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.

Vaccines are crucial for public health. There will be new vaccines developed, including for TB, malaria, and HIV. Misinformation about vaccines is a problem, especially in the US. We need to invest in vaccinations, as it has a significant return on investment. Life will not fully return to normal until the global population is vaccinated. We must prepare for future pandemics.

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.

The White House blames a few bad actors for spreading online misinformation. The speaker disagrees with the idea that wearing masks is the best way to prevent infectious diseases. They mention that getting vaccinated provides the best protection against infection. The speaker also addresses the misconception that vaccines can make people worse. They mention the possibility of future challenges in infectious diseases and the need for rapid response to new threats. The speaker denies funding gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology and denies lying before Congress.

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.

"There's the transformative, if I might use that word, experience that we've all had now in year five of COVID." The speaker says, "The thought that we won't have another pandemic, I think is naive at best and just not completely unrealistic at worst." They add, "I'm convinced that there will be another pandemic and that's the reason why we have to be perpetually prepared to prevent the terrible impact of a pandemic."

The speaker defends their representation of science, stating that vaccinated individuals are unlikely to experience serious illness or transmission, though acknowledging vaccinated people are capable of transmitting the infection. Mask mandates are discussed, with the speaker admitting masks work "at the margins, maybe 10%," while also stating they often wear two masks. The speaker denies recommending lockdowns but admits to advising the president to shut the country down, anticipating economic consequences. The speaker believes school closures may have gone too far but denies they caused irreparable damage. The origin of COVID-19 is debated, with the speaker stating the place of origin was not within the wet market itself, while also stating "I don't think you could say that." The speaker denies NIH funding of gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute, a claim disputed by others who cite NIH funding of research that enhanced a bat coronavirus, making it more contagious. The speaker denies this constitutes gain of function research, leading to heated exchanges.

I'm not a scientist, so I can't discuss vaccination, but there will be more pandemics in the future due to climate impacts and the emergence of new bacteria caused by greenhouse gases and methane emissions. We lack immunity to these new bacteria. COVID-19 is just one example of a pandemic, and it will continue to affect us.

The speakers discuss the possibility of the COVID-19 virus originating from a lab leak rather than bats. Speaker 1 brings up American labs in Ukraine and questions their purpose. Speaker 2 mentions that Ukraine has biological research facilities, which they are concerned about falling into the hands of Russian forces. Speaker 1 suggests that the existence of these labs was buried and wonders if they were involved in creating anthrax or other unknown substances. Speaker 0 admits to not having knowledge about this topic.

Speaker 0 argues that the only way to disrupt a virus and reduce its ability to advance so the immune system can finish it off is to use a nasal spray and gargle. He asserts that if a respiratory virus hits, nasal sprays and gargles have the best track record, and that anything can work as long as it’s used twice daily. His preferred option is ClearXLEAR nasal spray with the companion gargle, but he also mentions iodine-based options such as Immune Mist or NeoMed Betadine, as well as hypertonic saline and colloidal silver. He emphasizes that the routine must be performed twice a day. Speaker 0 further explains the infection timeline: you inhale a virus on an airplane, and it resides in your nose for about seven days, where it replicates without you realizing it. It then drains to the throat, leading to a sore throat, and only then do you recognize you have something. By that point, you’re seven days behind the infection. Therefore, the only way to disrupt the virus and reduce its burden enough for the immune system to finish it off is to use a nasal spray and gargle, and he insists that doing this twice daily is super important. He states that he has interviewed people on his show who never had COVID and have remained free of respiratory illnesses for extended periods—five, ten, fifteen years, even one man for twenty years. He asserts that this practice could be a game changer if many people adopted it. Speaker 1 asks whether there is anything society can do to prevent the next outbreak and what people can do to prepare their bodies to fight off future infections. Speaker 0 reiterates his stance that an airborne viral respiratory illness is likely to be the next major threat and that a twice-daily nasal spray and gargle routine is critical for disruption of the virus, enabling the immune system to finish it off. He maintains that if many people adopt this approach, it could be a game changer.

