TruthArchive.ai - Related Post Feed
reSee.it AI Summary
The Hepatitis B vaccines, Engerix-B and Recombivax, are given to babies without their ability to communicate symptoms. The safety reporting period for these vaccines is 4 and 5 days respectively. The FDA's approval is based on limited safety monitoring. In case of vaccine injury, petitioning the U.S. Court of Federal Claims is necessary, but it is a "no fault program" with no legal liability for the government or manufacturers. The HHS, which promotes and approves vaccines, is the entity being sued, not the drug manufacturers. The question arises about the objectivity of the HHS in these cases. The regulatory agency overseeing safety studies also promotes vaccines to the public. Vaccines receive unprecedented legal protection, unlike any other product, and corporations profit from a captive market. The threat of litigation ensures the safety of everyday products, but vaccines enjoy extreme legal liability protection. The word "vaccine" seems to grant them immunity and their own extrajudicial court.
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
THREAD: Something to ponder. The Hepatitis B vaccines Engerix-B & Recombivax are given to babies who can’t even verbalize symptoms. They have a safety reporting period of 4 & 5 days respectively. This is according to their own insert which I’ve provided a link to in this thread.
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/vaccines-licensed-use-united-states How on earth can the FDA seriously claim they are safe and effective if they have approved them based on 120 hours or less of safety monitoring? Go to that link and you can go right down the line, section 6.1 is always the clinical trial experience.
Vaccines Licensed for Use in the US
The product name and trade name of vaccines licensed for use in the United States.
fda.gov
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
Something else to consider. In the event of you or your child suffering an injury from a vaccine, you must petition the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. However this isn’t a traditional court, this is a special “Vaccine Court” as it’s colloquially referred to as.
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
It is considered a “no fault program” meaning even if you are compensated there will be no legal liability for the government or manufacturer or admission of injury causation. That is quite the deal. https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/vaccine-programoffice-special-masters
Vaccine Claims/Office of Special Masters | US Court of Federal Claims
uscfc.uscourts.gov
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
What most don’t realize is that when you petition for your case to be seen by a special master, the entity you are suing is the HHS not the drug manufacturer. This is because they are given blanket liability for ALL vaccines they make. That $4 billion is taxpayers money.
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
So the real question is, how can the HHS be objective in these cases if they are the ones who constantly promote and approve the very products they are subsequently being sued over? The FDA is an HHS agency. https://t.co/cmduvKvUqN
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
Furthermore, how can we expect objective safety studies to be conducted if the regulatory agency tasked with overseeing the studies, approves them and then explicitly promotes them to the public? If you go to any vaccine page they say “Vaccines Save Lives” as the first thing. https://t.co/NSgnofHfiM
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
These are PRODUCTS that are owned by CORPORATIONS who are required by law to maximize profits. Name one other product that receives such unprecedented legal protection. Not only that, the CORPORATION gets a captive market with yearly guaranteed revenue in the billions.
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
The reason many of the products we use everyday are safe is because of the threat of litigation. Companies know they must take utmost care to ensure their products are safe or they face financial ruin.
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
This begs another obvious question. If vaccines are so “safe and effective”, a term we hear ad nauseam, why do they require extreme legal liability protection? Something no other product on earth receives. https://t.co/fNf3Hn6QbW
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
What makes the the word “vaccine” so special that they are administered into the bodies of millions each year with complete impunity? With more and more being developed that will enjoy the same protections and they even get their own, what amounts to an extrajudicial court. https://t.co/AmtCsptW1z
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Vax-Injured Woman Sues Federal Government for Censorship Nikki Holland is joined by four other plaintiffs in a First Amendment lawsuit that highlights the "devastating" impacts of silencing true stories of vaccine injuries. https://bit.ly/435Fa6O
Woman Debilitated 3 Days After Vaccine Dose Suing Biden for Censorship | Facts Matter
3 days after receiving her second dose of the Moderna vaccine, Nikki Holland of Tennessee experienced a debilitating ...
theepochtimes.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Title: Uncovering the Truth about Childhood Vaccinations
In this eye-opening article, we expose the hidden realities surrounding childhood vaccinations. From the lack of informed consent to the placebo myth, we delve into the controversies and concerns that have fueled vaccine skepticism. We explore the alarming rise in autoimmune diseases and autism rates, questioning the safety and efficacy of vaccines. We shed light on the ignored VAERS reports and highlight testimonies from experts who challenge the mainstream narrative. Join us in unraveling the complexities of the vaccine industry and advocating for truly informed consent.
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
Uninformed Consent A thread exposing the lies that your doctor, government and the media told you. Vaccine uptake is at an all time low. The government and the industry they collude with would have you think that it is because of “anti-science“ ignorance. Just millions of buck tooth, mouth breathers who can barely read and what they do read is nothing but dangerous “misinformation”. It couldn’t possibly be their fault. You know, the fact that virtually every autoimmune disease is skyrocketing and the rate of autism has consistently grown with the amount of vaccines administered to kids. It couldn’t possibly be the fact that they are still trying to push an experimental novel technology on the public, including being so brazen as to include it on the childhood schedule. It couldn’t possibly be the hundreds of thousands of debilitating injuries people have suffered with virtually zero recourse for compensation or the fact that they are either ignored, discounted or ridiculed for believing their injuries stem from the most likely variable introduced into their lives. It couldn’t possibly be the fact that people all over the world have watched loved ones including their own children go to sleep never to wake up again. Or they drop to the ground in the prime of their lives while playing a sport they love. The truth of the matter is that the tide of public consciousness is turning and everyday more and more people are realizing the uncomfortable truth. In no small part because of the people featured in this incredibly informative video. The Highwire [@HighWireTalk] aired this yesterday. It features a talk between Del Bigtree [@delbigtree] and Aaron Siri [@AaronSiriSG] where they show various depositions and testimonies of individuals over the years along with adding valuable context and commentary. This is something you can show to “true believers” in your lives with the hope that it may disrupt their programming. Expect a lot of cognitive dissonance to ensue because in 40 minutes they eviscerate various commonly held beliefs in relation to the childhood injections recommended by the CDC and most doctors. I am going to include some more clips as well as some other threads I’ve made to really drive home the point. The point being is that almost everything you think you know about childhood vaccinations is either completely misrepresented or outright lies. Please share this extremely important information and help create some truly informed consent. Funny thing about having real informed consent, it turns out people who have it, usually decide not to consent.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the issue of liability protection for vaccine manufacturers and the lack of safety testing for vaccines. They explain that in 1986, liability was taken away from manufacturers, leading to an increase in the number of vaccines given to children. They argue that vaccines should be tested for safety like any other pharmaceutical product, but this is not happening due to the lack of liability. The speaker also addresses the claim that vaccines do not cause injury, particularly autism, and highlights the lack of studies supporting this claim. They conclude by discussing the use of aborted fetal tissue in vaccine development and the objections raised by religious groups.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What about all of the rest of them? One of the issues you have when you're trying to look at vaccines as a journalist and investigate it is you've got this liability protection. In 1986, they took away all liability from manufacturers. Basically, the pharmaceutical industry blackmailed Ronald Reagan, said, We are losing so much money from death and injury cases in courtrooms, we cannot make a profit in our vaccine program, so either you protect us from liability or we're gonna stop making them. And so you can't sue the manufacturer.
It says right here, no person may bring a civil action against the vaccine administrator or manufacturer for damages arising from a vaccine related injury or death. Total and complete protection. And I say that to friends and they say, that's amazing. Doesn't that mean right there they must be admitting that there's injury? Of course they are.
There's no Such thing as a pharmaceutical product that doesn't injure somebody. There's a reason why you have multiple versions of drugs, because if one is giving you side effects, Try another one. Vaccines are no different, they have all the same types of elements. I wanted to get into this. And so we wanted to, investigate it.
Well, what happens, What happens when you take a product, one of the only ones in America, made by arguably one of the most, you know, corrupted Industries, when you look at pharma, who's paid out more money for death than injury? 1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 of dollars by Merck and Sanofi Aventis and Pfizer for having lied about the safety of their products. But they have 1 group of products that they cannot be sued for. Well, that created a gold rush and ultimately what happened to this is in 1986, there's about 3 vaccines given in multiple doses. So for all of you out there that are saying, I'm just vaccinating My kids the same way I was vaccinated.
No, you're not. You got maybe 10 vaccines by the time you were 18 years old. When we took liability away in 1986, this is what happened to our vaccine programme. Suddenly it explodes. 72 Your kids are getting or your grandkids are getting by the time they're 18.
And none of these need to be tested for safety. Why? Why would you? Let's be honest. Why would you spend money testing a product for safety if you cannot be sued if it kills or injures anybody?
You wouldn't do it. Why waste the money? It ends up being the perfect product. This is a product that we don't have to test for safety and we don't even have to advertise it because the government is going to force it on every child in America. This is why this product became one of the number one biggest sellers, biggest gold rush money making parts of the industry we now look at as the giant big pharma.
So I went to Iran and said, look, they have total liability protection. What do we do? And we started discussing, What if we sue the government? Since the government's taking on the liability, they're saying that manufacturers will handle this, so now you sue the government. Imagine this, When you're injured by a vaccine, you have to sue health and human services.
In fact, the head of health and human services is who you're naming as the defendant. So now the government's gonna use Department of Justice lawyers against you. Against you and tell you you're crazy, You're wrong, that injury didn't happen, you have to prove that it happened. That's how the court system works. And who was supposed to do the safety trials that you need to use in court so that you can prove this injury is caused by the vaccine.
Health and Human Services. The same group you are suing is the one that is supposed to be doing the safety trials. This is literally like a, a murder case where your murderer is the one doing all of your forensics. And that's how the system has been designed. So I brought in Aaron Sridh to look at this and say, how do we handle this in law?
And so when you start looking at it, what really sort of jumped out at you when we think about safety and how products are made?
Speaker 1: Well, one thing that really jumped out at me is that of all the products on the market, all the products on the market That you can't sue the manufacturer for injuries for effectively. It's not planes. It's not drugs. It's not all kinds of dangerous things we know are out there. It's a product injected into babies that we say That the health authorities say are safe.
Of all the products, that's the one product that effectively manufacture immunity for liability. That really struck me. That really struck me. Every other product is able to survive in the market, cars and so forth, They make them better, but for this product in 1986, manufacturers given immunity to liability, presumably They had a real issue in terms of being able to make them safer. And so what's the effect, you know, in terms of safety?
To answer your question more directly, Del, Yeah. As you know, we we, you know, we decided we're gonna look at what's the impact on the clinical trials, pre licensure, And what's the impact after licensure? So in terms of the clinical trials, I think that this chart Might help bring home the impact that in taking away liability from manufacturers of vaccines has had on how the clinical trials relied upon to license those products were conducted. If you look up on your screen, you're gonna see a chart And in that chart according these are putting COVID vaccine aside, my understanding this is a a site that explains these are the 5 top Selling drugs, pharmaceutical products that Pfizer has in all time. Look at that list.
4 of those are drugs. One of them is a vaccine. Take a good look. Which one looks a little different than the rest.
Speaker 0: This is like that Sesame Street game. Yeah. Right? One of these drugs is not like the other.
Speaker 1: You're right. Except this one can have Leaf of consequences. And if you look, Enbrel, Eliquis, Lyrica, and Lipitor, safety review periods during their clinical trials Into the years, PCV 13, PRODOT 13, that's the only vaccine on the list. Look at the safety review period, And look at the control. Was it a placebo control?
No. This is a list Of the vaccines administered to babies 3 times each by the time they're 6 months old.
Speaker 0: I I mean, think about this. I want you to think about the placebo controlled trial. This is something that's really starting to make in the news and they're saying, we have done these placebo controlled trials.' They haven't. And why is it important? When you're testing a drug, 1 group gets this testing drug, the brand new drug, another group gets what's a placebo, something that has no effect on the human body, but we don't know who got what.
It's double blind, they both get it. In the case of the drugs, 6 years, 7 years, 5 years, at least 2 years, We track both groups all the way through and ask obvious questions. Who had more diabetes or autoimmune issues or cancers or Mutagenic effects. And, obviously, at the end of it you unblind it, the scientists find out who was who, because they shouldn't be manipulating it And then you see: was the safety profile the same? Did the group that got the saline injection or got the sugar pill have the same amount of health issues as the ones that got the product.
So in the vaccines, there are no placebos. This is the only way to prove causation. When they say to you: Well, we've never proved causation of this injury, whether it's multiple sclerosis in vaccines or autism in vaccines. We don't have any evidence, there's no causal relationship because you never did the trial, which would be the only way to prove causation, which is a placebo based trial. You skipped it.
And this is what they're doing on all these vaccines.
Speaker 1: And Pfizer wants to know the safety profile of their drugs before it goes in the market. Why? What happens if the drug causes injury? They can be sued, and they're sued all day long on their drug products. Drugs come off the market all the time, but they can't be sued for the vaccine.
Speaker 0: Let's show you some evidence. There's a hepatitis b vaccine given to a baby in the 1st day of life. 1st 24 hours, they're getting this vaccine. We're not making this up. If you look at the vaccine, if you asked your doctor, I wanna see The insert wrapped around the vaccine.
Look what it says about the safety trial. This is how we licensed it. This is what the FDA saw and said, good enough for us. Put it on the market. In 3 clinical studies there was 4 34 doses of Recombivax HB that were 5 micrograms, We're administered to 147 healthy infants and children up to 10 years of age.
A 147 Was the size of this massively tested trial for the fate of every day 1 old baby in America and probably around the world. How long did that trial last? No placebo. They were monitored for 5 days.
Speaker 1: 5 days. And to put what you're looking at in context, just to understand, this is the FDA website. This is the package insert for the hepatitis b vaccine. Section 6.1, you can look at every single don't take our word For this chart on the right, those safety review periods seem incredible. And in fact, I wouldn't believe them if you showed them to me.
But all you have to do
Speaker 0: Would you take any drug that had 5 days, 3 days, 28 days safety trial? That would be insane. And by the way, we've brought lawsuits against CDC and FDA on this. We said, If there's a safety trial longer than 7 days on the on the h, hepatitis B vaccine, we'd like to see it. FOIA request, Right?
Speaker 1: Right. So for all of these clinical trials, in section 611, they summarize the safety review period, the control used, and how big the trial is, how Powered it is and those numbers seem so unbelievable that we actually FOIAed Freedom of Information Act, Sent request to the FDA to get copies of clinical trial reports and that in fact, for example, for this, hepatitis b vaccine, it is 5 days of safety review after injection With a 147 children, you that doesn't determine anything. And the only reason I think the company that sells this product, Merck, Is is okay with this, why the FDA is we'll get into, is because they don't have to worry about paying for injuries after his license.
Speaker 0: Let's get to some videos. Okay. We plan on this going faster. I'm like, wow, that clock's moving quickly. I wanna show you what some of these people are saying on the stand.
So, this is Stanley Plotkin. Yep. Right? So Stanley Plotkin is arguably the leading voice in vaccines in the world. He's on almost every vaccine company's board of directors in one way or another across the world.
And if you go to the CDC and you sit in one of their meetings at the ACE IT, the Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices, the gavel is called the Plotkin Gavel And the book written on vaccines that's this big is Plotkin' on vaccines. When he was asked Wanna play it?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Go ahead. And this is just the world's leading vaccinologist and vaccines when I asked him about, and I confronted him about the hepatitis B vaccine that we looked at. Under oath. And when they're under oath, you get a little bit of a different answer than when they're on TV or they're doing commercial.
Speaker 2: It is my great Honored to use the Stanley Plotkin gavel to open this meeting.
Speaker 3: Our good friend and colleague, doctor Doctor. Plotkin. Doctor. Plotkin.
Speaker 4: Virtually every country in the world is affected by his vaccines.
Speaker 3: He was involved in pivotal trials on anthrax, Oral polio, rabies vaccine,
Speaker 1: rubella vaccine, the rotavirus vaccine, rabies.
Speaker 5: He has earned the distinguished physician award of the pediatric Infectious Disease Society, the Finland Award of the National Foundation For Infectious Diseases, the Hilleman Award of the American Society For Microbiology, the French Legion of Honor, and the Bruce Medal Preventive medicine.
Speaker 3: He's a member of the Institute of Medicine and the French Academy of Medicine.
Speaker 6: One of the very special things about him is the global impact that he's had, Not just from the products, but from his book.
Speaker 3: He developed a standard textbook for vaccines in 1988.
Speaker 5: Bill Gates calls his book a bible for vaccinologists.
Speaker 7: I hope you all have, indeed have read the book, and I hope it's more accurate than the bible.
Speaker 8: He trained, just a generation of scientists, including myself, to, to think like he thinks. Doctor Plokken, earlier you you testified that there are 2 hep B vaccines in the market, 1, by Glaxo GSK, That's Engerix B and the other one is by Merck, Recombivax HB, right?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: This is the Product, the manufacturer insert for Recombivax HB, correct?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: And the clinical trial experience would be found in Section 6.1, correct? Correct? Doctor. Plotkin?
Speaker 7: Doctor. Yes.
Speaker 8: Doctor. Okay. In Section 6.1, When you look at the clinical trials that were done pre licensure for COMVAX HB, how long does it say that safety was monitored after each dose?
Speaker 7: Let's see. 5 days.
Speaker 8: Is 5 days long enough to detect an autoimmune issue that arises after 5 days?
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 8: Is 5 days long enough to detect any neurological disorder that arose from the vaccine after 5 days? No. There is no control group, correct?
Speaker 7: It does not mention any control group, no.
Speaker 8: If you turn to Section 6.2, under immune system disorders, Does it say that there were reports of hypersensitive reactions, including anaphylactic, anaphylactoid reactions, bronchospasms, And urticaria having been reported within the 1st few hours after vaccination? Yes. There have been reports of hypersensitivity syndrome?
Speaker 7: Yes. That's what
Speaker 8: it states. Does it reports of arthritis?
Speaker 7: It is mentioned. Okay.
Speaker 8: It also reports, autoimmune diseases, including Systemic lupus, erythematoses, lupus like syndrome, vasculitis, And polyteritis nodosa as well. Correct?
Speaker 7: Yes. That's what it states.
Speaker 8: And also, it states that, under the nervous system disorders, it states that, after that, there have been reports of Guillain Barre Syndrome, correct?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: As well as multiple sclerosis, exacerbation of multiple sclerosis, Myelitis, including transverse myelitis, seizure, febrile seizure, peripheral neuropathy, including Bell's palsy, Radiculopathy? Radiculopathy. Thank you very much. Muscle weakness, Hypothesia and encephalitis, correct?
Speaker 7: Correct.
Speaker 8: These are, events that are reported after vaccination. And as we've just Discussed, in order to establish whether it's causal between the vaccine and the condition, you need A randomly a randomized placebo controlled study, but that was not done for the this hepatitis B vaccine before licensure, was it?
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 8: Okay. And given that the DXC now appears on the CDC's recommended list, Isn't it true that it would now be considered unethical to conduct such a study today?
Speaker 7: It would be yes. It would be ethically difficult.
Speaker 0: And there you have it. That's how every vaccine has made it through the process. Imagine how many of us gave the day 1 old baby with all of those side effects that were known, but the reason they get away with saying that there's no causal relationship is they refuse to do the study that would have allowed you to say they were causally related and therefore gets approved, 5 days of safety. That is the massive amount of studies that have been done for products given in day 1 old babies. And let me point this out.
We have more babies die on the 1st day of life in the United States of America than every other industrialized nation combined. That is a terrible death rate for the greatest hospital system in the greatest nation in the world. And can they explain it? And why does your baby need a hepatitis B vaccine, a sexually transmitted disease that you usually only get if you were involved in multiple partners, prostitution or sharing heroin needles. Why does our baby on the 1st day of life need to get that vaccine?
And they might say, well, the mom could be hepatitis B positive. Yeah, but every mother in America is tested and gets a blood test and we know whether she has it or not. So then why is every baby getting it when we know they're the only mothers with a baby might even need it. This is how ridiculous this entire system is and it starts there. Let's continue on.
Post licensure, right? We talked pre licensure, that's like what happens before it's licensed, what happens after it's post, you know, out there in the market.
Speaker 8: So if,
Speaker 1: you know, before licensure, you don't have proper clinical trials that review safety for long duration against a control group that you can really compare it against, You'd at least hope that after licensure that studies are being conducted to assure the safety of childhood vaccines. Well, As we all know and you probably heard the CDC and other health agencies say all the time, all claimed harms
Speaker 8: are thoroughly studied.
Speaker 1: And, and they'll and, you know, you'll hear this, always, you know, rest assured if you say vaccines cause x, they'll tell you it doesn't And and probably the most famous claim, they'll tell you that don't worry vaccines do not cause. Right.
Speaker 4: You
Speaker 1: do that all the time. And so, in looking at this issue, you know, I I remember Dell, we discussed, Well, if we're gonna start to see how well do our health authorities, how well do the pharmaceutical companies really study The claimed harms the vaccines. Let's start by seeing how well they've studied The injury that they have told us, they have studied more thoroughly than anything else.
Speaker 0: This one The vaccine is definitely covered. We've proved beyond a Shout of a doubt that vaccines do not cause autism. We have no idea what causes autism, they'll say on the news. Totally blind to that concept, but we do know what doesn't cause it.
Speaker 5: We're not sure of the scientific community what causes autism, but we know that vaccines Do not.
Speaker 1: Vaccines are really the one thing we have looked at as causing autism.
Speaker 3: We know that vaccines don't cause autism. The science is Clear.
Speaker 6: Vaccines don't cause autism.
Speaker 1: I do not deny in any way that we need to do more about autism, but it has nothing to do The vaccines.
Speaker 2: Let me be clear. Vaccines do not cause autism.
Speaker 8: Vaccines don't cause autism. Absolutely sure. Absolutely sure.
Speaker 1: Well, then great. The studies must be prolific. They must have studied every vaccine to assure that in fact vaccines don't cause autism. Here's the thing. Despite the fact that they're on the news and they're constantly telling everybody out there vaccines don't cause autism, studies surveying parents With children with autistic children, to this day, still 40 to 70% according to these studies of these parents say They believe that vaccines, 1 or more, cause autism.
And when you ask them, what vaccine? What vaccine are you attributing to your child's autism? These are the vaccines that they'll typically list, the ones that it just got highlighted in red. This is the CDC vaccine schedule, and you can see it's the hepatitis b vaccine given 3 times by 6 months of age, And the DTaP, Hib, IPV, these are the vaccines that they will look at as and and click as well as the MMR vaccine, which is at the very bottom, Which is given no earlier than 1 year of age. So if you're gonna study, vaccines, and you're gonna say vaccines don't cause autism.
