reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses the CDC leadership, confirming 'we let go of Susan Menarie yesterday' and that the agency is 'a very troubled for a very long time' with 'bizarre recommendations that were not science based' during the COVID pandemic. They say 'Go to the website. Look at it. Fluorination, giving kids a toxin, and vaccines.' They add, 'There's a lot of trouble at CDC, and it's going to require getting rid of some people over the long term in order for us to change the institutional culture and bring back pride and self esteem and make that agency the stellar agency that it's always been.' They conclude, 'I'm very confident in the political staff that we have down there now that they're gonna be able to accomplish that and and ensure the competent functionality of that agency.'

Speaker 0 proposes that the Justice Department should immediately begin an investigation into medical boards and the alleged collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and medical boards that delicenses physicians who strive to heal and treat patients. The plan also calls for the Justice Department to examine medical journals corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry and to explain that they will be subject to criminal and civil RICO actions if they do not provide a pathway to stop revoking studies and refusing to publish research that challenges the mercantile interests of pharmaceutical companies. The overall aim is to change the way business is conducted at NIH.

There has been a significant breakdown of accountability at HHS, raising concerns about the legality of decisions made since December 2021. Secretary Becerra failed to properly reappoint 14 senior officials, leading to questions about the validity of their actions, including grant approvals. Despite requests for documentation, the administration has not provided evidence of compliance with the law. This situation has resulted in a lack of trust among the American people, particularly regarding public health decisions made during the COVID-19 pandemic. The ongoing investigation aims to ensure accountability and rectify these issues, emphasizing the need for responsible governance and adherence to legal standards.

The speaker accuses the SDTC board executives and senior management of mismanagement and misconduct, while also criticizing the federal government for lack of oversight and cover-up. They mention a comprehensive presentation submitted to the Privy Council Office, highlighting mismanagement, noncompliance, and conflict of interest breaches. The findings reveal that various funds were ineligible due to violations, deviations, and conflicts of interest, resulting in improper distribution of over $150 million in taxpayer money. The speaker calls for the suspension of the organization, a new board and management team, and consequences for those responsible. They express frustration with ISED's inaction and protection of implicated individuals. The speaker claims to possess evidence supporting their claims.

Preliminary findings suggest smoke around most allegations, indicating a serious situation. The board is implicated in terrible ways. Canada's auditor general was initially involved, but nothing was shut down or anyone fired when it became a political problem. The speaker questions the allocation of $220,000 to a company and asks about the date when whistleblower allegations were learned. The chair of the fund directed tax dollars to her own company. The NDP liberal coalition blocked a motion to hear from the whistleblower, raising concerns about government corruption. Conservatives aim to uncover who benefited from the $1 billion slush fund scandal.

USAID has been managed by individuals with extreme views, and we are in the process of removing them. After that, we will make further decisions.

A board member at SDTC funneled $42.5 million of taxpayers' money into companies she had an interest in, enriching herself. Whistleblowers claim corruption and mismanagement at SDTC exceed $150 million. Despite this, no one has been held accountable. The chair resigned, but not at the minister's request, and the minister supports the corrupt SDTC board. The speaker questions why the minister prioritizes protecting liberal insiders who got rich improperly over addressing corruption in the Liberals' green slush fund.

Every federal government in Canada, from Mulroney to Trudeau, has been compromised by Chinese agents. Despite warnings from CSU, governments ignored the threat due to negligence, self-interest, or partisanship. Infiltration by Chinese agents led to questionable decisions benefiting China or self-interest. Municipal and provincial governments were also targeted. All governments were part of the problem, not the solution. It's not just China engaging in interference.

The speaker criticizes the SDTC board executives and senior management for mismanaging taxpayer money and allowing a toxic workplace culture. They also blame the federal government for lacking oversight and covering up the truth. A comprehensive presentation was submitted to the Privy Council Office, revealing mismanagement, noncompliance, conflict of interest breaches, and a toxic culture. Independent investigations found that various funds and COVID payments were improperly distributed, with conflicts of interest involved. The report also highlighted the absence of HR processes and policies. Despite these findings, no consequences were faced by those responsible, and the implicated individuals' names were redacted. The speaker believes their testimony can provide evidence of the lies perpetuated by SDTC and the government.

Wells Fargo's board members who were involved in the fake account scam should be removed by the Federal Reserve. The speaker accuses Mr. Sloan of enabling and profiting from the scam, as well as attempting to conceal it. They argue that Mr. Sloan should be fired, as he either displayed incompetence or was complicit in the wrongdoing. The speaker believes that Wells Fargo needs a fresh start, free from individuals like Mr. Sloan who contributed to the crisis. The speaker requests equal time to respond to Mr. Chairman's remarks.

