reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The public health and scientific community are to blame for the erosion of public trust by labeling those who question mandates as anti-science. The speaker believes natural immunity should be discussed openly. They suggest treating the choice to remain unvaccinated like driving while intoxicated, advocating for stricter measures. The speaker supports the CDC's indoor mask requirement for both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. They urge the Biden administration to incentivize vaccination by granting more freedoms to the vaccinated.

When the government told us vaccinated people couldn't get the virus, were they guessing or lying? There was evidence of natural reinfection during the pandemic. Since the vaccine was based on natural immunity, one can't definitively say vaccination is superior to natural infection, even if it's often slightly better. I can't rule out the possibility that the government wasn't truthful when they stated vaccinated individuals couldn't contract the virus. While I ensured my susceptible family members were vaccinated, we still used layered protection during surges, knowing vaccine immunity could wane. The hope was that the vaccine would prevent transmission. Scientists and public health leaders must clearly communicate what's known versus what's hoped. When the government said the vaccinated couldn't get it, it wasn't the truth, but possibly a guess, a lie, or just hope.

The speaker believes mandating vaccines and negating natural immunity from infection was a big mistake. They agree that the general public's negative sentiment towards vaccines is now greater than when they became CDC director in 2018 or 2019. This increased negativity is largely due to how the COVID vaccines were positioned on the American public.

The speaker expresses disappointment that the existence of myocarditis was known very early on. They claim to have written to Fauci in 2020 and 2021 about lymphopenia and the failure to clear the virus, asserting that this failure was also known early on. The speaker states the perception of 95% efficacy was inaccurate and suggests there were perverse incentives at play, and now the consequences must be recognized. Another speaker then states that this is why Fauci needed a pardon.

One speaker states that you cannot conclude vaccines will do better than natural infection, although they can often do slightly better. When asked if the government lied about vaccinated people not getting the virus, the speaker responded that they don't know about the task force's discussions. They vaccinated their susceptible family members but still used layered protection during surges, knowing vaccine immunity could wane like natural immunity, with reinfection occurring every four months in South Africa. When asked if the government's claim that the vaccine prevented transmission was a lie or a guess, the speaker said it was hope. They added that the original phase three trials only measured symptomatic disease, not proactively testing for mild or asymptomatic infections, so there was never data showing protection against asymptomatic infection. Another speaker expressed frustration that government agencies were guessing, hoping, or lying to the American people, calling them the biggest purveyors of misinformation.

Questions were raised about the vaccine mandate: "Why was it mandated for young men? Why is the COVID vaccine when we knew relatively early on that it causes myocarditis at some rate?" It was argued that it "didn't stop you from getting or spreading COVID," so we asked why we should "act as if it does." The speaker felt frustrated: "if you said those things in public, you were cast as an anti vaxxer. It's not an anti vaxx to say, Here's what the scientific evidence says." They claim to have "advocated during the pandemic for older people to take the vaccine" but "didn't advocate to force older people to take it." Personally, they were "relieved when my mom took the vaccine in March 2021" and, overall, "I took it, but I was indifferent."

The speakers discuss the lack of attention given to lifestyle diseases and lifestyle medicine in relation to unvaccinated individuals. They mention that many people who end up in the ICU or die from COVID-19 have pre-existing chronic illnesses. However, not everyone with severe illness has a chronic condition, and it is difficult to predict who will become seriously ill. One speaker shares their personal experience with COVID-19 and argues that natural immunity is superior to artificial immunity from vaccines. Another speaker emphasizes the importance of getting vaccinated not only for personal health but also for the well-being of vulnerable individuals. The discussion touches on the use of recovery certificates and the effectiveness of natural immunity compared to vaccines. The speaker concludes that they will not get vaccinated because natural immunity is believed to be lifelong, unlike vaccine-induced immunity, which diminishes after a few months.

Conservative sites are concerned about vaccine mandates, fearing that the government or UN soldiers will force vaccinations. However, currently, no one is discussing mandates. Vaccines can prevent asymptomatic transmission and offer better and more durable immunity compared to natural infection. As people witness the benefits of vaccination, acceptance is likely to increase.

The speaker questions why there hasn't been research done to show that natural immunity protects against recurrent infection. They mention that studies have shown that individuals with natural immunity have antibodies, T cells, and B cells that are considered adequate for protection. The speaker also mentions that the CDC has access to patient data. However, the other speaker responds by stating that their current stance is that everyone who has been previously infected should still be vaccinated, without directly addressing the question.

During a meeting, Dr. Fauci and four others discussed whether natural immunity should be recognized. The attendees had similar views on mandates and other policies. The vote ended in a tie, so Dr. Fauci chose to align with the government's stance. According to the government, only antibodies from the vaccine are acknowledged, while those from natural immunity are not recognized.

During COVID-19, the speaker believes the government was authoritarian and imposed a vaccine passport. As an unvaccinated person, the speaker was unable to travel across the country. When asked if they regretted not getting vaccinated, the speaker stated it was the best decision of their life.

