reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @GlobalHProject

GlobalHProject
Posted - November 14, 2023 at 6:27 PM
Saved - November 15, 2023 at 1:46 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The truth about the World Health Organization (W.H.O.) funding is alarming. Contrary to popular belief, less than 20% of its funds come from member states. The majority, around 80%, is provided by private donors like the Gates Foundation and GAVI. This creates a conflict of interest, as these donors demand returns on their investments and influence the W.H.O.'s decisions. With the upcoming May 2024 Pandemic Treaty, granting the W.H.O. unprecedented global power, the risks are even greater. We must understand who controls the W.H.O.'s finances to comprehend the dangers of this power consolidation. Take action and raise awareness! Contact your local legislators and demand accountability. Say no to the W.H.O. and reclaim your power.

@GlobalHProject - Global Health Project

🚨Who's Paying W.H.O.? - Critical information every citizen needs to understand NOW!🚨 Most people are under the false impression that the W.H.O., founded nearly 75 years ago, still operates as an entity funded by its 190+ member states for the equal benefit of the many nations in its community. This could not be further from the truth. The reality is that today less than 20% of the funds raised annually by the W.H.O. come from its member states, and nearly 80% come from PRIVATE, INDIVIDUAL DONORS, most notably the Gates Foundation and its associated global vaccination organization, GAVI. Through this emerging and sophisticated investment system known as "philanthrocapitalism", investors such as The Gates Foundation demand significant returns on their investments and are heavily involved in the administration of the W.H.O.'s so-called "public health solutions". This is a disastrous conflict of interest and imbalance of power which has never been more of a risk to the free people of the world than it is today, with the looming May 2024 Pandemic Treaty on the horizon. The "treaty" in effect will grant nearly unlimited global power to the W.H.O. to manage "health issues of global concern" as they define and declare them to be. By following the money, we can see that after May 2024, it is not only the W.H.O. who will be benefitting from this unprecedented power grab, but in effect, its major individual donors themselves, who are but one small step removed from near total global control in the event of a "health crisis of global concern". These "crises" can include anything from contagious diseases to gun violence to climate change. Understand who owns the W.H.O.'s pursestrings and you will understand the dangers inherent to this sinister attempt to consolidate global power as it has never been attempted before, into the hands of the very few. Share widely and get involved! Reach out to your local legislators at every level and tell them to say: #NoToWHO #ExitTheWHO #TakeBackYourPower

