reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses the CDC leadership, confirming 'we let go of Susan Menarie yesterday' and that the agency is 'a very troubled for a very long time' with 'bizarre recommendations that were not science based' during the COVID pandemic. They say 'Go to the website. Look at it. Fluorination, giving kids a toxin, and vaccines.' They add, 'There's a lot of trouble at CDC, and it's going to require getting rid of some people over the long term in order for us to change the institutional culture and bring back pride and self esteem and make that agency the stellar agency that it's always been.' They conclude, 'I'm very confident in the political staff that we have down there now that they're gonna be able to accomplish that and and ensure the competent functionality of that agency.'

In this video, a congressman questions Dr. Walensky, the CDC director, about the accuracy of statements made regarding vaccinated people and the origins of the virus. The congressman accuses the Biden administration of misleading the American people and suggests that Dr. Walensky tried to be honest but was prevented from doing so. The congressman also criticizes the CDC's handling of adverse event reports related to the COVID-19 vaccines. Dr. Walensky defends the CDC's actions and clarifies their role in vaccine purchases and adverse event reporting. The video ends with the congressman questioning Dr. Walensky's future plans.

"You were the driving force behind Operation Warp Speed, these mRNA vaccines that are the gold standard. Now your health secretary is pulling back all the funding for research. He's saying that the risks outweigh the benefits, which puts him at odds with the entire medical community and with you. What is going on? Research on what? Into mRNA vaccines. Well, we're gonna look at that. We're talking about it, and they're doing a very good job. With Operation Warp Speed was, whether you're Republican or Democrat, considered one of the most incredible things ever done in this country. The efficiency, the the way it was done, the distribution, everything about it was has been amazing. But, you know, that was, now a long time ago, and we're on to other things. But we are speaking about it. We have meetings about it tomorrow, actually, tomorrow at 12:00, and we'll determine. We're looking for other answers to other problems, to other sicknesses or diseases, and I think we're doing really well. Like you, mister president."

Speaker 0 argues that anyone can file a complaint with a law enforcement authority for murder conspiracy and demand arrests and prosecutions. He points to a 2013 press release claiming that DARPA awarded Moderna Therapeutics up to $25,000,000 to develop messenger RNA therapeutics, noting that DARPA is the Pentagon and claiming the Pentagon bought, paid for, and envisioned these mRNA shots. He contends Fort Detrick was involved in developing COVID-19 at the UNC BSL-3 and asserts the Pentagon is on both sides of the argument, developing the weapon and the alleged vaccines. Speaker 1 asks whether there is any liability shield for deploying a biowarfare weapon and whether the narrative about congressional liability for Pfizer is a SIOP. Speaker 0 agrees that civil liability is separate from criminal liability, stating in his book Resisting Medical Tyranny that executives at companies developing these mRNA shots are guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. He cites a Portugal report claiming that upwards of 300,000 Americans had been murdered by the mRNA Franken shots and invokes the JAB resolution, describing it as a Nuremberg crime against humanity and a violation of the Nuremberg Code. He defines a Nuremberg crime against humanity as murder, extermination, and other inhumane acts committed against civilians. Speaker 1 asks about liability for government officials who approved the vaccines. Speaker 0 says FDA officials who approved the shots could be indicted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder, noting the FDA’s involvement in developing COVID-19 as an offensive biological warfare weapon at UNC BSL-3, including a cited contract listing National Center for Toxicological Research and FDA as contributors. He claims the FDA, which approves the vaccines, was involved in this development. Speaker 1 questions the CDC and media accountability, noting the CDC’s recommendation of the vaccines and media promotion of boosters. Speaker 0 says the CDC, including Director Milensky (appointed by Biden, from Harvard Medical School), is complicit, and claims the CDC has a history dating back to the Reagan administration of handling offensive biological warfare projects, including shipping weaponized agents to Saddam Hussein with implications for U.S. troops after Gulf War I. Speaker 1 asks whether there are lawmakers with intel on gain-of-function biowarfare. Speaker 0 mentions Senator Rand Paul as having a strong understanding, but asserts that some lawmakers were threatened and obstructed after consulting him, recounting an experience with Walter Jones of the House Armed Services Committee who briefly engaged but then did not follow up, implying threats prevented action. Speaker 1 asks how citizens should respond, and Speaker 0 advocates reporting to sheriffs, district attorneys, and state attorneys, noting progress with a Collier County health freedom declaration. They discuss enforcement mechanisms, seizure, and incineration of stockpiles, and trial and sentencing for those responsible. Speaker 0 condemns China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology as a bioweapons lab, alleging it was a Chinese counterpart to Fort Detrick, with the Chinese president seeking his own BSL-4 program and an offensive biowarfare arsenal. Speaker 1 notes U.S. funding and international bioweapons labs, including Ukraine and Taiwan, and ends by referencing Lindsey Graham and a speaker labeled as a professor Boyle.

On firing of the CDC director. The White House said that she did not align with the president's agenda. Doctor Menards' attorney say that she refused to rubber stamp unscientific reckless directives and fire dedicated health experts. Her lawyer's statement made it abundantly clear themselves that she was not aligned with the president's mission to make America healthy again. The secretary asked her to resign. She said she would and then she said she wouldn't, so the president fired her. It was president Trump who was overwhelmingly reelected on November 5. A replacement will be announced by either the president or the secretary. The president and secretary Kennedy are committed to restoring trust and transparency to the CDC by making leadership more public facing and accountable, restoring its core mission of protecting Americans from communicable diseases, and investing in innovation to prevent, detect, and respond to future threats.

Secretary, the CDC director was fired after refusing to resign as her lawyers accuse you, sir, of putting millions of American lives at risk as a CDC vaccine chief slammed in a resignation post. “I'm not gonna comment. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on a personnel issue.” “What I will say is, you know, there's president president Trump Trump has has very, very ambitious hopes for what for CDC right now.” “The CDC has problems.” “You know, we saw the misinformation coming out of COVID.” “They got the testing testing wrong. Wrong.” “They got the the social distancing, the masks, the the school closures that did so much harm to the American people.” “Oh, today on CDC's website right now, they list the 10 top top advance the the 10 greatest advances in medical science, and one of them is abortion. The other is another is floridation.” “Another is vaccines.” “So we need to look at the priorities of the agency if there's really a deeply, deeply embedded, I would say, malaise at the agency.” “And we need strong leadership that will go in there and that will be able to execute on president Trump's broad ambitions.”

Speaker 0 politely asks for the audience to lower their voices and thanks someone for their question. Speaker 1 mentions that federal authorities were not informed about certain information regarding the shooter. Speaker 0 asks for clarification on who "they" refers to. Speaker 1 explains that it was the local police who did not share the information. Speaker 0 states that the matter is under investigation and asks not to argue. Speaker 0 acknowledges the concern in the community but states that the facts are yet to be determined. Speaker 0 refuses to make assumptions and ends the conversation.

An individual claims that local law enforcement did not leave their posts to search for a potential shooter, contradicting what someone else said to Congress. They state that the officers remained at their assigned locations but couldn't see the shooter from their vantage point. The speaker clarifies that local law enforcement volunteered their time and performed the duties assigned to them by the Secret Service. They were assigned to specific locations, including a building in the area where the shooting occurred. The two officers in question were stationed on the second floor of a building, looking out a window, and did not leave their post. The speaker doesn't know why the officers weren't positioned on the roof, but asserts they were where they were instructed to be. They clarify that local law enforcement wasn't in charge of the building, but were there to observe a specific area. The Secret Service was in charge of the entire location.

Speaker questions why a medic near Charlie when he was shot isn't seen: "there was a medic walking behind the tent, had to have been five feet from Charlie the second that he got shot? Why didn't we see a medic running around that tent to render aid to Charlie, or did we? Did I miss this? Did somebody else see a medic carrying a big bag of medical supplies and coming over and rendering aid to Charlie, or did we just see dudes jumping over a railing, grabbing some shit, doing some handoffs, and taking off?" "Pretty weird. Check this video out. Let me know what you guys think." The discussion shifts to "Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last ten years? Too many." "Ten years? That. Counting or not counting gang violence. Great."

The speaker questions the former president about the current health secretary pulling funding for mRNA vaccine research, claiming the risks outweigh the benefits, putting him at odds with the medical community and the former president. The former president states they are going to look into it and are talking about it. He calls Operation Warp Speed one of the most incredible things ever done in the country. He says that was a long time ago, and they are onto other things. He states they are speaking about it and have meetings about it, including one tomorrow at 12:00, to determine next steps. He says they are looking for other answers to other problems, sicknesses, or diseases.

Speaker 0 asks if Americans should take a vaccine if it is released before or after the election. Speaker 1 says they would take it if public health professionals recommend it, but not if Donald Trump does. Speaker 0 then asks Vice President Pence about safeguards for presidential disability. Pence defends the Trump administration's handling of the pandemic and criticizes the swine flu response during Biden's vice presidency. He accuses the senator of undermining confidence in a vaccine. Speaker 0 interrupts and ends the conversation.

The transcript describes a contentious exchange about the COVID-19 vaccine and the roles of public health figures and political leaders. Key points include: - Speaker 0 asserts there was a “fake vaccine” pushed by Antony Fauci and Deborah Birx, accusing Trump of failing to fire them and allowing them to “destroy the said economy,” impose “fascist restrictions,” and promote a vaccine that Speaker 0 claims has “killed and maimed breathtaking numbers of people.” The vaccine is described as self-replicating and not proven safe or effective, with the period framed as Trump’s Christmas message in 2020 during Operation Warp Speed. - Speaker 1 counters that millions of doses of a safe and effective vaccine were delivered, thanking scientists, researchers, manufacturing workers, and service members, calling it a “Christmas miracle.” - Speaker 0 then reframes Trump’s stance, labeling the vaccine push as aligned with the agendas of Gates, Fauci, Klaus Schwab, and the World Economic Forum, calling them “the deep state” and asserting that Trump was pushing their agenda rather than opposing it. - A year later, in late 2021, Speaker 0 notes ongoing consequences of the vaccine and the pandemic, while Speaker 1 repeats positive messaging about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness, and asserts that those who do not take the vaccine may experience more severe illness if they become very sick and go to the hospital. Speaker 1 emphasizes that the vaccine “worked” and that taking it provides protection, while non-vaccination is framed as a personal choice. - In the ensuing exchange, Speaker 1 makes a historical analogy, claiming the vaccine is “one of the greatest achievements of mankind,” noting that during the Spanish flu there were no vaccines, and claiming three vaccines were developed in less than nine months, whereas it would normally take five to twelve years. - Speaker 2 interjects, noting that more people died under Biden than under Trump during the year being discussed, and that more people took the vaccine that year, prompting a defense from Speaker 1 that the vaccine is effective and reduces the severity of illness, while if one contracts COVID, the illness is minor with vaccination. - The sequence ends with Speaker 0 labeling what was said as “utter, utter mendacity” and “Lying.” Overall, the transcript centers on a polarized debate over the vaccine’s safety and efficacy, the motivations and actions of public health officials and political leaders, contrasting claims that the vaccine was a dangerous, coerced plot with claims that it was a safe, efficacious public health breakthrough. It also juxtaposes Trump’s mixed public positions from 2020–2021, ranging from criticism of the vaccine push to praise of the vaccine as a major achievement.

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

Doctor Marks was questioned about VAERS and confirmed deaths related to vaccines. The CDC has not effectively communicated the low number of confirmed deaths caused by vaccines. The lack of transparency has led to public confusion and distrust. The CDC needs to improve communication by providing easy access to information on confirmed cases to build confidence in vaccination.

Speaker 0 expresses concern about the administration’s response to the incident, noting that very quickly, very high up people, including Christine Ohm, Donald Trump himself, and Shady Vance, started calling the killed woman a domestic terrorist and saying she deserved it. The speaker argues that when a relatively young mother of three is killed by a law enforcement officer, government officials should say this was a tragedy, that they will conduct an investigation, and they will see what happened, instead of “running cover for the officer,” because such conduct erodes public trust. The speaker emphasizes that many things about the response freaked people out and describes it as disturbing to have people calling the woman a domestic terrorist. The question is raised: “What the fuck does that even mean?” The speaker notes that even if she did try to run the officer over, it’s not terrorism, and questions what people are talking about when they use that label. There is a critique of how words like “terrorist” are used loosely and how they have “lost meaning,” with the speaker asserting that this is the kind of rhetoric that is used to paint people in certain ways. The speaker draws a comparison, suggesting that labeling someone a terrorist resembles tactics used against Palestinians, where everyone is painted as a terrorist. The rapid labeling is described as part of a broader pattern of invoking terrorism to justify actions or narratives. The speaker concludes with a conditional reflection: if someone is a terrorist, then “actually anything goes,” signaling a perception that the label is being used to bypass normal standards or accountability.

The shooter was identified as a potential suspect, but by the time they were located, they were on the rooftop and able to fire at the former president. The Secret Service director was allegedly instructed by the administration and the DHS secretary to keep quiet or risk losing her job. One speaker has heard from the Secret Service director, but not publicly. Another speaker states they would fire the Secret Service director for not being visible and transparent with the American people, regardless of the story. They believe the handling of the situation by briefing only Milwaukee was poorly executed.

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.

Question about the CDC resignation and how the agency can function. "I will confirm that we let go of Susan Menarie yesterday." The CDC is an agency that is very troubled for a very long time. "Among the top 10 medical innovations greatest medical accomplishments in history was abortion. This is the one of the greatest medical accomplishments because it keeps small families." "Go to the website. Look at it. Fluorination, giving kids a toxin, and vaccines." There's a lot of trouble at CDC, and it's going to require getting rid of some people over the long term to change the institutional culture and bring back pride. "I'm very confident in the political staff that we have down there now that they're gonna be able to accomplish that and and ensure the competent functionality of that agency."

I spoke with a congressperson who mentioned getting Guillain Barre from a flu vaccine. When discussing vaccination, it's crucial to address concerns and focus on the benefits, data, and safety of the COVID vaccine. Listening to people's worries is essential.

Speaker 0 politely asks for the audience to lower their voices and thanks someone for their question. Speaker 1 mentions that federal authorities were not informed about certain information regarding the shooter. Speaker 0 asks for clarification on who "they" refers to. Speaker 1 explains that it was the local police who did not share the information. Speaker 0 states that the matter is under investigation and asks not to argue. Speaker 0 acknowledges the concern in the community but states that the facts are yet to be determined. Speaker 0 declines to make assumptions and ends the conversation.

The speaker was asked if they would have done anything differently than President Biden during the past 4 years. The speaker responded that there is one thing that comes to mind. They added that they have been a part of most of the decisions that have had impact.

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

The speaker was asked what they would say to those who think a shooter is a hero because he killed a healthcare executive who he believed was presiding over a system that kills thousands of Americans by denying them coverage. The speaker responded that they don't know what to say, but that one should try to make an argument and convince people to change the system that way, as violence is not the answer. The speaker stated that they don't think there is anything heroic about the shooter's motives.

The speaker discusses internal resistance to RFK Jr.’s policies and the idea that “deep staters” have been entrenched in government. They mention being forwarded an anecdote from a “good career employee.” They point to the FDA, noting that when Marty Makary came in, he had only about 10 political appointees he could choose. Jay Bhattacharya at the NIH allegedly had one political appointee. The speaker claims that every government employee is a “deep stater” who has been there a long time and that an email from a good employee circulates a CIA manual called How to Be a Bad Bureaucrat and Subvert an Institution from Within. The email supposedly asserts that 90% of employees at HHS, which has 70,000 employees, are talking in lunchrooms about the manual and telling each other that their job is to save America and save science from the agenda of President Trump and RFK Jr. The speaker asserts this reflects how people think across major departments and asks how to get rid of them, suggesting firing them as a solution, and mentions SIOP in this context. The CDC is presented as a case study of failure, described as a public health disaster in its COVID-19 response. The speaker alleges that the CDC’s guidance on school lockdowns copied directly from a teacher union document with which they were aligned, reproducing paragraphs from the teacher’s union advocating for two years of school shutdowns. It is claimed that the CDC also said that cloth masks were fine. The speaker says the CDC led the response and that the NIH funded the entire pandemic, including gain-of-function research, asserting that this constitutes “the creation of the pandemic.” In contrast, RFK Jr. is said to have fired three employees, and this action is described as national news. The overall narrative emphasizes a view of pervasive internal opposition within federal agencies, a controversial and sweeping critique of the CDC, NIH, and HHS responses to the pandemic, and a framing of RFK Jr.’s personnel decisions as transformative and newsworthy.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 engage in a conversation about COVID laws. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 has just vaccinated someone. Speaker 1 expresses concern about people having fits outside the vaccination center, referring to it as a "death bus" and accusing Speaker 0 of killing people. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 questioning Speaker 0's actions.