reSee.it - Related Video Feed

It was all just a test to see if we would comply. The World Economic Forum has revealed that COVID-19 served as a test of our obedience to a rapidly forming new world order. According to their website, COVID-19 was described as a test of social responsibility, where billions adopted significant public health restrictions. This included social distancing, wearing masks, vaccinations, and accepting contact tracing applications. These actions demonstrated individual social responsibility. It was all a test.

They closed gyms, churches, and small businesses but left fast food, big box stores open. Kids wore masks at school and during sports. People who questioned were shunned. Variants caused less fear over time. People revolted against narratives. Bird flu scare led to self-sufficiency with chickens. Big pharma exposed for profit. Awareness of human trafficking increased. Dollar failing, rumors of backing with gold. Better days ahead.

The discussion centers on a cruise-ship hantavirus outbreak and how to interpret its significance without panicking. The speakers question what is actually known about hantavirus testing, the specific strains involved, and how reliable the tests are compared to COVID-19 PCR testing. They note hantavirus is an RNA virus and discuss the possibility of ivermectin as a therapeutic, while raising concerns about government secrecy and information control. Key points raised: - Hantavirus tests and strain identification: The panel asks how testing is done, whether tests distinguish the Andes virus involved on the ship, and how reliable the tests are. They point out that hantavirus is a rare infection in the United States and that historically the CDC used antibodies, while PCR is widely available but must be interpreted in the proper clinical context. - Transmission and mortality: It is stated that hantaviruses are not known to spread between humans, and the Andes virus is the exception with rare human-to-human transmission requiring very close contact. The speakers reference reported mortality rates for hantavirus (between 25% and 50%), and question how many people on the cruise may be affected given three deaths. - Vaccine and bioweapons concerns: There is skepticism about why a vaccine would be developed for a virus that is not readily transmissible between humans, with speculation about doomsday scenarios and potential bioweapons research. Moderna is mentioned as having announced vaccine work in 2024, and there is discussion about the stock decline related to COVID-19 vaccine uptake. - Ivermectin and treatment debates: The conversation revisits ivermectin as a potential antiviral for RNA viruses like hantavirus, noting patterns from the COVID-19 era of suppression of certain treatments and questioning the standards of evidence used to promote or censor therapies. A prior book, The War on Ivermectin, is referenced in relation to disinformation about the drug. - Media dynamics and public perception: The dialogue highlights concerns about how media coverage and social media influence public fear, including mentions of influencers and a pattern of rapid information spread. They discuss the possibility that the outbreak’s prominence could be driven by media or other non-pandemic factors, paralleling past COVID coverage. - Adverse-event chatter: There is mention of hantavirus appearing among listed possible adverse events for a COVID-19 vaccine, with questions about why such a link would be considered and the strength of that association. A colleague notes a surge of hantavirus literature around the outbreak, which they find unusual for a limited outbreak. - Long COVID and brain effects (aside from the outbreak): A NYU Langone Health study is cited, reporting that long COVID sufferers show changes in a brain region involved in cleaning brain tissue, linking chronic inflammation and spike protein exposure to potential early signs of Alzheimer’s disease, as part of a broader discussion on lingering effects of viral illnesses. Overall, the speakers emphasize asking cautious, clinically grounded questions about the outbreak, testing, transmission risk, and the broader media and political context, while warning against fearmongering and noting the possibility that the intense coverage may reflect patterns observed during the pandemic.

There is a discussion about the control of information and how false information can be challenged. Social media platforms are urged to take responsibility and partner with scientific and health communities to provide accurate information. The idea of government enforcement against fake news is also mentioned. Shutting down information is seen as impractical, and instead, flooding accurate information and relying on trusted sources are suggested strategies. The video then shifts to a description of a past pandemic, where millions of people died, the global economy suffered, and societal impacts were long-lasting.

There was never a scientific consensus on many topics related to COVID-19. Before the pandemic, most scientists held views contrary to the prevailing narrative. A small group of influential scientific bureaucrats took control of the public discourse, dominating media and influencing politicians. This led to a catastrophic response to the pandemic, and the repercussions will be felt for a long time.

Masks don't work, but they're mandatory. Lockdowns are being imposed, preventing people from leaving their houses or gathering in large groups, supposedly for only two weeks, but possibly longer. Everything is shutting down except for big chain stores and fast food restaurants. Small businesses that try to stay open will face consequences. The lockdowns will crash the economy but won't stop the virus. Plastic barriers and social distancing are also being imposed, despite not working. Contact tracing is encouraged through a phone app that logs user activity. An investigative team was sent to determine the origins of the virus, led by the person who runs the lab in question. All of this will continue until a new mRNA vaccine is available, with Bill Gates's help. Gates does not believe the best way to reduce overpopulation is through vaccines.