Speaker 0 asserts that the era of vaccines is over. Vaccinating has been done since the seventeen hundreds, back when bloodletting was state of the art medicine. They didn’t even have a theory of viruses and bacteria back then; they just had crude practices. That technology has failed. It has been revealed to cause catastrophic harms in the population. The treatment for bacteria is antibiotics, and the treatment for viruses should be antivirals. Vaccines have no place in medicine going forward. That’s where we’re gonna get to. That’s what the data actually show us right now. It’s just gonna be a lot of hard fighting between now and arriving at what the data is already showing us right now.

The speaker discusses the development of a COVID-19 vaccine in collaboration with Moderna. While some companies see it as a moneymaker, the CEO of Moderna suggests that the virus may have been manipulated in a lab. The speaker also mentions funding for gain-of-function research and the possibility of a deliberate bioterror attack. There is a dispute over whether gain-of-function research was funded, with accusations of lying to Congress. The speaker addresses conspiracy theories and emphasizes the positive impact of vaccines. They also highlight the need to be prepared for future pandemics, whether natural or intentional.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the COVID-19 vaccine episode, challenging why the vaccine was pursued as a public health solution and exploring deeper incentives behind the program. - A knowledgeable figure at the stand answered a burning question: did they know the vaccine wouldn’t be effective from the start and could be dangerous? The answer given was that it was “a test of a technology.” The exchange suggests the broader aim was testing an entire program of control previewed in Event 2019. - They ask whether inoculation was necessary on billions, noting it could have been tested on a much smaller population. If shots had been basically empty or inert, the data could have been spun to claim success and end the pandemic, preventing injuries from appearing. The absence of that approach remains a mystery. - The speakers point to high pre-vaccine seroprevalence in 2020, including studies from South Dakota showing 50-60% seroprevalence before vaccine release, implying that a saline shot or no shot could have achieved “indomicity” (immunity) without a vaccine. - They discuss why people might fear vaccines and interpret the broader impact: the public is waking up to something terrible having occurred, as it revealed readiness to lie, potential data quality concerns, and risk to pregnant women and healthy children who might get little justification for risk. - The disease’s lethality is framed as greatest among the very old or very sick; for others, it was less deadly, with natural evolution potentially reducing vulnerability over time. - The mRNA platform was touted as a means to outrun mutations, but the timeline to release was still insufficient to stay ahead of natural change. They note accelerated development was the fastest vaccine in history, from detection to inoculation, reducing the timeline by about a year or two, yet not fast enough. - Political and logistical factors delayed release; there is mention that it would not have appeared under Trump and that Eric Topol argued to delay the rollout. Fauci reportedly sent Moderna back to trials due to insufficient racial diversity in participants. - The discussion questions whether the vaccine qualifies as a normal consumer product, given ongoing subsidies, mandates, indemnifications, wartime-like supports, and propaganda. They wonder if there has been an ongoing two-century revolt by industry against public scrutiny, with public interest repeatedly leading to pushback and rebranding. - A central theme is the sophistication of pharma: the “game of pharma” involves owning an IP-based health claim, crafting supportive research, convincing it is safe and effective, achieving standard-of-care status, securing mandates and government funding, and leveraging ongoing propaganda. They describe pharma as a long-running arms race with deep institutional knowledge, implying that it is far more capable of shaping reality than the public realizes.

Speaker 0 expresses shock and disappointment at colleagues' ignorance regarding immunology. They are concerned that continued ignorance will lead to complicity in mass murder. Speaker 1 questions why colleagues comply, suggesting laziness, lack of knowledge, or fear. Speaker 0 believes it is primarily ignorance and urges colleagues to read textbooks for the truth. They accuse colleagues of supporting a dangerous vaccination program and reveal a hidden agenda to install mRNA vaccines for all infectious diseases worldwide. Speaker 1 seeks clarification on whether this includes coronaviruses, to which Speaker 0 confirms it applies to all diseases. mRNA vaccines for certain diseases like the flu are already developed and ready for introduction.