Video Transcript AI Summary
The World Health Organization (WHO) is primarily funded by member states, but over the years, voluntary contributions have increased while assessed contributions have been frozen. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has become a major funder of the WHO, leading to concerns about their influence on public health policy. The United States, United Kingdom, and Gates Foundation have played a significant role in shaping global health initiatives. The majority of extra funding for the WHO comes from the Gates Foundation and Gavi, a corporation focused on vaccine sales. The WHO has proposed a pandemic treaty and amendments to international health regulations, which could limit national sovereignty and personal medical freedom. These agreements also involve surveillance of citizens' social media and censorship of dissenting health information. The cost of preparing for future pandemics is estimated to be relatively small compared to other global challenges. Stronger financing, estimated at $51 billion per year, is needed to strengthen global health security, with a proposed dedicated financing facility anchored in the WHO's constitutional mandate.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The funding of WHO is supposed to be first and foremost by its member states. It is now 194 member states. Now over the last, particularly last 20 to 30 years, That has changed significantly that the assessed contributions of the member states have been frozen And, the so called voluntary contributions to the organization have increased. So right now we actually have a balance that the assessed contribution by member states are only 20% of the WHO's budget and 80% our voluntary contributions. And, of course, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has become Speaker 1: a very large Such funder of WHO. Bill Gates has taken over control of WHO, and, it's become His vessel for, you know, what he calls philanthrop capitalism, which is a way of making a lot of money, by, by controlling these international institutions that make public health policy. And, for example, to get the WHO, Which funds most of the African health departments to use its power and leverage over those departments to mandate vaccines for the Children in those countries, and those vaccines are, are made almost invariably by companies in which Gates has a a private financial interest, or which is fine. Foundation has private financial interest. Speaker 2: The World Health Organization celebrated its 70 anniversary in April, the organization exerted a great deal of influence and power during the pandemic, and it's recently announced A new pandemic accord among its member states. Speaker 3: So if we start to think about, our conclusions to who runs the world in global health. I'm our conclusion is that 3 actors, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Gates Foundation, Dictate a lot of what's happened over the past few decades and in the shifts that we've seen. These 3 actors and it's not just in financing, it's in Speaker 4: a myriad of other ways. So Historically, international organizations relied both on assessed membership dues, and voluntary contributions. We see See, there's a rather finite number of significant donors on a voluntary contribution basis to the WHO. And ninety 3% of what is voluntarily contributed to WHO is earmarked. Speaker 5: From these extraordinary payments, the Bill Gint Melinda Gates Foundation, together with Gavi, which is, actually a corporation with the purpose of selling and maximize the sales of vaccines. They have obviously a business interest, so the majority of, The extra funding of WHO came from this conglomerate building it in the Gates Foundation together with Gavi. Speaker 4: And if we look at Gavi, See, while the Gates Foundation is much more important, to Gavi on a relative basis than it is to the fund, it similarly, Simply the only non state donor to Gavi, and once again, it's a kind of similar group of countries. Speaker 6: The pandemic treaty is half of what The WHO is pushing. The other half is amendments to the inter national health regulations. And if you put the 2 of them together and if they get adopted by the WHO, and we are still members of the WHO, then it would be a serious challenge to our national sovereignty and our personal medical freedom. So the way that it would hurt our national sovereignty is that what the WHO is pushing, what these agreements are pushing is that instead of being an advisory Ivory body, what they would say would be binding. They would be able to mandate how we handle any kind The health situation. That's the first thing. The second thing is it would not just pertain to human health, but also to animal health and plant health and And the environment. So that they could be mandating how we handle any kind of a health issue involving any aspect of life in the world. Speaker 7: The pandemic Treaty and the amendments to the international health regulations both require nations to surveil the social media footprint of their citizens and to censor them if they try to spread any inform health information that goes against the WHO's narrative. Speaker 6: Bill, how confident are you that we, as a global community, will deal with the next pandemic better? Speaker 8: The cost of being ready for the next pandemic is not super large. It's not like climate change where, you know, 10 trillion, 20 trillion, these are Big numbers. You know, global surveillance capability would cost like a 1,000,000,000 a year. The r and d that we need to do to get magic, Vaccines and diagnostics and therapeutics, that's less than 100,000,000,000 over the next decade. Speaker 9: We need stronger financing. It's obvious that nationally and globally, we need substantial resources for strengthening global health security. Our analysis Estimates the needs at 51,000,000,000 US dollars per year. We estimate that about 20,000,000,000 could come from existing and projected domestic and international resources, leaving a gap of $10,000,000,000 per year to close the gap for the most essential functions such as surveillance, research, and market shaping for countermeasures, We support the idea of a new dedicated financing facility anchored in and directed by WHO's constitutional mandate, inclusive governance And technical expertise in and installed in the World Bank. Any efforts to strengthen the global health Security architecture can only succeed if they also strengthen the WHO's role at its center rather than centering Further mechanisms creating further mechanisms that would only create further fragmentation and potentially leave the world less safe.
GlobalHProject
Posted - November 14, 2023 at 6:27 PM
Saved - November 14, 2023 at 7:52 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The truth about the World Health Organization (W.H.O.) funding is alarming. Contrary to popular belief, less than 20% of its funds come from member states. The majority, around 80%, comes from private donors like the Gates Foundation. This creates a conflict of interest, as these donors demand returns on their investments and influence the W.H.O.'s decisions. With the upcoming May 2024 Pandemic Treaty, granting the W.H.O. unprecedented global power, the risks are even greater. We must understand who controls the W.H.O.'s finances to comprehend the dangers of consolidating global power in the hands of a few. Take action and raise awareness!

@GlobalHProject - Global Health Project

🚨Who's Paying W.H.O.? - Critical information every citizen needs to understand NOW!🚨 Most people are under the false impression that the W.H.O., founded nearly 75 years ago, still operates as an entity funded by its 190+ member states for the equal benefit of the many nations in its community. This could not be further from the truth. The reality is that today less than 20% of the funds raised annually by the W.H.O. come from its member states, and nearly 80% come from PRIVATE, INDIVIDUAL DONORS, most notably the Gates Foundation and its associated global vaccination organization, GAVI. Through this emerging and sophisticated investment system known as "philanthrocapitalism", investors such as The Gates Foundation demand significant returns on their investments and are heavily involved in the administration of the W.H.O.'s so-called "public health solutions". This is a disastrous conflict of interest and imbalance of power which has never been more of a risk to the free people of the world than it is today, with the looming May 2024 Pandemic Treaty on the horizon. The "treaty" in effect will grant nearly unlimited global power to the W.H.O. to manage "health issues of global concern" as they define and declare them to be. By following the money, we can see that after May 2024, it is not only the W.H.O. who will be benefitting from this unprecedented power grab, but in effect, its major individual donors themselves, who are but one small step removed from near total global control in the event of a "health crisis of global concern". These "crises" can include anything from contagious diseases to gun violence to climate change. Understand who owns the W.H.O.'s pursestrings and you will understand the dangers inherent to this sinister attempt to consolidate global power as it has never been attempted before, into the hands of the very few. Share widely and get involved! Reach out to your local legislators at every level and tell them to say: #NoToWHO #ExitTheWHO #TakeBackYourPower

