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.

There was once a division between vaccinated and unvaccinated, but the speaker argues that it should be transcended because both groups had a very similar experience and “people are people” who act similarly—they just believed different things. The speaker generalizes that many vaccinated people honestly believed there was a dangerous pathogen that posed a lethal threat to them and people they loved, and that there was a solution: the vaccine, “if only the unvaccinated would take it.” They describe how the belief that unvaccinated people would pose a threat to vaccinated individuals and their families created fear, which then led to hatred and division. The speaker then generalizes that many unvaccinated people honestly believed the vaccine posed a lethal threat to both themselves and their families. The speaker says unvaccinated people did not have to take the vaccine in Canada if they did not want to, but they faced pressure largely backed by vaccinated people—resulting in fear, anger, and hatred. The speaker concludes that everyone shared an “surprisingly similar” lived experience, with the main difference being what each group believed and what they considered the facts. At the National Citizens Inquiry, the speaker says one key lesson was that listening to each other’s stories can help people come together, because both sides were trying to do what they believed was best for themselves and their families. Returning to the political question, the speaker says the situation was traumatic for most people, and that the nation needs healing. Part of that healing, they say, involves recognizing that many who “took one for the team” are injured and that their experiences should be listened to.

A woman describes how unfounded information and conspiracy theories about COVID-19 and vaccines affected her family and led to a separation. The wife’s husband became absorbed in online content beginning around May of last year, and by August he had adopted and spread misinformation. The wife’s two children and husband lived together, but the wife learned around the time described that her husband had been distributing an A4 sheet containing what she calls information he had previously researched, near the middle school their daughter attended. On another day, the husband distributed a flyer himself. The material claimed, among other things, that vaccines shorten life expectancy to about two years, and it attributed other alarming ideas to vaccines and the pandemic. When the wife challenged the flyers, the husband insisted he was doing something correct and reacted with anger, which the wife found hard to understand. Their children were exposed to conflicting messages; for example, when the wife’s child asked why other people wear masks, the wife noted the husband’s stance that “masks are not necessary” and that the COVID-19 situation was framed as nothing more than a cold or flu, while other protective measures like hand washing and disinfection were rejected by the husband. The husband’s social circle reportedly continued going to bars and drinking together, despite the growing concern about safety. The family fought repeatedly over these beliefs, with the wife trying several times to stop the spread of misinformation, but the conflicts escalated and only worsened. Ultimately, to protect the family’s safety, the woman separated from her husband in February of this year. The rift within the family deepened over the spread of misinformation, and the wife described ongoing fear that misinformation would further damage family harmony. The discussion also notes that some people cite studies or papers to back such claims, but the speaker emphasizes that reading those sources often reveals a lack of scientific rigor, and that trusting such literature leads to confusion and regret. The speaker expresses that it is painful to see how misinformation undermines scientific credibility and harms family relationships.

The speaker claims the vaccine saved hundreds of thousands of lives but acknowledges side effects and breakthrough infections. The speaker argues that the vaccine was claimed to stop transmission and infection, but it did not. An argument ensues with someone who disagrees, with accusations of being crazy and shutting up. The speaker denies using ad hominem attacks.

The speaker claims that a year and a half ago, whistleblowers revealed that the COVID-19 vaccine was never intended to work. They mention that even Bonnie Henry from Vancouver admitted on TV that vaccinated people are ending up in the hospital, but she provided a strange explanation for it. The speaker warned their father not to take the vaccine, stating that it was not designed to work and carries all the risks with none of the benefits. They mention that vaccinated people are getting sicker while the percentage of unvaccinated people getting sick is changing. The speaker asserts that the truth is being concealed, and they mention Israel as the most vaccinated country. The speaker asks if anyone remembers the name of another country they mentioned on their Facebook.

Speaker 1 expresses skepticism about the COVID-19 vaccine due to lack of clarity and the speed at which it was developed. Speaker 2 counters by explaining that 20 years of scientific research contributed to its creation. Speaker 0, who is vaccinated, argues that if more people refuse the vaccine, the virus will continue to spread. Speaker 1 questions the accuracy of COVID-19 death numbers and suggests ulterior motives behind vaccine incentives. Speaker 0 emphasizes the importance of protecting health and the city. Speaker 1 accuses the pandemic of being fear-driven.

