reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 administered COVID-19 vaccinations but is unsure of the number. Speaker 0 suggests COVID is a hoax for depopulation, causing deaths and disabilities worldwide. Speaker 1 took responsibility to protect their company. Speaker 0 finds the revelations interesting.

Speaker 0 states that one of their three children experienced health issues, including heart inflammation, after receiving the vaccine and subsequently lost their job for refusing further vaccination. This adverse reaction is officially registered. The speaker recounts a doctor advising their son against further vaccination outside a hospital setting, but later denying having said so. Speaker 1 says there is a good system for reporting side effects in New Zealand and finds no clear evidence of suppression of medical side effects of the Pfizer vaccine. Speaker 0 questions why the vaccine is still in use given the side effects. Speaker 1 responds that society decided to tolerate a certain number of adverse effects for the greater good, characterizing the speaker's family member's reaction as "taking one for the team."

The discussion revolves around the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines. Speaker 0 believes vaccines have done more good than harm, citing personal experiences. Speaker 1 argues that vaccines did not reduce severity, hospitalization, or death, as the virus became milder and early treatment improved outcomes. They claim misclassification bias in reporting vaccine-related deaths and point to high post-vaccine mortality rates. Calls are made to remove vaccines due to safety concerns.

Speaker 0 claims their show is more popular because they are better than Speaker 1. Speaker 0 tells Speaker 1 to stop lecturing about how good they are as a journalist or broadcaster because if they were so good, more people would follow and watch them. Speaker 0 states that most people think Speaker 1 has become a delusional loon. Speaker 1 responds by saying Speaker 0's ego is the number of people that watch their show. Speaker 1 is astounded at the ignorance and could easily call it lying or willful ignorance. Speaker 1 claims Speaker 0 interviewed Bennett and didn't mention the tea ladies lying dead in the Iranian TV station.

A speaker states that a large segment of the public feels betrayed by scientists who won't admit fault regarding COVID-19. They want to know why they were lied to and no longer care about lab funding. The speaker asks what the scientific community needs to say about lockdowns, masks, and vaccines to restore trust. Another speaker responds that they were a vocal advocate against lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and the anti-scientific approach of public health during the pandemic. They also believe that scientific institutions should be transparent about their involvement in dangerous research that may have caused the pandemic, referring to the lab leak hypothesis.

Speaker 0 argues that the BBC should not offer more than the apology already indicated by Samir Shah, who apologized for the error of joining two separate parts of an interview to look like one. He notes Donald Trump called the BBC corrupt and dishonest, which he finds outrageous. He believes Trump has a weak case and that the BBC’s error was editorial, similar to how written journalism uses ellipses; the program balance was not complained about at the time. He says the BBC should have corrected and apologized earlier, and that the BBC’s thoroughness can slow public relations. Speaker 1 asks whether Trump has a strong case. Speaker 0 responds that Trump does not; it was an editorial error, and the BBC should have used a visual cue to indicate the quote’s continuation. He suggests the error was serious and should have been corrected earlier, though he acknowledges the BBC makes errors as do all broadcasters. Speaker 1 asks if the two high-profile resignations were due to pressure from the American administration. Speaker 0 says no, expressing shock at Tim Davie’s resignation, praising Davie as the best person to navigate the BBC through charter renewal and public broadcasting challenges, and emphasizing the BBC’s commitment to impartiality. He contrasts this with populist right voices that interpret impartiality as broadcasting their views, noting the BBC makes errors but remains committed to impartiality. He maintains that the BBC is not institutionally biased and disputes the idea that the BBC is metropolitan, citing its Salford base and national reach. Speaker 1 asks if there is a BBC board coup or significant political interference. Speaker 0 is cautious about calling it a coup, citing examples of powerful figures like Robbie Gibb but avoiding naming individuals. He notes that non-executive directors were appointed under previous administrations and mentions involvement by a former Conservative Party leader who denounced the BBC and supported Robbie Gibb. He doubts that the intent is to destroy the BBC, but suspects some people want the BBC weakened and may hold strong views on license fees and the charter. He does not label it a coup. Speaker 1 asks how the BBC should move on, aside from Trump’s potential lawsuit. Speaker 0 says the BBC must apologize more promptly and publicly when wrong, especially in a fractured society where impartiality is crucial. He suggests the BBC should be on the front foot with apologies and even-handed treatment when treated unfairly. He questions who could lead the BBC in the coming months and stresses the need for balance and restored impartiality in judgment about the BBC’s performance and future.