Video Transcript AI Summary
The World Health Organization (WHO) is primarily funded by member states, but over the years, voluntary contributions have increased while assessed contributions have been frozen. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has become a major funder of the WHO, leading to concerns about their influence on public health policy. The United States, United Kingdom, and Gates Foundation have played a significant role in shaping global health initiatives. The majority of extra funding for the WHO comes from the Gates Foundation and Gavi, a corporation focused on vaccine sales. The WHO has proposed a pandemic treaty and amendments to international health regulations, which could limit national sovereignty and personal medical freedom. These agreements also involve surveillance of citizens' social media and censorship of dissenting health information. The cost of preparing for future pandemics is estimated to be relatively small compared to other global challenges. Stronger financing, estimated at $51 billion per year, is needed to strengthen global health security, with a proposed dedicated financing facility anchored in the WHO's constitutional mandate.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The funding of WHO is supposed to be first and foremost by its member states. It is now 194 member states. Now over the last, particularly last 20 to 30 years, That has changed significantly that the assessed contributions of the member states have been frozen And, the so called voluntary contributions to the organization have increased. So right now we actually have a balance that the assessed contribution by member states are only 20% of the WHO's budget and 80% our voluntary contributions. And, of course, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has become Speaker 1: a very large Such funder of WHO. Bill Gates has taken over control of WHO, and, it's become His vessel for, you know, what he calls philanthrop capitalism, which is a way of making a lot of money, by, by controlling these international institutions that make public health policy. And, for example, to get the WHO, Which funds most of the African health departments to use its power and leverage over those departments to mandate vaccines for the Children in those countries, and those vaccines are, are made almost invariably by companies in which Gates has a a private financial interest, or which is fine. Foundation has private financial interest. Speaker 2: The World Health Organization celebrated its 70 anniversary in April, the organization exerted a great deal of influence and power during the pandemic, and it's recently announced A new pandemic accord among its member states. Speaker 3: So if we start to think about, our conclusions to who runs the world in global health. I'm our conclusion is that 3 actors, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Gates Foundation, Dictate a lot of what's happened over the past few decades and in the shifts that we've seen. These 3 actors and it's not just in financing, it's in Speaker 4: a myriad of other ways. So Historically, international organizations relied both on assessed membership dues, and voluntary contributions. We see See, there's a rather finite number of significant donors on a voluntary contribution basis to the WHO. And ninety 3% of what is voluntarily contributed to WHO is earmarked. Speaker 5: From these extraordinary payments, the Bill Gint Melinda Gates Foundation, together with Gavi, which is, actually a corporation with the purpose of selling and maximize the sales of vaccines. They have obviously a business interest, so the majority of, The extra funding of WHO came from this conglomerate building it in the Gates Foundation together with Gavi. Speaker 4: And if we look at Gavi, See, while the Gates Foundation is much more important, to Gavi on a relative basis than it is to the fund, it similarly, Simply the only non state donor to Gavi, and once again, it's a kind of similar group of countries. Speaker 6: The pandemic treaty is half of what The WHO is pushing. The other half is amendments to the inter national health regulations. And if you put the 2 of them together and if they get adopted by the WHO, and we are still members of the WHO, then it would be a serious challenge to our national sovereignty and our personal medical freedom. So the way that it would hurt our national sovereignty is that what the WHO is pushing, what these agreements are pushing is that instead of being an advisory Ivory body, what they would say would be binding. They would be able to mandate how we handle any kind The health situation. That's the first thing. The second thing is it would not just pertain to human health, but also to animal health and plant health and And the environment. So that they could be mandating how we handle any kind of a health issue involving any aspect of life in the world. Speaker 7: The pandemic Treaty and the amendments to the international health regulations both require nations to surveil the social media footprint of their citizens and to censor them if they try to spread any inform health information that goes against the WHO's narrative. Speaker 6: Bill, how confident are you that we, as a global community, will deal with the next pandemic better? Speaker 8: The cost of being ready for the next pandemic is not super large. It's not like climate change where, you know, 10 trillion, 20 trillion, these are Big numbers. You know, global surveillance capability would cost like a 1,000,000,000 a year. The r and d that we need to do to get magic, Vaccines and diagnostics and therapeutics, that's less than 100,000,000,000 over the next decade. Speaker 9: We need stronger financing. It's obvious that nationally and globally, we need substantial resources for strengthening global health security. Our analysis Estimates the needs at 51,000,000,000 US dollars per year. We estimate that about 20,000,000,000 could come from existing and projected domestic and international resources, leaving a gap of $10,000,000,000 per year to close the gap for the most essential functions such as surveillance, research, and market shaping for countermeasures, We support the idea of a new dedicated financing facility anchored in and directed by WHO's constitutional mandate, inclusive governance And technical expertise in and installed in the World Bank. Any efforts to strengthen the global health Security architecture can only succeed if they also strengthen the WHO's role at its center rather than centering Further mechanisms creating further mechanisms that would only create further fragmentation and potentially leave the world less safe.
GlobalHProject
Posted - October 25, 2023 at 9:51 PM
Saved - October 26, 2023 at 3:55 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The W.H.O. is orchestrating a global medical treaty that would leave member states powerless during a proclaimed pandemic. They seek to assume control over public health outbreaks, decide approved treatments, and redistribute resources. These treaties violate constitutions and civil rights. Contact your congress person to oppose this power grab. Protect your health and national sovereignty. Share widely. [Video link]

