Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

It is now becoming abundantly clear that Dr. Mike Varshavski will not answer the simple question as to whether or not he watched the Lex Friedman podcast with RFK Jr. In law, there is the rule that a lawyer should never never ask a question to which they do...

thevivafrei's profile picture

Viva Frei

743,858 subscribers

66,147 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

Sağlık & İyilikHaberler & PolitikaEğitim
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

It has been 4 days and Dr. Mike Varshavski has yet to answer "yes" or "no" as to whether he watched the entire Lex Friedman podcast with RFK Jr., from which he selected a 3-second out-of-context clip to smear RFK Jr. Here's the full analysis from Friday's show on Rumble 🏴‍☠️. Dr. Mike, open invite on my show will always stand.
25:13

It has been 4 days and Dr. Mike Varshavski has yet to answer "yes" or "no" as to whether he watched the entire Lex Friedman podcast with RFK Jr., from which he selected a 3-second out-of-context clip to smear RFK Jr. Here's the full analysis from Friday's show on Rumble 🏴‍☠️. Dr. Mike, open invite on my show will always stand.

Viva Frei

14,249 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

A BBC interviewer asked a Nobel physicist the simplest question in the world: why do two magnets push each other apart. He refused to answer it. What he did instead is the best seven minutes on thinking ever filmed. The man is Richard Feynman, at home in 1983, no blackboard, no notes, sitting in an armchair. He does not dodge because he cannot answer. He dodges because he wants you to see what the question is actually asking. So he takes an ordinary sentence, that a woman slipped on the ice and broke her hip, and starts asking why, and every answer opens another why, until the ground gives way. Then he turns it around on the interviewer with a question about ice that sounds trivial and is not. The point he arrives at is the uncomfortable one. Every explanation is only a translation into something you already accept without explanation. Magnets have no such translation. There is nothing more familiar than magnetism to reduce magnetism to, which is why every answer you were given at school was a picture, not a reason. It matters more now than it did in 1983. Any tool will hand you a fluent answer in a second. Knowing which questions actually have a bottom is the part that is still yours. One question. Seven minutes. It is in the video.
7:30

A BBC interviewer asked a Nobel physicist the simplest question in the world: why do two magnets push each other apart. He refused to answer it. What he did instead is the best seven minutes on thinking ever filmed. The man is Richard Feynman, at home in 1983, no blackboard, no notes, sitting in an armchair. He does not dodge because he cannot answer. He dodges because he wants you to see what the question is actually asking. So he takes an ordinary sentence, that a woman slipped on the ice and broke her hip, and starts asking why, and every answer opens another why, until the ground gives way. Then he turns it around on the interviewer with a question about ice that sounds trivial and is not. The point he arrives at is the uncomfortable one. Every explanation is only a translation into something you already accept without explanation. Magnets have no such translation. There is nothing more familiar than magnetism to reduce magnetism to, which is why every answer you were given at school was a picture, not a reason. It matters more now than it did in 1983. Any tool will hand you a fluent answer in a second. Knowing which questions actually have a bottom is the part that is still yours. One question. Seven minutes. It is in the video.

Stefan.

2,695,868 görüntüleme • 12 gün önce

This is painful to watch. Labour Home Office minister Dan Jarvis is *repeatedly* asked a VERY simple question about illegal migrants. "If not hotels, then what is it?" He REFUSES to answer the question. Why? Because he knows we won't like the answer. Absolute car crash.
1:50

This is painful to watch. Labour Home Office minister Dan Jarvis is *repeatedly* asked a VERY simple question about illegal migrants. "If not hotels, then what is it?" He REFUSES to answer the question. Why? Because he knows we won't like the answer. Absolute car crash.

Lee Harris

420,388 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

Our Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is a very smart man. He's not the blubbering idiot shown in this clip. The reason he can't answer the simple question "who pays tariffs" is because he knows the answer. He is stammering because he is struggling to formulate a BS explanation.
0:43

Our Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is a very smart man. He's not the blubbering idiot shown in this clip. The reason he can't answer the simple question "who pays tariffs" is because he knows the answer. He is stammering because he is struggling to formulate a BS explanation.

