reSee.it - Related Video Feed

We made mistakes during COVID, but some guessed better. Some said closing schools was wrong, now it's acknowledged the virus could have started in a lab. We overreacted, did silly things, and embraced bad ideas. Dissenting opinions were right. No COVID commission, no lessons learned. Gain of function research continues, animals are still mistreated. Money was stolen, blame put on Biden. Trump ignored COVID.

When the government told us vaccinated people couldn't get the virus, were they guessing or lying? There was evidence of natural reinfection during the pandemic. Since the vaccine was based on natural immunity, one can't definitively say vaccination is superior to natural infection, even if it's often slightly better. I can't rule out the possibility that the government wasn't truthful when they stated vaccinated individuals couldn't contract the virus. While I ensured my susceptible family members were vaccinated, we still used layered protection during surges, knowing vaccine immunity could wane. The hope was that the vaccine would prevent transmission. Scientists and public health leaders must clearly communicate what's known versus what's hoped. When the government said the vaccinated couldn't get it, it wasn't the truth, but possibly a guess, a lie, or just hope.

Wir hatten in Deutschland im Jahr 2020 historisch niedrige Krankenhausbelegungen und keine außergewöhnlichen Atemwegserkrankungen. Die Sterblichkeit stieg erst 2021 an. Schweden schnitt ohne Masken und Lockdowns besser ab. Die Politik reagierte mit übertriebenen Maßnahmen, isolierte Alte und verursachte Existenzschäden. Gerichte und Medien versagten bei der Überprüfung. Es gab eine Kriminalisierung von Kritikern und eine Verharmlosung von Impfschäden. Es werden Fragen zur Regierungshandlung während der Pandemie gestellt. Bestseller reflektieren die Stimmung. Ein Untersuchungsausschuss wurde abgelehnt, daher ist Aufklärung wichtig. Translation: We had historically low hospital occupancy rates in Germany in 2020 and no extraordinary respiratory diseases. Mortality only increased in 2021. Sweden performed better without masks and lockdowns. The government responded with exaggerated measures, isolating the elderly and causing economic damage. Courts and media failed to review. There was a criminalization of critics and a downplaying of vaccine injuries. Questions are being raised about government action during the pandemic. Bestsellers reflect the mood. An inquiry was rejected, so clarification is important.

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.

The speaker expresses disappointment that the existence of myocarditis was known very early on. They claim to have written to Fauci in 2020 and 2021 about lymphopenia and the failure to clear the virus, asserting that this failure was also known early on. The speaker states the perception of 95% efficacy was inaccurate and suggests there were perverse incentives at play, and now the consequences must be recognized. Another speaker then states that this is why Fauci needed a pardon.

Wir hatten historisch niedrige Klinikbelegungen in Deutschland 2020, weniger schwere Atemwegserkrankungen, und die Sterblichkeit stieg erst 2021. Schweden schnitt besser ab als Deutschland laut WHO. Die Pandemie basierte auf Massentests mit schwankenden Ergebnissen. Politik reagierte mit Lockdowns, Schulschließungen, und isolierte Alte. Kritiker wurden kriminalisiert, Medien folgten dem PCR-Narrativ. Es gab keine Gefahr, aber die Politik schürte Angst. Warum die Kehrtwende zu Massnahmen? Warum Zwangsimpfungen? Bestseller reflektieren die Stimmung. Ein Untersuchungsausschuss wäre angemessen gewesen. Vielen Dank. Translation: We had historically low hospital occupancy rates in Germany in 2020, fewer severe respiratory illnesses, and mortality only increased in 2021. Sweden performed better than Germany according to the WHO. The pandemic was based on mass testing with fluctuating results. Politics responded with lockdowns, school closures, and isolating the elderly. Critics were criminalized, media followed the PCR narrative. There was no danger, but politics fueled fear. Why the turnaround to measures? Why forced vaccinations? Bestsellers reflect the mood. An investigative committee would have been appropriate. Thank you very much.

