reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In the video, Dr. Regina Wateel discusses her book, "Fisman's Fraud," which exposes the misinformation and fraudulent science used to implement pandemic policies in Canada. She highlights how a study claiming that the unvaccinated were responsible for the ongoing pandemic was based on a mathematical model rather than actual population data. Dr. Wateel expresses her frustration with the media for not questioning the study and the politicians for using it to justify strict restrictions and vaccine mandates. She also uncovers conflicts of interest, such as the lead author's ties to Moderna and the university's partnership with the pharmaceutical company. Dr. Wateel emphasizes the negative impact of these policies on individuals and calls for grassroots movements to address the issue.

Politicians and health bureaucrats are denying their role in advocating for lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and school closures during the pandemic. Justin Trudeau, the Canadian Prime Minister, claims he never insisted on mandatory vaccinations for everyone, despite evidence to the contrary. Anthony Fauci, a key figure in the COVID response, also tries to distance himself from the heavy-handed measures. Both leaders are attempting to rewrite history and avoid responsibility for the negative consequences of their actions. It is important to hold them accountable for the overreach and inhumane policies imposed on free people in the name of safety.

The speakers discuss the issue of trusting medical information from experts versus doing personal research. They highlight the criticism faced by individuals who seek to be informed about medical treatments, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The speakers argue that shaming people for doing their own research is counterproductive and that relying on expert advisory groups is important. They also mention the lack of expertise among the general population and even some doctors. The conversation touches on the influence of big pharma and the corruption within regulatory agencies. The speakers suggest that many YouTube shows do not provide critiques of these issues.

"A lot of the things that that sort of came to fruition during COVID were were not sudden breaks. They were just more of the same to a to an extent that we haven't seen before. But, nevertheless, it's still part of a still part of a curve." "The logic is the government exists to solve social problems." "Government is based upon expertise." "Government knows best what it is that we should do." "And if you combine that idea with the very Canadian idea of authority, then there's some explanation there for why it is that governments at all levels I'm not just talking about the federal government. Governments at all levels take it upon themselves to be involved more and more in just about everything and to to issue rules and regulations and guidelines and policies and bylaws and discretionary decision making because that's what it thinks its job is."

Humanity questions why experts like Fauci delve into unnecessary details. Fauci lacks understanding of electron microscopy and medicine, suggesting he is unfit for his role. Top officials are disconnected from the reality at the bottom, driven by personal agendas rather than public health. They create and change rules as they please, with Fauci even willing to lie to the public on TV.

Fauci lacks knowledge in various areas and shouldn't be in his current position. He misunderstands microscopy and medicine. Most top officials are just administrators and lack understanding of the situation. Fauci has been invited to debate someone knowledgeable on the subject, but he hasn't accepted. The president of the University of South Carolina even asked him to debate in front of the student body.

The WHO is portrayed as a lobby organization funded by pharmaceutical companies and influenced by billionaires. It is claimed the WHO is not interested in public health. Governments are said to relinquish power to the WHO to avoid electoral repercussions for unpopular decisions. Politicians can then blame the WHO for policies like lockdowns and school closures, claiming they had no choice. This arrangement allegedly shields politicians from accountability.

A lady in Canada recently held a press conference urging people to get vaccinated and wear masks. The speakers discuss their observations on the vaccine situation, including the loss of jobs for those who choose not to get vaccinated. They mention that the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission or guarantee protection from the virus. They also criticize the use of masks, stating that cloth and surgical masks are ineffective. The speakers express their disbelief and question the lack of scientific evidence supporting these measures. They speculate about the motives behind these decisions.

The video discusses the cross-examination of a secretive government panel within Transport Canada that crafted a vaccine mandate. The panel, led by Jennifer Little, consisted of civil servants with no background in medicine or infectious diseases. Little invoked cabinet confidence when asked about who ordered the mandates, suggesting it came from senior levels of government. The video also highlights the lack of scientific recommendation for the mandate and the absence of evidence on its safety. The rationale for the mandate, if any, seems to be focused on incentivizing vaccination rather than ensuring the safety of air travel.

Speaker 0: It was January 2022 when a colleague of mine in the unit came to me saying, something's up. We've had a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year. And that's what got my curiosity piqued. Speaker 1: Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2: I have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 3: Doctors made extra money to push vaccines and they were given a billing code to do it. I have pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 2: They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved. They've distributed it to the province so the second it's approved, we can start jabbing ourselves with it. We can start jabbing pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4: Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, And then you don't. Speaker 0: I was suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials. Possible. They pushed on with this narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2: They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1: Our Canadian babies died, and the police are trying to cover it up to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it. Speaker 2: The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression. Speaker 4: If you don't want to get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk. Speaker 2: It started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public. Speaker 5: Canada has to shift their understanding of what the CBC is. It is a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 2: This is the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective, and they're still not investigating. Everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, our health agencies, how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.