The Spanish flu didn't start in Spain, but in the US as a bacterial pneumonia outbreak from a vaccine experiment on soldiers. The Rockefeller Institute led the mass vaccination program, causing the spread of the disease. Survivors became carriers, infecting others. Similarities to COVID-19 include closed societies, shedding, and safety measures for the greater good.

In 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation published a document predicting a pandemic leading to authoritarian control and surveillance. China's quick response was praised. The document also mentions Event 201, a simulation of a coronavirus outbreak in 2019. Misinformation was highlighted as a major issue during the pandemic. The World Health Organization warned of a highly lethal respiratory pathogen causing a global catastrophe. Bill Gates previously warned of a major pandemic causing millions of deaths. The current situation is seen as a result of long-term planning.

The video discusses the coronavirus outbreak in China and its potential global impact. It highlights the suspicious nature of the numbers being reported by the Chinese government and the lack of trust in their accuracy. The video also explores conspiracy theories surrounding the origins of the virus, including the proximity of a high-level BioLab to the wet market where the outbreak began. It mentions a simulation conducted by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in 2018 that eerily resembles the current outbreak. The video concludes by urging viewers to be prepared with essential supplies in case of a quarantine situation.

There will likely be a deadly airborne disease in the future, so we need to establish a global infrastructure to quickly detect, isolate, and respond to it. This was emphasized by multiple speakers. A document from 2010 predicted a pandemic similar to what we are experiencing now, with China being better prepared and implementing strict measures. The document also foresaw increased government control and oversight, which has become a reality. A simulation called Event 201, held in October 2019, accurately predicted the coronavirus outbreak. The speakers discussed the importance of managing misinformation and disinformation. They believe that controlling access to information is necessary to combat the pandemic. Some speakers expressed skepticism about the coincidences and the level of control being exerted.

It's easy to manipulate people with fear, like with climate change and the pandemic. Climate has always changed, with sea levels rising and political movements using fear tactics. The pandemic is seen as a way to control people through measures like vaccine passports and digital currencies tied to social credit scores. Some in the US want to follow China's lead in controlling people's purchasing power.

The speaker states the virus was not isolated. Live animal samples are irrelevant. The speaker suspects the origin is different than originally thought. China's government is presenting the city where the virus emerged as the city that defeated it in a new patriotic film.

During the Spanish flu, one third of the world population was infected. Contrary to its name, it didn't start in Spain and it wasn't a flu virus, but rather a severe bacterial pneumonia. The Rockefeller Institute conducted an experimental vaccine trial on soldiers, injecting them with a meningitis vaccine cultured in horses. These soldiers, along with the American population, were vaccinated due to fears of European diseases. The Rockefeller Institute and Dr. Frederick Gates were responsible for the distribution and mass vaccination program. Survivors became carriers, spreading the bacteria to others, including the non-vaccinated. Similar patterns can be seen today with COVID-19, where vaccinated individuals can still infect the non-vaccinated. The parallels between the past and present, such as disease origins and closed societies, are intriguing.

During the Spanish flu, one-third of the world population was infected. Contrary to its name, it didn't start in Spain and it wasn't a flu virus. It was a bacteria that originated in the US and was spread through soldiers. The Rockefeller Institute was responsible for the mass vaccination program, led by Dr. Frederick Gates. Survivors became carriers, infecting others, similar to shedding in COVID times. The parallels between then and now are striking, with disease outbreaks, societal closures, and the pursuit of safety. The connections between Frederick Gates and Bill Gates, as well as the Rockefeller Initiative then and now, are intriguing.

In 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation published a document predicting a pandemic like COVID-19. It described a scenario where governments imposed strict measures, citizens gave up privacy for safety, and misinformation spread. Event 201, a simulation hosted in 2019, eerily mirrored the pandemic. Experts warned of a highly infectious virus causing global catastrophe. The current situation is seen as a result of long-term planning.

Bill Gates and the World Health Organization recently conducted a pandemic simulation called "Catastrophic Contagion" in Belgium. The simulation involved a fictional virus called the Severe Epidemic Enterovirus Respiratory Syndrome, which they predict will occur in 2025. The simulation included discussions about global response, lockdowns, and the development of vaccines. The video also highlighted the importance of national leadership and trust in healthcare systems. Critics have pointed out the narrative presented in the video, which portrays dissenters as unreasonable and promotes centralized power. The simulation aims to prepare for future pandemics and align vaccine development with the predicted virus.

In 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation published a document called "Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development." One scenario, called "lockstep," predicted a pandemic hitting in 2012. It described how even prepared nations were overwhelmed, economies suffered, and global supply chains broke. China, however, fared better due to its quick imposition of quarantine measures. The document also mentioned that other countries imposed strict rules and restrictions, leading to increased oversight and control. The video then discusses a pandemic simulation called Event 201, held in October 2019, which predicted the coronavirus outbreak. It raises questions about the coincidence and the ability to control information. The video suggests that everything was planned and in place before 2020.