The discussion centers on the main payments system, referred to as PAM, described as the “payments computer” and commonly called PAM by everyone. PAM is responsible for almost $5,000,000,000,000 in payments per year, which equates to roughly a billion dollars every hour. The speakers indicate that, upon their arrival, they observed what they describe as a severe lack of payment metadata: payments could be processed with no payment categorization code and no description, effectively creating payments that were “untraceable blank checks.” The speakers contrast this situation with how such conduct would be viewed in the private sector, stating that if this were a public company, the company would be immediately delisted and the executive team would be thrown in prison. They emphasize that, in the context they are discussing, this kind of exposure is considered normal within the government. The overall point is that the payments system operates with extremely little traceability or descriptive data attached to transactions, creating a scenario they characterize as highly problematic and unacceptable in the private sector but commonplace in the government.

Antonio Utano and Cameron McDonald have been suspended without pay in the ArriveCAN scandal. The government is using public servants as scapegoats instead of taking responsibility for the $54 million scandal. Taxpayers are unhappy and want the truth. The ministers need to show leadership and oversight to prevent such scandals. The Public Safety Minister, Minister Duclos, and Minister Anand should come to the Government Operations Committee to explain and take responsibility. This is an opportunity for them to make things right and not leave public servants and taxpayers in a mess. The Minister of Public Safety should start by attending the committee.

A key insight from the report is the failure to transition from an initial precautionary approach during the pandemic to a more evidence-based strategy that considered risks, benefits, and non-health impacts. This lack of shift has significant implications for public trust. The report highlights insufficient transparency regarding the rationale and evidence behind government decisions that affected Australians' lives and freedoms. Consequently, trust has declined significantly compared to pre-pandemic levels. The panel indicates that many measures implemented during COVID-19 are unlikely to be accepted by the public in the future due to these issues.

The speaker criticizes the SDTC board executives and senior management for mismanaging taxpayer money and allowing a toxic workplace culture. They also blame the federal government for lacking oversight and covering up the truth. A comprehensive presentation was submitted to the Privy Council Office, revealing mismanagement, noncompliance, conflict of interest breaches, and a toxic culture. Independent investigations found that various funds and COVID payments were improperly distributed, totaling around $120 million. The report also exposes the lack of HR processes and policies. Despite these findings, no one has faced consequences, and the implicated individuals' names were protected. The speaker calls for the suspension of SDTC, a new board and management team, and accountability for those responsible. They claim to have evidence supporting their testimony.

The transcript captures a heated HOA meeting where a homeowner (Speaker 0) rails against the lack of ballots and proper elections for the board. Speaker 0 states, “Not one person in this area has gotten a ballot to vote anybody in. I have been here eight years,” and repeats that at no point has anybody received a ballot to vote for anyone. They urge consultation with “the attorney for the homeowners,” asserting that board members are to be voted in and have a one-year term, insisting, “Not at any point in time. Does anybody here Did you get a ballot to vote for anybody? No.” Speaker 0 demands to finish their point and asks others to stop interrupting. Speaker 1 attempts to clarify, and Speaker 0 challenges their authority, asking, “Are you an attorney?” Speaker 1 acknowledges involvement since day one and asserts, “Since day one of this association, there’s never been an election,” and reiterates, “No. An election.” Speaker 0 adds, “And with that being said,” while Speaker 2 interjects with a question about current actions. Speaker 0 contends that although there may not have been an election, the current group “chose to put yourself on the board,” and claims they will move to a joint meeting and end the matter, but is interrupted. Speaker 1 insists that the meeting is not the appropriate forum for this discussion, stating, “The meeting has started to address what it was here today,” and that it’s a separate meeting if a different discussion is desired. Speaker 0 pushes to proceed immediately. Speaker 2 offers historical context: “If there’s never been an election, there were some board members appointed in the very beginning. Raylon turned it over to a couple people. Then those people just decided … I’m gonna add you.” Speaker 0 emphasizes that by law, board members must be elected, not appointed, and questions the legitimacy of the current board’s authority. “By law, read your laws, go to an attorney. By law, you have to be voted in.” Speaker 1 responds, asking Priscilla what she wants to do, noting that there are four ex-board members in front of them and asking if they should be asked about their elections. Speaker 0 acknowledges they were elected previously but complains about being told they were appointed. They insist on sending out a ballot and state, “Ballot. You are welcome to put yourself up to be on the board,” while indicating that the current board claims there will be no election until April. Speaker 1 suggests that the proper process would involve a formal meeting with notice and decision, while Speaker 0 asserts the desire for the current board to step down, mentioning ongoing issues such as a $100,000 irrigation problem and unresolved bills. The exchange then pivots back to attempting to resume a formal meeting, with Speaker 1 declaring, “We’re back to the meeting we have today.” In sum, the speakers clash over whether elections have occurred, who appointed board members, the proper legal process for board selection, and the appropriate timing for any future elections, with requests to suspends the current board and to conduct formal ballots.

I'm preparing to shake up the Department of Health and Human Services by dismissing vaccine advisors with conflicts of interest. The medical industry has undue influence over regulators and government policy. We aim to remove conflicts of interest from committees and research partners or balance them with other stakeholders. The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is a clear target, and their meeting was recently postponed indefinitely. Medical professionals have urged me to preserve the meeting, emphasizing the importance of vaccines in responding to public health threats. Panels advising the FDA are also being targeted. I've vowed to reassess the childhood vaccination schedule and suggested that certain vaccines, like the COVID-19 vaccines, could be taken off the market. The CDC has already withdrawn its "wild to mild seasonal" campaign for the flu vaccination.

