reSee.it - Related Video Feed

- it's that he took the COVID vaccine off the recommended schedule for children. - 95% of parents were already rejecting that advice, and actually 85% of healthcare workers rejecting that advice. - when these people in the media say that they are standing up for science, they are saying they're going against 95% of parents, and they want every single six month old in this country to have a mandated mRNA COVID injection. - There is a memo going around at the CDC and throughout HHS about how to subvert president Trump and how to subvert secretary Kennedy. - They're saying we're gonna outlast them, that the Republicans are gonna lose the midterms, that this is gonna be a flash in the pan.

The speaker says RFK Jr. aims to alter the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The law firm he hired specializes in this program, established in 1986 and in effect by 1988. He will claim the CDC hid evidence about aluminum adjuvants and try to add autism, eczema, or asthma to the compensable list, or remove vaccines from the program, leaving them to civil litigation. He reportedly wants to eliminate vaccines, arguing we traded infectious diseases for chronic diseases. He says chronic disease incidence in children is one in thirty two, implying vaccines cause autism, despite studies. At a confirmation hearing, Cassidy pressed him to admit vaccines don’t cause autism; he cited Mawson and colleagues claiming Florida Medicaid children were more likely to develop autism after vaccination; the paper was not published, not peer reviewed, and was flawed. This is the beginning; as HHS Secretary he could end vaccine manufacturing.

Speaker 0 frames the issue as 'the corruption of science' and the 'capture of the agencies' by pharmaceutical industries, stating the goal is to restore integrity and credibility to science. Speaker 1 cites a CDC internal study: 'black boys who got the vaccine on time had a two hundred and sixty percent greater chance of getting an autism diagnosis than children who waited.' He adds that 'The chief chief scientist on that, Doctor. William Thompson, the senior said vaccine safety science at CDC, was ordered to destroy that data. And then they published it without that fact.' Finally, he asserts, 'So, you know that story. And you know of hundreds of stories like that. It happens all the time. We are being lied to by these agencies, and we're gonna change that right now.'

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.

In 2016 and again in March 2017 at the White House, the speaker met with someone who considered forming a commission to investigate the potential negative effects of vaccines. This individual was being advised by Robert Kennedy, Jr., who claimed vaccines were causing harm. The speaker advised against this course of action, stating that it would be a mistake.

The speaker is questioned about the Health Secretary pulling funding for mRNA vaccine research, claiming the risks outweigh the benefits, putting him at odds with the medical community. The speaker responds that Operation Warp Speed was considered incredible, regardless of political affiliation, citing its efficiency and distribution. While acknowledging that Warp Speed was "a long time ago," the speaker states that they are "on to other things" and are looking for answers to other sicknesses and diseases. They mention upcoming meetings to determine the next steps.

We're seeing the tip of the iceberg. So right now, I think probably the most prominent, demonstration of that, is, what secretary Kennedy did with changing the childhood schedule for COVID nineteen. In that, we were directed that only children with underlying conditions would be the ones that should qualify for vaccination. That's not what the data shows. Six month old to two year old, their underlying condition is youth. Fifty three percent of those children hospitalized last season had no underlying conditions. The data say that in that age range, you should be vaccinating your child. I understand that not everybody does it, but they have limited access by narrowing that recommendation. Insurance may not cover it.

Speaker 0: "the major problem in our government right now is that it's one with corporations." "corporate corruption collusion with the government" drives a lot of content. "it's easier for big pharma to do their thing if people aren't really talking about it." "they... try to make it a cultural issue." "vaccines to me is not really a cultural issue. It's a scientific medical situation." "It's insane." They discuss: "Does a newborn really need hepatitis b? What are these adjuvants in these vaccines like aluminum? Do we need these things? Are there safer alternatives?" "If you just say that, then all of a sudden, you're an anti vaxxer. That's a pejorative that's placed on you, and now you're a crazy kook, and you're not trustworthy." "If there's people out there to demonize you, that means you are pushing against something that there's a barrier that they don't want you to cross." "It's almost like China's social."