The speaker was upset when the CDC stopped tracking vaccinated people who were infected, suspecting it was to avoid making the vaccine seem ineffective. They believe mandating the vaccines was a mistake and that there should have been more honesty about side effects and the fact that vaccines don't protect against infection. The speaker recalls that while serving as a public health advisor in Maryland, two-thirds of infected individuals had been vaccinated, contrary to claims that it was an epidemic of the unvaccinated. They state the vaccine's efficacy lasts only 4-6 months and that some patients are experiencing long COVID symptoms from the vaccine. In the speaker's opinion, the spike protein is immunotoxic, whether from infection or vaccination. They express concern that mRNA vaccines cause the body to produce an unknown quantity of spike protein for an undetermined duration. They now prefer and use the Novavax protein vaccine, where the amount of spike protein is controlled and its decay curve is known. They believe the mRNA vaccines may cause prolonged spike protein production or negative consequences in some individuals, although it is rare.

Mr. Becerra, the speaker questions his knowledge of an Israeli study involving 2.5 million patients. The study reportedly found that the vaccinated group was seven times more likely to get infected with COVID compared to those who had recovered from the virus naturally. The speaker criticizes Mr. Becerra for insulting Americans who have had COVID and made their own decision about their immunity. He accuses Mr. Becerra of arrogance and authoritarianism, highlighting his lack of medical or scientific background. The speaker argues that numerous scientific studies demonstrate robust and long-lasting immunity after COVID infection. He urges Mr. Becerra to apologize for being dishonest about naturally acquired immunity and expresses a shared desire to increase vaccination rates and reduce hesitancy.

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.

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.

In an interview, it was suggested that institutions should make it difficult for people to live their lives unless they get vaccinated. This would lead schools and corporations to require vaccinations for attendance or employment. The idea is that when faced with challenges, people may abandon their objections and get vaccinated. However, not all objections to COVID vaccinations are ideological. A specific case was mentioned where a woman lost her job after seeking a vaccine exemption for medical reasons related to her desire to get pregnant. This situation highlights the impact of vaccine mandates on personal medical decisions and raises concerns about the implications for individual rights in America.

We are not considering removing the mandate; it's not on the agenda. Our immediate priority is to protect unvaccinated individuals from infection, which means keeping them away from crowded places. Many restrictions have been lifted in hospitality venues, allowing vaccinated individuals to live normally. It's unfair to ask vaccinated people to make sacrifices for the small number of unvaccinated individuals.

In the early pandemic, 2020–2021, eighty six percent of PCR-confirmed COVID cases were not real infections. The speaker asserts that all of the lockdowns, all of the vaccine mandates, and all of those policies that destroyed livelihoods and the economy were based on a completely fraudulent metric. A study is described that compared PCR positive rates by week to the actual antibody testing in the same weeks, noting that the antibody test indicates whether you got antibodies to COVID. The speaker states that only fourteen percent had actual antibodies among those PCR positive cases. It is claimed that it may even be up to ninety percent weren't real infections. The speaker concludes that this fraud is confirmed and calls for accountability for all the people who lost their jobs and were forced to take injections based on this fear campaign, which was based on this false test.

In a recently resurfaced interview, it is revealed that the speaker's intention behind COVID mandates was to encourage people to get vaccinated. The speaker believed that once individuals felt legally protected and empowered, schools and universities would require vaccinations for admission. The speaker argued that when vaccination became a practical necessity, people would prioritize it over ideological beliefs.

Congress, congressional staff, White House employees, Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson employees, CDC, FDA employees, Chinese students, illegal invaders, and homeless people are all exempted from getting the vaccines. The speaker questions why these groups are exempted and suggests that if the vaccine worked, it would protect these people. The speaker concludes that the vaccine is a failure.

The speaker questions whether the government was guessing or lying when they said that vaccinated individuals couldn't get the virus. The other speaker, who was part of the previous administration, acknowledges that there was evidence of natural reinfection during the global pandemic and that the vaccine was based on natural immunity. They suggest that the vaccine may not necessarily outperform natural infection. The first speaker then asks if the government was lying when they said the vaccine couldn't transmit the virus, to which the second speaker responds that it was more of a hopeful belief. The first speaker concludes that the government's statements were not truthful, leaving the options of guessing, lying, or hoping as possible explanations.

During COVID-19, the speaker believes the government was authoritarian and imposed a vaccine passport. Because the speaker is unvaccinated, they were unable to travel across the country. When asked if they regret not being vaccinated, the speaker said no, stating it was the best decision of their life.

When someone is naturally immune to COVID-19, they likely have more antibodies against the virus compared to those who received the vaccine. The vaccine only targets a specific part of the virus, whereas natural infection triggers the production of antibodies against multiple parts of the virus. This suggests that natural immunity may provide better protection than the vaccine. It is important to be cautious when discussing this topic publicly, as there is a prevailing belief that the vaccine is safer. Having proof of antibodies can be helpful in certain situations. One person expresses concerns about working for an organization that benefits financially from the pandemic, while another mentions signing non-disclosure agreements.

In a resurfaced interview, it is revealed that the speaker wanted COVID mandates to empower and legally protect individuals. They believed that this would lead to schools and universities requiring vaccinations for admission. The speaker argued that making it difficult for people in their daily lives would help overcome ideological resistance and encourage vaccination.