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.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the origins of COVID-19, focusing on claims that the virus originated in a Wuhan lab and the handling of scientific debate around the lab-leak hypothesis. - Speaker 0 states that for two years Republicans connected the dots and exposed evidence supporting the belief that COVID-19 was developed and leaked from the Wuhan lab, while Democrats hindered hearings and blocked truth-seeking. He asserts mounting evidence supports a lab-origin theory and frames the hearing as a pursuit of truth for Americans who suffered from the pandemic. He notes Doctor Redfield pointed to the lab-leak hypothesis early on and urged Fauci to investigate both the lab and natural hypotheses. - Speaker 0 recalls a February 1 meeting convened by Jeremy Farrar with 11 top scientists across five time zones, inviting Fauci to join, with a preference for a tight, confidential group. He says Redfield was excluded from the call, and asks why he was excluded. - Speaker 1 confirms that in January and February 2020 he spoke with Fauci, Farrar, and Tedros about pursuing both hypotheses, and as a clinical virologist argued it was not scientifically plausible that the virus jumped bat-to-human and became highly infectious; he notes that coronaviruses differ from Ebola and that intermediate hosts are involved for SARS and MERS, and that they never learned to go human-to-human in those contexts. - Speaker 0 asks why Redfield was excluded from the calls. Speaker 1 responds that he was told there was a desire for a single narrative and that his viewpoint differed. - Speaker 0 references emails after the conference call in which four of the 11 scientists said the genetic sequence was inconsistent with evolutionary expectations, but three days later those scientists drafted the paper Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2 arguing the opposite. He asks how those scientists could conclude certainty about a natural origin after three days. - Speaker 1 describes the process as unfortunate and says the approach in January–February 2020 was antithetical to science, noting that science involves debate, which he claims was squashed. - Speaker 0 asks if Fauci used the Proximal Origin paper to hide gain-of-function research and to what extent the paper hides the truth. Speaker 1 declines to discuss Fauci’s motivations but calls the paper inaccurate and part of a narrative intended to negate the possibility that COVID-19 came from a laboratory. He emphasizes that the pandemic did not start in January at the seafood market and that infections date back to September. - Speaker 0 notes an email from 01/27/2020 stating NIH had a monetary relationship with the Wuhan Institute via EcoHealth Alliance, and asks if Fauci intentionally lied under oath about NIH funding of gain-of-function research. Speaker 1 asserts there is no doubt NIH funded gain-of-function research and says American tax dollars funded such research not only through NIH but also via the State Department, USAID, and the DOD. - The exchange ends with Speaker 0 signaling time and introducing Ms. Dink.

Speaker 0 raises a question about the pandemic: Has it, perhaps, reminded the world of the power of medicine and the power of science? And has it reminded the industry of its responsibility to the whole world rather than only to rich countries that can afford great medicines? Speaker 1 responds that, in his view, both propositions are true to a very high degree. He states that the world realized the value that the vibrant life sciences sector can bring to society. At the same time, he emphasizes a caution tied to the presence of powerful tools: when we have these weapons in our these tools, we must find ways that they reach all and not only those that they can afford them.

The speaker discusses pandemic preparedness and the potential challenges the coming administration may face. They address the issue of gain of function research and deny funding it in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The speaker emphasizes the need to keep an open mind regarding the origins of the coronavirus and dismisses conspiracy theories. They provide guidance on mask-wearing and highlight the importance of vaccination. The speaker clarifies their stance on lockdown measures and refutes claims that vaccines can make people worse. They mention the optimal degree of protection after infection is vaccination. The speaker acknowledges concerns about long-term effects of vaccines and the need for further study. They express frustration with misinformation and disinformation campaigns.

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

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss vaccines and vaccine technology. Speaker 0 begins by saying, “He injected billions of people with an experimental it wasn't a bloody just no. It wasn't,” expressing that the vaccine was experimental and not straightforward. Speaker 1 counters briefly with, “It was no one isn't,” then suggests uncertainty about the claim. Speaker 0 adds that “Yes. It is. It's Well, it doesn't have a 100%,” indicating skepticism about a perfect success rate. Speaker 1 asks, “You think it's a definition of all point of is to give your body a,” challenging the stated purpose of the vaccine in terms of its aim to train the immune system. Speaker 0 then states, “protein train on. The immune system works. Technology,” implying that the vaccine trains the immune system and works as a technology. Speaker 1 responds that “Who cares if it's not the same? There's plenty there's,” implying there are multiple vaccines or approaches enough to matter, suggesting diversity in types. Speaker 0 replies, “different so types that they didn't have to contend with the fact that it wasn't the same technology.” Speaker 1 acknowledges that “There are different types of,” and that “There are different technologies. Fine. The mRNA is a type of vaccine.” Speaker 0 firmly rejects that, saying, “Now this is No. It was,” indicating a disagreement about the classification. Speaker 1 clarifies that “like this, and now it's like this,” implying a progression from one form to another. Speaker 0 insists, “No. No. No. It was like this, and now it's like this. The m n r mRNA technology was a radical, qualitative leap forward in technology.” He asserts that mRNA technology represents a significant advancement compared to what existed before. Speaker 1 suggests naming it differently or acknowledging changes, but Speaker 0 continues that “You can call it if you want to, but it bears very little resemblance to anything that went before that.” The final point is that “The reason it was called a scene was because was a brand name that had a track record of safety, and shoehorning it in that was one of the ways to make sure that people weren't terrified of the technology.”