The speaker claims the Biden administration covered up science related to the COVID shot. Information related to vaccine complications was allegedly censored as COVID vaccine hesitant content. The speaker alleges the heart inflammation in young, healthy men and boys was not disclosed as soon as it should have been, resulting in thousands of kids developing myocarditis unnecessarily. The speaker suggests the administration knew the shot didn't stop transmission but kept it secret. The head of the FDA is cited as saying the Biden administration suppressed information about myocarditis damage to children. The speaker believes this sounds criminal, especially considering mandates for school, work, and travel.

The transcript presents a polarized view on mRNA COVID vaccines. It states: "the US Department of Health and Human Services is slashing a half billion dollars in government funding from mRNA vaccine development." It notes mixed messages: "the FDA is fast tracking possible coronavirus vaccine" and "The mRNA vaccine... has probably saved about three million lives." Personal stories describe injuries: "a week after his vaccination, Joel's health began to rapidly decline," leading to transverse myelitis; Toby and Jessica recount autoimmune-like symptoms and chronic pain. Critics argue that "lipid nanoparticles go everywhere in the body, To the brain, to the bone marrow, to the liver, to the spleen, most importantly to the reproductive organs" and that "the spike protein is the toxic part of this virus that causes clotting, that causes inflammation, that causes myocarditis, that causes brain fog." Robert Malone and others claim "the evidence about the adverse events from the vaccines is unequivocal. It is absolutely overwhelming." The piece highlights advocacy groups and calls for more safety research and support for the vaccine-injured.

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.