Peter Schiff

373,389 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Lex Fridman asked Elon Musk what the meaning of life is. His answer was not what anyone expected. We do not know, he said. And that is exactly why we need to expand consciousness. Not to find the answer. To ask better questions. He believes the universe is full of things we cannot even formulate yet. We are like children trying to understand calculus. The problem is not that calculus is too hard. The problem is that we have not developed enough to know it exists. Consciousness, to him, is a tool for exploring the universe. The more of it we have, the better our questions become. The better our questions become, the closer we get to understanding what any of this means. This is why he builds rockets and brain interfaces and AI. Not because he has the answers. Because he thinks the only way to get them is to expand what we are capable of thinking. Most people spend their lives looking for meaning. Elon is building the tools to look for it at a scale we cannot yet imagine.
1:51

Lex Fridman asked Elon Musk what the meaning of life is. His answer was not what anyone expected. We do not know, he said. And that is exactly why we need to expand consciousness. Not to find the answer. To ask better questions. He believes the universe is full of things we cannot even formulate yet. We are like children trying to understand calculus. The problem is not that calculus is too hard. The problem is that we have not developed enough to know it exists. Consciousness, to him, is a tool for exploring the universe. The more of it we have, the better our questions become. The better our questions become, the closer we get to understanding what any of this means. This is why he builds rockets and brain interfaces and AI. Not because he has the answers. Because he thinks the only way to get them is to expand what we are capable of thinking. Most people spend their lives looking for meaning. Elon is building the tools to look for it at a scale we cannot yet imagine.

Shruti

16,844 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

The candidate for Rigathi Gachagua and Uhuru Kenyatta is Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka. Rigathi Gachagua will not and does not want to be President because he knows the kind of resistance he will face. He is not foolish about that, but what he does with his intelligence is what is in question. Rigathi has released his people to Wiper, but that is happening because he knows he can tolerate Kalonzo and they have struck a 70–30 deal.
5:24

The candidate for Rigathi Gachagua and Uhuru Kenyatta is Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka. Rigathi Gachagua will not and does not want to be President because he knows the kind of resistance he will face. He is not foolish about that, but what he does with his intelligence is what is in question. Rigathi has released his people to Wiper, but that is happening because he knows he can tolerate Kalonzo and they have struck a 70–30 deal.

Hon.Moses Kuria,HSC

224,254 görüntüleme • 2 gün önce

The person responsible for the violence against students is the Home Minister of India. He does not have the decency to come to Parliament or the courage to comment on what has happened. 👉 There are two possibilities: ⦿ He did not know that the violence was being carried out, which means he is incompetent. ⦿ He ordered the violence against the students, which makes him culpable. Either way, he is responsible. : LoP Shri Rahul Gandhi
0:55

The person responsible for the violence against students is the Home Minister of India. He does not have the decency to come to Parliament or the courage to comment on what has happened. 👉 There are two possibilities: ⦿ He did not know that the violence was being carried out, which means he is incompetent. ⦿ He ordered the violence against the students, which makes him culpable. Either way, he is responsible. : LoP Shri Rahul Gandhi

Congress

29,289 görüntüleme • 7 gün önce

🕵️SHADY ANSWER: Listen to the way Tyler Bowyer answers the questions if he is a sexual deviant or had sex with young male interns. Stuttering and round about answering the question when he was interviewed on an LDS Podcast. The last thing he was asked was "Is there any truth to any of this?" Bowyer's initial response: "So there is (there is some truth?)....so, so straight off the bat" Notice he was not asked if he is BISEXUAL and doesn't answer that. He just says he isn't "gay" and eventually says "that never happened."
1:31

🕵️SHADY ANSWER: Listen to the way Tyler Bowyer answers the questions if he is a sexual deviant or had sex with young male interns. Stuttering and round about answering the question when he was interviewed on an LDS Podcast. The last thing he was asked was "Is there any truth to any of this?" Bowyer's initial response: "So there is (there is some truth?)....so, so straight off the bat" Notice he was not asked if he is BISEXUAL and doesn't answer that. He just says he isn't "gay" and eventually says "that never happened."