COVID vaccines are declared safe by Speaker 0. Speaker 1 expresses pain, trauma, and regret due to lack of help for vaccine injuries. They mention others with amputations and heart conditions, and question why support is lacking. They criticize the vaccine damage payment scheme and highlight over 30,000 adverse reactions in Scotland. Speaker 1 demands that Rashid Shunaka do the right thing. Speaker 0 responds by stating that decisions during the pandemic were based on medical advice from experts, guiding vaccine rollout and eligibility.

Speaker 0 questions the idea that Doctor Fauci is involved in a plot to kill millions, seeking clarity on the claim. Speaker 1 says they are reasonable and that Fauci is not an innocent bystander; he is aware of what he’s doing, but the extent of involvement is not known to them. Speaker 2 cites the Center for Countering Digital Hate, stating Dirashad Bhattar is one of the top spreaders of COVID disinformation, once with more than a million followers. Bhattar allegedly claimed “More people are dying from the COVID vaccine than from COVID,” and that “the Red Cross won’t accept blood from people who have had the COVID nineteen vaccine.” He posted that “most who took COVID vaccines will be dead by 2025,” and promoted the overarching conspiracy that COVID was a planned operation as part of a secret global plot to depopulate the earth. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 2 believes the pandemic was planned; Speaker 2 confirms there is a suspicion of a plan to reduce the population, though Speaker 1 says they have no idea. Speaker 2 criticizes Bhattar, saying it would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous and that Qatar (Qatar’s commentary) compares COVID and the vaccine to World War II and Doctor Anthony Fauci to Adolf Hitler. Speaker 1 pushes back by asking to what extent Fauci would be equated with Hitler. Speaker 3 asserts that lies cost lives in a pandemic, and that encouraging people not to vaccinate will cause people to lose their lives. Speaker 2 describes Qatar as encouraging distrust of life-saving vaccines and using false, twisted information and unproven conspiracies to do so. Speaker 0 asks if the COVID vaccine works. Speaker 1 states the vaccine is very effective at what it was designed for, but “it’s not preventing death. Certainly not.” Speaker 2 contradicts, claiming that Bhattar believes life-saving vaccines are more dangerous than the virus itself, and Speaker 1 asks why the vaccine would cause more deaths than the problem itself, noting 6,340,000,000 doses administered. Speaker 0 requests the completion of a sentence about what each vaccine is geared up for, but Speaker 1 says he’s not a vaccine developer and mentions “Scientific corruption.” Speaker 2 notes Qatar has been removed from Facebook and Instagram due to disinformation but remains on Twitter, Telegram, and his own site, filled with falsehoods. Speaker 0 recalls a September 5 retweet of a doctored AstraZeneca packaging photo suggesting the vaccine was made in 2018; Speaker 1 says the photo was perhaps fake, and questions why Speaker 0 would challenge the agencies that have caused deaths. Speaker 0 argues it’s reasonable to question agencies, noting Speaker 1 had 1,200,000 followers who received false information; Speaker 1 admits if a tweet with a doctor’s photo was sent in error, it was a mistake, and he cannot make mistakes on the numbers. Speaker 2 notes vaccine studies showing vaccines remain ninety percent effective in preventing hospitalization and death, while Qatar claims the vaccine is the danger. Speaker 1 counters that thousands are dying and the delta variant is “vaccine injured,” citing CDC data, which Speaker 0 disputes as not true. Speaker 1 asserts he does not want to be part of a mass genocide and suggests this era will be remembered as a worst time in history, even worse than World War II. Speaker 0 concludes by calling Speaker 1 crazy. Speaker 2 ends with a reference to North Carolina’s Board of Medicine reprimanding someone prior to COVID.

The speaker claims colored vaccines are dangerous, with no clinical benefit and over 10,000,000 deaths worldwide. They suggest avoiding vaccination altogether, citing studies showing unvaccinated kids are healthier. They criticize censorship by the government and medical boards, leading to job loss and license revocation for speaking out against the narrative. The medical journals are also deemed corrupt. Speaker 1 mentions not every batch causes harm, as they themselves took a few shots without issue.

COVID vaccines are declared safe by Speaker 0. Speaker 1 expresses pain, trauma, and regret due to lack of help for vaccine injuries. They mention people with amputations and heart conditions, and question why they had to set up a support group in Scotland. They criticize the vaccine damage payment scheme and state that over 30,000 people in Scotland have had adverse reactions to the vaccine. Speaker 1 demands that Rashid Shunaka start doing the right thing. Speaker 0 responds by saying that decisions regarding the vaccine were made based on medical advice from experts.

