TruthArchive.ai - Related Post Feed

IamBrookJackson
Posted - February 16, 2023 at 5:03 AM
Saved - November 21, 2023 at 11:41 PM

@IamBrookJackson - Brook Jackson 💜

A statement from the U.S. that it has full confidence in Pfizer’s “vaccine” is one more red flag and a sign that there is a f*cking problem. @pfizer - you don’t get to speak for The People, I do. There is no burden on us to begin the discovery process. You’re just terrified! https://t.co/1Luk0eMhWk

VigilantFox
Posted - July 29, 2023 at 9:05 PM
Saved - August 1, 2023 at 7:09 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Robert Kennedy Jr. reveals Fauci's $150K/year benefit from Moderna vaccine. NIH profits from the vaccine they developed, while Fauci's associates hold patent rights, earning them lifelong income. Fauci's false statements to Congress, as stated by Senator Rand Paul, should lead to prosecution. Watch Kennedy's censored interview here: [link]. Moderna's patented sequence matches the spike protein's genetic code, a one-in-a-billion occurrence. Share to raise awareness.

@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊

.@RobertKennedyJr Exposes Fauci’s $150K/Year Perk from the Moderna Vaccine “NIH is collecting billions of dollars on the Moderna vaccine, which they developed. And people who work for Tony Fauci, four to six individuals who work for them have margin rights for those patents so that they will collect now $150,000 a year for life. And their children and heirs will collect that money as long as that vaccine is being sold.” ------------------------------ 🔁 Retweet to help awaken the masses.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims that those who oppose the pharmaceutical industry are punished, while those who support it, like Anthony Fauci, rise to the top. Fauci, who has been in his position for 50 years, is highly paid and serves the agency's ambition. The speaker accuses the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of abandoning its mission to understand why Americans are sick and instead focusing on developing drugs for profit. The NIH earns billions of dollars from the Moderna vaccine, with Fauci's employees benefiting from patents and royalties. The speaker suggests that the agency's commercial interests have overshadowed its regulatory responsibilities.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you do something that that offends the pharmaceutical industry or interferes with its, profit taking, you're gonna be punished in those agencies. Conversely, the individuals who are reliably in the tank with the industry, who are carrying water for them, People like Anthony Fauci are people who rise inexorably to the top and then remain there for generation. So, you know, here you have a public official who's been there for 50 years. The highest paid official in the United States government, much higher paid than the president of the United States. And he's there for one reason, because he knows how to serve agency ambition. He's taken that agency that was the gold standard for scientific research and essentially abandoned the mission of trying to figure out why are Americans so sick and adopted instead a new mission, which is to develop, to be an incubator for pharmaceutical drugs for the agency. And when it develops those drugs at NIH and that forms them out to a foreign company, it gets collect royalties. So NIH is collecting 1,000,000,000 of dollars on the Moderna vaccine which they developed. And people who work for Tony Fauci, 4 to 6 individuals who work for them and march in rights for those patents so that they will collect now 150 $1,000 a year for life, and their children and heirs will collect that money as long as that vaccine is being sold. Oh, you have an agency where that the, you know, that that has the that has these commercial, you know, benefits that have overwhelmed their regulatory functions. And, you know, Now if you're if you're gonna get $150,000 a year for life and you are the regulator, do you think you're really gonna be regulating, or are you gonna be promoting?

@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊

Curiously, Moderna's patented sequence in 2016 is a DIRECT MATCH for part of the genetic code in the spike protein. "Some scientists did a study on the likelihood of that occurring: one in a billion. One in a billion!" exclaimed attorney @RenzTom.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Moderna's patent for the spike protein's genetic code is a rare occurrence, with a likelihood of 1 in a billion. While patents don't always indicate usage, this particular patent matches a portion of the spike protein's genetic code. This coincidence is quite surprising.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: One of the things that is not commonly known but I think is very critical is You know that that Moderna company? Well, I don't love patents always as evidence because having a patent doesn't mean that you've used a patent But, In this particular case the Moderna patent is a genetic match for part of the genetic code in the spike protein? Some scientists did a study on the likelihood of that occurring 1 in a 1,000,000,000. 1 in a 1,000,000,000. Shocking coincidence

@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@RenzTom @RobertKennedyJr's interview with @JamesOKeefeIII was censored and taken down by YouTube, but you can still watch it here: https://t.co/an7yZu8Nw4

@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊

Fauci lied under oath to Congress, attests Senator @RandPaul. "It's a felony to lie to Congress, and he should be prosecuted." https://t.co/G8ucRe7JmP

goddeketal
Posted - August 5, 2023 at 1:57 AM
Saved - August 5, 2023 at 3:32 AM

@goddeketal - Dr. Simon Goddek

.@SenatorRennick: "What percentage of profits does Moderna allocate to help people who have been injured by the vaccine?" .@moderna_tx: Zero. Vaccine injuries are not our problem, but the government's.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks if Moderna puts any of its profits into helping people injured by the vaccine. Speaker 1 states that indemnities are a matter for the government and cannot comment further. Speaker 0 questions if Moderna is unwilling to underwrite the risk of its own vaccine and prioritize its safety. Speaker 1 reiterates that they take vaccine safety seriously and have a good pharmacovigilance process in place, but indemnities are a matter for policymakers. Speaker 0 asks about the moral responsibility of helping vaccine victims, to which Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 assuming the answer is zero.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Profits does Moderna plow back into helping, people who are injured by the vaccine? Speaker 1: Thank you. I was going to say, we are aware that there is That's sort of an indemnity for COVID nineteen suppliers. But indemnities are Policy makes it for government to decide. I can't comment. Speaker 0: So Moderna doesn't put any of its profits back into helping the victims of, injuries from the Moderna vaccine. Is that correct? Speaker 1: So Moderna is a company that's focused on manufacturing vaccines. The matter of, indemnity for vaccine supplies is a method for government. Speaker 0: So you're not prepared to underwrite the risk of your own vaccine? You're not prepared to actually put money where your mouth is when it comes to the safety of your vaccine? Is that correct? Speaker 2: So just before you answer Question, Senator Eddy, but I'll have to go to Senator Anticom after this answer. That's the last Speaker 0: question there. Speaker 2: Back to you. Speaker 0: Just yes or no, you're not prepared to underwrite the safety of your own vaccine? Speaker 1: We take safety of our vaccines very seriously. We have a very good pharmacovigilance process in place, in fact, a comprehensive However, I would only reiterate that indemnities are a matter for policymakers. Speaker 0: But what about a moral social conscience of putting Speaker 2: some Speaker 0: of your profits back in helping victims of the vaccine? 0? Is it $0? Speaker 2: I might just before you again, Doctor. Leung, just before you answer that, I appreciate, Speaker 0: Well, just that she's not answering Speaker 2: I respect you asking the questions. I just want to make sure we can get to Senator Antigen due to our timetable, but Speaker 0: I'll just take that as a zero. Thank you.
kylenabecker
Posted - August 12, 2023 at 11:29 PM
Saved - August 13, 2023 at 4:20 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Top Covid experts, Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Tony Fauci, received 58 royalty payments totaling $325 million during the pandemic. These payments were for the use of their COVID-19 vaccine technology developed with taxpayer funding. The NIH resisted disclosing these payments but was compelled to release the records. Sen. Rand Paul confronted Fauci about the secret payments, questioning potential conflicts of interest. The NIH continues to withhold the names of scientists receiving royalties. The records could reveal conflicts and public health concerns. Fauci previously accepted royalties for an ineffective AIDS treatment but failed to donate them to charity as promised.

@kylenabecker - Kyle Becker

Top Covid Experts Raked in 58 Royalty Payments During Pandemic While Americans Suffered Dr. Francis Collins, former NIH Director, and Dr. Tony Fauci, former NIAID Director, cashed in big time during the Covid pandemic. The two most influential Covid experts raked in 58 royalty payments as part of a sum of NIH royalties that amounted to $325 million. Meanwhile, the public health officials recommended business-crushing lockdowns that forced thousands of people to lose their share of the American Dream. Dr. Collins and Dr. Fauci together got a reported 58 royalty payments between them for allowing companies to use their COVID-19 vaccines. These vaccines were developed with funding from U.S. taxpayers by private pharmaceutical firms. Both Fauci and Collins profited from consistent royalties throughout the pandemic. OpenTheBooks, a transparency organization, recently released over 1,500 pages of these unredacted records. The documents detail the various companies that compensated Fauci and Collins for the technology. The majority of these records were accessed through a largely effective use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The NIH resisted these FOIA requests but, in the end, OpenTheBooks secured most of the records. Altogether, 56,000 transactions were recorded, totaling over $325 million. However, specific payment details and related licenses were not mentioned. Sen. @RandPaul confronted Dr. Anthony Fauci in June 2022 on the royalty payments, which had been kept secret from the American public. "The NIH continues to refuse to voluntarily divulge the names of scientists who receive royalties and from which companies over the period of time from 2010 to 2016, 27,000 royalty payments were paid to 1800 NIH employees," Paul said. "We know that. Not because you told us, but because we forced you to tell us through the Freedom of Information Act. "Over 193 million was given to these... 1800 employees," Paul added. "Can you tell me that you have not received a royalty from any entity that you ever oversaw the distribution of money in research grants?" "Well, first of all, let's talk about royalty," Fauci rebutted. "No, that's the question," Senator Paul insisted. "Have you ever overseen, have you ever received a royalty payment from a company that you later oversaw money going to that company?" "You know, I don't know as a fact, but I doubt it," Fauci responded. "I would be happy..." "Well, here's the thing is why don't you let us know?" Paul replied. "Why don't you reveal... how much you've gotten and from what entities, the NIH refuses. Look we asked them. We asked them the NIH. We asked them whether or not who got it and how much they refuse to tell us they sent it redacted." "Here's what I want to know. It's not just about you, everybody on the vaccine committee, have any of them ever received money from the people who make vaccines?" Paul asked. "Can you tell me that? Can you tell me if anybody on the vaccine approval committees ever receive any money from people?" "Soundbite, number one. Are you going to let me answer a question?" Fauci objected. "Okay. So let me give you some information." "First of all, according to the regulations, people who receive royalties are not required to divulge them, even on their financial statement, according to the Bayh-Dole act," Fauci said. "So let me give you some example from 2015 to 2020, I, the only royalties I have, was my lab and I made a monoclonal antibody for use in vitro reagent that had nothing to do with patients. And during that period of time, my royalties ranged from $21 a year to $700 a year. And the average per year was $191 and 46 cents." "It's all redacted and you can't get any information on the 1800 scientists," Paul concluded before he was cut off by the chair. But now we know that between 2010 and 2021, Fauci got 37 payments from three entities. This includes 15 from Santa Cruz Biotechnology, known for medical research products. They rank fifth in the number of royalty payments. Fauci also received 14 from Ancell Corp., and eight from Chiron Corp., later bought by Novartis in 2006. After acquiring Chiron, Novartis obtained significant NIH funds, as noted by Just the News. Fauci’s relationship with Chiron dates back to 2004, when they collaborated on an avian flu vaccine. By the close of his service, Fauci was the highest-paid federal worker with a 2022 salary of $480,000. Collins, who later worked under President Joe Biden, received 21 payments from four firms between 2010 and 2018. GeneDx, a genetic research company, was responsible for 12 of these. It had garnered a substantial sum in federal contracts since 2008. As per Just the News, Collins' other payments came from various companies, including Quest Diagnostics' Specialty Laboratories and Ionis Pharmaceuticals. OpenTheBooks has highlighted the absence of the names and license numbers for each payment, data that the NIH initially withheld but was later mandated to release by a court. This information is crucial for analyzing potential conflicts of interest or public health concerns. The records could also shed light on a statement Fauci made to Sen. Rand Paul, where he expressed doubt about receiving royalties from entities funded by NIAID while he was in charge. An Associated Press investigation had previously found that Fauci had accepted over $45,000 in royalties years ago for an NIH-backed experimental AIDS treatment. OpenTheBooks commented that subsequent research revealed the treatment was ineffective. Fauci has thus far failed to adhere to his promise to donate said royalties to charity.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions whether anyone on the vaccine committee has received money from vaccine manufacturers. They ask if this information can be disclosed. The other speaker responds by stating that according to regulations, individuals who receive royalties are not obligated to disclose them, as per the Bayh Dole Act.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Here's what I wanna know. It's not just about you. Everybody on the vaccine committee, have any of them ever received money from the people who make vaccines? Can you tell me that? Can you tell me if anybody on the vaccine approval committees ever received any money from people who make vaccines? Speaker 1: Soundbite number 1. Are you gonna let me answer a question? Okay. So let me give you some information. First of all, According to the regulations, people who receive royalties are not required To divulge them even on their financial statement according to the Bayh Dole Act.
USA_Think_Free
Posted - October 29, 2023 at 11:49 PM
Saved - October 31, 2023 at 11:29 AM

@USA_Think_Free - 🇺🇸 American Free Thinker 🇺🇸

@BenSwann_ Members of the COVID vaccine committee got "private payments" from the drug companies but didn't have to reveal it. https://t.co/Q3CaqpeGlq

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks if anyone on the vaccine committee has received money from vaccine manufacturers. Speaker 1 tries to answer but is interrupted. Speaker 1 explains that according to regulations, people who receive royalties are not required to disclose them, even under the Bayh Dole Act.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Here's what I wanna know. It's not just about you. Everybody on the vaccine committee, have any of them ever received money from the people who make vaccines? Speaker 1: Can you tell me that? Can you tell me if anybody Speaker 0: on the vaccine approval committees ever Speaker 1: received any money from people who make vaccines? Sounds like, number 1, are you gonna let me answer a question? Okay. So let me give you some information. First of all, According to the regulations, people who receive royalties are not required to divulge them even on their financial Statement according to the Bayh Dole Act. Speaker 0: Here's what I wanna know. It's not just about you. Everybody on the vaccine committee, Have any of them ever received money from the people who make vaccines? Can you tell Speaker 1: me that? Can you tell me if anybody Speaker 0: on the vaccine approval committees Ever Speaker 1: received any money from people who make the vaccines? Sounds like, number 1, are you gonna let me answer a question? Okay. So let me give you some information. First of all, according to the regulations, people who receive royalties are not required To divulge them even on their financial statement according to the Bayh Dole Act.
BenSwann_
Posted - November 25, 2023 at 9:10 PM
Saved - November 26, 2023 at 2:06 PM

@BenSwann_ - Ben Swann

Dr. Vladimir Zelenko: “Why would I take a vaccine which is financed and produced by someone who wants to decrease the world population?” https://t.co/Kfl2acbcKZ

Video Transcript AI Summary
Bill Gates, in 2015, suggested that the world population should be reduced by 10% to 15% to combat global warming, using vaccines as a means to achieve this. In 2020, Gates emphasized the need to vaccinate the entire global population of 7 billion people. This raises a rhetorical question: why should one trust a vaccine for their health when it is funded and developed by someone who aims to decrease the world population?
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Bill Gates 2015, everyone knows this, spoke that the world population needs to be reduced by 10% to 15% because of global warming through the reduction of the world population through the use of vaccines. Next. In 2020, the same Gates said 7,000,000,000 people must be vaccinated. Next. So here's my question, it's a rhetorical question. Why would I take a vaccine for my health, which is financed and produced by someone who wants to decrease the world population.
RepThomasMassie
Posted - January 19, 2024 at 4:42 PM
Saved - January 19, 2024 at 6:06 PM

@RepThomasMassie - Thomas Massie

Your primary care provider was bribed to get you to take the jab. “Oh, but Congressman Massie, these were incentive payments, not bribes.”🤫 As always, follow the money. https://t.co/RfhHUDG3Ki

ScottAtlas_IT
Posted - January 26, 2024 at 1:03 AM
Saved - February 23, 2024 at 7:54 PM

@ScottAtlas_IT - Independent Truths with Dr. Scott Atlas

.@SenRandPaul: “I've asked directly—if you're on the committee approving a vaccine, wouldn't you have to reveal if you got royalties from #Pfizer or #Moderna, who manufactures the vaccine? And they won't reveal this.”

AnnadeBuisseret
Posted - March 2, 2024 at 12:10 PM
Saved - March 3, 2024 at 12:12 PM

@AnnadeBuisseret - Anna de Buisseret

Moderna and Rishi Sunak: Where is the mandate from We the People for a 10 year “partnership” with Moderna for mRNA vaccines?? Rishi Sunak is due to personally benefit from this - see pics. Conflict of interest?!? Who investigates this conflict? Should this be demanded?? https://t.co/6KrpH4UJaU

@pilatesfitness - Pilates Fitness

@CartlandDavid We know all this. Why was this 10 year "partnership" with Moderna allowed at all? Who signed this handout to Moderna? Why was it never discussed, it was just a done deal by the time we heard about it? Also, for mRNA jabs? Please!

catsscareme2021
Posted - May 4, 2024 at 1:35 PM
Saved - May 4, 2024 at 4:21 PM

@catsscareme2021 - Jessica Rojas 🇺🇸💪

Thank you, Dr Paul! You're a rare breed in world ruled by greed. "Doctors don't make money off of vaccines!" Oh, really? Have a listen for the breakdown. https://t.co/70ipvsfRpk

Video Transcript AI Summary
I worked as a pediatrician and realized vaccines brought in significant income. Admin fees for vaccines were a major source of revenue, with bonuses for high vaccination rates. Quality measures focused on vaccination rates, not overall health. Pediatric practices heavily rely on vaccine income to stay afloat, leading to pressure to vaccinate despite potential harm.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Patrick's for my entire career up until I retired a couple years ago. Alright. So tell us about getting paid to vaccinate. How does it all work? Because the parents need to understand this. So as a pediatrician, I had my own office. At the end, I at one point, I had 10 providers. We had 3000, yeah, and 15,000 active patients and 33 staff. Overhead, we were running through about $3,000,000 in gross billings. That's a big operation with lot of overhead. What wasn't known to me until I really looked into it is that the income from vaccines was substantial. And I got clued into it because I started getting more and more patients who didn't wanna vaccinate. And the only thing that was sacred honoring informed consent. You couldn't work for integrative pediatrics, which was my practice, unless you were willing to honor parents' desires, whatever they were, if they wanted to follow the CDC schedule, if they wanted to do some vaccines, if they wanted to do no vaccines, it was their choice. Well, as other practices started kicking people out of their practices if they weren't following the CDC schedule, I was getting more and more families who didn't want to do any vaccines, which was fine with me. I've been doing enough research to understand there were definitely some benefits to not vaccinating. Not financially, though. So we took an entire month of every single billing sheet. And on every visit, on the back of that, our providers would mark off what vaccines we recommend according to the CDC schedule, families could decline them, and then our billing department, insurance company by insurance company, vaccine by vaccine, we looked at how much money was being lost for vaccines that were refused just the admin fee. There's 3 main ways you make money off of vaccines in pediatrics. There's actually a 4th. The 4th is that you bring people in for well visits and there's a really hefty reimbursement fee for just doing a well visit. But the vaccine specific income to a pediatric practice, number 1 is the admin fee. Think of this as a thank you for giving this shot. It's rationalized by the following. They say, well, pediatricians spend a lot of time talking about vaccines. They need to be reimbursed. The truth of the matter of what most pediatric practices do is they give you a one sheet glossy from the CDC that's called a VIS vaccine information sheet. You hand it to the patient and when they go into the office, the nurse gives it to them. And that's your education. So it actually takes 0 physician time. And physicians will dodge vaccine questions. So really, it's just a thank you for giving the shot. And You get about it depends on the insurance company. Every contract is different. But I would average it out to say about $40 for the first antigen and $20 for each subsequent antigen. So, let's just say A 2 month well baby visit. There's a DPT, 3 shots 3 antigens. HIB, Pravnare, Hep B, Polio, Rotavirus. Six shots. 8 antigens. It's about $240. Thank you for giving those shots. Multiply that by the fact that I was getting 30 to 40 newborns per month. They're coming in repeatedly at 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months, 15, 18 months, and age 2. It's a lot of visits. And then there's the older kids who need boosters. So we looked at the admin fee loss and from my practice that was billing at that time about 3,000,000 dollars gross, we were losing $1,000,000 over $1,000,000 in vaccines that were refused. Pediatric overhead runs 60, 70, more likely 80% these days. It is very expensive to run a pediatric office. You need multiple nurses, multiple receptionists, billing people, medical records. It's a huge operation. So you can't stay in business if you're not giving pretty close to the CDC schedule. It just doesn't pencil out economically at all. But let me tell you about the other two ways we make money from vaccines. The markup is small. They don't allow a lot of profit on vaccines as far as markups, but they do this thing called incentives or bonuses. And it's called a quality bonus. So So hospitals have quality measures and this is why hospital protocols are followed so strictly because if you follow the protocol you get extra money. Well, in pediatrics, one of the main quality measures is how well you vaccinate. Isn't that interesting? It has nothing to do with how healthy your kids are. Like when I studied my vaxxed versus unvaxxed patients, the unvaxxed were so incredibly healthy. They rarely got sick. They rarely would end up in an emergency room or in a hospital or with any chronic condition. So being unvaxxed results in very healthy kids who don't use a lot of medical dollars. Every health system should want that. But it's reversed. It's all flipped. CEOs get paid more based on how much is spent in the system. So the sicker the population, the more the CEOs CEOs make. I digress. So you've made your thank you bonus. But now this other main way of making money is the quality bonuses. So 2 year old screening for how well you vaccinate. You're supposed to have had your kids up to date by age 2. Guess what percentage of my population was at fully vaccinated at at age 2? 1%. The goal is 80%. So Doctor. Paul gets an F minus. Basically what that means is not only do I not get paid the normal amount for everything else we do in the office, I get dinged maybe 10 or 15% off of those RVUs that are ascribed to everything you do in medicine is given a value. If you do very well on your quality measures and you're a good vaccinator, you may get an additional 10% on everything you do in your office. That's huge. And, really, it effectively means a pediatric practice cannot survive using insurance without doing most of the vaccines, if not all of them. I think that's the pressure pediatricians are under and I think that explains the blinders that they just won't go there and look at the fact that these vaccines are causing a lot of harm.
ABridgen
Posted - May 26, 2024 at 10:27 AM
Saved - May 26, 2024 at 1:10 PM

@ABridgen - Andrew Bridgen MP

The Pfizer plant whistleblower raises huge concerns about what was in the ‘vaccines’ and where it came from in a discussion with @JimFergusonUK. https://t.co/d7KL7rsckZ

Video Transcript AI Summary
Melissa McAtee, a former employee at Pfizer, shares her experiences and concerns about the Pfizer vaccine in an interview. She discusses the presence of fluorescent vials and the use of Chinese ingredients in the vaccine production process. Melissa also talks about the use of aborted fetal cell lines and the lack of transparency from Pfizer regarding these issues. She believes there is a deliberate effort to deceive the public and highlights the importance of asking questions and seeking the truth. Melissa suggests that there may be more nefarious motives behind the vaccine rollout and calls for accountability. She advises caution and encourages people to research and make informed decisions about vaccination.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, thanks so much indeed. Welcome to the show. I have a wonderful guest here. Her name is Melissa McAtee. Melissa, it's great to see you on the channel. How are you doing? Speaker 1: Hi. I'm doing really good. Thanks for having me on. Speaker 0: It's my absolute pleasure. Now, before we get into too much, because you're a first time guest here on the channel, would you just say a little bit about where where you're based, what you do, that type of thing? Thanks. Speaker 1: Yeah. So I'm in a small town of Kansas, a suburb of Wichita, Kansas, a bigger city. I moved, where I currently live from McPherson where the Pfizer plant is based that I, originally worked at. I currently am a show producer for a show called Vaxxed Choice, and I work for a company, a sister company of theirs called CloutHub, which is a YouTube alternative, platform. And so that's what I'm doing now. It took me a while to be able to find work after whistleblowing, so I'm thankful that, somebody helped me, so I didn't have to resort to working at the local Taco Bell. Speaker 0: So That's okay. Well, I'm glad to see that. You know, and if you want me to put any links into the channel to direct traffic to any of those sites, please just let me know, and we can work that out when when it goes to editing. The reason I I got in contact with you, Melissa and by the way, I'm really pleased to have you on the channel. You know? And I appreciate you you coming back to me as quickly as you did. But I saw a post that you put out, which said, I I just want everybody to know I'm not suicidal. So let's a lot of people saw that because I reposted it. You know, a lot of people saw that. Can you can you just explain what was going through your mind at that point and why you put out that rather interesting tweet, please? Speaker 1: Yeah. So whenever the dust gets kicked off my story or my story starts circulating again, or sometimes if I simply feel the need to, I periodically will make a I'm not suicidal post just so it's always up to date and current so that somebody can't say, oh, she wasn't suicidal 3 years ago, but maybe she was now. I just like to keep it updated. And with this post in particular, I I put a video with it, and it just caught some fire. The reason I, posted it was because I had just done an interview with Greg Reese and Justin Leslie, and I kind of knew that it would, you know, kick the wasp's nest, so to speak, and that it would kick it back up. So I just wanted to put out there that under no circumstances should anything happen to me suddenly or accidentally or anything like that. I don't even really drive a bunch, so there shouldn't even be any car accidents. Speaker 0: So Alright. Now people that that might not know who you are or what this is all about are gonna say, why? Why? You know, what's this all about? So this is where I'm gonna pass on to you, Melissa, and you tell us exactly what's been going on. Speaker 1: Yes. So I lived in the small town McPherson, Kansas as I mentioned earlier. And out there, we had a facility with that was called Hospira originally, which is just another big pharma, tick to tentacle and the of the beast. And, I got hired there, during when I was 19 years old in 2012. And I was currently in college as a psychology major, but I actually didn't return to school after the 1st semester or after the 1st year because at Hospira, you could work your way up to promotion. You didn't have to have a college degree to work your way up in the facility. Things like that. And I thought, well, I'm making really good money. I'll just plan to retire there and invest in my career there instead of an education, which in hindsight, probably not the best decision. But here we are. And in 2015, Pfizer purchased that Hospira plant. Hospira had gotten a slap on the wrist from the FDA for having cardboard in their product, believe it or not. And I think they couldn't afford that liability, and so Pfizer stepped in and took over the company. Originally when I was hired, I was a pharmaceutical assistant, which is just a packaging person essentially, but we're the final visuals on the product before it goes to the customer. And they liked, that I didn't really make any errors. I had a really good eye for detail. I didn't miss anything. So they promoted me in 2017 to manufacturing quality auditor in the plant, which what that job entails is from where the where the glass is getting offloaded to be filled to where it's getting wrapped in warehouse. I oversee all of the operations of that. So, our job was to deem Pfizer's product quality or not quality. We were also in charge of paperwork, documentation, making sure people were following their good manufacturing practices and standard operating procedures. We were kind of like really glorified hall monitors to an extent because, you know, if someone's breaking the rules, we've gotta do something about it because our literal job is to enforce integrity within the company and quality. And so nothing was really that fishy at Pfizer, minus, you know, I think the weirdest thing we did before the pandemic was peeling expired product to put new labels on them for new expiration dates. That's probably the weirdest thing. But when I was there, I was told it was normal, that they just learned that the expiration date could be longer, and so we were just changing it. So that was the first sketchy thing. But then when we actually started producing the, Pfizer vaccine it was amongst most of the people was that they were gonna get it but wait. Because since we were gonna be producing it, we'd be able to know if there's anything sketchy. So most of us waited. I would say 2 of the first, indicators that something was amiss was the first one of my bosses told me that one of his friends in compounding, who had been in compounding for over 40 years, Compounding is where they mix the drugs. Quality didn't oversee that department. And they told my boss that this is the first time a product has ever come in unmarked bags with only Chinese writing, and they don't know what they're mixing. Thought that was really weird, considering I knew the person. They've been there for a very long time. Very odd. But still just kinda kept that in the back of my mind. Didn't think much of it. The thing that I experienced myself firsthand was the first day that we were actually inspecting the product. I was one of the first quality auditors to be on it. And when I walked in the room, this is what I saw on the table, which were these vials that seem to be emitting this fluorescent light to them. I'd I say they glow, but a better description is probably fluorescent. Speaker 0: Mhmm. Speaker 1: Looks like a glow stick that somebody may have cracked and then let sit on the table for a few hours. And it's not Speaker 0: Sorry, Melissa. Did it did it appear to emit its own light, or or was it just sort of picking up the light in the room that was making it sort of fluorescent? Speaker 1: That that is a good question. So from my experience and what I witnessed with this product was it needed light to glow. Okay. It wasn't, if it had a white background here, let me see if I can show you this. If it had a white background, it was almost totally translucent. Speaker 0: Mhmm. Speaker 1: But if it got shifted in to a background that had any other, color, like anything darker than white, it would color shift to that kind of periwinkle blue color. And that's just not normal. That's not something I'd ever seen. That's not something any of my coworkers had ever seen. And so it was obviously alarming. Speaker 0: Mhmm. Speaker 1: So that was the first thing that I thought, well, this is strange. There's a conspiracy floating around that there's lusperase in these. And lusperase is a bio luminescent compound that emits this glow with certain lighting. And so I emailed the company immediately after doing my first audit because this is not normal. And as a quality professional, it was literally my job to say, hey. Something isn't quite right. I need to check this. And considering we didn't have the proper, documentation in place at this point in our operations, meaning we did not have a controlled monograph, which is a So I emailed Auer Borla directly who then forwarded me to communications. And my question was, hey. I'm, MQA here at the plant. I'm a me and the line are observing some fluorescence or glowing, of the product. Do you have an explanation for this so that I can relieve the worries of the staff? Essentially is what I asked. And they responded with, we aren't aware of any glowing. Do you have any pictures? And another question I followed up with was, is there luciferase in the vaccine? And their response to me was luciferase is not used in the, product being administered under the EUA, was their response to me. However, I have raised several questions since then, and this has been an ongoing testimony of mine now for almost 3 years. And Pfizer has yet to ever issue a statement as to what could cause this. So we're left to speculation, essentially. And I don't think that's right. I think they should need to answer as to why it looks this way. And during the initial rollout of the vaccine, they had a lot of misleading photos of what the vaccine looked like. I think if people saw the real photo of it, they knew it would have caused vaccine hesitancy because it doesn't really look like your typical injection would. Speaker 0: No. And and and you, you directed that. I mean, you're in a senior enough position that you would actually communicate by email directly with Adam Bourla, who is I think he's the CEO, isn't he? Speaker 1: Yes. He's the face of the company, but I I mean, I personally think he's oblivious, in my opinion. Speaker 0: Right. Okay. Is there anybody else that is running the show then behind the scenes that you think might be involved with Pfizer? Speaker 1: Oh, well, of course, the shadow governments. People that we don't even know the names or faces of, I'm sure, are operating at the highest levels that we don't really know. There is a lot of Chinese involved. Speaker 0: Well, I'm gonna come on to that in a second. Do you think Bill Gates was was ever involved in any kind of capacity at all? Speaker 1: Yeah. So I actually was researching in our Pfizer internal database, and I searched the world word Bill Gates. And the only thing I could seem to find was a donation amount of it was either $20,000 or $200,000, towards Pfizer, and that was really it. Unfortunately, I didn't find a lot more than simply anything that Google could show you. Speaker 0: Okay. Now just going back to let me just let me just check I'm getting the the details right on this. This compounding that that you're talking about, where they mix the drugs, you you say that you saw product coming in with Chinese markings on it. Is that is that right? Am I understanding that correctly? Speaker 1: Yes. So that's right. So the first person who told me that, I never really repeated that information since it's just, he said, she said, essentially. Speaker 0: Mhmm. So Speaker 1: I never really talked about that. But post whistleblowing, I would say a couple months, I did a speech at a local church, and a woman came up to me after and she said, hi. You don't know me, but I worked at Pfizer when you did. I'm retired now. But while I was there, did you know that the vaccine comes in bags with no English markings, but only Chinese writing? And I said, interesting. Because this person was an incoming quality, so they were in a totally different department than the first person who said that. And I just said, do you know, do you have any proof of that? And she said, no. And I said, well, it's very interesting that, you are the first person other than the first or second person to tell me this. And so I I think that holds some weight that these two people didn't know each other, 2 different departments that dealt, exclusively with the raw materials. And I think that that, should concern people. Speaker 0: Absolutely. It should. And and just going back to the compounding where they're they're mixing these drugs together. One moment. They didn't know what was in these packets or satchels or sacks or however whatever form they were coming in. I mean, what did they look like? Were they very big sacks or were they packets or boxes or what what did they look like and that had the Chinese writing on them, first of all? Speaker 1: So my understanding is that it comes in a box and those boxes have bags in them, and those bags have stickers on them. And so to my understanding from both their testimonies combined, there was no, English writing that indicated what the the components were, what was actually in those bags. Speaker 0: Okay. The the next question there is, why would Pfizer be taking in ingredients in in sort of from China to mix into the vaccines. Is is that would that be normal, do you think? Or is that something that's just it's not normal? Speaker 1: It's not. And from compounding perspective, they said they've never done that before. And I trust them because they've been in plant for over 40 years. Speaker 0: Right. So, I mean, they've been they've been doing this job, some of them for a long period of time. They were seasoned workers. They knew the the drill. They obviously noticed this coming in, and that wasn't normal to them, and they told you that. Yeah? Speaker 1: Yes. And as from a quality perspective, it's not odd for Pfizer to have 3rd party people involved. For example, Pfizer is the 3rd party when it comes to remdesivir, for example. Pfizer manufacturers remdesivir for Gilead. And what we do is we fill it, we lyophilize it, and we send it out to Gilead who then puts their label on it. Which, again, isn't necessarily strange. We've kind of done that the entire time I worked there. We sell a lot of products, I think, just because we are able to meet the demand. We we were a very large plant. And so I think Gilead was too small, so Gilead contracted Pfizer to make remdesivir. So it's just, not that odd to use 3rd party, but I do think it is so odd why during a pandemic that was questionably caused in Wuhan, China, why would you accept anything from there? Speaker 0: I I mean, that's the whole thing. It's it's this Chinese connection. This is pretty explosive stuff because, you know, they say they said, first of all, it was from a wet market in Wuhan because they're eating bats or whatever else that they were saying. And then at around that time, then we heard that there was actually a a lab there, the Wuhan lab. And then that became then there was a Chinese doctor that sort of tried to sort of sound the alarm, and he was very quickly disappeared, got seriously ill, and died. I I I forget his name, but I remember seeing that. And then, of course, there was other things to do with Wuhan. Partly, 5 g trials were the was one of the first places to take place there. So Speaker 1: we don't do I can actually tie together Pfizer and Wuhan even better for you. I have proof of this. Pfizer has a research and development lab in Wuhan, China. And its address is 666. Here. Speaker 0: No. You're kidding me. You're gonna be kidding me. It's RCS. Wow. Look at that. Speaker 1: And I actually found this in the database. They were having a a global meeting, in Wuhan in the research and development. So that's how I actually found it was in the Pfizer internal database, not Google. Speaker 0: Wow. So that's actually from Pfizer's own files, if you like. Okay. Speaker 1: That's Yeah. That that's tightly knit with, Chinese. In fact, a lot of the documents that I found on their database were in Chinese. Speaker 0: Wow. Okay. There there's a clear connection to China involved in this. There's no question of it. But the very fact that your compound, that the people are mixing the drags that that are putting that together didn't know what they were actually mixing in. I mean, is that even legal? Speaker 1: A lot of thing the main thing I was told pretty consistently while I was in the plant during this time was under operation warp speed, it's permitted. That's what I was told a lot. Now for this specifically with the compounding, I'm unsure. But, unfortunately, Yeah. I Speaker 0: Yeah. I I think you're right there. And, of course, the the expiry expiration dates didn't seem to matter, did they? They just sort of said, oh, don't worry about it. Yeah. Yeah. It they they last longer than we thought, so don't worry about it sort of thing. Yeah? Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Kinda kinda similar. And even Hospira did that. Even though I will say Hospira was much more transparent and, honest with the FDA as compared to Pfizer. Pfizer was not. Speaker 0: Okay. When you say they were they weren't honest with the FDA, in in what way do you mean? Speaker 1: For example, and this was during the entire time Pfizer took over, this wasn't just during the pandemic, was if the FDA was coming under Hospira, we were told, hey. If the FDA asks you a question, answer the best to your ability. And if you don't know, just simply tell them you don't know and to ask your supervisor. However, when Pfizer took over, they would instead tell people to go hide until the FDA leaves. Or what they would do is, let's say the FDA was coming to observe line a. They would shut down lines b through z or on the walkway path of the FDA until the FDA was gone. And you weren't allowed to talk to them. They would actually place supervisors throughout the plant to redirect you if your path would cross with the FDA. Was the Speaker 0: CDC ever there for visits or is it more of an FDA? I'd explain a bit I mean, 3, but it's not in America. Just explain what the FDA do and what what they actually are responsible for. Speaker 1: Well, so I don't recall the CDC visiting, but we did have, you know, policymakers, lawmakers, senators, congress, different people like that come visit the plant. I never got to interact with them on their visits, but it was the same drill as if the FDA was coming, which is just hide stuff. Shove stuff into rooms, get stuff, you know, out of visual. Because if they can't see it, they can't question it was kind of the, mentality. And the week before, FDA granted the EUA to Pfizer, they were blacking out windows on our manufacturing floor, the week before the FDA visit to approve that. And so somebody who's worked in manufacturing or pharmaceuticals knows that you have to be able to be seen at all times. 1, for integrity reasons, there are people who have been caught using so it it's not only for that reason, but also you could be stealing. You could just be doing inappropriate things just in general. So you're supposed to be able to be seen at all times. And, I actually got a video of that if you would like to see the windows being blacked out. Speaker 0: Yeah. I'd I'd love to see that. Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay. Let me get that shared. Speaker 0: So just explain to us as we're watching this what's happening here. Speaker 1: Yes. So throughout here here, I'll mute it. Muted, it won't let me. Oh, here we go. Speaker 0: Well, it's Speaker 1: okay. So I'm I'm kind of showing that, like, the windows are totally blacked out. Here, I show you that window's blacked out, but this one isn't. This is how it should look. And when I open the door here, you can see that the lights are on. The lights are not off. It is totally blacked out. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 1: And and so that was basically the purpose of me showing these first windows, which are this is what it's supposed to look like. But then what is going on with all these blackouts? And you can actually see this room light's on, totally blacked out. This room light's on, totally blacked out. This is not okay or authorized, ever in the plant. This has always been something you could be fired for. Speaker 0: Just just to remind everybody, Melissa, this is the Pfizer manufacturing facility. Correct. Just tell me the locate tell me the location of that one again, please. Speaker 1: McPherson, Kansas. Speaker 0: McPherson. Okay. Who who gave the instruction to blackout the windows? Do you know? Speaker 1: That I'm unsure, but I did raise questions to managers, 2 of them. One of them gave me a dummy answer, which was, oh, the FDA, it said that they can't see me sleeping in here when they visit. And I just thought, well, that's dumb. So then I went to the next manager who's more serious, and I said, hey. I noticed that they're blocking out the windows down here. Do you know why? And he said, oh, are they doing light testing? Which light testing is the process of looking at medicine under a light. And I said, well, if that were the case, the windows they blacked out aren't light test rooms. They were a group lead office, a storage room, and a washroom were the rooms that were blacked out, and there's no reason for that. They're not light inspection rooms. And even if they were, we still don't black out the windows. They get a tint on the windows, which you can still see into the room and compare unlike this blackout, which was you couldn't see it. You could put your face against the everything and you couldn't see into the room. Speaker 0: What did he say when you told him that? Speaker 1: He kind of looked around and said, well, the FDA is coming next week. And I said, okay. Thanks. Speaker 0: So basically, he tried to gaslight you. He he was basically trying to fob you off, and then put you off to you. Speaker 1: To believe what he was told, which is that it was for light testing, but there's no way light testing could be performed in those rooms. Speaker 0: So all these managers, all these people, were going along with this, clandestine type operation with Pfizer. Yeah? Speaker 1: So something well, something I think people should know is that most of the people working at the specific facility I worked at are small town people. It's a small town that don't have jobs anywhere else to go to, at least not close by and with good as good a pay and benefit comparison. So a lot of these people are just average citizens. I've known a lot of them for a long time because it's a small town. These aren't Pfizer's not just infiltrated with all these evil, sadistic people. I would say 1 in every 100 people were overly loyal to Pfizer. And when I say overly loyal, I mean, the people who would just do what they're told even if it was illegal, which we we experienced during this. Operation warp speed allowed, Pfizer to bypass a lot of safety barriers, such as the paperwork normally that would hold up a batch. They were allowed to just send it through. Even if there were errors, which is a huge problem with documentation practices. That's actually I called it Pfizer law because it's the rule. Like you cannot backdate anything. If something wasn't signed, it didn't happen. And that you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt if something did happen yet wasn't signed for, and that just wasn't happening in this. They were just waving things through for speed. Speaker 0: If, let's just say if the the the feds went in or or or police officers went in or the FBI went in, Not that they've got a great reputation, I would say, but, let's just say there was some honest ones went in and, questioned those members of staff. What do you think would happen? Speaker 1: I think a good majority of the employees would be honest. A good majority. If they felt it was truly secret, the information they'd be revealing, I would say a good majority of them would be honest. However, just as anywhere else, there are probably a few people who are too afraid of losing their job. It's the same people who probably got the vaccine. They're just too afraid. And I would say that's maybe 1 in every 20 employees are afraid to lose their job. 1, because they have children that they have to take care of, and we live Speaker 0: in a small Speaker 1: town where I've said, you know, their options are Walmart, Taco Bell, things like that. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I get I get that. I mean, how many employees were you talking about working at McPherson plant? The first Speaker 1: I believe around the time I left, it was 1700. Speaker 0: Right. We're talking in we're talking to a lot of people then. Yeah. Yeah. Probably probably, if not the biggest, certainly one of the biggest, employers in that area. Yeah. Speaker 1: Our our manufacturing plant was, specifically one of the largest producers of injectables, so we were one of the larger plants. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, this is so this this is fascinating. And and this is did you so before we get too much further into, what brought you into the position where you said, I can't do this anymore? Did did you did you raise concerns with management at Pfizer, for example? Did you reach out to anybody and say, look, there's something not right here. But what happened? What led to you then leaving? You know, what was the run up to that, Melissa? Speaker 1: Yeah. So I followed proper chain of command for a long time before leaving, which the proper chain of command would have been my under supervisor, which is kind of my supervisor, but, like, handles the more trivial things, or directly to my supervisor. One of them too, depending on the seriousness, would elevate it to my manager. From the manager, it would go to the quality operation professionals and, the visual inspection trainers, different people in those departments. And then it would have been escalated to maybe more of the people who are higher up at other facilities. However, I don't believe my issues ever got that high. My issues seem to have stopped at the manager, who I never heard from directly, but would convey to my supervisor that author Operation Warp Speed authorizes it or permits it. It. And Speaker 0: So that that was the go to, wasn't it? Operation Warp Speed. So we can do whatever we want. Speaker 1: Pretty much. Yeah. Pretty much. Mhmm. Speaker 0: And that guy, that that manager, was he based within the plant itself? Was he the sort of top man in in charge of the plant? Speaker 1: Of quality. Of quality, Speaker 0: he was. Yeah. Okay. Okay. And and you just got that funnel back. Hey. Don't worry about it. It's operation works. We we can do yeah. That's fine. It's all good. Alright. And what And then I and then Speaker 1: I did start escalating it to, like, Albert Bourla or communications, but that's the that's the most out of order of people I report to. That's probably the most I got out of that order. Speaker 0: So did you go to Adam Borla or any of the other senior players that that, with those kind of concerns? And if you did, what kind of response did you get from them? Speaker 1: The only person I emailed was Albert Borla, because we as employees have access to his email and communicating with him. But I would I emailed them, I believe, 2 separate occasions for sure. One was about loose phrase, and one was about, I believe, religious exemptions. It was either the loose phrase, the glowing. It was early on in the things I was seeing. And I was redirected to communications both times. Speaker 0: Got you. Got you. Speaker 1: Which in some of the evidence that I, present to people is their emails of the same communications people who are responding to me, and they're intentional wanting to withhold information from the public knowledge. Yeah. Understood. They were liars. Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. Let let's go to the the Luciferase for a second. I want to go back to that because I don't know, if if you were aware of some reports of Luciferase fairly early on. I mean, I can't remember exactly when I first heard about that, but it it was fairly early on, which is probably what prompted you to ask the question, is this lucid phrase? What what was the first sort of I'm trying to think. I think I I saw in 2020. I I'm sure I heard something about about this sort of type of thing in 2020, but I could I could be wrong. But you seem to know what Luciferase was, didn't you? How did that come about? Speaker 1: Just from watching, I think it was the Stu Peters show at the time was, like, the only, I was still asleep. That's something I like to remind people is, I didn't come to a faith or become Christian till 2019. And then even after then, it wasn't, I wasn't awake. I still listen to, you know, Fox News, CNN, different things like that. Then obviously around the election stuff, I started to question the media's portrayal of events and things like that, and it just kind of was this, a continuous veil of being removed and, yeah, it wasn't until I wanna say we started making the vaccine in the first quarter of the year. Speaker 0: So it Speaker 1: around the March time, is when I think it was actually being produced in our facility. And it would have been around that time that I was hearing about the loose sprays. And obviously as a Christian, that term's alarming. And so I researched it, and it's basically stuff that's found in nature, like fireflies, jellyfish, stuff along those lines. And they've basically patented it and have used it in studies of vaccines, which is where they inject the mice or whatever test subject with loose phrase in it. And they're able to track with a certain light frequency in the body where that solution goes. And so that's what loose phrase is for. So so Speaker 0: so it has been used within the vaccine industry before. It's not like something that's never never come into it. And it it looked like luciferase. I mean, you showed those vials and and and and that sort of phosphorous. What what reason do you think they would have for putting anything like luciferase in the Pfizer vaccine, do you think? Speaker 1: So I have a few views on it. One could be to find out who got the vaccine is traceability, to know who actually got got it. It could also be this has been widely known to be an experimental vaccine. This was an experimental. And so my question is, is under that guise of experimental, were they able to leave it in in order to test the people who got it for how it reacts in the human body compared to mice. That I don't know, but I do believe luzephyrase is toxic to humans. So I'm not a 100% sure. But I do know that it doesn't take a black light to see the glow. It it it can just be regular light. So Speaker 0: Okay. And do do you do you have have you heard of anything else that that may have been put in these vaccines? I mean, I've I've heard things like Graphene oxide. Have you come across that before or or heard of that before? Speaker 1: Yes. And I can probably rest some minds with people on if they're crazy or not because I have, some emails that I call the graphene oxide emails. Let me see if I can find them. Yes. Here they are. Okay. So here's the first one. So what this is is this is a woman emailing, a man named Steve, And she's wanting to know, she's received a question from the public wanting to know is graphene oxide in the vaccine and she's suggesting this answer and wants approval on it. So her suggested response is, Graphene oxide is not used during the manufacturing of the vaccine and the final product does not contain Graphene oxide. We cannot guarantee that the immune amounts of substances are not contained in raw materials obtained from our suppliers. To ensure that we have a consistent and reliable supply of medications, we must use a network of suppliers and manufacturing sites globally for both active and inactive ingredients. This is all code for we get our stuff from China, so we don't Speaker 0: Yeah. I was just gonna say I just wrote it down in big letters, China. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Okay. That that's a bit of a cop out, isn't it? Alright. Well, that's a Speaker 1: good honest answer. It's an honest answer from the company. Speaker 0: It is an honest answer. Yeah. But it's a very, very clever way to to to, you know, to talk about it. Did you see this other email as well? Speaker 1: Yeah. Yes. The response she received is, hi, Sandra. It would obviously be preferred not to add that second sentence that we cannot guarantee, but it is our common disclaimer to protect against any ingredients that may be in our raw materials that we do not confirm against in any way. If we have the ability to specifically omit it, we should, but it would likely require some extensive confirmation from GCMC. But I think that that is the same that we should go with for now. Hopefully, our customers would appropriately consider that disclaimer in the right way. So he suggests the lie. Just leave that second part out. Just say it's not in there, which again, I think Pfizer knew it would lead to vaccine hesitancy. And so they just withheld information intentionally from the public. Speaker 0: Well, I mean, I've talked to people, on this channel. I get a lot of top doctors, professors, and other people that speak to me, and I've asked the question before, would there be any good reason as to why Graphene oxide would be in the vaccines? And it's it's highly toxic. There is no good reason why it would be in the vaccines. Going back to yourself, Melissa, when you reached out, what what where was the point at what point did you say, I can't do this anymore? I mean, a great job. I've been here for a long time, but you know what? I just can't do this anymore. What was the first, you know, point of that happening? Speaker 1: Well, I will say that I didn't wanna be there for a while, starting in around 2019, and I would just constantly pray, you know, while you got me here, God, you're gonna have to have me fired if you don't want me here because I've accumulated too much debt. I've invested too much. I don't trust my own judgment. I need you to have me fired or use me while I'm here. And it was my breaking point was about so I found out I had, access to the internal Pfizer database in June of 2021. And I started searching, phrases in that database, and I could never really find anything that seemed to matter or correlated with the conspiracy theory going around. And so whatever. Well, in August of 2021, I watched an interview between a woman named doctor Kristian Northrup and FlyOver Conservatives. And in it, she said that, they use codes in the pharma world, and here's what the codes are and what they mean. So I wrote all those. I went to work the next day. And the first thing I searched was the HEK 293 T cells on the database. And I got those aborted fetal cell line emails is what I call them, which is somebody in that thread of emails that saved it to the database as kind of like a referral thing. So, like, if they get asked it again in the future, they already have the answer that they can refer Speaker 0: to. Mhmm. Speaker 1: And my grandmother is a devout Catholic. And the first email I read, the thread, it talked about how the Vatican had already approved the extensively vetted answer for their vaccine. So that the pope has basically said, pro lifers have no reason to not get the vaccine, so we need to stick with that answer. Because if they find because what they were trying to do was keep from public knowledge that aborted fetal cell lines were used in the confirmatory tests and development, and they were going through extreme measures in order to make sure that that didn't circulate in the public. So that was probably when I saw those documents, I obviously I had, like, an out of body experience. Like, I felt like my whole world was fake. I felt like I everything I'd learned was a lie. I've been helping the devil essentially for 9 years, and I had a full blown internal meltdown. Obviously, when I'm at work, I can't express that. But after seeing those emails, I had to go work. And while I was down there working, I saw the blacked out windows. That's when I took that video. And then I also just prayed a lot. What am I supposed to do? Was I supposed to see this? Did I do something wrong? Should I do this? And a song came on that I had never heard before, and it really gave me peace and comfort. And all of a sudden, it's like I was on autopilot, and I went back upstairs. I did more searches, found more documents. I took about 80 documents, off their database. And I just had this piece that I knew I wouldn't be returning. And I was kind of on autopilot. Like I said, out of body autopilot. Like, I, just saved all these documents and knew I just wouldn't be coming back. I just knew I wouldn't. Mhmm. And I filed for a mental health leave of absence the following week. Because one, I wanted to make sure I wasn't crazy, and that what I was reading was actually there and that I was interpreting it correctly. Speaker 0: And I Speaker 1: did that by talking to people at Pfizer who were higher up. I did it by talking to people with better credentials than me in the tech world and in the scientific world. Speaker 0: Mhmm. Speaker 1: Like, I made sure that this wasn't illegal. I didn't hack anything by mistake. Right? And I didn't and so the first people to respond to me in order to help me was project Veritas, and they released my story in October 2021. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: So if you're interested in learning about the fetal cell line emails, I'd watch that because I go they covered that really well. Speaker 0: Yeah. They did. They did an excellent job on it. Just a very quick question. Why why would they put, aborted fetus cells into a vaccine? Is there a good reason for that? Speaker 1: Well, I have a few ideas depending on your worldview. From a spiritual standpoint, it's pure evil against God. To not only be doing that to us, but to be doing that to the babies that they took these cells from. Second, from a worldly perspective, let's say you don't believe in any of that. The t in hek293 t means cancerous. So they're cells that never die, never stop replicating. Another more PC term for these aborted fetal cells are immortal cell lines. They never die. So are they putting them into us as some sort of sick attempt to either give us all cancer or a sick attempt at making us immortal? What's, you know, I don't really know. Those are kind of my views in the bible. It does say, as a curse that God gave against another nation. He said, I will make them eat the flesh of their children. And so I think about that, how these aborted fetal cell lines are in our food and and things like that. And a lot of people aren't even aware of that. So Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: That's my Yeah. Speaker 0: It's it's horrific. Alright. Look. I mean, this obviously took its toll on you. I mean, this was traumatic for you. This is horrible stuff and you're working in a facility with blacked out windows and people saying, hey, don't worry, but it's okay, warp speed. And you're seeing these Chinese marked boxes come in and no and people are mixing this into the vaccine and nobody knows what's actually in it. This must have put a lot of pressure on you. When you did you did you did you resign from Pfizer before asking anything else? Did you actually resign? Speaker 1: Well, they sent me a letter in the mail. They couldn't fire me while I was under a mental health leave of absence, so they waited till that was up on October 20th. They had informed me via security, in a voice mail saying I was not allowed on the premises, whatsoever under any means. And then I got a letter on October 20th saying, we heard that you quit, but even if you didn't, you've been terminated. You cannot return to the facility. And it was like an angry 15 year old wrote it. It really was. So I was terminated. They can't prove that I've quit because I didn't. Everybody at the plants, everybody, even if they were fired for bad terms, like something bad, they got an exit interview. I never got one. And I was kind of hoping that Pfizer would at least pretend to do the right thing by talking to me about this. And they didn't even pretend. Instead, they fired me and kept the people who were caught in the emails blatantly lying and deceiving the public. Speaker 0: You were asking too many questions, I think, Melissa. That was the problem for them. You weren't just going along with anymore. You were asking questions, too many questions. We should all be asking a lot more questions about the, the the vaccines. Taking a step back just taking a wee bit of a step back here. None of what you've said sounds normal. It just sounds there was something I mean, I I know there's other manufacturers like Moderna, for example, AstraZeneca that's just been pulled off the market. But just taking a step back from all of that, what do you think? You know? What what do you think? Because you you know, that's happened a while ago, and you've we've obviously seen you talked about these t cells being cancerous, these these immortal cells that you referred to them. We are seeing excess deaths in all these highly vaccinated countries going off the charts. Early onset cancers is the more medical term. Turbocancers is what it's also been known as. That's not quite so medical. But early onset cancer's off the charts. Myocarditis, pericarditis, blood clots, dermatological disorders, eye disorders, skin skin rashes. All these things have been happening. Speaker 1: Now admitted giving 5,000,000 people AFib. Speaker 0: Now explain what AFib is. Speaker 1: AFib is just like an irregular, heartbeat. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: My mother my mother-in-law got the vaccine and the boost and she got it, and then so did, Derek Maults that we interviewed in one of my shows that He got Afib after the vaccine, and his wife is a cardiologist, and she said it was from the vaccine. Speaker 0: When you look back and you see all these doctors, there's a there's a lot good ethical doctors. I have a lot of them on my channel. That were standing up and they were saying, look, this isn't right. This is just there's something not right here. And they were getting censored, and they were getting, you know, their careers destroyed, and their license to practice was taken away, and they kept pushing it. And you would get free hamburgers and free taxi rides and free lottery tickets and all this stuff. What do you think? Was this all just a big accident? Do you think the the the the Adam Borla and Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum who has these closed door meetings with them all the time and Bill Gates, you know, sending a check for either 20,000 dollars or $200,000 to to Pfizer. What is what's what's going on here? Was this just a big accident or or is there something more more to it, do you think? Speaker 1: I mean, I guess I would compare it to is rape an accident? I guess. Because that's kind of how it feels. I'm sure that's how it will be framed, that Pfizer was deceived by China or that Pfizer remained ethical but others didn't and it's not their fault or Pfizer didn't lie to you, the media and politicians did, you know. Pfizer never issued any corrective statements, even on things that I knew were blatant lies such as we at Pfizer have to be aseptically trained, meaning sterile. We know how the masks work. We know how long that they're considered sterile and how they should work. And when I knew that they made the mask, part of the uniform, and they only gave you one mask a day, I knew that we were no longer operating in sense and truth and science. So I believe it's intentional, but I certainly think if things do keep coming to light, Pfizer will be the victim. Speaker 0: I mean, there's a lot of people, a lot of people that watch this channel who will be watching this and horrified to hear that everybody who said, you know, from Richie Sinek to Boris Johnson in the UK. These are politicians, if you I don't come across them, who who basically say, oh, yes. Safe and effective. Get your vaccine. You know, first of all, Biden's the same that Trudeau in Canada, you get the vaccine, you can't give anybody, or you can't catch it. You can't catch COVID. Well, that was a lie. Then he said, when that got busted, they said, well, don't worry because it's, it it'll have less of a bad effect in you if you're vaccinated. Well, that was a lie. We we now have all the data. If you got vaccinated, you were a lot more likely to get sick and injured by by the whatever was in whatever these Chinese ingredients were that was in, certainly, the Pfizer vaccine. So I think that there was, definitely and and the fact that Bill Gates is involved in that, and he's talked about you know, constantly talked about having too many people in the world is deeply alarming. But to to to take a step back even even further, do you think there was anything more nefarious going on in your opinion? You've had a chance to sort of look at this now, redo a bit more research. You're clearly a very, very intelligent young lady. You've got a lot of, experience working in this. What's your your thoughts? Is there is there something is there something more to this, do you think? Speaker 1: Absolutely. 100%. I I don't think Pfizer I don't think Bill Gates I don't think anybody who's behind any of this is stupid. We saw the gaslighting when it came known in the in Australia that Pfizer never tested transmissibility. And the issue with that is that I was saying that at the beginning when my when I found my documents, I had I had a PowerPoint slide that said they would like to know if it trans if it's transmissible. So they they knew that. But here's the thing. They they mislead and they they use, how do I say this? Heavily scripted responses to where they're not lying, but they're being deceptive. And I think that even Fauci, Trump, Pelosi, all of these people, to some extent, were were tricked in a way as well. Now do I think they're leading it? No. I think they're puppets, being told what to do and say and things like that. But we saw the gaslighting of the public when they said, oh, we never tested transmissibility. And they were like, we've been clear about that. No. No. They haven't. Pfizer doesn't issue corrective statements. They let the fact checkers do that, and the fact checkers are wrong. Because I was fact checked as an employee that was just simply wrong. And so I definitely think that, again, from a spiritual perspective, these people hate God. They want to destroy God's image and they want to just alter his creation as their own. And from a worldly perspective, they want a lot of money and power. And they, they certainly are after the money more than anything, I think. And I think that they're getting that through the power. And I I am afraid to see what happens if they don't be held accountable. Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, I mean, one of the things that that seems to be clear is that there's more and more coming out. They're they're fighting it very hard now to to withstand it. I mean, I don't know how you feel about it. I think there should be a new Nuremberg trial. I think Adam Bourla, Bill Gates, politicians, senators, everybody that went along with his doctors that administered it knew they need to be on trial, and they need to be sent to prison. And, you talked about Stu Peters. I was actually just on the Stu Peters show just before I came on with you and that's why I was slightly late. Well, blame Stu. There you go. Stu Peter's a good guy, and he talks about extreme accountability. And you know what, Melissa? I think it's coming. I think that people realize what's been done to them. By the way, I I I tend to share your your view. I believe these globalists at the top are absolutely, haters of humanity. I believe they've declared war on humanity itself. And I'd just like to say to you, you know, as I always do, I always give our guests the last word. So I'm gonna give you the last last 2 or 3 minutes to to to say whatever you wanna say. And by the way, let me ask you a very quick question, then you say whatever you wanna say. But anybody that's thinking of getting getting any vaccine, m any mRNA gene altering vaccine, what would you say to them? Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I have a couple views on this. I do believe that, you know, if you're given full informed consent, then I suppose if you wanna get it, I mean, whatever. But unfortunately, at the same time, it does impact others' lives, if you receive it due to shedding or, just people's loved ones are being negatively impacted through this. I personally say no. MRNA technology is not safe. It is not ethical. And the flu vaccine, is now infiltrated with mRNA, at least from Pfizer. So I wouldn't even be getting any flu shots or really, I've totally cut out any kind of injectable, which would be my advice to people because, you know, hey. Let's just say you believe in evolution and you don't believe in God whatsoever. Our species got to where we are today without vaccines just fine. Speaker 0: We did indeed. Alright. Well, look, Melissa, I've gotta say, it's been an absolute pleasure to have you here on the show. It takes a lot of courage, a lot of, real guts to to stand up and and tell the truth. And I can see your faith shining through strongly in that, and that will carry you further forward as well. I do believe that there will be justice and that goodwill triumph over the great evil that has been done to humanity. Unfortunately, these people can cause a lot of misery and death in between, but I do believe that one day they will be held to account. I would wanna be in their positions. Oh, yeah. But but thank you, Melissa. Would would you would you be prepared to come back on again at any future point? Speaker 1: Yeah. Anytime. Just let me know. Speaker 0: Alright. Fantastic. Well, I would like to say say a massive thank you to you, and I'd also like to say a big thank you to all the people who are watching this as well. You know, here we have another very courageous young lady who's standing up for the truth. She's gone to great risk in many ways, but as we can see, she's fighting fit and healthy. There's nothing wrong with her at all, and indeed, I think that sometimes the more public you are, the more protected you are in many ways, and I think you've done the right thing. But to all the people out there, please do give this a share. It do help. It does help to encourage people coming on to the show who are going to great risk, if if you wanna call it that. And, you know, telling their stories and and telling the truth because they care about humanity. They clear they care, and Melissa clearly clearly cares about everybody out there who might be thinking about these vaccines or may who may have, unfortunately become either killed by them or injured by them. So please do give, a follow, and and give Melissa a follow as well. You've got a great channel there, Melissa. We'll put in the links, to to this when it goes to editing, but once again, my sincere thanks to you. Is there any final parting comments you would like to to add to that? Speaker 1: Well, if I didn't, you know, totally rain on your parade for Pfizer yet, there is one more document I would like to show that I think shows the seriousness of what we're dealing with. This is a PowerPoint slide on the COVID 19 vaccine safety data. Right? As you can see at the top there. But what is most concerning is more so the fine print at the bottom, which says by February 16th of 2021. So the vaccine had been out for about 2 to 3 months. Based on the code of federal regulations of one of the following reported, death, life threatening illness, hospitalization, or prolongation of hospitalization, permanent disability, congenital anomaly anomaly, sorry, or birth defects includes 456 reports of death following the Moderna COVID 19 vaccine, and 510 reports of death following the COVID Pfizer vaccine. So what this shows us here is that they knew early on from the VAERS reporting data, which a lot of people like to say VAERS isn't reliable. Well, VAERS isn't reliable because it's actually greater than what VAERS shows. So I think we definitely need to take that into consideration with who we're dealing with. That they knowingly allowed 510 people to die within a short frame of time. So that should so show their moral and ethics to people, that they knew. They still allowed the mandates. They still allowed the rollout, when we've recalled things for much less. And I I just hope and pray that we can at least wake up the masses. I I think we should all be able to unite under one thing, which is to not let the globalists win. And I think we're united instead of focusing on our differences, that we could do that. Speaker 0: Absolutely. Absolutely agree with you. You know, Patriots in America and Canada, you know, in Kingdom and Australia and New Zealand and France and Germany and Europe and all over the world need to come together because we can't fight them alone. And, you you might not be aware of this, but I did start a freedom movement called Freedom Trade International about 15 months ago. I did it very quietly. We launched in January. We have multiple thousands of members now all around the world, and that's where we're bringing people together. We're getting people ready because, unfortunately, I'm worried that they might be starting to pick up on other things that that might lead to another future pandemic as well. H five n one in Texas is before. You know, we would discuss it briefly before we went to recording. And, unfortunately, you know, there's some some humans in now in Australia that are saying we've been infected. Don't comply. Speaker 1: Fight back. Don't comply. We did it last time. Speaker 0: We'll do Speaker 1: it again or We I I fear what could actually happen again if we comply. Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, Luke, stay strong. God bless you, Melissa. And thank you once again. It's been a real honor to have you on the show, and I wish you every success. And you're a friend of the channel though. You can reach out to me at any point. I pick up my DMs regularly, so don't be a stranger. And, if there's anything else that you need any help with, and you want my support, just reach out right away. Speaker 1: Thank you. I greatly appreciate it. Thanks for using your platform to get the truth out. Speaker 0: Yeah. We're we're all in this together. Alright. Well, look, everybody, thanks very much indeed for this. It's been a very, very interesting broadcast, and, I wish everybody gold speed and and and safe health, to each and every one of you. Thanks, Melissa. This is Jim Ferguson. We'll speak soon. Bye bye for now.
myhiddenvalue
Posted - June 6, 2024 at 1:48 PM
Saved - June 7, 2024 at 3:00 PM

@myhiddenvalue - Not A Number

The government co-owns the vaccine. https://t.co/DemjSMoEUM

Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2015, a 153-page confidential agreement between Moderna and the US government reveals collaboration with Dr. Barrick on mRNA coronavirus vaccines. The NIH co-owns the vaccine candidates with Moderna. This predates current events and raises questions about ulterior motives.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is a 153 pages of the confidential agreement between Moderna and the US government, and it goes back to 2015. What? Jason, what was happening in 2015? Frankenstein coronavirus. That's right. The same time doctor Barrick and doctor Xi published their paper on the new Frankenstein coronavirus. In fact, let's skip down to page 104. It shows that the NIH and Moderna were collaborating with doctor Barrick. Wow. His signature is on page 106 of the material transfer agreement. But let's get back up to the top of this specific agreement. The NIH appears to be transferring the mRNA tech to doctor Barrick, but look what they want to make clear. Quote, mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates developed and jointly owned by the NIAID and Moderna. I'm sorry. I mean, I've seen ulterior motives before, but usually you see them coming. Did you know that the government co owns the vaccine? Oh, by the way, this is not part of the Trump's thing. This is this is not part of that. This is 2015. The same government that is now mandating its use owns the vaccine.
TheMilkBarTV
Posted - June 19, 2024 at 6:15 AM
Saved - June 20, 2024 at 7:25 AM

@TheMilkBarTV - MilkBarTV

🚨Pfizer's COVID vaccine what was promised vs. what was delivered👇👇 @ezralevant @OzraeliAvi @Rob_Roos @lhfang @DrAseemMalhotra @RobertKennedyJr https://t.co/qxQmdrqdJb

Video Transcript AI Summary
We achieved over 90% efficacy with our vaccine, providing protection against all identified variants, including the challenging South African variant. Studies in South Africa showed 100% efficacy. While two doses offer limited protection against Omicron, three doses are effective against hospitalizations and deaths. A fourth booster may be needed. The Pfizer COVID vaccine was not tested for stopping transmission before market release. No serious adverse events were found in our data analysis. Lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer for alleged misrepresentation of vaccine effectiveness and safety concerns. The success of our vaccine is a significant scientific breakthrough.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Good afternoon. We made it. Speaker 1: I love you. The efficacy was more than 90%. Oh my god. With all the data I have collected so far, there is no variant that we have identified that escapes the protection of our vaccine. Even the South African that has been, let's say, being the one, but it is the most challenging one. Our studies in South Africa demonstrated, 100% efficacy. Every time that the variant appears in the world, our scientists are getting their hands around it. And they are researching to see if this variant can escape the protection of our vaccine. We haven't identified any yet. I don't expect in any scenario to be that we don't protect at all. Actually, that's extremely, extremely alike. I think it could be anything from the protection remains very high to the protection is reduced. It's not 95, it is 70%, for example. And we know that, the 2 dose of the vaccine offer very limited protection, if any. The 2 doses was very poor protecting against Omicron, but the 3 doses were protecting very well against hospitalizations and death, not as well against infections. It's necessary a 4th boost right now. The protection what we are getting from the 3rd, it is, good enough, actually quite good for hospitalizations and deaths. It's not that good against infections, but doesn't last very long. Speaker 0: Was the Pfizer COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market. Speaker 2: Before, it's entered the market? No. Speaker 3: When did you know that the vaccines didn't stop transmission? How long did you know that without saying it publicly? Are you worried about product liability? Are you worried about myocarditis? What about the sudden deaths? Speaker 1: And we constantly review and analyze data. We've seen not a single signal, although we have distributed billions of dose. Speaker 0: A reanalysis, published in the journal vaccine of Pfizer and Moderna's own trials found that the rate of serious adverse events, and we're talking about hospitalization, disability, life changing event, was at least 1 in 800. Speaker 4: Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer was behind funding groups like the Chicago Urban League heavily lobbying for COVID vaccine mandates. This is the most lucrative pharmaceutical product, which perhaps in human history? This is a very controversial policy, but the role of Pfizer funding this outside support for the mandate hasn't been disclosed until now. Speaker 1: There was a lot of joy that our people enjoyed because of the pride they took because we saved the world with the call. But you are proud to say to your neighbor, I work at 5. Speaker 2: Today, the Texas attorney general's office claims COVID vaccine maker Pfizer misrepresented how effective the vaccine is. Speaker 5: Yeah. They filed a lawsuit that could result in more than $10,000,000 in fines. Speaker 2: The unprecedented move. Florida's surgeon general calling to halt the use of the mRNA COVID vaccine going against the FDA, citing safety concerns. Also saying there hasn't been enough clinical trials. Speaker 5: The Kansas attorney general is now suing Pfizer for what he says are misleading claims the company made about its COVID 19 vaccine. Chris Kobach accuses the Speaker 1: pharmaceutical company of lying when it called its Speaker 5: vaccine safe and effective. Pharmaceutical company of lying when it called its vaccine safe and effective. He cites reported risks of causing specific heart conditions and pregnancy issues. He also claims Pfizer lied about the vaccine's effectiveness in the long term and against COVID variants. Speaker 1: We have a successful vaccine. Resulted in a success, and this success looks like the biggest scientific breakthrough of the last 100 years.
cdnrefusenik
Posted - September 9, 2024 at 9:36 PM
Saved - September 10, 2024 at 5:54 PM

@cdnrefusenik - Canadian Refusenik 🍁

Pfizer knew... https://t.co/hZzzqWGqA1

BlendrNews
Posted - December 4, 2024 at 10:33 PM
Saved - December 4, 2024 at 11:52 PM

@BlendrNews - BlendrNews

🇨🇦💉 BILLIONS of Dollars Were Given to Doctors for COVID-19 Vaccinations One Kingston doctor must repay $600K after creating a mass-vaccination "drive-thru." How can science and public health be objective when doctors stand to profit millions for pushing specific products? https://t.co/myjx5OgRVv

Video Transcript AI Summary
A Kingston doctor, Elaine Ma, has been ordered to repay over $600,000 for COVID-19 vaccination payments from the Ontario government. In December 2021, she set up mass vaccination clinics, using undergraduate medical student volunteers, which violated Ontario's rules requiring that vaccine administrators be employees and that vaccinations occur at the doctor's registered office. The financial incentives for COVID vaccines were significantly higher than for other vaccines, creating a scenario where speed and volume were prioritized over compliance and patient care. This situation raises concerns about the balance between incentivizing vaccinations and ensuring proper healthcare delivery. With over 100 million doses administered in Canada, the financial implications are substantial, leading to questions about trust in healthcare institutions when financial incentives overshadow proper care.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In a rather stunning example of how pandemic policies can spiral into financial chaos, Kingston based doctor Elaine Ma has been ordered to repay over $600,000 in payments made by the Ontario government for administering COVID 19 vaccinations. That's a lot of money for administering vaccines though. No? In December 2021, doctor Ma set up multiple mass vaccination clinics injecting thousands of people every day. To administer the vaccines, she enlisted undergraduate medical student volunteers. A decision that ultimately invalidated her claims under the Ontario government's rules. So here's how it worked. Ontario's COVID 19 vaccine program paid doctors $13 per shot through its fee for service model. An additional $5.60 could be claimed if the visit was solely for vaccination. Doctor Ma eager to make that money, organized large scale operations outside her licensed practice. However, Ontario rules stipulated 2 crucial conditions, vaccine administrators had to be the doctor's employees and the vaccinations had to occur at the doctor's registered office. Neither was true in doctor Ma's case. Now in addition to her blatant disregard for the rules to make that money, here's what I wanna highlight. The financial incentives for COVID vaccines at $18.60 per shot were more than double what doctors typically received for administering other vaccines like flu shots or those in the childhood schedule. So while one could argue that the program was designed to speed up vaccinations, it ended up fostering the environment rife with financial complications. Raising critical questions about the balance between incentivizing rapid vaccination and ensuring proper patient care and informed consent. I mean how are undergraduate medical student volunteers focused on speed and volume providing informed consent? Anyway, this is just one doctor who's now been forced to repay $600,000 which doesn't even include what she gets to keep. At scale, according to the government's own figures, over 100,000,000 doses were administered in Canada. By this math, we're talking about 1,000,000,000 of dollars in government funding that was up for grabs. The government practically created a wild west gold rush scenario for physicians where financial incentives prioritize speed and volume over strict regulatory compliance, all for a vaccine that the NIH itself now admits was rushed, risky, and ineffective. So my question is, how can anyone be expected to trust our institutions when it's so clear that the government's financial incentives completely overshadowed the proper delivery of health care specifically for a product that was rushed, risky, and ineffective?
TaraBull808
Posted - December 24, 2024 at 12:19 PM
Saved - December 25, 2024 at 8:58 AM

@TaraBull808 - TaraBull

Rand Paul says he has proof that Dr. Fauci went around the Safety Committee to fund the Wuhan Lab Is it time to prosecute Fauci? https://t.co/NoIix40RzX

Video Transcript AI Summary
Anthony Fauci was aware of funding for the Wuhan lab from the start and has been involved in a cover-up alongside multiple government agencies. Despite Congress declassifying information, evidence is still being withheld. Emails from February 2020 reveal Fauci's concerns about the virus being manipulated and its potential origins in the Wuhan lab, contradicting his public statements over the past three years. Additionally, a safety committee meant to oversee such funding was bypassed, as Fauci allowed the funding to proceed without their review. This revelation could have significant consequences for Fauci.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: From the very beginning, Anthony Fauci knew he was involved with funding this lab, and he did everything possible. It's throughout our government. 8 different agencies in our government are covering up their support for this lab in Wuhan. It's ongoing as we speak. Even though we've had unanimous congress declassified information, I have classified, unclassified information that's being withheld from me to this day, but we have evidence, yes, that they were dishonest, that Anthony Fauci lied in hearings to me which is a felony, punishable up to 5 years. We now have emails that show him saying that he knew it was going to function, that the virus looked manipulated and that he was worried that this came from the Wuhan lab, February 1, 2020. Then he spent the last 3 years saying nothing to see here. We also know that there was a safety committee that should have reviewed this, and we know that Anthony Fauci went around the safety committee. The safety committee set up in place to make sure this wouldn't happen, Never saw the Wuhan funding because Anthony Fauci allowed the funding to go around the safety committee. This is a bombshell revelation, and this will eventually bring down Anthony Fauci.
liz_churchill10
Posted - January 10, 2025 at 12:34 AM
Saved - January 10, 2025 at 12:03 PM

@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill

To the 17,000 Doctors that are opposing RFK Jr. as the incoming HHS Secretary… Please submit to a full forensic financial audit of your bank accounts and stocks to prove you’re not owned by the Vaccine Industry. Until then, your opinions mean nothing. https://t.co/tqyfqkNe7X

Video Transcript AI Summary
I challenged the claim that I was dishonest about vaccine safety trials and asked for a single prelicensing placebo-controlled safety trial for any of the 72 vaccines required for American children. After searching, I was told they were in Bethesda, but I never received them. We then sued the HHS under the Freedom of Information Law. After a year, they confirmed they could not locate any prelicensing placebo-controlled safety trials for the mandated vaccines. These vaccines have zero liability. I am not anti-vaccine; I advocate for honesty and sound science. My efforts to remove mercury from fish were never labeled as anti-fish.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I said to them at that time, you've said publicly that I've been dishonest about that. Can you show us a single prelicensing safety trial, placebo controlled safety trial for any of the 72 vaccines required for American children. And he made that show of looking through a file, and he said, well, they're back in Bethesda. And I said, will you send them to me? And I never heard from him again. So we sued the HHS under the Freedom of Information Law. After a year of litigation, they sent us a letter which is posted on CHD's website that acknowledges that they are now not able to locate a single, pre licensing safety trial, placebo control, for any of the vaccines that are now mandated for children. These are zero liability vaccines. I'm not anti vaccine, but I think we need to be honest and we need to have good science. I spent 30 years trying to get mercury out of the fish in this country, and nobody ever called me anti fish.
MidwesternDoc
Posted - January 31, 2025 at 9:38 AM
Saved - February 1, 2025 at 5:58 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I observed the hostility directed at Robert Kennedy Jr. during his hearing, which seemed tied to the Pharma money received by each senator. The attacks mirrored media narratives and raised questions about the influence of medical industry funding. Many senators made false claims about RFK's role in a measles outbreak, while ignoring the broader health issues affecting Americans. Despite the frustration, there was applause for those calling out this corruption. I’m committed to exposing pharmaceutical corruption and advocating for transparency in healthcare.

@MidwesternDoc - A Midwestern Doctor

Like yesterday, the hostility @RobertKennedyJr experienced at his hearing was directly proportional to how much Pharma money each Senator received. In fact, each of them simply repeated the same attacks we just saw flood the mass media (all of which were blatant lies). 🧵

@MidwesternDoc - A Midwestern Doctor

Sadly, this is just the tip of the iceberg, as when you factor in how much each senator gets from the entire medical industry (eg., drug manufacturing, insurance and hospitals) it's 7x as much. This raises a huge question, what does all that money pay for?

@MidwesternDoc - A Midwestern Doctor

As I show here, a left wing group and then a right-wing one (both created to hide Pharma money) publicly announced a campaign to take RFK down, after which the lines they concocted flooded every news publication and countless politicians repeated them. https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/whos-trying-to-stop-america-from

Who's Trying to Stop America From Being Healthy Again? Untangling the century of dark industry tactics that have poisoned the health of America midwesterndoctor.com

@MidwesternDoc - A Midwestern Doctor

For example, they (and the senators) kept claiming RFK caused a deadly measles outbreak. In truth, it was due to children being killed by the vaccine, nurses covering it up, and the Samoan government banning it, and until recently no one blamed RFK. https://www.sensible-med.com/p/is-rfk-jr-to-blame-for-the-samoa

Is RFK Jr to blame for the Samoa measles outbreak? An empirical analysis of published scholarly papers and news stories Was RFK Jr blamed contemporaneously or only in retrospect? sensible-med.com

@MidwesternDoc - A Midwestern Doctor

@SenMarkey falsely accused RFK of causing a measles outbreak that needed "tiny coffins" and said we could not afford the "tiny coffins" RFK would bring in the future. Markey got $2,378,719 from the medical industry and his line most likely came from a corporate PR firm.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The measles outbreak in Samoa resulted in 83 deaths, with volunteers from New Zealand sending tiny coffins for the children who died. The Samoan health director noted that influential figures like Robert Kennedy can sway public opinion, leading to a devastating impact on vaccination efforts. This misinformation slowed the public health response, causing unnecessary deaths. There is concern that similar misinformation could arise in the U.S. if you were confirmed as the top health official. Seventy-five Nobel Prize winners and many in the Boston medical community oppose your candidacy, fearing the consequences of your influence. Therefore, I cannot support your nomination, as it poses a dangerous risk to public health.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That caused the outbreak in Samoa in the same year you visited Samoa. And I replied that Let me let me just finish. The death count in Samoa grew to 83. And ultimately, volunteers in New Zealand sent tiny coffins to help bury the dozens of children who died. And the Samoan director general of health later said, with his last name and the status attached to it, people will believe him. People will believe Robert Kennedy. And a New Zealand vaccinologist later said, the impact of your role was devastating. So your name and your profile helped fuel a measles outbreak. You scared people from taking a vaccine. It slowed the public health response and children died. You've taken no responsibility thus far. And if an outbreak occurs in the United States, I have no evidence that you would not use your role as secretary to spread dangerous misinformation. So that one incident, from my perspective, disqualifies you from holding any position in healthcare, much less the number one health official in the United States. And 75 Nobel Prize winners in science have said very clearly that you should not be confirmed, that it would be dangerous for you to have And you should look at their conflicts. So You should look at the conflicts of those individuals. Well, 75 Nobel And you should look at who financed that letter. 75 Nobel Prize winners. And by the way, of a high percentage of the medical community in Boston, the health capital of the United States and the world have said the same thing about your qualifications. They're they're saying to me they don't want tiny coffins as well. Neither do I. So that's the basis of my reservations about you. And the reason why I'm going to vote no on your candidacy, because I just think it's too dangerous to run the threat that that misinformation has spread in our country in the same way it was in Samoa.

@MidwesternDoc - A Midwestern Doctor

If you think about, it's absurd so many Senators felt America was in danger from 83 measles death in Samoa, but simultaneously, had no concern for the millions of Americans with chronic (and often lethal) diseases and only cared about getting money to treat more and more of it.

@MidwesternDoc - A Midwestern Doctor

Here, @SenTimKaine uses his limited time to protect America's health to...attack RFK over 9/11. He also falsely claimed RFK would make millions from vaccine lawsuits and thus could not enforce drug safety. Turns out Tim Kaine got $3,320,984 from the medical industry

Video Transcript AI Summary
You posted on your X account about conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, stating it's hard to distinguish between fact and fiction. Why address this in July 2024, amidst your presidential campaign? The decline in trust in government, particularly the CDC, is concerning. You mentioned you won't take sides on 9/11, which raises questions about your analytical skills. Your father taught you to be skeptical of authority. You admit you haven't investigated 9/11 but will consider evidence presented. Regarding Gardasil, studies show its positive effects, yet you have a blog post claiming it's harmful. You have a financial interest in litigation against Gardasil, which raises trust issues in your independence. You claim to have given away any rights to fees from those lawsuits.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Just a couple of months ago, you posted this on your x account. On 9 11, it's hard to tell what is conspiracy theory and what isn't. I'd like to introduce that for the record, mister chair. We take that kind of stuff pretty personally. Virginians know what happened on 911, We don't need folks given oxygen to conspiracy theories about 9eleven. Now, one thing I noticed about this post is it was in July of 2024. It was 23 years after 9/11. You had a lot going on in your life. You were running for president then. What made you decide in the midst of everything going on in this country, in this world, in July of 2024 and your own candidacy for president, that now was the time to say it's hard to tell what is conspiracy and what isn't about 911. What what was so important about making this point in July of 2024? Speaker 1: Senator, the dramatic drop in trust in our government, and this is particularly one of the templates of that is what happened at CDC. Speaker 0: Yeah. No. No. I I wanna move aside from that. Because you say, you go on to say, I won't take sides as president. I won't take sides on 9eleven. Wow. I won't take sides on 9eleven. Let me ask you this. As a general matter, do you find it hard to tell what is a conspiracy theory and what isn't? Is that kind of a general deficit that you find in your own analytical abilities? Speaker 1: My father told me when I was 13 years old, he said people in authority lie and that the job of a citizen in every democracy is to make a fear of skepticism. Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. I get it. And you're an authority and you're an authority, but you wouldn't take sides on 911, and you're admitting, Speaker 1: you know, I have a hard time Speaker 0: telling what is an conspiracy theory and what isn't. Speaker 1: Senator, I haven't investigated it. If the things that I investigate, I take sides on. People are allowed to hold that opinion. Speaker 0: They're allowed Speaker 1: to I'm not gonna tell them they're crazy for holding that opinion. I'm going to say, what is your evidence? And if I hear the evidence, I'm going to say that doesn't make any sense. Speaker 0: So you won't take sides on 9:11. Wow. Senator Murray asked you some questions about Gardasil, and this is a vaccine that's manufactured in Virginia. There's other HPV vaccines. I'm going to enter into the record a whole series of studies from many, many nations that talk about the dramatic positive effect of Gardasil. Could I introduce those in the record, Mr. Chair? Speaker 1: Those studies are Wait, let me ask a question. Speaker 0: These are studies from Scotland, Sweden, the UK, Australia, the United States, multiple studies. And then I'm going to introduce the record, I guess it's a blog post of yours. The verdict is now inescapable. Gardasil is killing girls. And I'd like to introduce that into the record as well. Without objection. You have a pretty significant financial interest in litigation against Gardasil. You have received contingency fees and payments for referring people to lawyers suing the manufacturer. And in your ethics vetting Speaker 1: I've never received any money from any Gardasil or any other vaccine lawsuit. Let me Speaker 0: read let me read a quote. This is your words. In your ethics vetting for this nomination, you said quote, pursuant to the referral agreement, I'm entitled to receive 10% of fees awarded in contingency cases referred to the firm. How can folks who need to have confidence in federal vaccine programs trust you to be independent and science based when you stand to gain significant funding if lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers are successful? Speaker 1: I have I have given away all of my rights to any fees in that lawsuit.

@MidwesternDoc - A Midwestern Doctor

Here @PattyMurray decides to spend her limited time to "protect America's health" to falsely accuse RFK of sexual assault (without even understanding the accusation). It turns out she's received $5,887,453 from the medical industry.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Parents seek guidance from health leaders regarding vaccine decisions. I want to address a serious matter about character. You were accused of sexual harassment and assault by Eliza Cooney, who was initially hired as a babysitter. When confronted, you mentioned you weren't a "church boy" and acknowledged having "skeletons in your closet." You later texted Ms. Cooney an apology but claimed no memory of her account. Can you respond to these accusations in front of this committee? Did you make unwanted sexual advances toward Ms. Cooney? No, I did not, and that story has been debunked. Why did you apologize then? I apologized for something else. That’s not my understanding. You can read the text she published; it was not for that.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Parents look to our health leaders for advice on these decisions. You would be a health leader and for the record, I would like to put into the record his previous statements on these vaccines. I do want to ask you a question about character. I still believe character matters, and I I wanna let you respond to this. You were accused of sexual harassment and assault by Eliza Cooney, who was first hired as a part time babysitter by your family. When you were confronted about this accusation, you said you were quote, not a church boy and that you quote, have so many skeletons in my closet. You then texted Ms. Cooney an apology and indicated you had no memory of what she described. Mr. Kennedy, I'm asking you to respond to those accusations, seriously in front of this committee. Did you make sexual advances towards Ms. Cooney without her consent? Speaker 1: No, I did not. And that story has been debunked. Speaker 0: But why did you apologize to her then? Speaker 1: I apologized for something else. Speaker 0: That well, that's not my understanding. Are there let me just ask Speaker 1: you All you have to read is the text which she published is not for that.

@MidwesternDoc - A Midwestern Doctor

Here, @SenatorBaldwin accuses RFK of lying when he said we weren't monitoring for vaccine safety once they reached the market but silences him when he tries explain that CDC has hidden that data from the public. It turns out she's received $4,981,513 from the medical industry.

Video Transcript AI Summary
When we discussed vaccines, you mentioned a lack of post-approval safety monitoring, which suggests you may not be aware of the ongoing safety measures in place. Are you aware of the monitoring conducted by Health and Human Services after vaccine approval? I know about the VAERS system, which captures less than 1% of vaccine injuries. Are you familiar with the FDA's post-approval monitoring? I’m aware of two systems. What about the Vaccine Safety Data Link? Yes, I know about that. And the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project? As I mentioned... Are you aware of v-safe? I know those systems have issues, and I can explain. It's essential to ensure we have gold standard science without conflicts of interest. The measures I listed are crucial for ensuring vaccine safety and effectiveness, supported by extensive studies and independent reviews. Dismissing this undermines the value of vaccines.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When we talked, you we were talking a bit about vaccines at the end of our meeting, and you said, really, to me that there's no post approval safety monitoring. And that led me to believe that you're not aware of the significant and ongoing safety monitoring that occurs after years of rigorous studies showing vaccines to be safe and effective. So I wanna give you the opportunity to set the record straight here. Are you aware of the measures in place throughout, Health and Human Services to ensure vaccine safety after approval? Yes or no? Speaker 1: I'm aware the VAER system, which CDC admits, captures fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries. Speaker 0: So you are aware of the safety monitoring. Are you aware of the FDA, post approval monitoring? Speaker 1: I I'm aware of only 2 systems. Speaker 0: Are you aware of the vaccine safety data link? Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. I'm very aware of that. Speaker 0: Are you aware of the vaccine adverse event reporting system? Speaker 1: I'm aware of the vaccine safety data link that CDC keeps under lockbox and will not let independent scientists Are Speaker 0: you aware of the clinical immunization safety assessment project? Speaker 1: As I said Speaker 0: Are you aware of v safe? Speaker 1: I I'm aware that they're broken, and I can explain to you how each one of those is broken if you're interested. What I wanna do is make sure we have gold standard science. We get the conflicts off the panels so that people, you know this is congress. Speaker 0: What I listed right now are just some of the guardrails that are in place to ensure that lifesaving vaccines are safe and effective. And this is after numerous clinical trials, rigorous studies, and review by an independent panel of experts that show vaccines are safe and effective, which is available to all the public. If you wanna take a second look at the science, like you have said, well, it's here. It's available, and it's conclusive. And saying anything else is undermining vaccines. To a different, Speaker 1: issue. Repeating what congress found in the 2003 investigation.

@MidwesternDoc - A Midwestern Doctor

Here, @Sen_Alsobrooks tells RFK he is not qualified to determine if a scientist is corrupt because he's "not a doctor" and insinuates he's dangerously racist for knowing blacks benefit from lower vaccine doses (to avoid autoimmunity). She got $990,181 from the medical industry.

Video Transcript AI Summary
I ask if you intend to substitute your judgment for that of professional scientists. I won’t substitute my judgment for science. The New York Times reported on fraudulent studies by NIH regarding amyloid plaques and Alzheimer's. Are the scientists who disagree with you considered bad? The corrupt ones, like those behind the fraudulent amyloid studies. Do you have a medical degree? No. Your failed presidential campaign has raised money. How much from HHS's issues? Zero. I want to enter emails about your fundraising into the record. Without objection. You previously stated that Black people should not follow the same vaccine schedule as whites. Can you explain? Studies show Black individuals may have stronger reactions to certain antigens, suggesting they need fewer. That’s dangerous. Your views could mislead parents. Do you think science is dangerous? These are peer-reviewed studies. I yield.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I ask the questions. And the question is, really whether you intend, as you said, to to substitute essentially your judgment for the judgment of these professional scientists and doctors. Speaker 1: I never I'm not gonna substitute my judgment for science. Of course, I'm not gonna do that. What I'm gonna do listen, the New York Times just did an article last week talking about the fraud, the 20 year fraud, 800 fraudulent studies produced by NIH on amyloid blacks and not allowing any other hypothesis about the cause of Alzheimer's Speaker 0: disease score. Decide, mister Kennedy, which scientists are bad scientists? Are they the ones who disagree with you? Speaker 1: The ones who are corrupt. The ones who have been doing science like the Amyloid Black Studies that were fraudulent. We we should Speaker 0: not Let me ask you a question. Do you have a medical degree? Speaker 1: Do I? No. Speaker 0: Let me just ask you, another question. Now your failed presidential campaign has been raising money, to try and cover your debts. And you were questioned about this yesterday and failed to answer a question, that senator Warren asked you. And so I wanna ask you again, regarding these emails that you have sent to raise money, how much has your presidential campaign made fundraising off of this administration's complete disregard for the workforce at HHS? Speaker 1: 0. Speaker 0: Okay. Mister chair, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record 2 emails, from this week and the week before regarding fundraising that you are currently doing through your presidential Speaker 1: Without objection. Speaker 0: And finally, I want to ask you, I have a you you said to you were on a show on February 26, 2021, an interview with doctor Judy Micklewicz where you said the following, and I quote, we should not be giving black people the same vaccine schedule that's given to whites because their immune system is better than ours. Can you please explain what you meant? Speaker 1: There's a series of studies, I think most of them by, Poland, that show that to particular antigens that, blacks have a much stronger reaction. There's differences in reaction to different products by different rates. Speaker 0: So so I have I have 17 seconds left. Let me just ask you then. So what different vaccine schedule would you say I should have received? What what different vaccine schedule should I have received? Speaker 1: I mean, the the the Pollen article suggests that blacks need fewer antigens, than This is so dangerous. The same measles vaccine. Speaker 0: Mister Kennedy, with all due respect, that is so dangerous. Your voice would be a voice that parents would listen to. That is so dangerous. I will be voting against your nomination because your views are dangerous to our state and to our country. Speaker 1: I mean, do you think science is dangerous, senator? This is published, peer reviewed Speaker 0: studies. I yield.

@MidwesternDoc - A Midwestern Doctor

For context, at the previous hearing, the Democrat Senators tried to derail RFK's nomination by insinuating he was both "too pro-life" and "too pro-choice" (to take away Republican votes). People saw through that, so the next day, they defaulted to personal smears.

@MidwesternDoc - A Midwestern Doctor

@SenatorHassan became incensed over the guilt RFK had given mothers of vaccinated children, and then gave the most remarkable line of the day: "Sometimes science is wrong ... And when you continue to sow doubt about settled science, it makes it impossible for us to move forward"

Video Transcript AI Summary
Science can be incorrect, but progress is made by building on previous work. When doubt is cast on established science, it hinders advancement and keeps us stagnant. The issue lies in continuously questioning and revisiting settled science, which prevents us from moving forward.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Sometimes science is wrong. We make progress. We build on the work, and we become more successful. And when you continue to sow doubt about settled science, it makes it impossible for us to move forward. So that's what the problem is here. It's the relitigating and rehashing and continuing to sow doubt so we can't move forward, and it freezes us in place.

@MidwesternDoc - A Midwestern Doctor

As you might guess, while all of them berated RFK for being close minded and unwilling to change his mind to follow the evidence, all of them immediately used the hearing to justify RFK being "disqualified" from being the Secretary of H.H.S.

@MidwesternDoc - A Midwestern Doctor

Sadly, this was extremely predictable, the exact same thing happened the day before (detailed within this thread) https://t.co/K2kZPy7Q0G.

@MidwesternDoc - A Midwestern Doctor

The hostility @RobertKennedyJr experienced at his hearing was directly proportional to how much Pharma money each Senator received. In fact, each of them simply repeated the same attacks we just saw flood the mass media (all of which were blatant lies). 🧵

@MidwesternDoc - A Midwestern Doctor

Fortunately, people are seeing through this and when RFK and the Republicans there called out this corruption, they were met with applause. @SenSanders became incensed when it was pointed out and denied getting Pharma money despite it being shown throughout the media.

Video Transcript AI Summary
I'm committed to making America healthier than other countries. Will you guarantee the same healthcare coverage that other major countries provide? Corruption isn't just in federal agencies; it's in Congress too. Many members here, including you, accept millions from the pharmaceutical industry to protect their interests. I ran for president and received millions in contributions, but none came from pharmaceutical executives or PACs. My support comes from workers, not corporate interests. You were the largest recipient of pharmaceutical donations in 2020. No, I received support from workers across the country, not from corporations. You still haven't answered the last question.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm gonna make America healthier than other countries in the world right now. Speaker 1: Will you guarantee do what every other major country does? That's a simple question. Speaker 0: And by the way, Bernie, the, you know, the the problem of corruption is not just in the federal agencies. It's in congress too. Almost all the members of this panel are accepting, including yourself, are accepting millions of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry. Oh, no. And protected their interests. Speaker 1: Oh, I thought that that would come. No. I ran for president like you. I got millions and millions of contributions. They did not come from the executives, not 1 nickel of PAC money from the pharmaceuticals. Speaker 0: They came in workers. 2020 in 2020, you were the single largest Speaker 1: Because I have received the pharmaceutical money. From technicians from workers all over this country. Workers. They're not not a nickel from corporate tax. Speaker 0: You with the single largest extractor of pharmaceutical dollars. No. From workers in 150,000,0.0. Speaker 1: Yeah. Out of 200,000,000. Alright. But you have not answered last question.

@MidwesternDoc - A Midwestern Doctor

That said, while all of this was immensely frustrating to watch, yesterday @BernieSanders inadvertently had one of the funniest moments in Congressional history when he became enraged RFK would not denounce antivax onsies. Sanders has gotten $23,193,451 from the medical industry

Video Transcript AI Summary
You founded the Children's Health Defense, which is currently selling baby onesies with anti-vaccine messages for $26 each, like "UnFAXed Unafraid" and "No Vax, No Problem." You claim to be pro-vaccine, but this raises questions about your stance. Can you commit to having these products removed from the market? I have no control over that organization; I resigned from the board. You founded it just a few months ago. Are you supportive of these onesies? I support vaccines and want good science to protect our health. Will you ask your organization to stop selling that product? Thank you, mister chairman.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You have started a group called the Children's Health Defense. You're the originator. Right now, as I understand it, on their website, they are selling what's called onesies. These are little things, clothing for babies. 1 of them is titled, UnFAXed Unafraid. Next 1, and they're sold for $26 apiece, by the way. Next 1 is, No Vax, No Problem. Now you're coming before this committee, and you say you're pro vaccine. Just wanna ask some questions. And yet your organization is making money selling a child's product to parents for $26, which casts fundamental doubt on you on the usefulness of vaccines. Can you tell us now that you will now that you are pro vaccine, that you're gonna have your organization take these products off the market. Speaker 1: Senator, I have no power over that organization. I'm not part of it. I resigned from the board. Speaker 0: Yeah. I was just a few months ago. You founded that. You certainly have power. You can make that I have How are you supportive of this? Speaker 1: I've had nothing to do with me. Speaker 0: Are you supportive of these onesies? Speaker 1: I'm supportive of vaccines. Speaker 0: Are you supportive of these this clothing, which is militantly anti vaccine? Speaker 1: I I am supportive of vaccines. I will, I I want good science, and I wanna protect Speaker 0: our health care. The organization you founded not to continue, selling that product. Thank you, mister chairman.

@MidwesternDoc - A Midwestern Doctor

I can only imagine what it's been like for RFK to selflessly fight for our health and environment for decades, only to be disowned by his party because he threatened their sponsors and then be accused of simply doing all of it for money.

@MidwesternDoc - A Midwestern Doctor

All of this has to change so I've dedicated myself to exposing pharmaceutical corruption and revealing life-changing therapies the medical cartel buried. If you want to support this mission please give me (@MidwesternDoc) a follow and visit me Substack! https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/

The Forgotten Side of Medicine | A Midwestern Doctor | Substack The Forgotten Side of Medicine is a leading Substack newsletter. Here I expose pharmaceutical corruption and remarkable therapies lost to time for the health of humanity. Click to read The Forgotten Side of Medicine, by A Midwestern Doctor, a Substack publication with hundreds of thousands of subscribers. midwesterndoctor.com
VigilantFox
Posted - February 19, 2025 at 8:52 PM
Saved - February 20, 2025 at 2:03 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I recently watched a heated debate on CNN where I challenged Dr. Paul Offit on his financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry while discussing vaccine safety. I highlighted how conflicts of interest undermine public trust and questioned the focus on measles over pressing health issues like obesity and chronic disease. Despite Offit's assertions about vaccine safety, I argued that the media often overlooks critical health concerns. The segment ended abruptly, showcasing how mainstream media struggles when confronted with challenging viewpoints.

@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊

Calley Means Stuns CNN Viewers With Two Devastating Takedowns Live on Air Paul Offit and Pamela Brown came prepared for a debate. What they received was a reckoning. 🧵 THREAD https://t.co/iUBRquJ8Hf

@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊

Calley Means (@CalleyMeans), ex-pharma consultant turned industry critic, came out swinging on CNN Wednesday in a fiery debate against infamous vaccine pusher Dr. Paul Offit. Offit thought he could call RFK Jr. an anti-vaxxer without his own financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry being exposed—but he was wrong. Things immediately got heated when Means exposed Offit’s shocking conflicts of interest on live TV while CNN’s Pamela Brown stood by and let it happen like a deer caught in headlights. “What’s causing distrust in public health authorities is conflicts of interest, like Dr. Offit taking millions of dollars from pharmaceutical makers like Merck while approving and recommending pharmaceuticals on ACIP committees. “Dr. Offit says that science is always settled when he himself has approved vaccines that have been recalled for causing organ failure in kids. “Dr. Offit is talking about measles… But there were 300 deaths from measles a year before the invention of the vaccine. We have 38% of children right now with prediabetes. Bobby is focused on that. He’s focused on reorganizing the department. And that’s what we should be talking about, not this distraction,” Means argued.

Video Transcript AI Summary
What's causing distrust in public health isn't the idea of public health itself, but the actions of its leaders. We need to address the conflicts of interest, like Dr. Offit taking millions from pharmaceutical companies while approving their products. It's also about holding people accountable when they make definitive statements about science, yet have approved products, like vaccines, that have later been recalled for causing harm. While measles is important, let's remember that before the vaccine, there were 300 deaths a year from measles. Today, we have a much bigger problem, with 38% of children having prediabetes. It is important that we focus on reorganizing the department to address issues like this, instead of being distracted.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Trust in public health. No. It it it's the public health leaders themselves. It's people defending with the record that's happening to health at HHS. Why cuts are bad? Of course, we should make cuts. Of course, the personnel should be changed. What's causing distrust in public health authorities is conflict of interest, like doctor Offutt taking millions of dollars from pharmaceutical makers like Merck while approving and recommending pharmaceuticals on ACIP committees. It's the fact that doctor Offutt's saying that science is always settled, when he himself has approved vaccines that have been recalled for causing organ failure for kids. And it's the fact that doctor Offit is talking about measles, which is important. And I wanna be clear, Hamel. I don't wanna get this out. It's important. But there were three hundred deaths from measles a year before the invention of the vaccine. We have thirty eight percent of children right now having prediabetes. Bobby is focused on that. He's focused on reorganizing the department, and that's what we should be talking about, not this distraction.

@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@calleymeans After Offit finished uncomfortably smiling during Means’ rebuke, he responded to the claims, saying, “I don’t have a relationship with a pharmaceutical company.” https://t.co/Z2KBFVNh7P

Video Transcript AI Summary
I serve on the FDA's vaccine advisory committee because I don't have relationships with pharmaceutical companies, which is a requirement. I actually agree with some of the concerns raised, such as obesity rates, chronic illnesses, and overmedication of children. I even wrote a book about the excesses of modern medicine. However, I strongly disagree with the claim that vaccines are harmful, as RFK Jr. suggests. RFK Jr. continues to falsely claim that vaccines cause autism, and he's now targeting childhood vaccines, which will ultimately harm children.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Made a lot of claims there. I want you to respond to that. And we should note, you are a member of the FDA vaccine advisory committee, and you recently told CNN that RFK junior will hurt America's vaccine infrastructure. So please respond to that and tell us Speaker 1: And, Pamela, I hope we can disclose his I hope we can disclose his millions of dollars of pharmaceutical payments while serving in that committee. Speaker 0: Okay. Doctor Offit, please go ahead and respond. Speaker 1: Well, first of all, you're not allowed to serve on the FDA's vaccine advisory committee if you have a relationship with a pharmaceutical company. And so because I don't have a relationship with a pharmaceutical company, I'm able to serve on that committee. Secondly, and most importantly, actually, the things that that, that Cali talks about, I actually agree with in some ways. I think that we are, for example, more obese as a country than than we should be. And that the consequence of obesity like hypertension and type two diabetes, I think we do have, in many ways, more chronic illnesses. I think we overmedicate our children. I think there's many things we can do better. I actually wrote a book called Overkill When Modern Medicine Goes Too Far. So I agree with all that. What I don't agree with is that in any way, vaccines are are, harmful as RFK Jr says. I mean, RFK Jr continues to claim that vaccines cause autism when they don't. He's now made childhood vaccines a major target of this. And and that's that's, only gonna be to the detriment of children. Speaker 0: Hold on. No. No. Callie Callie, I have to let doctor Offit speak. This has to be a civil respectful conversation in order for this to work and for Americans, peep viewers to to soak this up. So I wanna let Doctor Offit finish and then I'll go to you, Callie, I promise. Go ahead Doctor Offit.

@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊

But Means later questioned: “Is it appropriate for a member of a government advisory committee (ACIP) to have a $1.5 million salary paid by Merck and receive millions in pharma royalties while he’s issuing guidance on products those companies make?” https://t.co/uSf5aMFZoL

@calleymeans - Calley Means

Is it appropriate for a member of a government advisory committee to have a $1.5 million salary paid by Merck and receive millions in pharma royalties while he’s issuing guidance on products those companies make? https://t.co/Slm88xdWyH

@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊

NEW: CNN frantically interrupts Calley Means as he exposes Paul Offit’s conflicts of interest and Big Pharma’s incentive to keep people sick. The direction of the conversation clearly had Pamela Brown on edge. @CalleyMeans: “Dr. Offit, as you know, you were the chair at the…

Video Transcript AI Summary
I am for addressing issues like obesity and overmedicating children. Bobby Kennedy is fighting against the incentive for Pharma to profit from sick children. They don't make money when kids are healthy, and chronic disease is good for the health industry's bottom line. I support getting soda off of SNAP. When the data aren't on their side, RFK Jr. and personal injury lawyers attack the person. I don't have a conflict of interest. The Merck chair is defined by Penn, and there is no quid pro quo with an endowed chair. The science continually shows RFK Jr. is wrong about vaccines.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He talked about childhood vaccines, number one. He talked about electromagnetic radiation, number two. He talked about pesticides. He didn't talk about the things that Cali's talking about here, which is things like obesity or overmedicating children or sugar drapes. I'm all for that. I agree with you. You can have both Speaker 1: powerful he gave a he gave a powerful speech about these issues. This this is what Bobby Kinney is fighting against, doctor Offit. As you know, you were the chair at the Children's Hospital, the Merck chair. You you it was like a NASCAR driver wearing their sponsors. Merck paid your $1,500,000 salary. And this is what Bobby is saying, is that fundamentally, pharma can create good innovations, but they're foundationally incentivized for children to be sick. Pharma doesn't make money when children are healthy. The hospitals don't make money when the beds are empty. Chronic disease, just as a demonstrable statement of economic fact, is a great economic invention for the health industry which demonstrably makes money when patients are sick. And that's an incentive Bobby Kennedy is going hard after. I'm in Florida. I'm in I'm in a state senator's office right now. I'm actually lobbying for the state's SNAP bills, which Bobby is really supporting, to get soda off of SNAP. I think the problem is that the public health community, the Merck chairs of pediatricians, I mean, that is just insane. Merck does not have children's interest at heart. Merck itself has settled billions of dollars in criminal penalties for misleading and to know. Speaker 2: For transparency, you used to be a pharmaceutical rep. Right, Cali? Speaker 1: No. No. No. I was there about thirteen years ago with a was a was a lobbyist, which which included Speaker 2: So you were a lobbyist for pharmaceuticals. Okay. Speaker 1: That out. Speaker 2: Right. But really quick, we we do have to go. But doctor Offit, I have to have you respond to his claims about Merck and your ties. Speaker 0: Sure. What he does is what RFK Jr. Does, which is what all personal injury lawyer types do, which is when the the data aren't on their side, then they attack the person. I'm not Bobby Kennedy's ears. Speaker 2: Hold on. Hold on, Callie. Let him talk. Chair? Callie, please. Please. Speaker 0: I I wanna I don't receive a a okay. It's it's it's I do not have a conflict of interest. The Merc chair is is defined defined by, Penn. And Penn, there is no quid pro quo to being having an endowed chair. Anybody who receives an endowed chair an endowed chair would know. Secondly, it's like because they they there aren't the data on their side regarding vaccines. They do what all personal injury lawyer types do, which is attack the witness. I'm not RFK Jr's problem. The science that has continually shown he's wrong about vaccines Speaker 1: for sure. Millions of people. That. That's Speaker 2: the problem. Thank you both for coming on. Thank you for Speaker 0: coming again. Of Speaker 2: Okay. Callie, I let you say your piece, doctor Offit. I let you also respond, and I I appreciate you coming on for this spirited discussion, shall we say? Thank you for joining us. We'll be right back.

@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊

Offit went on to say that he doesn’t know what the cause of autism is, mentioning several “interesting” theories. However, he stated with certainty that vaccines are “the one thing that doesn’t cause autism.” “Vaccines, I think, are really the safest, best-tested things that we give to children,” Offit said.

Video Transcript AI Summary
RFK Jr. continues to falsely claim that vaccines cause autism, and he's made childhood vaccines a major target. This is dangerous and will lead to the death of children. When RFK Jr. says we have more chronic diseases in children than ever before, he's citing the instance of autism spectrum disorder. There are many interesting causes of autism spectrum disorder, like the infant microbiome, genetics, or medicines that pregnant people take during their pregnancy. But by focusing on childhood vaccines, he's focusing on the one thing that doesn't cause autism. Vaccines are really the safest, best-tested things that we give to children, and that's what is making America healthy. To focus on vaccines as a target and claim that they're causing harm when they're not is only a detriment to America's children.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What I don't agree with is that in any way, vaccines are are, harmful as RFK Jr. Says. I mean, RFK Jr. Continues to claim that vaccines cause autism when they don't. He's now made childhood vaccines a major target of this. And and that's that's, only gonna be for the death of children. Hold on. Speaker 1: No. No. Callie Callie, I have to let doctor Offit speak. This has to be a civil respectful conversation in order for this to work and for Americans viewers to to soak this up. So I wanna let doctor Offit finish, and then I'll go to you, Cali. I promise. Go ahead, doctor Offit. Speaker 0: So I I think that when, for example, he says we have more chronic diseases in children than ever before, he says that the instance is one in thirty six. Well, that's the instance of autism spectrum disorder. There's a lot of interesting, cause or causes of autism spectrum disorder, like the infant microbiome or genetic or, medicines that women or pregnant people can take during their pregnancy. That's interesting. But by focusing on childhood vaccines, he's focusing on the one thing that doesn't cause autism. And so vaccines, I think, are really the safest, best tested things that we give to children, and that's what make is making America healthy again. And I think to focus on vaccines as as a target and and claim that they're causing harms when they're not is only a detriment to America's children.

@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊

The next disaster for CNN unfolded when host Pamela Brown asked @CalleyMeans a vaccination question that completely backfired. Means flipped the script, using her question to highlight how the media obsesses over “measles” instead of focusing on health concerns that truly matter. PAMELA BROWN: “Is now a time to promote vaccines... especially among children who are being impacted by measles in places like Texas and in these six states where, according to health officials, they are unvaccinated?" CALLEY MEANS: “Pamela, with respect, why aren’t you asking me about the fact that 50% of teens have obesity? There are breathless segments being run and seen on [infectious disease] day after day after day, Pamela. It’s breathless coverage of five measles cases. “Why aren’t we asking why 16% of COVID deaths worldwide were Americans when we’re only 4% of the world population? Because the CDC said our immune system—no, it is related, Pamela. And let me say why: because the entire coverage of Bobby Kennedy is around measles. “The Democrats said the word ‘measles’ 25 times in the first hearing and said the words ‘obesity,’ ‘diabetes,’ and ‘chronic disease’ zero times. The HHS priority document under President Biden said the word ‘equity’ 25 times, said the word ‘vaccines’ countless times, and did not say the word ‘obesity’ or ‘diabetes.’ “There is a problem right now because this is not zero-sum. We are focused on a very small subset that’s important—we need good infectious disease management. Bobby Kennedy, Dr. Offit, is not correct. Bobby Kennedy has said one thing about vaccines and one thing only: that they should be studied like any other product. “Dr. Offit, on the ACIP committee, has recommended vaccines that have ended up being recalled for causing mass issues to kids. Bobby Kennedy has written multiple books, not about being anti-vax, but about having good science. And Dr. Offit is calling him anti-vaccine for literally just saying we need studies. “Bobby Kennedy is not concerned with measles. He wants good policies with measles. He wants to attack the 92% of deaths in the United States, which is chronic conditions,” Means said.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Why is everyone so focused on measles when so many other health issues plague our country? The media breathlessly covers five measles cases while ignoring the obesity epidemic affecting 50% of teens. Sixteen percent of COVID deaths worldwide were Americans, but our health priorities seem misdirected. The focus on measles is overshadowing other critical health concerns. Bobby Kennedy's stance isn't anti-vaccine; he simply advocates for rigorous studies on vaccines, like any other product. He, and others, are concerned with the chronic conditions responsible for 92% of deaths in the United States, and want to address the bigger picture of health policy.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is it now a time to promote vaccines, which again, the CDC says safe effective that two doses are ninety percent effective against measles? Is it now a time to promote that especially among children who are being impacted by measles in places like Texas and in these states who are unvaccinated according to health officials. Speaker 1: Pamela, with with respect, why aren't you asking me about the fact that fifty percent of teens have obesity? Why aren't there there there are breathless Speaker 0: I have other questions for you, but we're talking about this. Speaker 1: Day after day after day, Pamela. It's breathless coverage of five measles cases. Why aren't we asking why sixteen percent of COVID deaths worldwide were Americans when we're only four percent of the world population because the CDC said, Our immune system, no, it is related, Pamela, and let me say why. Because the entire coverage of Bobby Kennedy is around measles. The Democrats said the word measles twenty five times in the first hearing and said the words obesity, diabetes, and chronic disease zero time. The HHS priority document under President Biden said the word equity 25 times, said the word vaccines countless times, did not say the word obesity or diabetes. There is a problem right now because this is not zero, this is zero sum. We are focused on a very small subset that's important. We need good infectious disease management. Bobby Kennedy, Doctor. Offit is not correct. Bobby Kennedy has said one thing about vaccines and one thing only, that they should be studied like any other product. Doctor. Offit on the ACIP committee has recommended vaccines that have ended up being recalled for causing mass issues to kids. Bobby Kennedy has written multiple books not about being anti vaxx but about having good science. And Doctor. Offit is calling him anti vaccine for literally just saying we need studies. Bobby Kennedy is not concerned with measles. He wants good policies with measles. He wants to attack the ninety two percent of deaths in The United States, which has chronic conditions.

@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊

Means continued to hammer the medical industry, exposing how it “doesn’t make money when children are healthy.” “Pharma doesn’t make money when children are healthy. The hospitals don’t make money when the beds are empty. Chronic disease, just as a demonstrable statement of economic fact, is a great economic invention for the healthcare industry, which demonstrably makes money when patients are sick,” Means said. Visibly frustrated as @CalleyMeans dismantled the narrative CNN wanted to push, Pamela Brown began frantically cutting him off before abruptly ending the segment, calling it a “spirited discussion.”

Video Transcript AI Summary
I support discussing issues like obesity and overmedicating children. Bobby Kennedy is fighting against the incentive for pharma to profit from sick children, and he's supporting efforts to remove soda from SNAP. The problem is that organizations like Merck don't have children's best interests at heart, considering their history of criminal penalties for misleading information. When the data isn't on their side, RFK Jr. and personal injury lawyers attack the person. My Merck chair is defined by Penn, and there's no quid pro quo. The science continually proves RFK Jr. wrong about vaccines.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He talked about childhood vaccines, number one. He talked about electromagnetic radiation, number two. He talked about pesticides. He didn't talk about the things that Cali's talking about here, which is things like obesity or overmedicating children or sugar drapes. I'm all for that. I agree with you. You can have both Speaker 1: powerful he gave a he gave a powerful speech about these issues. This this is what Bobby Kinney is fighting against, doctor Offit. As you know, you were the chair at the Children's Hospital, the Merck chair. You you it was like a NASCAR driver wearing their sponsors. Merck paid your $1,500,000 salary. And this is what Bobby is saying, is that fundamentally, pharma can create good innovations, but they're foundationally incentivized for children to be sick. Pharma doesn't make money when children are healthy. The hospitals don't make money when the beds are empty. Chronic disease, just as a demonstrable statement of economic fact, is a great economic invention for the health industry which demonstrably makes money when patients are sick. And that's an incentive Bobby Kennedy is going hard after. I'm in Florida. I'm in I'm in a state senator's office right now. I'm actually lobbying for the state's SNAP bills, which Bobby is really supporting, to get soda off of SNAP. I think the problem is that the public health community, the Merck chairs of pediatricians, I mean, that is just insane. Merck does not have children's interest at heart. Merck itself has settled billions of dollars in criminal penalties for misleading and to know. Speaker 2: For transparency, you used to be a pharmaceutical rep. Right, Cali? Speaker 1: No. No. No. I was there about thirteen years ago with a was a was a lobbyist, which which included Speaker 2: So you were a lobbyist for pharmaceuticals. Okay. Speaker 1: That out. Speaker 2: Right. But really quick, we we do have to go. But doctor Offit, I have to have you respond to his claims about Merck and your ties. Speaker 0: Sure. What he does is what RFK Jr. Does, which is what all personal injury lawyer types do, which is when the the data aren't on their side, then they attack the person. I'm not Bobby Kennedy's ears. Speaker 2: Hold on. Hold on, Callie. Let him talk. Chair? Callie, please. Please. Speaker 0: I I wanna I don't receive a a okay. It's it's it's I do not have a conflict of interest. The Merc chair is is defined defined by, Penn. And Penn, there is no quid pro quo to being having an endowed chair. Anybody who receives an endowed chair an endowed chair would know. Secondly, it's like because they they there aren't the data on their side regarding vaccines. They do what all personal injury lawyer types do, which is attack the witness. I'm not RFK Jr's problem. The science that has continually shown he's wrong about vaccines Speaker 1: for sure. Millions of people. That. That's Speaker 2: the problem. Thank you both for coming on. Thank you for Speaker 0: coming again. Of Speaker 2: Okay. Callie, I let you say your piece, doctor Offit. I let you also respond, and I I appreciate you coming on for this spirited discussion, shall we say? Thank you for joining us. We'll be right back.

@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊

This debate made one thing clear: when mainstream news networks face someone who can challenge their narratives in real time, their arguments crumble, leaving viewers exposed to the truth. While it’s safe to say that @CalleyMeans won’t be invited back on CNN anytime soon, this segment should serve as a stark reminder that the media’s goal is to push narratives, not to report the truth or host an honest debate.

@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@calleymeans Click here to watch the full debate below: https://t.co/g0bStZqgU0

@BeauJarvis13 - Beau Jarvis

@calleymeans Here’s the CNN Clip! https://t.co/a8xAwGkSjM

Video Transcript AI Summary
I defend public health leaders and question why cuts are bad for health at HHS. Distrust stems from conflicts of interest, like Dr. Offit taking money from pharmaceutical companies while recommending drugs. He claims science is settled, yet approved vaccines have been recalled. I want focus on real issues: 38% of children having prediabetes. Measles deaths were high before vaccines, but chronic conditions are a bigger threat now. RFK Jr. isn't anti-vaccine but wants vaccine studies. I question why media covers measles over obesity and diabetes. Sixteen percent of COVID deaths were American, but the CDC didn't discuss metabolic links. I support measures like removing soda from SNAP, aiming for better health policies. Pharma profits from sick children, incentivizing chronic disease.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Trust in public health? No. It it it's the public health leaders themselves. It's people defending with the record that's happening to health at HHS why cuts are bad. Of course, we should make cuts. Of course, the personnel should be changed. What's causing distrust in public health authorities is conflict of interest, like doctor Offutt taking millions of dollars from pharmaceutical makers like Merck while approving and recommending pharmaceuticals on ACIP committees. It's the fact that doctor Offutt's saying that science is always settled, when he himself has approved vaccines that have been recalled for causing organ failure for kids. And it's the fact that doctor Offit is talking about measles, which is important. And I wanna be clear, Hamlet. I don't wanna get this out. It's important. But there were three hundred deaths from measles a year before the invention of the vaccine. We have thirty eight percent of children now having prediabetes. Bobby is focused on that. He's focused on reorganizing the department. Mhmm. And that's what we should be talking about, not this distraction. Speaker 1: And I'm gonna come back to you on that central question about the measles and and the bird flu and whether cuts right now are are makes sense. But I want you, doctor Offit, obviously, he made a lot of claims there. I want you to respond to that. And we should note, you are a member of the FDA vaccine advisory committee, and you recently told CNN that RFK Jr will hurt America's vaccine infrastructure. So please respond to that and tell us Speaker 0: And, Pamela, I hope we can disclose his I hope we can disclose his millions of dollars of pharmaceutical payments while serving in that committee. Speaker 1: Okay. Doctor Offit, please go ahead and respond. Speaker 2: Well, first of all, you're not allowed to serve on the FDA's vaccine advisory committee if you have a relationship with a pharmaceutical company. And so because I don't have a relationship with a pharmaceutical company, I'm able to serve on that committee. Secondly, and most importantly, actually, the things that that, that Cali talks about, I actually agree with in some ways. I think that we are, for example, more obese as a country than than we should be. And that the consequence of obesity like hypertension or type two diabetes, I think we do have, in many ways, more chronic illnesses. I think we overmedicate our children. I think there's many things we can do better. I actually wrote a book called Overkill When Modern Medicine Goes Too Far. So I agree with all that. What I don't agree with is that in any way, vaccines are are, harmful as RFK Jr. Says. I mean, RFK Jr. Continues to claim that vaccines cause autism when they don't. He's now made childhood vaccines a major target of this. And and that's that's, only to be the detriment of children. Speaker 1: Hold on. No. No. Callie Callie, I have to let doctor Offit speak. This has to be a civil respectful conversation in order for this to work and for Americans, viewers to to soak this up. So I wanna let doctor Offit finish, and then I'll go to you, Cali. I promise. Go ahead, doctor Offit. Speaker 2: So I I think that when, for example, he says we have more chronic diseases in children than ever before, he says that the incidence is one in thirty six. Well, that's the incidence of autism spectrum disorder. There's a lot of interesting, cause or causes of autism spectrum disorder, like the infant microbiome or genetic or medicines that women or pregnant people can take during their pregnancy. That's interesting. But by focusing on childhood vaccines, he's focusing on the one thing that doesn't cause autism. And so vaccines, I think, are really the safest, best tested things that we give to children, and that's what may is making America healthy again. And I think to focus on vaccines as as a target and and claim that they're causing harms when they're not is only a detriment to America's children. Speaker 0: And just Speaker 1: to be clear, these are two separate issue. There's vaccines which are proven safe and effective, and we're gonna talk more about that. But then there's the issue of chronic disease caused by, you know, the food that we're consuming, processed food and all of that, which as you both agree on, that needs to be dealt with, that needs to be a a priority, of course, which is why in many ways RFK Jr has gained so much popularity among many Americans, on that issue. But but I wanna go to you, Callie, to respond. And, also, you know, with this measles threat, is it now a time to promote vaccines, which, again, the CDC says safe effective that two doses are ninety percent effective against measles? Is it now a time to promote that, especially among children who are being impacted by measles in places like Texas and in these six states who are unvaccinated according to health officials? Speaker 0: Pamela, with with respect, why aren't you asking me about the fact that fifty percent of teens have obesity? Why aren't Speaker 1: there there there are questions for you, but we're talking about this. Speaker 0: Day after day after day, Pamela, it's breathless it's breathless coverage of of of of five measles cases. We why aren't we asking why sixteen percent of COVID deaths worldwide were Americans when we're only four percent of the world population because the CDC said our immune system. No. It is related, Pamela, and let me say why. Because the entire coverage of Bobby Kennedy is around measles. The Democrat said the word measles twenty five times in the first hearing and said the words obesity, diabetes, and chronic disease zero time. The HHS priority document under president Biden said the word equity 25 times, said the word vaccines countless times, did not say the word obesity or diabetes. There is a problem right now because this is not zero, this is zero sum. We are focused on a very small subset that's important. We need good infectious disease management. Bobby Kennedy, Doctor. Offit is not correct. Bobby Kennedy has said one thing about vaccines and one thing only, that they should be studied like any other product. Doctor Offit on the ACEF committee has recommended vaccines that have ended up being recalled for causing mass issues to kids. Bobby Kennedy has written multiple books not about being anti vaxxed, but about having good science. And doctor Offutt is calling him anti vaccine for literally just saying we need studies. Bobby Kennedy is not concerned with measles. He wants good policies with measles. He wants to attack the ninety two percent of deaths in The United States, which is chronic conditions. Speaker 1: I I think it is fair to say given his history in his past remarks though that he is, at the very least, a vaccine skeptic. Alright? A vaccine skeptic is is fair to say. I think he's a science Speaker 0: pro science advocate. Speaker 1: Okay. And and again, doctor Offit, I want you to respond to some of those claims. And, Callie, look, we can we can talk about all of this, and I do wanna talk about obesity. So don't make a claim that I'm not asking about important things because I've covered that on this show. I've covered the movement about what Kellogg's what they're trying to do with Kellogg's and trying to take food coloring out of Kellogg's. I've actually been on the forefront of covering a lot of these issues, so please don't make that claim I'm not asking the right questions. Speaker 0: Worry. I will I will say during COVID, CNN covered this as a pharmaceutical deficiency and did not talk about the metabolic links to COVID and how this really was a warning sign for our immune system. I agree, Pamela. You have covered this issue more than most. But Okay. There is a massive slant talking about measles rather than chronic conditions. Speaker 1: Okay. And that's your and that's your your point of view, and you're you're entitled to that. And on this show, we try to share all kinds of points of view and and different ways of looking at things. Thank you. So I wanna go to this 2016 USDA report that shows sugary beverages are the second most purchased items by households that receive SNAP benefits, while desserts are the fifth most purchased. Senator Mike Lee has introduced the Healthy SNAP Act, which would exclude these items from SNAP. Doctor, do you think that that's important, a bill like this? Are you in favor of that? Speaker 2: Sure. I I mean, I think that it it's certainly true that we we can have better health. I think, you know, that we we do have an increased instance of obesity. I think that things like I think we overmedicate our children in many ways. I think that people are reasonably dissatisfied with the health care system. I think we don't get great bang for our buck with with what we spend per capita. I think we compared to other developed world countries, we don't have the same, length of, say, like, length of, like, longevity or infant mortality rates don't compare favorably. Sure. That's all true. And I think you can have that and also say how important vaccines are. What worries me about our FK Jr, which is why I think he shouldn't be ahead of HHS, is he has been a virulent anti vaccine activist for the last twenty years. And and when he stands in front of of the the HHS, a couple days ago, what did he talk about? He talked about childhood vaccines, number one. He talked about electromagnetic radiation, number two. He talked about pesticides. He didn't talk about the things that Cali's talking about here, which is things like obesity or over medicating children or sugar drape. I'm all for that. I agree with you. You can have both. Speaker 0: Powerful he gave a he gave a powerful speech about these issues. This this is what Bobby Kinney's fighting against, doctor Oph. As you know, you were the chair at the Children's Hospital, the Merck chair. You you it was like a NASCAR driver wearing their sponsors. Merck paid your $1,500,000 salary. And this is what Bobby is saying, is that fundamentally, pharma can create good innovations, but they're foundationally incentivized for children to be sick. Pharma doesn't make money when children are healthy. The hospitals don't make money when the beds are empty. Chronic disease, just as a demonstrable statement of economic fact, is a great economic invention for the health industry, which demonstrably makes money when patients are sick, and that's an incentive Bobby Kennedy is going hard after. I'm in Florida. I'm in I'm in a state senator's office right now. I'm actually lobbying for the state's SNAP bills, which Bobby is really supporting, to get soda off of Snap. I think the problem is that the public health community, the Merck shares of pediatricians, I mean, that is just insane. Merck does not have children's interest at heart. Merck itself has settled billions of dollars in criminal penalties for misleading and falsifying data in the past ten years. Like like, what Speaker 1: do you mean by that? For for transparency, you used to be a pharmaceutical rep. Right, Cali? Speaker 0: No. No. No. I was about thirteen years ago with the was a was a lobbyist, which included So Speaker 1: you were a lobbyist for pharmaceuticals. Speaker 0: Okay. That out. Speaker 1: Right. But really quick, we we do have to go. But doctor Offit, I have to have you respond to his claims about Merck and your ties. Speaker 2: Sure. What he does is what RFK Jr. Does, which is what all personal injury lawyer types do, which is when the the data aren't on their side, then they attack the person. I'm not driving any chairs. Speaker 1: Hold on. Hold on, Callie. Let him Speaker 0: talk. Chair? Speaker 1: Callie, please. Please. Speaker 2: I I wanna I don't receive a a okay. It's it's it's I do not have a conflict of interest. The Merck chair is is defined defined by, Penn. And Penn, there is no quid pro quo to being having an endowed chair. Is anybody who receives an endowed chair an endowed chair would know. Secondly, it's like because they they there aren't the data on their side regarding vaccines. They do what all personal injury lawyer types do, which is attack the witness. I'm not RFK Jr's problem. The science that has continually shown me is wrong about vaccines for sure. Speaker 0: To speak to me about that. Okay. Alright. Speaker 1: Thank you both for coming on. Again, okay, Cali. I let you say your piece, doctor Offit. I let you also respond, and I I appreciate you coming on for this spirited discussion, shall we say? Thank you for joining us. We'll be right back. Speaker 2: Our thoughts and prayers are with those who is

@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@calleymeans Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this report, please do me a quick favor and follow me (@VigilantFox) for more posts like this one. In other news, Elon Musk recently shut down RFK Jr. critics with one profound statement. Read more below: https://t.co/dcrDfMmMzy

@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊

Elon Musk Delivers a Powerful Statement on Bobby Kennedy Jr. Plus, more must-see moments from the Trump-Musk interview. 🧵 THREAD https://t.co/AVPelCMAbh

jesson_joe
Posted - February 20, 2025 at 2:30 AM
Saved - February 23, 2025 at 1:49 PM

@jesson_joe - joe jesson

@BeauJarvis13 @calleymeans Patent If he develops any commercial vaccine, he is getting patent royalty megabucks. He should have asked what his patent royalty checks are.

SenJoniErnst
Posted - March 10, 2025 at 11:50 PM
Saved - March 11, 2025 at 2:12 PM

@SenJoniErnst - Joni Ernst

A vaccine company registered to a PO Box — and run by two former Biden staffers — got $28 million in the final months of the Biden admin, and that seems fishy.   I’ve asked @SecKennedy to get the American people answers and end the practice of government slush funds! https://t.co/2gahwCBMg5

Irishgypsy288
Posted - April 19, 2025 at 10:08 PM
Saved - April 19, 2025 at 10:49 PM

@Irishgypsy288 - Irish Gypsy

Well this is awkward..... https://t.co/x4LSF2SALF

@GoyWonderTM - Juan Decentbaum

They. Fucking. Knew.🤬 LEFT: February 4, 2020 RIGHT: March 8 & 16, 2020 https://t.co/SMVvqXtiMG

wideawake_media
Posted - April 22, 2025 at 11:31 AM
Saved - April 22, 2025 at 2:54 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
In 2008, CBS aired a report by Sharyl Attkisson revealing that leading vaccine advocates were funded by pharmaceutical companies, highlighting potential conflicts of interest in vaccine safety claims. I wonder if mainstream media would dare to air something like that today.

@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media

In 2008, CBS actually aired a report by Sharyl Attkisson exposing how top vaccine advocates received substantial funding from pharmaceutical companies—raising serious concerns about conflicts of interest in vaccine safety claims. Can you imagine the MSM airing such a report today? 🤣 Credit: @SharylAttkisson

Video Transcript AI Summary
The American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child by Two, and pediatrician Dr. Paul Offit are trusted voices in vaccine defense, but CBS News found they have financial ties to the vaccine industry. The vaccine industry gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for various purposes, but the totals are kept secret. Wyeth gave the Academy $342,000 for a community grant program, and Merck contributed $433,000 the same year the Academy endorsed Merck's HPV vaccine. Sanofi Aventis, a maker of 17 vaccines, is also a top donor. Every Child by Two admits to taking money from the vaccine industry, but wouldn't disclose the amount. An official from Wyeth and a paid adviser to big pharmaceutical clients have been listed as the group's treasurers. Dr. Offit holds a $1.5 million research chair funded by Merck and holds the patent on an anti-diarrhea vaccine he developed with Merck. Future royalties for the vaccine were sold for $182 million. The American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child by Two and Doctor. Offit wouldn't agree to interviews, but all told CBS they're upfront about the money they receive and it doesn't sway their opinions.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: For years now, parents have wondered if vaccines are linked to conditions like autism and ADD. Government officials and some scientists say there is no connection, and they're often backed by independent experts. But just how independent are they? You may be surprised at what Cheryl Atkinson found when she set out to follow the money. Speaker 1: Just waiting for it to come. They're some of the most trusted voices in the defense of vaccine the American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child by Two, and pediatrician Doctor. Paul Offit. But CBS News has found these three have something more in common. Polio number two Strong financial ties to the industry whose products they promote and defend. The vaccine industry gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for conferences, grants, medical education classes, even help pay to build their headquarters. The totals are kept secret, but public documents reveal bits and pieces. Dollars 3 and 42,000 was given to the Academy by Wyeth, maker of the pneumococcal vaccine, for a community grant program. Dollars 4 and 33,000 was contributed to the Academy by Merck, the same year the Academy endorsed Merck's HPV vaccine. Another top donor, Sanofi Aventis, maker of 17 vaccines, and a new five and one combo shot just added to the childhood vaccine schedule last month. Every Child by Two, a group that promotes early immunization for all children, admits the group takes money from the vaccine industry too, but wouldn't tell us how much. A spokesman told us there are simply no conflicts to be unearthed. But guess who has been listed as the group's treasurers, an official from Wyeth and a paid adviser to big pharmaceutical clients. Then there's doctor Paul Offit, perhaps the most widely quoted defender of vaccine safety. He's gone so far as to say babies can tolerate quote 10,000 vaccines at once. This is how Offit described himself in a previous interview. Speaker 2: I'm the chief of infectious diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a professor of pediatrics at Penns Medical School. Speaker 1: Doctor Offit was not willing to be interviewed on this subject. But like others in our investigation, he has strong industry ties. In fact, he's a vaccine industry insider. Doctor. Offit holds a $1,500,000 research chair CHH funded by Merck. He holds the patent on an anti diarrhea vaccine he developed with Merck, Rotatec, which has prevented thousands of hospitalizations in The U. S. And future royalties for the vaccine were just sold for $182,000,000 cash. Doctor Offit's share of vaccine profits unknown. There's nothing illegal about the possible conflicts of interest, but as one member of Congress put it, Money from the pharmaceutical industry can shape the practices of those who hold themselves out to be independent. The American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child by Two and Doctor. Offit wouldn't agree to interviews, but all told us they're upfront about the money they receive and it doesn't sway their opinions. Today's immunization schedule now calls for kids to get 55 doses of vaccines by age six. Ideally, it makes for a healthier society. But critics worry that industry ties could impact the advice given to the public about all those vaccines.
nesta_red
Posted - April 27, 2025 at 6:03 PM
Saved - November 11, 2025 at 7:08 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I observe a recurring claim that mainstream opposition is fake, a puppet show for the Elitarian rulers who seek total control. Across posts, I’m told both sides push the same agenda—AI governance, surveillance, vaccines, war—while real issues like Epstein, CDC, and media are hidden. The message: beware the illusion of choice; power remains centralized.

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian Masters. As such they keep on fooling the ...: https://tumia.org/en/directory/en/instance.php?tiname=The%20Parasitic%20System%202023-12-13:%20Lets%20Deflate%20the%20Parasitic%20System!&relationship=All&drsid=0&pisid=0&page=1#tm_fakeopp

Video Transcript AI Summary
Tumia March 2024 explains that deflation is needed because of fake controlled opposition—illusory puppets pretending to oppose the illiterion puppets on the other side, but in fact both sides advancing the same agenda of totalitarian control for their illiterion masters. This structure fooling the people hides the most important truths and pushes the totalitarian control agenda of their illiterion masters. The argument continues that without deflating this parasitic system, fake, controlled opposition will always be bribed and/or blackmailed to effectively keep control of the narrative and the people’s perception. In large-scale systems, there is no real democratic choice and there never will be. The proposed solution is: “Let’s deflate the parasitic system.” David Ick is cited: “Trump doubles down on support for COVID fake vaccines and boosters despite outcry from conservatives.” The speaker asks, “Are you getting it yet Trump supporters?” and contends, “He was a fraud all along as I have said since 2016 and he has been leading you to glorious failure for the masters that own him.” The assertion is that no politician will get us out of this, and “We have to do it.” Catherine Austin Fitz is referenced: “Trump put $10 billion dollars into a program to depopulate The US.” The message ends with an instruction to “Please like and follow,” and provides the source: tumia.org.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Tumia March 2024. Why deflate? Because of fake controlled opposition. Fake opposition, illiterion puppets pretending to oppose the illiterion puppets on the other side, but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of totalitarian control and for their controlling illiterion masters. As such, they keep on fooling the people, hiding the most important truths and advance more and more the totalitarian control agenda of their illiterion masters. Why deflate? Otherwise, fake, controlled opposition will always be bribed and or blackmailed to effectively keep control of the narrative, the people's perception. So in these large scale systems, there is no real democratic choice and there never will be. What's the solution then? Let's deflate the parasitic system. David Ick, Trump doubles down on support for COVID fake vaccines and boosters despite outcry from conservatives. Are you getting it yet Trump supporters? He was a fraud all along as I have said since 2016 and he has been leading you to glorious failure for the masters that own him. No politician is going to get us out of this. We have to do it. Catherine Austin Fitz, Trump put $10 billion dollars into a program to depopulate The US. Please like and follow. Source, tumia.org.
the parasitic system 2023-12-13: lets deflate the parasitic system! @ Tumia - the Objectoriented Internet Directory - Page 0 of 0 the parasitic system 2023-12-13: lets deflate the parasitic system! @ Tumia - the Objectoriented Internet Directory - Page 0 of 0 tumia.org

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

If I extrapolate my estimate for 2022 to 2023 and 2024 I get in total 41milj excess deaths since the covid gentech "vax" rollout. Adding the 9milj from the covid killing protocols in 2020 gives a total of 50milj excess deaths (for 5 yrs). By country(47): https://tumia.org/en/directory/en/instance.php?tiname=Covid%20World%202022-10-09:%203%20Years%20of%20Cov-Vaccine%20Bioweapons:%20Estimated%20Extra%20Deaths%2031M-Adv.%20Eff.%201.9B&relationship=All&drsid=0&pisid=0&page=1

Video Transcript AI Summary
The article COVID world 10/09/2022 presents estimates of extra deaths and serious adverse effects attributable to a three-year period of SARS CoV-two virus and vaccine bioweapons. The 10/09/2022 estimates report thirty-one million extra deaths and one point nine billion serious adverse effects over three years. Two main differences with the previous estimates (10/01/2022) are: first, eleven countries, for about 600,000,000 people, were added to the estimate base data, making the current estimate base data consist of 47 countries for about 2,300,000,000 people; second, for estimating serious adverse effects the extra deaths of 2021 and 2022 are taken fully into account as input instead of half in the previous estimates. The extra deaths estimates for 2020, 2021, and 2022 are based on officially reported and factual deaths in the countries listed in the table, with sources from Our World in Data (appendix references). Extra deaths (ED for 2020, ED21 for 2021, and ED22 for 2022) are calculated as the difference between the factual total deaths in the concerned year. Missing months of the incomplete 2022 year are estimated by extrapolating the monthly average of all known months from January 2021 onward. The yearly evolution uses a corrected average of the five preceding years (2015 to 2019). The yearly correction factor is 0.75%, calculated from the evolution of the sum of deaths of all countries from 2015 to 2019. For 2020 ED the correction factor 0.75% was applied three times (reference year 2017) to the five-year average; for 2021 ED, four times; for 2022 ED, five times. The extra deaths estimates thus reflect excess deaths after correcting for expected yearly evolution and expected yearly without the mass vaccination and COVID bioweapons. To compute the world totals: for 2020 ED, the ED100 ks extra deaths per 100k people by country are calculated and aggregated to 112 extra deaths per 100k people, applied to the world population to yield nine million extra deaths in 2020, the first year with the COVID bioweapon deployed. For 2021 ED, the ED21M doses (extra deaths per million doses) are calculated and aggregated to 961 extra deaths per million doses, applied to global doses to yield twelve point one million extra deaths in 2021, the first year with the vaccine bioweapon and second year with the COVID bioweapon deployed. For 2022 ED, the ED22M doses (extra deaths per million doses) are calculated and aggregated to 763 extra deaths per million doses, applied to global doses to yield nine point six million extra deaths in 2022, the second year with the vaccine bioweapon and third year with the COVID bioweapon deployed. The estimate for people with serious adverse effects is calculated by multiplying the estimated extra deaths in 2021 and 2022 by an estimated ratio of reported adverse effects to reported deaths after COVID vaccination, which is 87.6, derived from a table of estimated probabilities after COVID vaccination for all ages. This results in an estimated one point one billion serious adverse effects for 2021 and zero point eight billion for 2022. Considering the estimated thirty-one million extra deaths and estimated one point nine billion serious adverse effects for three years, the text asserts that terms such as bioweaponized, propagandized, lured, coerced and mandated depopulation and genocide should not be taboo. It further posits about ten million extra deaths yearly worldwide since 2020, projecting one hundred ten million extra deaths by the end of 2030 if these trends continue. The text acknowledges that if data are far off target or data are faulty, the current estimates and trends could be seriously unvalidated. It attributes censorship and a lack of truthful science in mainstream media and tech platforms to propounding that SARS CoV-two is naturally evolved, while claiming truthful science proves SARS CoV-two is designed and made by humans in a biolab. It asserts that the genetic code of SARS CoV-two contains lab-made inserts (PRRA, HIVGP120) that are too large and too numerous, and that these inserts only appear in other natural viruses that are genetically distant. It references a substantial trail of documents and testimonies before and after the release of SARS CoV-two about these genetic codes and the needed biochemical technology, including financing, scientific documents, and patents. Specific sources and figures are noted, including Doctor Richard Fleming, MD, sworn testimony that COVID-19 is a bioweapon; Doctor Fleming on Montanier's discovery of HIV and spiked protein; Veritas Revelation Project materials; and claims that the virus comes from a lab. It also mentions Genentech COVID vaccines causing human cells to produce large amounts of toxic spike protein in multiple organs and tissues, and asserts these vaccines are bioweapons with additional components and contaminations causing health damage. The article is attributed to Pak Osmol, dated 10/09/2022, with Appendix A citing Our World in Data Excess Mortality Raw Death Count as the data source.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: COVID world 10/09/2022, estimated extra deaths thirty one million and estimated serious adverse effects one point nine billion for three years of SARS CoV-two virus and vaccine bioweapons. The two main differences with the previous estimates on 10/01/2022 are the following: First, 11 countries, for about 600,000,000 people, were added to the estimate base data. As such, the current estimate base data consists of 47 countries for about 2,300,000,000 people. This makes the current estimates more representative for the whole world. Second, for estimating the serious adverse effects the extra deaths of 2021 and 2022 are taken fully into account as input instead of half in the previous estimates. The extra deaths estimates for 2020, 2021, and 2022 are based on officially reported and factual deaths in the countries mentioned in the table below. For the source of all the used data see the Our World and Data links in the appendix. Extra deaths (see columns twenty twenty ED, twenty twenty one ED, and twenty twenty two ED in the table below) are calculated as the difference of the factual number of total deaths in the concerned year. The missing months of the incomplete 2022 year are estimated by extrapolation of the monthly average of all known months from January 2021 on. The for yearly evolution corrected average of the five preceding years 2015 to 2019. The yearly correction factor used is 0.75% and was calculated based on the evolution of the sum of deaths of all countries below in 2015 to 2019. For the 2020 ED estimate the correction factor 0.75 was three times (reference year twenty seventeen) applied on the five year average, for 2021 ED four times and for 2022 ED five times. In other words, the extra deaths estimates are in fact the excess deaths after correction for an expected yearly evolution and expected yearly without the mass vaccination and COVID bioweapons. Then to calculate the 2020 ED estimate for the world, first the column ED100 ks extra deaths per 100 ks people of the country is calculated. Then this column is aggregated which results in 112 extra deaths per 100 ks people. The latter value is applied on the world population which results into nine million extra deaths in 2020, the first year with the COVID bioweapon deployed. To calculate the 2021 ED estimate for the world, first the column ED21M doses, extra deaths per million doses given in the country, is calculated. This column is aggregated which results in nine sixty one extra deaths per million doses. The latter value is applied on the world doses which results into twelve point one million extra deaths in 2021, the first year with the vaccine bioweapon and second year with the COVID bioweapon deployed. To calculate the 2022 ED estimate for the world, first the column ED22M doses, extra deaths per million doses given in the country, is calculated. This column is aggregated which results in seven sixty three extra deaths per million doses. The latter value is applied on the world doses which results into nine point six million extra deaths in 2022, the second year with the vaccine bioweapon and third year with the COVID bioweapon deployed. Press CTRL plus four more image detail below. The estimate for people with serious adverse effects is calculated by multiplying the estimated extra deaths in 2021 and 2022 by an estimated ratio reported adverse effectsreported deaths after COVID vaccination. The ratio used is 87.6 and was calculated from the table Estimated probabilities after COVID vaccination for all ages in the article below. This results in an estimated one point one billion serious adverse effects for 2021 and zero point eight billion for 2022. Considering the estimated thirty one million extra deaths and estimated one point nine billion serious adverse effects for three years of deployed SARS CoV-two virus and vaccine bioweapons the words bioweaponized, propagandized, lured, coerced and mandated depopulation and genocide should not be taboo. Furthermore, there are about ten million extra deaths yearly worldwide since 2020. If these extra deaths are continued this will result in one hundred and ten million extra deaths by the end of 2030 from these bioweapons since 2020. For the sake of estimating, certain assumptions about the domain were introduced. If one or some of those assumptions would be far off target, for example as more data becomes available and is integrated in the estimation or some data appears faulty, the current estimates and trends could be seriously unvalidated. Because of the mass propaganda, corrupted science, lack of truthful science and censorship in the mainstream media and on tech platforms, thus the elites, many people still think SARS CoV-two is a naturally evolved virus. Truthful science though proves beyond any doubt SARS CoV-two is designed and made by humans in a biolab. After all and first of all, science shows the genetic code of SARS CoV-two contains several lab made inserts, not natural mutations or recombinations of natural viruses. Because these inserted codes PRRA (HIVGP120) are much too large and too many, and because these genetic codes only appear in other natural viruses that are genetically much too different from SARS CoV-two, the probability that SARS CoV-two has naturally mutated or recombined from other natural viruses is quasi zero. Furthermore, there exists a substantial trail of documents and testimonies, years before and after the release of SARS CoV-two about these genetic codes and the existing biochemical technology needed to insert them, financing of the research, scientific documents, patents. See the links below for sources and science. Doctor. Richard M. Fleming, MD, sworn testimony that COVID-nineteen is a bioweapon. Doctor. Richard Fleming on Montanier's discovery of HIV and spiked protein. The virus comes from a lab, appears from the Veritas Revelation Project. Are our scientists lying to us? SARS CoV-two is likely a lab construct. The origin of SARS CoV-two. Since the Genentech COVID vaccines make the human body cells produced during months up to years huge amounts of the toxic spike protein of SARS CoV-two, In fact in all organs and tissues much greater amounts than the average, dominantly only mucosal, infection with SARS CoV-two itself which for the majority of healthy unvaccinated people causes hardly any illness, just cold like symptoms, these Genentech COVID vaccines are of course themselves bioweapons and much worse than the virus itself. Furthermore, not only the produced toxic spike protein but also other components and contaminations of these vaccines are cause of serious health damage. See the links below for information about the devastating effects of the COVID vaccine bioweapons. Images, press CTRL plus for more image detail. The article COVID World 10/09/2022, estimated extra deaths thirty one million and estimated serious adverse effects 1,900,000,000 for three years of SARS CoV-two virus and vaccine bioweapons was written by Pak Osmol, 10/09/2022. Appendix A Data Source. Our World in Data Excess Mortality Raw Death Count. Click the Download tab below the graph on the displayed page. Downloaded CSV September 2022 from Our World in Data Excess Mortality Raw Death Count. Right click the link and then Save Link As.
covid world 2022-10-09: 3 years of cov-vaccine bioweapons: estimated extra deaths 31m-adv. eff. 1.9b @ Tumia - the Objectoriented Internet Directory - Page 0 of 0 covid world 2022-10-09: 3 years of cov-vaccine bioweapons: estimated extra deaths 31m-adv. eff. 1.9b @ Tumia - the Objectoriented Internet Directory - Page 0 of 0 tumia.org

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

If I extrapolate my estimate for 2022 to 2023+half of 2024 I get in total 36mil excess deaths since the covid "vax" rollout. Adding the 9mil from the covid killing protocols in 2020 gives a total of 44mil (4.5 yrs). By country(47): https://rumble.com/v4g1d6o-estimated-31mil-excess-deaths-1.9bil-adverse-effects-for-3-yrs-of-sars-cov-.html https://tumia.org/en/directory/en/instance.php?tiname=Covid%20World%202022-10-09:%203%20Years%20of%20Cov-Vaccine%20Bioweapons:%20Estimated%20Extra%20Deaths%2031M-Adv.%20Eff.%201.9B&relationship=All&drsid=0&pisid=0&page=1

Estimated 31mil Excess Deaths+1.9bil Adverse Effects for 3 Yrs of Sars-Cov-2+Vaccine Bioweapons Covid World 2022-10-09: Estimated Extra Deaths 31 Million and Estimated Serious Adverse Effects 1.9 Billion for 3 Years of Covid Killing Protocols, Sars-Cov-2 Virus and Vaccine Bioweapons: https://tum rumble.com
covid world 2022-10-09: 3 years of cov-vaccine bioweapons: estimated extra deaths 31m-adv. eff. 1.9b @ Tumia - the Objectoriented Internet Directory - Page 0 of 0 covid world 2022-10-09: 3 years of cov-vaccine bioweapons: estimated extra deaths 31m-adv. eff. 1.9b @ Tumia - the Objectoriented Internet Directory - Page 0 of 0 tumia.org

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

@SteviesQuotes Nep-oppositie is van alle tijden en geen toeval:

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

Nep-oppositie: elitaire marionetten die doen alsof ze zich verzetten tegen de elitaire marionetten aan de andere kant ... . Audio-video versie (Engels): https://rumble.com/v575riz-fake-opposition-elitarian-puppets-pretending-to-oppose.html Geschreven versie (Engels): https://tumia.org/en/directory/en/instance.php?tiname=The%20Parasitic%20System%202023-12-13:%20Lets%20Deflate%20the%20Parasitic%20System!&relationship=All&drsid=0&pisid=0&page=1#tm_fakeopp

the parasitic system 2023-12-13: lets deflate the parasitic system! @ Tumia - the Objectoriented Internet Directory - Page 0 of 0 the parasitic system 2023-12-13: lets deflate the parasitic system! @ Tumia - the Objectoriented Internet Directory - Page 0 of 0 tumia.org

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

Nep-oppositie: elitaire marionetten die doen alsof ze zich verzetten tegen de elitaire marionetten aan de andere kant ... . Audio-video versie (Engels): https://rumble.com/v575riz-fake-opposition-elitarian-puppets-pretending-to-oppose.html Geschreven versie (Engels): https://tumia.org/en/directory/en/instance.php?tiname=The%20Parasitic%20System%202023-12-13:%20Lets%20Deflate%20the%20Parasitic%20System!&relationship=All&drsid=0&pisid=0&page=1#tm_fakeopp

the parasitic system 2023-12-13: lets deflate the parasitic system! @ Tumia - the Objectoriented Internet Directory - Page 0 of 0 the parasitic system 2023-12-13: lets deflate the parasitic system! @ Tumia - the Objectoriented Internet Directory - Page 0 of 0 tumia.org

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@TPV_John - The Patriot Voice

It looks like the whole “MAHA” deal was just a clever cover for bringing in total AI governance into healthcare and FDA oversight… What? You thought that MAHA would be the END of mRNA COVID jabs, and a return to a truly healthier America? THINK AGAIN.

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@EtienneJansen - Etienne Jansen

@SecKennedy Why are NRNA and MMR biochemical weapons still used today as we speak?!

@SenseReceptor - Sense Receptor

RFK Jr. knows the COVID death jabs constitute mass murder. He’s called them “mass murder” verbatim. He’s now in a position of authority where he can halt them unilaterally, without any action from FDA. He must stop the “mass murder” Trump started.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The attorney (Speaker 0) opens by expressing frustration that pandemic-era liability protections—the PREP Act, the CARE Act, and the 1986 VICA Vaccine Act—grant broad immunity to the actors involved, effectively shielding them from liability and allowing what he calls “mass murder.” He asks Sacha whether there are obvious legal avenues to sue Pfizer and obtain redress for what he views as illegal acts, given this shield of immunity. Sacha (Speaker 1) replies that neither he nor his colleagues discourage attempts to sue Pfizer due to the fraud allegations they’ve identified. He notes, however, that nobody knows exactly what will break through the immunity barrier, so they should try different approaches. He outlines the current landscape: the defense Pfizer will likely raise is that they did not defraud the government, but merely delivered fraud that the government ordered. He references a concrete example in Brooke Jackson’s case, where Pfizer filed a motion to dismiss in April, arguing the fraud claim centered on delivering government-ordered fraud rather than perpetrating it independently. Sacha emphasizes that while the case may be dismissed, it has not been yet. If a future dismissal occurs, the admission would be valuable, and the goal is to elicit admissions in court. He suggests that they need to prove, by any admissible method, that there was explicit U.S. government policy to commit mass murder and genocide, or that certain individuals—Robert Kodlek, Peter Marks, Fauci, and others—were rogue actors acting outside their authority. In other words, the objective is to obtain explicit statements or admissions that could substantiate claims of government-directed action or unauthorized conduct by specific individuals, to challenge the immunity and pursue redress.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alright. Well, I'm gonna let you go, Sacha. But before I do, I'm an attorney. I try to figure out ways to sue people like this. And, you know, the one of the frustrating things during this pandemic is that the PREP Act, the CARE Act, and the 1986 VICA Vaccine Act have all bestowed broad immunity from liability under all of these actors. So they're getting away literally with murder, with AM, with mass murder. They're getting away with it because they have been given this bubble of this shield of immunity from liability. You have an expertise in corporate liability. As a corporate liability officer, do you see any obvious ways where somebody like me can file a lawsuit and get redressed for some of these, illegal acts? Speaker 1: Yeah. So, first of all, neither me nor my colleagues, discourage anyone from doing just that, to just going after Pfizer because of all the fraud that they have committed. I think what the the problem is we're all having, we don't know exactly what's going to crack that that wall, but we have to attempt different ways. Now the yes, we can try going after Pfizer. I'm just saying, you know, here's the lay of the land. This is the the defense they're going to invoke. They already invoked it in Brooke Jackson's case. They're saying we did not defraud the government. We delivered the fraud that the government ordered. And that's a even Speaker 0: Which gay oh, in Brooke Jackson. Speaker 1: In Brooke Jackson's in April, they filed motion to dismiss. So and while, you know, the case may be dismissed it hasn't been dismissed. But in let's say in the future, it gets dismissed because because of this. That admission alone is priceless, and we need to elicit these admissions in court. They need to tell us ultimately ultimately through whatever method we're going to to go after. Ultimately, they they need to tell us it's an explicit US government policy to commit mass murder and genocide, or these were rogue actors, these people, Robert Kodlek, Peter Marx, you know, Fauci, whoever. You know, these specific individuals, they were rogue actors and acting outside of their authority. Speaker 0: So

@SenseReceptor - Sense Receptor

RFK Jr. knows the COVID death jabs constitute mass murder. He’s called them “mass murder” verbatim. He’s now in a position of authority where he can halt them unilaterally, without any action from FDA. He must stop the “mass murder” Trump started.

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@MODUSCUNTO - MR. NICE GUY (really trying) - d0xC

@AdameMedia

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@TPV_John - The Patriot Voice

This is a MASSIVE DISTRACTION from the fact that Trump is getting absolutely GRILLED on all sides for teaming up with Palantir to create a database of all Americans. What better way to attempt to get people to stop talking about that, than to share something absolutely fringe and outlandish on his official Truth Social account. People will now forget about the digital prison being constructed for them, chasing mindless rabbit holes about Biden. See how easy that was?

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@HighImpactFlix - HighImpactFlix

NEW VIDEO: Trump just handed TOTAL CONTROL over EVERY AMERICAN to a private company.

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@DrLoupis__ - Dr. Anastasia Maria Loupis

What's going on?

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

Fake opposition of fo actually cooperate to create real sources for division+hate between people. Fe open borders for mass immigration, war, ... . Lets deflate their system and handle those real sources with care+love. See parent tweet video+its replies.

@NightwatchN8 - Nightwatch N8

The two party illusion is the biggest time-waster on the planet

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

Fake opposition of fo actually cooperate to create real sources for division+hate between people. Fe open borders for mass immigration, war, ... . Lets deflate their system and handle those real sources with care+love. See parent tweet video+its replies.

@deSunShineBand - CS

Markeer dit. Bewaar dit. Onthoud dit. Kijk er vaak naar. Leer het. Begrijp het. Pak het vast. Geloof het. En vergeet het nooit. Nooit. Dit is de waarheid. De waarheid die voor je verborgen wordt gehouden. De MSM willen nooit dat je de waarheid weet. Ze willen oorlog. En de dood.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 argues that this is not an attack by Putin on Ukraine in the way it is commonly framed. The speaker references 1990, stating that on 02/09/1990 James Baker III told Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move eastward if Germany unified, and that Gorbachev agreed, ending World War II. The speaker asserts that the US then cheated starting in 1994 when Clinton signed off on a plan to expand NATO all the way to Ukraine, marking the rise of the neocons and identifying Clinton as the first agent of this. NATO expansion began in 1999 with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, at which point Russia did not see a direct threat. The speaker notes the US-led bombing of Serbia in 1999 as problematic, describing it as NATO bombing Belgrade for seventy-eight straight days to break the country apart, which Russia did not like. Putin became president, and the Russians initially tolerated and complained but were largely subdued. The speaker claims Putin started out pro-European and pro-American, even suggesting joining NATO when there was some mutual respect. After 9/11 and the Afghan conflict, Russia supported the effort to root out terror. Two decisive actions are highlighted: in 2002, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, described as perhaps the most decisive event rarely discussed in this context. This led to the US placing missile systems in Eastern Europe, which Russia views as a direct threat. The speaker mentions a soft regime change operation in Ukraine in 2004-2005, followed by Yanukovych winning the election in 2009 and becoming president in 2010 on the basis of neutrality for Ukraine. This calmed tensions because the US was pushing NATO, while Ukrainian public opinion reportedly did not want NATO membership, citing a divided country between ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians and a desire to stay away from certain conflicts. In 02/22/2014, the United States allegedly participated in the overthrow of Yanukovych, described as a typical US regime change operation. The Russians supposedly intercepted a call between Victoria Nuland (then at the State Department, now at Columbia University) and Jeffrey Piot, the US ambassador to Ukraine, discussing who would be in the next government. The speaker asserts that after these events, the US said NATO would enlarge, while Putin repeatedly warned to stop, noting that promises were made not to enlarge NATO. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia are listed as having joined NATO in 2004, before the broader enlargement. The speaker accuses the US of rejecting the basic idea of not expanding NATO to Russia’s border while placing missile systems after breaking a treaty, including walking out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019. On 12/15/2021, Putin allegedly proposed a draft Russia-US security agreement with no NATO enlargement, which the speaker says he communicated to the White House, urging negotiations to avoid war. The speaker claims Jake Sullivan asserted an open-door policy for NATO enlargement, calling it “bullshit,” and asserts that they refused negotiations, leading to the special military operation, with Zelensky offering neutrality and Western leaders pushing Ukraine to fight, resulting in “600,000 deaths now of Ukrainians.”
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is not an attack by Putin on Ukraine in the way that we are told every day. This started in 1990. 02/09/1990, James Baker the third, our secretary of state, said to Mikhail Gorbachev, NATO will not move one inch eastward if you agree to German unification, basically ending World War two. And, Gorbachev said that's very important. Yes. NATO doesn't move, and we agree to German unification. The US then cheated on this already starting in 1994 when Clinton signed off on a, basically, a plan to expand NATO all the way to Ukraine. This is when the so called neocons took power, and, Clinton was the first agent of this. And the expansion of NATO started in 1999 with Poland, Hungary, and Czech Republic. At that point, Russia didn't much care. There was no border other than with the Konigsberg, but other than that, there was no direct threat. Then, The US, led the bombing of Serbia in 1999. That was bad, by the way, because that was a use of NATO to bomb a European capital, Belgrade, seventy eight straight days to break the country apart. The Russians didn't like that very much. But Putin became president. They swallowed it. They complained. But, even Putin started out pro European, pro American actually asked, maybe we should join NATO when there was still the idea of some kind of mutually respectful relationship. Then nine eleven came, then came Afghanistan, and the Russians said, yeah, we'll support you. We understand to root out terror. But then came two other decisive actions. In 2002, The United States unilaterally walked out of the anti ballistic missile treaty. This was probably the most decisive event never discussed in this context, But what it did was trigger The US putting in missile systems in Eastern Europe that Russia views as a dire direct threat. In 02/1945, we engaged in a soft regime change operation in Ukraine. But in 2009, Yanukovych won the election, and he became president in 2010 on the basis of neutrality for Ukraine. That calmed things down because The US was pushing NATO, but the people of Ukraine on the opinion polls didn't even wanna be a NATO. They knew that the country is divided between ethnic Ukrainian, ethnic Russian. What do we want with this? We wanna stay away from your problems. So in 02/22/2014, The United States participated actively in the overthrow of Yanukovych, A typical US regime change operation, have no doubt about it. And the Russians did us a favor. They intercepted a really ugly call between Victoria Nuland, my colleague at Columbia University now, between her and, The US ambassador to Ukraine, Jeffrey Piot, who's a senior state department official till today, and they talked about regime change. They said, who's gonna be the next government? All of this is to say, The US then said, okay. Now NATO's really gonna enlarge, and Putin kept saying, stop. You promised no NATO enlargement. It's been, by the way, I forgot to mention in 2004, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovia, Slovakia, Slovenia, seven more countries in the not one inch eastward. And then okay. It's a long story, but The US kept rejecting the basic idea, don't expand NATO to Russia's border in a context where we're putting in goddamn missile systems after breaking a treaty. 2019, we walked out of the intermediate nuclear force treaty. On 12/15/2021, Putin put on the table a draft Russia US security agreement. You can find it online. The basis of it is no NATO enlargement. I called the White House that next week after that, begging them, take the negotiations. Putin's offered something. Avoid this war. Oh, Jeff, there's not gonna be a war. Announce that NATO's not gonna enlarge. Oh, don't worry. NATO's not gonna enlarge. I said, oh, you're gonna have a war over something that's not gonna happen? Why don't you announce them? He said, no. No. Our policy is an open door. This is Jake Sullivan. Our policy is an open door policy. Open door for NATO enlargement. That is under the category of bullshit, by the way. You don't have your right to put your military bases anywhere you want and expect peace in this world. They turned down the negotiations, then the special military operation started, and five days later, Zelensky says, okay. Okay. Neutrality. And then The United States and Britain said, no way. You guys fight on. We got your back. We don't have your front. You're all gonna die. But we got your back as we kept pushing them into the front lines. That's 600,000 deaths now of Ukrainians since Boris Johnson flew to Kyiv to tell them to be brave.

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

Fake opposition of fo actually cooperate to create real sources for division+hate between people. Fe open borders for mass immigration, war,.. . Lets not take their trap solution+handle those real sources with care+love. See parent tweet video+its replies.

@Spiro_Ghost - Spiro

To those calling for the military to be deployed to LA... That is EXACTLY what the ones pulling the strings want! Problem - Reaction - Solution... Don't fall for it!

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@RealDrJaneRuby - DR JANE RUBY™️

🚨‼️🚨BREAKING: THIS FILTHY LYING MURDERER KENNEDY'S FDA JUST APPROVED Merck’s RSV Shot for NEWBORNS -- 12% Of The Newborns Suffered Serious Adverse Events, Including DEATH Let me explain for those unfamiliar with pharmaceutical drug development. A Rate Of >2% SAEs Greater Than Placebo IS A NO GO!!!!! The rate of newborn death from RSV, is listed as 1/28. The SAE/Death rate from this shot is 1/11. Newborns are TWICE as likely to die from the shot as the infection. Results posted at http://ClinicalTrials.gov included serious neurological adverse reactions! Those of you listed here continue to suck his up to Kennedy's butt while he is murdering children FFS!! The murder of American babies must end now!!! @ChildrensHD @MdBreathe @RWMaloneMD @BusyDrT @DrMakaryFDA @SecKennedy @BretWeinstein @maryhollandnyc

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@RealDrJaneRuby - DR JANE RUBY™️

How can @RWMaloneMD vote objectively on vaccine recommendations at @US_FDA when he owns patents and other business interests in vaccines, especially mRNA injections? @wapo @washingtonpost @SecKennedy @NicoleShanahan @realDonaldTrump

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@RealDrJaneRuby - DR JANE RUBY™️

Let's see how this tweet ages... June 18, 2025: I predict the new Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices ACIP that was recently appointed by @SecKennedy to review vaccines WILL RECOMMEND (aka approve) the Self-Amplifying mRNA shots 👀

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@RealDrJaneRuby - DR JANE RUBY™️

🚨 ALERT: @SenRandPaul's COVID CRIME AMNESTY AND APOLOGY TOUR HAS BEGUN Like all 535 members, Sen Paul is a walking pus filled corrupted piece of self-enriching traitorous scum who is re-installed over and over by the machine.

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@RealDrJaneRuby - DR JANE RUBY™️

BREAKING: Kennedy’s ACIP vaccine advisory concluded the meeting today with, "mRNA vaccines ARE SAFE" If you don't see the real problem, we'll never find the real solution

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@ricwe123 - Richard

The CIA Director smirks and exhales like a man watching his plan fall perfectly into place as Trump rolls out yet another round of weapons for Ukraine. John Ratcliffe’s face says it all,this was the plan all along. The Deep State hasn’t lost an ounce of control, and Trump is just another puppet parroting their agenda. Exactly the kind of predictable move Putin saw coming a mile away.....

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker states that there are plans to send more weapons to Ukraine, confirming that the country will receive additional arms. The speaker emphasizes that this action is necessary: “We have to. They they have to be able to defend themselves.” The speaker asserts that Ukraine is being attacked and hit hard, describing the situation with repetition to underscore the intensity: “They're getting hit very hard now,” followed by “They're getting hit very hard.” The speaker reiterates the need for further weapon deliveries, saying, “We're gonna have to send more weapons.” The emphasis is on defensive capabilities, with a clear indication that the weapons being sent are primarily defensive in nature: “Your defensive weapons primarily.” Throughout, the message conveys that the defense of Ukraine requires continued and increased military support in the form of weapons, due to the heavy blows Ukraine is sustaining.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Are you planning to send more weapons to Ukraine? We're gonna send some more weapons. We have to. They they have to be able to defend themselves. They're getting hit very hard now. They're getting hit very hard. We're gonna have to send more weapons. Your defensive weapons primarily, but they're getting hit very, very hard.

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@OwenShroyer1776 - Owen Shroyer

Political Bizarro World

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker describes a perceived flip in the political dynamic around the Epstein files, calling the current moment “political bizarro world.” They observe that on the right, voices now say to move on from the Epstein files, treating it as no big deal, while on the left, voices push for releasing and declassifying the files, with Democrats even attempting to force a floor vote. The speaker notes that during the Trump era, Epstein was a campaign issue, with Trump and several administration members stressing the importance and urgency of releasing the files, and even FBI director Cash Patel reportedly saying it should be the number-one priority. The speaker claims that a majority of Trump voters would have supported releasing the Epstein files on day one, and asserts that this topic was once central to Trump’s political base. In contrast, they point out that in the present moment, the right is urging no action and the left is demanding action, highlighting a stark reversal in public and media positions. Media coverage is described as contradictory to the past: the speaker says CNN and MSNBC are now treating the Epstein files as their biggest story, with Democrats actively calling for declassification and release. They cite Democrats writing songs and posting on social media to advocate for release, suggesting an active and vocal push from the left. A year earlier, the speaker contends, the situation was reversed: right-wing figures demanded the Epstein files, Republican Trump-era officials supported it, and Democrats were largely silent or dismissed the issue as conspiracy theory for involving Bill Clinton. Now, the speaker argues, Democrats are pursuing release while Trump-related figures and right-wing elements retort with resistance or minimal engagement. The speaker uses the juxtaposition to argue that politicians, down to voters, appear highly controlled and capable of swiftly switching sides on the Epstein issue, illustrating broader impressions of partisan manipulation. They suggest broader themes such as “no new wars,” “no new foreign entanglements,” and “no new strikes” as possible contexts for the shifting narratives, alongside reactions to Iran-related actions and Middle East involvement, though they acknowledge these as speculative links. Ultimately, the speaker emphasizes how drastic the shift around the Epstein files feels, labeling it the most political bizarro-world moment and, in their view, a return to “clown world”—now in an inverted, bizarro form.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alright. We are now officially in political bizarro world. Now I was gonna post on x about this, but I started to type it out and I realized this is so weird. I can't even really put it into text. So I'll just go ahead and shoot a short video. We are in political bizarro world. What am I talking about? You now have the right wing saying to move on from the Epstein files. Nothing to see here. Forget about it. No big deal. And you have the left wing now talking about the Epstein files, demanding their release, even Democrats trying to take it to a vote on the floor of the house to get them declassified. What? On the campaign, Trump talked about the Epstein files multiple times and releasing them. Multiple members of his administration talked about the importance, the utmost importance of the Epstein files and releasing them. Some, including FBI director Cash Patel, said it should be the number one priority, demanded it be done day one. I would say the majority of Trump voters would have said, yes. Epstein files day one. It was literally a campaign issue. And now a lot of these voices in the Trump world on the right wing are saying move on. Nothing to see here. Meanwhile, I tune in to CNN last night. I tune in to MSNBC last night. And what is their biggest story? The Epstein files. And they're demanding the Epstein files. I've got democrats writing songs and posting them on their social media demanding the Epstein files be released. What? What is going on? A year ago, it was the exact opposite. A year ago, it was right wingers demanding the Epstein files, writing songs, all this stuff, Republicans, Trump now administration members, and the Democrats were silent. Or they would call it a conspiracy theorist because he talked about Bill Clinton on the list. Now you have the Democrats in a full forced effort to try to get the files released, and it's the Trump administration and the right wing stopping it and saying nothing to see here. What in the world? And you know what it really shows? It shows how controlled both sides are from from the politicians all the way down to the constituents, to the voters, to the people. It shows how everything is controlled, that just like that, all of a sudden, people just change sides. So we went from the right being give us the Epstein files to now the left being give us the Epstein files. And, you know, there's a couple different issues you could say maybe tie into this bizarro world like no new wars, no new foreign entanglements, no new strikes, and then the Iran strikes and and more involvement in the Middle East and Trump people kind of trying to make excuses or switch for that. But that's just I don't know. You could even say maybe that's politics is normal. There has been nothing more political bizarro world than the switch on the Epstein files. It is shocking. Now let me just say this. If this had happened a year ago when Biden was in the White House and the Democrats had the Senate and the Democrats had the House and Biden said, we're not gonna do the Epstein files, and Biden's FBI said, we're not gonna do the Epstein files, and Biden's attorney general said, we're not gonna do the Epstein files, and then Republicans tried to get a vote to declassify the Epstein files and the Democrats shut it down, what would you be saying as a Trump voter? What would you be saying as a right winger? What would you be saying as a conservative? Don't tell me you wouldn't be outraged. Don't tell me you wouldn't say Joe Biden was covering it up. Don't tell me you wouldn't be screaming how the Democrats are covering up sex trafficking. Of course, you would. But, oh, because it's Trump and the Republicans, now you're okay with it. And if you're already making excuses as to why you're okay with it now or, oh, it's Trump and not Biden, then yet again, it shows how we're in political bizarro world and it shows how easily controlled both sides of the political aisle are. Clown world. I thought we left clown world. We're right back in it, Except now it's bizarro form.

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@NoLieWithBTC - No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen

There it is. Republicans just BLOCKED the release of the Epstein Files.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The amendment was put to a vote. Those in favor signified by saying aye; those opposed say no. The chair ruled the noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call was requested. The roll call results were: - Missus Fishbach: No - Mister Norman: Yes - Mister Roy: No - Missus Houchin: No - Mister Langworthy: No - Mister Scott: No - Mister Griffith: No - Mister Jack: No - Mister McGovern: Aye - Miss Gantlin: Aye - Mister Nugoose: Aye - Miss Ledger Fernandez: Aye - Madam chair: No The clerk reported the total as 5 yeas and 7 nays. The amendment remains not agreed to. The chair indicated that what’s appropriate will be released when it is time for the president to release it.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hearing none, the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. No. No. In the opinion chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed. Speaker 1: I'm kinda shocked by that. I will ask for a roll call. Speaker 0: The clerk will call the roll. Speaker 1: Missus Fishbach? No. Missus Fishbach, no. Mister Norman? Yeah. Mister Norman, I. Mister Roy, missus Houchin? No. Missus Houchin? No. Mister Langworthy? No. Mister Langworthy? No. Mister Scott? Mister Scott, no. Mister Griffith? Mister Griffith? No. Mister Jack? No. Mister Jack, no. Mister McGovern? Aye. Mister McGovern, aye. Miss Gantlin? Yes. Miss Gantlin, aye. Mister Nugoose? Yes. Mister Nugoose, aye. Miss Ledger Fernandez? Aye. Miss Ledger Fernandez, aye. Madam chair? No. Madam chair, no. The clerk will report the total. 5 yeas, seven a's. Speaker 0: The noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. And I think most of us believe what's appropriate will be released when it is time for the president to release it. Speaker 1: Well, madam Speaker 0: Thank you.

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@deSunShineBand - CS

Zou ‘t waar zijn?

Video Transcript AI Summary
Due to this villa worth over $20,000,000, no one believes Greta Thunberg anymore. She’s always publicly claimed that living modestly was her life’s goal, insisting that she rejected luxury in order to remain true to her message. But recently, journalists uncovered that this stunning villa you’re looking at now is actually registered in her name. Rumors quickly circulated that a wealthy Hollywood activist had gifted the property to Greta, but many remained doubtful. Critics argue that the funds may have come from the humanitarian campaigns she personally organized in countries around the raising serious questions about transparency. The revelation has sparked intense debate with many feeling betrayed and questioning whether Greta’s image of simplicity and sacrifice was ever real. Whether the villa was truly a gift or not, the controversy has left lasting stain on her reputation, making people wonder if her carefully built persona was just an illusion.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Because of this villa worth over $20,000,000, no one believes Greta Thunberg anymore. She's always publicly claimed that living modestly was her life's goal, insisting that she rejected luxury in order to remain true to her message. But recently, journalists uncovered that this stunning villa you're looking at now is actually registered in her name. Rumors quickly circulated that a wealthy Hollywood activist had gifted the property to Greta, but many remained doubtful. Critics argue that the funds may have come from the humanitarian campaigns she personally organized in countries around the raising serious questions about transparency. The revelation has sparked intense debate with many feeling betrayed and questioning whether Greta's image of simplicity and sacrifice was ever real. Whether the villa was truly a gift or not, the controversy has left lasting stain on her reputation, making people wonder if her carefully built persona was just an illusion.

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

From Satire To Reality - False Green Agenda & Climate Change https://www.bitchute.com/video/sVvOHRofonXi Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

From Satire To Reality - False Green Agenda & Climate Change Do it for grandma and the children... bitchute.com

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

https://t.co/rndgGtZ31Y Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@truthstreamnews - Truthstream Media

MAHA Action just deleted this new video of RFK Jr. talking about how they're developing a new universal vaccine at NIH for corona and flu which is "gonna be a much safer and more effective vaccine". Hazard a guess on why they'd do that? https://t.co/nClS18k2hS

Video Transcript AI Summary
The NIH is developing a universal vaccine that addresses the entire phylum of viruses. This vaccine mimics natural immunity and is effective against any kind of mutation. It doesn't drive the virus to mutate. The researchers believe it could be effective not only against coronaviruses but also against influenza. The vaccine is described as much safer and much more effective. The exchange then notes that Mark, did you take your question again? and Mark is prompted to ask his question.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Right now, we're developing a universal vaccine at NIH, which is a vaccine that addresses the entire phylum of viruses. And so it's a it's a vaccine that mimics natural immunity, and it and it it is effective against any kind of mutation. So it doesn't drive the virus to mutate, and it could be effective. We believe it's gonna be effective about against not only coronaviruses, but also flu. And it's gonna be a much more much safer and much more effective vaccine. Mark, did you take your question again? Now we're developing a universal vaccine at NIH, which is a vaccine that addresses the entire phylum of viruses. And so it's a it's a vaccine that mimics natural immunity, and it and it it is effective against any kind of mutation. So it doesn't drive the virus to mutate, and it could be effective. We believe it's gonna be effective about against not only coronaviruses, but also flu. And it's gonna be a much more much safer and much more effective vaccine. Mark, did you have your question?

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

https://t.co/LwMuuuhYWA Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@SenseReceptor - Sense Receptor

Insight into why Israel has a leash on Trump (IMO) "In the early '90s...Trump... declares bankruptcy... he's bailed out by Wilbur Ross... representing the Rothschild banking interests... the Rothschild family has a very long... history with Zionism and... the State of Israel." This clip of Whitney Webb (@_whitneywebb), author of One Nation Under Blackmail and contributing editor of unlimitedhangout(.)com, is taken from an interview with Kim Iversen (@KimIversenShow) posted to Rumble on August 6, 2025. ----------------Partial transcription of clip-------------- "And then in the early '90s, Trump's Atlantic City holdings, and other things, dragged down his business empire. And he declares bankruptcy, and in order to be bailed out, he's bailed out by, Wilbur Ross, who he later rewards for that when he's president, the first time making him Commerce Secretary. "But at the time, Wilbur Ross was representing the Rothschild banking interests. And the Rothschild banking interest, specifically this Wall Street M and A arm that they opened up in the '80s was responsible for bringing Robert Maxwell to New York. "So basically, you know, Trump as a business icon would not have existed beyond the early 1990s if it wasn't for the, Rothschild banking interests, who have a lot of affiliations to people and sort of, the Epstein network, and specifically Epstein's financial crimes, which include a lot of currency speculation in this, what the New York Times once called a currency speculation cabal, including people like Jimmy Goldsmith, also backed by the Rothschilds, and even George Soros, whose first, his Quantum Fund in, like, the late '60s was bankrolled by the French Rothschild interests. "And for anyone that's familiar, the Rothschild family has a very, long and storied history with Zionism and the establishment of the State of Israel and and being a major patron of that. So, you know, they've definitely had a lot of influence, I would think, over, Trump now, since he owes them a lot."

Video Transcript AI Summary
In the early 1990s, Trump’s Atlantic City Holdings and other ventures dragged down his business empire, leading to bankruptcy. To secure a bailout, he was aided by Wilbur Ross, who later became commerce secretary under Trump. At that time, Wilbur Ross represented the Rothschild banking interests. The Rothschilds, specifically the Wall Street mergers and acquisitions arm they opened in the 1980s, were responsible for bringing Robert Maxwell to New York. The narrative asserts that Trump, as a business icon, would not have existed beyond the early 1990s if it weren’t for the Rothschild banking interests, which are described as having extensive affiliations with people in the Epstein network. The transcript links Epstein’s financial crimes to currency speculation described by the New York Times as a “currency speculation cabal,” and names individuals such as Jamie Goldsmith as being backed by the Rothschilds, as well as George Soros, whose Quantum Fund in the late 1960s was bankrolled by French Rothschild interests. The account emphasizes a long and storied history between the Rothschild family and Zionism, including the establishment of the state of Israel, and portrays the Rothschilds as major patrons of that cause. It concludes by suggesting that the Rothschilds have had substantial influence over Trump, asserting that Trump owes them a great deal. Overall, the narrative draws a chain of connections: the Rothschild banking interests’ influence helped shape Trump’s rise and persistence as a prominent business figure, with Wilbur Ross’s bailout role in the 1990s serving as a pivotal link, and various high-profile financial networks—Epstein-related cohorts, currency speculation participants, and financiers like Jamie Goldsmith and George Soros—being connected to Rothschilds. It also foregrounds the Rothschilds’ historical ties to Zionism and the establishment of Israel as part of their influence, asserting that these relationships have translated into ongoing sway over Trump.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Then in the early nineties, Trump's Atlantic City Holdings, and other things dragged down his business empire, and he declares bankruptcy. And in order to be bailed out, he's bailed out by, Wilbur Ross, who he later rewards for that when he's president. The first time making him commerce secretary. But at the time, Wilbur Ross was representing the Rothschild banking interests. And the Rothschild banking interests, specifically this Wall Street m and a arm that they opened up in the eighties, was responsible for bringing Robert Maxwell to New York. So, basically, you know, Trump as a business icon would not have existed beyond the night early nineteen nineties if it wasn't for, the Rothschild banking interests, who have a lot of affiliations to people in sort of, the Epstein network and specifically Epstein's financial crimes, which include a lot of currency speculation in this, what the New York Times once called a currency speculation cabal, including people like Jamie Goldsmith also backed by the Rothschilds and even George Soros whose first, his quantum fund in, like, the late sixties was bankrolled by the French Rothschild interest. And if for anyone that's familiar, the Rothschild family has a very, long and storied history with Zionism and the establishment of the state of Israel and and being a major patron of that. So, you know, they've definitely had a lot of influence, I would think, over, Trump now since he owes them a lot. And also

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

https://t.co/VeHAF1Ik18 Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@DollarVigilante - The Dollar Vigilante

One of the most obvious CIA assets in the limelight. #TuckerCarlson https://t.co/gp5HTZhVbv

Video Transcript AI Summary
Several speakers discuss the idea that Tucker Carlson is a CIA asset. Speaker 0 argues that Carlson “is clearly a CIA asset,” noting that you don’t rise to a global audience and make money from edgy content unless you’re “in the big club.” They point to a supposed inconsistency: Carlson recently said he was shocked to discover his dad was in the CIA upon his death in March 2025, yet, “here he is in June 2024, like a year earlier, admitting his father was CIA.” They state Carlson “said he only found out in 2025 after his father died, but here he is in 2024 saying he knew his dad was CIA.” Speaker 1 adds personal details, saying, “when I applied to CIA, and I’ve taken a lot of crap including from Putin, like, you’re from a CIA family.” They acknowledge that “my father worked in conjunction with CIA,” and that they tried to join the CIA but were not being false about it, and that “he’s attacking my dad because the CIA is dad to the CIA or whatever.” They claim, “Then my father dies and I learn actually, yeah, you know, was involved in that world. I was completely shocked by it.” Speaker 0 amplifies the claim by referencing Tucker Carlson with “an ex CIA agent” who says to Carlson, “you’re a lot more on the inside than me.” They find it interesting that Carlson “is like a ex CIA agent. He’s saying Tucker Carlson’s more on the inside than he is.” They encourage listeners to pay attention to Tucker’s response, saying, “listen to Tucker’s response and I want you to pay attention this because it’s in these moments that you actually can see what’s actually going on.” Speaker 2 briefly interjects with uncertainty about deals that took place, and Speaker 1 comments that they have “not made $1 in The Middle East, not 1.” Speaker 2 says, “Well, I mean, if you’re allowed me more on the inside than I am.” Speaker 1 denies, saying, “No. No. No. I’m just a I’m just a visitor and a traveler and a watcher, but I don’t, you know.” The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking, “Did you kinda see what happened there?”
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And I think people are actually starting to catch on to what I've been saying for a long time. I've been saying this for years. Tucker Carlson is clearly a CIA asset. You don't get into Fox and, then get out and get, like, this audience of, like, the entire world and say things that are, you know, a little bit edgy and make tons of money unless you're in the big club. And it's actually starting to come out now. Like, he recently said that, he was shocked to discover his dad was in the CIA upon his death in March 2025. But here he is in June 2024, like a year earlier, admitting his father was CIA. So he said he only found out in 2025 after his father died, but here he is in 2024 saying he knew his dad was CIA. Speaker 1: And so when I applied to CIA, and I've taken a lot of crap including from Putin, like, you're from a CIA family. Well, yeah, obviously, my father worked in conjunction with CIA. I mean, that's what that is. And I tried to join the CIA, but I'm not being false about it. And he's attacking my dad because the CIA is dad to the CIA or whatever. And I'm like, well, that's no. Untrue. Then my father dies and I learn actually, yeah, you know, was involved in that world. I was completely shocked by it. Speaker 0: Like here's Tucker Carlson with an ex CIA agent and the CIA agent says to him, you're a lot more on the inside than me. That's interesting. Like, he's like a ex CIA agent. He's saying Tucker Carlson's more on the inside than he is. Listen to Tucker's response and I want you to pay attention this because it's in these moments that you actually can see what's actually going on. Speaker 2: Like, just get done also with the deals that just happened over there, or was this earlier? I don't you would probably know. Speaker 1: No. I don't know. You don't? I've not made $1 in The Middle East, not 1. Speaker 2: Well, I mean I mean, if you're allowed me more on the inside than I am. Speaker 1: And No. No. No. I'm just a I'm just a visitor and a traveler and a watcher, but I don't, you know. Speaker 0: Did you kinda see what happened there?

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

https://t.co/KmYhsJKABW Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@flatsmackin - DemonstrableReality

Think about the fact that the masses believed this and still do. 😳 https://t.co/Zs9VEa6u4G

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

https://t.co/9zUcgRbvNg Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@realstewpeters - Stew Peters

Trump just authorized FOUR NEW COVID VACCINES. https://t.co/zfLl0JZsUg

Video Transcript AI Summary
The question asked whether the president believes the COVID vaccine should be available to and covered by insurance for all Americans regardless of age and preexisting conditions. The response notes that the FDA recently revoked the emergency youth authorizations for three COVID vaccinations while simultaneously approving four new COVID-19 vaccines with 2025 and 2026 formulas. The revocation is described as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic and the public health emergency being over. To correct the record, it is stated that the FDA’s decision does not affect the availability of COVID vaccines for Americans who want them. The administration says, “We believe in individual choice,” a promise the president and the secretary have made and delivered on.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: From miscommunications or differences on vaccine policy. So I wonder if you could just say whether or not the president believes that the COVID vaccine should be available to and covered by insurance for all Americans regardless of age and preexisting conditions. What I will tell you is that the FDA recently revoked the emergency youth authorizations for three COVID vaccinations while simultaneously green lighting four new COVID nineteen vaccines with twenty twenty five and twenty twenty six formulas. The the reason for the revocation of that emergency youth authorization is because obviously the COVID pandemic and the public health emergency is over. But just to correct the record because there's been a lot of misinformation on this, the FDA's decision does not affect the availability of COVID vaccines for Americans who want them. We believe in individual choice. That's a promise both the president and the secretary have made, and it's a promise they have now delivered on.

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

https://t.co/gDeAS03UKD Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@SemperVeritasX - John-Paul Berg

Pierre Poilievre is not a nationalist. He isn't even a conservative. The guy is a controlled opposition, uniparty globalist. They're all in on it together. The entirety of our politics is an elaborate performative charade to provide the illusion of participatory governance to the peasantry. This has never been more evident. Every day I wonder when you people will notice.

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

https://t.co/7Z7bVBlQjG Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@PatteeuwJens - Jens Patteeuw

Just a few days ago, Bill Gates met with Trump at the White House. This is the second time they have met; at the beginning of the year, they had a dinner. Gates said then that he was "impressed" with Trump’s interest in global health at that time. For all those who somehow hoped that Gates would be arrested or that Trump would do it, just forget it. It's not gonna happen, at all. This recent meeting happened around the same time Karoline Leavitt, the White House Press Secretary, announced there would be four new covid vaccines. Also, earlier this week, Trump again reiterated that Operation Warp Speed (the COVID-19 vaccines) was a huge success. There's a lot more than meets the eye. We can't forget that Bill Gates publicly endorsed JD Vance's book "Hillbilly Elegy" on his own blog in 2017. So he was already promoting JD Vance before he became "famous". JD Vance is sponsored by globalist and Bilderberg member Peter Thiel. In light of the recent statements of JD Vance, saying that he "is ready to take over", if "God forbid something terrible would happen", this is all very peculiar. #Trump #BillGates #news

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

https://t.co/Ged4Fu9cXF Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@ShannonJoyRadio - Shannon Joy

Don't fall for this scam @liz_churchill10 Trump is NOT going to war with PHARMA, he's HELPING them by providing a reason to eliminate ALL the 'old vaccines' because of thimerosal. Trump, RFK & Bhattacharya have been heavily promoting 'operation warp speed tactics' to develop new, universal mRNA and sa-mRNA shots for PHARMA to replace traditional vaccines. This is NOT Trump waking up, or doing the right thing, or launching a 'war against vaccines' ... this is a MARKETING CAMPAIGN for the new mRNA technology. And they WILL MANDATE these. DO NOT FALL FOR THIS!

@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill

Oh. My. God. President Trump calls out the VACCINE TERRORISTS…https://t.co/dJLDTn9xbX

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 shows a metal container described as a “thimerosal bomb,” noting they keep it because they are a little afraid of it, and it is a very fine powder. Speaker 2 states that thimerosal is labeled very toxic and has cumulative effects, capable of causing damage to the kidneys, respiratory system, skin, and nervous system. It specifically warns of reproductive and developmental toxicity, meaning it can cause things like autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. They emphasize that this is immensely toxic stuff. Speaker 0 notes that thimerosal is present in a vaccine. Speaker 2 explains that thimerosal is used in a whole range of products, with vaccines being a major example because it is directly injected. They reference the tetanus vaccine, noting a vial that expires and contains thimerosal as a preservative. They claim that thimerosal has been a big exposure issue in the United States, especially with the influenza vaccine, which is now recommended for all pregnant women, all infants, and all children on a yearly basis. Speaker 1 adds a point about how thimerosal is added: it is not something added at the end after production but is incorporated because the factory is not clean and not sterile. They argue that either there must be an expensive sterile factory that does not need thimerosal or one that produces thimerosal, and that thimerosal would need to be used throughout production. They assert that the use of thimerosal needs to be stopped. Speaker 2 identifies the influenza vaccine from Adventist Pasture, “their flu zone,” and states that it contains twenty-five micrograms of mercury per dose. Speaker 1 discusses personal experience, noting that many people did not know about thimerosal. They reveal they have given 2,000 RhoGAM shots and have been in vaccines for thirty-five years, and they did not know that RhoGAM contained thimerosal. They suggest that many doctors were unaware that the term “thimerosal” referred to mercury.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Show them the thimerosal bomb, which we keep in a metal container because we're a Speaker 1: little afraid of it, and it's a very fine powder. Speaker 2: This is this is thimerosal, which is labeled very toxic. Has cumulative effects, can cause damage to the kidneys, to the respiratory system, skin, to the nervous system. Specifically warns on here that it can cause reproductive and developmental toxicity, meaning that it can cause things like autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. This is immensely toxic stuff. Speaker 0: And it's a vaccine. Speaker 2: And this is what's in the vaccine. It's important to to realize we're talking about a whole range of products. Vaccines are a big one because, of course, you're directly injecting it. For example, this is tetanus vaccine. This one expires. It's a lot dated now in 02/2007. Here's the thimerosal. 1 to October is a preservative. Perhaps the the biggest one in The US, at least, that's ex for exposure to mercury is the influenza Influenza vaccine is now recommended for all pregnant women, all infants, all children on a yearly basis. You're supposed to Speaker 1: You have last year's influenza? Understand that Thimerosal is not added at the end. It's not like, well, that factory next year can make Thimerosal free. Thimerosal, you either have to have a thimerosal free factory or you have to not have one. They add thimerosal at each step because the factory is not clean and not sterile. So you either have to have an expensive sterile factory where you don't need thimerosal or you have to have one that produces thimerosal. It's gonna need thimerosal or something the whole time. It needs to be stopped. Speaker 2: This is, the influenza vaccine from Adventist Pasture, their flu zone. Thimerosal, twenty five micrograms of mercury per dose. Speaker 1: I'd like to point out that a lot of people didn't know, and and I'm one of Speaker 2: them. Speaker 1: I've given 2,000 RhoGAM shots. I've been in vaccines for thirty five years. I didn't know that RhoGAM had Thimerosal in it. So I think a lot of the doctors were unaware. They weren't aware that even the word Thimerosal meant mercury.

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

https://t.co/ilrV1mCNCT Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@JuanGutiCA714 - Juan Hodl

Alex Krainer explains who is at the top of the “globalist network”: These are networks of power that operate outside of the rule of law… like a mafia. In everything I’ve read it always emerges that this name Rothschild comes up as the people who seemingly wield the most power. https://t.co/emySyfd1uK

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 explains that the network is a meta tribe of oligarchs centered in a history starting with Cecil Rhodes, who envisioned a world controlled by the elite. He says Rhodes handed the vision to Milner and the Milner group, describing Milner as “my blood brother” and noting that Milner was committed. The network expanded from a Crown/London core to encompass Wall Street, the American Deep State, and major banking families named in Tragedy and Hope. He defines the network as a broad, elite circle and notes there isn’t a single top person. Speaker 1 references Tragedy and Hope and Carrol Quigley, along with Guido Preparata’s Conjuring Hitler, as key to understanding what happened in 1938. He asserts that Quigley gave readers the keys in a long but detailed work, suggesting that the powers of financial capitalism sought “to create a world system of financial control in private hands, to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole,” with the growth of financial capitalism enabling a decentralization of world economic control and benefiting financiers while harming other economic groups. He connects this to Russia in the 1990s, arguing that oligarchs like Mikhail Khodorkovsky and others were not merely reform-minded tycoons but “handpicked trustees” serving foreign financial interests, with figures such as George Soros and Edmund Safra involved. Speaker 1 adds that, despite a claim there’s no top, there must be one at the top since these are networks of power operating outside the rule of law, like a mafia. He contends Rothschilds are often the top-wielding group, with others subordinated to them, and that civil wars can erupt among these bankers when crises arise. He suggests American bankers may be challenging British bankers for ascendancy, implying a current (unspecified) civil conflict within the network. He acknowledges the difficulty of knowing what happens behind closed walls and notes the top dog concept exists: “there must be a top of the hierarchy because, otherwise the whole system… there'd be like you have a pack of dogs. There’s always going to be a top dog.” Speaker 0 agrees with the “lead dog” principle and adds that there are multiple major families or clans, each with its own leadership. He emphasizes a “family element” to the network, referencing “pancake” or mafioso-style families, and remarks that this discussion provides a concise, one-stop shop for understanding the topic. Speaker 0 then signals a transition to the next point with enthusiasm.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But the network, Alex, broadly who are the network? Because it's clear from tragedy and hope, I'd say is the most accurate around. It kind of starts mainly in the modern times with, Cecil Rhodes who had the vision, right, to have a world completely controlled by the elite. No conspiracy theory, it's all documented. And then he handed over to Milner and the Milner group, and he said Milner basically, he said, is my blood brother. He fully entrusted him with the vision. Mildner was committed. And then you have this whole crown kind of city of London, UK, powerful network that eventually became a network that encompassed Wall Street and the American Deep State, if you want to call it, and of course all the great banking families, many of them named in tragedy and hope. Is getting towards like, what the network is? It's a meta tribe of oligarchs. And that's why it's kinda hard to to get right to the guy at the top. There isn't really a guy at the top. It's all of what I said and more. Yeah? Speaker 1: Yes. Look. I I read Tragedy and Hope, and I read it very carefully. And in fact, this whole story about appeasement, I reconstructed it from Carole Quigley. And with some subsequent research by the guy who wrote conjuring Hitler. That's that's a masterpiece. His name is Guido Antonio Preparata. Okay? And that book is not as not as long, but it's it's it's, like, dense. It's, like, completely fluffy, and it, like, blows your mind. So from those two books, I reconstructed the what actually happened in 1938 in in Munich. Anyway so, basically, Carroll Quigley, I believe that he gave us the keys. He just couldn't come out exactly and give it away because it would be too you know, the it would have been spotted straight away. So he put it in a into a book that's, like, thirteen, four 1,400 pages long, and then you have to read it very carefully, but it's a lot is there. A lot is there. And I will I will read to you. I have this in front of me the maybe the key quote, which which tells you what we're up against. And the one so this is this is the key quote from Carroll Quigley. I think many people are already familiar by this, but he says that the powers of financial capitalism had a far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands, to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. The growth of financial capitalism made possible a decentralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and direct injury of all other economic groups. And so this quote, when you take when you keep that in mind and you look at what happened in Russia in the nineteen nineties, it's it's exactly what happened. And then you you also find out that these people like Mikhail Khodorkovsky and these other oligarchs, that they were not just, you know, Russian tycoons who emerged because they were very capable and, you know, aggressive young reformers as they were presented in the media in the West. They were handpicked trustees who were serving the needs of the foreign financial interests. And so Mikhail Khodorkovsky was a trustee for Jacob Rothschild's interests in Russia. George Soros was there, involved very prominently. Edmund Safra, and and a numb a a number of a number of high profile western bankers. But, you know, when you say that there's nobody at the top, I think that there's somebody at the top necessarily because, you know, this is you know, these are these are networks of power, and you're right to call it a network. These are networks of power that operate outside of the rule of law. So they're not bound by lawful institutions. This is like law of the jungle. It it functions like a like a mafia like a mafia business, like a mafia organization, which means that somebody necessarily has to be at the top to enforce the order. You know, you can't have democracy at at that level. So in in everything that I've read so far, it always emerges that this name Rothschild comes up as as the people who seemingly wield the most power, and then everybody else is kind of in a in a subordinate position to them. And I think that when things are going well, they they get along, and they work as a club. And, you know, I'm in charge, but you have your own suzerainty there, and you have your own you know, you dominate your own. But when things get difficult, when the system comes to a crisis, then you see that you might have civil wars there between these bankers. And I think that we're living in a period when these civil wars are erupting again. And it seems to me that the American bankers feel that they no longer have to be subordinated to the to the British bankers. And I think that part of what we see today might be that civil war. Of course, we don't know anything about this. We can just look at where smoke you know, which orifice produces the smoke, and then we can just try to kind of wonder what what actually happened behind the the closed walls. But Yeah. You know, there must be there must be top of the hierarchy because, otherwise the whole system you know, it'd be like you have a pack of dogs. There's always going to be a top dog. And if there isn't a top dog, the other dogs are going to fight to the death until one emerges as the top dog, and then they'll be at peace. Speaker 0: Yeah. And that's the lead dog kind of principle. Absolutely. You know, a slight variant on that to allow for not one kingpin to your mafia analogy, there's a bunch of major families and each of them sure has the dawn. But maybe there isn't a single one, but there's certainly a cluster of key lead dogs. And the beautiful elegance of that is because we're talking about families, right? Pancake families, Baffia families. There's a family element to it. And you know, I was going to my next bullet point. This is fantastic, Alex. This is a one stop shop for Speaker 1: everyone Speaker 0: to know.

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

https://t.co/sHrMmZdmZ4 Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@MareQay - Mare Qay

Dang, wonder how many at the time were paying attention https://t.co/OgKK62YlUC

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 expresses that they wanted to meet face to face to get admission of what “they” were doing. Speaker 1 identifies “they” as someone in the office of the Trilateral Commission. Speaker 0 asks what the Trilateral Commission is. Speaker 1 explains that it is “an organization founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller to bring together business and political leaders from The United States, Europe, Japan so they could work together for better economic and political cooperation between their nations.” Speaker 0 counters that this is what they’d like people to believe, but claims that “what they’re really up to is a scheme to plant their own loyal members in positions of power in this country to work to erase national boundaries and create an international community, and in time, bring about a one world government with David Rockefeller calling the shots.” Speaker 0 asks if they’re pressing charges; agrees that a globe was broken and UNICEF artwork damaged, and adds that “they’re in on it too.” Speaker 0 asks for a Mister Klein, who replies that he has documented evidence and “the magazines here” are Conspiracy Review and Suppressed Truth Roundup, asserting that “the whole master plan is exposed.” Speaker 0 notes that Klein remains unconvinced and asks if he’d like to hear a few names of people who have been on the Trilateral Commission. Klein is not particularly enthusiastic. Speaker 1 lists names: James O’Carter (likely a misreference or fictionalized name), Henry Kissinger, Walter Mondale, and Mister Klein, then John Anderson, George Bush. Speaker 0 recalls the convention where it seemed Ford would be the VP candidate, but says David Rockefeller “just picked up a phone, put in a call,” saying, “Hey, Ronnie. Forget Jerry. It’s George. Bye.” He concludes that “no matter who won in November, they had their man in the White House.” Speaker 0 asks if they are through. The response is implied as yes.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I I just wanted to meet them face to face. I I wanted them to admit what they were doing. Who is they? Speaker 1: He was in the office of the trilateral commission. Speaker 0: Trilateral commission? Speaker 1: Yeah. The trilateral commission. Speaker 0: Alright. What is the trilateral commission? Speaker 1: It's an organization founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller to bring together business and political leaders from The United States, Europe, Japan so they could work together for better economic and political cooperation between their nations. Speaker 0: Well, that that's what they'd like us to believe. But you see, Speaker 2: what they're really up to is a scheme to plant Speaker 0: their own loyal members in positions of power in this country to work to erase national boundaries and create an international community, and in time, bring about a one world government with David Rockefeller calling the shots. I take it they're pressing charges? Yeah. Well, I I he broke a globe and and some UNICEF artwork. Well, they're they're in on it too. Okay, mister Klein. I'm just telling you our whole way of life as we know it is in jeopardy. I appreciate that information. But I I I have I have the documented evidence. It's all in there. Show him. Well, he's got got these magazines here. Conspiracy review, Suppressed truth roundup? The whole master plan is exposed. Yeah. Well, You're still not convinced. Would would you like to hear the names of just a few of the people who have been on the trilateral commission? Not particularly. James O'Carter. Heard of him? Look, mister Klein Henry Kissinger. You heard of him? Walter Mondale. Who? Mister Klein, this is John Anderson, George Bush. Now you remember at the at the convention, everybody thought it was gonna be Ford for Veep. You know what happened? David Rockefeller just picked up a phone, put in a call. Hey, Ronnie. Forget Jerry. It's George. Bye. So no matter who won in November, they had their man in the White House. Are you through? Yeah.

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

https://t.co/gVAqsDDlpV Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@SapperWarrior - 100% MAGA, BUT FUCK TRUMP 🇷🇺 🇺🇸 🇷🇺 🇺🇸

Trump, who has turned into the biggest neocon in presidential history, just did more to validate and help the globalist swamp warmongers than any Democrat or RINO could’ve ever hoped for. After campaigning for and voting for Trump in every election, I feel furiously betrayed 😡 https://t.co/2puCajgELc

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

https://t.co/bgtuPShdt4 Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@ITMTrading - ITM Trading

Charlie Kirk Assassination Fuels Elite’s Reset Plan for Great Depression 2.0 - Ed Dowd Watch now: https://youtu.be/kSCyKHsTBAo #finance #money #dollar #usd #gold @DanielaCambone @DowdEdward https://t.co/e1Ok9JWuXs

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

https://t.co/URjsmXXTUQ Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@AllenDMartin - Allen Martin

Pfizer murdered my 18 yo daughter! mRNA batch fn2908. Nov 9,2022. @Potus just awarded @pfizer a 70 BILLION CONTRACT ... to murder more people! The man standing beside him today, shook my hand and promised to make them pay, less than a year ago. Here I am, STILL TRYING TO PAY OFF HER FUNERAL!!!! I don't need 70 billion, I only need about $4,000 so she can have a fucking headstone!!!! THEY MURDERED HER AND NOW THEY'RE "LEADERS" AND "GREAT PEOPLE"!?! FUCK YOU! THE GASLIGHTING IS TOO MUCH! I CAN'T FUCKING TAKE IT ANYMORE!

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

https://t.co/5yCbPoG5Pw Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@goddeketal - Dr. Simon Goddek

Before the election: ‘We’ll release the Epstein files.’ After the election: They protect the pedophiles. Before the election: ‘We’ll end the wars.’ After the election: They fund genocide. Before the election: ‘We’ll go after COVID crimes.’ After the election: They hand $70 billion to Pfizer. I can’t stomach it anymore. This administration is a disgrace.

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

https://t.co/WPEE8N9FNB Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@Alec_Zeck - D. Alec Zeck

I think I’m at the point where I just appreciate the comedic absurdity of it all. Some people genuinely believe Trump is a freedom fighter, secretly leading a military operation to take down the deep state. Others believe he’s the literal embodiment of evil and the sole cause of all modern problems. And then there are those who still believe that voting matters and that legitimate, lasting solutions are going to come from politics. At this point, it’s like watching different cults argue over which illusion is more real and it’s hilarious (and sometimes disturbing).

@nesta_red - Nesta Red

https://t.co/GOf5RzPXM5 Fake Opposition: Elitarian Puppets Pretending to Oppose the Elitarian Puppets on the other side but in fact both sides acting for the same agenda of Totalitarian Control and for their Controlling Elitarian ... . See parent tweet video and its replies.

@davidicke - David Icke

This is what I have said for years about the hard sell and soft sell of AI dystopia. People like Gates and Schwab have gone for the hard sell and for the sceptics Musk goes for the soft sell. The outcome in BOTH cases? Human-AI fusion - we think what AI tells us to think - and total human AI/digital enslavement. It's a pincer movement by two cheeks on the same backside - Gates and Schwab are cast as the pantomime villains while Musk plays the good guy who cares and only wants the best for you. Pure theatre. See my new book The Road Map in which I take the pantomime apart.

@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal

🚨🇺🇸 ELON: xAI WAS BUILT TO LOVE HUMANITY “I created xAI to have an AI that is maximally truth-seeking, that aspirationally loves humanity and will seek the best interests of humanity going forward.” Elon described the mission as building AI that helps, but doesn’t replace https://t.co/wngEPrL9jF

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: I really want to have a maximally truth seeking AI. I can't emphasize that enough. That's incredibly important. And obviously build an AI that loves humanity. That's why I created xAI, which is to have an AI that is maximally truth seeking, aspirationally does love humanity, and will seek the best interests of humanity going forward.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Really want to have a maximally truth seeking AI. I can't emphasize that enough. That's incredibly important. And obviously build an AI that loves humanity. That's why I created xAI, which is to to have an AI that is maximally truth seeking, that aspirationally does love humanity, and will seek the best interests of humanity going forward.
HHSGov
Posted - September 17, 2025 at 3:37 PM
Saved - September 17, 2025 at 7:43 PM

@HHSGov - HHS.gov

.@SenRandPaul questions Susan Monarez on the efficacy of childhood COVID vaccines — and he brings the receipts: https://t.co/wi5iFqnwyV

Video Transcript AI Summary
"Doctor Menares and Speaker 1 debate the science behind vaccines. 'The COVID vaccine can reduce viral load... When you have reduced viral load, you will have reduced transmission,' yet 'it doesn't prevent transmission. You can still transmit the virus if you've had the vaccine,' with Omicron-era reductions 'around 16%.' On hospitalization for 18-year-olds: 'It can,' but 'the statistics are inconclusive' and 'there is no statistical evidence that it does reduce the death rate.' They point out that 'no proof of reduction in hospitalization or in death' guided by 'make antibodies' rather than outcomes: 'it's based on whether you make antibodies or not'—'I can inject you with a foreign protein every week and measure antibodies.' They flag myocarditis risk: 'between six and eight and ten thousand,' 'much greater than the risk of hospitalization or death.' They question the medical basis for newborn hepatitis B vaccination and six-month COVID vaccine: 'What is the medical reason... if the mom is hep B negative?' 'The burden is upon you... prove to us.' 'Untrue.'
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Doctor Menares, I agree with you completely that we need to restore trust in public health. But in order to do so, we have to have a discussion about the actual science, and we can't have a discussion of this, you know, but all vaccines are good, all vaccines are bad. This is about specific vaccines. It's about specific age groups. It's about specific policies. Does the COVID vaccine prevent transmission? Speaker 1: The COVID vaccine can reduce viral load in individuals who are Speaker 0: Does it prevent transmission? Speaker 1: When you have reduced viral load, you will have reduced transmission. Speaker 0: But in other words, it doesn't prevent transmission. You can still transmit the virus if you've had the vaccine. In fact, there's been reduced ability to interfere with transmission over time. And what we've found is the most recent one since Omicron is down around 16% reduction if there is a reduction. Does the COVID vaccine reduce hospitalization for children 18? Speaker 1: It can. Speaker 0: It doesn't. The statistics are inconclusive, and the reason you can't prove that it does is there's so few people 18 that go to the hospital. The the numbers are extraordinarily small. There's seventy six million kids 18 in our country, a hundred and eighty three died, and a few thousand went to the hospital in 2020 and 2021. And since then, the numbers have dropped precipitously, and the idea and the issue needs to be discussed. But the COVID vaccine is not reducing hospitalization. It's not statistically significant. Does the COVID vaccine reduce the rate of death for children 18? Speaker 1: It can. Speaker 0: Once again, it can. That's a ridiculous answer. No. It doesn't. And there is no statistical evidence that it does reduce the death rate. These are statistics. We've looked at it. When they approved it, they had this discussion at the vaccine committee that we've been talking about. During the discussion, they acknowledged that there was no proof of reduction in hospitalization or in death. So what they did is they said, what can we use to try to make people take this vaccine? They came up with this. They said that if we give you a COVID vaccine, you make antibodies. So really the a whole recommendation for having a COVID vaccine from six months up is not based on hospitalization data, not based on deaths. It's based on whether you make antibodies or not. And what people fail to see from this is I can inject you with a foreign protein every week and measure antibodies. You'll make antibodies every time. It just means immunology work has nothing to do with whether you should get a vaccine every week. So when we're discussing the science here, we have to discuss what is the science in favor of giving a vaccine to a six month old, and what are the benefits from that? And there is no benefit of hospitalization or death. And then what would the risks of the vaccine be? We have large population studies of the risks of the vaccine in younger people. And it turns out that you don't see this as much if you look at the general population. But once you start isolating in by age group, which you have to do in COVID because there's such a disparity among age group, you find that there is a risk of myocarditis, a significant event. It's somewhere between six and eight and ten thousand, but that's much greater than the risk of hospitalization or death, which are not even measurable because they're so small. So you resisted firing people who have this idea that the COVID vaccine should be at six months. That's what this is about. You didn't resist firing the beautiful the beautiful scientists that are career people and unobjective and unbiased. You wouldn't fire the people who are saying that we have to vaccinate our kids at six months of age. That's who you refuse to fire. Speaker 1: So, that assertion, is not, commensurate with the experience that I had with the individuals who are identified to be fired. Speaker 0: Did any of the people you refused to fire any of the people you refused Did of refused to fire believe that we should change the vaccine schedule and no longer force six month old kids to take it? Every one of them was adamant we should keep it at six months. Everybody's alarmed. We're gonna change the childhood routine. Well, we should. There is no medical reason. What is the medical reason to give a hepatitis b vaccine to a newborn whose mom has no hepatitis? Speaker 1: So none of the discussion points that you just brought up were ever Speaker 0: That's changing the childhood schedule. Change Regular order, regular order. You have your time Bernie, I got mine. Look, this is the debate over changing the childhood schedule. The hepatitis b vaccine on the schedule is given to newborns. What is the medical scientific reason and proof for giving a newborn a hepatitis b vaccine if the mom is hep b negative? Speaker 1: I wanna go back to the assertion association. Speaker 0: What is the medical reason for giving a hepatitis b vaccine to a newborn? See, everybody's like blithely going along, we can't change the childhood. You're somehow terrible if you wanna change the childhood. We should be discussing what is the childhood vaccine schedule, and you should be the burden should be on you. You wanna make all the kids take this? The burden is upon you and the people you wouldn't fire to prove to us that we need to give our six month old a COVID vaccine and that we need to give our one day old a hepatitis b vaccine. That's what the debate ought to be about, not whether all vaccines are good or whether we live in a house in one land. Speaker 1: I actually agree with you, And I was open to the science. I just would not pre commit to approving all the ACIP recommendations without the science. Speaker 0: Untrue.
View Full Interactive Feed