Laura Logan hosts a discussion with Dr. Sherri Tenpenny on vaccines, public health policy, and what they see as failures and harms within the system. The conversation weaves together personal history, policy details, scientific debates, and broader social concerns, intercut with promotional content for GiveSendGo. Key points and claims raised by Dr. Tenpenny - Vaccine ingredients and aluminum exposure: Tenpenny asserts that if someone receives every vaccine on the schedule, they would be injected with a total of about twelve thousand micrograms of aluminum, which she says is inflammatory to every organ system and can be stored in bones (60% of aluminum exposure). She notes aluminum is present in vaccines in order to replace mercury, which she describes as also a poison. - Early vaccine industry liability and the 1986 Act: The discussion explains that prior to 1986 there were liability concerns for vaccine makers due to injury lawsuits. Tenpenny recounts that in 1986 Congress passed a law giving the pharmaceutical industry liability immunity for vaccines, creating what she describes as a ramp in the vaccine schedule. She cites that by 1991 additional vaccines were introduced (Hep B at birth, Hib, chickenpox, Prevnar, Gardasil, Hep A, and more) and alleges this resulted in a rising autism incidence aligned with new vaccines. - The vaccine injury system: Tenpenny explains the Injury Compensation Act and the existence of VAERS as a tracking system, along with a separate pathway created under the PREP Act (the Preparedness and Readiness Act). She states that during the COVID era a separate program, the Covered Countermeasure Program (CICP), existed under the PREP Act, but it had no funding and a one-year statute of limitations, leading to under-compensation and very few adjudicated cases; she contrasts this with the earlier 1986 act, which funded vaccine injury compensation through the Federal Court of Claims and VAERS. - Perceived safety and effectiveness concerns: The speakers discuss studies suggesting that the flu shot might not prevent flu and that some studies indicate vaccines including pneumonia vaccines may be associated with higher risk of the conditions they aim to prevent. Tenpenny frames this as evidence of cracks in the vaccine program and argues that vaccines are linked to a broad spectrum of health issues, including autoimmune diseases, infertility, and cancers, which she says have been increasing. - Pediatric vaccination schedule and “pediatric poisoning program”: Tenpenny asserts that infants receive multiple injections early in life, with claims that by age two they will have thousands of micrograms of aluminum and other compounds that remain in the body, including in the brain. She characterizes the pediatric schedule as a systematic poisoning program for children and a parallel “adult assault program” for adults receiving vaccines. - COVID-19 vaccine controversy and health impacts: The conversation covers the COVID vaccines, including assertions about adverse effects such as myocarditis, strokes, kidney injury, autoimmune diseases, neurological issues, and cancers. Tenpenny describes long-term concerns (long COVID, autoimmune diseases) and claims of widespread injury and death, contending that the pandemic revealed how the health-care and pharmaceutical systems operate, including alleged corruption and profit motives. She discusses the difficult experiences of families during the pandemic, including restrictions on care and the use of alternate treatments like ivermectin in some cases. - The claim that COVID vaccines were not properly evaluated and that mandated vaccination reflected coercion: The speakers discuss mandates and the experiences of individuals in workplaces and educational institutions who faced pressure to receive vaccines, including religious exemptions and disputes about mandates. Tenpenny suggests a broader pattern of overreach in public health policy and questions about the balance between individual rights and mandates. - History and philosophy of public health programs: They discuss the Healthy People initiatives, arguing that the program’s goals have expanded in scope (from 15 goals to 1,200 for Healthy People 2030) and that the expansion is associated with greater surveillance and control over personal lives. Tenpenny claims that this is part of a broader trend toward data collection and governance of individual health and behavior. - The economics and incentives around vaccines: The conversation notes how physicians are compensated in part through vaccine administration, implying financial incentives influence clinical decisions. Tenpenny emphasizes the profit motive behind vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry’s financial interests, citing extreme examples like the one boy in a photo who allegedly became heavily medicated due to vaccines. - The role of media and information control: They discuss the influence of advertising in media since the 1990s and the difficulty of reporting critically on vaccines when major advertisers are pharmaceutical companies. They also mention AI and misinformation concerns, including examples of AI fabricating sources and the need to verify information. - Personal stakes, accountability, and political possibilities: Tenpenny discusses personal cost for challenging the vaccine paradigm, including an earlier period of potential licensing scrutiny and professional pushback. She names figures such as Fauci and Birx, argues that accountability has not yet occurred, and expresses hope that public interest in accountability could shift through advocacy and political leadership, citing RFK Jr. as a potential ally though acknowledging political and institutional obstacles. - Treatment and detoxification approaches: For those who have already received vaccines, Tenpenny outlines two separate tracks: detoxification for childhood vaccines and detox for COVID vaccines. For detox, she mentions products such as PureBody Extra (PBX), a zeolite-based supplement she says helps remove metals like aluminum and mercury from the body. She notes it is usable across age groups and even for pets, and she personally uses it. She also discusses non-specific detox approaches such as vitamin D optimization, lymphatic stimulation, exercise, and a diet focusing on avoiding white foods and reducing inflammation. She cautions that there is no proven blood or urine test to quantify spike protein after a COVID vaccine, and that detox strategies aim to support overall health rather than remove embedded spike protein from tissues. - The role of faith and resilience: The interview includes discussions of faith as a guiding force for Tenpenny, including her personal journey toward Christian faith in 2020. They reflect on fear, hope, forgiveness, and the idea that one can act with integrity and do the right thing even when faced with controversy or personal cost. They discuss existential questions about meaning, purpose, and moral responsibility, including the belief that life has a spiritual dimension that informs how to respond to public-health challenges. - Community and parenting: The conversation emphasizes the importance of community networks for new parents, including seeking mentorship from experienced parents and trusted health advocates, and maintaining parental agency in decisions about vaccines, medical interventions, and child-rearing. They discuss the value of critical thinking, asking questions, and avoiding blind trust in professionals or institutions. - Closing notes and resources: Tenpenny provides her websites and a Substack for ongoing information, including dr10penny.com, dr10penny.substack.com, and 10pennywalkwithgod.substack.com, as well as her X profile busy doctor t. The episode closes with a call to viewers to stay informed and to seek second opinions, while thanking the audience for supporting independent journalism. Overall, the dialogue centers on a critical, conspiratorial framing of vaccines, public-health policy, and the medical establishment; it weaves together testimonies about personal experience, policy history (notably the 1986 Act and the PREP Act), alleged systemic failures in compensation for vaccine injuries, criticisms of COVID-19 responses and vaccine mandates, and practical detoxification and faith-based guidance. The promotional content for GiveSendGo lightly interrupts the core discussion, but the majority of the exchange remains an extended argument about vaccine safety, accountability, and the perceived influence of big pharma on health care and public policy.

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.

Nick, what does the Maha crew need to do and what do the people need to be demanding? First, we have to look in the past. Back in the nineteen fifties, they removed the Qatar polio vaccine for ten deaths. They removed the swine flu vaccine of nineteen seventies for twenty to fifty deaths. They removed the Rhoda Shield vaccine in 1999 due to ten cases of bowel obstruction. So regardless, it doesn't even matter. These vaccines have far surpassed the threshold for withdrawal of a product. There's just no argument. The data is there. There is no reason to deny it. People need to act accordingly with the data.