Speaker 0 notes a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 says their own government told them a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2 states they have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 1 says doctors made extra money to push vaccines and were given a billing code to do it, and she has pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 3 asserts they’ve purchased the vaccine that hasn’t been approved and distributed it to the provinces, so the second it’s approved they can start jabbing themselves and pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4 asks why vaccinations were necessary, noting that when going to the hospital for birth, you expect to go home, and then you don’t. Speaker 0 suspects criminal negligence by the government and public health officials. Speaker 2 agrees, saying “Possible.” Speaker 0 contends they pushed a narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 recalls wiretapping, harassment, and charges, and that they didn’t allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1 says Canadian babies died, and police are trying to cover it up by stopping detective Helen Graves from testifying about it. Speaker 3 comments that dominant individuals maintain subordinates’ place through constant aggression. Speaker 5 argues that choosing not to vaccinate is one thing, but being unable to fly or ride trains with vaccinated people and thus putting them at risk is another issue. Speaker 2 says CBC started with a story to implicate her and paint her in an uncomplimentary light to the public. Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of CBC, describing it as a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 3 declares this is the most significant health matter affecting children today, and they are still not investigating. Speaker 2 asserts that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, and how they work together and censored information; all of it ties to this one case, making it dangerous.

Speaker 0 apologizes for any discrimination based on vaccine status and promises amnesty for those prosecuted during COVID restrictions. Speaker 1 acknowledges the restrictions faced by unvaccinated individuals, such as job loss, limited access to loved ones, and travel restrictions. They consider this discrimination extreme but also recognize discrimination faced by other groups. Speaker 1 emphasizes the need to avoid creating a segregated society based on medical choices.

The speaker always wanted to broadcast in their hometown. However, they became bothered by the media's direction, even before George Floyd, due to moral and ethical concerns. After George Floyd's death, mandates required that half of interviewees had to be non-white or from a protected class. CBS News allegedly prohibited using the term "riots" in reporting. The speaker feels blessed to be on the other side now. The other speaker believes the net effect was the death of many people and the destruction of an American city. They are bothered that it's been memory-holed and no one has been held accountable.

The speaker expresses confusion over why there was such intense obsession and hysteria surrounding Ukraine. They mention losing friends over the topic and being confronted by someone who was mad at them for their views on Ukraine. The speaker also discusses the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in controlling media coverage through advertising. They admit to not having expertise in vaccines but had reservations about taking them. When they expressed their concerns, they faced backlash. The speaker questions the motives behind the strong push for vaccines and suggests there may be a powerful force influencing society. The other speaker briefly mentions that the vaccine is safe and effective in preventing serious illness and death.

There is a discussion about how public trust in vaccination has changed since the pandemic. The speaker notes that years ago there were “five people in the world who were prepared to talk about the thorny issue of vaccination.” Post COVID, however, “half the adult population of the world are now saying, hold on, we don't trust you. You lied to us. It's not what you told us, safe and effective.” This skepticism extends to vaccines given to children, with the question, “Does this apply to all the other vaccines you're putting into my kids?” The speaker then asserts that “safety studies haven't been done,” suggesting that important research behind vaccines is incomplete or lacking. This leads to the claim that “they've created this mess for themselves.” Despite the frustration, the speaker emphasizes the moral weight of deception, stating, “it's really tough to lie. I mean, lying gets you into real trouble.”

We broke the public's trust and shut down one side of the debate. We portrayed doctors and experts chosen by the CBC as competent and trustworthy, while labeling those who questioned the narrative as dangerous and spreading disinformation. This affected me personally as a journalist with solid contacts in the community. I heard stories of suffering and pain from people who were not being heard. Some were injured, some lost their jobs due to vaccination status, some were ostracized, and others were depressed over lockdowns and mandates. Parents agonized over whether to vaccinate their children. I carried the weight of their truth not being given a voice, which affected my well-being.

