TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @RefugeOfSinner5
reSee.it AI Summary
I see Trump as a real problem for the world, the region, and Australia. The Republican Party has a deep responsibility to start his removal by constitutional means. Oxford Union 2017
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
Kevin Rudd, the current Australian ambassador to the United States. Appointed 2023. "This guy(Trump) is a problem, he is an objective problem, for the world, for the region, for my country... "The Republican party have a deep responsiblity , to begin the process of his removal by constitutional means." Oxford Union 2017
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 argues that Trump currently represents a political liability for both sides of Australian politics. He says that if defending the proposition of an alliance with the United States for the future, it has to be done in terms of the alliance being intrinsically valuable whatever the future may hold, and notes that Trump’s time is limited to about three years, maybe less depending on the midterms.
Speaker 1 recalls that this was in October 2017, when Trump was president, and labels the remarks from a former Australian prime minister as unwise and indicates that there was clearly little understanding of American politics and the immense support that Trump had amassed. He says, “But it gets worse. Rudd claimed Trump was a problem for the world.”
Speaker 0 reinforces the point by stating, “This guy is a problem. He is an objective problem, for the world, for the region, for my country.” He adds that, “not as an American, I will not comment on the problem he represents to The United States domestically. So he's a buzzword.”
Speaker 1 notes that in addition to calling Trump a problem, Rudd “urged the Republican Party to remove Trump.”
Speaker 0 comments on the irony of that advice, noting that it came from “a man who himself was removed from office by his own colleagues.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Trump at present represents a political liability for both sides of Australian politics. So if you're going to defend the proposition of an alliance with The United States for the future it has to be done in terms of the alliance is intrinsically valuable whatever the future may hold and Trump's only around for another three years, maybe less depending on the midterms.
Speaker 1: Well that was in October 2017, Trump was president at the time, Unwise remarks from a former Australian prime minister with clearly little understanding of American politics and of the immense support that Trump had amassed. But it gets worse. Rudd claimed Trump was a problem for the world.
Speaker 0: This guy is a problem. He is an objective problem, for the world, for the region, for my country. And, of course, not as an American, I will not comment on the problem he represents to The United States domestically. So he's a buzzword.
Speaker 1: And in other stunning comments Rudd also urged the Republican Party to remove Trump.
Speaker 0: That the Republican Party which enabled this guy to be elected have a deep responsibility, a deep responsibility to accept responsibility for the consequence of their actions and begin the processes for one form or another of his removal by constitutional means.
Speaker 1: Isn't it ironic that that advice came from a man who himself was removed from office by his own colleagues?
reSee.it AI Summary
I questioned who is standing up for the CDC's Vaccine Advisory Committee after RFK Jr. announced its reconstitution. I highlighted concerns over the Hepatitis B vaccine approval process, noting the lack of data and reliance on post-marketing data that wouldn't be available for two years. In my second post, I tagged various individuals and organizations to draw attention to the discussion surrounding vaccine safety and the advisory committee's decisions.
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
Who is defending the CDC's Vaccine Advisory Committee, after RFK Jr announced he is reconstituting the advisory committee today? This is the sort of "science" you are defending. This was the Hepatitis B vaccine approval process. "We have no data to make a recommendation." "Just inject it in the other limb" "We will have to look at the post marketing data. It will be available May 2020 (2 years later!!)"
Video Transcript AI Summary
There is no data to recommend using the vaccine simultaneously with other adjuvanted vaccines, though immunizations can generally be given at the same time in different limbs. It is not known if multiple adjuvanted vaccines are used together in Europe or other markets.
Voting is unanimous to support the recommendation.
One participant expressed a slight reservation, citing concern about a myocardial infarction signal and the use of a new adjuvant, urging careful monitoring of post-marketing data.
Post-marketing data updates will include vaccine safety data link data, requiring vaccine usage to develop a substantive database. Studies on myocardial infarction are expected to be completed by May 31, 2020. Post-marketing surveillance will also include studies looking at autoimmune diseases, herpes zoster, and a pregnancy registry.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Any comment on using this vaccine at the same time with other adjuvanted vaccines?
Speaker 1: We have no data to, make, a recommendation one way or the other. So just to sort of put this in context of other vaccines, whilst preclinical studies were not done using these vaccines simultaneously, our general approach to immunizations is that they should be given, they can be given at the same time in different, limbs.
Speaker 2: Doctor. Hunter?
Speaker 3: Are multiple adjuvanted vaccines, used in Europe or other markets?
Speaker 2: Doctor Ward, do you want to comment?
Speaker 4: Not to my knowledge. Okay.
Speaker 2: Think unless there's any further discussion, we will take a vote on this, recommendation.
Speaker 1: I wanna remind everyone to please, check your, voting whatever machine thing. And, I don't know what it is. Voting is open.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. So the voting is completed, and it is unanimous to support this recommendation. Thank you all.
Speaker 1: Does anybody have any comments they wish to make about their vote?
Speaker 5: So Just a slight reservation. I think this is a huge advance and a step forward. I am concerned about that signal, that myocardial infarction signal. I am concerned about the use of this new adjuvant and certainly urge us to continue to look at, the post marketing data carefully.
Speaker 2: Doctor. Hunter?
Speaker 3: Just a question about that. Would we how soon would we be getting that post marketing data update here?
Speaker 6: There's two kinds of data. The vaccine safety data link data will require people to be using the vaccine to develop substantive database. And, doctor Sun, do you wanna comment on the post marketing data that FDA is requiring?
Speaker 4: I think for the myocardial infarction study, we're seeing that the date for or likely for completion is May 20 05/31/2020. There will also be studies looking at autoimmune diseases as well as herpes zoster and there will be a pregnancy registry as well. That's all included in the post marketing surveillance.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
@MendenhallFirm @ChildrensHD @AaronSiriSG @barnes_law @KateShemirani @OlooneyJohn @CartlandDavid @BusyDrT @Fynnderella1 @drcole12 @richardursomd @chrismartenson @drmelissamccann @DrHenryEaly @realMarkHobart @PierreKory @kacdnp91 @GenFlynn @catsscareme2021 @JesslovesMJK @newstart_2024 @Humanspective @_aussie17 @naomirwolf @DrJudyAMikovits @Jikkyleaks @MdBreathe @maryhollandnyc @MaryanneDemasi
reSee.it AI Summary
I want to share a humorous story about the Covid-19 vaccine trials. Pregnant women weren't included due to safety concerns, but some unknowingly received the vaccine and experienced no adverse effects. This led to a debate about the need for trials specifically for pregnant women. I pointed out that we had already conducted a challenge study, and after some discussions, the regulators agreed to approve the vaccine for pregnant women. This was shared during the Oracle Health Summit on October 31, 2024.
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
Larry Ellison, wants to tell you a funny story. "Pregnant women were not included in the trial. Too dangerous. But not all pregnant women know they are pregnant. So a bunch of pregnant women got the vaccine, and had NO adverse effects... Clearly it was safe. There was a fight, no if you want pregnant women to get the vaccine you need to run a trial. So I said but we've already run a challenge study. (laughs) Much to their (regulators) credit, after extended discussions, they said "You're right, we're going to go ahead and approve it for pregnant women" This was one of the Covid19 vaccine trials. Oracle Health Summit: Oct 31, 2024
Video Transcript AI Summary
A clinical trial had an age cutoff, likely around 14, and initially excluded pregnant women due to safety concerns. However, many pregnant women received the vaccine unknowingly, showing no adverse effects. It was argued that young women in healthcare should have access to the vaccine, as it appeared safe. Despite resistance from regulators who insisted on a traditional double-blind trial, it was pointed out that data from millions of vaccinated individuals was more compelling than a smaller trial. After extensive discussions, the regulators ultimately agreed to approve the vaccine for pregnant women.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now I'll tell you another funny story on the same thing. The clinical trial was run I I think how old were what was the age age limit? Was it 12 years old or 14 years old? I can't remember what the age cutoff was. You had to be over let's I'm gonna make up the number.
