reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker addresses the World Health Organization and argues that current measures like social distancing, hand hygiene, and surface disinfection are sufficient to control the spread of COVID-19. They believe that the scientific understanding of how the virus is transmitted will naturally improve over time.

Not many people in Canada have immunity to the infection, which shows that they have done a great job in preventing its spread. This lack of immunity is due to the low number of natural infections.

The speaker asserts their organization is the most up-to-date and trustworthy source of information, along with the director general of health and the ministry of health. For clarification of rumors, the public is directed to covid19.govt.nz, and advised to dismiss any other sources. The speaker states they will continue to be the single source of truth, providing information frequently and sharing everything they can. Anything else should be taken with a grain of salt.

There is a drug called Ivermectin that has proven to be highly effective in combating the current crisis. This is not an exaggeration, but a scientific recommendation based on extensive data gathered over the past three months. The NIH's recommendation against using Ivermectin outside of controlled trials was made in August, but since then, numerous studies from various countries have shown its miraculous impact. It has been found to completely prevent the transmission of the virus and ensure that individuals who take it do not get sick.

The discussion centers on a cruise-ship hantavirus outbreak and how to interpret its significance without panicking. The speakers question what is actually known about hantavirus testing, the specific strains involved, and how reliable the tests are compared to COVID-19 PCR testing. They note hantavirus is an RNA virus and discuss the possibility of ivermectin as a therapeutic, while raising concerns about government secrecy and information control. Key points raised: - Hantavirus tests and strain identification: The panel asks how testing is done, whether tests distinguish the Andes virus involved on the ship, and how reliable the tests are. They point out that hantavirus is a rare infection in the United States and that historically the CDC used antibodies, while PCR is widely available but must be interpreted in the proper clinical context. - Transmission and mortality: It is stated that hantaviruses are not known to spread between humans, and the Andes virus is the exception with rare human-to-human transmission requiring very close contact. The speakers reference reported mortality rates for hantavirus (between 25% and 50%), and question how many people on the cruise may be affected given three deaths. - Vaccine and bioweapons concerns: There is skepticism about why a vaccine would be developed for a virus that is not readily transmissible between humans, with speculation about doomsday scenarios and potential bioweapons research. Moderna is mentioned as having announced vaccine work in 2024, and there is discussion about the stock decline related to COVID-19 vaccine uptake. - Ivermectin and treatment debates: The conversation revisits ivermectin as a potential antiviral for RNA viruses like hantavirus, noting patterns from the COVID-19 era of suppression of certain treatments and questioning the standards of evidence used to promote or censor therapies. A prior book, The War on Ivermectin, is referenced in relation to disinformation about the drug. - Media dynamics and public perception: The dialogue highlights concerns about how media coverage and social media influence public fear, including mentions of influencers and a pattern of rapid information spread. They discuss the possibility that the outbreak’s prominence could be driven by media or other non-pandemic factors, paralleling past COVID coverage. - Adverse-event chatter: There is mention of hantavirus appearing among listed possible adverse events for a COVID-19 vaccine, with questions about why such a link would be considered and the strength of that association. A colleague notes a surge of hantavirus literature around the outbreak, which they find unusual for a limited outbreak. - Long COVID and brain effects (aside from the outbreak): A NYU Langone Health study is cited, reporting that long COVID sufferers show changes in a brain region involved in cleaning brain tissue, linking chronic inflammation and spike protein exposure to potential early signs of Alzheimer’s disease, as part of a broader discussion on lingering effects of viral illnesses. Overall, the speakers emphasize asking cautious, clinically grounded questions about the outbreak, testing, transmission risk, and the broader media and political context, while warning against fearmongering and noting the possibility that the intense coverage may reflect patterns observed during the pandemic.

We are having high-level and low-level meetings to address the challenges of the virus. We have learned from the past and are working on improvements in operations. This situation highlights the importance of research to keep up with the virus's mutations as it spreads.

Now that we're coming out of the pandemic, the issue of variants will mainly be discussed by specialists. They will talk about the impact of these variants in conferences. Currently, the planned vaccination covers all variants. And does vaccination limit the emergence of new variants? Absolutely, by reducing the number of affected individuals. It decreases the portion of the population where the virus can multiply and mutate, thus leading to new variants. So, vaccination is absolutely essential to control the situation.

