 1 acknowledges this dynamic. He and Speaker 0 discuss what a conspiracy is—“more people working together to do something nefarious?”—and Speaker 0 asserts that conspiracies have always happened. He disputes the view that most conspiracies are due to ineptitude, insisting that when there is profit, power, control, and resources involved, most conspiracies, in fact, turn out to be true. He adds that the deeper you dig, the more you realize there’s a concerted effort to make conspiracies seem ridiculous so people won’t be seen as fools. Speaker 1 remarks on the ridicule as well, and Speaker 0 reiterates his own self-description: “I am a conspiracy theorist,” a “foolish person,” and “a professional clown.” He mocks the idea that being labeled foolish is a barrier, and reflects on how others perceive him. Speaker 0 then provides specific, provocative examples of conspiracies he believes are real: Gulf of Tonkin was faked to justify U.S. entry into Vietnam; production of heroin ramped up to 94% of the world’s supply once the U.S. occupied Afghanistan; and the CIA, in the United States, allegedly sold heroin or cocaine in Los Angeles ghettos to fund the Contras versus the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. He states clearly that these claims are real and asserts that there are conspiracy theorists who are “fucking real.” Speaker 1 pushes back on reputation and judgment, and Speaker 0 reaffirms his self-identification as a conspiracy theorist who faces mockery. Speaker 1 suggests that this stance might give him a “superpower.”

The speaker believes COVID vaccine programs should be stopped. They are astounded by the number of papers critical of the vaccine or showing negative effects. The speaker claims a group of researchers funded by Pfizer and the NIH bullies editors to retract papers with negative findings about the vaccine. They assert the number of retractions is appalling. According to the speaker, in one instance where an editor resisted, Nature Springer bought the journal and retracted the paper. The speaker states that this is what they have been dealing with.