I think I think it's 14. I'm I'm close in I'm fairly close. And pregnant women were not allowed to get the vaccine. They were not included in the clinical trial. We considered they considered that too dangerous to include pregnant women in a clinical trial, But we included a lot of pregnant women in a clinical trial because it turns out not all pregnant women know they're pregnant.
Imagine that. And, so a bunch of pregnant women got the vaccine and had no adverse effects. We couldn't distinguish between, someone who's pregnant and someone who's not pregnant. And we were of the opinion, there are so many young women in the front lines of health care and treating, COVID 19 patients, that was a very bad decision not to allow them to get vaccinated if they wanted to get vaccinated, because clearly, it was safe. And there was this pretty big fight about, no, if you wanna have pregnant women get the vaccine, you're gonna have to run a clinical trial with a double blind placebo based blah blah clinical trial.
I said, we've already run run a challenge study. You know? We've already got, like, we got million, you know, run a clinical trial on a on a 1,000 people rather than how about a 100,000,000 people where we have the data, that's that is far more persuasive statistically. And the the regulators were not comfortable in doing something that was out of if you out of bounds, as they were not used to doing, which is a double blind double blind placebo based clinical trial. We don't have time to do that.
I'm sorry. We we we have to approve this. Anyway, much much to their credit, after after extended discussions, they said, you're, you know, you're right. We're gonna go ahead, go ahead and approve it approve it for pregnant women. And
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
You can find this clip at the 33 min mark in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwNvN9mcOX4
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe that while freedom of speech is crucial, the freedom to transact might be even more vital. Without the ability to transact, we lose our mobility. Digital IDs and Central Bank digital currencies could severely hinder our transactional freedom by monitoring our compliance.
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
Everyone says freedom of speech is number one, but I say freedom to transact is possibly more important. If you can't transact, you can't move. You don't need barbed wire fences. The Digital ID and the Central Bank digital currency, which is paying attention moment by moment to whether or not you are an obedient person, will completley disrupt your ability to transact. @thecoastguy
Video Transcript AI Summary
Freedom of speech is important, but the freedom to transact is crucial. If the state restricts your ability to buy things using digital currency, it can control your movements without physical barriers. Central bank digital currency can monitor and limit your transactions, making it challenging to buy essentials like food, fuel, or transportation tickets.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And I've said for a while that, you know, everyone says, well, freedom of speech is number 1. Then maybe it is. But I would say the freedom to transact is possibly more important. Because if you can't transact at that level, then it doesn't matter if you can speak or not, because you can't move. If the state has decided that you're confined to your house, or to a block around your house, they don't need to keep an eye on you, because they just program your central bank digital currency that you can't buy anything when you're more than 100 meters from your front door.
You can't buy and you certainly can't buy a train ticket or a plane ticket. You can't buy food, or a sandwich, or a bottled water. You can't buy fuel to put in a car. So you don't need barbed wire fences. You don't need gates, because you've got people in terms of their digital ID, which is something they have to carry or something under the skin, as I say, and the central bank digital currency, which is paying attention moment by moment to whether or not you're an obedient person, can completely disrupt your ability to transact.
reSee.it AI Summary
An Australian Funeral Director with 30 years of experience reveals a concerning trend of sudden deaths, including turbo cancers and heart disease, among young and healthy individuals. This phenomenon is relatively new and has become more prevalent in the past 2.5 years.
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
Breaking news. Tonight, for the first time, an Australian Funeral Director, of 30 years experience, has spoken about the deaths being seen at the funeral homes. "This has been going on for 2.5 years. Its a lot of 'sudden', a lot of turbo cancers, and heart disease. It's a lot of people who are young and healthy and they are just dropping dead. This is something you didn't hear 5 years ago, 10 years ago. It's suddenly, that's all you are hearing."
Video Transcript AI Summary
Many young and healthy individuals are suddenly dying, with a rise in sudden deaths and heart disease. This trend is alarming and unprecedented, as funeral services are now overwhelmed with the number of deaths. The increase in deaths is not limited to one facility but is being noticed across the board by others as well.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Things are not good. Things have changed in in your view. What are you seeing?
Speaker 1: The the absolute, you know, main things and this has been going on for, like, two and a half years. And, so basically what we see on the on the ground is is clearly not being reported. So it's it's a lot of sudden. Lot of sudden. A lot of turbocancers.
A lot. And then there's mainly heart disease. And then there's a lot of other things that sort of go down from that as well. But the the sudden the turbocancers is easier is paramount. Think I'm wrong with that.
Speaker 0: The sudden, by definition, that would indicate that these are not elderly people. They don't have comorbidities. What's in again, in very broad terms, I'm not trying to not trying to uncover the any, you know, the identities of any of your clients, but what what is it about this that makes you go this isn't normal? Who are these people?
Speaker 1: It's a lot of people that are young and healthy and are just dropping dead. Just they just drop dead. I saw someone the other day and in the mortuary and the, you know, the the injury here from just dropping dead. These ages vary a lot, and you're just hearing it all the time in funeral services. And this is something that you didn't hear 5 years ago.
You didn't hear 10 years ago. It is completely completely different thing. It's suddenly. It's all you're hearing. Yeah.
So that's that's one of the main things that's definitely coming through that's different. And it's also when you're on the ground talking to cemetery staff. These people that are are sort of noticing a difference who are commenting but aren't connecting the dots. And they they're just saying I'll just say things to you like, we used to do a baby funeral once a month. Now we're doing for a week.
So there's just that massive difference in numbers a lot. Yeah.
Speaker 0: And and this is could my next question for you was, is there any concern on your part that your your facility might be an outlier, but what you're telling me is this is being noticed across the board? You're hearing the same sorts of things from other people?
Speaker 1: Yes.
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
This clip was taken from the following interview, by Topher Field. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kw_TcFEFM4
reSee.it AI Summary
The Pfizer vaccine glows against a black background and appears periwinkle blue. The liquid is clearer, not blue, against a white background. Labels on the bottle are placed low, not following good manufacturing practice. These deviations from GMP were not documented. The auditor was told that under Operation Warp Speed, it is allowed.
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
Why does the Pfizer vaccine glow against a black background, and why is it periwinkle blue? Unlike anything this Pfizer Quality Auditor has ever seen before. Why is the liquid clearer, and not blue, against a white background? Why are the labels placed very low on the bottle, not according to good manufacturing practice? This deviation from GMP needed to be documented, but it was not. When both issues were raised by this auditor, she was told. "Under Operation Warp Speed, it's allowed." @MelissaMcAtee92
Video Transcript AI Summary
The COVID vaccine looks different, glowing a periwinkle blue on a black background. The label placement on the vials is not standard, lacking documentation. Despite complaints, the response is that under Operation Warp Speed, deviations are allowed. Doctors and nurses do not inspect the medicine before administering it. The vaccine is shipped in dry ice due to its need for cold storage. The auditor raised concerns about the glowing liquid and low label placement, but the response was that it is acceptable under current protocols.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is the COVID vaccine here. This is what the COVID vaccine looks like, and it's different than anything else I've seen in our plant. And according to everybody else that saw this, it's also nothing they've ever seen before. This is the
Speaker 1: same thing you photograph this?