Speaker 0 expresses clear personal hesitation about vaccines, stating that they are not jabbed and would not touch the experimental mRNA and gene therapy experiments, asserting there is a lot of concern about these technologies from many medical people. They reference political figures and media narratives, saying Kennedy in the United States will expose much of this material and that Donald Trump is keen to see it as well. Speaker 0 then recalls personal health concerns related to vaccination, mentioning friends who have experienced myocarditis, blood clots, strokes, and other problems after receiving the COVID jab, and emphasizes the idea of long-term effects being unknown. Speaker 1 counters by saying they still believe in vaccinations, but notes that no one on that side would discuss possible problems with vaccines, and they themselves got vaccinated multiple times and are now open to the idea that there might have been problems. They acknowledge the complexity of the issue and state they do not object to vaccines inherently. Speaker 0 clarifies their stance further, stating they are not a medical expert but their instinct was not to have the vaccine, and they acknowledge how difficult it was to avoid it since the state appeared to force people to receive it. Speaker 1 adds that their own vaccination status includes having been vaxxed several times, and they feel okay today, though they recognize the complexity of the situation and that long-term effects are uncertain. Speaker 0 then discusses the notion that the state and public health authorities pressured people to vaccinate, naming the NHS, Matt Hancock, and portraying the messaging as a duty to vaccinate “because you might kill granny,” mentioning Trudeau and the World Economic Forum Brigade as part of the broader narrative. Speaker 0 proposes an alternative approach: those who are vulnerable should isolate themselves. They reference Anders Tegnell’s approach in Sweden, which did not impose lockdowns. They claim Sweden’s economy hardly missed a heartbeat, in contrast to “ours,” and argue that the pandemic greatly disrupted young people’s lives and education, with knock-on effects described as huge. Speaker 0 concludes that those who made the lockdown decisions are not ready to admit they got it wrong, for a host of reasons.

The speakers discuss the issue of hate speech on Twitter. Speaker 0 mentions that there aren't enough people to police hate speech, while Speaker 1 questions what constitutes hateful content. Speaker 0 admits to seeing more hateful content personally but cannot provide specific examples. Speaker 1 challenges this, stating that without examples, Speaker 0 doesn't know what they're talking about. The conversation then shifts to COVID misinformation and the BBC's role in reporting it. Speaker 1 accuses the BBC of misinformation and changing its editorial policy under government pressure. Speaker 0 clarifies that they are not a representative of the BBC and tries to steer the conversation elsewhere. Speaker 1 continues to press the issue.

The speakers claim the push for a COVID vaccine was motivated by money, and they believe there's a connection between the vaccine and subsequent deaths and blood clots. They express frustration that people aren't acknowledging this connection. One speaker shares a story about a veteran who was allegedly told that the hospital treating him was not allowed to connect his adverse side effects to the vaccine, even when listed as side effects. They say corporations don't want to talk about it because they mandated the vaccine. They believe people who got vaccinated don't want to admit they made a bad decision, leading them to deny any link between the vaccine and increased mortality rates, strokes, cancer, and heart attacks. One speaker recalls being gaslit by a former prime minister who denied coercing anyone into getting vaccinated, despite restrictions placed on the unvaccinated. Another speaker says they were misrepresented on CNN during their own recovery from COVID.

The speaker states that the CBC betrayed the public trust by shutting down one side of the debate, branding chosen experts as trustworthy while portraying others as spreaders of disinformation, regardless of their background. As a journalist, the speaker was contacted by people with stories of suffering, including the vaccine-injured, those who lost jobs due to vaccination status, families torn apart, depressed students, and parents agonizing over vaccinating their children. The speaker felt the burden of these untold stories and felt they had failed to give voice to their truth. The speaker witnessed the collapse of journalism and believes they were pushing propaganda, defined as one-sided information broadcast to influence opinion, or manipulative persuasion in service of an agenda.

Speaker 0 argues that 'the trustworthiness of the information that we actually receive from the news media' is a major problem and notes that 'the easiest thing for our democratic colleagues to do is to scare people.' He asks, 'COVID nineteen was politicized?' Speaker 1 answers, 'the whole process was politicized' and says 'we were lied to about everything... the vaccines would prevent transmission' and 'they prevent infection'—claims he says are contradicted by 'the animal studies and the clinical trial showed.' He accuses the CDC of letting 'the teachers union' write school-closure orders that 'hurt working people all over the country, and then pretend it was science based.' He adds examples: 'Martin Koldor from Harvard' was 'ejected [from COVID]... because he wasn't in the orthodoxy'; 'FDA during COVID' officials 'Gruber and Krausz' criticized Biden mandates; Biden said, 'I would never take that vaccine, the Trump vaccine' then mandated it and fired top FDA officials who said it had not been properly tested.' The exchange ends with 'Yes.'

Speaker 1 explains their decision not to take the vaccine, citing concerns about its rushed development and safety. They express a desire to set an example for their children and stand by their convictions, even at the cost of losing money. Speaker 0 acknowledges that standing by one's convictions is typically seen as heroic, but Speaker 1 faced criticism instead. Speaker 1 clarifies that they never publicly discouraged vaccination and preferred to keep their decision private. They mention knowing someone who was injured by the vaccine and emphasize the importance of speaking up about such experiences. Speaker 0 agrees that telling the truth often leads to trouble, highlighting a perceived lack of consequences for lying.

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.

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.

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.