Sword Truth

251,891 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Elon Musk revealed why he keeps working despite of his $800 billion net worth: 1. As a teenager, Musk had a full existential crisis trying to figure out the meaning of life. Religious texts did not convince him. So he turned to philosophy. Reading Schopenhauer and Nietzsche as a depressed teenager, he says, was a terrible idea. 2. Then he read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and something shifted. Douglas Adams argued the real problem is not finding the answer to life. It is figuring out the right questions to ask in the first place. 3. In the book, Earth is a giant computer built to answer the meaning of life. It spends millions of years computing and delivers its answer. The answer is 42. The joke is that nobody knows what the question was. 4. That idea never left Musk. The universe is the answer. We just do not know what question it is answering. And to figure out the right question, you need a much bigger and more expansive consciousness than we currently have. 5. The more we can expand the scope and scale of consciousness, the better we can understand what questions to ask about the answer that is the universe. 6. This is why he wants more humans. More digital intelligence. More biological and artificial consciousness working together. Not for economic growth. Not for power. To collectively get better at asking the right questions. 7. This is why Mars matters to him. Not for the adventure. Not for the achievement. A single planet species is a single point of failure for consciousness itself. If something wipes out Earth, the question never gets asked. 8. "The more we can expand consciousness, become a multi-planet species, ultimately a multi-stellar species, we have a chance of figuring out what the hell is going on." 9. Everything he is building, the rockets, the AI, the robots, comes back to this one idea. He is not trying to get rich. He is trying to keep the candle of consciousness alive long enough to understand why it exists. 10. With $800 billion he could stop tomorrow. He does not stop because to him stopping would mean giving up on the only question that ever actually mattered. What is this all for and what are we supposed to be asking?
2:56

Elon Musk revealed why he keeps working despite of his $800 billion net worth: 1. As a teenager, Musk had a full existential crisis trying to figure out the meaning of life. Religious texts did not convince him. So he turned to philosophy. Reading Schopenhauer and Nietzsche as a depressed teenager, he says, was a terrible idea. 2. Then he read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and something shifted. Douglas Adams argued the real problem is not finding the answer to life. It is figuring out the right questions to ask in the first place. 3. In the book, Earth is a giant computer built to answer the meaning of life. It spends millions of years computing and delivers its answer. The answer is 42. The joke is that nobody knows what the question was. 4. That idea never left Musk. The universe is the answer. We just do not know what question it is answering. And to figure out the right question, you need a much bigger and more expansive consciousness than we currently have. 5. The more we can expand the scope and scale of consciousness, the better we can understand what questions to ask about the answer that is the universe. 6. This is why he wants more humans. More digital intelligence. More biological and artificial consciousness working together. Not for economic growth. Not for power. To collectively get better at asking the right questions. 7. This is why Mars matters to him. Not for the adventure. Not for the achievement. A single planet species is a single point of failure for consciousness itself. If something wipes out Earth, the question never gets asked. 8. "The more we can expand consciousness, become a multi-planet species, ultimately a multi-stellar species, we have a chance of figuring out what the hell is going on." 9. Everything he is building, the rockets, the AI, the robots, comes back to this one idea. He is not trying to get rich. He is trying to keep the candle of consciousness alive long enough to understand why it exists. 10. With $800 billion he could stop tomorrow. He does not stop because to him stopping would mean giving up on the only question that ever actually mattered. What is this all for and what are we supposed to be asking?