Key points discuss alleged vaccine safety concerns and political influence. An anecdote describes a two-year-old who “went to have the vaccine and came back and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic.” “President-elect Trump was very thoughtful on the issue. He asked the chair commission on vaccine safety.” “Vaccine safety.” The plan was to “chair and to assemble a vaccine safety committee that would look at the safety of the various vaccinations.” In March 2017, there was talk in the White House about whether “vaccines weren't a bad thing” with Robert Kennedy Jr. advising against it, to which the speaker replied, “no. That's a dead end. That would be a bad thing. Don't do that.” Finally, it is claimed Trump took “a million dollar contribution for his inaugural party from Pfizer” and appointed “Alex Azar and Scott Utley,” “Pfizer's handpicked candidates,” who “killed the vaccine safety commission.”

- The discussion opens with a critique of how public health authorities in the United States and much of the media discouraged experimentation with COVID-19 treatments, instead pushing vaccination and portraying other approaches as dangerous. The hosts ask why treatments were sidelined and treated as heretical to question. - Speaker 1 explains that the core idea was to stamp out “vaccine hesitation,” which he frames not as a purely scientific issue but as a form of heresy. He notes a broad literature on vaccine hesitancy and contrasts it with the perception of the vaccine as a liberating savior. He points to a Vatican €20 silver coin (2022) commemorating the COVID-19 vaccine, described by Vatican catalogs as “a boy prepares to receive the Eucharist,” which the speakers interpret as an overlay of religious iconography with vaccination imagery. They also reference Diego Rivera’s mural in Detroit, interpreted as depicting the vaccine as a Eucharist, and a South African church banner reading “even the blood of Christ cannot protect you, get vaccinated,” highlighting what they see as provocative uses of religious symbolism to promote vaccination. - They claim that the Biden administration’s COVID Vaccine Corps distributed billions of dollars to major sports leagues (NFL, MLB) and that many mainline churches reportedly received money to push vaccination, with many clergy not opposing the push. The implication is that monetary incentives influenced public figures and organizations to advocate for vaccines, contributing to a climate in which questioning orthodoxy was difficult. - The speakers discuss the social dynamics around vaccine “heresy,” using Aaron Rodgers’ experience with isolation and shaming in the NFL and Novak Djokovic’s experiences in Australia to illustrate how prominent individuals who questioned or fell outside the orthodoxy faced punitive pressure. They compare this to a Reformation-era conflict over doctrinal correctness and describe a psychology of stigmatizing dissent as a tool to enforce conformity. - They argue the imperative driving institutions was the belief that the vaccine was the central, non-negotiable public-health objective, seemingly above other medical considerations. The central question they raise is why vaccines became the sole priority, seemingly overriding a broader, more nuanced evaluation of medical options and individual risk. - The conversation shifts to epistemology and the nature of science. Speaker 1 suggests medicine often relies on orthodoxies and presuppositions, rather than purely empirical processes. He recounts a Kantian view that interpretation depends on preexisting categories, and he uses this to argue that medical decision-making can be constrained by established doctrines, which may obscure questions about optimization and safety. - They recount the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and discuss Sara Sotomayor’s dissent, which argued that liability exposure is a key incentive for safety and improvement in vaccine development. They argue that the current system creates minimal liability for manufacturers, reducing the incentive to optimize safety, and they use this to question how the system encourages continuous safety improvements. - The hosts recount the early-treatment movement led by Peter McCullough and others, including a Senate hearing organized by Ron Johnson in November 2020 to discuss early-treatment options with FDA-approved drugs like hydroxychloroquine. They criticize what they describe as aggressive pushback against such approaches, noting that McCullough faced professional sanctions and lawsuits despite presenting peer-reviewed literature. - They return to the concept of orthodoxy and dogma, arguing that the medical establishment often suppresses dissent, citing YouTube removing a McCullough interview and the broader pattern of silencing challenge to the vaccine narrative. They stress that the social and institutional systems prize conformity and punish those who deviate, creating a climate of distrust toward official health bodies. - The discussion broadens into metaphysical and philosophical territory, with references to the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. They propose that elites—whether religious, political, or scientific—tend to prefer “taking care” of people through control rather than preserving individual responsibility and free will. The Grand Inquisitor tale is used to illustrate a recurring human temptation: to replace personal liberty with a protected, paternalistic order. - They discuss messenger RNA (mRNA) technology as a central manifestation of Promethean or Luciferian intellect—humans attempting to “read and write in the language of God.” They describe the scientific arc from transcription and translation to mRNA vaccines, noting Francis Collins’s The Language of God and the idea of humans “coding life.” They caution that mRNA vaccines involve injecting genetic material and point to the symbolic and ritual power of vaccination as a form of modern sacrament. - The speakers emphasize that the mRNA approach represents both a profound scientific achievement and a source of deep concern. They discuss fertility signals and potential adverse effects, including myocarditis in young people, and cite the July 2021 NEJM case study as highlighting safety concerns for myocarditis in adolescent males. They reference the FDA deliberative-committee discussions, noting that some influential voices publicly questioned the risk-benefit calculus for young people, yet faced pressure or dismissal within the orthodox framework. - They describe post-hoc investigations and testimonies suggesting that adverse events (like myocarditis) might have been downplayed or obscured, and they assert that public trust in health institutions has eroded as a result. They mention ongoing debates about whether vaccine-induced changes might affect future generations, referencing studies about transcripts of mRNA in cancer cells and liver cells, and they stress the need for independent scrutiny by scientists not “entranced” by the vaccine program. - The dialogue returns to the broader human condition: a tension between curiosity and restraint, knowledge and humility. They return to Dostoevsky’s moral questions about free will, responsibility, and the limits of human knowledge, concluding that scientific hubris can lead to dangerous consequences when it overrides open inquiry and accountability. - In closing, while the guests reflect on past missteps and the need for integrity in medicine, they underscore the ongoing questions about how evidence is interpreted, how dissent is treated, and how society balances scientific progress with humility, transparency, and respect for individual judgment.

The speaker asserts that COVID-19 shots do more than affect the immune system; they can damage the brain and worsen mental health. They claim a wave of studies shows sharp increases in various strokes: ischemic strokes up to 44%, hemorrhagic strokes up to 50%, and transient ischemic attacks (mini strokes) up to 67%. They also report increases in neurological and autoimmune conditions, including myasthenia gravis up 71% and Alzheimer’s disease up 22%. Cognitive impairment is claimed to have risen by nearly 138%, while depression is up 68%, anxiety disorders up 44%, and sleep disorders up 93%. The speaker links all of these increases to “toxic spike protein accumulation and persistence in the brain.” The speaker states this is not a conspiracy theory and cites what they describe as documented peer‑reviewed research and studies by experts. They name epidemiologist Nicholas Holcher, who allegedly says that using mRNA to hijack cells in various organ systems to produce a highly toxic spike protein that persists in the body for months or years was “one of the worst ideas in medical history.” The speaker then asks, “So what can you do?” as a transition to presumably recommendations or actions, though no specific actions are listed in the provided segment.

Trump still talks about the millions of lives saved by the mRNA vaccine, but the vaccine is a blind spot in the MAHA. Deaths and injuries since January 20th are now on the current administration's watch. Ethically, they own what's going on by not talking about it and not removing the vaccine. If there's a plan, it may involve collateral damage because they don't believe they can remove it right now. The speaker believes the blame ultimately lies at Trump's feet, and the current administration owns what's going on. There seems to be a considered effort to sweep COVID and the vaccine under the rug. Until action is taken, the speaker will continue to call it as they see it.

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.'

- "After reviewing the science and consulting top experts at NIH and FDA, HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses." - "BARDA has begun the process of terminating these 22 contracts totaling just under $500,000,000 To replace the troubled mRNA programs, we're prioritizing the development of safer, broader vaccine strategies, like whole virus vaccines and novel platforms that don't collapse when viruses mutate." - "I'm still waiting for Robert Kennedy Jr. To say that we're going to wipe out mandates and everyone will have a choice, but this is a great step in the right direction." - "Half a billion dollars, 22 projects in the pipeline for mRNA vaccine technology." - "KFF Foundation did a survey on really what Americans are still going to want this vaccine going into the fall, the COVID vaccine."