Scientists can learn how to teach the flu virus how to infect human tissue, and some are already doing this. The scientific community isn't trying to cause a pandemic, but they are arrogant about their ability to contain a respiratory pathogen. COVID evolved from scientific experiments in a laboratory that was trying to do good things, like make a vaccine vector, but it escaped, and over 20,000,000 people died. Nature will continue to try to change, but the species barrier for amino acids is pretty high. Some scientists believe gain of function research is needed to protect humanity against emerging pathogens, but they don't consider the fact that they may be emerging them like with COVID.

- Speaker 0 describes a doctrine where an agent or pathogen works best as a binary weapon if followed by mass exposure with vaccines, noting the insistence on gene transfection technologies to create a peptide with a prion-catalyzing epitope and pointing out that lipid nanoparticles are highly labile and inflammatory, constituting a combination of chemical and biological warfare. - Speaker 0 adds that if this was a weapon release, it may be done and now data will reveal its effects, and expresses doubt about how much trust can be placed in normal scientific methods and institutions to relay data to the public, inviting Speaker 1’s thoughts. - Speaker 1 (Stephanie) says the discussion has been an incredible and difficult ride since things began unfolding, with questions about natural versus lab-based origins, vaccine development versus biowarfare, and concerns about funding by China for bioweapons, acknowledging the impossibility of definitively answering many questions. - Speaker 0 agrees that ambiguity is the point and calls it the strength of the weapon. - Speaker 1 asks why someone would inject something to inflict a bioweapon on the entire population, suggesting population control as a possible motivation. - Speaker 0 notes the need to consider literature from top transnational power structures and corporations, asserting that it is not hidden. - Speaker 1 recalls prior concerns about population-control vaccines, referencing reports about vaccines used in Argentina and Africa that allegedly caused infertility, describing an example where a vaccine given to teenage girls could lead to antibody development to a fetus, making infertility less detectable over time. She mentions a memory of a “benign disease” vaccination program in Argentina that led people to suspect infertility, and notes that it could be a stealth method. - Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the idea that vaccines may have had effects on fertility and reference terms like human chorionic something, with Speaker 1 acknowledging possible occurrences in India as well as Africa and Argentina. - Speaker 0 refers to bioaccumulation seen in reproductive organs and cites pharmacokinetic studies beginning in Japan, noting the vaccine’s presence in the placenta and testes and recalling reports of harmful effects on male reproductive organs. - Speaker 0 mentions Anna Burkhart’s data as dark regarding spike protein expression in reproductive organs found in autopsies, while acknowledging uncertainty about how much weight to attribute to that data, but maintaining that biowarfare cannot be dismissed. - The discussion returns to the mechanism of biowarfare being distinct from a pathogen, describing a scenario where exposure leads to effects years later due to the disease mechanism being induced, rather than immediate pathogen-driven illness.

The speaker discusses pandemic preparedness and the potential challenges the incoming administration will face. They mention the lifting of the funding pause on gain of function research and express uncertainty about its effectiveness. The speaker denies favoring any particular theory regarding the origin of the coronavirus and emphasizes that it likely came from an animal reservoir. They address mask-wearing, stating that there was no initial recommendation for it and that they feel comfortable not wearing one indoors due to being fully vaccinated. The speaker clarifies that they did not recommend lockdowns but supported extending the initial 15-day period. They refute claims about vaccines making people worse and discuss the temporary effects on menstruation. The speaker acknowledges the need for further study and criticizes the spread of misinformation.