This virus likely did not originate naturally; it stems from scientific arrogance. In the early pandemic days, there were claims about a wet market origin, but evidence soon emerged showing many cases unrelated to it. By early January, I informed the National Security Council and Anthony Fauci that the virus was highly infectious in humans, suggesting a lab origin. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is well-known for coronavirus research, making the lab leak theory plausible. Despite discussions, Fauci maintained a focus on the wet market hypothesis, disregarding other possibilities. I believed a broader scientific investigation was necessary, but only a single hypothesis was considered.

We made mistakes during COVID, but some guessed better. Some said closing schools was wrong, now it's acknowledged. Stupid things were done - overreactions, weird rules, and bad ideas. Dissenting opinions were right. No COVID commission, no lessons learned. Need for better ventilation ignored. Gain of function research continues. Money given out, much stolen. Blamed inflation on Biden, but bringing back Trump is not the answer.

Treating people like adults and providing qualified information could have potentially prevented lockdowns. However, disagreeing with this perspective, the speaker argues that not knowing the outcome doesn't change the necessity of lockdowns. Lockdowns were implemented when the hospital system in New York was overwhelmed, aiming to halt the spread of the virus. While lockdowns have gained a negative reputation, they were considered a last resort and were never intended to be permanent.

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.

From the start, the lines were drawn regarding the virus's origins. I believed it came from a lab, while others disagreed. My position as head of the CDC was undermined, and I was told it was a White House decision. I find that hard to believe; it seems like a cover-up. Why would we share advanced biotechnology with China? I doubt the measures in place will be foolproof; issues will arise. There have been multiple lies throughout this situation.

"there wasn't a pandemic, there wasn't a public health emergency, there was nothing unusual happening." "In order for an emergency to be declared, which I think he did in 2020, March, whatever it was, He has to have some evidence of that." "There is nowhere in the world you can find increased frequency of respiratory illness and respiratory deaths anywhere until after the WHO called a pandemic." "They called a pandemic with no evidence of a pandemic." "They were lying to you." "Then they created the we, all our governments, created the impression of a pandemic by using misusing a test that doesn't measure what it says, PCR." "It's not a mistake. They they knew it was rubbish." "It's as simple as that." "If you go and look for it, you'll not find the evidence."

This virus likely did not originate naturally; it stems from scientific arrogance. In the early pandemic, there were claims about a wet market being the source, but evidence soon showed many cases unrelated to it. By early January, it was clear the wet market narrative was misleading. I informed the National Security Council and Anthony Fauci that the virus was highly infectious, suggesting it had been engineered in a lab. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is well-known for coronavirus research, making the lab leak theory plausible. Despite discussions, Fauci maintained a focus on the wet market hypothesis, dismissing the need for broader scientific investigation.

In Deutschland gab es im Jahr 2020 und 2021 weniger schwere Atemwegserkrankungen als üblich. Die Sterblichkeit stieg erst ab 2021 an. Schweden schnitt besser ab als Deutschland. Die Regierung reagierte mit Lockdowns und Zwangsmaßnahmen, während Kritiker kriminalisiert wurden. Es gab eine Kehrtwende in den Maßnahmen, obwohl keine besondere Gefahr bestand. Die Politik zwang die Bevölkerung zur Impfung mit experimentellen Impfstoffen. Es gibt Bestseller, die die Ereignisse kritisch beleuchten. Ein Untersuchungsausschuss wurde abgelehnt, daher ist es wichtig, dass wir zur Aufklärung beitragen. Translation: In Germany, there were fewer severe respiratory illnesses in 2020 and 2021 than usual. Mortality only increased from 2021 onwards. Sweden performed better than Germany. The government responded with lockdowns and mandatory measures, while critics were criminalized. There was a turnaround in the measures, despite no significant danger. The government forced the population to get vaccinated with experimental vaccines. There are bestsellers that critically examine the events. An investigative committee was rejected, so it is important that we contribute to clarification.

In China, a doctor discovers a case of atypical pneumonia, which is unusual. Within 11 days, the first PCR test kits are shipped and gene sequences are published. The World Health Organization accepts a PCR protocol as the gold standard for testing. Clinical symptoms and asymptomatic transmission are also studied and published. However, the speaker believes that all these steps were premeditated and false.