Speaker 0: Yes. I took these photos and it's on the same light test booth in the same room as the other photo where the solution looks totally clear and normal.
Speaker 1: Right. So
Speaker 0: there's trickery of any lighting. It's on the same table. It's not reflecting the color of the cap. This is just what it looks like.
Speaker 1: And this is the product that's going to go out the door that's gonna be shipped to Correct.
Speaker 0: This is yes.
Speaker 1: Right. Put into an ice into an ice box, I think, or some sort of cold storage and and shipped out.
Speaker 0: Correct. So they actually added an entire section to our warehouse to be able to package this stuff. So, like, it does get sent out in dry ice because it has to be so cold.
Speaker 1: Okay. So does it look any different? I'm just checking to see what other pictures you gave me. Oh, there's another picture. It's it's you can see it up a little bit closer.
I think you there you go. It's not as obvious when it's up against a white background. This is the It's
Speaker 0: not it doesn't glow at all when it's on the white background. When it's on a white background, it's clear to a slight yellow.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: But then when you transition it to anything darker, such as the black background, then it changes color. It doesn't just, like, here's here's what's weird about it. It doesn't just, like, go from not glowing to glowing, it goes from totally clear slight yellow to a total different color. Periwinkle blue is kind of what I call it. Mhmm.
Why? And I I the day that I saw this, I literally messaged Albert Bourla the day that I saw these vaccines, and I said, is there a Luciferase in the vaccines? Why is the vaccine glowing? I'm a quality auditor. The lines are concerned.
Why is it glowing? And their responses, because Albert Bourla forwarded me to communications, their response was, we're not aware of any glowing. What are you talking about? The people who are in charge of answering the world's questions that come to them don't even know what this looks like.
Speaker 1: So I I think the first question that comes to my mind is, in when it's shipped, say let's say it's shipped to a doctor's office. Would the doctors have not have noticed this before they dilute it? Because when when they get it, they then dilute it 16, I think.
Speaker 0: You're you're right. There's 6 doses in 1 vial, and they have to put, so sodium chloride or in it. So they placed the label so low in the packaging, process that you couldn't see it. It's got a white label. It's in a white box and that white box goes in another white box.
And I have actually asked several, I would count, I would say probably 20 or more doctors and nurses. Do you inspect the medicine before you give it to somebody? And all of them say no.
Speaker 1: So they labeled and and you've already made this comment, but I'll just get you to say it again. Where they placed the label for the Pfizer vaccine vaccine is not normal. It's not what they would have done say for the was the epinephrine that was the one you gave me an example of? Correct.
Speaker 0: Yes. Correct. They placed the label not according to good manufacturing practices. And according to the FDA and, what's it called? False Claims Act, Any deviation in standard protocol has to be documented and they had no documentation for the changes that they were making.
Speaker 1: No documentation, but they instruct the people at the plant to put the label there in that way.
Speaker 0: Correct. When I asked the machinists, hey, the labels are kinda low, you guys may need to adjust your settings, They said, no. This is how we were trying to do it. Those were their exact words.
Speaker 1: Alright. So they were trying to do it that way, but there was no documentation validating or why it should be done that way, which is what you're saying is a breaking protocol that needs to be done.
Speaker 0: Correct. That is huge quality error. That's a huge issue. But nobody could I elevated it the way I should have. I did the proper chain of command, and I got told the same thing I always got told, which was under operation warp speed, it's allowed.
Speaker 1: So you filed a a statement about the fact that both things, 1, the fact the the liquid's glowing, 2, the labels are too low. So you did document both those as, like, complaints up the line. It's because you're the auditor.
Speaker 0: Correct.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And you got that answer that you just gave me then? It's fine. It's operation warp speed. That's how we're doing it.
Yeah.
reSee.it AI Summary
Post 1 suggests that the next disease X could be Bird Flu, originating from the USDA poultry research lab in Athens, Georgia. The post also mentions the director's connection to the Gates Foundation. #2clicksBMGF
Post 2 provides a link to the full interview.
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
"I think GAVI was right, Bird Flu is the next disease X" "The strain is a gain of function strain. Looks like it is coming out of the USDA (US Department of Agriculture) poultry research lab in Athens, Georgia." "You'd never guess who is the director of the USDA poultry research lab in Athens, Georgia. A former Gates Foundation Director. It's game on.'' @P_McCulloughMD #2clicksBMGF
Video Transcript AI Summary
It seems that bird flu, a gain-of-function strain, is causing concern. The strain possibly originated from the USDA Poultry Research Lab in Georgia. Former CDC director Redfield mentioned that manipulating the virus could make it transmissible to humans. Interestingly, the director of the lab has ties to the Gates Foundation. This raises questions about the origins and implications of the outbreak.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When we looked at this, we said, listen, this this looks like I think Gabby was right. Bird flu is the next disease x. We've been studying this, it turns out the strain that people are getting sick, believe it or not, Tommy, there was a dolphin that got bird flu off of Florida. The strain is a gain of function strain. It's a manipulated strain.
Looks like it's coming out of the USDA Poultry Research Lab in Athens, Georgia. University of Georgia. It's maybe not the best time to be an alumni. No. Not the industry, Georgia.
The USDA Poultry Research Center in Athens, Georgia. Yeah. So it's USDA. You're, the USDA. Now, former CBC director Redfield was out on national TV this week saying, oh, yeah.
He goes he goes, bird flu, it's really hard to get bird flu to inflect humans. But if I change 5 amino acids and their spike protein, the hemagglutinase, I can get it to jump into humans and spread to humans. He goes, that's not gonna happen in nature, very likely, but it could be done in the lab. He said, in fact, gated function research is being done on bird flu in academic labs. So he comes out and says this, This is astounding.
Tommy, you'd never guess who is the director of the USDA Poultry Research Center in Athens, Georgia. Anthony Fauci? I don't A former Gates Foundation Oh. Direct. Alright.
Yeah. Really coincidental. So it's game on.
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
The entire interview can be viewed here. https://rumble.com/v4v5590-disease-x-dr.-peter-mccullough-tpc-1487.html
Don’t Be Fooled By Gain of Function | Dr. Peter McCullough (TPC #1,486)
Go subscribe to the McCullough Foundation! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pej70SF3mUU McCullough Twitter: https://twitter.com/P_McCulloughMD McCullough Substack: https://petermcculloughmd.substack.co
rumble.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Prof Dolores Cahill criticizes Sky News for not reporting on adverse events in a clinical trial. She highlights a care home in Ireland where 26 people died in 5 weeks during the trial, compared to only 2 deaths per year previously. She holds the journalists personally liable for not reporting on this.
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
Prof Dolores Cahill addresses 2 journalists from Sky News. "The clincial trial should have been stopped. In one care home in Ireland , on the first day of the trial, 21 Jan, 2021, a care home of 51 people, 26 people died in 5 weeks. They previously only had 2 deaths a year. 19 coffins in 14 days in one care home. And SKY NEWS did not report it." "Have you ever reported on the adverse events in the clinical trial?" Answer from the skynews journo : "No". "I am holding you personally liable"
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker highlighted the high death rate in a care home during a clinical trial, urging media to report on it. They emphasized the duty to prevent harm and hold accountable those who fail to do so. The speaker stressed that everyone is responsible for protecting lives, regardless of location, and failure to act could result in legal consequences. They called on journalists to fulfill their obligation to report on critical issues and prevent harm.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Trial should have been stopped in one care home on the first day of the trial, 21st January 2021, in one care room of 51 people, 2 people had died the year 3 the year before, on average, 2 deaths. Out of 51 people, 20 6 of those people had died within 5 weeks. There was 19 funerals in 14 days. In one care home in Ireland, we analyzed the statistics and sent them to all the TVs by April 2020, and the clinical trial should have been stopped. In the World Freedom Alliance, we sent that to every, president and prime minister.
So the news on Sky News should have stopped the clinical trial. Nineteen coffins in 14 days in one care home. 8 people dead within 48 hours, and the news on Sky News did not report it. So I'm just saying that whatever interpretation you put on my talk or anyone here, we will hold you liable. Okay?
And Sky News. Okay. Well, it's good good to go up to positive. Yeah. No.
No. But it's good that we're clear because you guys I how many times have you reported on adverse events in the clinical trial? You know the first Because I I wasn't here person in China. No. No.
Even in China. Why why would I report in China? Because you're a journalist. Because there's 17,000,000 in the world. Okay.
Have you ever reported on that one? But do you know how Yes or no. Matches were? I do. Yes or no?
I've never reported. No. You have never? Have you ever reported on deaths in the political plot? Yes, ma'am.
I can't remember. I mean, don't tell me. More deaths on this one trial than all clinical trials in in the history on the And it's your duty in law to report it because you have to prevent harm. Yeah. Well, I was out in China reporting other people.
In China. Yeah. It's okay. The law applies everywhere. No one is above the law.
And if you don't defend people's right to life, whether you're in China or England, you are liable for contributory manslaughter in law. Nothing I might be in order to do it in other ways? No. No. No.
Because you have if you have a voice Yeah. If somebody is going to be murdered in 5 minutes, do you have an obligation in law to stop the murder? If you don't, you are as liable as anyone else. And I am holding you personally liable. Okay.
Yeah? Alright. Thank you. And you're personally liable.
reSee.it AI Summary
In the Gardasil vaccine trial, the placebo contained the same potentially toxic ingredient as the vaccine itself, raising concerns about safety. Both groups experienced a 3% incidence of new autoimmune conditions. The CDC director who approved the vaccine later joined the manufacturer, Merck, with a $4 million signing bonus. Various individuals and organizations are tagged in this post for reference.
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
Did you know that the placebo arm in the childhood vaccine trials is often not saline? In the Gardasil trial of 2007 (HPV vaccine) the placebo contained aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulfate, as did the vaccine arm. "If you've put the toxic agent in both, how can you see the safety signal?" 3% of both groups came down with new autoimmune conditions. And the CDC director, who approved this vaccine, Julie Gerberding, moved to Merck one year later, with a signing bonus of $4 million. Merck is the manufacturer of Gardasil. @BrianHookerPhD
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2007 trial, the placebo contained a toxic agent, affecting the comparison between vaccine and control groups. Both groups had 3% new autoimmune conditions, but it was dismissed. The lack of questioning raises concerns about vaccine safety. Comparing the 3% to general population rates would be logical. Individuals like Julie Gerberding and Peter Marks, who have ties to big pharma, may overlook such issues. Gerberding's move from CDC director to Merck's vaccines president with a $4,000,000 bonus raises ethical questions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Just everyone, just to remind everybody then, that got us all 2007 trial, the placebo was not saline. It was this Alaminin Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate. Right? So and the reason that it's I mean, you said it, Brian, but I just wanna make sure that people are really listening and understanding. The reason it's so bad to have the placebo containing a toxic agent is that me what they do in these studies is they compare the injuries that occur in the live vaccine group to the control group, and they're looking for any anomalies, like is there any markers that there are more injuries in the live vaccine group compared to the control group?
But if you've put the toxic agent in both Right. Groups, you're not going to see the safety marker, the safety signal.
Speaker 1: There's no difference. There's no difference. And the thing that was preposterous about this trial is that 3% of the control group and 3% of the vaccinated group both came down with new autoimmune conditions. 3%. I mean, that's preposterous.
And and they never questioned it. They said, oh, well, the control group and the, and the vaccinated group, had the same result. And so, there is no difference. And so, the vaccine is safe. No, it's not safe.
You've, you've proved that the control and the vaccinated group, have had something that's very, very toxic injected into them, you know, why else would you have a 3% new cases of autoimmune disorders?
Speaker 0: And would it not be sensible to compare that 3% with what would be the expected number of new autoimmune conditions over that time period in the general population. Right? Is that not the obvious comparison you should be making?
Speaker 1: Right. Unless you're waiting at the ATM to cash your, you know, big pharma check, and then then that is the incentive to be able to look the other way. And this is just sort of this hall of fame of individuals like Julie Gerberding, Peter Marks, you know, that have been on the take for so many years that I've looked the other way. You know, when, and, and Julie Gerberding got Gardasil approved in the CDC. She was a CDC director, and it was approved and it was added to the, vaccination schedule in the United States with her being the CDC director.
A year later, she gets a job as the president of vaccines at Merck, and she gets a signing bonus of $4,000,000 So now we know how much her soul is worth.
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
@ChildrensHD @ThatEricAlper @BeholdAmerica @KLVeritas @JohnOlooney @NassMeryl @KateShemirani @JanciToxDoc @MdBreathe @kacdnp91 @Jikkyleaks @_aussie17 @P_McCulloughMD @Kevin_McKernan @fluoridepoison @juneslater17 @r_hirschman @sasha_latypova @catsscareme2021 @BusyDrT @RobertKennedyJr @DrJudyAMikovits
reSee.it AI Summary
The deputy director of VPBPAC, Doran Fink, stated in an October 2020 meeting that Operation Warp Speed would not use the Expanded Access Use pathway due to the requirement of institutional review board (IRB) and informed consent. Fink mentioned that opting for the Emergency Use Authorised counter measure pathway would avoid the added complexity. A video of Fink's statement and a transcript can be found in the thread. A copy of the full transcript is available, with Fink's response on page 203.
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
Informed consent - we don't want to do that. Doran Fink (deputy director VPBPAC) was asked in the Oct 2020 meeting, " is Operation Warp Speed going to use the Expanded Access Use pathway to get on the market?" "No, we are switching to the Emergency Use Authorised counter measure pathway because the Expanded Access Use requires IRB (institutional review board) and informed consent." "That IRB and informed consent would ADD COMPLEXITY." See thread for actual video of Doran Fink saying this at the meeting and a copy of the transcript.
Video Transcript AI Summary
In October 2020, the speaker was asked if Operation Warp Speed would use the expanded access use pathway to get on the market. The speaker responded that they would not be using that pathway because it requires an institutional review board (IRB) and informed consent, which they wanted to avoid due to the added complexity. The speaker expressed concern for the lack of informed consent in vaccine injuries and deaths. They mentioned that this scheme was designed to deceive professionals and took years to uncover. Both sides, including FDA staff, CDC staff, pharma staff, management, and lawyers, were aware of what they were doing.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So he was asked, during this meeting, this is October 2020, he's asked, are you, you know, is is operation warp speed, are they going to use expand expanded access use pathway, that gray box that I was showing? Right. Are they gonna use that to get on the market? And he says, no. We're not using that.
We're switching to the emergency use as there is emergency use authorized countermeasure pathway because specifically he says the expanded access use requires IRB and informed consent implying here that we don't want them. That's why we're switching.
Speaker 1: Yeah. He actually says it. So among many other things, those regulations require use of an institutional review board, that's the IV, And obtaining informed consent from the recipients. Right? Mhmm.
Yeah. So he's saying
Speaker 0: that We don't want to do that.
Speaker 1: And we don't want that. And he says that further down. I think he says, it's, that would add complexity.
Speaker 0: Yeah, that would add complexity.
Speaker 1: That would add complexity. So we don't wanna do that. We're gonna do the emergency use. Right? Yeah.
And when I read this, I was thinking about all the poor people that I had interviewed who were vaccine injured and the the the parents of loved ones who've died. And the first thing they always say is we were not given informed consent. Yeah. No one had to give it to you. Look.
Speaker 0: Right. So so there is and and that's that's that's heartbreaking to me that people were fooled this way.
Speaker 1: And
Speaker 0: as I said, this this scheme was designed to fool the professionals. It took me and Catherine over 3 years to finally unravel it to this level. You know? And this is this was designed to fool FDA staff, CDC staff, pharma staff? Of course, the management and high high, senior management and the lawyers on both sides, they knew exactly what they were doing.
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
A copy of the transcript from the VRBPAC meeting of Oct 22, 2020. Forward to page 203 to see Doran Fink's answer. https://www.fda.gov/media/143982/download
reSee.it AI Summary
The Australian National Clinical evidence taskforce recommends giving Remdesivir to unvaccinated adults with mild to moderate COVID-19. However, the WHO advised against using Remdesivir since November 2020. 1/2
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
This is the advice in Australia from the government funded Australian National Clinical evidence taskforce Covid19, as of May 2023. This taskforce was in effect for 3 years, until 31/7/23. Remdesivir is to be given to UNVACCINATED adults, with mild to moderate covid. Meanwhile, the WHO had recommended against the use of remdesivir as far back as November 2020. 1/2
reSee.it AI Summary
Shocking excess death data revealed by statistician Winston Smith in an interview with Liz Gunn. In Invercargill, NZ, one vaccination site reported 253 deaths out of 837 vaccinations, a rate of 30.23%. The crude death rate in NZ is 0.75%. Full interview in comments.
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
Shocking excess death data revealed by Winston Smith, a statistician, from an interview with Liz Gunn. From Invercargill, a small town in the South Island of New Zealand. One vaccination site, had 253 reported deaths from just 837 covid vaccinations at that site , a rate of 30.23%. The crude death rate in NZ is 0.75%. Full interview in the comments.
Video Transcript AI Summary
In Chicago, Invercargill has had a devastating experience with their vaccination site. Out of 837 vaccinations, there has been a shocking 30% death rate, meaning 1 in 3 vaccinated individuals have died. The mortality rate in this site is usually 0.75%, but in Invercargill, it has skyrocketed to 30%. This is an alarming situation, especially considering it happened in Invercargill, of all places. There are also other clusters in the South Island that we will discuss later.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In Chicago. And if you look on the left hand side, Invercargill, poor Invercargill. It's, they've had an unbelievable experience. They've had a total number of site vaccinations of 837, and a 30% death rate. 30%.
So was 1 in 3 people who were vaccinated at this site are now dead. And what have we got here? The total clusters per site? The clusters we're gonna talk about later. This is just the the death ratio, but the underlying mortality rate should be 0.75% ordinarily.
In this one particular site, we've got a mortality rate of 30%. That is staggering. Yep. In Invercargill, of all places. What else have we got in the South Island?
Can
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
This clip was taken from around the 30 min mark in this interview. https://rumble.com/v3ynskd-operation-m.o.a.r-mother-of-all-revelations.html
M.O.A.R (Mother Of All Revelations)
The crucial data On New Zealand's excess deaths from the Covid jabs. https://nzloyal.org.nz https://freenz.substack.com
rumble.com
reSee.it AI Summary
DNA wrapped in a lipid nanoparticle enters cells, evading degradation. It carries a nuclear targeting sequence, posing risks of genome integration and cancer. This Trojan Horse-like DNA challenges existing regulations. Broken DNA ends add to the complexity. @Kevin_McKernan
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
What we have now is DNA wrapped in a protective lipid nanoparticle that goes straight to cells, and it evades degradation, and it happens to be sequenced with a nuclear targeting sequence in it. That's a risk for genome integration, that's a risk for cancer , that's a risk for all types of hell to break loose inside of the cell. This contaminating DNA is in a Trojan Horse, and is going to get inside the cell. The regulations are not constructed for this. And then there is the sticky ends on the broken up pieces of DNA. @Kevin_McKernan
Video Transcript AI Summary
DNA wrapped in a protective lipid nanoparticle is designed to enter cells and reach the nucleus quickly. However, this poses risks such as genome integration and cancer. The regulations for DNA contamination in vaccines are not suitable for this type of delivery system. Previously, contaminating DNA in vaccines came from cells used to grow them, which had less risk for integration. The ends of DNA are crucial for integration, and smaller fragments increase the risk. Linear fragments are even more dangerous than circular ones. The FDA acknowledges this and suggests that the current limit of 10 nanograms should be lower for circular plasmids, although achieving such low levels may be technically challenging.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What we have now is DNA wrapped in a protective lipid nanoparticle that goes straight to cells, evades all of this degradation and it happens to be sequenced that has a nuclear targeting sequence in it which means once it gets into a cell within hours it ends up in the nucleus. So that's a risk for genome integration, that's a risk for cancer, that's a risk for all types of, you know, hell to break loose inside of the cell. So the regulations even at 10 nanograms, even though they're a 1000 fold higher, they are, they're not appropriately constructed for a transfection reagent, a reagent where this contaminating DNA is actually in a trojan horse and is gonna get into the cell. So there's another there's another feature to this, to how they set this number that I think everyone should be aware of is Typically the source of the contaminating DNA in prior vaccines was from cells that they were growing vaccines in, wasn't from a plasmid per se, it was from like, let's say they grew this in monkey kidney cells, right, or other human cells. Well when you crack when some of that DNA comes through it's chromosomal, it's not these little tiny plasmids so, it doesn't have a lot of broken ends to it, which means it's not very active for integration.
What makes DNA reactive for integration are the ends of it. The ends of it have chemical MODIs that are known as phosphates and hydroxyls and that's the chemical glue for DNA to go and ligate to other DNA. So the smaller you chop up the DNA the more of a buckshot it becomes to genome integration, the more risk you have because you have more of these ends. So if you take a chromosome and chop it up into a 1000000 pieces you have a far higher integration risk than if you have a chromosome.
Speaker 1: So I think what you just said there is really important because I don't think people understand that. People are being led to believe that if this DNA is broken up, it's less Dangerous? But what you're explaining is more dangerous.
Speaker 0: No, that's yes, they're probably getting some propaganda from the farming industry there, but and now more you chop it up the worst. So, yeah, there's some papers that study this, but, the linear fragments actually pose a higher integration risk than even circular stuff. Now, the FDA knows this, there's a great paper from Cheng Fowler and Keith Peden who work at the TA, that even speak out about this saying that the 10 nanogram limit is really related to genomic DNA contamination but if this were to be a small virus like a circular plasmid, it might need to go down to adograms or pentagrams of DNA as the floor and they mentioned in there that that's probably unachievable technically.
reSee.it AI Summary
Elon Musk's ownership of X has led some to believe the platform is now worthless and unsafe for activists. @abcnews is accused of concealing the truth about Pfizer's actions, resulting in deaths. @RefugeOfSinner5 criticizes @abcnews for no longer reporting news.
@abcnews - ABC News
A year after Elon Musk bought Twitter, X is now a 'worthless' platform some say is no longer safe for activists https://ab.co/3u3pFzq
ABC.net.au: Page not Found
Australia's leading source of information and entertainment
abc.net.au
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
@abcnews @abcnews you stopped reporting the news a long time ago. Pfizer lied, people died, and you concealed the truth. https://t.co/LBoY04ACFG
reSee.it AI Summary
The widespread administration of DNA shots raises concerns about potential impacts on germlines. With billions of LNPs in these shots, even a small percentage reaching ovaries could mean millions of interactions with oocytes. This experimental use lacks proper characterization and liability protection. It's time to question the decay in biomedical ethics. #DNAshots #germlines #biomedicalethics
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
We are shotgunning lots of DNA into billions of people. Some of this DNA may hit germlines. (think eggs and sperm). 50 - 100 billion LNP's in these shots. If 1% gets to ovaries, then you are talking about 40 - 400 million of these things hitting 300 000 oocytes. This is a radical decay in biomedical ethics. Why are we tolerating this experimental use on tools that are poorly characterised, mandated with liability protection. @Kevin_McKernan
Video Transcript AI Summary
We are currently injecting large amounts of DNA into billions of people, which may affect germ lines, stem cells, sperm, and eggs. The number of DNA injections is in the range of 50-100 billion, and if 1% reaches the ovaries, it could potentially impact around 40-400 million oocytes. This experimental use of poorly characterized tools with liability protection is a significant departure from previous biomedical ethics standards. These genomic changes in the germ line can be passed down to future generations, and if it affects stem cells, it may lead to cancer. This practice is concerning and needs to be questioned.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What's going on today, although we're not doing CRISPR on germ lines, we are basically shotgunning lots of DNA into people's, into billions of people, some of this DNA may hit term lines, it may hit stem cells, it may hit sperm, it may hit egg. If you do the numbers on the number of LMPs that we're putting in these things, they're in the 50,000,000,000 range to maybe 100,000,000,000 range. So if 1% of those get to the ovaries, there's only 300,000 oocytes. So there's, you're talking about, 40,000,000 to 400,000,000 maybe of these things hitting 300,000 O sites. So there, there's a chance that this stuff gets into the germline, and we can't rule that out.
And, that is done now on billions of people. And it's almost mandated in many places.
Speaker 1: It was mandated. It was mandated.
Speaker 0: Probably very much so. Right? So, This is a radical decay in the biomedical ethics community that this has occurred. And it's a massive departure from where we were back in days when we were thinking about CRISPR babies. So, I think everyone should raise that bar back up and say, this is where you were, what has changed?
And, why are we tolerating this type of experimental use on tools that are poorly characterized, mandated with liability protection? It's just, it's mind boggling that's happening.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's, that's well said, Kevin. Just, just, I mean, it's obvious to me, but I'll just make clear, make it clear to everybody. When Kevin says it's in the germ line, he's talking about genomic changes in the ovaries. That means your children Will have those genomic changes and then their children will.
Forever. Right?
Speaker 0: Yes. Yes. Sperm and egg are germ lines. And if it hits your stem cells, like in your bone marrow, then you can run into cancer problems. So those are immune, those are immune privileged cells, so they don't get cleaned up by the immune system and these things end up persisting for probably the rest of your life if it's in your stem cells.
reSee.it AI Summary
Professor Thomas Perlmann, Secretary General of the Nobel Assembly, announced the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. During the announcement, a Chinese journalist raised concerns about the long-term effects of mRNA. Professors Sandberg and Olle Kampe addressed the question, stating that mRNA is transient and has limited side effects. They emphasized that mRNA cannot integrate into DNA, ensuring safety. The noted effects, mainly myocarditis and pericarditis in young males, typically resolve without long-term consequences.
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
Announcement of the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine by Professor Thomas Perlmann, Secretary General of the Nobel Assembly. A Chinese journalist asks the committee this question. "With the mRNA, we don't know the long term effect yet. Do we have any concern over that?" Hear the answers from Professor Sandberg and Professor Olle Kampe. "The mRNA given is very transient" "The amount of side effects noted to date is extremely limited, so I don't think it's a major concern" "Well it can't be integrated into the nucleus, into the DNA, and that's a safety precaution." "The effects noted are mostly myocarditis and pericarditis, mainly affecting young males, but that normally resolves without any long term effects"
Video Transcript AI Summary
Taixin Media from China asks about concerns regarding the long-term effects of mRNA vaccines. Richard acknowledges that mRNA vaccines have only been administered for a limited time, but emphasizes that the number of people who have received the vaccine greatly outweighs the reported side effects. He believes that the limited side effects make long-term concerns less significant. Another participant adds that mRNA vaccines cannot integrate into DNA, ensuring safety. The main adverse effect observed is mild myocarditis or pericarditis, primarily affecting young males, but it typically resolves without long-term consequences.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, this is Taixin Media from China. And with mRNA, we don't know the long term effect yet. So do you have any concern over that?
Speaker 1: Richard, would you like to respond to that question?
Speaker 2: Yes. Of course, mRNA vaccines have only been given for a certain amount of time, which begs your question. Having said that, of mRNA vaccine that is given is very transient. And the fact that 13,000,000,000 people have gotten the virus, vaccine virus. And, I mean, and the amount of side effects noted to date is extremely limited.
So I don't think it's a major concern.
Speaker 1: Anyone else want to add to that? Or that's fine, yes. I think that's Well, it can't be integrated into the nucleus, into the DNA. And that's a safety precaution. The adverse effect that's been noticed is mostly mild, myocarditis or perimy Carditis mainly affecting young males, But that normally resolves without any long term effect.
reSee.it AI Summary
Increased levels of IgG4 antibodies, observed after the third mRNA COVID injection, hinder the immune system's ability to recognize and clear cancer cells. This evasion allows cancer cells to grow unhindered, leading to a poorer prognosis. Dr. Mikolaj Raszek's video and paper provide further insights. (Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTkKlmEdEMt691s)
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
IgG4 and Cancer. The second part of the increased igG4 antibody story. (remember igG4 was found to have increased 38 x after the third mRna covid injection). IgG4 antibodies compete with igG1 antibodies for cancer recognition, and prevent cancer cell clearance. So, there is no cytotoxic clearance and there is no phagocytic clearance. So the cancer cells avoid the immune system and grow unimpeded. We know from past studies, the higher the levels a cancer patient has of IgG4 , the more likely the cancer will be malignant, and the poorer the prognosis. Dr Mikolaj Raszek. See thread for full video, and the paper that he is reviewing.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Certain cancers can stimulate the production of IgG4 antibodies to evade the immune system. These antibodies compete with IgG1 antibodies, preventing cancer cell clearance. IgG4 antibodies can block receptors on immune cells, hindering their interaction with IgG1 antibodies. Additionally, IgG4 antibodies can bind to the stocks of IgG1 antibodies, further inhibiting their interaction with immune cell receptors. This allows cancer cells to grow unimpededly. Studies have shown that higher levels of IgG4 in cancer patients are associated with a poorer prognosis.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And the another example is with cancer. And this is really interesting because it looks like cancers can certain cancers can stimulate the production of IgG4 antibodies in order in order to dodge the immune system, so it's a form of cancer immune escape. So that's how the cancer might actually escape the immune system recognition by the immune system, because the cancer cells can present the certain antigen, basically full our immune system to start switching our IgG one antibodies that are very effective against killing cancer cells and to start producing IgG4 antibodies, and suddenly these IgG4 antibodies can start competing with IgG1 antibodies for cancer recognition. So they can prevent cancer cancer clearance cancer cell clearance because, for example, one, they can actually interact with receptors on the immune cells that are supposed to recognize the stock of antibodies. Do you remember this talk?
We talked about it a few times, it's called Fc. And the receptors are called Fc receptors, first and this is the that's how immune cells grab the antibodies, it's by the stock, the bottom half of the antibody, not not where you have the letter y, but the bottom stock. And IgG 4 antibodies can block these receptors and prevent them from being able to interact with the IgG one antibodies that we want to be clearing the cancer cells. And another way to do it, and remember, they don't induce those effector functions. So there is no cytotoxic clearance.
There is no phagul psychotic clearance. And, and, another way that IgG can for antibodies can interfere is that apparently, they can interact with IgG 1 antibodies by their by binding to their own stocks. So IgG FORCE will stocks will interact with the stocks of IgG1 and, as a consequence, IgG1 cannot now interact with those immune cell receptors as well. So here is how cells cancer cells can now avoid immune system and grow unimpededly, unimpeded. So that basically we know that from past studies that the higher the levels a cancer patient might have of IgG4, the more likely that the cancer will be malignant and the poor the prognosis of such individual
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
This clip was taken from the following video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT-kKlmEdEM&t=691s
reSee.it AI Summary
Dr. Janci Lindsay, Director of Toxicology and Molecular Biology, expressed concerns about the presence of SV40 sequences in a specific plasmid used for growing bacteria. These sequences, if promiscuous, can integrate near oncogenes and potentially cause cancer. The redaction of endotoxin levels raises transparency questions. Urging citizen protection, Dr. Lindsay calls for a state to take action. Watch her full presentation for more details.
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
Question: "You said that this was nefarious, in what sense are you saying that?" Dr Lindsay: "The SV40 sequences, they should not be there. They don't need to be there to grow this in bacteria. I don't think it's an accident. They could have chosen another plasmid that did NOT have the SV40 sequences. If these sequences sit above an oncogene, and they are promiscuous, that means they are likely to integrate in places, more likely then other generic inserts. Then they can cause cancer." "..We looked to see endotoxin levels, but they have them all redacted. Why would you redact them if you were trying to be transparent." "There is something very unusual going on here." "Please protect your citizens. We've got to get one state to stand up and do the right thing."
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker expresses concern about the presence of SV40 sequences in vaccines, suggesting that their integration into certain genetic areas could potentially cause cancer. They mention the risk of insertional mutagenesis and the delay in bringing gene therapies to market due to this concern. The speaker also advocates for the use of alternative treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, stating that they are safe drugs. They question the transparency of the FDA in redacting data and holding clinical data for 75 years. The speaker urges the protection of citizens and calls for one state to take the lead in doing the right thing. No questions are asked.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You had said earlier, nefarious. You felt like this was more nefarious than doctor Burkholder. In what sense are you saying that?
Speaker 1: The s v 40 sequences, they should not be there. They don't need to be there to grow this into back to grow this in bacteria. I don't think it's an accident, they could have chosen another plasmid that did not have the SV 40 sequences. If these sequences sit above an oncogene and and they're promiscuous, that means since they are likely to to integrate in places more likely than other genetic inserts thank you so much. Then they can cause cancer.
Insertional mutagenesis anyway causes cancer. And that's the a risk. That's why gene therapies were not brought to market for so many years. Because there was a risk of causing cancer from insertional mutagenesis. We never needed these Vaccines, we had treatments that worked.
One of our doctors here is going to tell you about that. Hydroxychloroquine and and Ivermectin, I can tell you as a toxicologist, they are not toxic. They're they're some of the safest drugs you can use. I I there's no reason, once the FDA found out about this contamination. Okay?
And we looked to see endotoxin levels. But they've got them all redacted. Why would you redact them if you were trying to be transparent? Why would you hold the data for 75 years. All of the clinical data for 75 years from these, if you were trying to be transparent, tell me Why?
There is something very unusual going on here that is being done differently than it's ever been done before. We don't give experimental products to pregnant women. We don't give experimental products to babies that have a death profile like this. It's not done. It's never been done before.
Please protect your citizens. Please, I am begging you to protect your citizens. We've got to get one state state to stand up and do the right thing. Do whatever you can so that other states will follow. I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: Thank you, doctor, Lindsey. Any questions?
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
Dr Janci Lindsay at the Senate hearing in South Carolina. Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay is the Director of Toxicology and Molecular Biology for Toxicology Support Services, LLC. She holds a doctorate (PhD) in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.. Her full presentation can be found here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjQQ7kkj3Bs&t=2s
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
This clip was taken from a South Carolina Senate Hearing. The full video can be seen here.
reSee.it AI Summary
The Pfizer vaccine contains plasmid DNA alongside mRNA. This DNA serves as the template for mRNA production. Professor Phillip Buckhaults, a renowned expert in cancer genomics, sequenced the vaccine and confirmed the presence of foreign DNA. A clip from a South Carolina Senate Hearing provides further evidence. Watch here: [link].
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
"The Pfizer vaccine is contaminated with plasmid DNA, it's not just mRNA, its got bits of DNA in it. This DNA is the DNA vector that was used as the template for the invitro transcription reaction when they made the mRNA. I know this is true because I sequenced it in my own lab" Professor Phillip Buckhaults. Phd in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. He does cancer genomics research at the University of South Carolina. An expert on which changes to the genome causes cancer. His team is really good at detecting foreign pieces of DNA in places where they are not supposed to be.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Pfizer vaccine may contain DNA in addition to mRNA, according to a scientist who sequenced the vaccine in their lab. The DNA is a vector used in the production of the mRNA. The scientist examined vials of the vaccine from a local vaccination program and found DNA in them. This DNA could potentially be linked to rare but serious side effects, such as death from cardiac arrest. It has the ability to integrate into the genomic DNA of cells, potentially causing long-term effects. The presence of this DNA raises concerns about the regulatory process that allowed it to be included in the vaccine. There is a theoretical risk of autoimmune reactions and future cancer development. Further investigation is needed to determine the extent of these risks.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Handlawns 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 mRNA, it's got bits of DNA in it. This DNA is the DNA vector that was used when they made the mRNA. I know this is true because I sequenced it in my own lab.
The vials of Pfizer vaccine that were given out here in Columbia. One of my colleagues was in charge of that vaccination program in the College of Pharmacy and for reasons that 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 me and I looked at them. We had 2 batches that were given out here in Columbia and I checked these 2 batches and I checked them by sequencing, and I sequence 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, and you can kinda work out what it is and how it got there, here and I'm kind of alarmed about the possible consequences of this, both in terms of human health health in biology, but you should be alarmed about the regulatory process that allowed it to get there.
So this DNA, in my view, It could be causing some of the rare but serious side effects like death from cardiac arrest. So there's a lot of cases now, and this DNA is a plausible mechanism, okay. And will integrate into the genomic DNA of cells that got transfected with the vaccine mix. This is just the way We do this in the lab all the time. We take pieces of DNA, we mix them up with a a lipid complex like the Pfizer vaccine as in, we pour it on the cells and and a lot of it gets into the cells and a lot of it gets into the DNA of those cells and becomes a permanent fixture here of the cell.
It's not just a temporary thing, it is in that cell and all of its progeny from now on forevermore. Him. So that's why I'm kind of alarmed about this DNA being in the vaccine, it's different from RNA because it can be permanent. This is a real hazard for genome modification of long lived somatic cells like stem cells, and it could cause, theoretically, this is all a theoretical concern but it's pretty reasonable based on solid molecular biology, 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 Kajim.
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 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 a possibility.
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
This clip was taken from a South Carolina Senate Hearing. The full video can be seen here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEWHhrHiiTY
reSee.it AI Summary
Izumiotsu City, Osaka stops recommending risky vaccinations. Local governments and doctors discuss side effects, suggesting a correlation between increased vaccination and infection rates. A link is shared for further understanding.
@_aussie17 - aussie17
Izumiotsu City, Osaka stops recommending risky vaccinations. Local governments association, doctors expressed their views on side effects of the vaccines. "the more people are vaccinated, the more infected people become"
Video Transcript AI Summary
The municipality of Izumiōtsu in Osaka Prefecture, Japan, has taken a stance against actively promoting vaccine administration. Dr. Shijō Kojima, a pediatric cancer and infectious disease specialist from Nagoya University School of Medicine, shared his views on vaccine side effects. Japan has the highest number of daily COVID-19 cases per 100,000 people, with 51 cases compared to America's 0.3 cases per 100,000 people. The dominant variants have shown reduced vaccine effectiveness and can even lead to increased infections. Tokyo University of Science Professor Emeritus Murakami explained that the virus's structure requires the destruction of cells, potentially causing damage to the body.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: 大阪 府 の 泉 王子 から ワクチン接種 を 積極的に は 推奨 しない 方針 を打ち 出している 自治体 会 では ワクチン の 副 反応 に関する 医師 の 見解 が 述べ られました 小 児 がん や 駅 の 専門家 である 名古屋 大学 医学 部 名誉 教授 の 小 島 市場
Speaker 1: 日本 だけ ダン ト ツ の トップ ですね 今 完成 どの 程度 かというと 人口 10万 人 あたり 毎日 日本は 今 5 1 人 だ 7月 11 インチ の ベー ター じゃあ アメリカ 行 間 という と アメリカ 0 。3 人 なんですね 日本は アメリカの 1 70 倍 に 今 新規 感染者 ワーク ス ティン 豪 族 の コロ ニー か が や す な んじゃないか と思うんですね
Speaker 0: 今 主 流 になっている 変 異 株 には ワクチン の 効果 が低い 上 レシピ によって 逆に 感染 が増える 現象 が起きて いると 指摘 また 新型コロナ ワクチン の 仕組み そのもの が 体に ダメージ を与える という 説明を していた の だ 東京 理 科 大学 村 上 名誉 教授
Speaker 2: 問題は ですねあの こう な っちゃいます と ウイルス の 完成 と 逮 捕 と これ 同じ に見える ん っていうこと は 明 景 と してみると その 細胞 は 破壊 し なければいけない ということになります ね そうなると 細胞 が 一つ イ ブ そして 取られ てしまう
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
@_aussie17 Maybe this might help explain this phenomenon . https://t.co/xKzVOooD6K
reSee.it AI Summary
The mRNA platform, while brilliant, has a significant flaw. When it works, any cell producing a foreign protein will be targeted and destroyed by the immune system, potentially causing autoimmune disorders. Coding it in a lipid nanoparticle doesn't solve the problem of keeping it away from the heart. The urgency of the pandemic allowed this technology, which was decades away from safe deployment, to be rushed to market. Blaming the spike protein alone is misguided; both the spike protein and the platform itself pose challenges.
@RefugeOfSinner5 - RefugeOfSinners (ROS)
Brett Weinstein, Professor of Evolutionary Biology. Host of the DarkHorse podcast. "The mRNA platform is brilliant. But it has a giant gaping flaw in it, which is ; Any cell of yours that produces a foreign protein, will be targetted by your immune system and destroyed. You will create an autoimmune disorder. When it works. How do you keep it out of your heart. Not by coding it in a lipid nanoparticle. So, they had no way to deliver it safely to market. So then they had a pandemic, the emergency allowed them to do it. This technology, in my opinion, was at least 3 decades out from being usefully and safely deployed at all, if at all. They did not want to wait, this crisis gave them the opportunity not to wait. And now, they will blame the spike protein, we picked the wrong protein. When in actual fact there are 2 problems, the spike protein and the platform itself."
Video Transcript AI Summary
The mRNA platform is effective but has a flaw: it can cause autoimmune disorders by producing foreign proteins in cells. The challenge is to target only specific cells and avoid damage to vital organs. The pandemic allowed the emergency use authorization of mRNA vaccines, bypassing safety measures. However, a large portion of the population has already accepted this technology. To address the issue, a solution could be to replace the spike protein with a different protein that doesn't have flaws. But if the problem lies in any foreign protein transcribed by cells, the immune system may still target vital organs.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And the mRNA platform is brilliant, right? It bypasses the nuclear genome and it inserts the mRNA message into the cytoplasm where the cells do what they're told and they transcribe it and they make any protein you want. That is a brilliant mechanism for solving this problem. But it has a giant gaping flaw in it, which is any cell of yours that produces a foreign protein, which is what inherently will happen when an mRNA message is introduced into your cell, will be targeted by your own immune system and destroy it. You will create an autoimmune disorder.
That's what it will do when it works. How the hell are you going to bring such a thing to market? Well, you would need a solution to the following problem. How do you get it to only those cells where that's a cost worth paying? How do you keep it out of your heart, for example?
Well, you can't do it by coating it in a lipid nanoparticle that's simply a fat attracted to other fats because all of your cells are covered in fat. It's completely indiscriminate, right? And nobody can afford to have this happen in their heart. It's not the only tissue where that's true, but it's the most obvious of them. So they had a platform that solved a huge problem, and they had no way to deliver it safely to market because they didn't have a targeting mechanism.
What a shame. Well, I thought it was Rahm Emanuel who said, don't let any good crisis go to waste. I was recently told that it was Henry Kissinger who first said that. I I don't care which one it is. I'd love to know if Kissinger said it first, but nonetheless, it sounds like something you might have thought.
In any case, okay, so they had a pandemic, they had a technology they couldn't bring safely to market and the emergency allowed them to do it, right? The emergency allowed them to go through emergency use authorization to get people on board with taking it because people were so scared of COVID. It allowed them to basically push aside all of the safeguards that should have prevented a prototype technology like this from reaching the market without demonstrating safety. So, okay, pharma accomplished the impossible. It took a technology that it owned that was, in my opinion, at least 3 decades out from being usefully and safely deployable, if at all.
There's no telling whether you could have rescued it, but if they had a way to target it, it might have taken 3 decades for them to figure out what that way was, to figure out how to bring it about and then to show that it was safe. And they didn't want to wait. And so this crisis gave them the opportunity not to wait. Now here's the point. Now you've got a huge fraction of the globe that has already accepted mRNA vaccine technology.
And how? How are you gonna rescue it from a 1 in 35 chance of damaging your heart. Right? How are you going to overcome the dawning awareness that this stuff is lethally dangerous and to tissues you cannot afford to have damaged? Well.
The spike protein. Right. If the problem is inherent to the spike protein, then, okay, we admit it. We picked the wrong protein. But All you gotta do is swap in a protein that doesn't have some flaw like this, and the mRNA platform is right back on track.
On the other hand, if we are right in what we have been saying for If it's both things. If it's if it's both, the spike protein is a bad choice and It doesn't matter what protein. Any foreign protein transcribed by your cells is going to cause your own immune system to go after your own heart cells if that's where this thing ends up transfecting.