@GlobalHProject - Global Health Project

🚨May 24, 2024: W.H.O. Pandemic Treaty "Judgment Day" The largest, most comprehensive global Communist power grab ever seen is occurring as we speak, and most people have no idea that it is even happening. This is not a traditional communist revolution as we have all been well trained to spot, but rather a sophisticated global, binding, medical "treaty" orchestrated by the W.H.O. which will leave any participating member states essentially POWERLESS in the event of a proclaimed "pandemic". This is not hyperbole or exaggeration. And every man, woman and child on this planet's lives will be irrevocably changed for the worse on May 24, 2024 if it is not stopped. The W.H.O. is a failed and conspicuously compromised organization on many levels, most notably being their abject failure to alert the world early to the #COVID19 pandemic when it may have still been contained. Many blame conflicts of interest with China as well as significant individual donors such as the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, GAVI, and others for the inexcusable lack of judgment and action during this epic disaster, costing millions of lives. Despite this abysmal track record of performance, the W.H.O. is demanding that their power be EXPANDED, as if making the failed organization larger would in turn make it operate more effectively. Some of the key proposals include: 1. The ability of the W.H.O. to assume total control of any public health outbreak that they conclude is of global significance. This is not limited to contagious diseases but any concept that might impact health on a global scale (consider Climate Change, Gun Violence, Farming Practices, etc.); 2. The W.H.O. to become the sole decision making, extra-national agency to decide upon any and all approved treatments for such public health crises; 3. The W.H.O. to be declared the sole arbiter of which nations receive which treatments approved by the W.H.O. (and resources such as stockpiled medicines, PPE, additional funding, etc.) should be redistributed from one country to another with the express goal of achieving "equity" (per the W.H.O.'s definition of "equity" at such time); And much more. International politicians are sleepwalking into these treaties believing them to be similar to previous health related treaties in days past, where the W.H.O. is given some limited, non-binding power to make recommendations, etc. but does not interfere with a sovereign nation's ability to manage public health crises on as they deem fit. This could not be further from the truth. These treaties violate nearly all western constitutions by allowing a foreign power the ability to nullify and void - for indefinite amounts of time - the existing constitutional laws and civil rights protections of these nation states upon proclamation of a public health crisis. These representatives are either too incompetent to understand this or are captured and supportive of the power grab. The citizenry, as usual, has no say in these discussions. Contact your local congress person today and tell them to say #NOtoWHO by drafting legislation precluding our involvement in such unconstitutional treaties vis a vis unelected representatives at the U.N. and the W.H.O. who are NOT representing our interests in this treaty. Protect your health future Protect our country's national soverignty Say #NotoWHO #TakeBackYourPower Please SHARE WIDELY!