The documentary traces the global HIV/AIDS story through shifting science, politics, testing, treatment, and personal narratives, revealing a landscape of debate, fear, and influence that has shaped how the epidemic is understood and managed. From the outset, the film juxtaposes dramatic claims about the virus with questions about complacency, fear, and the human cost of AIDS. Early voices warn that HIV remains a deadly virus despite reduced fear, while others emphasize a persistent problem for individuals and the vast number of people living with the virus. The central tension is set: can a cure be found, and what would it take? A through-line is the distinction between HIV and AIDS. The narrator and interviewees seek clarity on what causes AIDS, how HIV relates to it, and why the distinction matters for diagnosis and treatment. Experts emphasize core definitions: HIV is a virus; AIDS is a syndrome caused by infection with the virus; you don’t get infected with AIDS, you get infected with HIV which can lead to AIDS. Yet the dialogue also documents persistent public confusion about the difference, and shows that international definitions and country-specific criteria have evolved and sometimes diverged, complicating diagnosis and statistics. The film surveys the history of HIV/AIDS terminology and surveillance. It highlights the GRID term, the early CDC framework, and the 1985, 1987, and 1993 definition changes that broadened AIDS criteria, sometimes to include people with varying CD4 counts or opportunistic infections. A retroactive redefinition in 1993 reportedly increased estimates, and a Bangui criteria conference in Africa sought a simple clinical way to diagnose AIDS in settings with limited lab access. World Health Organization definitions multiply across countries, leading to several AIDS definitions worldwide and debates about how to interpret the numbers. The program documents how testing has driven both diagnosis and fear, including debates over screening versus confirmatory testing. It shows rapid antibody tests, ELISAs, Western blots, and viral-load tests, noting limitations and discrepancies: rapid tests may yield false positives or negatives, confirmatory tests can yield inconsistent results across manufacturers, and in some settings, developing nations rely on screening tests without adequate confirmatory verification. The story includes personal accounts of misdiagnosis, false positives, and the emotional toll of testing, as well as examples where people faced life-altering decisions based on uncertain results. The film also questions the reliability of testing narratives in light of varied international criteria and the economics of testing. The narrative shifts to Africa, particularly South Africa, where the epidemic intersects with poverty, infrastructure, and policy debates. It documents the perception that Africa bears the highest incidence of AIDS, the Bangui criteria’s adoption in Africa, the social and economic context, and the role of poverty as a deadly factor that can mimic or exacerbate immune deficiency. It also notes skepticism about how data are compiled and presented, including claims that numbers are influenced by advocacy, funding incentives, and political considerations. The film chronicles the evolution of treatment from AZT monotherapy to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and the cocktail era, detailing dramatic shifts in prognosis and the emergence of drug toxicity and side effects. Personal testimonies recount adverse reactions, weight changes, lipodystrophy, heart risks, and the existential dilemma of lifelong treatment versus quality of life. The dramatic arc notes that, while HAART transformed AIDS from a fatal disease to a manageable chronic condition for many, the treatment introduced new side effects and ethical concerns about prescribing practices, access, and the long-term effects of therapy. A recurring theme is the tension between scientific consensus and dissenting voices. The film presents prominent figures associated with HIV research and advocacy, including discussions of the role of Robert Gallo, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, and Montagnier, and the geopolitical dynamics around the virus’s identification and acceptance as the cause of AIDS. It includes accounts of cofactor theories proposing that other factors—cofactors beyond HIV—may influence progression and that poverty, malnutrition, and coexisting infections can affect immune function. Some interviewees critique the dominance of a single narrative and suggest that alternative explanations have been marginalized or labeled as unscientific. Personal stories punctuate the analysis: families learning of HIV status, the experience of testing in settings from a South African train station to clinics in Romania, and the emotional and practical consequences of a positive diagnosis. The film documents the journey from diagnosis to treatment, including the trials and revelations of those who have acquired, faced, or combated the disease, and those who question or reconsider the standard medical narrative. Towards the end, the documentary reflects on the broader social and ethical implications: the cost and allocation of billions in AIDS funding, the disproportionate burden on poorer nations, the role of activism and politics in shaping policy, and the ongoing uncertainty about optimal testing, diagnosis, and cure. It closes by acknowledging the resilience of people living with HIV and those who work to understand and treat the virus, while underscoring that many fundamental questions about HIV, AIDS, and their interconnections remain debated in scientific and public spheres. The conclusion suggests that the epidemic’s true battles may extend beyond biology to include poverty, access, governance, and the politics of data.