There is a consensus that appears in the World Health Organization’s ten-year plan, which has been in place for a long time. The plan states that people should prepare for the coming ten years because a major infectious crisis is anticipated. In other words, the plan foretells that over the next decade there will be a significant infectious-health emergency. The speaker notes that “this was year 1,” indicating that the current year is the first year of that ten-year horizon outlined by the plan.

In this exchange, the speakers reference the World Health Organization’s ten-year plan. The first speaker states that the plan has long warned: “for the coming 10 years, there will be a large infectious disease crisis,” and notes that “this was year 1.” The second speaker adds that the aim is to prepare and help, should a second pandemic occur, and asserts that, based on years of the speakers’ discussions, “the chance that a second pandemic comes is very large.” The first speaker reiterates that there is consensus and that the plan has anticipated a major infectious disease crisis over the decade, emphasizing that the warning has been a longstanding part of the plan.

Speaker 0 outlines a surge of severe health problems following what they call “the stabby jabby,” noting that after that point there were increases in heart issues, kidney issues, and diabetes problems. They observe that even patients without diabetes saw a 75 percent increase in diabetes in 2022, and that among patients with diabetes who contracted Shmovid, their diabetes “is no longer under control anymore. They're on two and three different medications.” They describe this as just the beginning. The speaker emphasizes that heart issues are “out of control,” with a high volume of heart consults and a shift to placing community veterans into the community due to a shortage of cardiologists. They claim there aren’t enough heart monitors available to meet demand. They reference “TurboCancers” and add that kidney issues were occurring “up the wazoo” after 2022. They report a rise in pneumonia cases in the last four months, including a veteran who had been on nine medications for pneumonia with no resolution. They state the flu cases are persistent and that skin issues are “mind blowing,” including bleeding in the eye and at the back of the retina, as well as a surge in strokes “through the roof,” including strokes in the eyes and in the brain, plus embolisms and pulmonary embolisms. The speaker describes hospital conditions in the Portland Metro Area as astonishing, noting personal fear that leads to avoiding restrooms due to concerns about exposure, and mentions being among “three people who didn’t get it” out of a hospital of many staff. They characterize the situation as terrifying. They describe skin wounds and sores that resist debridement, packing, or wrapping, remaining visibly the same after weeks. They conclude that people are dying at an extraordinary rate and reflect on sixteen years in their position, saying they have “never seen people die like this ever.” Finally, the speaker anticipates the long-term implications: all the people who have gotten it will require care, housing, and coordination for care, and questions who will manage this given many medical staff having contracted the illness themselves. They wrap up with a personal warning and a closing remark: “Hope that helps.”

Canadian health officials assure the public that the risk of coronavirus remains low and there is no need to panic. They address the spread of misinformation on social media and emphasize that Canada is prepared to detect and contain the virus. Border measures are deemed ineffective and potentially harmful in controlling the disease. Special screening at customs is not observed. The use of masks is not recommended for healthy individuals, although research suggests they could help reduce the pandemic. An interesting point is made that if everyone stayed still and isolated for two weeks, the virus would die.

Mammals, including minks, otters, foxes, and sea lions, have been infected with H5N1 avian influenza. WHO is monitoring closely as the virus spreads from wild birds and poultry. The risk to humans is currently low, but we must be prepared for any changes. WHO is working with national authorities and partners to study human cases and ensure vaccine and antiviral supplies are available globally. Translation (if needed): Mammals like minks, otters, foxes, and sea lions have caught H5N1 avian flu. WHO is watching closely as it spreads from birds and poultry. The risk to people is low, but we need to be ready for any changes. WHO is collaborating with countries and partners to research human cases and ensure vaccines and antivirals are ready worldwide.

The head of public health in Canada has been giving press conferences stating that the risk to Canadians is very low. The surveillance system is working as it should, detecting incoming cases and treating them appropriately. Information is being shared rapidly with other jurisdictions in Canada, allowing for a rapid response and containment of the disease spread. The risk remains low. People can protect their health by washing their hands, practicing good hygiene, and getting their flu shot, whether it's from coronavirus or the flu.

The speaker discusses three approaches to address the current situation. Firstly, they mention the importance of testing and contact tracing to control the spread of the issue. Secondly, they highlight the significance of developing effective treatments to combat the problem. Lastly, they mention the potential of a vaccine, which is expected to be available in the next year or two. The speaker suggests that instead of referring to the vaccine as the "final solution," it might be better to call it the "best solution" to avoid any negative connotations.

An aggressive action can alter the expected shape of an infectious disease outbreak, which is significant for China and the rest of the world.