A key insight from the report is the failure to transition from an initial precautionary approach during the pandemic to a more evidence-based strategy that balanced risks and benefits, including non-health impacts. This lack of shift has significant implications for public trust. The report highlights insufficient transparency regarding the rationale and evidence behind government decisions, which deeply affected Australians' lives and freedoms. As a result, trust has declined compared to pre-pandemic levels. The panel warns that many measures implemented during COVID-19 are unlikely to be accepted by the public in the future due to this erosion of trust.

We need to ask all your questions and get answers so that we can act differently. Enforcement, monitoring, tracking, evaluation, and performance management are coming next. There will be rewards or consequences for your actions or inaction. The community and the ministry are tired of coddling and babying professionals. We will provide policy, teach you how to do it, and then enforce it. If you comply, you could be promoted or seen as a good quality stacker. If not, you will be seen as problematic and face consequences. The community is fed up and done with it.

Preliminary findings indicate that most of the allegations are credible, leading to a belief in the accusers. The government must take action due to the incompetence and negligence displayed. The minister is likely to react strongly and may consider shutting down operations. The board and executives have lost confidence and will likely be removed. The focus now is on gaining control of the board to proceed with removing the executives. The report highlights the board's failure to follow processes, COI regulations, and act as responsible fiduciaries.

The speaker criticizes the SDTC board executives and senior management for mismanaging taxpayer money and allowing a toxic workplace culture. They also blame the federal government for lacking oversight and covering up the truth. A comprehensive presentation was submitted to the Privy Council Office, revealing mismanagement, noncompliance, conflict of interest breaches, and a toxic culture. Independent investigations found that various funds and COVID payments were improperly distributed, totaling around $120 million. The report also exposes a lack of HR processes and policies. Despite these findings, no one has faced consequences, and the implicated individuals' names were protected. The speaker calls for the suspension of SDTC, a new board and management team, and an end to the abuse. They claim to have evidence supporting their testimony.

You all need to resign. If you don’t step down, I will be the loudest voice against you when election time comes. This situation is unacceptable, and I will hold every one of you accountable.

There is a lack of objectivity regarding the situation, which affects the advice given to the Alberta government and its citizens. Experts express concern about the influence of such reports, not just in Alberta but nationwide. It's essential to trust in the effectiveness of vaccines, as they have significantly impacted society over the past two generations. However, up to 35% of Canadian parents may doubt vaccination for their children. Social isolation, masking, and vaccine development are crucial for future public health, and it's vital that the public adheres to scientific guidance. The province plans to review the report and its findings, but no policy decisions have been made yet.

The Justice Department should initiate an investigation into the collusion between medical boards and the pharmaceutical industry, particularly regarding the de-licensing of physicians who aim to heal patients. Additionally, the Department must address the corruption in medical journals influenced by pharmaceutical interests, warning them of potential criminal and civil RICO actions if they continue to suppress studies that challenge these interests. There will be significant changes in how the National Institutes of Health (NIH) operates moving forward.

The speakers describe an eerily devastated site with extensive property damage and a semi-dismantled kill pen in the background, suggesting blood, carnage, and possible biohazard concerns. They note that the perpetrators “drove all around it and left,” then disappeared, leaving behind an impression of what happened. Speaker 1 observes enormous bales—much larger than typical hay bales—stacked on the property, describing them as about a foot to four feet high. They remark that birds are landing inside the area and pecking at whatever is there. They reference video from the day with dead ostriches still present, noting flocks of birds arriving, implying concern about the bird flu. The speakers recount that “they drove all around in the killing fields” and “kicking up hay as they left,” describing the act as tearing down their operations and leaving in a dismissive manner after terrorizing the family for a long period and slaughtering many birds. They mention “a thousand rounds” fired by marksmen that night, and state that this had “nothing to do with avian flu,” asserting that those shots were unrelated to the flu. Speaker 0 points to a pickup they saw stuck and seized in the area, with windows left open, illustrating the chaos and mess left behind. They emphasize the long duration of distress endured: “eleven months of hell, over six weeks or something like that of having this occupied land,” with RCMP provoking people and CFIA marksmen shooting, followed by the aftermath. Speaker 1 echoes the mess, suggesting it would have been easier to stack the birds or manage them differently, rather than creating the visible wreckage. They reiterate the claim that if the situation is labeled a biohazard, wild birds are currently seen around the area. They observe birds flying over the site, including a duck, indicating ongoing wildlife presence. Both speakers conclude by questioning the process: with an anonymous tip or accusation triggering CFIA involvement, suspicion alone seems to trigger actions that lead to destruction of holdings. They assert that CFIA will come in, destroy everything, and leave scorched earth, killing all animals, presenting this as the outcome. They end with the statement that this is Canada, folks.