reSee.it - Related Video Feed

- In two worldwide embalmer blood clot surveys over the last two years, the embalmers report three key results: - Seven out of ten embalmers worldwide are seeing white fibrous clots. - The consensus is this phenomenon started in 2021, after the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines. - Embalmers are observing these white fibrous clots in an average of about 20% of their corpses (about one in every five). - Cath lab whistleblowers corroborate the presence of these clots in living patients: - Dr. Phillip McMillan (UK) has a whistleblower who has worked in the same cath lab for twenty years and reports removing between three to ten of these white fibrous clots from living patients each week in his one cath lab. - The whistleblower has access to COVID vaccination records and says 99% of the time, when he finds the white fibrous clots, the patients have received between one and eight jabs; the more jabs, the worse the clotting. - A US whistleblower, Dr. Mohammad Basharat (Jacksonville, Florida), a cardiologist and endovascular specialist, has provided email communications and photographs showing a white fibrous clot removed from a patient (a DVT) and clot images from within the body prior to removal. He has been removing these clots from living patients for the last three years. - Dr. Mendelman identified another whistleblower (Dr. Masherich) who is afraid to come out publicly due to concerns about license or board certification consequences. - Implications and specifics: - If a high percentage of the population has these clots, they could potentially grow and lead to strokes or heart attacks. - In living patients, standard anticoagulants (heparin and other clot-busting drugs) may be effective against traditional “grape jelly” clots or “chicken fat” clots but not against these white fibrous clots; thus, physical removal via catheters is often required (sucking them out or using a catheter device with a basket to scrape them out). - Symptoms and potential signs: - As the clots grow in veins and arteries, symptoms can include fatigue and chest tightness; brain fog may occur if oxygen delivery to the brain is affected. - Possible remediation and recommendations cited: - Dr. Peter McCullough has a regimen on his website involving three natural supplements—nattokinase, bromelain, and curcumin—cited as helping to break down these white fibrous clots. Nattokinase is highlighted as a natural blood thinner and is an extract of soy; the dosage, daily use, and warnings are noted on the site.

A congressional committee member questioned a USAID representative about whether the agency funded gain-of-function research, presenting a 2015 paper co-authored by the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Dr. Barrick, funded by USAID's PREDICT program through EcoHealth Alliance, as evidence. The paper described creating a novel virus by combining the SARS virus backbone with an s protein from another virus. The committee member cited expert opinions stating this research created a novel virus that grows well in human cells and poses a new risk to humanity. He also mentioned the 2018 DIFUSE project, presented to DARPA and attended by USAID, which proposed creating a coronavirus with a furin cleavage site. He requested the name of the USAID attendee to understand why this project wasn't revealed to the public, especially after COVID-19 emerged. The USAID representative stated the agency had not authorized gain-of-function research and would look into the specific claims and the DARPA meeting. She acknowledged the importance of understanding the past to prevent future risks and assured cooperation with the committee.

In 2021, Fauci denied funding gain of function research in Wuhan, China, but the definition was changed after Tabak's statement. The NIH website altered the definition to only include research capable of creating a pandemic pathogen. Fauci initially denied any involvement, but the definition was changed later. This semantic play raises questions about the truthfulness of their statements.

- Speaker 0 apologized in 2016 for a promise about 1000 euros, stating that was a mistake and clarifying that it is not about Ukraine joining the European Union; they are against that as well. - On policy positions, Speaker 0 says: there should not be changes to mortgage interest deduction; they are not in favor of increasing the deductible; they are investing half a billion in the development of alternative energy, with a caveat about wind turbines, noting that those wind turbines operate on subsidies and “do not operate on wind.” - Speaker 1 recalls a statement from nine years ago about a street worker who works 40 years and can retire at 65, noting that nothing of that has been seen in recent years. Speaker 0 counters with “five years said, right?” to confirm the timeline. - Speaker 0 references a past claim about someone being under oath, saying that if it involved political motives, the law would be set aside. They remark not to recall a speech about “group immunity,” and state they have not heard such a speech. - The discussion moves to a person not being in service of the VVD; they state she does not work for the VVD, has no VVD parliamentary pass, and that Speaker 0 had lied about the matter being about Omtzigt. - Speaker 0 asserts that they did so to the best of their knowledge, admitting there was no memo that had been requested by the informant or informally requested; they did not have that memory and could not reconstruct what was discussed in 2015. They acknowledge uncertainty about what exactly was on the table in 2015 and admit they cannot precisely reconstruct those details. - They mention a second example and reference someone named Caroline, then question whether it is odd that officials would be aware of something and the other person would not be informed. They ask if this was four years ago, saying they would not know. They conclude by saying they have misremembered this in hindsight and express sincere regret.