A group of individuals met and reached a consensus on the use of Ivermectin as a solution to a public health emergency. They promptly shared this information with the FDA and Dr. Fauci.

You may have heard about the cruise ship stranded for days near Cap Verde, where a rare virus outbreak killed three people and sickened a few more. The illness is allegedly due to hantavirus, described as an airborne virus that comes from rodent droppings, urine, or saliva, and that also transmits from human to human. The speaker contrasts this with the COVID story, which was said to come from a bat and a pangolin and some wet market. A reference is also made to January 2020, when people were stranded on an Italian ship. There is a plot twist in this account: one woman left the ship and collapsed at the airport in Johannesburg, which the speaker says probably infected other people, drawing a parallel to the movie Contagion. The speaker claims that fake news media are sharing this blogger’s video on purpose to spread fear among the public. The message conveyed is that all parties want people to feel safe, but fear campaigns typically begin with the World Health Organization saying there is nothing to worry about, while “we’re monitoring the situation” in case people fall for it. The speaker asserts that once monitoring is in place, the story is amplified, the fear meter is cranked up, and mandates follow. In closing, the speaker urges keeping the story right where it belongs, implying it should not be amplified or believed.

The pandemic has been on a downward trend with increasing population immunity and decreasing mortality. The emergency committee recommends declaring an end to the public health emergency of international concern. COVID-19 is not over as a global health threat, as the virus is still present, causing deaths and evolving into new variants. There is a risk of new surges in cases and deaths. It is crucial for countries to not let their guard down, dismantle their systems, or downplay the seriousness of COVID-19.

The panel discusses replication (replicon) vaccines and their potential dangers, focusing on how they differ from conventional messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines and what new risks might emerge as this technology develops. Key points and concerns raised - Replicon vaccines concept and fundamental differences - Replicon vaccines use replication-capable genetic material, so the embedded genetic information not only makes antigen proteins but also multiplies inside the cell. They are described as having both constitutive function (the ability to make proteins) and, crucially, the capacity to replicate, which distinguishes them from traditional, non-replicating mRNA vaccines. - It is explained that replication introduces additional mutation and recombination opportunities, because the RNA genome is copied more than once, and the process can produce variants that differ from the original design. - Central dogma exceptions and viral biology - The speakers explain that while the central dogma (DNA → RNA → protein) generally governs biology, some viruses violate this, with RNA viruses that replicate via RNA-dependent replication and even some reverse-transcribing retroviruses that convert RNA to DNA and integrate into genomes. This context is used to frame why replicon vaccines could behave unpredictably. - Potential risks of replication and spread - A core concern is that the replicon approach might allow the vaccine genome to spread beyond the initial target cells, potentially reaching other cells and tissues, or even spreading to other people via exosomes or other means. Exosomes can transport DNA, RNA, and proteins between cells; thus, the replicon genome could in theory be disseminated. - The possibility of homologous or heterologous recombination between replicon genomes and wild-type viruses could yield new variants. The panel emphasizes the difficulty of controlling such recombination in a living system. - Specific material and design considerations - The use of viral components like spike protein genes in replicon vaccines raises concerns about how these proteins might mutate or recombine during replication, potentially altering antigen presentation or safety. - A concern is raised about the lack of repair mechanisms in RNA replication (as opposed to DNA replication), which could make error rates higher and lead to unpredictable changes. - The panel notes that current replicon vaccine designs (including those using alphavirus backbones) inherently carry high mutation and recombination risk, and that the replicating systems may encounter unpredictable evolutionary dynamics inside the human body. - Safety signals and clinical anecdotes - The speakers cite cases of adverse events temporally associated with vaccines, including vascular inflammation and thrombosis, stroke-like events, and myocarditis, to illustrate that immune responses to vaccines can be complex and occasionally severe. They emphasize that such observations do not establish causality, but argue they warrant careful scrutiny. - There are references to cases of acute vascular and neural complications following repeated vaccination, and to broader immune dysregulation phenomena, including IGG4-related disease and immune dysregulation syndromes that can involve multiple organs. - One example concerns a patient who developed sudden limb problems after the third dose, requiring surgery; another describes myocardial involvement after multiple doses and subsequent inflammatory sequelae. - DNA contamination and analytical findings - Kevin McKernan’s analysis of certain Japanese CoronaVac vaccines is cited: both DNA contamination and the presence of SV40 promoter elements were detected in some vaccine lots, with DNA amounts exceeding some regulatory benchmarks in at least one case. The concern is that DNA contamination, or the presence of promoter sequences, could influence integration or expression in unintended ways. - It is noted that vaccines using lipid nanoparticles can potentially deliver nucleic acids into cells; in the presence of exons or promoter sequences, there could be unintended cellular uptake and expression. - Implications for public health and policy - The panel underscores the need for caution, thorough investigation, and long-term observation of any replication-based vaccine platform before broad deployment. There is a call to evaluate risks, monitor long-term outcomes, and consider the possibility that replication-competent constructs could drive unforeseen evolutionary dynamics within hosts or communities. - There is contention about how information is communicated to the public, with particular emphasis on avoiding misinformation while ensuring that scientific uncertainties are transparently discussed. - Broader scientific context and forward-looking stance - The speakers discuss how the field’s approach to gene-based vaccines is evolving rapidly, and they stress that the compatibility of replicon systems with human biology is not yet fully understood. - They frame their discussion as not merely about current vaccines but about the trajectory of vaccine platforms: if replication-based or self-dispersing systems prove too risky or unpredictable, the prudent path might be to favor conventional, non-replicating strategies until safety, efficacy, and containment of unintended spread are more firmly established. Closing and takeaways - The session closes with emphasis on careful evaluation of replicon vaccines, awareness that viral genetics can behave differently in humans than in theory, and a call for continued discussion, independent verification, and transparent communication as the technology develops. - Throughout, speakers acknowledge the complexity of immune responses to vaccines, the potential for unexpected adverse events, and the importance of safeguarding public health while advancing vaccine science.