Video Transcript AI Summary
The World Health Organization (WHO) is facing criticism for its push to extend its powers and control over countries and people's self-determination. An independent evaluation will be conducted to review pandemic preparedness and response. The WHO's proposed pandemic treaty and international health regulations have raised concerns about its authority over health decisions, including vaccines, treatments, and surveillance. The treaty could impose restrictions, lockdowns, and experimental treatments without respecting human rights. The WHO claims absolute leadership in all health matters, but some argue that this level of authority has never been seen before. Supporters argue that these measures are necessary to protect the global population. The final vote on these agreements will take place in May 2024.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We are here today because we are all concerned by the World Health Organization's strong pressure to extend its powers, its structural, and its financial capacities with a permanent effect over the sovereignty of the countries and over the self determination of the people. Speaker 1: I will initiate An independent evaluation at the earliest appropriate moment to review experience pandemic preparedness and response. But one thing is abundantly clear. The world must never be the same. Speaker 2: It is Speaker 3: simply unthinkable that you would take an entity that had That had failed as badly as the WHO failed and award them any more powers. We are talking about global power over the citizens of the world. This organization which has served us so poorly. Speaker 4: This is from the Health and Democracy Conference, 13th September 2023 in the European Parliament in Strasbourg. Now Philip Krauss is one of the lawyers involved in citizen the Citizens Initiative challenging the European Parliament to reject the new international health regulations and the WHO pandemic treaty. Speaker 0: It was in the wake of the COVID nineteen crisis that the WHO has initiated a reform process which will bring significant changes to all of us that will concern every human being and every of the 194 member states on this planet. Speaker 5: In 2021, the World Health Organization and dozens of countries declared their intent to work together on a pandemic treaty affecting preparedness, response, and recovery. Speaker 6: Through a series of 307 amendments and a global pandemic treaty. The WHO seeks to gain authority over health decisions of UN member nations that could affect the rest of the world In the case of something like another COVID pandemic Speaker 7: The WHO are introducing a pandemic tree that will mean they'll be able to take your dollars without listening to your opinion or giving you the chance to vote on it. Is that democracy? Speaker 1: As you know, this morning, The 193 member states of the United Nations approved the political declaration on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. Speaker 0: In May 2024, the 194 member states of the WHO will have their final vote on both of these international agreements. This process takes place behind closed doors. It is not reported nor discussed in our newspapers, truce in our national parliaments, in universities, nor in society. The WHO claims in these 2 legal instruments, an absolute and no and non questionable leadership in all health matters, as soon as WHO refers itself two, pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. Speaker 4: They're talking about here health products, Vaccines, medical devices, personal protective equipment, diagnostics, assistive products, I'm not quite sure what that is, Cell and gene based therapies and their components, materials, or parts. Cell and gene based therapies, Health products including vaccines, medical devices, it it really sounds really quite terrifying that the WHO would have total power over imposing these honors. Speaker 7: They want to give themselves surveillance power, determine treatments, vaccine mandates, vaccine distribution, vaccine intellectual property, and profits, and they want to redistribute basically everything in the name of pandemics. How is the declaration, Speaker 8: the pandemic declaration approved today? How is it binding? Speaker 4: And if we look through other parts of the treaty, can see here that this is what they've done quite often. Here, what they've done is simply cross out non binding. So instead of used to mean non binding advice, now it means binding advice. Speaker 9: This is why this political equation, as doctor Tedros said, is historic and very important for the ongoing negotiation, in Geneva who, will be binding to member state when they agree on the final text by May 24. Speaker 0: WHO will have the right to not only declare recommendations made by several experts, but also to impose on the people of this planet or only to a certain region. All kinds of restrictions, access restrictions, lockdowns, surveillance, and experimental treatments. Speaker 4: And and and we just look look through it. So for example here, they've they've crossed out this part with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons. Why on earth would you have a WHO treaty where you take out a clause that says The implement implementation of these regulations shall be with the full respect for the dignity, human rights, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons. Why would you cross that out? Speaker 8: We have never before in history in system. 5000 years of recorded human history, we've never seen this level of authority given to an international global body. Speaker 6: Those supporting this authority for the WHO, such as top advisor doctor Abdullah Asiri, say it's necessary to protect the world's population even if it means restricting some of their liberties. Speaker 10: The world, however, requires different level of legal mandates, such as the pandemic treaty to navigate through a particular pandemic should one occur, and it will. Prioritizing actions that may restrict individual liberties, mandating and sharing of information, knowledge, And resources and pandemic control efforts are all necessary during the pandemic. Speaker 0: It shall be granted the power of a massive self authorization whenever it claims to act onto this purpose. Animal's health ecosystem concerns about the level of CO 2 and, of course, human health can give rise to permanent measures and even to a public health emergency to a pandemic called out and declared by the WHO. Speaker 11: We're in danger of forgetting how important this is, and we need to recommit to pandemic preparedness because we will not forget. We will learn the lessons, and we will move forward with an accord. We will move forward with pandemic preparedness. We will improve surveillance systems. We will take a one health approach strategy. Manage the ecosystem we inhabit this planet. We inhabit this planet, with the animals, with the strength. And we're putting this planet under pressure both in terms of climate and in Speaker 0: terms of the ecosystem. There is no mechanism foreseen that will allow the people or the member states to challenge the assessment of WHO, whether it is the WHO's assessment about a public health emergency or their assessment with with respect to certain measures or when it comes to the imposing of a regime for what they call vaccination, as experimental as it might be. There will be simply no stop button for none of the member states and not, of course, not for us, the citizens. Speaker 6: And top backers of this United Nations move do say speed is of the essence. Speaker 3: And I wish to stress from our perspective, the quicker we can come together, the sooner we will all be safe. Speaker 6: Some in congress oppose this move to further empower the WHO. They proposed legislation that would deem it a treaty. The treaty would require senate approval. Speaker 2: I've read the treaty. I'm concerned about it. Article 4 pays lip service to sovereignty. You're pushing for it. Next year is probably when it may get adopted. Will it be sent to the senate for ratification? Or are you planning on using the executive agreement, which I think is a terrible way strategic things. Speaker 0: It is a matter and a duty for all citizens now to impose pressure towards their public representatives political representatives to make sure that the politicians, the political representatives understand that they go on be alright, on beyond of their entrusted quote they can use. Speaker 4: If you don't want to contact your politicians, and they can stop this.