I don't understand why the committee skipped over 30 years of my career and focused on a past incident from graduate school. We should be looking at the last three and a half years because people were killed in a terrorist act. The special agent found that I was involved and I apologize for lying to the committee. I was fired for it.

There is a pattern of inappropriate behavior within the inner circle, including the use of personal email for official business, deleting records to avoid FOIA, editing press releases and letters, providing misleading advice, and advocating for individuals. These actions violate NIH policy and are deemed inappropriate.

Doctor Moran, a senior advisor to Fauci, discussed deleting emails to avoid transparency, which goes against NIH policies. He also shared internal discussions with doctor Daszak and helped craft responses to FOIA releases, which is not in line with NIH guidelines. Doctor Tabak expressed concern over these actions. Moran is currently employed by NIH.

The transcript discusses emails between individuals regarding FOIA requests, potential kickbacks, and editing correspondence related to EcoHealth Alliance. There are mentions of using personal email for official business, deleting emails, and avoiding FOIA requests. The conversation also touches on protecting individuals involved and minimizing damage. Additionally, there are references to joking remarks, personal matters, and potential dishonesty in testimony. Overall, the dialogue reveals a complex web of communication and actions taken to navigate sensitive issues.

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.

Doctor Moran, a senior advisor to Fauci, discussed deleting emails to avoid FOIA requests, which goes against NIH policies. He also mentioned avoiding "smoking guns" in emails. Moran shared internal discussions with Daszak and helped craft responses to FOIAs, actions not in line with NIH policies. Tabak expressed concern over these actions. Moran is still employed by NIH. The questions raised highlight potential transparency issues within the NIH. Translation: Doctor Moran, a senior advisor to Fauci, discussed deleting emails to avoid FOIA requests, which goes against NIH policies. He also mentioned avoiding "smoking guns" in emails. Moran shared internal discussions with Daszak and helped craft responses to FOIAs, actions not in line with NIH policies. Tabak expressed concern over these actions. Moran is still employed by NIH. The questions raised highlight potential transparency issues within the NIH.

I was involved in policy determination, but it's hard to say if I became too involved. While I'm associated with a specific policy, the reality was more complex. I never explicitly said we should take action immediately. Instead, I sometimes went beyond my scientific advisory role to make people aware of the potential consequences of current trends.

In 2014, a gain of function moratorium was implemented in the US due to lab accidents. Despite this, gain of function research continued in China with funding from Dr. Fauci. The NIH lifted the moratorium in 2017 without proper consultation. There are concerns that US-funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology may have led to the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Ebright believes that lapses in oversight of this research could have caused the pandemic and may lead to future ones.

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.

We did not fund gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The NIH has acknowledged funding research on a bat coronavirus that was enhanced in a lab, making it more contagious. Senator Paul questioned whether I wish to retract my statement from May 11, asserting that the NIH never funded gain of function research in Wuhan. I stand by my statement and have never lied before Congress. The NIH provided grants to the EcoHealth Alliance for experiments with bat coronaviruses in Wuhan. If anyone is lying, it is you, Senator. Evidence suggests the virus may have originated from the lab, and those who funded it will be held responsible. The NIH admitted to funding controversial gain of function research, contradicting my earlier claims. I maintain that I have not lied before Congress. Case closed.