A woman describes how unfounded information claiming that vaccines are “killing weapons” and that COVID is something related to people spread through her family and community. This misinformation contributed to a breakdown in her marriage and family life. A husband became absorbed in online content around May of last year, and his behavior changed. In August, the husband gathered what he had researched and printed it on A4 paper, which he then distributed around the middle school attended by his daughter. On a separate occasion, the husband distributed a flyer himself. The flyer claimed that the average remaining life after vaccination was about 2 years, and the family argues that distributing such flyers caused conflict, as the husband insisted that what he was doing was correct while the wife and others questioned why they were opposed to his actions. The wife recalls how, when she left the house to go out, her child would sometimes hear from others that wearing a mask was unnecessary, or that COVID-19 was merely a flu, and that they should not bother with masks, handwashing, or disinfection. The husband would dismiss precautions, saying, “the coronavirus is just a flu,” and would frequently go drinking with like-minded friends despite concerns about the family’s safety. The family’s situation deteriorated as the wife and children felt continually pressured by the husband’s views and actions, and attempts to intervene or stop the spread of misinformation led only to arguments, not resolutions. The family’s fear of contamination and the idea that the house could be contaminated weighed heavily on them, causing ongoing tension. As a result, to protect the family’s safety, the woman separated from her husband in February of this year. This separation created fractures within the family, with strains and conflicts arising over the dissemination of misinformation that labeled vaccines as dangerous and questioned the legitimacy of public health measures. Regarding the sources of misinformation, there is mention of papers or studies that claim certain things, which some use to fuel demagogic rhetoric. However, the speakers acknowledge that when they look at such literature, many sources lack scientific validity, and that reading them leaves a sense of frustration. The speakers emphasize that there are references circulated, but the scientific adequacy of those references often does not hold up upon closer inspection.

The speaker claims the vaccine saved lives, specifically 100 to 1000 lives, while acknowledging side effects and breakthrough infections. The speaker asserts the vaccine stopped transmission and infection, but this claim is immediately challenged. The speaker repeats that it did stop transmission and infection. Another person denies this claim. The first speaker tells the other person to shut up and says they are done hearing their "little woman voice." The first speaker then denies making an ad hominem attack.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is vaccinated, to which Speaker 1 responds that they are not. Speaker 1 explains that they advised their family and loved ones against getting vaccinated because they believed the vaccine was experimental, not tested on humans, and had concerns about the company behind it. They also mention that most vaccines typically take several years to gather safety data before approval. Speaker 1 expresses their intuition that Operation Warp Speed, the vaccine development initiative, seemed rushed and lacking in safety protocols. However, Speaker 1 did not anticipate the widespread propaganda campaign promoting vaccination, and they were horrified to see everyone around them rushing to get vaccinated without proper testing.

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.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 engage in a heated argument about vaccination and mask-wearing. Speaker 1 claims to have natural immunity and refuses to wear a mask, while Speaker 0 defends the importance of following store and state requirements. Speaker 0 mentions that their wife is a doctor specializing in infectious diseases. The argument escalates with insults and accusations of harassment. Speaker 1 mentions voting for Trump and defends their choice not to get vaccinated based on a personal experience with their vaccinated mother getting hospitalized with COVID. The argument concludes with Speaker 1 expressing gratitude for the support of other individuals present.

The speakers claim that well-funded entities suppressed the truth about autism. They state that parents of autistic children who have tried to investigate the causes of autism have encountered intense resistance. They allege that studies used to support the claim that vaccines don't cause autism are easily disproven, but the media's ownership allows the lie to spread faster than the truth. One speaker believes that many find it too difficult to accept that vaccines could cause autism. They mention someone who suspects a vaccine caused their child's autism but still shamed others for not taking the COVID vaccine, illustrating the power of propaganda. People are afraid of social ostracization and are hesitant to speak their minds, often only whispering their true feelings to close friends. The speakers reference montages showing the horrible things people said about unvaccinated individuals.

Speaker 0 confronts a pharmacist about their son's hospitalization due to myocarditis after receiving a COVID jab. Speaker 0 is upset that his wife was not informed about this potential side effect. Speaker 1 explains that they may not disclose the side effect to avoid scaring parents away from vaccinating their children. Speaker 0 expresses disbelief and insists that parents should be given accurate information to make informed decisions.