The Pfizer COVID vaccine was not tested for its ability to stop the transmission of the virus before it entered the market. The speaker acknowledges that they had to work quickly to understand the situation and move at the speed of science.

It is important to prioritize PCR tests, but our capacity is not sufficient. Vienna can conduct more PCR tests in a day than all the labs in Germany combined. We lack equipment and personnel, and the German healthcare policy prioritizes the number of tests per person less than Vienna. Currently, rapid tests are essential, but their quality varies, especially regarding the Omicron variant. Authorities, including politicians, should ensure that high-quality rapid tests are used in testing centers, schools, and care homes. We pay a lot for these tests, and we rely on them. However, even the best rapid test is useless if not administered properly. Some test centers have questionable methods, and authorities need to increase supervision.

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.

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.

The speaker believes criticism of them is an attack on science. They stated vaccinated people don't need to worry about serious illness or transmission, but later acknowledged fully vaccinated people can transmit the infection. Masks were described as working "at the margins, maybe ten percent." School closures were considered an appropriate approach initially, but remote learning may have "forever damaged" kids, though the speaker doesn't believe it's "irreparably damaged anyone." The speaker claims they didn't recommend lockdowns, but recommended shutting the country down to the president, knowing it would have serious economic consequences. The speaker suggests the virus originated from the animal-human interface in wet markets, but that the place of origin was not within the market itself. Another intelligence arm concluded COVID began with a lab leak in China. The speaker denies the NIH funded gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute, while others claim NIH funded research that made a bat coronavirus more contagious. The speaker denies that this is gain of function.

What is it? What what is it about humanity that that that that wants to go to all the details and stuff and listen you know, these guys like Fauci get up there and start talking. You know, he didn't know anything really about anything, and I'd say that to his face. Nothing. The man thinks you can take a blood sample and stick it in an electron microscope, if it's got a virus in there, you'll know it. He doesn't understand electron microscopy, and he doesn't understand medicine and he should not be in a position like he's in. Most of those guys up there on the top are just total administrative people and they don't know anything about what's going on with the bottom. You know, those guys have got an agenda, which is not what we would like them to have, being that we pay for them to take care of our health in some way. They've got a personal kind of agenda. They make up their own rules as they go. They change them when they want to, and they smugly like Tony Fauci does not mind going on television in front of the people that pay his salary and lie directly into the camera. You can't expect the sheep to really respect the best and the brightest. They don't know the difference, really. I mean, I I like humans. Don't don't get me wrong. But, basically, there is a there is a there is a vast the vast majority of them do not possess the the ability to judge who is and who isn't a really good scientist. I mean, that's a problem. That's a main problem, actually, with science, I'd say, in this century because science is being judged by people. Funding is being done by people who don't understand it. K. Who do we trust? Fauci. Fauci doesn't know enough to, you know if Fauci wants to get on television with somebody who knows a little bit about this stuff and debate him, he could easily do it because he's been asked. I mean, I've had a lot of people, president of the University of South Carolina, ask Voucher if he'd come down there and debate me on the stage in front of the student body because I wanted somebody who was from the other side to come down there and balance my Oh. Because I felt like, well, these guys can listen to me, but I need to have somebody else down here that's gonna tell me the other side. But it was didn't wanna do it.

Doctors, politicians, and even us journalists have made numerous inaccurate or false statements about this virus. We will now attempt to explain why we have been so wrong.

In China, a strange case of atypical pneumonia is reported by an eye doctor. Within 11 days, the first PCR kits to test for the virus are shipped. The World Health Organization accepts a PCR protocol as the gold standard for testing. A study on clinical symptoms related to COVID is published, followed by a study on asymptomatic transmission. All of these developments occur within a compressed timeframe of just 26 days. The speaker argues that each step was premeditated and false.

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.

The speaker discusses how quick action and isolation could have extinguished COVID-19, citing the success with SARS. They criticize political interference and the WHO for mishandling the pandemic, leading to a global crisis. Despite pointing out these failures, the speaker feels unappreciated for providing factual information.