Speaker 0 thanks the committee for a complimentary introduction and for dedication to transparency and accountability. Speaker 0 says they are a career CIA operations officer. They report that they were on joint duty at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, working with the National Intelligence Directors Initiatives Group (DIG), from March 2025 to April 2026. Speaker 0 states their responsibilities included leading the DIG’s investigation into COVID origins, anomalous health incidents, and unidentified anomalous phenomena. Speaker 0 says they are appearing to discuss “the COVID cover up,” the national security implications tied to the DIG’s investigative findings, CIA refusal to comply with lawful oversight, and how to remedy these problems. Speaker 0 describes how intelligence community leaders and senior analysts downplayed the possibility that the COVID pandemic originated as the result of a lab incident. Speaker 0 says that motives were difficult to define given the scope of the DIG’s review. Speaker 0 then states that, “intentional or not,” the IC’s actions resulted in a cover up, wasted resources, and a failure to properly inform policymakers. Speaker 0 says that public health policy would have been very different if the American public had been made aware that a virus from a lab in China was going to serve as the foundation for emergency use authorization mRNA products that were mandated by the former administration. Speaker 0 then addresses Doctor Fauci’s role. Speaker 0 states that Doctor Fauci’s role in the cover up was intentional. Speaker 0 says Fauci influenced the analytical process and findings by using his position to ensure that the intelligence community consulted with a conflicted list of curated subject matter experts, public health officials, and scientists. Speaker 0 states that this included some of the authors of the paper “The Proximal Origin of SARS CoV-two.” Speaker 0 further says the process included other public health experts who have been in Fauci’s orbit for the last twenty plus years. Speaker 0 frames these points in relation to the DIG investigative findings and ties them to national security implications, CIA refusal to comply with lawful oversight, and proposed remedies for the problems Speaker 0 describes.

According to Speaker 1, Dr. Fauci was informed via email on January 27, 2020, that NIAID had a financial connection to the Wuhan Institute through EcoHealth Alliance. Speaker 1 believes NIH was funding gain of function research. Speaker 1 also claims American tax dollars likely funded gain of function research that created the virus, not only from NIH, but also from the State Department, USAID, and DOD.

The speaker was asked about USAID funding for work in Wuhan and creating weaponized coronaviruses. They denied the accusation and stated they did not have specific details. When pressed if USAID money went to Wuhan, they avoided a direct answer and requested respectful questions. The conversation ended with the speaker being accused of giving a non-denial denial.

I want to collaborate with Congress to ensure appropriate regulation of any risky research. The NIH should not engage in research that could potentially cause a pandemic, and I am committed to working with Congress to prevent such occurrences. Transparency is crucial for building trust. If confirmed, I pledge to lead the NIH as a scientific organization committed to openness. As a citizen, I've noticed that Freedom of Information Act requests from the NIH were often heavily redacted during the pandemic. To foster trust, we must be transparent. If confirmed as the NIH leader, I fully commit to ensuring that the American people have access to all NIH activities with limited obfuscation, which has unfortunately characterized the NIH's interactions with the public.

If I'm confirmed as NIH Director, I pledge to ensure the American people have complete transparency into all NIH activities. I commit to openness and limited obfuscation, which has unfortunately characterized the NIH's past interactions. This begins with being very visible.

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.

We did not fund gain of function research in Wuhan. A bat coronavirus was enhanced in a lab. NIH funded research at Wuhan Institute, making a virus more contagious. Fauci denies lying to congress. Questions raised about experiments in Wuhan lab. NIH funded EcoHealth Alliance for bat coronavirus experiments. Fauci denies lying, blames Senator Paul. NIH admitted funding gain of function research in Wuhan lab. Fauci insists he did not lie.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the politicization of science and changes at the NIH. Over the last fifteen to twenty years, the NIH incorporated what Speaker 1 characterizes as political agendas rather than scientific agendas into its portfolio, with DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) being the most prominent example. A chunk of NIH funding went to projects focused on achieving social objectives rather than the health mission. Every NIH employee allegedly had to write a loyalty oath to DEI principles and was evaluated on devotion to the cause. Researchers inside and outside the NIH could access funds, with outside researchers more easily securing money if they promised to conduct DEI research, according to Speaker 1. Much of that research allegedly lacked a real scientific basis and was not science. Speaker 1 provides an example of projects they worked to deprioritize: a project asking whether structural racism is the root reason why African Americans have worse hypertension outcomes. The problem, they say, is that there is no way to test the hypothesis because, if structural racism is the cause, there is no workable control group to test the idea as true. They assert that such research did not translate into better health for anybody, including minority populations. They describe these projects as political agendas that do not belong in a science agency. The stated mission is to improve the health of everybody, including minority populations, but only if projects are clearly scientific, well defined, and have a real chance of improving health. Speaker 0 asks for clarification, summarizing that there were ideological or political projects receiving NIH funding. Speaker 1 confirms and adds another practice: when a good science project ended the year with leftover funds, program officers would approach researchers with leftover money and offer a “diversity supplement”—an add-on tied to DEI that was not actual science—to obtain extra funding. This, they claim, was a waste of taxpayer money with no real health benefit. They say they have since gotten rid of all of that.