An individual states they will not get vaccinated due to a lack of clear information and the speed of vaccine development, which they believe is insufficient. They claim nine months is not enough time for vaccine development. Another individual says they are only speaking in close proximity because they are vaccinated, and that not getting vaccinated will allow the virus to continue spreading. The first individual compares COVID-19 to the flu. Someone states COVID-19 is more serious than the flu, and that while 20-30,000 people died of the flu the previous year, 600,000 Americans have died from COVID-19. The first individual disputes the COVID-19 death toll, claiming it is "you all's number." The first individual believes there is something else going on when people are paid or incentivized to get vaccinated, and that the vaccination campaign incites fear in people, and that the pandemic is fear.

Speaker 0 questions the truth and asks if pediatricians are incentivized by the percentage of vaccinated patients. Speaker 1 notes that Dr. Paul Thomas has made a good video on the topic, and that many other pediatricians have followed, suggesting a possible need for a better answer from Dr. Hooker. Speaker 0 states that pediatricians are typically incentivized directly by HMOs, which buy and sell vaccines, making vaccines a big business for HMOs. The incentivization is described as typically anywhere from $200 to $600 per fully vaccinated patient, as long as a certain percentage of the practice is fully vaccinated. Some pediatricians can reportedly make upwards of $1,000,000 or more a year just from these incentives. Speaker 0 also reports hearing stories of pediatricians firing patients who refuse vaccination, asserting that such firing occurs. Speaker 1 confirms that the story of firing patients for vaccine refusal is heard repeatedly, and adds that there are also lies told to parents. Examples given include claims that vitamin K at birth is necessary to prevent the baby from bleeding out before leaving the car, and that not receiving the HPV vaccine will result in death from cancer. The speaker says that these stories have been told over and over again by parents. Speaker 1 then asks how such lying can be allowed to go on, expressing frustration with what they perceive as misinformation being spread to parents.

Vaccine makers face the challenge of misinformation. The speaker believes those who deliberately spread misinformation are criminals because they cost lives. They shared a personal story of their wife's death after getting the vaccine, which was falsely attributed to it. The purpose of spreading such lies was to discourage people from getting vaccinated. The speaker emphasizes that the number of people who died due to not getting vaccinated far outweighs the individual cases like their wife's. Therefore, they consider those spreading misinformation to be criminals.

Speaker 0 asks about the accuracy of claims that asymptomatic carriers exist and that children can be super-spreaders, questioning whether these ideas are true. Speaker 1 responds that these notions are complete nonsense and have never been shown; they are claims that have been spread as facts, and they consider that “criminal.” They state that the idea of asymptomatic carrier spreading the disease Covid-nineteen—which they describe as the pneumonia, not a cough but the pneumonia Covid-nineteen—is untrue and is backed by zero data. They emphasize that there is not a single case in the world documented, and conclude that the whole business is a fake. Speaker 0 follows up by asking whether these ideas are the basis for mask-wearing and many of the associated measures. Speaker 1 confirms, stating that this is “the inhuman part” of forcing people to wear masks “because of no reason,” describing it as taking away people’s rights as humans without reason.

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.”