Speaker 1 notes that ivermectin has broken through to the public sphere beyond COVID and is now discussed for many diseases. Speaker 0 asks where ivermectin stands in the scientific and medical community today and what other use cases exist for the medicine. Speaker 1 responds that thousands of doctors follow their data; 18,000 GI doctors see their data when they publish or present at the American College of Gastroenterology. Word-of-mouth in the medical community is a major form of marketing, with one doctor speaking to another. Referencing the COVID era, Speaker 1 mentions corruption and retractions, then describes ivermectin as having created a healthcare revolution where doctors have lined up to work to see other benefits of ivermectin without needing to ask permission to treat patients. A whole branch of healthcare is moving away from the same institute that Speaker 1 helped create drugs to market with his sisters. He says a group of doctors who had sponsored or helped pharma are turning away from pharma and exploring other methods to treat patients. He states his job is to unite doctors to see the truth, while bringing pharma back to being righteous and stopping data manipulation and scientist censorship. Speaker 1 references his book, Let’s Talk SH.T, acknowledging he could be wrong and challenging others to prove him wrong and reproduce the data to retract the hypothesis or paper. He emphasizes that the scientific process should be followed, especially when everything was done by the book and as well as he could. He adds that the research was not funded by others; it was funded by his savings. He created the microbiome research foundation with the goal of raising money to study kids with autism and to push an IND to the FDA, which cost about $600,000 to obtain FDA approval. He clarifies that no external party paid for this work, and he continues to struggle to raise funds to treat poor autistic kids who cannot afford expensive stool testing, drugs, and vitamins; they need help and everyone should step in to assist these kids. Speaker 1 concludes that their focus is fixing autism, with the aim of later addressing Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and cancer.

There are no treatments available today to cure this disease. The speaker mentions the ivermectin and vitamin D as potential preventive measures, but clarifies that they are not effective in preventing Covid-19. Despite studies suggesting a protective effect of vitamin D, correlation does not imply causation. The current knowledge indicates that vitamin D is not an efficient means of preventing Covid-19.

This is not coronavirus. It is a very different virus, and it is known: hantaviruses have been around for quite a while and there is significant detail already understood about them. The situation is not SARS CoV-2 and is not the start of a COVID pandemic. It is an outbreak seen on a ship in a confined area, with five confirmed cases so far. Officials say they are providing information through a press conference to address the questions being raised, and they emphasize that this is not the same situation as one seen six years ago. They state that the virus does not spread the same way as coronaviruses. Instead, they say transmission is associated with close, intimate contact, and that most hantaviruses do not transmit between people at all. Most hantaviruses are transmitted from rodents or from rodents’ feces or saliva in their droppings to people. The exception highlighted is the Andes virus, which has been identified here. Officials say they have seen some human-to-human transmission with this particular virus. They reiterate that actions on board are precautionary to prevent any onward spread, and that many steps are being taken right now to minimize the risk further.