In a discussion about a Biden administration report on Gaza, Speaker 1 recounts Her resignation over what she perceived as amisleading conclusion. She says, "I said that report will haunt us. And it does, and it haunts me. The determination that Israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance is patently, demonstrably false." In April, Stacey Gilbert was asked for her input on the administration’s report regarding whether Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza. Speaker 0 notes that Gilbert was asked for input, and Gilbert confirms she advised that the conclusion was not the case. She states, "The subject matter experts were removed, and the report was moved up to a higher level. We were told you will see the report when it is released publicly." When the report was released, it "just doesn't include what you had to say?" Gilbert responds, "I wasn't sure I read that correctly. I read it again and I sent an email then that I would resign as a result of that." Overall, the exchange highlights Gilbert’s claim that the report claimed Israel was not blocking humanitarian assistance, despite her advice to the contrary, the removal of subject matter experts, the report being elevated, and her subsequent decision to consider resigning after the public release did not reflect her input.

I was accused of being part of a propaganda effort to censor those questioning the origin of the virus. I stand by my assertion that the virus is not a lab construct, which aligns with the intelligence community's conclusion. I cannot control how my work is used. It is wrong to censor and lie to the public, and I should have done better.

The speaker claims a CIA whistleblower will testify before a Senate committee that the intelligence community has covered up the origin of COVID for years. The speaker asserts evidence shows the U.S. government funded research in Wuhan and that the virus likely escaped from a lab, adding that CIA scientists concluded it came from a lab leak and that someone later “scribbled out” their conclusion at 2AM and changed the report. The speaker frames CIA involvement as part of a larger effort involving military-related covert operations, stating the CIA has two reasons to live: covert support for the State Department or for the military. The speaker argues that over time, long-term CIA covert actions become USAID programs for logistical reasons, especially when scaling beyond a small “need to know” group and security-clearance constrained operations. The speaker says covert action requires secrecy, skiffs, close-hold communications, and a small number of people, so a public-facing program is needed to broaden participation. In that model, the speaker says USAID or state department programs can engage the private sector, nonprofits, universities, researchers, activists, and media, with public messaging and political support to help scale the underlying aims while keeping the core plan secret. The speaker links this asserted COVID narrative to historical biological warfare and “gain of function” research, citing declassified documents from the 1950s and Operation Northwoods-era plans involving Cuba. The speaker claims Cold War U.S. military and CIA planning included “gain of function” research and the dropping of disease-infected ticks and insects over Cuban agricultural areas to induce crop failures and economically destabilize Cuba without a conventional military invasion. The speaker further claims the plans involved making biological agents appear to be of natural origin and avoiding traceable external attribution, describing discussion of using “nonlethal insect borne biological warfare agents” and coordinating planning information with specific people and labs. The speaker states that, according to their account, biological warfare planning involved references to Fort Detrick and the Rocky Mountain lab in Montana, which they say also played a key role in both COVID-19 and Lyme disease. They claim the same lab used for Lyme was connected to plans for accidental releases intended to look natural. From there, the speaker argues that COVID-origin research ties into personnel and timelines. They claim that in 2015 the CIA and ODNI reached out to Ralph Baric to discuss coronavirus evolution and adapting coronaviruses to humans, and that shortly afterward Baric collaborated with Zheng Li Shi (“the bat lady”) on research funded through USAID’s PREDICT program. The speaker also claims that in 2018 Baric and Zheng Li Shi were listed as collaborators on a DARPA proposal involving a furin cleavage site, and that in January 2020 Baric was summoned by ODNI biological sciences experts to brief officials on coronavirus origins, discussing a possible accidental lab release at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The speaker asserts Avril Haines, then deputy head of the CIA, later became head of ODNI and played a key role in the Event 201 simulator. The speaker concludes by tying these threads back to the alleged CIA-to-USAID scaling mechanism and to CIA contractors and censorship efforts, claiming that the CIA’s role explains why CIA-walked scientists concluded a lab leak and why the conclusion was allegedly altered. They also discuss NIE/DOD/USAID/NED linkages, asserting that NED is suited for the role of supporting covert objectives with indirect public-facing infrastructure.