A $2,000,000 report on Alberta's pandemic response is calling for a halt to COVID-19 vaccines, facing criticism from the Alberta Medical Association as anti-science. The NDP argues the funds could have better supported healthcare, like orthopedic surgeries. The report, authored by 13 doctors and academics, claims COVID-19 infections did not decrease with mask mandates and vaccinations, questioning vaccine safety. Nahed Nenshi urges the premier to clarify her stance on the findings, while the AMA states the report undermines trust in health professionals and overlooks frontline experiences. Experts, including U of A professor Timothy Caulfield, label the report as misinformation. Alberta's health ministry defends the report's purchase, emphasizing the need for diverse perspectives, but offers no commitment to implement its recommendations.

Bill Gates is described as a top donor to the World Health Organization and as calling for virus war games every five years. The transcript claims Canada’s top bureaucrats have committed Canada to “captured” WHO rules that will make this happen, while saying the United States rejected the same power grab last year but Canada accepted it without asking. According to the transcript, nations that accept the amended International Health Regulations (IHR) “are signing over their power in health emergencies” to an unelected international organization that can order “lockdowns, travel restrictions, or any other measures it sees fit.” The transcript adds that the organization “doesn’t even need to declare an emergency,” and that “potential public health risks” are enough to initiate action. The transcript says Canada’s acceptance occurred earlier this month when Governor General Mary Simon authorized Minister of Foreign Affairs Anita Anand to take the actions necessary for Canada to accept IHR amendments adopted in Geneva, Switzerland, on June 1, 2024. It states this was done “without parliamentary debate,” with “no public consultation,” via “an order in council,” while “Canadians are being left in the dark.” The transcript argues that giving the WHO this power should involve “a thorough public debate,” and says the arrangement is not an official treaty. It also claims the process “bypasses the US Senate,” which the transcript describes as playing a role in democratic oversight of major international commitments. The transcript further claims the IHR amendments use “extremely broad language” that gives the WHO unprecedented power. It says countries are required to establish “systems of risk communication” so the WHO can implement unified public messaging globally, describing this as enabling “narrative management and propaganda and censorship” based on what the transcript says was seen during COVID. It alleges the amendments were rushed through in Geneva at the annual World Health Assembly in May 2024 “without a vote,” with only a “loosely defined quorum.” The transcript states the WHO is led by Director General Tedros Gabriese (Tedros Ghebreyesus) and asserts that “pharmaceutical profiteering partners” like Bill Gates and his foundation are involved. It says Tedros praised China’s early pandemic actions and response and promoted the “safe and effective narrative,” and that the changes are characterized as about “cooperation and collaboration.” The transcript claims the IHR amendments “grease the wheels” for faster emergency declarations and more coordination with global actors, reducing Canada’s ability to refuse. It says Parliament “hasn’t even debated this,” provinces are “barely consulted,” and it asserts Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada emphasize global health security while the transcript questions who guards against “global overreach.” The transcript also claims the text confirms military-style virus war games as a core part of meeting IHR obligations, describing “recurring simulation war game exercises” as built into a regular global preparedness cycle. It says this normalizes top-down scenario planning that could shape policy and erode local discretion. The transcript concludes by stating that the next health crisis “won’t be managed from Ottawa” but instead “directed to you from Geneva.” It identifies the speaker as Tamara Ugolini for Rebel News and calls for sharing the information, demanding debate and transparency, and signing a petition at nopandemictreaty.com (nopandemictreaty dot com).

A recent report describes a cyberattack and censorship surrounding a peer‑reviewed study that examines cancer diagnoses in relation to COVID vaccination. The study appeared in Oncotarget on January 3 and was authored by cancer researchers from Tufts University and Brown University. It analyzed 69 previously published case reports from around the world, identifying 333 instances where cancer was newly diagnosed or rapidly worsened within a few weeks after vaccination. The Daily Mail reported that the journal hosting the study was hit by a cyberattack that took the site offline, and that the attack helped propel the paper into broader public attention. The piece notes that the cyberattack was described to have disrupted Oncotarget’s online operations and that the FBI was informed of the incident, though the FBI reportedly would not confirm or deny whether it is investigating the attack. Among the paper’s authors is Dr. Wafiq Eldiri, who faced ongoing public backlash and personal attacks, including labels such as "scientifically illiterate," "pathetic," and racial insults, as part of a smear campaign tied to the study. Eldiri publicly described the personal attacks he has endured for pursuing the work and stated that he believes it should not be acceptable to attack a physician and biomedical researcher for presenting published literature on COVID infection, COVID vaccines, and cancer. In a striking twist, two days after the paper’s publication, Pfizer reportedly reached out to recruit Eldiri, praising his expertise in oncologic sciences and offering senior positions. Eldiri released the message publicly and rejected the offer, noting the irony of receiving a Pfizer recruiter message on January 5, 2026. Eldiri has been vocal about the need for thorough investigations into vaccine safety signals, including potential DNA integration, immune suppression, and cancer risks that could, if substantiated, prompt reconsideration or revocation of emergency use approvals. He suggested that the FDA should work toward revoking or restricting COVID mRNA vaccine approvals if there is insufficient evidence of safety and manufacturing cleanliness, and that evidence should undergo high standards of scrutiny given concerns about assays and reporting of adverse events. The discussion references other figures and voices in the debate, including Dr. Mary Talley Boden’s assertion that “now we know why the shots are still on the market,” and Dr. Robert Malone’s commentary that Marty Makri could, but will not, remove the shots from the market. The conversation connects these events to broader political and regulatory dynamics, including calls for accountability and for reevaluating emergency approvals in light of emerging data. The piece also touches on fears about future governance of digital identity and related policy implications.