The transcript discusses a 2010 Rockefeller Foundation document titled Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development, focusing on a scenario called Lockstep. In this scenario, a pandemic strikes in 2012, overwhelming even the best-prepared nations. Approximately 20% of the global population becomes infected and about 8 million people die within seven months. The pandemic devastates economies as international travel and global supply chains collapse, and even developed countries struggle with containment. China is highlighted as having greater success due to rapid, mandatory quarantines and near-closed borders, which saves millions of lives and enables a faster post-pandemic recovery. The account notes that highly intrusive real-time tracking of a largely compliant population was key to lifting lockdowns in Wuhan. The document also asserts that during the pandemic, leaders worldwide imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from mandatory mask-wearing to temperature checks at entry points to communal spaces. Even after the pandemic fades, there is a lasting shift toward more authoritarian control and oversight, with citizens accepting reduced sovereignty and privacy in exchange for safety and stability. In developed countries, biometric IDs and a suite of new regulations are introduced to restore order and economic growth, with the overall message that increased oversight helps achieve stability. The transcript then shifts to Event 201, a high-level pandemic exercise held on October 18, 2019, organized by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The exercise simulated the consequences of a pandemic and the societal and economic challenges it would pose, using a coronavirus-like pathogen codenamed Caps. Participants describe how a significant portion of identified cases require hospitalization, causing strain on health systems. They note that some individuals with mild symptoms can still spread the virus unknowingly, and emphasize that disinformation and misinformation undermine the response. There is discussion about how governments, international organizations, and businesses should counter misinformation and ensure reliable information reaches the public. It’s noted that social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook have identified and removed a large number of accounts spreading disinformation about the outbreak. Some participants argue that strong measures to manage information are necessary, even if it means restricting access to information, to prevent misinformation from jeopardizing the pandemic response or causing political instability. The video then intersperses commentary questioning the coincidence that the 2019 exercise apparently anticipated the 2020 outbreak, with a skeptical tone about whether the scenario was preplanned or predictive. Additional voices from public health organizations warn that an epidemic—whether naturally caused or intentionally—could cause massive harm, with the possibility of ten million excess deaths. A final note reflects on the sense that the world was already prepared in many ways before 2020, suggesting that the pandemic response was part of a long-standing preparation.

You may have heard about the cruise ship stranded for days near Cap Verde, where a rare virus outbreak killed three people and sickened a few more. The illness is allegedly due to hantavirus, described as an airborne virus that comes from rodent droppings, urine, or saliva, and that also transmits from human to human. The speaker contrasts this with the COVID story, which was said to come from a bat and a pangolin and some wet market. A reference is also made to January 2020, when people were stranded on an Italian ship. There is a plot twist in this account: one woman left the ship and collapsed at the airport in Johannesburg, which the speaker says probably infected other people, drawing a parallel to the movie Contagion. The speaker claims that fake news media are sharing this blogger’s video on purpose to spread fear among the public. The message conveyed is that all parties want people to feel safe, but fear campaigns typically begin with the World Health Organization saying there is nothing to worry about, while “we’re monitoring the situation” in case people fall for it. The speaker asserts that once monitoring is in place, the story is amplified, the fear meter is cranked up, and mandates follow. In closing, the speaker urges keeping the story right where it belongs, implying it should not be amplified or believed.

In 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation published a document called "Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development." One scenario, called Lockstep, predicted a pandemic hitting in 2012. It described how even prepared nations were overwhelmed, with the virus infecting 20% of the global population and killing 8 million in 7 months. China's quick response and strict measures saved lives and enabled a swifter recovery. The document also foresaw increased authoritarian control and oversight, with citizens willingly giving up privacy for safety. It mentioned biometric IDs and enforced cooperation with new regulations. The document highlighted a simulation called Event 201, held in October 2019, which predicted a coronavirus outbreak. It emphasized the need to manage misinformation and disinformation. The video suggests that these events were planned and executed with confidence.

In China, a strange case of atypical pneumonia is reported by an eye doctor. Within 11 days, the first PCR kits to test for the virus are shipped. The World Health Organization accepts a PCR protocol as the gold standard for testing. A study on clinical symptoms related to COVID is published, followed by a study on asymptomatic transmission. All of these developments occur within a compressed timeframe of just 26 days. The speaker argues that each step was premeditated and false.

There are conspiracy theories surrounding the COVID-19 outbreak, including connections to the military games in Wuhan and vaping in America. Another theory involves a closed medical research laboratory in the US. The facility was working on developing resistance to SARS, COV, and MERS viruses. They were testing different products to prevent infection in a nearby town. The facility was found to have containment protocol violations. Around the same time, there was a sudden increase in vaping illness cases, which had similar symptoms to COVID-19. The timing and similarities are noteworthy.

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.

COVID made the power of medicine clear as people were restricted from leaving their homes based on medical decisions. The global influence of medicine was undeniable during the pandemic, both positively and negatively. The pandemic highlighted the extraordinary ways in which medicine exerted its power on society.