Yasmine Khosrowshahi

105,460 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Satya Nadella was asked whether most people will earn more or less after AI. He did not dodge it. His answer was two words that will either reassure you completely or keep you up at night: glue work. He has been thinking about this carefully. His framing: wages have never been about which tasks you perform. They have always been about what society decides to value. The last 250 years rewarded the accumulation of expertise. AI creates abundance of expertise. So the question becomes what humans build next that cannot be trained away. His answer is glue work. The connective tissue between automated systems. The judgment calls that sit outside any loop an agent can close. The work that holds everything together that nobody has written a spec for yet. He was not dismissing the disruption. He said plainly that real displacement is coming and the workflow will change. But his argument is that humans have always migrated toward the layer above whatever just got automated. Typists became knowledge workers. Knowledge workers become something else. The problem with his answer is the one nobody in that room pushed on. He could name the pattern. He could not name the jobs. Glue work is either the most honest answer a tech CEO has given about the future of employment. Or it is the most elegant way to say I do not know dressed up as reassurance. (Watch this on YouTube at
2:48

Satya Nadella was asked whether most people will earn more or less after AI. He did not dodge it. His answer was two words that will either reassure you completely or keep you up at night: glue work. He has been thinking about this carefully. His framing: wages have never been about which tasks you perform. They have always been about what society decides to value. The last 250 years rewarded the accumulation of expertise. AI creates abundance of expertise. So the question becomes what humans build next that cannot be trained away. His answer is glue work. The connective tissue between automated systems. The judgment calls that sit outside any loop an agent can close. The work that holds everything together that nobody has written a spec for yet. He was not dismissing the disruption. He said plainly that real displacement is coming and the workflow will change. But his argument is that humans have always migrated toward the layer above whatever just got automated. Typists became knowledge workers. Knowledge workers become something else. The problem with his answer is the one nobody in that room pushed on. He could name the pattern. He could not name the jobs. Glue work is either the most honest answer a tech CEO has given about the future of employment. Or it is the most elegant way to say I do not know dressed up as reassurance. (Watch this on YouTube at

Ihtesham Ali

74,472 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

[WATCH Q and A on members implicated in Madlanga Commission] Suliman is not called to the commission because he is an ANC member, he is called there to answer in his personal capacity. No one must use the ANC name to advance their personal issues, the ANC never sends people anywhere to do wrong doing. I was called to the TRC Commission to answer not as the SG of the ANC but as a former deputy minister of Police, I didn’t drag the ANC there. He must go to the commission since he has been called there and answer his issues. People must not commit the ANC to things that do not involve the ANC. #ANCmediabriefing #RegisterToVoteANC
5:37

[WATCH Q and A on members implicated in Madlanga Commission] Suliman is not called to the commission because he is an ANC member, he is called there to answer in his personal capacity. No one must use the ANC name to advance their personal issues, the ANC never sends people anywhere to do wrong doing. I was called to the TRC Commission to answer not as the SG of the ANC but as a former deputy minister of Police, I didn’t drag the ANC there. He must go to the commission since he has been called there and answer his issues. People must not commit the ANC to things that do not involve the ANC. #ANCmediabriefing #RegisterToVoteANC

ANC SECRETARY GENERAL | Fikile Mbalula

23,239 görüntüleme • 14 gün önce

#WATCH | Delhi: Lok Sabha LoP and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi says, "The question was never that Mr Amit Shah is going to come and give a speech on some general topics in Parliament. The question was always that Amit Shah has to make it clear who authorised the shooting of our youngsters in Delhi. Pellet guns were fired, students were beaten with lathis with nails on them. He should come clean. Did he order it or did he not order it? If he ordered it, he is guilty of getting our children shot. And if he didn't know about it happening, he's incompetent. Either way, he should go. This was the discussion. Second, the Prime Minister apologises for what has happened. And third was the issue of the Ram temple theft. People very close to the Prime Minister have stolen from the Ram Mandir. These are the three issues. So now Amit Shah suddenly saying that he is ready to speak. We are not interested in his fantasy conversations. We are interested in whether he authorised or didn't authorise the shooting of our children. First, he should make that abundantly clear. After that, the question of any discussion arises. That is the situation. And that is what the opposition is demanding. That is what we have been demanding for the last 15 days..."
2:59

#WATCH | Delhi: Lok Sabha LoP and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi says, "The question was never that Mr Amit Shah is going to come and give a speech on some general topics in Parliament. The question was always that Amit Shah has to make it clear who authorised the shooting of our youngsters in Delhi. Pellet guns were fired, students were beaten with lathis with nails on them. He should come clean. Did he order it or did he not order it? If he ordered it, he is guilty of getting our children shot. And if he didn't know about it happening, he's incompetent. Either way, he should go. This was the discussion. Second, the Prime Minister apologises for what has happened. And third was the issue of the Ram temple theft. People very close to the Prime Minister have stolen from the Ram Mandir. These are the three issues. So now Amit Shah suddenly saying that he is ready to speak. We are not interested in his fantasy conversations. We are interested in whether he authorised or didn't authorise the shooting of our children. First, he should make that abundantly clear. After that, the question of any discussion arises. That is the situation. And that is what the opposition is demanding. That is what we have been demanding for the last 15 days..."