The cross-examination reveals that the government panel responsible for creating the vaccine mandate for travel in Canada lacked expertise in medicine and infectious diseases. The director general of the panel, Jennifer Little, invoked cabinet confidence when asked about who ordered the mandates. The panel received no solid scientific recommendation from health and science experts to implement the mandate. Furthermore, an email exchange between Transport Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) showed a lack of specific scientific rationale for the mandate. Little admitted that implementing the mandate when only 50% of eligible Canadians were vaccinated would have caused chaos, but they waited until 80% were vaccinated. This raises questions about the true motivations behind the mandate.

The Queensland Supreme Court ruled COVID-19 vaccine mandates for emergency services were unlawful. Dr. Nick Coatsworth, a medical expert, acknowledged his role in promoting mandates but believes they were wrong. He stated mandates have a time limit in a pandemic, and we should reconsider their use in the future. Hindsight should guide our decisions for future pandemics.

Speaker 0 argues that the government and premier treated British Columbians like guinea pigs, forcing experimental procedures without consent. They claim the numbers support this: all seven doctors in the obstetrics department in Kamloops are gone, and the pediatrics unit in Kelowna is gone, describing this as just the tip of the iceberg. The speaker asserts the devastation is widespread and states that the health minister and the premier should not expect applause for the careers wrecked and lives upended by what they call unscientific mandates. They pledge to stand for the voices of thousands of health care workers the government purportedly cast aside. The speaker ends with a question aimed at the premier: will the premier himself apologize to the health care workers whose lives were derailed by these punitive COVID policies?

A prototype vaccine is being deployed to the public without actually preventing transmission, which is keeping the disease more dangerous than necessary. This is a concerning public health response. The problem is that even if we acknowledge this issue, we don't know how to change it. People tend to believe that public health authorities are doing the right thing because the alternative seems hopeless. It's difficult to discredit them without sounding like they are deliberately harming public health. People find it hard to accept that medical officials in charge of our lives may have bad motivations.

In the Peckford Charter Challenge cross examinations, government officials and external experts were brought in to testify. The head epidemiologist for the Public Health Agency of Canada admitted that they never recommended vaccinating air travelers. The experts' written advice focused on masking, spacing, and quarantine for sick individuals, but not vaccination. When confronted, the head epidemiologist stated that scientific evidence did not support the effectiveness of vaccination. This disconnect between politicians and experts suggests that the Liberal government has been prioritizing politics over Canadians' charter rights. The cross examinations, which began in mid-May and are set to conclude at the end of June, have been a grueling daily schedule.

The speaker discusses the impact of social media on the credibility of science during the COVID-19 pandemic. They highlight the danger of amplifying pseudoscientists in official positions, leading to confusion and misinformation. The focus shifts to the issue of public health versus science, emphasizing the need for transparency and honesty in the field.

Colleges are accused of destroying medical ethics and the patient-doctor relationship. Danielle Smith, running for Premier of Alberta, spoke up for the unvaccinated, calling them persecuted. She suggested dissolving the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta for change. Elect politicians willing to make major changes, not just tinker with healthcare. Support doctors who upheld the Hippocratic oath during the pandemic, as the healthcare system may collapse.

Speaker 0 argued that the government and the premier treated British Columbians like guinea pigs, insisting that experimental procedures were imposed without their consent. He asserted that the numbers are telling the truth: seven doctors in the obstetrics department in Kamloops have left, and the pediatrics unit in Kelowna has also disappeared. He described these examples as just the tip of the iceberg, insisting that the devastation caused by these actions is widespread. According to Speaker 0, if the health minister and the premier expect applause for the careers wrecked and the lives upended by what he characterized as unscientific mandates, they should not expect it from him. He stated that he stands in the legislative chamber for the voice of those who do not have a voice in this place—the thousands of health care workers whom he contends this government has cast aside. The speaker then raised a single pointed question that he believes deserves an answer: will the premier himself apologize to the health care workers whose lives were derailed by the government’s punitive COVID policies?

There was never a scientific consensus on many COVID-related topics. Before the pandemic, most scientists held opposing views. A small, influential group of scientific bureaucrats seized control of the public narrative, dominating media and influencing politicians. This led to a disastrous response to COVID, and the repercussions will be felt for a long time.

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.