@GlobalHProject - Global Health Project

Shareable video link https://vimeo.com/878074715

W.H.O. Pandemic Treaty "Judgment Day" Tell your elected representatives to pass legislation NOW precluding this monstrous power grab, #NOtoWHO vimeo.com
GlobalHProject
Posted - September 18, 2023 at 12:43 AM
Saved - September 18, 2023 at 2:02 AM

@GlobalHProject - Global Health Project

Awesome state senate testimony on possible mechanism of harm within #COVID19 platform. The dam is breaking

@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd

🚨 MUST WATCH: Cancer Genomics Expert Dr. Phillip Buckhaults Testifies to the SC Senate on the DNA Contamination Found in mRNA COVID Vaccines "The Pfizer vaccine is contaminated with plasmid DNA, it's not just mRNA...I'm kind of alarmed about the possible consequences of…

Video Transcript AI Summary
Philip Buchholz, a biochemistry and molecular biology expert, discusses concerns about the Pfizer vaccine. He explains that the vaccine contains DNA contamination, which could have serious consequences such as autoimmune attacks and potential cancer risks. Buchholz emphasizes that the DNA can integrate into cells and become a permanent fixture, unlike RNA or proteins. He suggests conducting tests on vaccinated individuals to determine if the DNA is integrating into their genomes. Buchholz calls for regulatory oversight to address this issue and remove the DNA from future vaccine versions. He believes the contamination was likely an oversight rather than intentional.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: For those of you don't don't don't know me, my name is Philip Buchholz. I'm a, I have a PhD in biochemistry and molecular biology. I'm a cancer gene jock. Basically, I do cancer genomics research at the University of South Carolina and what that means is that I'm kind of an expert on all the ways that the human genome can get futzed with during your lifetime and which of those things cause cancer and which ones don't, okay. That means that I'm very very skilled in in the art of DNA sequencing, okay. I can figure out the sequence of things that I didn't know what I was looking and I'm also pretty good, when I say I, I mean the people in my laboratory, you're not going to hear their names but there's a group of people that do this excellent work. We're really good at, detecting foreign pieces of DNA in places where they're not supposed to be even if they're real low levels. And we used those skills during the pandemic, to we invented the COVID test that many of you did, the spit test. Okay, that came out of my lab because we were really good at that kind of stuff and so I've earned a fair amount of Respect, in the state of South Carolina and in this body because we did a ton of Covid testing in the middle I'm a I'm a kid. The night when people were afraid and we told them no, you don't have COVID in your home or yes, you do. So, my qualifications to comment on this are both technical and kind of relational in the state of South Carolina. I'll cut to a very narrow theme here but it does touch on lots of these regulatory and I'll leave it to you to expand on those if you want to. I'll try to stay in this narrow lane, of some problems in the Pfizer vaccine, as a case study for places in which regulatory oversight could be improved, all right. So, first of all, let Say that my interpretation of the literature is that the Pfizer vaccine did a pretty good job of keeping keeping people from dying, but it did a terrible job of stopping the pandemic. The early publications showed that, it stopped infection, but that only lasted for like a month. Speaker 1: Doctor. Burkhard, could you pull the mic a little closer to you? Staff is telling me they're having trouble getting you on the recording. Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Thank you. In in my professional evaluation of the literature, the Pfizer vaccine did a pretty good job at keeping people out of the cemetery, But it sucked at stopping the pandemic and, it was the best of sucky options that we had and I still believe that it was deployed mostly in good faith But there were a lot of shortcuts taken because the house was on fire and, we could do a better job next time from the lessons that we're gonna learn here. That's my own I'm a view of this, but I'm also my philosophical bent here is, I'm sure many of you have heard of Occam's Razor, Right? Choose the simplest of explanations. Well, there's another one called Hanlon's razor, which is never attribute malice to that which can be better explained by incompetence. And So, I'm trying to be gracious here in many circumstances. There could be malice underneath but I'm trying to see just incompetence to be gracious. So, the Pfizer vaccine is contaminated with plasma DNA. It's Not just m R N A, it's got bits of DNA in it. This DNA is the DNA vector that was used as the template for the in vitro transcription reaction when they made the m r n a. I know this is true because I sequenced it in my own lab. The vials of Pfizer vaccine that were out here in Columbia. One of my colleagues was in charge of that vaccination program in the college of pharmacy and for reasons I'm a I'm a case, and so I still don't understand he kept every single vial. So he had a whole freezer full of the empty vials. Well, the empty vials have a little tiny bit in the bottom of them. He gave them all to I'm a I'm a king. And I sequenced all the DNA that was in the vaccine and I can see what's in there and it's surprising that there's any DNA in there I'm a I'm a and you can kinda work out what it is and how it got there and I'm kind of alarmed about the possible consequences of this, Both in terms of human health and biology, but you should be alarmed about the regulatory process that allowed it Get there. So this DNA in my