ANI

128,040 görüntüleme • 1 gün önce

Keir Starmer- The £5 million pound question is why did the Reform leader keep this donation secret .. I see he is not here to answer. And what did the billionaire lining his pockets ask for in return? Those questions need answering which is why he is not here. #pmqs #politicslive
0:22

Keir Starmer- The £5 million pound question is why did the Reform leader keep this donation secret .. I see he is not here to answer. And what did the billionaire lining his pockets ask for in return? Those questions need answering which is why he is not here. #pmqs #politicslive

Mike H

69,589 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Mike Johnson now claims he didn't say what he said: "They took a clip out of context." (The clip is not out of context. Watch it below.)
0:37

Mike Johnson now claims he didn't say what he said: "They took a clip out of context." (The clip is not out of context. Watch it below.)

Aaron Rupar

1,714,889 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

The BBC presenter asked Tucker if Trump should be removed via the 25th Amendment. Tucker — because he's an unbelievable coward — dodged the question and said he wants to change the "mechanism" that allows Israel to control the U.S. When she pressed him for what that mechanism actually is, and what proof he has of its existence, he had no answer to either.
1:12

The BBC presenter asked Tucker if Trump should be removed via the 25th Amendment. Tucker — because he's an unbelievable coward — dodged the question and said he wants to change the "mechanism" that allows Israel to control the U.S. When she pressed him for what that mechanism actually is, and what proof he has of its existence, he had no answer to either.