You're gonna study the vaccines the parents are claiming are causing autism. Right? The vaccines given in the 1st months of 6 months of life. And just to be clear, This claim that these vaccines are causing autism goes way back. This is this what I'm about to show you is a decade Before Andy Wakefield said a word about vaccines and autism.
This is the National Child Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, The law that Del referred to earlier that gave manufacturers immunity liability, when it did that, the law itself, Congress required their health authorities to study the 10 or 11 most commonly claimed injuries from these products. One of them on that list was autism. It said to our health authorities, study whether pertussis containing vaccines does or does not cause autism because It is something that is one of the most claimed injuries from this product. Again, a decade before Andy Wakefield said a word about vaccines and autism. In 1991, the Institute of Medicine did that study.
They reviewed all the literature to see whether or not Vaccines, the pertussis vaccine, causes autism.
Speaker 0: The most studied issue there is with vaccines, autism. And we The Institute of Medicine looks into it. How many studies have been done? What do we know about it?
Speaker 1: So in 1991, 0. No studies have been done. Okay. Early days. No studies.
0. That's what they conclude. And, and then
Speaker 0: when you think about this, Imagine you're a scientist or a doctor, you care about this issue. Well, one of those was Bernadine Healy, head of the NIH, the most powerful research institute in America and for the entire world. She got in, she's running the place, she's the top doctor in the United States of America, looks into the autism vaccine connection. She's asked in 2008 in a CBS interview by Cheryl Atkinson what she thinks. Remember, Oh, we figured this out.
The science is settled. Top scientist head of NIH, former head of NIH.
Speaker 6: This is the time when we do have the opportunity to understand Whether or not there are susceptible children, perhaps genetically, perhaps they have a metabolic issue, mitochondrial disorder, Immunological issue that makes them more susceptible to vaccines, plural, Or to one particular vaccine or to a component of vaccine, like mercury. So we now, in these times, Have to, I think, take another look at that hypothesis, not deny it. And I think we have the tools today that we didn't have 10 years ago, We didn't have 20 years ago to try and tease that out and find out if indeed there is that susceptible group. Why is this important? A susceptible group does not mean that vaccines aren't good.
What a susceptible group will tell us is That maybe there is a group of individuals or a group of children that shouldn't have a particular vaccine or shouldn't have vaccine on the same schedule. It is the job of the public health community and of physicians to be out there and to say, Yes, We can make it safer because we are able to say this is a subset. We're going to deliver it in a way that we think is safer.
Speaker 9: Do you feel the government was too quick to dismiss out of hand that there was this possibility of a link between vaccines and autism?
Speaker 6: I think the government or Certain public health officials in the government have been too quick to dismiss the concerns of these families without studying the population that got sick. I haven't seen major studies that focus on 300 kids who got, Autistic symptoms Within a period of a few weeks of a vaccine, the reason why they didn't want to look for those Susceptibility Groups Was because they were afraid that if they found them, however big or small they were, that that would scare the public away. The fact that there is concern that you don't want to know that susceptible group is a real disappointment to me. If you know that susceptible group, you can save those children.
Speaker 9: It sounds like you don't think the hypothesis of a link between vaccines and autism It's completely irrational.
Speaker 6: So when I first heard about it, I thought, Well, that doesn't make sense to me. The more you delve into it, if you look at the basic science, if you look at the research that's been done in Animals. If you also look at, some of these individual cases and if you look at the evidence that there is no link, What I come away with is the question has not been answered.
Speaker 0: What? Head of NIH, 2008? What? The question hasn't been answered, what am I hearing on the news every single day? And I want you to remember, if you take one thing away, listen to what she said.
We are so afraid That if we do a study that finds a small group of children that are susceptible, not the whole group, just a small group, that are having a bad reaction to this. We're afraid that no matter how small that group is, that if we discover it, it will scare everybody away from taking vaccines and therefore, we are not doing those studies. That is the fact. You want a motive? It's not evil.
It's not money grubbing. It's that they are so afraid that they will hurt the vaccine program by investigating and finding the truth that they refuse to find the truth. And no studies are being done on these issues at all.
Speaker 1: Well, in 2012, To that point, our health authorities again hire the Institute of Medicine to look again at whether or not pertussis containing vaccine, Seen this time as well as diphtheria and tetanus containing vaccine do or do not cause autism. The Institute of Medicine then Created this massive panel that reviewed all the scientific literature out there and they only could find 1 study Relating to DTaP, again, the vaccine given at 2, 4 6 months of life and autism. This Geyer and Geyer study which actually found That there was a correlation between DTaP vaccines and autism, but they threw out the study because it was based on VAERS data. The important point is not that study. The important point is, here we are in 2012, over 2 decades After the 1986 act told our health authorities, study whether pertussis containing vaccine does or doesn't cause autism, And there is still not a single study conducted.
Speaker 0: The biggest complaint parents have across the world of this vaccine, the number one biggest complaint, the most dangerous complaint, our government is saying study it, In 2 decades, they've still refused to do a single study and you're told this has been handled extensively.
Speaker 1: So I had an opportunity again to ask the world's leading vaccinologists about exactly that finding.
Speaker 8: Gonna hand you what's being marked as exhibit 22. This is an excerpt from the IOM's report.
Speaker 7: Right? Yes. Okay.
Speaker 8: And this is where the IOM discusses the evidence with regard to whether DTaP or Tdap Cause autism correct? Correct. Okay. If you turn to the 2nd page can you read the causality conclusion with regard to whether TAP and TDAAP cause autism.
Speaker 7: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, Or acellular pertussis containing vaccine and autism.
Speaker 8: So the IOM reviewed the available evidence with regard to whether Tdap or DTaP can cause autism and their conclusion was the evidence doesn't exist To show whether DTaP or TDaP do or do not cause autism, correct?
Speaker 7: Yes, but the point is that there are no studies showing that it does cause autism except one study By 2 well known anti vaccination figures, Guyer and Guyer, who have no legitimacy whatsoever. So what they're saying is that there's no evidence and, the important point from my point of view is that there is no positive evidence to do a proper study As we've been discussing which would disprove it would involve The controlled administration of vaccines and, withholding vaccines from children who should have them.
Speaker 8: But since there's no evidence that DTaP or Tdap don't cause autism, you can't yet say that vaccines do
Speaker 7: not cause autism, correct? I cannot say that as a, as a scientist or a logician, But I can say as a physician
Speaker 8: that no, they do not cause autism. So what you're saying is as a physician or logician, Then you couldn't say vaccines do not, you could not say vaccines do not cause autism, But as a pediatrician, you're saying that you would say that to a parent because You want to make sure they get the vaccine is that right?
Speaker 7: You know I can't be sure that DTaP doesn't cause leprosy. That doesn't mean that that stops me from using a DTaP vaccine. Are people Claiming
Speaker 8: that DTAP has caused leprosy?
Speaker 1: I Are you aware of any such complaints?
Speaker 7: I'm not aware of any such complaints but I wouldn't be surprised To see it on the web one of these days.
Speaker 8: Okay, but but people have made enough complaints about DTaP, Tdap causing autism, that the Institute of Medicine at the commission of HHS thought it was serious enough To do a scientific review, correct?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: If you don't know whether DTaP or Tdap cause autism, Shouldn't you wait until you do know, until you have the science to support it? To then say that vaccines do not cause autism?
Speaker 7: Do I wait? No. I do not wait because I have to take into account the health of the child.
Speaker 8: And so for that reason, you're okay with telling the parent that DTaP, Tdap does not cause autism Even though the science isn't there yet to support that claim?
Speaker 7: Absolutely. I'm also willing to tell them it doesn't cause leprosy.
Speaker 8: Okay. Again, did the IOM review whether DTEF caused a leprosy?
Speaker 1: No. Okay. You know, I will say that in my experience deposing vaccinologists, immunologists, pediatricians, infectious disease specialists, particularly vaccinologists, When there isn't any evidence, one or another, their conclusion is it doesn't cause it. I've not experienced that in any other area of science. Let's move on before we run out of time.
So, you know, one of the things we wanted to do was we said fine. Maybe the Institute of Medicine couldn't find it. Maybe the head you know, the the the leading vaccine knowledge in the world doesn't have these studies. But the CDC surely should have these studies. The CDC, on its website, says vaccines don't cause autism.
So here, we submitted a Freedom of Information Act request To the CDC asking them, please provide all studies relied upon by the CDC to claim that DTaP vaccines don't cause autism. We did the same for hep b vaccine, Prevnar, Hib, inactivated polio vaccine, as well as all those vaccines combined. We said, please give us the studies. Guess what? They didn't give it to us.
So we had to sue them in federal court. And here is the conclusion of that federal lawsuit. The CDC finally Listed 20 studies that they rely upon, they say, to claim that vaccines don't cause autism for the vaccines given in the 1st 6 months of life. I can only assume they think we don't read or something, but we do. So we read the 20 studies.
Here's the thing about them. 18 of them involve the Marisol, an ingredient not in any of the vaccines we asked about, or the MMR vaccine not given Until at least 1 year of life. One of them involved antigen, one of the studies, not vaccine exposure. And that study even says it cannot tell you whether don't cause autism because they didn't study them. Just studied a con a component of it.
And then finally, the last thing it provided, incredibly, Was a review from 2012, the one we looked at before, that looked at MMR demerisole. Again, MMR, not a vaccine we've asked about. Demerisole, not an ingredient in the vaccines. And DTaP. That's the DTaP review we just read from 2012.
So the only reviewer study they provided us That actually involved a single one of the vaccines given in the 1st 6 months of life Was a study by the Institute of Medicine that found we don't have a single study of whether DTaP does or doesn't cause autism. I had an opportunity to depose, maybe the 2nd or 3rd leading vaccinologist in the world today, doctor Kathryn Edwards, in a case Specifically about vaccines and autism, actually. You see there you can see the medical textbook on vaccines
Speaker 0: He's one of the authors on the same Plotkin book. You can see her
Speaker 1: right there listed One of the, the editors, and, and you could hear when I confronted her about this issue, what she had to say about the state of the science With regards to whether vaccines don't cause autism again the the issue they say they have studied more thoroughly and robustly than any other claimed vaccine injury.
Speaker 8: According to your profile, you have done most of the treatable trials relied upon to license many of the vaccines, correct, on the market?
Speaker 10: Yes, sir. Okay.
Speaker 8: So you're highly experienced in conducting clinical trials, correct?
Speaker 10: I'm highly experienced conducting clinical
Speaker 8: And you're familiar with many of the clinical trials that rely upon to license many of the vaccines currently on the market. Correct?
Speaker 2: I am.
Speaker 1: In your opinion,
Speaker 8: did the clinical trials relied upon to license the vaccines that Gates received, Many of which are still on the market today. Were they designed to rule out That the vaccine causes autism.
Speaker 2: No. You badgered me into answering the question the way you want me to, but I I think that, That, that I've, that's probably the answer.
Speaker 8: Is it, is that your accurate and truthful testimony?
Speaker 4: Yes. In the expert disclosures for this case, it it asserts that among other things, you will testify that quote, The issue of whether vaccines cause autism has been thoroughly researched and rejected, end quote. It's your testimony that MMR vaccine cannot cause autism.
Speaker 10: That's correct.
Speaker 4: It's your testimony that hep b vaccine cannot cause autism.
Speaker 10: That's correct.
Speaker 4: It's your testimony that IPOL cannot cause autism.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 4: It's Is your testimony that Hib vaccine cannot cause autism?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Is
Speaker 4: your testimony that Varicella vaccine cannot cause autism?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 4: It's your testimony that Prevnar vaccine cannot cause autism?
Speaker 10: Yes.
Speaker 4: And it's your testimony that DTAB vaccine cannot cause autism?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 4: And do you have a study that supports that DTaP doesn't cause autism?
Speaker 10: I have I do not have a study that's that DTaP
Speaker 2: causes autism. So I don't have either.
Speaker 4: Do you have any study one way or another of whether Ipol causes autism?
Speaker 10: I no. I do not, sir.
Speaker 4: Do you have any study one way or another of whether Engerix B causes autism?
Speaker 10: I do not have any, evidence that it causes autism nor that it does not.
Speaker 4: And what about, HID titers Vaccine. Any evidence one way or another, whether it causes autism? And what about Prevnar vaccine? Any evidence one way or another?
Speaker 10: No, sir.
Speaker 4: And how about varicella vaccine? Let me just finish. Are there any studies one way or another that support whether it does or doesn't cause autism?
Speaker 10: Part of of MMR, but but not as, varicella by itself. No, sir. No Studies that say it does or no studies that say it doesn't.
Speaker 4: Right. There have been studies that have found An association between hepatitis B vaccine and autism, correct?
Speaker 10: Not Studies that I feel are credible.
Speaker 4: K. Which study which study do you are you referring to when you say that? Well, why
Speaker 10: don't you show me the study and then I'll see whether I agree with it.
Speaker 0: Ultimately, here's what it comes down to. Of all the studies they've told you, they've done all these studies of the vaccine program. They've only ever looked at 1 vaccine truly, that's the MMR vaccine, none of the other 16 vaccines given in 72 doses, They've only done studies on one of all of those ingredients and that's the mercury that's no longer in most of the vaccines and you still have 50 to 70% of parents saying I'm pretty sure it happened right after the vaccine, that's when I lost my kid and I want to point out, get to the next video and you can set it up, but I want to point this out: they will tell you, Well, that's just a knee jerk reaction of a parent, they need something to blame, they blame the vaccines because vaccines are something you're giving your kids every day. I will assure you I have interviewed thousands of these parents and these stories. And what they will end up telling you is it was the last thing that they ever wanted to blame.
They listened to their doctors, they chased every other red herring they could find for an excuse. They wanted it to be their DNA. Please let it be my DNA so there's nothing I had involved with When they finally come to the conclusion that it's a vaccine that they chose to give their child, that is one of the darkest days for every one of these parents that's ever been through it. Because now I did it. I gave my kids something that I could have opted out of, I could have been against, I could have done some reading on it and now the guilt is with them the rest of their lives.
I assure you, this is not a go to, jump to, I just want to blame vaccines because the day you come to that conclusion, you're gonna be blaming yourself the rest of your life and no one makes that their first choice. So when you have up to 70% of parents saying it's the vaccine, these are parents in pain that have looked for every other reason there could have possibly been and they're only left with one obvious conclusion.
Speaker 1: So a lot of people say, well, how could this happen? How could regulators allow this to happen? 2000, there's a congressional report that found that most of the members of the, CDC and FDA vaccine committees have substantial substantial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. 2009, they find it again, and here's the deposition again of Doctor. Edwards, who was one of the members of the 5 person, Data Safety Monitoring Board for the Pfizer COVID nineteen vaccine.
Speaker 8: Isn't it true that
Speaker 11: you have also been an advisor to Pfizer?
Speaker 2: Yes, sir. I have been an advisor to Pfizer, and I've been Working very, very closely with Pfizer, particularly with their COVID vaccines, and going over lots So a reaction to that risk event. So yes, I am working and be paid by Pfizer for my assessment of vaccine safety.
Speaker 11: The part of the Data Safety Monitoring Board
Speaker 8: for the project COVEX, you know, you said that.
Speaker 11: You're one
Speaker 8: of the only 5 members
Speaker 11: of that Data Safety Monitoring Board, so with Pfizer COVID nineteen vaccine, right?
Speaker 2: Yes, you're right.
Speaker 11: That's supposed to be independent Data Safety Monitoring Board, correct?
Speaker 2: It is an independent Data Safety Monitoring
Speaker 11: That's the board that
Speaker 8: all of us
Speaker 11: in America Our hoping on and relying upon is going to independently make sure that safety is properly assessed
Speaker 8: as the clinical trial for that Pfizer COVID
Speaker 2: That's true. And let me tell you that that we have worked very hard to to do that indeed, as comprehensively as we possibly can.
Speaker 11: And since it's supposed to be independent, it's critical that the members of that independent Data Safety Monitoring Board are in fact independent Of the pharmaceutical company whose product is being evaluated, correct?
Speaker 2: That's correct.
Speaker 11: But this is true that directly before becoming a member of the Independent Data so
Speaker 8: you can monitor the Pfizer COVID nineteen vaccine. You were Pfizer to Pfizer?
Speaker 2: Pfizer pays me To evaluate the safety of the vaccines because I'm an expert. So I do get paid to do the work
Speaker 11: My question was, Before you became a member of the independent data safety monitoring work for the Pfizer COVID nineteen vaccine, isn't it true that
Speaker 1: you were
Speaker 11: Separate before you held that independent position, you were an advisor to Pfizer.
Speaker 2: Yes, sir. But I think what you're presuming is that because I've been an advisor makes me on their door What makes me, going to say what they want me to say, that head is not and has never been a part of my being. I'd say what I believe based on my expertise.
Speaker 11: So, you don't think that financial Incentives can sway people's judgment at all.
Speaker 2: It does not sway my judgment, sir.
Speaker 8: Why BOGS having an independent Data Safety Monitoring Board? Why isn't Pfizer just have some of its employees on it?
Speaker 2: Because we are independent.
Speaker 11: Meaning folks who were never advisors to Pfizer.
Speaker 2: We are independent from Pfizer in this assessment.
Speaker 1: The one thing to think about though, it's it's comical in in a way, but it's also, it's deadly serious because doctor Edwards was the vaccinologist Just on that 5 member independent data city monitor board who sat there evaluating the data while the COVID nineteen vaccine, Pfizer's COVID nineteen vaccine That's been given to about 200,000,000 Americans as being assessed Yep. Before it rolled out and was put into the arms of people across this country. You go and you inject almost every healthy person with something. You only need to mess that up one time one time to break our society. We'll we'll move on to, I guess we're almost out of time.
Speaker 0: Final issue of abortion, which we're going to Mississippi tomorrow because Aaron Siri managed to win the biggest lawsuit in this space and return the religious exemption to Mississippi. Yeah. They lost that ability to opt out of the program in 1979 and just a couple months ago, you managed to win that. Why is it important? It's important for people, especially in the Bible Belt, that maybe don't want aborted babies being used in the processing, development and manufacturing of vaccines.
You're told, well, it was 1 baby in the 1960s. Aaron Seery put Stanley Plotkin on the stand. Let's see if it really was 1 baby. In your work related to vaccines, how many fetuses have been part of that work?
Speaker 7: My own personal work? 2.
Speaker 8: I'm gonna hand you what's been marked plaintiff's exhibit 41. Okay. Are you familiar with this article, doctor Plotkin?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: Okay. Are you listed as an author on this article?
Speaker 7: Yes. Okay.
Speaker 8: This study took place at the Wistar Institute, correct?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: You were at the Wistar Institute, correct?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: How many fetuses were used in the study described in this article? Quite a few. So This study involved 74 fetuses, correct?
Speaker 7: I don't remember exactly how many.
Speaker 8: Turn to Page 12 of the study. Yeah. 76. 76. Mhmm.
And, these fetuses, were all 3 months or older when aborted, correct?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: Okay. And these were all normally developed fetuses, correct?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: What organs did you harvest from these fetuses?
Speaker 7: Well, I didn't personally harvest any, But, a whole range of tissues were harvested, by coworkers.
Speaker 8: Okay. And these pieces were then cut up into little pieces, right?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: And they were cultured? Yes. Okay. Some of the pieces of the fetuses were pituitary gland That were that were chopped up into pieces to
Speaker 7: Mhmm.
Speaker 8: Okay. Included the lung of the fetuses?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: Okay. Included the skin?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: Kidney?
Speaker 7: Yes. Spleen? Yes. Heart? Yes.
Speaker 8: And and tongue?
Speaker 7: I don't recall, but probably yes.
Speaker 8: So I just want to make sure I understand. In your entire career and this was just 1 study, so I'm going to ask I'm going to ask you again. In your entire career, how many fetuses have you worked with?
Speaker 7: Well, I don't remember the exact number, but quite a few When we were studying them, originally before we decided to use them to make vaccines.
Speaker 8: Do you have any sense? I mean, this one study had 76. How many other studies did you have that you used the Border Fetuses for?
Speaker 7: Oh, I don't remember how many.
Speaker 8: You're you're aware are you aware that the one of the, objections to vaccination by the plaintiff in this case is The inclusion of aborted fetal tissue in the development of vaccines and the fact that it's actually Part of the ingredients of vaccines?
Speaker 7: Yes. I'm aware of those objections. The Catholic Church has actually issued a document on that which says that individuals who need the vaccine should receive the vaccines regardless of the fact and that, that, I think it implies that I am the individual who will go to hell because of the use of aborted Tissues, which I am glad to to do. Okay.
Speaker 8: Do you know if the mother is Catholic?
Speaker 7: I have no idea.
Speaker 8: Okay. Do you take issue with religious beliefs?
Speaker 7: Yes. Okay.
Speaker 8: You've said that, quote, vaccination is always under attack by religious zealots who believe that The will of God includes death and disease?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: You stand by that statement?
Speaker 7: I absolutely do. Okay.
Speaker 8: Are you an atheist?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 0: That's just some of the truths you can find at the highwire.com and the great work that Aaron Seery's been doing, getting the truth exposed. Hopefully, this will help you understand as you hear this conversation. You hear attacks on people like Robert Kennedy Junior being said that he's lying when he says that the safety trials haven't been done. Now, you know the truth. Spread the word.
Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
The Placebo Myth with receipts.
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
Every disease was in precipitous decline when the vaccine was introduced.
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
VAERS, designed to be ignored.
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
More testimony exposing “the $cience”
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
Under oath and clueless. PART 1
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
Under oath and clueless Part 2
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
Full Testimony
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
Admitting the quiet part out loud.