view, it could be causing some of the rare but serious side I'm a I'm a kid of fix like death from cardiac arrest. There's a lot of cases now, of people having suspicious death after vaccine. It's Hard to prove what caused it, it's just, you know, temporally associated, and this DNA is a plausible mechanism, Okay. This DNA, can and likely will integrate into the genomic DNA of cells that I'm a I'm a got transfected with the vaccine mix. This is just the way it works. We do this in the lab all the time. We take pieces of DNA, we mix them up with a lipid complex like the Pfizer vaccine is in. We pour it onto cells and and a lot of it gets into the cells and a lot of it gets into the DNA of those cells and it becomes a permanent fixture of the cell. It's not just a temporary, a temporary thing. It is in that cell and all of its progeny from now on forevermore. Amen. So that's why I'm kind of alarmed about this DNA being in the vaccine. It's it's it's different from because it can be permanent. This is a real hazard for genome modification of long lived somatic cells like stem I'm a I'm a cells, and it could cause, theoretically, this is all a theoretical concern, but it's pretty reasonable based on solid molecular biology, kid. That it could cause a sustained autoimmune attack toward that tissue. It's also a very real theoretical risk of future cancer in some people. Depending on where in the genome this foreign piece of DNA lands, it can interrupt a tumor suppressor or activate an I think it'll be rare, but I think the risk is not zero and it may be high enough that we are to figure out if this is happening or not. And again, the autoimmunity thing is not my wheelhouse. I'm not an immunologist, but the cancer risk is. That's my bag. I know this is a thing and it is Possibility. Okay, a little nerdy science here, the central dogma of molecular biology is that DNA gets transcribed into RNA, okay? And then RNA gets translated into protein. This is just how life runs. Why Why does this matter? Well, DNA, for the purposes of this discussion, DNA is a long lived information storage device. Okay. What you were born with, you're gonna die with and pass on to your kids. DNA lasts for 100 of 1000 of years, and it can last for I'm a I'm a generations if you can pass it on to your kids. Right? So alterations to the DNA, they stick around. R k. By its nature, it's temporary. It doesn't last and that feature of RNA was part of the sales pitch for the vaccine. The pseudo uridine was supposed to make the RNA last a little bit longer, but still it's a transient We're talking hours to days, okay. And then proteins, once proteins are made they also don't last Forever, they they last for hours to days. But something that makes its way into DNA has the potential to last for a very long time maybe a lifetime. So, this is a picture of the sequencing read that the sequencing run that I did in the lab, from a couple of batches of the Pfizer vaccine and all those little bitty lines here are the little tiny pieces of DNA that are in the vaccine. They don't belong care. They're not part of the sales pitch or the marketing campaign and they're there. There's a lot of them. This little graph here in the middle is the size distribution that around a 100 base pairs, 120 base pairs, so the the DNA pieces that are in the vaccine are short little pieces, 100, 120. There's some that are about 500 base pairs, a few that are even 5,000, but most of them are around a 100 base pairs. Why is this important? Because the probability of a DNA piece of DNA integrating into the human genome is unrelated to its size. So your genome risk is just a function of how many particles there are. So it's Like, you know, if you shoot a shotgun at a washboard, if you shoot a slug, you have some probability of hitting it. And if you shoot buckshot, you have a bigger probability of hitting it Some shot, right? All these little pieces of DNA that are in the vaccine are analogous to buckshot. You have Many many thousands of opportunities to modify a cell of a vaccinated person. The pieces are very small because during the process, they chopped them up to try to make them go away, but they actually increased the hazard of genome modification in I'm I'm a I'm a I'm a I'm a oversight that happened at the federal level and somebody should force this to happen somewhere. Speaker 1: Doctor Bocall, if you allow, Are you capable of doing that? Speaker 0: Yeah. It's we do that kind of thing. But in order for it to be trustworthy, it by the public, this has be done by lots of people. Right. Speaker 1: I'll talk to you more about that later. Speaker 0: Yeah. This is our our deal. This is why I know this should have been done at the federal level. Okay. Kid. So we took all these pieces of DNA and we used them to glue together what the source DNA must have Ken. This is kind of again, this is our what we do in the lab all the time and and all these little little grid and green lines here, these are all independent little cancer of DNA. This must have had a 100,000 pieces of DNA in this this sequencing run and you can put them all back and see what they came from is this circle over here. It's a plasmid that you can go shopping online to buy from Agilent And it's clear that Pfizer, took this plasmid and then they cloned spike into it, And they used it for in a process called in vitro transcription translation, in vitro transcription, where you feed an RNA polymerase, this plasmid and it makes a whole bunch of m r n a copies for you. Okay? And then you take this m r n a, you mix it with the the lipid nano particle I'm a I'm a They did they did make some effort to chop it up, so all these little pieces of the plasma got packaged in with the r n a. That's clear as day what happened Just from the forensics of looking at the