Eitan Fischberger

98,130 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

BREAKING - EXPLOSIVE: Republican Congressman Jim Jordan (Rep. Jim Jordan) confronts Dr. Fauci on alleged COVID-19 cover-up and outright lies. WATCH Question: Thank you, Mister Chairman. Doctor, why was it so important that the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: We don't know where it started. And that's the reason why I keep an open mind. So I don't know what you mean by why was it so important. It wasn't important. Question: You still don't know where it started. The guys you gave money to figured out in three days. Answer: No, no, no. They said, Mister Anderson said on January 31, 2020, virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory. The very next day, Doctor Gerry said, I don't know how this happens in nature. It'd be easy to do in a lab. And then three days later, Shazam, they switched and say it has to be nature. So they figured out in three days. But you still don't know. Answer: No. In fact, if you look at what they were saying, Congressman Jordan, they were saying that it was not a manufactured virus. It still could have evolved out of a lab. Question: Let me read something here to you. They're not incompatible. In our study on the censorship of the Biden administration working with big tech, I want to read you a WhatsApp message from Mark Zuckerberg. Can we include that? The White House put pressure on us to censor the lab leak theory? Answer: Is there a question? Question: Here's another email to Mark Zuckerberg. It says, subject line COVID misinformation, Wuhan lab leak theory. Due to continued public pressure and tense conversations with the new administration, we started removing five COVID claims, including the lab leak theory. Mister Zuckerberg responds, this seems like a good reminder that when we compromise our standards due to pressure from an administration in either direction, we often later regret it. Why was it so important the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: It wasn't so important that the virus not. We don't know. Question: We know it was important to someone in the Biden administration. So much so that the top people at Meta, the top people at Facebook are asking, why are we getting all this pressure to downplay the lab leak theory? And we have an email from June of the same year, June 4, 2021, saying the same thing. It was certainly important to somebody. Answer: Well, what does that got to do with me? Question: I'm asking you because you're the expert on the coronavirus. I'm saying, why was the administration so pushing not to have the lab leak theory as something that was viable? Answer: I can answer that. I've kept an open mind throughout the entire time. Question: Doctor Fauci. Open mind. Answer: That is correct. Question: What happened in those three days? Why did Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry, why did they change their mind in 180 degrees? Because what Christian Andersen says three days later after he said virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory, three days later, he says the main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being somehow engineered. And that is demonstrably false. Question: How did they figure all that out in three days? Answer: Well, what they did is that, you know, they testified before this committee what they did. They went back and looked at the sequences and realized that their initial concern was unfounded about that. And it did not look at all like it was manufactured. Question: But in three days, they figured that out? Answer: Exactly. You could do that in three days. You can scan sequences in a day. You don't need three days. Question: Okay, who's Robert Redfield? Answer: The former director of the CDC. Question: Doctor Redfield. Right. And he was also in the coronavirus task force. Is that accurate? Answer: He was a member of the coronavirus task force. Question: Here's what he said to this committee. He said, Redfield said that Fauci and Collins left him out because Redfield suspected that coronavirus had leaked from the Chinese lab. Is that accurate? Answer: Well, he said that, but that's not true. That is incorrect. Question: Congressman, Doctor Redfield's lying to the committee? Answer: When he sat right where you sat when he said that I kept him out. That is an incorrect statement. Question: The roster who was on the phone, was Doctor Redfield in that conference call on February 1 when you had Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry on that call? Answer: He was not. And the conference call was put together by Jeremy Farrar. So no one kept him out. Question: He said he was kept out because did US tax dollars. Answer: You want me to answer the question? Question: Yeah. I would just wonder why it wasn't on the call. It seems to me the head of CDC, part of the coronavirus task force, which was formed two days prior to that call, would have been on the call. Answer: Well, the call was arranged by Jeremy Farrar. You should ask him. Question: Okay. Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: I'm sorry, what was? Question: Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: Yes, of course. It was a sub-award to the Wuhan Institute. Question: And who approved that award? Answer: Excuse me? Question: And who approved that award? Answer: What agency approved that award? Answer: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Question: Your agency approved that, right? Answer: Yes, it did. Question: Does that have anything to do with this downplaying of the lab leak theory? Answer: No, nothing to do with it. Question: Nothing. Do you agree that there was a push to downplay the lab leak theory? Answer: Not on my part. Question: Really? Really. Wow. Wow. I think most of the country find that amazing. Answer: I've kept an open mind throughout the entire process. Question: All right, I yield back.
5:43