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
Plotkin conflicts of interest
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
Maurice Hilleman and Leonard Hayflick aren’t household names but in the world biological sciences they are legends. Hilleman passed away in 2005 and is credited with developing over 40 vaccines and is widely credited as the most influential vaccinolgists ever. Hayflick who is still alive and currently a Professor of Anatomy at UCSF School of medicine, is known for discovering that normal human cells divide for a limited number of times in vitro, known today as the Hayflick Limit. His cell strain WI-38 replaced the monkey kidney cells as the substrate used for producing human vaccines. These are serious scientists and widely celebrated by all stripes so when they speak, people tend to listen. I say this because what you are about to watch is an edit of three different documentaries that compliment each other nicely because each presents evidence from a different perspective on generally the same topic. The first clip is presented by Leonard Horowitz, a Harvard trained public health expert, author and pharmaceutical industry whistleblower. He located a segment that was left on the cutting room floor of a PBS Documentary entitled “The Health Century” which featured a Maurice Hilleman interview. He also mentions Litton Bionetics, a US bio weapons contractor who was responsible for the 1967 Marburg virus outbreak that killed 7 people. 🤔 Marburg Incident: https://is.gd/u1cmpo In it Hilleman reveals information that he and a colleague while working at Merck, discovered a new virus in the monkeys whose kidneys were being used as a substrate in the production of the polio vaccines. When I first heard it I was slightly incredulous because the implications are frightening, so I sought out corroborating evidence. After a couple weeks of searching I came across an interview of Hayflick where he is discussing the problems with using monkey kidneys as a substrate for vaccine production, in particular for the Polio vaccines. Well obviously my ears perked up and he even went on to name drop Hilleman and refer to his morbid discovery. The Virus you ask? Simian Virus 40 (SV40), that was found to be highly carcinogenic. Those two clips are sandwiched between a 2004 documentary called “The Origin of AIDS”. It’s extremely well done with historical footage and some serious investigative journalism spanning the globe, definitely watch it in full some time. The theory it proposes dovetails nicely with the other two clips. If what they propose is true, the implications boggle the mind. Personally, I don’t know if it’s the truth but it sure gets the wheels turning if you can view the evidence objectively. After you watch, let me know what you think below.👇🏻
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Marburg virus, known as the mother of Ebola, broke out in three vaccine production facilities in 1967, causing deaths and injuries. The monkey supplier, Litton BioNetics, was also a biological weapons contractor for the military and the CIA. Dr. Maurice Hilleman, a vaccine expert, discovered that imported monkeys were carrying viruses, including the AIDS virus. The polio vaccine, derived from monkey organs, was contaminated with the SV40 virus. Independent journalist Tom Curtis published an article suggesting that the polio vaccine could have led to the spread of AIDS. However, the theory was challenged and the scientific community dismissed it. The true origins of AIDS remain uncertain.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The mother of Ebola is the Marburg virus that first broke out in 3 vaccine production facilities in 3 different parts of the world simultaneously in 1967, killing 7 people and injuring another 31. This grave risk came from the fact that the monkey supplier, Litton BioNetics, was also a leading biological weapons contractor, for the military and the CIA by 1969. With military and White House influence, no one would dare declare biokinetics as negligence and liability in any outbreak. Listen now to the voice of the world's leading vaccine expert, doctor Maurice Hilleman, chief of the Merck Pharmaceutical Company's vaccine division, relay this problem he was having with imported monkeys. He best explains the origin of AIDS, But what you are about to hear was cut from any public disclosures.
Speaker 1: And I think that vaccines have to be considered the The bargain basement technology for the 20th century.
Speaker 2: Fifty years ago, when Morris Tilleman was a high school student in Miles City, Montana. He hoped he might qualify as a management trainee for the local JCPenney store. Instead, he went on to pioneer more breakthroughs in vaccine research and development than anyone in the history of American medicine. Among the discoveries he made at Merck are vaccines for mumps, rubella, and measles.
Speaker 3: Tell me, how you found SV 40 and the polio vaccine.
Speaker 1: Well, that was a Merck thing. Yeah. I came to Merck, and I was going to develop vaccines. And we had wild viruses in those days. Wild monkey kidney viruses and so forth.
And I finally, after 6 months, gave up. I said that you cannot develop vaccines with these damn monkeys. We're we're finished, and if I can't do something about it, I'm gonna quit. Mhmm. I'm gonna try it.
Mhmm. So I went down to see Bill Nann at The zoo in Washington, DC, and and I told Bill Nanna, I said, look. Here's a I got a problem. I don't know what the hell we're doing. Bill Mann is a very bright guy.
I said these lousy monkeys are picking it up and while being stored in the airports in transit with these loading, offloading, he said. It's very simple. He said, you go ahead. Get your monkeys out of West Africa. Get the African green.
Bring them into Madrid. One load them there. There are no other traffic through there for animals, fly them into Philadelphia, pick them up, or fly them into New York and pick them up right off the airplane. So I brought African Greens, and I didn't know we were importing AIDS virus at the time.
Speaker 3: And when it was To you, we have to save virus. I don't know. It was you, we have to save virus. We have to It became historic. It became historical.
Speaker 4: Verbal due to the overbangs. So
Speaker 1: what he did, He he brought in I mean, we brought in those monkeys. Now we had those. So this was the solution Because those monkeys didn't have the wild viruses, but we had all these
Speaker 3: Why didn't the greens have the wild viruses since they came back after?
Speaker 1: Because they weren't, well, they weren't They weren't being infected in these group holding things with all the other 40 different viruses. But they had
Speaker 3: the ones they brought from the jungle, Yeah.
Speaker 1: They had those, but there were relatively few. What what you do is you have a gang housing, you're gonna have an epidemic Transmission of infection in a confined space.
Speaker 5: Oh, it's not that bad.
Speaker 1: So, anyway, the Greens came in. Now we had these, and then we're we're taking our seed stocks to clean them up, and god, now I'm discovering new viruses. So I said, shoot, that's priest. Well, I got an invitation from his sister Kinney Foundation, you know, which was the opposing Foundation. You know, it was the live virus.
Alright. Yeah. They they jumped on the savings bandwagon. Mhmm. And they asked me to come down and give a talk I had a sister Kenny Foundation meeting, and I said it was an international meeting.
I was like, god. What am I gonna talk about? I know what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna talk about the detection of nondetectable viruses as a topic.
Speaker 6: There were those Who didn't want a live virus vaccine. They concentrated. National Federation for Infantile Paralysis concentrated all its efforts on getting more and more people to use the killed virus vaccine while they were supporting me for research on the live virus
Speaker 1: So now I gotta have something, you know, that's gonna attract attention. Uh-huh. So I thought, gee, that damn STD 40 I mean, that that damn that vacuuming the agents that we have. I'm gonna just pick that particular one. Mhmm.
That virus has got to be in in vaccines, and, It's gonna be in the Sabin's vaccine, so I quickly tested it. Sure enough, it was in there, and we'll be down. So now, so I'll go ahead and
Speaker 3: So you just took stocks of Sabin's vaccine off the shelf here at Merck?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, that had not been made at Merck it was made at Merck
Speaker 3: You were making it for Sabin at Yeah.
Speaker 1: It was made before I came.
Speaker 3: Yeah. But at this point, Sabin is still just doing these massive field trials. Mhmm. Okay.
Speaker 1: In Russia and so forth. So I go down. I talked about the the detection of non tech first, and I told Albert
Speaker 3: But at this point, Sabin is still just doing these massive field trials.
Speaker 1: Mhmm. Okay. In Russia and so forth. So I go down. I talked about the, the detection of non tech I told Albert.
I said, listen, Albert. I said, you know, you and I are good friends. But I said, I'm gonna I'm gonna go down there. You're gonna get I'm gonna talk about a virus that's in your vaccine. If you're gonna get rid of the virus, don't worry about it.
You're gonna get rid of it. But, So, of course, Hunter was very upset with me. What did he say? Well, he said basically that this This is just another obfuscation that is going to upset vaccines. And I said, well, you know, you're absolutely right.
And I said, we have a new era here. We have a new era of the Protection. And the important thing is to get rid of these viruses.
Speaker 3: Why would he call it an obfuscation if it was a virus
Speaker 1: that was contaminated? Because we well, there are 48 different viruses in these vaccines, anyway, that we were inactivating. And, but
Speaker 3: you weren't activating the That's correct.
Speaker 1: No. That's right. But yellow fever vaccine had leukemia virus in it, and, you know, this is in the days of Very crude science. So, anyway, I went down and talked to him, and I always said, well, why are you concerned about it? I said, well, tell
Speaker 3: me about it.
Speaker 1: I said, I have a feeling in my bones that this virus is different. I I don't know why to tell you this, but I've been around biology a long time. I just think this virus may have some long term effects. Mhmm. And he said, what?
Cancer.
Speaker 6: I love it.
Speaker 3: I love it. Go ahead. Yeah.
Speaker 1: No. I said, Albert, I said, you you probably think I'm nuts, but
Speaker 3: I just have that feeling. Well, in the
Speaker 1: meantime, we had taken this virus person
Speaker 3: put it into monkey and into hamsters.
Speaker 1: Uh-huh. So we had this meeting, and that was started the topic of the day, and the jokes that were going around was, gee, we would win the Olympics because, the The Russians went on. They loaded down these tumors. This is where the vaccine was being tested. This was this was Yeah.
Right. Understand. Right. So, it'd be really destroyed.
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, it was a big image. Yeah. Right.
Speaker 1: So this sort of a topic. Anyway
Speaker 3: Was this the Cancer Society meeting in the New York, kind
Speaker 1: of time? This was the,
Speaker 3: sister Kenny. Oh, it's sister Kenny. Right.
Speaker 1: And, Del Becco he said, that he saw problems with these kinds of agents.
Speaker 3: Why didn't this get out in the press?
Speaker 1: Well, I guess it did. I don't remember. We had no press release. I mean, obviously, you don't go up. This is a scientific affair within
Speaker 7: An historic victory over a dread disease has dramatically unfolded at the University of Michigan. Here, scientists usher in a new medical age with the monumental reports that prove the Salk vaccine against crippling polio to be a sensational success. It's a day of triumph for 40 year old doctor Jonas e Salk, developer of the vaccine. He arrives with Basil O'Connor, head of the National Foundation For Infantile Paralysis, which Finance the tests. Hundreds of reporters and scientists from all over the nation gather for the momentous announcement.
Speaker 6: It was too much of a show. There was too much Hollywood, there was too much exaggeration, and the impression in 1957 that was no. In 1954, that was given was that the problem had been solved, polio had been conquered.
Speaker 1: But, anyway, we know it was the virus seed stock for making the vaccine. Vaccine. Mhmm. That virus, you see, is 1 in 10,000 particles is not inactivated by fermata. It was good science at the time because that was what you did.
You didn't worry about these wild viruses.
Speaker 3: So you discovered it wasn't being inactivated in the salt factory?
Speaker 1: So then, the next thing we know is 3, 4 weeks after that, and I found that there were tumors popping out of these hamsters.
Speaker 0: Despite AIDS and leukemia suddenly becoming pandemic from wild viruses. Hilleman said this was good science at that time. So imagine what bad science might yield, science directed for profit and population control by the military medical petrochemical pharmaceutical cartel.
Speaker 5: In 1992, an independent journalist Tom Curtis published an article with unexpected consequences.
Speaker 8: I had a source in California, an AIDS treatment activist, who, sent me a packet of, clips one day saying, this is a bombshell story waiting for an investigative reporter. What what I had been sent was a couple of documents, saying, well, it's all very well and good to talk about these bizarre tribal rituals or other possible explanations of the cause of AIDS, but it is a fact that the virus, the monkey virus SV 40, was transmitted to millions of people across the world. And, and they sort of planted the suggestion that something similar might have happened, with AIDS.
Speaker 5: This revelation was a bombshell. Tom Curtis speculated that if during the fifties, polio vaccines were contaminated with the monkey virus, s s v forty. Something similar could have happened with AIDS. SIV, the ancestor of the AIDS virus, is also a monkey virus. And Curtis connected this fact to a mass polio vaccination campaign in the Congo.
Speaker 8: It looked at The polio campaign that doctor Koprowski had, undertaken in the former Belgian Congo In the middle to late 19 fifties, and, I did focus on that campaign because of certain geographic similarities to Where scientists were saying AIDS had, begun in the human population, which was in this same region.
Speaker 5: And this particular region of Africa is the epicenter of the AIDS epidemic. Curtis' hypothesis jolted the scientific community because it implicated one of its own, Hilary Koprowski, a renowned researcher and pioneer in the fight against polio.
Speaker 9: There was a a tremendous feeling in the scientific community That they were somehow endangered. If you had journalists writing articles in the Rolling Stone, My god. What about our dignity? So there was a lot of concern from that viewpoint. There was a lot of concern that it was written by a person who was a professional journalist and that they were afraid that people would no longer immunize their children against polio.
Speaker 5: How could a simian virus possibly contaminate a vaccine? Curtis's argument was extremely serious because it put in question the manufacturing of polio vaccine, one of modern medicine's greatest triumphs. To understand what could have happened, we have to return to the polio years. In 1958, America was beginning to recover from a scourge that had haunted it for more than 50 years, polio. The disease is still incurable at the time, paralyzed and killed, 90,000,000 Americans were vaccinated in one of the largest mass vaccination campaigns ever.
Polio vaccine, one of modern medicine's greatest successes, Made its inventor, Jonas Salk, a hero.
Speaker 7: 164,000,000 Americans do say nothing of all the other people in the world that'll profit from
Speaker 10: your discount.
Speaker 5: But polio vaccine had one distinctive feature. It was the first to be derived from monkey organs. Mass commercialization began and gave rise to the development of an enormous market for monkeys used both as test animals and as raw material from which to create the polio vaccine. Entire shipments of macaque arrived in America from India and the Philippines.
Speaker 9: To make primary cultures of monkey kidneys, You needed monkey kidneys. You needed flasks or bottles. You needed culture medium, And this was usually supplemented with fetal calf serum or with horse serum, which was used Extensively. And, you were in business. 1 obtains a piece of tissue, And, then one divides it.
And the way you divide it is you first of all, in the crudest sense, you take a pair of scissors, And you snip, snip, snip, snip, snip until you have a suspension of cells that is Relatively crude. That is there are lumps and bumps in there. Put them into the flasks. Let them settle down and make a multilayer of cells. Add poliovirus, and then you would collect the liquid from the cultures, Filter out the cells, remove the cell remains, and then you would have a virus suspension.
Then you could Kill it with formaldehyde, put it into bottles, and call it polio vaccine. That was it. So trying to get entirely pure cultures as primary cultures is very difficult. You can have a culture of monkey kidney cells that looks to be very pure. But if you Look at those on the surface or if you stain them or you look with a special microscope, you can see that there are other cell types present in there.
Speaker 5: And other viruses could have infected these other cells. Driven to eradicate 1 disease, we risked creating another. Scientists and governmental organizations knew this. The powerful Food and Drug Administration was aware of the risks but kept the information hidden.
Speaker 10: It was the researcher, Venice Eddy, At the Food and Drug Administration, who first had indications that these viruses existed, and Her findings were essentially suppressed. There is a lot of inner discussion within, FDA, of her taking examples of mouse tumors to her supervisors, And they're seemingly being biased against the possibility that this could be a nasty virus. She did, however, present her work at a New York meeting To which again she was criticized for doing that. Subsequently, doctor Sweet and doctor Hilleman found the same virus, having heard about it, And, named it SV 40.
Speaker 5: During this same period, The terminology for these monkey viruses was established and published in the medical literature. SV 40 was only the 40th virus in a very long list.
Speaker 9: We should have stopped using monkey kidney tissues, I think, for virus production in 1960, and we've continued to do so. The drug companies are the ones who really determine this. They have developed facilities. They develop processes that would cost them a lot of money if they had to do it a different way. The thing that makes me physically angry Is the fact that we now have the genetic ability to make synthetic polio vaccine from recombinant proteins and we are not doing that we continue to take ground up monkey parts and inject them into children.
Speaker 5: Using monkeys to manufacture vaccines was and still remains dangerous. Curtis' basis for his theory was correct. Polio vaccines at the time were contaminated with a monkey virus, But that didn't explain the appearance of AIDS. Curtis proposed that Koprowski made his vaccine using a monkey other than the macaque, The African green monkey. But this was a mistake.
The African green monkey does carry an IV. But this is not the direct ancestor of HIV one, our AIDS virus.
Speaker 9: Hillary Koprowski felt that his honor had been filed and that he had been done serious injury. The Rolling Stone folded under And publicly apologize for having published the article. And that was, as they say, that for the time being.
Speaker 8: I thought, you know, people should think for themselves, evaluate the evidence, decide. And mostly, I thought they should simply test the vaccine to find out whether this theory had merit or not, because theories are the way scientific knowledge advances. And even theories that turn out not to be true help advance scientific knowledge. So I felt it was a legitimate question, And I felt a little bit under siege by the medical community and, and some in the science press and so on who were Acting like I was an apostate. You know?
Speaker 5: Hilary Koprowski, the man Curtis had attacked, is a well known and respected scientist, a pioneer of research into rabies and polio. He is also an expert on cancer and AIDS. Back in the polio years, Hilary Koprowski was a young Polish researcher. Brilliant and ambitious, he was determined to make a name for himself in his newly adopted country, The USA. In 1950, he secretly tested his first prototype of a live oral polio vaccine On 20 handicapped children at Letchworth Village in New York state.
When the scientific community learned that Hilary Koprowski was experimenting on human beings, it was a scandal, even though the test was deemed to have done no harm. The community's condemnation of Koprowski's secret research led to the loss of official support for his work with preference shifting to Jonas Salk's injected polio vaccine, but Koprowski refused to quit. With the support of a large pharmaceutical company, Lederle, he proceeded to test different versions of his oral polio vaccine on small groups of human subjects, 52 at Sonoma, 53 at Letchworth Village, 54 at Woodbine, and 55 at Clinton Farms. A tragic event lent him unexpected support. On April 23, 1955, 260 children injected with Salk's vaccine became sick.
11 died. The investigation showed that some of the Salk vaccine lots were defective. Confidence in Salk's injected vaccine was shaken, clearing the way for Koprowski to assert himself.
Speaker 9: One hand, you had Albert Sabin who looked on this as an enormous challenge. On the other hand, Hillary Approached it from the standpoint that, yes, this was a challenge. Yes, this was a medical problem. Yes. It was gonna be interesting to solve it.
And, yes, we'll go off and do it by whatever means that are available to us that are illegal. So you have these 2 conflicting individuals who are all working towards the same goal, And it's, one of the great dramas of modern times of how they interacted and how they worked. They were willing to go and take, subjects who may or may not have been informed of what they were doing, they were able they were willing to go, to the backside of the moon if it meant that they could find out whether or not they had a viable product.
Speaker 5: To win this race, they have to test. And to test, they need the largest possible population of nonimmunized people, something no longer available in America. The first to prove the reliability and safety of his vaccine will be the winner. Sabin makes a secret deal with his native country, the USSR, where he will vaccinate more than 6,000,000 people in Latvia, Estonia and Kazakhstan. Koprowski chooses an African country, the Belgian Congo, a long standing possession of King Leopold and the jewel of his colonial empire.
Because of the Congo's uranium mines, Commercial accords had existed between America and Belgium since the 2nd World War. This was also a country with one of Africa's best organized and most modern health care infrastructures. The Efficient Organization of Medical Records made the local population extremely suitable for experimentation.
Speaker 4: Return to political quiet After the recent disturbances, Leopoldville engages in an all out fight against infantile paralysis, crowding every clinic with mothers and their children. The latter to receive orally administered shots of a new vaccine against the scourge of childhood. It is a live virus preparation developed in the United States by Philadelphia's doctor Hillary Koprowski. And it differs from our famed soft vaccine in that it does away with injections. It must taste Good if the children's receptivity to it is a criterion.
Speaker 9: Hillary Koprowski went to the Congo and took people who had been abused, mistreated, and had been the victims of, If you wanna put it that way, of colonial expansion for nearly a 100 years and use them. The ethics of that, I don't think occurred to anyone at the time. The opportunity was there. It was legal. It was allowed by the Belgian government.
They went in and did their job, and that was it. No big deal.
Speaker 5: Sabin and Koprowski They conducted their experiments at the same time with the same type of vaccine. No AIDS cases were detected in Russia, But in the Congo, the first known HIV infections surfaced a couple of years after the start of the vaccinations. Was it coincidental, or was there, as Curtis suggested, something different with Koprowski's vaccine? To get a definitive answer, Curtis had tried to get the vaccine used in the Congo tested, something Cecil Fox had wanted to do in 1985.
Speaker 9: When I went to the Food and Drug Administration as a government employee to ask if I could obtain Early lots of polio vaccine to test for the presence of sequences or presence of viruses in them. I was told that they didn't exist. Well, I was told they did exist, but something happened, and then they didn't exist. And they were unavailable to me. I could not get them.
I could not find them. There was no way I could go through and find out what they had in their freezers. I was told by other people that all of that work had already been done, and it was not true. Now I had to take that on faith. I did not believe them.
So, because I work for the government, I had to kind of let it day where it was, I could not pursue it more energetically.
Speaker 5: Why wasn't Cecil Fox able to gain access to the Congo polio samples, maybe because in 1958, Albert Sabin analyzed Koprowski's vaccine, Called CHAT and found it to be unstable and contaminated by an unknown virus, which he called virus X. He told Koprowski about the findings. The response was immediate. Dear Albert, I have carefully considered your extraordinary letter of November 17th with its even more extraordinary enclosures. Like you, I am trying to put myself in your position, but I cannot imagine for a moment that I would dismiss 10 years of work by another investigator With 1 airy wave of an inter spinal needle.
I'm also sure that you are familiar with the maxim of La Rochefoucauld. Sabin replied, Sir, your letter of December 1st does not merit a reply. It is clear that dispassionate analysis and discourse are impossible with you. Sarcasm and invectives do not take the place of reproducible facts in science. Farewell, my one time friend and colleague.
Koprowski's CHAT vaccine was, therefore, less safe than claimed and possibly even contaminated. Sabin decided to make his findings public. In June 1960, his vaccine, Deemed more reliable was chosen to replace Salk's. Koprowski lost the race, but ironically, Sabin's vaccine wasn't perfect either. Like Salk's, It was contaminated by the macaque monkey virus, SV 40.
Hamilton believed that immensely powerful medical and pharmaceutical interests play a huge role in science. Because these institutions are preoccupied with ever greater profits, scientists bear the responsibility to guard against potential dangers to society that they might find in the course of their research.
Speaker 11: The idea that this great triumph, and it certainly was a wonderful triumph of defeating polio was accompanied by a disaster as big as AIDS. And, obviously, it knocks you off your, plenty of success to have to admit that this even might have happened, let alone that it actually did happen. And I seem to encounter this every time I I talk to people who are connected with medical science. They just don't want to hear about this this theory.
Speaker 12: Is there a possibility here scientists simply don't want to know, don't want to accept perhaps at least the moral, if not the legal liability for What has been done for the AIDS virus?
Speaker 11: I feel that this is so and it's one of the most worrying aspects of the case. I feel it's not only, the origin of AIDS that is in question here. It is the conduct of science Towards this hypothesis, which has been one of almost paranoid rejection, I would say. I think I would not exaggerate To describe it as medical science's worst hated hypothesis, and there seems to be a great reluctance to publish Anything about it or to test any of the available evidence that could be more directly tested.
Speaker 5: For Bill Hamilton, there was a 95% possibility that the theory would prove valid, So he decided to leave for the Congo with Ed Hooper to follow-up on the chimpanzees. In a letter he sent to the British Science Academy, the prestigious Royal Society, he wrote.
Speaker 13: It's inspired by the extraordinary fact But despite a very plausible hypothesis that the human version of the AIDS virus first took off in humans From chimpanzees and exactly the Upper Congo area, no one has been there to collect samples for analysis for SIVs, But we hope to collect and bring back faeces in alcohol from as many chimps and bonobos as we can approach.
Speaker 5: Bill Hamilton returned to the Congo to collect samples. During that second visit, he contracted malaria and died in March 2000.
Speaker 14: He went to Africa. He died because of his 2nd trip to Africa. What was his 2nd trip to Africa? Collecting chimpanzee stools because we know that you can get from chimpanzee stools, you can amplify out genetic material. And this was a way of because we're not allowed to shoot chimpanzees for, obviously, I mean, as Chris is.
And this is the substitute, so you're getting chimps here. Look, You can say Bill Hammond was ethereal. He was, had these odd ideas. He was this, and he was that. But what was the guy doing?
Collecting data. Data collecting. So he knew very well that maybe it was a you could say it was a wacky theory. It was a possible idea, And he knew the only way to resolve it was by getting data. So you have this remarkable sort of figure, Comes up with some wacky ideas.
Comes up with some brilliant ideas. Bigger scientist than I. But what was he doing? Scientific method.
Speaker 5: Before his trip to Africa, Hamilton had asked the Royal Society to stage a debate on the origins of AIDS. After he died, Robin Weiss and Simon Wayne Hobson, the remaining co organizers, decided to go ahead with the conference. The scientific stakes were huge. There would be a chance for a debate between the supporters of the cut hunter theory and oral polio vaccine theory. It would be the first time in the history of the Royal Society that a nonscientist was allowed to debate with some of the most respected experts in their fields.
Speaker 13: When I arrived at the conference that morning, I was feeling I was feeling quite nervous, I I freely admit. I didn't know what to expect. I never even attended a scientific conference of this type before. So I walked in there with my sheaves of notes and my speech prepared, and, I Had made a decision before I arrived that if the theory was was fairly dealt with by the scientific community, That at the end of the conference, if I had the opportunity, I was gonna stand up from the floor and commend the scientists present on their openness and honesty And say that I felt at this stage, it was time for me as an investigator, who who was originally a journalist back in the eighties, To withdraw from the debate, to make the materials that I collected available to the scientists if they wish to use them, But to withdraw from the debate and leave it to them to take it from there.
Speaker 15: And why is the theory so hated? Well, most of all, of course, because it suggests the west gave Africa AIDS. But its critics say it also undermines confidence in vaccination, so it jeopardizes the campaign to eradicate polio. It blackens the reputation of a man hailed as a hero, Hillary Kebrowski, And it also shows how dangerous animal viruses can be, and that threatens research on using animal organs for human transplants.
Speaker 16: I am not to defend myself. Hooper is to defend himself. Certainly, this meeting is very welcome. I think it's a good meeting. It's an unusual meeting.
A journalist presents a hypothesis without facts and here come the scientists and give him all the scientific facts.
Speaker 14: We need you simply to get the protagonists together. This means get the protagonists together, not have some sort of whitewash where you get sort of, Discuss it here. You've get the get the people. Get Koprowski and Hooper in the same room Chain exchanging comments.
Speaker 3: I think we're gonna have, a real debate today. I think it's gonna be a worthwhile debate.
Speaker 13: I don't think it's between Koprowski and myself. I think it's, about something far more important than that.
Speaker 16: To whom?
Speaker 15: To who? To who? To who?
Speaker 16: I'm not talking to him. I'm talking The audience are
Speaker 5: focused. When Hooper arrived at the conference, he did not know that the die had already been
Speaker 14: And we did that over that OPV conference again. Huge amount of criticism from my colleagues, huge amount of criticism from our colleagues. But I think that it launched the abscess And I don't think Cooper could prove his case. And I think our subsequent work shows that it doesn't fit. But it could have.
Robin was right. He was a cloche butt. It didn't?
Speaker 5: From the start of the conference, arguments were piled up against Hooper's theory. Even the date HIV emerged among humans was challenged with theoretical calculations that it already existed in 1931, long before the Congo vaccinations took place. But the final blow was an announcement that samples of CHAT vaccine had been located, tested, and contained no trace of HIV, SIV, Or chimp DNA. The conclusions were final and left little room for Hooper to respond.
Speaker 1: Mister Hooper has used the word smoking guns. There is no gun. There is no bullet. There is no shooter. There is no motive.
There is only smoke Created by mister Hooper.
Speaker 13: I think the smokescreen that has appeared today has been a smokescreen from the people who made the vaccine.
Speaker 5: This dramatic turn of events had eliminated the oral polio vaccine theory from the scientific debate on the origins of AIDS.
Speaker 17: This did offend Ed Hooper because he was clearly the underdog at the meeting. But science is a very cruel culture. We go by evidence. And although we may be fooled In our interpretation, we may fool ourselves in misinterpreting evidence. In the end, Hard evidence wins the day.
Speaker 14: Science is not like is not democratic in that respect. It's not like, well, you have the you have Your opinion, and I have mine, and we agree to differ. In science, you have your theory, and I have my hypothesis. If I can kill your hypothesis, I can kill your hypothesis. Your hypothesis doesn't exist.
I can wipe it out. It's it's not Appreciate it, hun. Scientists are making hypotheses every day, and they're breaking them. We call it hypothesis breaking. Hypothesis making and hypothesis breaking.
And we break more hypotheses than we make.
Speaker 5: But the scientific evidence that signaled the death knell for the polio vaccine theory Still needed to be re examined. Exactly what was tested?
Speaker 17: The actual samples That were used in the Congo between late 1957 and the beginning of 1960, of course, don't exist anymore, they were used. But one of the samples tested was the very same lot of virus as Hooper thinks is by far the most likely to have been contaminated, that was used in the Congo, the CHAT 10 A 11.
Speaker 5: Are these really the same samples?
Speaker 17: And this was discovered Here in the UK, who had received it in 1981 from the State Serum Institute in Stockholm, Who in turn had received it from the Wistau Institute around the time it was made. But and it was sealed and had never been opened.
Speaker 5: The very organizer of the Royal Society Conference admits that samples of the CHAT vaccine used in the Congo no longer exist. So for this sample that remains sealed since it was made in Koprowski's laboratory, all one can say for certain is that it was never used in the Congo. In all scientific rigor, how can it be used as the decisive proof against the oral polio vaccine theory?
Speaker 9: This was another event in which the scientists eventually conjoined and Had a public lynching in London for the Royal Society in which they once again claimed to have laid rest to the idea that's a very good question. There are still great gaping holes in their story.
Speaker 13: I don't I have I see no evidence Of people examining the cells from the different monkeys they were using for the final passage to see whether They had any contraindications for humans. It was an extraordinary lapse, and everyone was doing it.
Speaker 5: Between 1957 and 1959, 1,000,000 people received experimental vaccine. These trials were criticized by the World Health Organization. In a confidential letter dated November 11, 1958, one of its members wrote, The Belgian Congo trial was, in my opinion, an excellent example of how such large scale studies Should not be carried out.
Speaker 13: It would be absolutely unfair if Responsibility for this this sequence of events, for the making of the vaccine in chimpanzee cells, was to fall solely on the shoulders of Paul Osterreeth. He was the corporal or sergeant, but we must look for the generals here. His boss, Gilane Courtois, the head of the medical laboratory in Stanleyville, Clearly approved this course of action. There's no doubt about that. And just a few months before he began making the vaccine in chimp cells, Osterath was being trained in tissue culture techniques At the Wistar Institute, he was called there at the specific request of Hilary Koprowski.
The person with overall responsibility For this sequence of events, without a doubt, is doctor Koprowski. Without his approval, without his direction, this Sequence of events would not have taken place.
Speaker 16: I have no knowledge about it. I don't think the Belgians have knowledge about it. You should stake his evidence with grain of salt.
Speaker 15: I mean, is it is it possible that that that this was done without you knowing, that chimpanzee kidneys were used without you knowing about it?
Speaker 16: No. There was no possibility to do something like that.
Speaker 5: Can we be satisfied with such an answer When it is not backed up by any proof nor any studies, can we forget that 1,000,000 people received an experimental vaccine that may be linked to the origins of the AIDS pandemic. From our inquiry in the Congo, Thanks to our witnesses and Ed Hooper's documents, we have discovered how the Stanleyville laboratory could produce the CHAT vaccine. It would have been perfectly normal, but the Lindy camp was something unique in the fact that its chimpanzees were used in producing the vaccine. But does this resolve the question of the origins of AIDS? Final proof can only be the testing of a vaccine sample actually used in the Congo, but until now, none has been found.
As long as the key actors of this story keep silent, there will always be a doubt. During the inauguration of the Stanleyville laboratory in 1957, Koprowski made a speech about his polio research. The last sentence is foreboding. With these facts in mind, we must conclude that the price that each of us is asked To pay at this time in order to safeguard the comfort of future generations is, in truth, negligible. 3 years after the Royal Society conference, where are we?
The main scientific argument used to destroy the oral polio vaccine hypothesis, the dating of the HIV virus to the 19 thirties, has been challenged by new studies. The true scientific debate on the origins of AIDS Today, most governments are cutting research funding, leaving pharmaceutical companies to establish their own medical priorities with limited public oversight. Contaminated blood, mad cow disease, and the emergence of new, unexplained diseases are only a few examples pointing to the fact that little has changed. As Bill Hamilton warned, If the relationship between pharmaceutical groups and science is not challenged, other catastrophes may already be in the making.
Speaker 18: As a consequence of these unfortunate events associated with the use of primary monkey kidney cells in the early sixties And the emergence of approximately 20 or 30, viruses and different viruses found in the cells and the necessity for tests to exclude them and all of the other, efforts in this regard. The, my proposal of using norm My normal human cell strains for this purpose, in particular, WI 26, which became widely for experiments that addressed this problem. The, There occurred another event that was even of greater consequence, and that was that in efforts To explore the use of other monkey species for vaccine development And manufacture, and hopefully to find a species that lack these dangerous viruses. The Maurice Hilleman at Merck And by the name of Benjamin Sweet, did experiments. I believe it was with the green monkey, sarcopithecus aetiops, which revealed something very interesting.
I won't go through the technology in in which this was discovered. It's rather detailed and Irrelevant other than the conclusion, and the conclusion was that green monkey cells, yielded a result implying that a new virus was present in the cells from from Pheresis and cynomolgus monkeys that had very strange properties, And they called this virus, I believe they were the ones who named it, SV 40. All of the viruses found in monkey kidney were given the name SV, standing for simian virus, and they were numbered. This one then received the number 40. And about the same time, Events were occurring that would link with this observation in And, at the National Institutes of Health, there was a woman scientist who was working in the, What's called the division of biologic standards, which at that time was the unit at the NIH, not at the FDA.
They were not at the FDA that time. This unit was at the NIH, and its its purpose was to approve or disapprove vaccines for sale in the United States. It was called the DBS, standing for the Division of Biologics Standards. It was run by a man by the name of Roderick Murray. He was actually a South African by birth, A rather conservative figure.
And, in one of his labs, this woman scientist, whose name hopefully will surface in a minute or 2, was in the process of testing vaccines submitted for approval. And in the course of her research, and again, I won't go into the technical details, she inoculated Some of the vaccine preparations sent for testing and approval into hamster cheek pouches. The hamster has cheek pouches in which it stores its food for later consumption or storage, so it packs its cheeks with these Food particles. The cheek pouch is a particularly interesting organ because it's it has, Very little in the way of immunity. And consequently, it Can grow things that ordinarily would not grow in other tissues, and so it's a very useful organ.
The lady's name is Bernice Eddy, e d d y. Bernice, who I was Who I know well, at that time, inoculated polio preparations into the cheek pouch of hamsters and discovered that tumors were produced, which was quite alarming. Later Developments, and these have developments occurred rather quickly, showed that that the virus that there was a virus involved And that the virus was the same one discovered by Sweden Hilliman at Merck called SV 40. And SV 40 has the alarming capability not only of producing tumors in the cheek pouch of hamsters, But worst of all, when introduced into cell cultures of human cells, frequently causes them to transform into cell lines or cancer cells. Obviously, very obvious, probably the worst calamity you can think of.
Furthermore, by this time, in the early sixties, the Salk vaccine had been approved and widely used. Sabin's vaccine, I believe, was just also being used in many countries, including the US. And it was easy to learn that several 1000000 people worldwide had received those vaccines that contained at no extra cost SV 40 virus.
1967 Marburg virus outbreak - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
@Voz_US - VOZ
Emails show White House and YouTube worked together to censor alleged “misinformation” about COVID-19 and vaccines https://zurl.co/pC4F
reSee.it AI Summary
Government-funded Stanford researchers were found to have demanded censorship and created a graphic in a grant proposal outlining how disinformation incidents are routed to platform partners for takedowns. They spread disinformation about themselves under the guise of fighting disinformation. The Virality Project, led by Stanford, engaged in egregious censorship efforts, flagging criticism, vaccine safety data, and even accurate claims by the World Health Organization. Stanford's actions aimed to control the vaccine narrative and stifle questions about safety and efficacy. This exposé sheds light on their partisan mass censorship initiative disguised as a cybersecurity effort. The researchers' authoritarian mindset is evident in their committee of experts deciding what people can say and read online, contradicting the principles of the First Amendment and Supreme Court rulings.
@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger
Government-funded Stanford researchers said they didn't demand censorship, but they did. They even created this handy little graphic in a grant proposal. It shows how their disinformation "Incidents are routed to platform partners... for... takedowns" @mtaibbi https://t.co/CTPH8HaRAL
@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger
Last March, after @mtaibbi and I testifed before Congress, Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO) said it “did not censor or ask social media platforms to remove any social media content regarding coronavirus vaccine side effects.” That was a bald-faced lie. https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1722988472640618854?s=20
@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger
Representatives of a US government front group, "Stanford Internet Observatory," denied ever demanding censorship of anyone. They lied, and we have the proof. They got social media companies to censor accurate Covid information in a clear violation of the First Amendment. Bam.
@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger
@mtaibbi While we learned that SIO demanded censorship last month, today @mtaibbi discovered, thanks to his FOIA request, that SIO had put its creepy little censorship flow chart in its own grant proposal. In the name of "fighting disinformation," SIO spread disinformation about itself. https://t.co/NENsa6QzoO
@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger
The following is from @galexybrane & @NAffects These are some of the Virality Project’s most egregious, absurd, and anti-science censorship efforts: —After Krispy Kreme announced it would give free donuts to people who got vaccinated, the Virality Project alerted platforms about “criticism against Krispy Kreme’s vaccine for donut promo” and labeled such criticism as “general anti-vaccination.” — The Virality Project flagged a PDF of consolidated data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a national vaccine safety reporting system co-managed by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration. (VAERS data is publicly available.) The Project noted that Google had removed the content after its report. — The Project flagged an Israeli pre-print that found natural immunity to be as protective as vaccination. “Please note this Israeli narrative claiming that Covid-19 immunity is equivalent to vaccination immunity,” Virality Project wrote to Twitter and Facebook, including the link to a tweet from Congressman Thomas Massie. — The Virality Project flagged a Lancet research article about the absolute risk reduction of Covid vaccines, calling it an “alleged authoritative source.” Facebook then labeled the article. — In one highly troubling instance, the Project flagged someone’s Google Drive. “See the following Google Drive links being used to compile testimonies about vaccine shedding, videos showing side effects, and PDFs detailing conspiracy theories,” the Virality Project wrote. “This was reported to us from one of our public health partners, who found that an individual commented on these links on their website.” The Project noted that Google removed the content. — On multiple occasions, the Virality Project sent platforms reports about resistance to vaccine mandates and lockdowns, such as the “Worldwide Rally for Freedom” and a TikTok trend to “raise middle fingers to vaccine.” The Project called this content “organized outrage.” — Contrary to Stanford’s claim that the Project did not “ask social media platforms to remove any social media content regarding coronavirus vaccine side effects,” the Virality Project repeatedly reported testimonials of vaccine injuries to Twitter and Facebook, including testimonials from healthcare workers. Accounts of vaccine injuries, the Project wrote to platforms, could “fuel vaccine hesitancy.” — When Pfizer claimed that its vaccine for children age 12 to 15 was 100% effective, the Project reported that “anti-vaccine groups” were expressing concerns about mandates for children and “disbelief at the 100% efficacy number.” — In June 2021, the Virality Project flagged accurate claims that the World Health Organization (WHO) did not recommend vaccinating children. In its communication with platforms, the Project flagged a tweet by journalist David Zweig that contained this claim. (The WHO has since changed the advice on its website.) — The Virality Project flagged jokes, including what it called the “Right-Wing & Anti-Vaxx Viral Trend” to say, "I Identify as Vaccinated." — According to Stanford, the Virality Project’s work “centered on identification and analysis of social media commentary relating to the COVID-19 vaccine, including emerging rumors about the vaccine where the truth of the issue discussed could not yet be determined.” Yet in its Jira system, the Virality Project expressed absolute certainty about the vaccine, called doubters “anti-vax,” and targeted individuals like Kulldorff who challenged CDC advice. The Project clearly aimed to control the vaccine narrative and prohibit questions about vaccine safety and efficacy.
@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger
Be sure to read the excellent new exposé of @stanfordio by @mtaibbi https://t.co/QRjMsLXQTU
@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger
And watch this video by @lwoodhouse where I explain how Stanford researchers tricked the public into seeing a partisan mass censorship initiative as an apolitical cybersecurity effort. https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1723493811119067611?s=20
@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger
The graphic shows a committee of experts deciding what people should be allowed to say and read online. The First Amendment and 100 years of Supreme Court rulings prohibit that role for government. Behind this graph is an authoritarian mind. https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1734414033078583375?s=20
@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger
Government-funded Stanford researchers said they didn't demand censorship, but they did. They even created this handy little graphic in a grant proposal. It shows how their disinformation "Incidents are routed to platform partners... for... takedowns" @mtaibbi https://t.co/CTPH8HaRAL
reSee.it AI Summary
The richest man in the world, Elon Musk, has initiated a wave of lawsuits against the censorship-industrial complex. These lawsuits aim to combat the suppression of free speech under the guise of fighting hate speech and misinformation. Musk's actions have inspired others to take legal action as well. Rumble, a streaming video platform, recently sued two activists for spreading false information about their ad revenues. With these lawsuits, it seems that the tide may be turning against the censors. Stay tuned for more updates.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
It took the richest man in the world to begin dismantling the censorship-industrial complex — whose goal is to censor, control, and bankrupt free speech platforms under the guise of battling ‘hate speech’ and ‘misinformation’ that run counter to prevailing establishment narratives. In August, Musk kicked off what has become several lawsuits against anti-free speech advocates, filing a lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which X has accused of “actively working to assert false and misleading claims encouraging advertisers to pause investment on the platform.” Then, in November, X filed a lawsuit against Media Matters, after threatening to file a “thermonuclear lawsuit” against the left-leaning activist group “and all those who colluded” with them in a disinformation campaign and advertiser boycott against the social media platform. Last week, the state of Texas, the Daily Wire and The Federalist sued the US State Department for conspiring with Newsguard to censor American media companies, and that the government agency funded censorship technology designed to bankrupt domestic media outlets which have disfavored political opinions. And now, Rumble is suing... On Nov. 30, streaming video platform sued two liberal activists who they allege worked in conjunction with Media Matters to lie about their source of ad revenues, thereby causing material damage to their reputation, as well as the destruction of more than $185 million from their market cap – despite the fact that Rumble notified them that they were incorrect. And so, as the lawsuits against the censorship complex begin to fly, one can’t help but feel that the tide may actually be turning – or at least, said censors will think twice before spouting defamatory claims about platforms that allow divergent opinions. This post was a condensed version of an article written by @ZeroHedge (give them a follow). Read the full article in the comments below:
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
ARTICLE: Ready to Rumble: Lawsuits Against Censorship-Industrial Complex Heat Up After Musk Kicks Open the Floodgates https://vigilantnews.com/post/censorship-industrial-complex/
Ready to Rumble: Lawsuits Against Censorship-Industrial Complex Heat Up After Musk Kicks Open the Floodgates
It took the richest man in the world to begin dismantling the censorship-industrial complex; a tightly connected network of groups whose goal is to control speech.
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
More from @VigilantNews: ‘RED ALERT’: Legal Expert Warns New ‘Reform Bill’ Is the ‘Biggest Expansion of Surveillance’ Since the Patriot Act https://vigilantnews.com/post/red-alert-legal-experts-warns-new-reform-bill-is-the-biggest-expansion-of-surveillance-since-the-patriot-act/
‘RED ALERT’: Legal Expert Warns New ‘Reform Bill’ Is the ‘Biggest Expansion of Surveillance’ Since the Patriot Act
“Hotels, libraries, coffee shops, and other places that offer Wi-Fi to their customers could be forced to serve as surrogate spies.” “Buried in the House intelligence committee’s Section 702 ‘reform’ bill, which is scheduled for a floor vote as soon as tomorrow (12/12/23), is the biggest expansion of surveillance inside the United States since the Patriot Act,” warned Elizabeth Goitein in a viral and disturbing X thread.
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@VigilantNews Pro-Vaccine Doctor Comes to a Chilling Realization, Says “I Can’t Continue to Vaccinate Here” https://vigilantnews.com/post/pro-vaccine-doctor-comes-to-a-chilling-realization-says-i-cant-continue-to-vaccinate-here/
Pro-Vaccine Doctor Comes to a Chilling Realization, Says “I Can’t Continue to Vaccinate Here”
“We must have had 300-400 people who have come to us with the feeling that they have had problems since the vaccination.” “We must have had 300-400 people who have come to us with the feeling that they have had problems since the vaccination.”
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@VigilantNews Italian Health Minister Under Investigation for Murder for Concealing COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths https://vigilantnews.com/post/italian-health-minister-under-investigation-for-murder-for-concealing-covid-19-vaccine-deaths/
Italian Health Minister Under Investigation for Murder for Concealing COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths
“He knew the shots were killing people and gave orders to local health authorities to conceal deaths and serious side effects.” “He knew the shots were killing people and gave orders to local health authorities to conceal deaths and serious side effects.”
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@VigilantNews Alex Jones Makes a Series of Terrifying Predictions Coming to the West https://vigilantnews.com/post/alex-jones-makes-a-series-of-terrifying-predictions-coming-to-the-west/
Alex Jones Makes a Series of Terrifying Predictions Coming to the West
“They [the powers that be] have given us a roadmap. They tell us where they want to take us, Alex Jones told Tucker Carlson on episode 46 of Tucker on X. “And so, when the public wakes up, we push back on some of it, but they always come back.” Referencing the PNAC (Project for the New "They tell us where they want to take us."
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@VigilantNews For more stories the corporate media won't cover, make sure you're following Vigilant News. --> @VigilantNews https://t.co/JPDuO8wms2
@iluminatibot - illuminatibot
New documents indicate the entire justification for vaccine mandates was based on a lie - and that public health officials knew it: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/new-emails-show-covid-vaccine-mandates-were-based-on-a-lie
New emails show COVID vaccine mandates were based on a lie
It is not uncommon for politicians or bureaucrats to lie. What seems to be unique, though, is just how common and consequential the lies were during the COVID pandemic.
washingtonexaminer.com
@RobotPolisher - ▄︻デʀօɮօȶ քօʟɨֆɦɛʀ═══━一
The Anti-Vaxxers Are Winning 🥳 https://t.co/u1F7cxXS7j
Video Transcript AI Summary
Scott Adams, a prominent figure, has gained attention for his views on vaccines. He suggests that anti-vaxxers have come out on top due to their distrust of big companies and government. However, others argue that this is not a win, but rather a loss for humanity. They emphasize that everyone is a victim in this situation, and instead of dividing into winners and losers, they encourage unity against the manipulators and those who forced vaccinations. The hope is for people to awaken to the truth and work together moving forward. The question remains whether Scott Adams will change his approach in the future or continue to rely on expert opinions selectively.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So this from Scott Adams went viral over the weekend.
Speaker 1: The anti vaxxers win, Dobbert trader Scott Adams admit vaccine skeptics were right not to trust the COVID jab. Let's watch Scott Adams finally come around.
Speaker 2: The anti vaxx people appear to be the winners. They came out the best. They they have the winning position.
Speaker 1: Yeah. We know. We know. Like, thank you, I guess. Like, but yeah.
Yeah. We know. We know we won. The problem with this is that we're not 2 armies fighting each other. Against nobody has won this You
Speaker 0: think that feels like a win, or do you think that feels like I just got kicked in the stomach? It's not a win.
Speaker 3: They They
Speaker 2: feel better. The the thing they're not worrying about is what I have to worry about, which is I wonder if that vaccination 5 years from now.
Speaker 3: I don't wanna be here 20 you know, 8 years ago telling you this was all coming, and now we're living it. I don't wanna be here 5 years from now and you're saying, oh my god. It's true. 1,000,000,000 are dead. I wanna stop this.
Okay?
Speaker 2: Because, really, the anti vaxxers, I think, were really just distrustful of big companies and big government. That's never wrong. So if you just took the position, let's just distrust everything the government did. Well, you won. You won.
You won completely.
Speaker 1: It it was not a baseless, pointless, petulant rejection of everything the government says. It was elegant, thoughtful, considerate rejection of everything that the government said. If the government wasn't lying, then we wouldn't distrust him. If the government wasn't spreading obvious falsehoods, then we would have gone along with what the government was doing. It's not just A, again, petulant, mindless, just absolute rejection of everything the government and companies say, it is a A discriminatory acceptance of what you know to be true and a rejection of what you know to be false.
Speaker 0: We know the planet we live Come on. We know the people pushing the vaccines are psychotic. So, no, this wasn't a
Speaker 4: we got lucky or we didn't trust the system. We knew
Speaker 0: the people pushing the vaccines wanna depopulate us.
Speaker 3: They knew it cut the life expectancy of rodents in
Speaker 2: I did not end up in the right place. The right place would be natural immunity, no no vaccination. You should take victory, and I should take defeat.
Speaker 0: No. That's that's me as human taking a loss. That's me as a human standing for humanity getting murdered. That's not a win.
Speaker 2: Do you win? You win. You are the winners. You are are the winners. Right?
Let me say that part with no ambiguity. You won. You won.
Speaker 1: We're all victims in this. Some of us are victims of attempted murder and other others of us are victims of actual murder, but nobody won here. We're all on the same side here. We're all victims of this, whether we're the victims of the brainwashing and the, you know, being ostracized from our family and, you know, criticized and Attempted to be humiliated on social media and others, like, we're victims of that. You're victims of, trusting people that despise you and letting them inject poison into your veins.
So we're all victims here. So instead of saying, you know, I surrender. You win, I lose. How about you're on our team now, and now you're on the winning side?
Speaker 2: All of your heuristics don't trust these guys. It's Obvious. Totally worked.
Speaker 1: He also has accepted this idea that the anti vaxx people are somehow, like, happy that the pro vaxx People are dying. Do we want them to suffer from their choice? We don't. We we wanted you to avoid this the whole time. We want you on our side, not because we wanna defeat the other side didn't kill all the people that wanted the vax, but because we want everybody to be awake and realize that we're all on the same side against the liars and the manipulators in the genocidal psychopaths that forced this on all of us.
So welcome to our side. Get your head right, and we can move forward together.
Speaker 3: This isn't about being right about saving lives. And not everybody can be a robot polisher.
Speaker 1: Question is, will he reform his tactics moving forward. Will he actually take this into account next with the next one? Or is he gonna be out there going, well, climate change? I mean, it's actually really but all the experts agree though.
reSee.it AI Summary
Post 1: Check out this article on x.com/i/article/1768...
Post 2: Watch these 3 videos about the WHO and the pandemic treaty. Dr. Lindley provides a thorough explanation of the treaty and its implications. Questions raised include concerns about national sovereignty and the potential suppression of information and treatments like Ivermectin.
@onlythedeadknow - Guardians of Valor: A Veteran’s Quest
x.com/i/article/1768…
@onlythedeadknow - Guardians of Valor: A Veteran’s Quest
3 VIDEOS FOR SECTION 1 of the Article: @RobertKennedyJr warning about the WHO and @realDonaldTrump warning about the WHO. Along with Dr. Lindley @KLVeritas gives one of the best explanations of the W.H.O. Pandemic Treaty I have seen. Keep in mind everything she says as you look through Parts 2 through 8 below. They add in DOD Authorities to the picture and also the enforcement of the Global Health Security Agenda 2024 on top of the W.H.O. amendments. At the end her video she took questions. The first question was Sovereignty of a Nation and I agree with Dr. Lindley conducting mass censorship of information, initiating forced lockdowns, mandating masks/vaccines/and vaccine passports, and limiting treatments seems like it would be impeding on a Nations Sovereignty to me. How about you? The second question should frighten everyone. The lady asking the question says wouldn't these measures stop bad information from being released to the public like the use of Ivermectin? If you are following the current research studies into the effectiveness of treatments that were censored during COVID and the Vaccine injuries from the COVID-19 Vaccine you should be frightened as well that they want total control of any and all treatments.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Dr. Katarina Lindley, a family physician from Texas, speaks in support of the World Health Organization (WHO) and its proposed pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations. She explains that the WHO is seeking expanded powers to address health emergencies and that the treaty would establish a global supply network overseen by the WHO. Dr. Lindley expresses concerns about the potential infringement on national sovereignty, censorship of information, and limitations on freedom of speech. She also discusses the need for a balanced approach to health, including human, animal, plant, and environmental health. Dr. Lindley concludes by emphasizing the importance of open discussion and the potential implications of these documents if passed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee for having me today. I'm Doctor. Katarina Lindley.
I'm a family physician from Texas. I'm also President of Global Health Project and past President of Texas Osteopathic Medical Association. I'm speaking today on behalf of myself, and I will be giving testimony specifically on the World Health Organization. I'll give you a little bit of a background on the World Health Organization and why I feel that it is important to actually support this bill. So the World Health Organization was founded in 'forty eight as the health arm of the United Nations and currently has 194 member states.
Initially, it was 100% funded by the member states, but in recent year, this funding has changed. Today, only 20% of the funding comes from the member states from the assessed contributions and 80% comes from the voluntary contributions. Some of those contributions are coming from some of the member states, but others are coming from the private public partnerships like Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Gavi Alliance, Wellcome Trust and others. These voluntary contributions are typically earmarked for specific projects or diseases, meaning that WHO does not really have, control over that part of the budget. In March of 21st, 25 heads of states and international agencies called for a new pandemic treaty that will protect the world from future health crisis.
Currently, the World Health Organization is simultaneously negotiating 2 documents. One of them is the pandemic agreement also known as Accord, Treaty, CA+ and 0 Draft. It has changed names over time. And the other one is the amendments in International Health Regulations. International health regulations were actually adopted in 'sixty 9 and then amended in 2,005 as a part of international law.
So, this draft, the draft International Health Regulation Amendments, they would lay down new powers for the World Health Organization during health emergencies and broaden the context with which, they can be used. The Pandemic Treaty on the other side is intended to support the bureaucracy, financings and governance to underpin the expanded international health regulations. The World Health Assembly is going to meet in May of this year to vote on adoption of both of these documents. Once approved by 2 thirds of the World Health Assembly, the pandemic treaty will go to our Senate to be ratified, and it will need 2 thirds of the votes to be implemented. As I mentioned before, international health regulations have already been adopted in 'sixty 9 and then amended in 2,005.
They do not need any kind of special ratification by our Congress. Once they are adopted by the World Health Assembly, they are going to be implemented within 12 months unless the country member state specifically says we will not comply. So first, we're going to discuss the amendments to the International Health Regulations. The proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations will give WHO authority over member states by changing the boarding. So in the past, their recommendations were non binding, they were recommendations.
But the non binding has been stricken out, and these are going to become binding recommendations that will now mandate the member states to follow instead just consider these recommendations. States will accept the WHO as the authority in international public health emergencies. And this is in the Article 1. I gave you all some documents to look over. The amendments expanded the scope of the documents from public health risk to all risk that might affect public health and those will include risk to animals, ecosystems and climate.
Specifically, the Article 18 of the amendments will change the definition of the public health emergency of international concern to include not only actual but also potential concern that the general, director general would have. So to give everyone an example, let's say there is an outbreak of something in jungle of Brazil, and WHO hears about it. They send their team in, and the team says, well, we're concerned. The country itself might say, this is really not a big concern. This is something that happens this time of year every time.
If they decide that this is of concern, they can declare public health emergency of international concern. By the article 18, and I gave you guys an example of that, in article 18, the WHO then would have the powers to decide to close the borders, to restrict travel, require proof vaccination or other prophylaxis, require vaccination, place suspects under public health observation, implement quarantine isolation, tracing, refuse entry of suspects and affected persons and refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas, implement exit screening and restrictions. So the World Health Organization by this article 18 director general by declaring this public health emergency of international concern would be able to close down that area whether the country agrees or not. The WHO will have power to designate opinions or information as misinformation or disinformation, and it can require country state governments to intervene and stop such expression and dissemination. Obviously, that will interfere with U.
S. Constitution and is incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The specific article is Article 44 in the amendments of International Health Regulations. After declaring an emergency, Director General will also have powers to instruct the governments to provide the World Health Organization and other countries with resources, funds and commodities. Countries will also give power to the World Health Organization over patent law and intellectual property, including control of manufacturing commodities deemed to be relevant to the potential or actual health problem the WHO considers of interest.
So to summarize this draft of the amendments to International Health Regulation, it will expand the definition of pandemic and health emergencies, including the introduction of potential for harm rather than actual harm. It also expands the definition of health products that fall under this to include any commodity or process that may impact on the response or improve quality of life. It will change the recommendations of the international health regulations from non binding to mandatory instructions that the states will have to undertake and follow and implement. It will solidify the director general's ability to independently declare emergencies. It will set up an extensive surveillance process in all states, which WHO will verify regularly through a county review mechanism.
It will enable WHO to share country data without consent. It will give WHO control over certain country resources, including requirements for financial contributions and provisions of intellectual property and know how. It will ensure the national support for promotion of censorship activities by WHO to prevent contrary approaches and concerns from being freely disseminated. It will change existing international health regulation provisions affecting individuals from non binding to binding including border closures, travel restrictions, confinement, medical examination and medication of individuals. So the next document that they are currently negotiating as well is the Pandemic Treaty, also known as Accord Agreement, CA+plus and 0 Draft.
They kept changing the name as the public was responding to this document. So the treaty would set up a global supply network overseen by WHO. It will set up a governing body under WHO auspices, a new WHO secretariat and conference of the parties to oversee the whole process. It will set up infodemix management at the local, regional, national and international level to control the information flow and free speech. This is under Article 18 of the treaty.
In number 1, it will instruct the parties to combat false misleading misinformation and disinformation. And anything that's considered false misleading, misinformation or disinformation will be something that goes against what WHO says. Under Article 3, number 2, states have in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and general principles of international law the sovereign right to legislate and implement legislation in pursuance the health policies. This specific language fails to address the issue of the WHO assuming sovereignty for health matters over states through the treaty and in the event of the pandemic. Under Article 4, 3 d directs nation to surveil for and perform genetic sequences of potential pandemic pathogens they find and to safely handle them.
Under Article 6, the parties will not only surveil for, but will share the pathogens with pandemic potential. And as they are established in Article 12, the pathogens are identified to infect humans, have high transmissibility and are capable of widespread in human population, are highly virulent, making them likely to cause significant morbidity and mortality in humans.
Speaker 1: Excuse me, doctor. A couple of things real quick. I'm I'm looking for your written testimonies that come come in this way. Okay. That's on us, not you.
Speaker 0: No. No problem.
Speaker 1: I wanted to see what what you were referring to. And if you could get me a copy of this. And if we could ask you to kind of take a minute or 2 to focus on your remaining key point. We do have some of the folks that have been waiting. So proceed.
Speaker 0: I'm towards the end anyway. Another thing that is very important to understand this pandemic tree specifically is, this one health agenda that is actually under article 5. The one health agenda doesn't have specific meaning. If you look at the wording of it, it's very difficult to understand what they mean. But one health agenda claims that humans, animals, plants and ecosystems are all part of one health and that everything on the planet is interrelated and affects health.
Essentially, under the guise of 1 Health, WHO would have control of life on the planet. They will not need to prioritize human health, but rather they could choose to balance human health with animal and plant health as well as environmental health in the name of climate change. So to conclude, why do I speak very strongly against what WHO is currently doing? They are simultaneously creating these two documents, pandemic treaty and the amendments we're We're hearing about this disease x. It's going to be 20 times deadlier.
We have no idea what it is. That's what they're saying. But it's going to be deadlier, so we have to do something for future generations and our children. That's one of their favorite phrases. If these documents are passed in May in Geneva, the Pandemic Treaty would give them and the amendments to International Health Regulations will give them powers in the event of another pandemic to actually close down our countries, to issue these things and say, you cannot travel.
You have to use these tests. You have to use these medications. You have to use these vaccinations for your population. We will not have a discussion that we're having right now. Their recommendations now are going to become obligations and the countries will have to comply.
Not only will we have to comply on the medical front, we'll have to share all our data patents and different commodities as they see fit, so they can change it in very equitable way. The word equity is all over the document. In my opinion, this does take our sovereignty under attack because if we have a supranational agency and body tell us what we can and cannot do and that we have to close our borders, not allow people in and out, that is an attack on the sovereignty of the states and especially United States of America. And then looking at the whole censorship clause, if anyone say if I feel that what they're telling me is not correct, that this person in front of me needs a specific treatment, but that's not the treatment that they allow. And if I say that publicly, they will consider that misinformation, disinformation and then that they require my state to censor me?
And I do believe that that infringes on my freedom of speech as well. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, doctor Lindley. For the record, could you again just, tell us, I know you traveled to get here. Who who are you representing again?
Speaker 0: I'm representing myself.
Speaker 1: Oh, okay. And and you traveled here from
Speaker 0: I live in Texas, and I practice medicine in Texas.
Speaker 1: Okay. Any other questions? Representative, fully up.
Speaker 2: Thank you for your testimony. The the Senate of the United States would have to ratify both of these treaties for them to become operative. Correct?
Speaker 0: No, sir. The pandemic agreement or treaty does have to go to senate and be ratified by 2 thirds of the vote. The international health regulations were already adopted in 69 and then amended in 2005, and they're part of our international law. They do not have to be ratified. I have a chart at the end of the document that they will pass to you.
And it says specifically, we we actually once the World Health Assembly says that they are okay with all of the amendments or they approve certain amendments, we will have 12 months to say that we don't accept that.
Speaker 2: And which statute in US law says that?
Speaker 0: I'm not the lawyer, so you're gonna have to find a lawyer to give you the actual statues.
Speaker 2: The other point that I would like to make is, are you aware of the fact that in the zero draft, the first sentences reaffirming the principle of sovereignty of states parties in addressing public health matters, notably pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and health systems recovery. And the word sovereignty and affirming sovereignty appears 4 times throughout the document.
Speaker 0: I'm aware. But my, my opinion is that if you have an agency who declares a pandemic emergency of international concern in your area and tells you that you have to close the borders, that your people cannot leave, that maybe put them in quarantine isolation, that that actually infringes of the sovereignty of that country.
Speaker 1: Other questions? Thank you, doctor. Doctor.
Speaker 0: Representative Lloyd had a question.
Speaker 1: Representative Lloyd, you know her already, alright?
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, and thank you, check. So I guess with all due respects, because I know you're a medical professional, so wouldn't the fact that this and I understand your concern about the infringement upon free speech. I understand that side of it. But also wouldn't this prevent situations that we had gotten into with things like unapproved treatments having happened, during the COVID pandemic? Things like Ivermectin being taken or,
Speaker 0: you
Speaker 3: know, bleach or any of those types of things?
Speaker 0: Thank you for your question. So as a physician, I treat the person in front of me. And also, I am allowed to to use medications that were not specifically approved for that intention as long as I discuss with my patient risk and benefits. And if I follow science and literature and see that there is a reason for certain things, Even Doctor. Fauci said that during, that for coronaviruses, hydroxychloroquine is well known to work well.
He said that before the pandemic. And then the contention of many of our physicians who have treated our patients and who did really well is that the reason we were not allowed to actually treat patients was so that certain things could be put in place, like emergency use authorization of the vaccines that could be approved. Vaccines that could be approved. Another thing to consider is when the pandemic started, one thing that never made sense and it will never make sense to me is as physicians, we were told, tell your patient to stay home until they can breathe and then tell them to go to the hospital. So as a physician, if in an event that something happens, I would expect myself and my colleagues to be the first ones to go in even if we don't know what it is because it's our job to save lives.
So I would say that the intentions of CDC and the guidelines from these different organizations were wrong from the beginning.
Speaker 1: Thank you again, doctor Linling. I know you have a plane to catch. Thank and thank you again for the written testimony. That's always, as I said, appreciated. Okay.
We have 7 more
Video Transcript AI Summary
The WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty gives the WHO excessive power, potentially undermining America's interests. We must prevent President Biden from signing it to protect our constitution and sovereignty. Research this issue and stand against international bureaucrats and their Davos allies. We, the people, still hold the power to resist.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The World Health Organization was once a great agency that took care of the poor and underserved communities around the world. But in recent decades, it's been taken over by global elites and foreign powers that don't have America's best interest at heart. This is why we need to stop president Biden from signing the WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty. That treaty lays out a blueprint giving the WHO unprecedented authority. Those powers go into effect the moment that the WHO declares a pandemic, which it can do at any moment even if no true pandemic exists.
Even if no true pandemic exists. If this is the first time that you're hearing about this, it's time for you to do some research. The United States of America has a constitution for a reason. We can't let it be stripped from us by international bureaucrats and their bosses at the Billionaires Boys Club in Davos. We, the people, still have the power.
If you want a president who will stop the WHO in its tracks and stand with you
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker criticizes the World Health Organization as corrupt and controlled by China, highlighting the high fees paid by the US. They condemn Biden for rejoining without negotiation and warn against a pandemic treaty that could limit US sovereignty. The speaker also discusses a courtroom confrontation and accuses the judge and attorney general of corruption. They defend Trump and assert that the legal system is failing. The speaker emphasizes the need for fair representation and criticizes political bias in legal proceedings.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The World Health Organization has become nothing more than a corrupt globalist scam paid for by the United States but owned and controlled by China. When the China virus reached our shores 3 years ago, the World Health Organization disgracefully covered the tracks of the Chinese Communist Party every single step of the way. For this reason, it was my great honor to terminate America's relationship with the World Health Organization. The United States was paying the World Health Organization almost $500,000,000 a year. When I dropped out, I took it out of there.
And for 330,000,000 people, even though China was paying only $40,000,000 for 1,400,000,000 people. So we had 330. They have 1.4 and we're paying more than 10 times the amount. That's typical for the United States because they don't know what the hell they're doing. Unfortunately, Crooked Joe Biden foolishly reentered the World Health Organization at the full price and without any negotiations or reforms.
And now Biden is pushing to bypass the United States Senate to enter a pandemic treaty that would surrender American sovereignty to the World Health Organization, again, controlled by China. The draft treaty would require the United States to send vast quantities of medical supplies to other countries in the event of another pandemic, and it would push aggressive censorship of free speech on issues of public health just like they censored the truth about the Wuhan lab, which I said that's where it came from. Remember? Under the next Trump administration, that treaty will be immediately terminated. I would not allow public health to be used as a pretext to advance the march of global government.
That's what they're doing, globalists. The United States will withdraw from the corrupt World Health Organization, which in light of its utter failure on COVID, they had a tremendous disaster on COVID, deserves to be completely abolished and replaced. Then I will work to forge a new coalition of nations that are strongly committed to protecting health while also upholding sovereignty and freedom. I wanna thank you very much but I also wanna say this, I could have renegotiated the deal. I could have gone into the World Health Organization for $25,000,000.
Biden didn't take that deal. He's paying almost $500,000,000. They were so anxious to get the United States back after I terminated the agreement. They were so anxious to get it back that they offered me a deal, 25 to $30,000,000 and I said, no, I'll wait. Could've gotten it for less but I didn't want less at that point.
We're paying almost 500,000,000. Could've done it for 25 to 30. Biden took the 500, almost the $500,000,000 deal. He knew he could have gotten back in for less. So why did he pay so much?
But that's just one of many things that are wrong with our country.
Speaker 1: Rhetoric is really getting dangerous, more and more dangerous. And we saw what happened on January 6th when he uses inflammatory rhetoric now and his recent true social post, is incredibly incredibly scary for anyone, that might be trying to up work in government. And, it is just unquestionable at this point that that man cannot see public office again. He is not only unfit, he is destructive to our democracy, and he has to be, he has to be eliminated.
Speaker 2: Coming from the judge who was already predetermined that my client committed fraud before we even walked into this courtroom. I'm not here to hear what he has to say. Then why exactly am I being paid as an attorney, and why exactly are taxpayer dollars being used in this courtroom? The answer is very clear. Because miss James wants to stand right here like she did this morning and call my client a liar, call the company fraudulent, and make a name for herself.
She said this morning that the numbers don't lie, and they won't lie in this case. Well, miss James, I have a message for you. The numbers didn't lie when you ran for governor, and that's why you dropped out. And the numbers don't lie when president Trump runs for office in 2024. And those numbers are loud and clear.
This country is falling apart. And if we don't stop corruption in courtrooms where attorneys are gagged, where attorneys are not allowed to say what they need to say to protect their client's interest. It doesn't matter what your politics are. Everyone has a right in this country to get up and put a defense. I don't care who you are.
You have a right to hire a lawyer who can put objections on the record. You have a right to hire a lawyer who can stand up and say something when they see something wrong. But I was told to sit down today. I was yelled at, and I've had a judge who is unhinged slamming a table. Let me be very clear.
I don't tolerate that in my life. I'm not gonna tolerate it here. And you know what? You shouldn't either because not every American citizen gets a camera and a microphone. And what I'm seeing is such a demise of American judicial system and democracy.
Miss James came out this morning and said that she knew mister Trump, and she always calls him mister Trump because it kills her that he was ton more than that statement of financial condition, and she doesn't know how to get out of it because her politics won't allow her. She calls him a bully. She says he's going to bring out racial slurs. He's going to say things today and taunt her. Well, miss James, you taunted him before you came into office, before you saw one record, one statement of financial condition, you taunted him.
You said his administration was was too male and too pale. Those are her words. She said that she and Michael Cohen were going to be his biggest nightmare where I have some news for you, miss James. Michael Cohen folded, lied, and crumbled. Your star witness, along with all the DAs and corrupt AGs, need to be paying attention to what happens when you let us take the stand, when you let my client speak the truth, and the judge can tell me to sit down, and he can try and shorten my client's testimony, but it is loud and clear.
Nothing. They've got nothing but their politics. She's got nothing but her Soros backing, which we discovered recently, and I am sick and tired of seeing it. Pay attention, America. Pay attention.
Because when you're in court one of these days, and you don't have a lawyer that has a microphone, and you don't have a lawyer that can go on TV, and you've got judges gagging them, what are you gonna do? We need to fix this country, and we need to stop what is happening in this courtroom. President Trump is worth a lot more, and she wasn't ready for it. She doesn't understand it. And before she rushed to judgment, she should have thought about attacking somebody with over 50 years of real estate expertise who changed single handedly the skyline of New York City.
She picked the wrong person, and her politics will fail for it.
reSee.it AI Summary
Japanese Professor, Prof Masayasu Inoue, claims that the WHO used the pandemic as a false pretext to drive global vaccinations. He believes the use of experimental gene therapy on healthy individuals violated human rights and resulted in unprecedented drug-induced injuries. Source: @_aussie17.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Japanese Professor Delivers Stunning Message Everyone Needs to Hear “The pandemic was used as a false pretext by the WHO to drive vaccinations of all peoples in the world.” He says the fraudulent use of “experimental gene therapy to healthy people” was not only an “extreme violation of human rights,” but “the result was the induction of the terrible drug-induced injury that has never [been] seen in human history.” - Prof Masayasu Inoue, Professor Emeritus of Osaka City University Medical School. Source: @_aussie17
Video Transcript AI Summary
My specialty is molecular pathology and medicine. The pandemic led to rushed vaccinations worldwide, with Japan heavily vaccinated. The government denies vaccine injuries and plans to introduce a new self-replicating vaccine. Japan aims to develop vaccines in 100 days, risking human rights. International collaboration is needed to stop these dangerous plans. Censorship hinders spreading the truth about vaccines. Trust in Japan-made vaccines is cautioned against. Sharing information globally is crucial for unity and protection of human rights. Thank you for listening.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: My specialty is molecular pathology and medicine. The pandemic was used as a first reflex by the WHO to drive vaccinations of all peoples in the world. A plan was set up to shorten the time to develop vaccines, which usually takes longer than 10 years to less than 1 year operation warp speed. This operation was used to cover up the misconception of the genetic vaccines under the pretext of saving time, an extremely dangerous method was selected. That is intramuscular injection of viral genes to produce toxic spice proteins directly in human tissues to stimulate immune system because this is a completely new method and misconcept method that has never applied before in human history.
It is impossible, therefore, for most of doctors to give proper informed consent. However, due to irresponsible government and media campaigns to promote vaccines. 80% of the Japanese has been vaccinated, unfortunately. 7th shot have been done so far. This is the most and worst in the world, and the result was the induction of the terrible drug induced injury that has never seen in human history.
I believe that the fraudulent use of experimental gene therapy to healthy peoples, particularly to healthy children, is an extreme violation of human rights. However, Keizo Takemi, Japanese minister of health, labor, and welfare, has been insisting that there is no serious concern about the injury caused by genetic vaccines. And without running from the current situation of injured patients, they plan to construct a new vaccine production system in preparation for the next pandemic. This is an unbelievable crazy situation. The Japanese government is the first in the world to approve a new type of vaccine called self replication the pro replicon vaccine and plans to start to supply it in this fall winter.
The Ministry of Economy, Trail, and Industry is providing a huge amount of subsidies for this project and the factories to produce new work chains are being built one after another in Japan. I visit these factories directly. Furthermore, the Japanese government is currently soliciting large scale clinical trials worth $900,000,000 from pharmaceutical companies that are taking on the challenge of developing vaccines to prepare for the next pandemic by disease x proposed during the Davos conference this year. It is speculated that the movement by the Japanese government is part of CEPI, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations 100 Days Mission, which aims to shorten the time to 1 third of operation warp speed. Namely, they are trying to shorten the vaccine business cycle by developing a vaccine in 100 days.
This is possible only by ignoring the human right perspective. Amendments to the WHO, International Health Regulation, IHR, and the so called pandemic treaty, which are about to be adopted at the 77th World Health Assembly this year, attempting to give rationality and the legal binding force to such unscientific and dangerous, crazy plans. If such things continue, there is a high risk that Japan made vaccine will be exported under the guise for first trust. If Japan were to become a peer regulator, it would leave a repair of harm to future generations. Therefore, the actions of Japanese government must be stopped by international collaborations.
Although, it has already been 3 years since I started to give lectures to educate Japanese people about the dangers of vaccines, it is still difficult to penetrate through the sound barriers of mainstream media. If we tell the truth about vaccines on YouTube, it is deleted within a day. The delay their, reality is that we are facing censorship and speech suppression almost every days. Therefore, I put my hope in the publication of a book, which is the last version of speech, and published that book with a title, withdrawn from WHO. It is difficult to stop this movement because it is now politically hopeless to change the situation of the Japanese government.
The message I would like to cover convey to the world is that when disease x occurs in the future, you should never trust the Japan made vaccine that was developed in a short period of time In order to protect human rights in cases of control that transcend national boundaries, I believe that sharing the truth and countries is so important and that this is a step towards unity and solidarity. Only through the process of information exchange between all countries in the world, we can find hope in the midst of despair. I do hope that my statement will help all of you to protect your healthy life and your family. Thank you very much for your attention.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
READ MORE: A Message from Japan to the World Delivered by Prof Masayasu Inoue, Professor Emeritus of Osaka City University Medical School. https://www.aussie17.com/p/a-message-from-japan-to-the-world?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email-half-post&r=1cu4xs
A Message from Japan to the World
Delivered by Prof Masayasu Inoue, Professor Emeritus of Osaka City University Medical School.
aussie17.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
More Stories on @VigilantNews: Do Not Take This Warning by Neil Oliver Lightly https://vigilantnews.com/post/do-not-take-this-warning-by-neil-oliver-lightly/
Do Not Take This Warning From Neil Oliver Lightly
https://videopress.com/v/3QQOEZdf?resizeToParent=true&cover=true&preloadContent=metadata&useAverageColor=true “If the WHO says lockdown … then we will lock down.” Neil Oliver warns against the nightmare scenario being ushered in by the WHO Pandemic Treaty. If you think this is only about pandemics, guess again, the WHO will abuse its power to the fullest extent possible, including “climate emergencies.” “And so, in the…
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@VigilantNews Joe Rogan Drops Theory Explaining Why Most Doctors Are Silent on COVID Vax Injuries and Deaths https://vigilantnews.com/post/joe-rogan-drops-theory-explaining-why-most-doctors-are-silent-on-covid-vax-injuries-and-deaths/
Joe Rogan Drops Theory Explaining Why Most Doctors Are Silent on COVID Vax Injuries and Deaths
Rogan also revealed some disturbing anecdotes.
vigilantnews.com
@WallStreetSilv - Wall Street Silver
The Financial Incentive to Vaccinate American Children. Dr. Paul Thomas explains how pediatricians are basically forced to over vaccinate children, despite the data which does not support doing so. 🔊 https://t.co/hbdeQQFbHJ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Doctor Paul Thomas discusses how pediatricians are financially incentivized to fully vaccinate patients, with penalties for non-compliance. He explains the economic impact of refusing vaccines in his practice and the pressure to adhere to the CDC schedule. Thomas highlights the financial benefits tied to vaccination rates and the concerning correlation between vaccines and infant mortality. This information challenges the conventional narrative on vaccine safety and efficacy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In an April 16th interview with Polytomi, doctor Paul Thomas explained how the American Medical Establishment incentivizes pediatricians to fully vaccinate their young patients and finds them if they don't, vaccinations that have been proven to cause more death and harm than the diseases they are said to be preventing.
Speaker 1: 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 wanna do any vaccines, which was fine with me. 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. So there's 3 main ways you make money off of vaccines in pediatrics. Number 1 is the admin fee.
And you get about it depends on the insurance company. Every contract's 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.
That's 3 shots, 3 antigens. HIB, Pravnar, d hep b, Polio, Rotavirus, 6 shots, 8 antigens, 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.
So we looked at the admin fee loss and from my practice that was billing at that time about 3,000,000 gross, we were losing $1,000,000 over $1,000,000 in vaccines that were refused. So you cannot stay in business if you're not giving pretty close to the CDC schedule. It just doesn't pencil out economically at all. Let me tell you about the other two ways we make money from vaccines. One is the markup that's that's 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. 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.
It's bizarre. You're supposed to have had your kids up to date about 80% of them by age 2. Guess what percentage of my population was at fully vaccinated 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, relative value units that are ascribed. Everything you do in medicine is given a value. If you do very well on your quality measures, vaccinator, you may get an additional 10% on everything you do in your office.
That's huge. SIDS is Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. When you hear the word syndrome, it means we don't know what it is. We don't know what causes it. SIDS when that infant died relative to when they got a vaccine.
In one dataset, 97% were in the first 10 days after the vaccine. For the 6 other studies, a couple of them showed that 50% of the deaths happened in the 1st week, but 75 to about 90% of those deaths are happening in the 1st week after vaccines in all these studies. We've known this for decades. The countries that have the most infant vaccines have the highest infant mortality. Guess where the U.
S. Stands? We are number 1 in infant vaccines. We are number 1 in industrial countries for infant mortality. There's a document 450 page legal document that has tables showing for every single disease for which we have a vaccine, there are more deaths from the vaccine than there are from the disease for which we have that vaccine.
Speaker 0: Reporting for InfoWars, this is Greg Reese.
reSee.it AI Summary
194 WHO member states have implemented strict measures to arrest and prosecute individuals spreading misinformation about the Bird Flu vaccine.
@Censored4sure - Luther ‘Ćyrus’
194 World Health Organization (WHO) member states have agreed to begin arresting and prosecuting citizens who speak out against the Bird Flu vaccine, as part of tough new measures designed to stomp out so-called ‘misinformation’.
@Censored4sure - Luther ‘Ćyrus’
194 WHO Countries Agree to Arrest Citizens Who Oppose Bird Flu Vaccine - Media Blackout
194 World Health Organization (WHO) member states have agreed to begin arresting and prosecuting citizens who speak out against the Bird Flu vaccine, as part of tough new measures designed to stomp out so-called 'misinformation'.
thepeoplesvoice.tv
@toobaffled - “Sudden And Unexpected”
The Deadly Truth About Vaccines 💉 ☠️ 🩸 https://t.co/9KmCxZKpMM
Video Transcript AI Summary
- There's no proof unvaccinated children start epidemics. Some practitioners claim unvaccinated children are healthier.
- Some believe vaccine dangers are becoming clearer, questioning the assumptions of protection and preventing spread.
- Breast milk is claimed as sufficient vaccination.
- Some vaccines contain egg protein, gelatin from pigs, and human albumin, which could be problematic if the individual is unhealthy or develops antibodies.
- Some vaccines contain MRC-5 human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue.
- Human DNA in vaccines is typically fragmented.
- Thimerosal, a toxic substance containing mercury, is in some vaccines and can cause reproductive and developmental toxicity.
- Some medical professionals were unaware that RhoGAM contained thimerosal or that thimerosal meant mercury.
- Injecting aluminum into babies has never been tested for safety.
- Mercury, formaldehyde, and antifreeze are claimed to be in vaccines.
- These substances allegedly go to the brain, causing encephalopathy.
- Over $3.5 billion has been paid in damages to children injured by vaccines.
- A doctor describes a large reaction to a vaccine in a child, likely due to aluminum.
- A mother shares her son's story of developing hives, joint swelling, fever, seizures, and autism after vaccinations; the vaccine court awarded $55,000.
- Some medical professionals were unable to speak out against vaccines due to conflict of interest.
- Some believe autism and vaccines are linked, citing a personal experience.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There is no study to prove that unvaccinated children have ever been proven to start an epidemic. I have been seeing families in my practice for over 20 years that have opted out of vaccination. They are the healthiest children I have ever seen I have ever seen.
Speaker 1: And more
Speaker 0: and more parents are understanding the dangers of vaccines, and that's why we're seeing such pressure to mandate vaccines because more of the science is coming out. We assume that if we vaccinate, we're getting protection. We assume that if we vaccinate, we're stopping spread of disease. Those are assumptions that have never been solidified in science.
Speaker 2: Doctor, I would want you to get sick. Yeah. Because the more times you get sick, the more money I make.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 2: I don't get sick. I'm just being honest. I don't get sick.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: My children have never been sick.
Speaker 3: Okay. They've never been vaccine?
Speaker 2: They've never been vaccinated. None of that, and they don't get sick.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: Because the mother's milk in the breast is all the vaccination that they need. That's it. That's it.
Speaker 4: Do any vaccines contain egg protein? Yes. Influenza. Do any vaccines contain gelatin from pigs?
Speaker 5: Yes. Do any vaccines in
Speaker 4: the childhood vaccine schedule contain human albumin?
Speaker 5: Oh, yes. Mhmm. What is human albumin? Human albumin is part of human serum. It's part of the blood that is liquid.
Speaker 4: That could be problematic. Right?
Speaker 5: Well, it could be. I mean, if, if the, individual is not not healthy.
Speaker 4: Or maybe some of the human blood components bind to some of the aluminum and develop antibodies, self antibodies. Correct?
Speaker 5: If they develop antibodies against a serum component, that would not be good.
Speaker 4: Do any vaccines in the childhood vaccine schedule contain MRC 5 human diploid cells?
Speaker 5: Yes. Rubella, varicella, hepatitis a. What are MRC 5 cells? They are human fibroblast, cell strain. They were created by taking fetal tissue and from a particular fetus that was aborted by maternal choice and the cells, the so called fibroblast cells were cultivated.
Speaker 4: Do any vaccines on the childhood vaccine schedule contain WI 38 human diploid lung fibroblast?
Speaker 5: Well, they used to, but I don't think anything is made in those cells anymore.
Speaker 4: If you could turn to page 3 for MMR and MMRV, do you see that within the ingredient list that lists WI 38 human diploid lung fibroblasts?
Speaker 5: Yes. I do see that.
Speaker 4: Isn't it true that human DNA in vaccines is typically purposely fragmented?
Speaker 5: Yes. I would say mostly, for theoretical reasons, doesn't want to put DNA into intact DNA into vaccines.
Speaker 4: These fetuses were all 3 months or older when aborted. Correct?
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 4: What organs did you harvest from these fetuses?
Speaker 5: Well, I didn't personally harvest any, but, a a whole range of, tissues were harvested, by, coworkers. K.
Speaker 4: And were these pieces were then cut up into little pieces. Right? Yes. And they were cultured?
Speaker 5: Yes. Okay.
Speaker 4: Some of the pieces of the fetuses were pituitary gland that were that were chopped up into pieces too. Mhmm. Okay. Included the lung of the fetuses?
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 4: K. Included skin?
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 4: Kidney?
Speaker 5: Yes. Spleen? Yes. Heart? Yes.
Speaker 4: And and tongue?
Speaker 5: I don't recall, but, yeah, probably, yes.
Speaker 4: Are you aware that the one of the, objections to vaccination by the plaintiff in this case is the inclusion of aborted fetal tissue in the development of vaccines and the fact that it's actually part of the ingredients of vaccines?
Speaker 5: Yeah. I'm aware of those objections. Okay.
Speaker 4: Are you an atheist? Yes. When you were a child, what vaccines did you receive?
Speaker 5: Diphtheria. Well, in childhood, I I think it was probably only diphtheria. Only diphtheria. Only diphtheria.
Speaker 6: You're gonna let the government run health care? They screw everything up. So why would you let them be the ones to stick a disease into your arms and never get a swine flu vaccine or
Speaker 7: any Yeah. Yeah. They I don't trust
Speaker 6: the government, especially with my health. With my health. With
Speaker 8: my health.
Speaker 9: 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 3: And it's in the vaccine.
Speaker 9: 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, directly injecting it. For example, this is tetanus vaccine. This one expires.
It's a lot dated now in 2007. Here's the thimerosal. 1 to 10000 is a preservative. Perhaps the the biggest one in the US, at least, that's ex for exposure to mercury is the influenza vaccine. Influenza vaccine is now recommended for all pregnant women, all infants, all children on a yearly basis.
Speaker 1: It needs to be stopped.
Speaker 9: This is, the influenza vaccine from Adventist Pasteur, their flu zone. Am aerosol, 25 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 them.
Speaker 6: I've given 2,000 RhoGAM shots.
Speaker 1: I've been in vaccines for 35 years. I didn't know that RhoGAM had thimerasol in it, so I
Speaker 6: think a lot of the doctors were unaware. They weren't aware that even the word thimerosal meant mercury.
Speaker 5: Mercury. Mercury. Mercury.
Speaker 7: The science is settled. Vaccinations work. They save lives. Here's how vaccines work. We study a germ that is a bacterium or a virus.
We call this particular one Gary. So to make a vaccine, scientists take the bug and modify it so that it can't hurt you. Then by placing it in your bloodstream like this, your white blood cells learn to recognize that germ. And when they do,
Speaker 10: they attack it.
Speaker 7: So should we have laws that require vaccinations? I'm not kidding about this, people. It's serious.
Speaker 0: Serious.
Speaker 8: First of all, aluminum. What happens if you inject it when you're a baby? Has there ever been a safety test on it? Never. Not in the history of man have we ever said, what is it happens when we inject aluminum?
We don't care, Bill. Gary gets a little shot of aluminum in there. So we're gonna take mercury. We're putting it inside of Gary here. Most toxic substance, by the way, that's not radioactive.
Check out your flu shot. You pregnant women are going into your doctors. They've decided it's a great idea to have mercury being injected into Gary, which is going into your fetus. How about formaldehyde? Have you seen any of the articles on formaldehyde?
The science is settled. It's perfectly decided. If on formaldehyde? The science is settled. It's perfectly decided.
There we go. Formaldehyde for everybody. Wonderful. What's next? That's right.
Antifreeze. Propylene glycol in your vaccine. But don't worry because we know that Bill told us it's safe. So here we go. Into Gary.
Now we have what is really a vaccine. See this oozing, disgusting mess. There we go. Here we go. Stop that.
Look. Get oh, you can eat it. There we go. Oh, he's got it. Oh, yeah.
Bill, my, and no scientist in America wants to talk about, where does that mercury go? Where does that aluminum go? They're not finding it in your urine. It's not disappearing when you take a crap. What it's doing is it's being found where?
It's going into the brain. And when it hits the brain that's right. Encephalopathy, brain swelling. It's written inside the labels. That's a known side effect of every vaccine we get.
And yet Bill Nye wants to leave that part of this story out, deadly, poisonous, toxic chemicals and metals. So when they try to tell you the science is settled, that vaccines are safe and effective, you have to know that we've paid out over 3 and a half $1,000,000,000 with a b in damages to children who have been killed and injured by vaccines.
Speaker 10: We're gonna go take a look at a rash after a shot that was given a couple days ago. Let's go take a look. We had the Tdap, which is tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis. We use an acellular pertussis vaccine here that does have aluminum. It's impossible to get one that doesn't have aluminum in them.
I drew lines around this. You know, parents, when you see a large reaction like this after a vaccine, it looks like an infection, but it isn't. It's that aluminum, probably the aluminum. There are other ingredients that might be irritating. Overnight in a in a, 2 days after the vaccine.
And I would not do this same vaccine again because once you've had a large local reaction like this, you would be at greater risk for a really bad reaction.
Speaker 0: Leo Smith was year and a half old when he had a bad reaction to a vaccine, and tonight his mother is sharing his story for the first time.
Speaker 11: Oh, you, you, you.
Speaker 12: This video of Leo Smith was shot about 8 months after he received 2 vaccine injections, including one for diphtheria and whooping cough, hours after getting the vaccine.
Speaker 3: Within about 3 days after that that he started to have hives and welts and joint swelling.
Speaker 12: Amy Mittensmith says within days, he had hives, joint swelling, and a fever, and within weeks, seizures. 2 months after the injections, the symptoms subsided, but Leo stopped talking. 8 months later, the original symptoms returned after Leo caught a cold. This time, Leo developed an eye tech soon after he was diagnosed with autism and later other neurological disorders.
Speaker 3: I thought I was protecting him by taking him in to get his vaccines, and I ended up injuring him for
Speaker 11: the rest of his life.
Speaker 12: The vaccine court ruled that the vaccine did in fact injure Leo and awarded him $55,000.
Speaker 3: I regret not looking into it, and now it's too late.
Speaker 11: Too late. Too late. I'm glad I'm retired now because now I can talk to you. Because you know what? While I worked, I couldn't.
Because if I did conflict interest, I would've lost my job. That's truth. A lot of my colleagues did lose their jobs. How did I survive 20 years and never get the flu in that environment? ER, high volume.
Was I not on the front lines? Every flu case, 300 people a day. Every flu case, it was me. I never had the flu. You know why I knew how to wash my hands?
I knew how to take vitamin d. I knew how to take out a very syrup. I don't approve of your flu shot. Now you have pharmacist giving it. You bribe us with cards at Target, and you tell us this is free and it's everywhere.
And get it. Get it. Get it. They're scared tactics, and you should be ashamed. And then I will end because I do want my colleagues, my the other moms that know what the CDC doesn't do for us.
I'm looking around. Some of you are my age. And if I'm mistaken, I apologize. But I'm in a generation where I got 7 shots. 26 years later, my daughter got 10.
Her son got probably 60. My new grandson's expected to get Sony too, and I just watched you add more. I'm appalled. Robert Kennedy Junior, you know what he says? His family started Special Olympics.
There were no autistic kids. He says that where are the 40 year olds wearing diapers with helmets on at the mall if if you misdiagnosed them, if you miss them because you say they're not vaccines that they miss them. Where were the special ed classes when people with my generation? There weren't any because they didn't exist. I have a 10 year old grandson, and I don't care what you say that the autism and vaccines don't exist.
It does because I watched a perfectly healthy, beautiful 2 year old get those shots and become a severe autistic child. And guess what? He will be 40 walking in the mall with a diaper on and a helmet. Thank you for the studies that you don't do.
@TheMilkBarTV - MilkBarTV
Compilation of the same people trying to censor 'misinformation' on social media spreading actual misinformation. https://t.co/vngt3SM8kg
@toobaffled - “Sudden And Unexpected”
Vaccine Secrets - What Parents Should Know Before They Vaccinate Their Kids 💉 https://t.me/RevealedEye
REVEALED EYE
Owner of RevealedEye: @camelia004 [Except this all other accounts are fake] Let's unite in the fight against tyranny by exposing the truth about the Media, NWO, Elites and more. Subscribe to my newsletter and learn more 👇 revealedeye.substack.com
t.me
@DavidWolfe - David Wolfe
Dr Paul Thomas was de-licensed for telling the Truth about vaccines—he let his patients choose the childhood vaccine schedules that parents wanted. This is what he found. https://t.co/iWTTyHBNHZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
We analyzed every patient in my practice without excluding anyone. We categorized over 500 unvaccinated children and more than 3,700 vaccinated ones. The findings were surprising: unvaccinated children experienced fewer illnesses and chronic conditions. The data clearly showed that as vaccination rates increased, so did health issues like infections, ADD, ADHD, neurodevelopmental problems, eczema, allergies, and anemia. The contrast between vaccinated and unvaccinated children was striking.
If I had known this information before my daughter was born, I would have made different choices. Every parent wants the best for their child and deserves access to all relevant information to make informed decisions. I share this in hopes that it helps others.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We were definitely looking at every single patient born in my practice. There was no cherry picking. There was no we're gonna exclude you for this or that. Every baby born was looked at, and we looked at every single office visit. We stratified them according to the number of vaccines they had.
Okay. So, basically, we had over 500 who had 0 vaccines, and then we had another 3,700 and some who had some vaccines. And what we found, Dell, was actually even mind boggling for myself. What I was clearly seeing was these kids don't get sick. They don't get chronic conditions.
Well, the data spoke for itself, and you're showing your viewers the graph. Those orange lines are, over time, over that ten and a half years, the more vaccines you had, the worse you were for whether we looked at infections, ADD, ADHD, neurodevelopmental issues, eczema, allergies. It doesn't matter what we looked at. Even just plain old anemia skyrockets in the vaccinated when compared to the blue line, the unvaccinated. Wow.
This data is so powerful.
Speaker 1: If I had access to this information before my daughter was born, I would have made very different choices. Every parent wants the best for their child. Every parent deserves access to all the information to make an informed choice. I share this because I wish someone would share it with me.
reSee.it AI Summary
Bill Gates has called for AI to censor those questioning vaccines, labeling them as a threat to public health and claiming they incite violence. In a CNBC interview, he advocated for real-time censorship of vaccine-related misinformation, which he argues undermines vaccination efforts. Gates, heavily invested in vaccine initiatives through his organizations, suggests imposing speech boundaries to combat what he sees as misinformation. His comments have ignited discussions about free speech and the suppression of dissenting views on vaccines.
@OwenGregorian - Owen Gregorian
Bill Gates Calls for ‘Anti-Vaxxers’ to Be Censored by AI: Questioning ‘Vaccines’ Is ‘Inciting Violence’ | Frank Bergman, Slay News Billionaire Bill Gates is calling for members of the general public to be censored by artificial intelligence (AI) if they question the official narratives regarding “vaccines.” Gates, the Jeffrey Epstein-linked co-founder of Microsoft, made the call during a recent interview with CNBC. He was discussing the “threat” of “anti-vaxxers” and promoting plans for handling “vaccine hesitancy” using “real-time” censorship imposed by AI. Gates argues that those who urge people to avoid vaccines are “inciting violence.” Therefore, he insists that “anti-vaxxers” are a “threat” to public health. In response, Gates proposes a totalitarian approach, calling for speech “boundaries.” He claims that AI-powered computer systems can weed out and eliminate “vaccine misinformation” in real time. Gates runs multiple organizations that are heavily invested in vaccines. He has become one of the most prominent advocates for mass-injecting the public, from the traditional antigen-based biologics to the experimental mRNA “vaccines.” Gates is still pushing for Covid mRNA shots, despite the “vaccines” being linked to excess mortality worldwide. Gates recently announced plans to turn all vaccines into mRNA. ... Now the prominent philanthropist wants to use artificial intelligence (AI) for real-time censorship of vaccine-related “misinformation.” Conveniently, much of the so-called “misinformation” he wants to target is related to information that counters his plans. His comments during the recent CNBC interview have sparked a heated debate about free speech rights, mind control, and the rewriting of history by the elite. Gates, who is deeply and psychotically invested in vaccines through the Gates Foundation, GAVI, and the World Health Organization (WHO), has increasingly focused on combating vaccine “misinformation.” However, this form of censorship is really just the suppression of vaccine injury testimonials and the abolition of informed consent. In his latest interview, he expressed a desire to impose “boundaries” on speech, particularly relating to vaccines. Gates argued that free speech incites violence or deters individuals from getting vaccinated. Read more: https://slaynews.com/news/bill-gates-calls-anti-vaxxers-censored-ai-warns-questioning-vaccines-inciting-violence/
Video Transcript AI Summary
We support free speech, but there are limits, especially when it leads to violence or discourages vaccination. It's important to define these boundaries. If rules are established, how can they be enforced effectively? With billions of online activities, relying on AI to monitor and enforce these rules is crucial, as catching harmful content after the fact can lead to irreversible damage.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We should have free speech, but if you're inciting violence, if you're causing people not to take vaccines, you know, where are those boundaries that even the US, should, you know, have rules. And then if you have rules, you know, what is it? Is there some AI that encodes those rules because you have billions of activity and, you know, if you catch it a day later, the harm is is done.
Bill Gates Calls for 'Anti-Vaxxers' to Be Censored by AI: Questioning 'Vaccines' Is 'Inciting Violence' - Slay News
Billionaire Bill Gates is calling for members of the general public to be censored by artificial intelligence (AI) if they question the official narratives regarding "vaccines."
slaynews.com
@OwenGregorian - Owen Gregorian
I scan thousands of headlines every day to bring you most interesting stories here on X. If you'd like to buy me a coffee to say thanks, subscribe here on X or at http://owengregorian.locals.com for more content and to support my work!
OwenGregorian
Connect with OwenGregorian and other members of OwenGregorian community
owengregorian.locals.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m shocked to learn that a Massachusetts couple, Isael Rivera and Ruth Encarnacion, is facing kidnapping charges for fleeing the state with their five children. They took this drastic step to protect their kids from government intervention after refusing to vaccinate their 9-month-old, citing a legal religious exemption. Following a report to DCF, police surrounded their home, prompting the family to escape. They were later found safe in Texas. Now, the father is in jail, and the mother faces multiple charges. This situation raises serious concerns about government overreach and parental rights.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
INSANE: A Massachusetts couple is being charged with KIDNAPPING their own children. Yes, you read that right. Isael Rivera and Ruth Encarnacion are being treated like criminals after fleeing MA with their five kids to protect them from government overreach. It started when the couple refused to vaccinate their 9-month-old, citing a religious exemption, which is legal in Massachusetts. But instead of respecting their rights, the pediatrician reported them to DCF (Department of Children and Families). Days later, the state launched a neglect investigation. Then things escalated fast. Police and DCF allegedly surrounded their apartment, banging on doors and circling the building. Feeling cornered, the parents fled. According to their attorney, there was no warrant, no abuse, and no court order they were aware of. The family was found weeks later in Texas—safe, healthy, and together. Now, the father sits in jail on a $200,000 bond, whereas the mother faces five counts of “kidnapping a minor by a relative.” This is medical tyranny and government overreach. It’s un-American that disagreeing with a pediatrician can cost you your freedom, your reputation, and your children. The Trump administration needs to take a look at this.
Video Transcript AI Summary
A Massachusetts couple, Isael Rivera and Ruth Encarnacion, face kidnapping charges for allegedly taking their five children, who were under DCF custody, across state lines. The case began when a pediatrician reported the couple to DCF for declining vaccinations for their infant, citing religious beliefs. DCF initiated a case, and after the parents refused a home visit, police and DCF allegedly surrounded their apartment.
The family fled, and the children were later found unharmed in Texas and are now in the custody of Texas Child Protective Services. Rivera is being held without bail. Critics argue this is a violation of the family's rights, as vaccinations are not mandatory in Massachusetts.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now we have a shocking story for you today, and you are going to be truly gobsmacked when you learn the reason why this Massachusetts couple has been accused of kidnapping their own five children from state custody. So the background here is this Massachusetts couple is facing serious charges after allegedly kidnapping their five children who'd been placed in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families or DCF. Isael Rivera, thirty one, and Ruth Encarnacion, thirty, were located by Fitchburg police in early March after a multistate manhunt. The couple is accused of taking the children across state lines in an attempt to evade DCF intervention. Authorities believe the family fled Massachusetts shortly before the state attempted to enforce child protective measures according to WCVB five.
Rivera, the biological father of four of the five children, was arraigned last week in Fitchburg District Court. A not guilty plea was entered on his behalf, and he's currently being held without bail. We also have Encarnacion, the mother of all five children. She's scheduled to be arraigned this week and faces five counts of kidnapping a minor by a relative. A not guilty plea has also been entered on her behalf.
According to law enforcement, the family went missing just as DCF prepared to remove the children from Encarnacion's care on February 27. Encarnacion's sister reported her missing days later on March 3, citing a lack of contact since February 26. DCF officially reported the five children missing on March 5, triggering a state and federal search. Court documents indicate that DCF had opened a case against the couple in February after a pediatrician flagged signs of neglect involving the youngest child, a nine month old. Now you're hearing this story and thinking, what on earth did these parents do?
What kind of neglect would spark a multistate manhunt of this nature? Well, it's actually what they didn't do. It appears what these parents are guilty of is sincerely held religious beliefs against vaccination. Boston Broadside reported the parents who homeschool their children stated to their pediatrician that they were opposed to their new baby receiving the shots based on their sincerely held religious beliefs. Despite citing religious exemptions, which are law in Massachusetts, the father, Isael Rivera, is being held in Worcester County Jail on a $200,000 bond or 20 k cash bail, while the couple's five children have reportedly been taken into custody by CPS.
Quote, this is a blatant violation of fundamental rights on multiple levels, says Ron Bouchard, constitutional law strategist. By what authority has this family been apprehended and for what? Was there a warrant? Was it familial kidnapping? A family has the right to travel with their children.
How and why have they been reported missing, and by whom? What laws have they broken, and what imminent danger exists to justify this drastic action of DCF and the Fitchburg Police Department traumatizing this family by tearing it apart, end quote. The ordeal began when the family's pediatrician, a mandatory reporter, threatened to report them to DCF after the parents declined vaccinations for their infant during a wellness check. The doctor said if we didn't vaccinate, he'd have to report us, the father, Izzy Rivera, allegedly told an advocate who provided safe harbor for the family in Texas. Despite assurances that their baby was well fed, cared for, and thriving, DCF soon left a notice on their door demanding a home visit.
Fearing for their family, the parents refused citing their rights. But what followed was a dramatic escalation. Fitchburg police at the direction of Leominster DCF allegedly surrounded their apartment banging on doors and circling the property for up to thirty minutes. Ruth Encarnacion hid in the closet with her five children, said the Good Samaritan who assisted the family over their three week exile. According to her account of what the family told her, with police and DCF returning in greater numbers the next day, Rivera was also forced to hide while his wife and children fled from Fitchburg.
So if you're finding yourself horrified by this report, you should be. Vaccinations are not mandatory in Massachusetts and should not be anywhere. Whether you're citing a religious exemption or not, it should be a personal decision for you and your family to partake in a vaccine schedule or not. We find ourselves yet again going back to the argument during COVID. If you're protected, it shouldn't matter if I'm injected or not.
But this is the problem. We're still seeing egregious examples of medical tyranny in The United States today in 2025 with RFK Junior as the head of the HHS. We should note that children ages 10, nine, five, four, and nine months were eventually found unharmed in Whitney, Texas and are now in the custody of Texas Child Protective Services pending further investigation. That's it. That's the outcome.
Perfectly healthy children in a loving household whose parents feel they are protecting them being told by the religion of the medical establishment that because they practice a different religion, one that doesn't want to inject aborted fetal cells, insects, and lab created gene therapies into their children at the detriment of their faith, they don't get to keep their children. Sadly, this is not a one off scenario. We have continued to hear about stories just like this, and many go on that we'll never hear about. With the focus currently on things like food dyes, additives, and fluoride, which are important, it's been lost in the midst of families losing their children based on a vaccine schedule being imposed upon them with a mountain of evidence for years now that it comes with serious risk. When will we see action on this?
RFK Junior says we'll know by September what's behind the rise in autism. By September, these healthy children and many like them could be severely injured, disabled, or dead in the wrong hands. They're these parents have been accused of kidnapping. Well, who's actually doing the kidnapping here? And who else in The US population is the next target?
Protecting our privacy has never been more important. Your devices and the authorities, by the way, are listening to you, tracking your movements, and targeting you with ads at this very moment. And let's face it. There's only so much you can do to opt out of surveillance when you're using big tech. The truth is big tech devices were designed to spy on you.
And you can change settings and use a VPN, but, unfortunately, it still won't stop the leak. Thankfully, our sponsor at Above Phone at AbovePhone.com/Pulse has a solution. Thousands of people around the world like me have switched to Above Phone. By default, there are no ads and zero connections to big tech with Above Phone. You can download your favorite apps privately or unlock a world of new private apps with features you didn't even know exist.
Secure hardware protects you, and enhanced software gives you total control over your microphone, camera, sensors, data, and apps. You can say goodbye to surveillance and control and hello to privacy and freedom with Above Phone. Visit AbovePhone.com/Pulse to access exclusive deals for the daily Pulse viewers on Above Phone's privacy phones, tablets, and laptops. You can get an extra 10% off your order of two or more devices now through to midnight tonight by going to AbovePhone.com/Pulse. This deal is only until midnight tonight.
That's midnight central. The transition is easy. Above offers an incredible thirty day money back guarantee, so there's no risk. And every device comes with a free forty five minute support call with real live support engineer to help you make the shift from big tech to freedom tech. Above's team is ready and waiting to help at +1 836 Monday through Friday from 1PM to 5PM central, or you can visit AbovePhone.com/Pulse to schedule a call.
It's time to take back our technology and break free from the growing control grid. Shop now and save at AbovePhone.com/Pulse. Thank you all for tuning in tonight. You can catch us every single weeknight at 7PM eastern. That's every weekday, Daily Pulse, where we keep your finger on the pulse of the latest breaking news and the news they're keeping from you.
You can support us to stay independent by shopping directly with our sponsors who make this show possible. Their links are all in the description below. You can also like, share, and give us your thoughts and comments on the broadcast. Please also follow Vigilant Fox on Rumble as well as Vigilant Fox on X, and you can subscribe to Vigilant Fox's Substack to keep up to date with deep dives on the latest news also. You can also follow Z Media on Rumble where we post our long form interviews, deep dives, and investigations, and follow us on x at z triple e underscore media.
All of our content is also on ZMedia.com. We'll see you tomorrow night at 7PM eastern. Tell everyone about it. And as always, keep your finger on the pulse with the daily pulse. Good night.
reSee.it AI Summary
I revealed how the Biden administration initiated a campaign to censor discussions about vaccine injuries shortly after taking office. Mark Zuckerberg confirmed that the White House pressured Facebook to suppress posts on this topic. My lawsuit uncovered documents showing that I was targeted first, with my Instagram account banned despite my posts being factually accurate. The administration even coined the term "malinformation" to label truths they found inconvenient. This situation highlights a troubling trend where dissent is criminalized, prioritizing control over safety.
@newstart_2024 - Camus
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Exposes Biden Admin’s Censorship of Vaccine Truth "They didn’t call it misinformation—they called it malinformation." In a shocking revelation, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. details how the Biden administration ordered Big Tech to silence scientists, doctors, and journalists who dared to discuss vaccine injuries—just 37 hours after taking office. 🔹 Mark Zuckerberg admitted the White House demanded Facebook/Instagram censor posts on vaccine harms. "I was stunned… ordered by the federal government to deny facts." 🔹 Kennedy’s lawsuit uncovered documents proving a White House "disinformation" taskforce targeted him FIRST—banning his 1M-follower Instagram account despite zero "misinformation." 🔹 The Orwellian twist? When Facebook said his posts were factually true, Biden’s team invented a new term: "MALINFORMATION"—truth the government finds "inconvenient." 🔹 Leading doctors—Bhattacharya, Makary, Oz, Prasad—were all censored. Why? Because real science threatened the narrative. RFK Jr.: "This isn’t about safety—it’s about control. They criminalized dissent."
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mark Zuckerberg allegedly stated he was ordered by the White House to suppress discussion of vaccine injuries on Facebook and Instagram. The speaker claims to have sued the Biden administration and obtained documents showing that 37 hours after taking office, a White House group was formed to suppress dissent regarding government policy, and the speaker was their first target. Facebook was allegedly told to remove the speaker from Instagram, which they did, despite the speaker's claim that all vaccine-related posts were cited and sourced to government databases or peer-reviewed publications. According to the speaker, Facebook told the White House that the information was not misinformation, but the White House called it "malinformation"—factually true information inconvenient for the government. The speaker asserts that numerous individuals, including O.J. Botticello, Marty Makary, Dr. Oz, and Vinay Prasad, were also censored.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And there's been a lot of obfuscation about covering up, as you know, about suppressing any kind of discussion of vaccine injuries. I mean, Mark Zuckerberg publicly said that he was ordered by the White House to suppress anybody on his platform, on Facebook or Instagram, who mentioned vaccine injuries. Oh, he was ordered by the Biden administration to and he said, you know, I he said, I was stunned. I was being ordered by the federal government to deny facts. Anybody can look him up on YouTube saying that.
So and we know that too because I sued the Biden administration, and we got all this discovery documents that showed that he was thirty seven hours after he took the oath of office swearing to uphold the constitution, he opened up a group in the White House who were whose job it was to suppress any dissent about, you know, this government policy. And I was the first person that they went after. Thirty seven hours after he took that oath, they were telling Facebook to take me off of Instagram, which Facebook did. I had almost a million followers, and there was no vaccine misinformation on there. I asked Facebook again and again, show me one fact I got wrong.
Everything I put on there that, you know, was vaccine related was cited and sourced to government databases or to peer reviewed publications. And but they were you know, it was not it wasn't misinformation. The word in fact, they had to invent a new word, which is because Facebook was saying to the White House, this isn't misinformation. It's actually true. And the White House said, well, it's malinformation.
Malinformation. This is an Orwellian kind of construct. And, you know, malinformation is information that is factually true, but it is nevertheless inconvenient for for the government. And they, you know, they just all the people who are now running this agency were censored. OJ Botticello was censored.
Marty Makary was censored. Doctor Oz was censored. Vinay Prasad was censored. We were all censored. I was censored.
I remember well.
reSee.it AI Summary
The AAP is suing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for questioning COVID vaccine mandates for children, which I believe is a significant issue. Kennedy argues that healthy kids shouldn't be forced into vaccinations without solid scientific evidence. The AAP's history raises concerns, as they promote weight-loss drugs and surgeries for kids, advocate for minors to consent to vaccines without parental knowledge, and support controversial gender treatments despite evidence of harm. With rising chronic conditions among children, I see this lawsuit as a power struggle rather than a health concern.
@newstart_2024 - Camus
The AAP is SUING RFK Jr. for questioning COVID vax mandates for kids. Here’s why YOU should care—and what they DON’T want you to know. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)—along with other Big Pharma-aligned trade groups—is suing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for daring to suggest that healthy children shouldn’t be forced into COVID shots without full scientific backing. Kennedy’s stance? Common sense. AAP’s stance? Full access to every child’s arm—no questions asked. But let’s look at the AAP’s track record—because this is about WAY more than vaccines. 1. Pushing Weight-Loss Drugs & Bariatric Surgery for KIDS The AAP actively recommends injectable weight-loss drugs (like Ozempic) and bariatric surgery for obese children—instead of nutrition & lifestyle changes. "Waiting doesn’t work," they say. But neither does mutilating kids’ metabolisms. 2. Cutting Parents Out of Medical Decisions The AAP has lobbied for policies letting minors consent to vaccines WITHOUT parental knowledge. In some states, they’ve argued "there’s no minimum age"—just let the doctor decide. This is medical tyranny. 3. Promoting Risky Gender Treatments for Children The AAP backs puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and even surgeries for minors—despite mounting evidence of harm. Countries like the UK, Sweden, and Finland have BANNED these practices for kids. But the AAP? Full speed ahead. Meanwhile, American Kids Are SICKER Than Ever A JAMA study just confirmed what parents already know: - Infant mortality in the U.S. is 1.8x HIGHER than other developed nations. - 45.7% of kids now have chronic conditions (up from 39.9% in 2011). - Obesity, early puberty, depression, and "sudden infant death" (SIDS) are surging. The Bottom Line? The AAP isn’t protecting kids—it’s exploiting them. - They want control over your child’s body. - They push dangerous, profit-driven treatments. - They silence dissent (like RFK Jr.) because REAL science threatens their agenda. This lawsuit isn’t about "health." It’s about POWER.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is suing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over changes to COVID-19 vaccine recommendations. The AAP advocates for full access to COVID shots for everyone, despite emergency use protection lasting until 2029.
The AAP also supports early drug and surgery interventions for childhood obesity, adolescent consent for vaccination without parental involvement, and risky hormone therapies and surgeries for transitioning children.
A JAMA study reveals that from 2007 to 2022, US infants and children were 1.8 times more likely to die than in OECD18 countries, with prematurity and sudden unexpected infant death being major factors. From 2011 to 2023, chronic conditions in children aged 3-17 rose from 39.9% to 45.7%, including obesity, early menstruation, sleep problems, activity limitations, physical and depressive symptoms, and loneliness.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So this is American Academy of Pediatrics. Our friends there at the AAP sues Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Over vaccine changes. Well, what changes?
Those are the changes to the COVID-nineteen vaccine. All Kennedy said was, Hey, you know what? We don't really have the full science to support giving this shot to everybody, healthy children, six months old, healthy adults. So we're going to back that off a little bit, maybe just give it to the people that are immunocompromised or have a chronic health condition. It wasn't good enough for the AAP.
They said, You know what? We're gonna sue you because we want full access to everybody's arms with this COVID shot that is under emergency use protection until 2029. Well, I wanna remind people with the AAP, you know, the other trade organizations that are on that lawsuit, the AAP specifically, American Academy of Pediatrics, Let's see what other science that they've stood up for. They want full access to people with COVID shot. Well, here's another one.
Consider drugs and surgery early for obesity in kids. New guidelines. That's the AAP. Waiting doesn't work. So for kids, they're going to say First order injectable weight loss drugs, bariatric surgeries.
For kids that just need to lose weight, okay. Well, what else has the AAP stood around and really supercharged? Well, they were behind policy papers to show the legal basis of consent for health care and vaccination for adolescents. That's right. They want the parents out of the picture.
They want adolescents and children to be able to consent to their own vaccination with their health care provider. If you look at some of the hearings, like in Washington, D. C, several years ago when they were trying to push this bill forward to make that law of the land, they were saying, the representatives there were saying, We don't really know what age is a good age. How about no age? We'll leave that up to the doctor.
That's the AAP for you. And for transitioning children with risky medications, they're behind that too. This was another policy paper, Ensuring comprehensive care and support for transgender and gender diverse children and adolescents. That's right, they're talking about risky hormone therapy that we know the science does not back. This is completely unscientific.
They say, Well, that's fine. Give it to kids. Surgeries, yep, you can do that with kids as well. And maybe, you know, don't worry about the parents so much because it's not really about them. That's the AAP for you.
And so when they're suing Robert F. Kennedy, that's actually, my opinion, a badge of honor that that's happening. So this is what's going on right now. And I want to move on to the the how American health has changed under the toolage and the watch of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the other trade organizations. Well, a new study just came out in the Journal of the American Medical Association and showing the trends in US children mortality, chronic conditions, obesity, functional status and symptoms.
Remember, Kennedy was installed in HHS by us, the public, by our support, because he ran on this issue of chronic health in children. We have an explosion of chronic health illness in our children, and these are the new numbers. So perk up, share this. This is what this article says. This study says, From 2007 to 2022, infants one year old under were one point seven eight, and one to nineteen year old individuals were one point eight times more likely to die in The U.
S. Than in OECD18. Those are the other countries, the other normal countries they're comparing us to. The two causes of death with the largest net difference between The U. S.
And the OECD eighteen were prematurity and sudden infant unexpected infant death for infants 12 or younger. So listen, they're saying kids are just dying unexpectedly. We don't know what it is, but that's just what's happening. And that's what's happening in America. Once you cross this border in America, something is happening that's killing kids faster.
What the heck is that? And it's only gotten worse. And I want to bring people back to a person we had on just a couple weeks ago, Doctor. Gary Goldman, who actually wrote a paper. He has the specific mechanism.
This is the medical explanations. The immature infant liver, he's looking at the enzymes and their relevance in vaccine safety and SIDS research. That's that sudden infant death syndrome. That's just a syndrome that happens. I don't know why.
And it's killing kids and infants, and and a lot of times the parents are getting blamed for it. Well, there's mechanisms there he presents to back up this thing that JAMA is finding, is saying, this is a signal. What's going on here? And then it goes back. Let's go back into that JAMA study because it gets even more interesting from here.
This should really move the needle for people, please. From 2011 to 2023, the prevalence of three to seventeen year old individuals with chronic A, just one, a chronic condition rose from thirty nine point nine percent to forty five point seven percent. Almost fifty percent of American kids want chronic health condition. What are they? Well, it goes on to say the rates of obesity, early onset of menstruation, trouble sleeping, limitations in activity, physical symptoms, depressive symptoms and loneliness all increased during the study period.
All things that we've covered on this show and the reasons why those are happening, there's you can trace them back. There's reasons why this isn't just like what's happening, we don't know. We should probably look into this. There are there are mountains of science for a lot of these a lot of these situations that are happening to our kids to prove what's going on there. And that is what's happening under the watch of these trade organizations that are saying everything's great.
Second, Kennedy lifts a finger. He's getting sued because we like the status quo. That is what's going on, and that's why this organization, the HighWire and ICANN exist, to prove to you that the status quo is sick, it's wrong, and it needs to change.
reSee.it AI Summary
For years, questioning vaccines led to being labeled a threat to public health, with dissenters facing censorship and scrutiny. Now, with RFK Jr. and Trump reshaping the federal vaccine advisory system, the medical establishment is in turmoil. Media narratives suggest the formation of independent vaccine panels, but these groups remain tied to conflicted interests. By defying federal guidance, they reveal the flaws in their authority. The key takeaway is to conduct personal research and question the reliability of so-called experts, especially when they can't reach consensus.
@newstart_2024 - Camus
The Great Vaccine Power Grab: How the Medical Establishment is Panicking Over Lost Control For years, questioning vaccines meant being labeled a danger to public health. Dissenters were censored, smeared, even placed on terror watch lists. The message was clear: Only the CDC, ACIP, and Pharma-funded "experts" could be trusted. Now, the tables have turned. With RFK Jr. leading HHS and Trump back in office, the federal vaccine advisory apparatus is being overhauled—and the medical-industrial complex is panicking. Last week, corporate media pushed a coordinated narrative: "Outside groups organize to form unbiased independent vaccine panel." Translation? The same conflicted organizations—American Academy of Pediatrics, Big Pharma-aligned trade unions, and state health departments—are scrambling to create their own "independent" committees. Why? Because they refuse to relinquish control over vaccine mandates. The Playbook is Clear: - Wisconsin’s health department openly defied HHS, doubling down on COVID shots for kids & pregnant women. - New Jersey op-eds demand laws letting states take vaccine advice from any group—no matter how compromised. - Medical trade groups, dripping with Pharma money, now pose as "unbiased" alternatives. The Irony? They’re Doing the Public’s Work For Them. By rejecting federal guidance, these groups are admitting the system is broken. If they had any sense, they’d stay quiet and let ACIP reform itself under new leadership. Instead, they’re proving what critics said all along: Their authority was never about science—it was about control. Now, the question isn’t just "Who do you trust?"—it’s "Why trust any of them?" The lesson? Do your own research. Question everything. Because when the "experts" can’t even agree, the only sane choice is to think for yourself.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Before RFK Jr. and Trump, questioning vaccines was considered dissent and censored. Now, following the decision to shake up a federal vaccine advisory committee, outside medical organizations are forming independent panels to create their own vaccine recommendations for governments and schools. These groups, including trade unions and medical bodies, are portrayed as compromised due to conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies.
An op-ed in New Jersey advocates for health mandates that incorporate recommendations from trade organizations, not just the federal government. The Wisconsin Department of Public Health still recommends the COVID shot for healthy children and pregnant women, despite HHS recommendations. These groups are breaking away, further eroding public trust. This creates confusion, as states disregard federal recommendations on some vaccines but not others. It's argued that individuals should trust themselves and their own research.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, this is what happened to ACIP. Now, I want to also put a background here. Before this ACIP committee, before really RFK Jr. Took HHS and Trump became president, any time people like us or anybody questioned vaccines, we were sowing dissent in the government. We were going to hurt people or kill people.
If we had a view outside of the government, outside of the CDC, alternative information, We were censored. Some people were put on terror watch lists. This was no joking matter. So now I see the corporate media do this. Again, this was before ACIP even started.
This was last week. Outside groups organized to form unbiased independent vaccine panel. This is in the wake of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Decision to shake up a key federal vaccine advisory committee outside medical organizations.
Independent experts are looking for alternative sources of unbiased information and even considering forming a group of their own. So they're trying to form their own groups to make their own recommendations so governments and schools and states can follow those. These are trade unions. Think American Academy of Pediatrics, places like those trade organizations. These are heavily compromised organizations.
These are the same people with conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies. Now they're trying to do their own thing. This is a concerted talking point. So this narrative went out everywhere. It wasn't just one organization.
You saw it even in local media. For example, in New Jersey here. This is an op ed in New Jersey. New Jersey must act to protect public health from federal sabotage. Again, the ACEP community didn't even start.
This was written. They're saying we need to put into our health mandates, our health acts in our state that our vaccine recommendations can come from not just the federal government, but also trade organizations and medical bodies and whoever we want. We're going start our own body and say these are vaccine recommendations. So how the tables have turned when this is happening. And even you have Wisconsin Department of Public Health, when HHS came out and said, we're not recommending the COVID shot for healthy children anymore, Wisconsin came out and said, Oh yeah, we are.
We're going to put our own press release and we're still going to recommend those to every person six months or older. We're going to give it to pregnant women. We don't care what you say, ASIP. We don't care what you say. HHS, we're doing our own thing.
So you're seeing a lot of a breakaway with groups. Remember, if they were smart, they would kind of just shut up and let ACIP regain the trust of the public. Let Kennedy do the work to regain the trust because they've lost the trust so bad, they're continuing driving down the loss of trust road. Let's see how that goes.
Speaker 1: Well, imagine what just happened right now with these states that are coming out again. Wisconsin, we're not going listen to them. Oh, but they just approved RSV. Should I not listen to them? Imagine the confusion they got now.
What a weird world we're living in right now. It's hard to know what side you're actually on or what boat you're in. Yeah. On one hand, look, they're doing our work for us, right? Jeffrey, they're saying don't trust the regulatory agencies.
Don't trust the federal government with your health. I'd second that. But I also wouldn't trust my state government either. I think you the only person you can trust really is yourself now and your own ability to do an investigation.
reSee.it AI Summary
The AAP's recent demand to eliminate all vaccine exemptions is a significant misstep, driven more by a desire for control than public health. History shows that coercion fails; vaccination rates were around 50-60% in the 1980s without societal collapse, and today they exceed 90% in states with exemptions. Stripping parents of their rights only fuels activism, as seen in California after SB277. The AAP's focus on mandates over trust reveals a troubling priority for profits amidst rising childhood health issues. If vaccines are truly safe, why not allow choice?
@newstart_2024 - Camus
The AAP Just Declared War on Vaccine Choice—Here’s Why It Will Backfire Spectacularly The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) just made a grave miscalculation. In their latest statement, they demanded the elimination of ALL vaccine exemptions—religious, medical, personal—across the U.S. This isn’t about public health → It’s about control. The AAP’s fatal mistake? They think coercion works → History proves otherwise. → In the early 1980s, vaccination rates for routine childhood shots hovered around 50-60%—yet society didn’t collapse. → Today, even in states with easy exemptions, rates exceed 90%. But the AAP isn’t satisfied → They want 100% compliance—no exceptions. What happens when you strip parents of their rights? → You create lifelong activists. Ask California → After SB277 (2015) eliminated personal belief exemptions, it ignited a movement. Legal warriors like Aaron Siri and RFK Jr.—who have fought tirelessly for medical freedom—stepped up. Siri, a hero in this fight, understands: "You don’t build trust by bullying → You don’t increase compliance by crushing rights → If the AAP truly believed in the science, they’d persuade—not mandate." The AAP’s move exposes their real priority: profits over people. → They’ve overseen the worst decline in childhood health in history → Asthma, ADHD, autism, autoimmune disorders skyrocket. → Yet they stay silent → Why? Chronic illness = repeat customers. This isn’t medicine → It’s a business model. By pushing mandates, the AAP just guaranteed a backlash → Parents who once trusted the system will now question everything. Final thought: If vaccines are so safe → Why fear choice? If the science is so settled → Why silence debate? The AAP could’ve chosen persuasion → Instead, they chose thuggery. And history shows → Tyranny never wins.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The American Academy of Pediatrics' demand to remove vaccine exemptions will backfire and destroy the vaccine program. Taking away parents' rights, regardless of their reasons for not vaccinating, will turn them into lifelong advocates against vaccines.
Even with exemptions in 45 states, vaccination rates are above 90%, far higher than the 50-60% in the early 1980s when everyone was "pretty much fine." The focus should be on the chronic disease epidemic, not blaming the unvaccinated. The AAP is a trade organization that benefits financially from rising chronic disease and vaccination rates.
By trying to crush people's rights, the AAP is repeating the mistake made in California in 2014, which emboldened vaccine rights advocates. To persuade people to vaccinate, one must use facts, not bullying. The AAP's conduct is the worst form because they are trying to crush rights instead of persuading.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: All the work we've been doing. Aaron, huge moment here in West Virginia. But before we even get to that, what do you think of this statement made by the American Academy of Pediatrics, basically demanding a removal of any exemption out of the vaccine program across country?
Speaker 1: I think that, they just rung the death knell to the vaccine program in this country in many ways. To gain the few additional percentage points that they want to achieve to, for parents that have reasons to not vaccinate their children, they're going to seek to nationally crush their rights. What do people do when you take away their rights? When you throw their children out of school, even though they have a reason, whether it's a deeply held religious belief, whether it's some other deeply held reason, whether it's because their child suffered a medical issue that the CDC won't recognize and, hence, states won't recognize. What do you think that does to those parents?
It turns them into lifelong advocates that are going to fight these products, and they're just products. And if the AAP were smart and it wanted to protect its holy grail, its products from, quote, unquote, being politicized, it would stop politicizing the products. And the way that it politicizes them is by taking away people's rights, forcing them to get them that they don't want. Almost everybody in this country, most kids get these products. Even in the states that have check the box exemptions, which is about 45 of them, They still have far above ninety percent vaccination rate.
Back in the early eighties, the vaccination rate in this country for the only three routine vaccines at that time was in the fifty to sixty percentage points according to the CDC data. Okay? And everybody was pretty much fine. Here we are. They're at well over ninety percent often, and yet they decide that they need to crush.
It's always blaming the unvaccinated for everything. This is not about health. If they cared about health, they care about the chronic disease epidemic. They have overseen in the last forty years the largest decline in in in childhood health in recorded human history.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: They the AI has overseen that. But you know what? You don't hear them talking about that. You don't see them talking about raising the national arm about that. You know why?
Because as that chronic disease lies goes up, so does the profits of their members. They're a trade organization. They're a medical organization. They're there to assure the profitability of their members, and those are pediatricians and other similar doctors. Chronic disease line goes up, that's good for business.
Vaccination rates go up, that's good for business. What's not good for business is if those lines go in the other direction. I'm not saying not trying to infer an evil intent. They're just doing what they're supposed to do. They're a trade organization.
They're supposed to look out for the best financial interest of their members and that's what they're doing. But they made a, I think a tragic mistake in what they're doing by saying, let's crush the rights of people around the country. It didn't work out when California did in 02/2014. It in many ways emboldened and created folks like you, Dell Yeah. Who have come out and out of SP February have decided to it it it is part of the motivation, I'm sure, to to to go in a fight with regards to these mandates.
And I'll end by saying this. If you want to get people to vaccinate, to persuade them on the merits. Don't do what every other folks that have power do in the past when they can't persuade you on the merits, which is bully you. Engage in thuggery. Engage in the worst kind of conduct, and that's what the AAP did here.
They can't persuade you on the merits, and so their solution is we're just gonna say, you can't have rights. We're gonna crush your rights to make you do what we want even though we can't persuade you. That is the absolute worst form of conduct.
Speaker 0: I agree. I think you're absolutely right.
reSee.it AI Summary
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has called for the elimination of all nonmedical vaccine exemptions, including religious ones, which they claim undermines public health. This push could infringe on parental rights, particularly affecting school-age children who may face stricter vaccination requirements. Some states, like California, have already eliminated these exemptions, prompting families to leave public schools. However, courts in Michigan and West Virginia have overturned laws banning nonmedical exemptions, affirming First Amendment rights. The overarching message is a call to protect medical freedom and parental oversight against government overreach.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
🧵 THREAD The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) just dropped a bombshell release demanding the ending of all religious exemptions for vaccines. Yes, you read that right. Here's 5 things you need to know:
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
On July 28, AAP released that "The AAP advocates for the elimination of nonmedical exemptions from immunizations as contrary to optimal individual and public health." "Nonmedical" means religious exemptions, which is a fundamental expression of religious freedom.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
The statement also called for having pediatricians crack down on families who fail to follow the “recommendations” of Big Pharma and Big Government. A gross overreach of parental rights.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
School-age children could suffer the most. "The AAP recommends that all states, territories, and the District of Columbia eliminate all nonmedical exemptions from immunizations as a condition of school attendance,” said the group, demanding a vaccine passport-style regime.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Several states have already moved in that direction, including CA, where Big Pharma-funded lawmakers ended all religious exemptions. The silver lining is that the coercive mandates and the removal of religious liberty have driven even more families out of CA and public schools.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Thankfully, courts are overruling bad laws. In MI and WV, courts have overruled laws banning non-medical exemptions. In the rulings, judges agreed with the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) that the denials amounted to a violation of rights in the First Amendment.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Conclusion: Tax-funded assaults on God-given rights, including medical freedom and religious liberty, must end. COVID proved government should never be trusted with power over the lives of citizens. Parents must oversee children’s health—not politicians working with Big Pharma.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Authored by @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU. Learn more. 👇 https://libertysentinel.org/huge-backlash-as-pediatrician-group-seeks-to-end-vax-mandate-exemptions/
Huge Backlash as ‘Pediatrician’ Group Seeks to End Vax Mandate Exemptions – Liberty Sentinel
libertysentinel.org
reSee.it AI Summary
I expose the alarming consequences of COVID vaccines, particularly their impact on children. The reduction in vaccine doses was not for safety but to hide severe risks like myocarditis and sudden heart attacks. Most concerning is the rise in aggressive cancers among vaccinated children, with at least 20 cases reported. This situation poses a long-term threat to children's health and future fertility. The lack of media coverage on these issues raises questions about transparency. It’s crucial to demand answers to protect our children.
@newstart_2024 - Camus
Dr. William Makis Exposes the Silent War on Humanity: COVID Vaccines & the Cancer Crisis in Children Dr. William Makis reveals the deliberate suppression of data showing catastrophic damage from COVID vaccines—particularly in children. Lower Doses, Hidden Damage When Pfizer rolled out vaccines for kids, they reduced the dose—not out of safety, but to mask the horrifying reality: myocarditis, blood clots, and sudden heart attacks. They knew the risks but chose to obscure them. The Cancer Time Bomb The most sinister cover-up? Aggressive cancers in vaccinated children. Dr. Makis, citing VAERS data, confirms at least 20 cases of children developing ultra-aggressive cancers post-Pfizer/Moderna shots. A Lifetime of Risk Every vaccinated child now carries an elevated lifetime cancer risk. Some are already diagnosed. Others will face it in years to come. This isn’t just negligence—it’s a long-term attack on human fertility and longevity. The Great Suppression Why isn’t this front-page news? Because they don’t want you to know. The truth about vaccine-induced cancer is being buried—just like the heart damage, the clots, and the deaths. Demand Answers. Save the Children.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Well, Alex, honestly, the the way I look at this sort of attack on fertility and just attack on humanity in general is that it wasn't necessarily that they wanted people to die. And what you're seeing is the suppression of the information in terms of the damage that's being done to people is most intense in several areas. They don't want to know that these shots cause cancer long term. There's at least twenty cases in VAERS already right now. I believe that every child who has taken at least one COVID vaccine has an increased risk, lifetime risk of developing cancer at some point in their lives. So, this is an attack long term on children, because these children's lives will be dramatically shortened unless we come out with some solutions for these kids.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, Alex, honestly, the the way I look at this sort of attack on fertility and just attack on humanity in general is that it wasn't necessarily that they wanted people to die. And and that you could tell, even when they rolled out the Pfizer vaccine in kids, they tried to lower the dose because they knew that the damage was being done, the heart attacks were happening, the myocarditis, the blood clots. And so they didn't want to make it as obvious when they rolled it out in children. And what you're seeing is the suppression of the information in terms of the damage that's being done to people is most intense in several areas. One is in cancer.
They don't want to know that these shots cause cancer long term. And I've testified to the National Citizens' Inquiry in Canada, and I've given evidence from the VAERS reporting system that children who've been vaccinated with Pfizer or Moderna vaccines are developing extremely aggressive cancers. There's at least twenty cases in VAERS already right now. And I believe that every child who has taken at least one COVID vaccine has an increased risk, lifetime risk of developing cancer at some point in their lives. Some of these kids are developing cancer already, some of them will develop it in a few years.
So, this is an attack long term on children, because these children's lives will be dramatically shortened unless we come out with some solutions for these kids. So, there's an attack on children through through cancer.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
⚖️ Children’s Health Defense just filed a sweeping RICO lawsuit against the American Academy of Pediatrics. The suit alleges parents were misled and an aggressive vaccine schedule enforced through pressure & money. Mary Holland from @ChildrensHD is w/us. https://t.co/ovhP9euUP8