DNA sequencing, okay? A little bit of a regulatory note here, the way you do RNA transcription, in vitro transcription reactions, you have to give it a DNA template, okay, and you can give it a DNA template that is just a synthetic piece of DNA that is only the instructions to make d r n a and that's what was done for getting the emergency use authorization and the clinical trial. That's called process one, if you look up that kind of kid. They made a PCR product of just the bits that they wanted and then they did the in vitro transcription, made a bunch of RNA of that. There was no plasma DNA scale the way that was necessary to vaccinate the whole world. So a cheaper way to scale up the production of this template is to clone that PCR product into this plasmid vector, put the plasmid vector into bacteria and then grow up big vats of the bacteria. They make a lot of the plasma DNA for you, then you use I'm a I'm a Set plasma DNA as the template to drive this transcription reaction to make your RNA. Contamination ended up in the production batches even though it was not in the stuff that was used for the authorization trials. So I know it's a little bit of nerdy science, but it has regulatory implications for for you guys. Kid. We can we can measure the quantity of this stuff pretty easy in the lab. This is we're we're good at doing this kind of stuff. This is same, we made a little PC. A colleague of mine at at MIT made, you know, from who who used to work for the the Broad Institute at MIT, He he made a little, PCR test and we cloned it here. This is similar to the PCR test that you all took for the spit test. Okay? Same same idea and same expertise behind it and we can quantify exactly how much of this stuff is in a vaccine or any other tissue Q and you know, I estimate that there were about 2,000,000,000 copies of the 1 piece that we're looking for in every dose. And if you look back at that map I showed you where it's all these little the the little piece that we're looking for It's just that little bit right there, okay? But if you see 2,000,000,000 copies of this, there's about 200,000,000,000 of everything else. So what this means is that there's probably about 200,000,000,000 pieces of this plasma DNA in each dose of the vaccine and it's encapsulated in this lipid nano So, it's ready to be delivered inside the cell, okay? This is a bad idea. My Conclusions from this, we should check a bunch of people. I'm from this or I should learn how to run PowerPoint. We should check a bunch of vaccinated people kid. Getting tissue samples, especially if we focus on harmed people, but that's not necessary. We could also just focus on regular unharmed people and see if this plasmid DNA is integrating into the genomes of any of their Stem cells. It leaves a calling card that is there. One of the reasons why I'm focusing on this is because I'm a I'm a It's kinda different from a lot of the other imagined harms where you can't really prove it. You can be suspicious because of the timing, but you can't Prove it. This one you can prove it because it leaves a calling card, okay? You find it in the stem cells I'm a I'm a of harmed people, it's equivalent to finding a certain type of lid in someone who is now dead. It's pretty cannibal Reasonable to assume that that's what caused it. The royal we, meaning you guys, should insist that the FDA force I'm a I'm a Pfizer to get the DNA out of the booster and all future versions of this vaccine. I'm a real fan of this platform, Okay. I think it has the potential to treat cancers. I really believe that this platform I'm a I'm a is revolutionary and in your lifetime, there will be m r n a vaccines against I'm a I'm a in your unique cancer, okay, and but they gotta get this problem fixed, okay. And I and I right now, I think the financial incidents are too great to just I'm a I'm a keep on rolling with it and it's gonna take some encouragement to get it out. I'm a I'm a Regulation that allowed this DNA to be there in the 1st place. I don't think that this the amounts there actually exceed the regulation limits. In some batches, it may. I'm a I'm a In in the 2 batches that I looked at, one of them, it was just under the limit and one it was just over the limit. My colleague in Boston has looked I'm a I'm a looked at a fair number of other batches and there's a handful that are super high and there's a handful that are super low, but the fact that there is a regulatory threshold for amount of allowed in a vaccine is a throwback to an era when we were talking about vaccines that were like a recombinant protein That you or a dead virus, you know, attenuated virus produced in in C H O cells or something like that. And the DNA that might I'm a I'm a in it is naked DNA and you might have a little bit of it in the vaccine. That's not a problem because naked DNA gets I'm a I'm a Chewed up immediately upon vaccination and there's no real mechanism for it to get inside the cells. They inappropriately applied that regulatory limit I'm a I'm a kid. To this new kind of vaccine where everything is encapsulated in this lipid nano particle, it's basically packaged in a synthetic virus able to dump its contents into a Kell. So I'm thinking Hanlon's razor here, okay? I don't think there was anything nefarious here. I think it was just kind of a dumb oversight kid. And it's gonna take because the financial incentives are so great to just, you know, sweep it under the rug and the Career incentives of people that approve this are going to be, there's nothing wrong here, you know, it's going to take some encouragement to make people prove that it's okay. And who knows? Maybe we'll check a bunch of people and we'll find out for sure that this is indeed not a problem And that will do the public good if we prove that
View Full Interactive Feed