BREAKING - EXPLOSIVE: Republican Congressman Jim Jordan (Rep. Jim Jordan) confronts Dr. Fauci on alleged COVID-19 cover-up and outright lies. WATCH Question: Thank you, Mister Chairman. Doctor, why was it so important that the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: We don't know where it started. And that's the reason why I keep an open mind. So I don't know what you mean by why was it so important. It wasn't important. Question: You still don't know where it started. The guys you gave money to figured out in three days. Answer: No, no, no. They said, Mister Anderson said on January 31, 2020, virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory. The very next day, Doctor Gerry said, I don't know how this happens in nature. It'd be easy to do in a lab. And then three days later, Shazam, they switched and say it has to be nature. So they figured out in three days. But you still don't know. Answer: No. In fact, if you look at what they were saying, Congressman Jordan, they were saying that it was not a manufactured virus. It still could have evolved out of a lab. Question: Let me read something here to you. They're not incompatible. In our study on the censorship of the Biden administration working with big tech, I want to read you a WhatsApp message from Mark Zuckerberg. Can we include that? The White House put pressure on us to censor the lab leak theory? Answer: Is there a question? Question: Here's another email to Mark Zuckerberg. It says, subject line COVID misinformation, Wuhan lab leak theory. Due to continued public pressure and tense conversations with the new administration, we started removing five COVID claims, including the lab leak theory. Mister Zuckerberg responds, this seems like a good reminder that when we compromise our standards due to pressure from an administration in either direction, we often later regret it. Why was it so important the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: It wasn't so important that the virus not. We don't know. Question: We know it was important to someone in the Biden administration. So much so that the top people at Meta, the top people at Facebook are asking, why are we getting all this pressure to downplay the lab leak theory? And we have an email from June of the same year, June 4, 2021, saying the same thing. It was certainly important to somebody. Answer: Well, what does that got to do with me? Question: I'm asking you because you're the expert on the coronavirus. I'm saying, why was the administration so pushing not to have the lab leak theory as something that was viable? Answer: I can answer that. I've kept an open mind throughout the entire time. Question: Doctor Fauci. Open mind. Answer: That is correct. Question: What happened in those three days? Why did Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry, why did they change their mind in 180 degrees? Because what Christian Andersen says three days later after he said virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory, three days later, he says the main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being somehow engineered. And that is demonstrably false. Question: How did they figure all that out in three days? Answer: Well, what they did is that, you know, they testified before this committee what they did. They went back and looked at the sequences and realized that their initial concern was unfounded about that. And it did not look at all like it was manufactured. Question: But in three days, they figured that out? Answer: Exactly. You could do that in three days. You can scan sequences in a day. You don't need three days. Question: Okay, who's Robert Redfield? Answer: The former director of the CDC. Question: Doctor Redfield. Right. And he was also in the coronavirus task force. Is that accurate? Answer: He was a member of the coronavirus task force. Question: Here's what he said to this committee. He said, Redfield said that Fauci and Collins left him out because Redfield suspected that coronavirus had leaked from the Chinese lab. Is that accurate? Answer: Well, he said that, but that's not true. That is incorrect. Question: Congressman, Doctor Redfield's lying to the committee? Answer: When he sat right where you sat when he said that I kept him out. That is an incorrect statement. Question: The roster who was on the phone, was Doctor Redfield in that conference call on February 1 when you had Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry on that call? Answer: He was not. And the conference call was put together by Jeremy Farrar. So no one kept him out. Question: He said he was kept out because did US tax dollars. Answer: You want me to answer the question? Question: Yeah. I would just wonder why it wasn't on the call. It seems to me the head of CDC, part of the coronavirus task force, which was formed two days prior to that call, would have been on the call. Answer: Well, the call was arranged by Jeremy Farrar. You should ask him. Question: Okay. Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: I'm sorry, what was? Question: Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: Yes, of course. It was a sub-award to the Wuhan Institute. Question: And who approved that award? Answer: Excuse me? Question: And who approved that award? Answer: What agency approved that award? Answer: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Question: Your agency approved that, right? Answer: Yes, it did. Question: Does that have anything to do with this downplaying of the lab leak theory? Answer: No, nothing to do with it. Question: Nothing. Do you agree that there was a push to downplay the lab leak theory? Answer: Not on my part. Question: Really? Really. Wow. Wow. I think most of the country find that amazing. Answer: I've kept an open mind throughout the entire process. Question: All right, I yield back.

Simon Ateba

997,322 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Too shy? Rutte could not give a direct answer to the question of which country is behind the UAV incident in Poland "On the one hand, I think the question of who is behind this is significant, but on the other hand, it is not that significant because it does not matter whether it was done intentionally. It was reckless in any case, these were Russian drones," he believes. - SMI
0:33

Too shy? Rutte could not give a direct answer to the question of which country is behind the UAV incident in Poland "On the one hand, I think the question of who is behind this is significant, but on the other hand, it is not that significant because it does not matter whether it was done intentionally. It was reckless in any case, these were Russian drones," he believes. - SMI

Zlatti71

90,969 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

.Liz Cheney: Mike Pence refused to violate his oath to the Constitution, and that is why Mike Pence is not Donald Trump's running mate today. Instead, JD Vance is on the ticket. Vance says he would have thrown out the votes of the people of Wisconsin because he didn't like the way that you voted. That is tyranny and that is disqualifying
1:02

.Liz Cheney: Mike Pence refused to violate his oath to the Constitution, and that is why Mike Pence is not Donald Trump's running mate today. Instead, JD Vance is on the ticket. Vance says he would have thrown out the votes of the people of Wisconsin because he didn't like the way that you voted. That is tyranny and that is disqualifying

Headquarters

474,029 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce