reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In this video, the speaker discusses the release of unredacted RKI protocols by Multipolar Magazine, which reveals that the lockdown measures were not based on scientific evidence but on political instructions. The speaker criticizes the mainstream media for their lack of interest in this issue and accuses them of being complicit in promoting government measures without questioning their effectiveness. The speaker also highlights the negative consequences of the lockdowns, such as increased child mortality and the neglect of other healthcare needs. The video concludes with a call for accountability and legal action against those responsible. The transcript is in German.

- On January 27, the president's coronavirus task force was formed. It was initially led by the secretary of health and human services and coordinated through the National Security Council. - On February 28, the task force transitioned to the Office of the Vice President, meaning it is no longer under the secretary of health and human services. It is not described as being led by the vice president; rather, the Office of the Vice President hosts the task force. Deborah Birx, who came from USAID, was placed there by the national security advisor to President Trump, who stated, “we brought Deborah Birx over.” - The OVP (Office of the Vice President), which equals the task force, equals the National Security Council, leads and coordinates all federal communication and messaging both across the United States government and internationally with the World Health Organization and affected countries. - Starting on February 28, there was no more communication from the public health agencies to anyone. FOIA emails and other records show that people at the CDC tried to send communications to the task force, but they were not approved, leading to “we just gave up” and “we're not trying anymore.” - Redfield is on record saying that they weren’t even allowed to have their own press conferences. - There was no communication starting on February 28, when deaths or cases in the United States were still limited; afterward, the propaganda shifted to messaging about lockdowns and vaccines. - The messaging switch occurred on February 27, with Anthony Fauci flipping completely on masks and lockdowns. The rollout of “flatten the curve” came out on February 27 in a manner described as dubious, with anomalies regarding who put it out and the dates. - People like Zaynab Tufekci emerged as prominent commentators on the pandemic; she promoted the view that lockdowns were necessary and that masks work, despite having “absolutely no qualifications” to say those things, and she later became a prominent voice at the New York Times on the pandemic. - On February 28, there was no more communication from public health agencies; all messaging came from the National Security Council.

The speaker asked if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for stopping virus transmission before it was released. They wanted a clear yes or no answer and requested the data to be shared with the committee. In response, it was stated that no, they did not have knowledge about stopping transmission before the vaccine entered the market. They had to act quickly.

A year ago, the speaker requested data from Emma, including all clinical trials done by medical companies before they requested marketing authorization for the green certificate. Regarding Pfizer, the speaker notes the company submitted a clinical trial that started on January 14, 2020. The speaker questioned a Pfizer representative about how tests for the vaccine began so soon after the December 2019 emergence of COVID-19, but the representative declined to answer. The speaker also asked the CEO of Moderna how they submitted trials since 2017, years before the virus was discovered in the winter of 2019. The speaker states that the CEO of Moderna did not answer how this was possible. The speaker says these are legitimate questions that people are asking, but unfortunately, the companies are declining to answer.

I advised the president to shut down the country, despite knowing it would have significant economic consequences. I did not recommend locking anything down, but rather made a difficult decision to protect public health.

Vielen Dank für die Einladung. Im Vergleich zum letzten Jahr haben wir durch einen Whistleblower in Deutschland bedeutende Daten erhalten, die die gesamte Welt beneidet. Der RKI Leak umfasst fast zehn Gigabyte ungeschwärzter Protokolle und Zusatzmaterialien, die als Beweismittel vor Gericht verwendet werden können. Diese Dokumente zeigen, dass die Coronapolitik politisch beeinflusst war. Der Bundesgesundheitsminister gab zu, dass Experten politisch beeinflusst wurden, was er zuvor bestritten hatte. Die Protokolle zeigen, dass das RKI unter politischem Druck stand und Maßnahmen oft nicht wissenschaftlich begründet waren. Zudem gab es interne Zweifel an der Wirksamkeit der Impfstoffe und an der Notwendigkeit von Lockdowns. Die veröffentlichten Informationen erschüttern die bisherigen Begründungen für die Impfpflicht und zeigen, dass die Gewaltenteilung nicht funktionierte. --- Thank you for the invitation. Compared to last year, we have received significant data through a whistleblower in Germany, envied by the entire world. The RKI leak includes nearly ten gigabytes of unredacted protocols and supplementary materials that can be used as evidence in court. These documents reveal that the COVID policies were politically influenced. The Federal Minister of Health admitted that experts were politically pressured, contradicting his earlier statements. The protocols show that the RKI operated under political pressure, and measures were often not scientifically justified. There were also internal doubts about the effectiveness of vaccines and the necessity of lockdowns. The published information undermines previous justifications for vaccine mandates and indicates a failure of the separation of powers.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your interest. It seems that a so-called "Megalockdown" is being prepared in the Chancellor's Office, without informing the public or the parliament. We find this situation unacceptable. The Chancellor must inform the public and the parliament about her intentions. We demand information on the data and scientific facts that form the basis of the upcoming discussions. We are particularly interested in knowing if there are alternatives being considered that would allow people more freedom. These are the questions that need to be addressed openly and not discussed behind closed doors.

Republicans on the subcommittee recount two years of work aimed at linking the COVID-19 origin to a Wuhan lab, arguing that Democrats hindered the pursuit of truth by blocking hearings. They contend mounting evidence supports a lab-origin, and they frame the hearing as a step toward uncovering the truth for Americans who have suffered from COVID-19. Dr. Redfield is cited as having pointed to the lab-leak hypothesis as early as 2020, urging Fauci, Jeremy Farrar, and Tedros to take the lab-leak possibility seriously and to investigate both lab-origin and natural-origin hypotheses. Farrar convened an 11-scientist meeting across five time zones on February 1, inviting Fauci to join, with a note to treat the matter in total confidence. Redfield notes he was excluded from that call despite being included in prior discussions, and asks why he was left out. Emails following the February 1 conference show the four scientists who had attended later told Fauci that they found the genetic sequence inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. Yet, just three days later, these four scientists drafted the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 paper, arguing the opposite. The subcommittee asks for the likelihood that these scientists, after making that earlier statement, could conclude with such certainty that COVID-19 came from nature instead of a lab leak, and suggests Fauci prompted the paper to discredit the lab-leak theory. Speaker 0 characterizes the February 2020 approach as antithetical to science, saying science requires debate and that this process squashed debate. They ask whether Fauci used the proximal-origin paper to hide gain-of-function research that created the virus. Speaker 1 responds that they cannot speak to Fauci’s motivation but asserts the paper is inaccurate and part of a narrative to support a natural-origin story. They state the pandemic did not start in January at the seafood market, noting infections as early as September, and allege a narrative was decided to claim a wet market origin and to negate discussion about a laboratory origin. With twenty seconds left, Speaker 0 raises a point that Fauci was told in January 2020 about NIH’s monetary relationship with the Wuhan Institute through EcoHealth Alliance and asks whether Fauci intentionally lied under oath when denying NIH funding of gain-of-function research. Speaker 1 asserts there is no doubt NIH funded gain-of-function research and adds that American tax dollars funded gain-of-function research from NIH, the State Department, USAID, and DOD. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 noting time and recognizing Ms. Dink.

I advised the president to shut down the country, despite knowing it would have significant economic consequences. I did not recommend locking anything down, but rather made a difficult decision to protect public health.

I don't think there's been transparency. Routine announcements are being made about findings, and questions are being invited daily. But providing data for the evidence that is being presented isn't happening. The White House has provided information, but these claims seem to be dismissed. Information is being provided; it just isn't believed.

Jürgen Mündeler nodded vigorously when Julian Nida Rümelin said, "We could have known a lot, very soon." This is because the statement that we didn't know anything is false. In the first four to six weeks, we were in a state of alarm and didn't know much. After about eight weeks, we knew it was a respiratory infection spread through aerosols. However, we continued to take unnecessary precautions like disinfecting pens and wearing plastic gloves at breakfast buffets. We knew certain things at different times, such as the need to differentiate between deaths from and with COVID-19 in hospitals. We also knew that PCR tests were not infallible and couldn't justify quarantine measures. We had the knowledge, but no one drew the necessary conclusions.

The discussion centers on a Dutch civil litigation in which Bill Gates, Albert Bourla, and Marc Rutemp (Marc Rutza) are named as individual defendants in cases linked to “Project COVID” and broad pandemic preparedness efforts years before the 2020 pandemic. Key facts asserted: - The defendants are plaintiffs in civil tort litigation filed in the Netherlands around 2023. Two cases exist: an older 2023 case and a second case involving additional plaintiffs. The Dutch approach allows individuals to be named as defendants in civil tort actions. - Gates and Bourla (and Rutza) have appeared as defendants; Gates attempted to avoid jurisdiction, but the Amsterdam court ruled that Gates and Bourla, as individuals, respond to the case. They have not appeared in court personally, but their lawyers appear on their behalf. - On March 9, an appeal hearing occurred in Amsterdam at the Court of Appeals, with extensive public attendance (about 60 journalists, podcasters, and plaintiffs). The hearing was described as explosive; a single attorney, Peter Stassen, presented a long argument as co-counsel had been imprisoned and disbarred, leaving one attorney on a tight budget. A video of the proceedings and a standout speech went viral. - The plaintiffs allege the defendants conspired to create “Project COVID” and a “pandemic preparedness racket” years prior to 2020. The core claim is that Gates, Bourla, Rutza, along with others, collaborated with private NGOs, the military, NATO, and DOD through a DARPA-linked pandemic program to identify pandemic potential viruses and to develop vaccines and therapeutics within sixty days, with funding from the DOD. - Evidence cited includes a 2017 AstraZeneca tape in which a key AstraZeneca executive states that DARPA approached them in 2017 to join a consortium to identify pandemic viruses and deliver vaccines within sixty days; the response was, “I thought it was science fiction.” The tape is part of an evidence package showing pre-2020 planning. - February 4, 2020 is highlighted as a crucial date: a telephone call from DARPA indicating COVID was declared a national security threat, followed by retroactive emergency declarations around March 2020. A February 4, 2020 conference was scheduled, with widespread communications among government, military, HHS, and CDC; the aim was to secure liability protection for pharmaceutical countermeasures during a declared emergency. - The defense includes the assertion that the public-private partnership extended to many companies (including 300 others) that joined the consortium, with U.S. and European regulatory synchronization through mutual recognition agreements. - The alleged motives are primarily framed as profits and control, with references to a long-standing history of military involvement in vaccine development and public health measures, including the PREP Act in the U.S. and parallel European countermeasures frameworks that waive liability and regulatory requirements during declared emergencies. The PREP Act’s role — especially in the U.S. — is discussed as shielding manufacturers from liability, with European frameworks described as allowing similar protections through contracts and synchronized countermeasures legislation. - Expert testimonies: five experts have provided evidence supporting foreknowledge and intentional deception by government health officials and the named defendants. Sasha Ladopova and Catherine Watt contributed written testimonies; Ladopova references foreknowledge by health regulators, and the broader regulatory harmonization across EMA and FDA. - Francis Boyle, a professor known for work on bioweapons law, testified that the vaccines/metas could be viewed as bioweapons; he died three weeks after agreeing to testify. - Injuries to plaintiffs: in the initial case, seven injured plaintiffs with one death; the second case added three more plaintiffs. Injuries cited include cardiovascular inflammation, autoimmune conditions, and cancer; plaintiffs contend their lives were destroyed by the countermeasures, while regulators and manufacturers allegedly denied injuries and deaths. What happens next: - An October 22 hearing in the lower court in Lewarden (The Netherlands) is planned, with a public in-person event and a press conference. - The appeal on the second case seeks to have expert witnesses heard under oath; the prior lower court denied this, and the higher court’s decision is anticipated (with expectations of denial, according to the interview). - The campaign invites public interest and financial support; the foundation in the Netherlands funds the case, and the English-language YouTube channel is available for updates and evidence. Contact points for following the case include Sasha Ladopova’s Substack and the Dutch foundation’s YouTube channel and materials.

Das RKI schätzte das Risiko am 24. Februar 2020 als gering ein, während das BMG am selben Tag Maßnahmen wie Wirtschaftsstilllegung und Ausgangssperren empfahl. Das BMG betont, dass die Risikobewertung ab dem 17. März 2020 auf wissenschaftlicher Basis und nicht durch politische Anweisungen erfolgte. Es wird jedoch festgestellt, dass es keine Dokumente oder Protokolle gibt, die diese wissenschaftliche Debatte im RKI belegen. Das BMG wiederholt, dass es sich um interne RKI Protokolle handelt und keine weiteren Informationen preisgeben wird. Translation: The RKI assessed the risk as low on February 24, 2020, while the BMG recommended measures such as economic shutdown and curfews on the same day. The BMG emphasizes that the risk assessment from March 17, 2020, was based on science and not political instructions. However, it is noted that there are no documents or protocols to support this scientific debate within the RKI. The BMG reiterates that these are internal RKI protocols and no further information will be disclosed.

When the virus emerged, scientists were alarmed and held secret calls questioning its origin. Despite privately suspecting a lab origin, they published a paper claiming it was natural. This cover-up at Nature Medicine has not been retracted. The government has not been transparent, with information coming from whistleblowers and Freedom of Information Act requests.

Ein Whistleblower vom Robert Koch Institut enthüllt Uneinigkeit mit der Coronapolitik und Ministeriellen Weisungen. Öffentlichkeit wurde getäuscht und Minister Lauterbach erklärte die Pandemie fälschlicherweise für beendet. RKI Mitarbeiter zweifeln an der Pandemie und distanzieren sich von der Hysterie, die sie selbst erzeugt haben. Die Pandemie wurde politisch beendet, obwohl medizinisch keine Notlage bestand. English Translation: A whistleblower from the Robert Koch Institute reveals disagreement with the Corona policy and ministerial directives. The public was deceived and Minister Lauterbach falsely declared the end of the pandemic. RKI employees doubt the pandemic and distance themselves from the hysteria they created. The pandemic was politically ended, even though there was no medical emergency.

I advised the president to shut down the country, despite knowing it would have significant economic consequences. However, I did not recommend locking anything down.

The Bundestag is implementing new measures to contain the coronavirus pandemic. Claims that the legislative process is being disregarded are unfounded. Unlike other countries, Germany has not introduced emergency legislation, and parliamentary democracy is functioning. While decisions are made under time pressure, there are committee consultations, multiple discussions in the Bundestag, and input from experts and associations. Changes are made based on these discussions. There is no need to worry about the state of democracy in Germany. Rumors of mandatory vaccination are also baseless, as there is currently no vaccine for Covid-19. The consideration of an immunity certificate was removed from the draft law due to uncertainties about the duration of immunity. The government values factual arguments and rejects lies and falsehoods.

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.

I did not recommend locking down schools. The CDC, as the public health agency, makes recommendations based on their epidemiologists and science. It was a decision made to recommend to the president, not mine to implement. I advised the president to shut down the country when there were only a few cases of community spread, before the major outbreak in the northeastern corridor.

The speaker asked if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for stopping virus transmission before it was released. They requested a clear yes or no answer and asked for the data to be shared with the committee. The speaker then stated that they did not have knowledge about stopping immunization before the vaccine entered the market.

I advised the president to shut down the country despite knowing it would have significant economic consequences. I did not recommend locking anything down, but rather made the difficult decision to shut the country down.

I did not recommend locking everything down. I advised the president to shut the country down, which was a tough decision due to the significant economic consequences it would bring.

I advised the president to shut down the country, despite knowing it would have significant economic consequences. I did not recommend locking anything down, and it is important to note that shutting everything down was not my suggestion.

A year ago, the speaker requested data from Emma, including clinical trials from medical companies before they sought marketing authorization for their products. Regarding Pfizer, the speaker notes that the company submitted a clinical trial that started on January 14, 2020. The speaker questioned a Pfizer representative about how Pfizer started testing a vaccine in January 2020, just days after the Chinese government released DNA data about the virus in December 2019, but the representative declined to answer. The speaker also mentions that Moderna submitted trials dating back to 2017. The speaker asked the CEO of Moderna how it was possible to submit vaccine tests years before the virus was discovered in December 2019. The speaker states that these are legitimate questions that people are asking, but unfortunately, the companies are declining to answer.

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.