The discussion centers on COVID-19 misinformation and the roles of public figures and disinformation spreaders. Speaker 0 questions whether doctor Fauci is involved in a plot to kill millions. Speaker 1 says he cannot confirm involvement but asserts Fauci is not an innocent bystander and is aware of his actions; he doesn’t have the information to determine the extent of Fauci’s involvement. Speaker 2 identifies Dr. Dirashid Bhattar as one of the top spreaders of COVID-19 disinformation on social media, citing the Center for Countering Digital Hate, noting Bhattar once had more than a million followers. The dialogue includes several false or debunked claims attributed to Bhattar. Speaker 1 states that “More people are dying from the COVID vaccine than from COVID,” a claim Speaker 2 labels as not true, along with Bhattar’s assertion that “the Red Cross won’t accept blood from people who have had the COVID vaccine,” and his claim that “most who took COVID vaccines will be dead by 2025.” Bhattar’s broader theory is that COVID was a planned operation, politically motivated as part of a secret global plot to depopulate the earth. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 believes the pandemic was planned; Speaker 1 responds affirmatively but says he has no idea who is behind it. Speaker 2 warns that praising or repeating Bhattar’s views is dangerous, noting Bhattar’s use of false or twisted information to distrust vaccines. The conversation touches on whether the COVID vaccine works; Speaker 1 says the vaccine is “very effective at what it was designed for perhaps,” but “not preventing death.” Speaker 0 challenges this, and Speaker 2 counters that Bhattar doubles down on vaccines being more dangerous than the virus, even in the face of data. A numerical claim is raised: “6,340,000,000 doses of this vaccine have been given,” with implications if the claim were true. Speaker 1 says vaccines are designed with ingredients published and that each vaccine appears to be different, though he concedes not being a vaccine developer. Speaker 2 notes Bhattar has been removed from Facebook and Instagram for disinformation but remains active on Twitter, Telegram, and his own site. Speaker 0 references a September 5 retweet of a photo suggesting AstraZeneca was made in 2018; Speaker 1 acknowledges it could have been fake and questions why Bhattar would share such content. A combined exchange discusses questioning agencies and the consequences of misinformation, with Speaker 0 accusing Bhattar of contributing to a mass misinformation problem and Speaker 1 acknowledging the existence of a large follower base that has received false information. The dialogue closes with a mention of a statement from North Carolina’s Board of Medicine prior to COVID, implying regulatory context or action.

The speaker claims the COVID vaccine is not a vaccine, but an experimental gene modification therapy that doesn't work, citing instances of vaccinated individuals contracting COVID. They state that masks are ineffective against the airborne virus and that social distancing guidelines were based on fabricated information from a 19th-century scientist. The speaker believes the regulations were not based on science but were lies, and that the government suppressed non-mRNA vaccines. They recount an incident of being forced to wear a mask by a police officer in an airport. The speaker concludes that the issue is not about regulation or etiquette, but about lies and "neo-fascism," which they believe is what younger people dislike.

The speaker asserts that fellow Americans are the biggest enemy and the unvaccinated cannot be trusted. They state that now is the time to do what you're told, and it's not about freedom or personal choice. The speaker expresses frustration, stating that the refusal to vaccinate has cost everyone. One speaker contrasts the treatment of a vaccinated person having a heart attack with an unvaccinated person who took "horse goo." The speaker claims the unvaccinated overcrowd hospitals, overrun emergency rooms and ICUs, leaving no room for others. They call the unvaccinated "schmucks" and claim this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated and their freedom.

A person states they won't get the COVID-19 vaccine due to a lack of initial clarity and the speed of its creation, arguing nine months isn't enough time. Another person explains that twenty years of science went into the approach used to create the vaccine and that vaccination is necessary to stop the virus from spreading. The first person compares COVID-19 to the flu, but is told COVID-19 is more serious. They then question the official death toll and suggest incentives for vaccination indicate ulterior motives. The second person states that millions of people were vaccinated to protect their health and community. The first person concludes that the vaccination campaign is based on fear.

Speaker 1 says someone claimed viruses are man-made and do not exist in nature, in anything, or beyond being a “made-up word.” Speaker 1 argues that people use terms such as EBV, HPV, “the HERP,” AIDS, HIV, and flu as labels that are “made up words.” They also claim that the system “poison[s] people on a regular basis,” including references to cell phone towers, vaccines, and pesticides, and that doctors are “Rockefeller Muppets” who are “there to sell you poisons” and “poison you the entire time.” Speaker 1 concludes that “diseases are poisoning.” Speaker 0 describes a personal example from childhood. Outside their house was a wetlands area full of frogs that kept them awake at night. Speaker 0 taped the windows to deal with the noise, and in spring the frogs made a “big racket.” Over time, Speaker 0 says the frogs were all gone. Speaker 0 then asks how many people think the frogs had a genetic disease, how many think the frogs had a virus, and how many think “somebody put DDT into the water.” Speaker 0 states: “Diseases are poisoning.”

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.'

The speaker discusses the impact of the vaccine on saving lives and acknowledges that there are side effects. They mention that both the virus and the vaccine have changed over the past two years, leading to transmission and infection. However, there is disagreement between the speakers, with one denying the effectiveness of the vaccine. The conversation becomes heated, with one person telling the other to be quiet.