TruthArchive.ai - Related Post Feed

SaiKate108
Posted - August 3, 2023 at 8:38 AM
Saved - August 10, 2023 at 8:57 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Pfizer Australia faced tough Senate hearings today. They admitted not understanding how the vaccine causes myocarditis pericarditis. They also failed to provide evidence supporting claims of transmission prevention. Despite gene technology involvement, they refused to clarify indemnification. Watch the full hearing here: [link].

@SaiKate108 - Kat A 🌸

A tough day for Pfizer Australia in Senate hearings today. Senator Gerard Rennick on fire as he forced them to admit they didn’t understand the mechanism by which the vaccine causes myocarditis/ pericarditis. So much for trusting the science. They have no idea!!

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to explain the process of how the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis. Speaker 1 mentions rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with vaccination. Speaker 0 insists on an explanation of the mechanism, but Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer. Speaker 1 emphasizes that all medicines have benefits and side effects and refers to the benefit-risk ratio. Speaker 0 continues to press for an explanation of the biochemical pathway, but Speaker 1 agrees to provide a response later. The transcript ends with Speaker 2 confirming Speaker 1's agreement to give a further response.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And can you explain the process why the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis? Speaker 1: I'll take that, Doctor. Hewitt. Sure. Based on our clinical trials and pharmacovigilance data as well as real world evidence following the distribution now of billions of doses The vaccine, we retain confidence, strong confidence in the safety profile of the vaccine Speaker 0: Sorry, Chair, plain of order. I've asked, do you understand why it causes I know that it's a low risk. I'm asking, do you understand why it causes myocarditis? I want you to explain to me why it causes myocarditis. Do you understand why it causes myocarditis? Speaker 1: Pfizer is aware of very rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis that have been temporarily associated With vaccination, Speaker 0: that's ongoing for some people. Speaker 2: Doctor. Theroux should answer the question. Thank you, Doctor. Theroux. Speaker 1: According to public health experts and regulatory authorities around the globe, the number of reports of myocarditis remains small Well, Speaker 0: I'm not referring to the number of Ports, I want you to explain to me the mechanism of how the vaccine causes myocarditis. Do you or do you not understand the mechanism Of why the vaccine causes myocarditis. It looks to me like you don't. And if you don't understand it, why are you saying the vaccine is safe without qualifying the risks. Speaker 2: So, Sorenica, I think Doctor. Theroux is actually about to get to that point where the people agree whether there's agreement to his evidence or not There's another question for others to make a judgment on. But Doctor. Threw, if you could again get to Senator Renick's question. Speaker 1: Senator, all medicines, all therapeutic products and vaccines have benefits and have side effects as well. Looking at the totality of the evidence for Pfizer's COVID-nineteen vaccine, regulatory authorities, health authorities, experts Globally, including in Australia within the Department of Health and the TGA, have maintained that the benefit risk ratio That's Speaker 0: not the question that I asked. I asked, Can you explain why the vaccine causes myocarditis? Yes or no? Speaker 1: Send it to the benefit risk profile Speaker 0: Yes or no. So you clearly don't understand the pathway, do you? Because you can't explain it. I'm not referring to the cost benefit analysis here. I'm referring So do you understand the biochemical pathway as to why the vaccine causes damage to the heart? Speaker 1: Senator, I'm happy to take your question on notice and come back to the committee with whatever information we can provide. I might just clarify, I was not referring to a cost benefit analysis In my previous response, I was referring to the benefit risk ratio. And health authorities around the globe continue to recommend The benefits Speaker 0: And this isn't the question that I'm asking. Anyway, thanks, Chet. Speaker 2: I can't just Clarify as well. Doctor. Threw, you've agreed to give further take the question on notice and give further response to that question. Is that correct? Speaker 1: That is correct, Chair. As I understand, the question was about the mechanisms, and we are happy to take that question on notice.

@SaiKate108 - Kat A 🌸

God forbid anyone mention the word transmission to Pfizer Australia because they refuse to acknowledge it. They were unable to provide Senator Matt Canavan with any evidence to support Albert Bourla’s claims that the vaccine would prevent transmission. The fundamental basis upon which all mandates were issued has no evidence to support it. Warning this clip is excruciating to watch.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Pfizer representatives appeared before the Senate Committee to address questions about their COVID-19 vaccine. The committee asked if Pfizer tested whether the vaccine could reduce virus transmission before its approval. Pfizer stated that their clinical trials focused on demonstrating the vaccine's safety and effectiveness in preventing illness, severe disease, and hospitalizations. The committee also questioned Pfizer's statements regarding the vaccine's ability to stop transmission. Pfizer representatives were unable to provide specific evidence for these claims and agreed to provide further information to the committee. The committee expressed concern about the discrepancy between Pfizer's statements and requested clarification on any updated statements from Pfizer officials.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Pfizer hopes that its appearance at this public hearing assist the Senate Committee. Speaker 1: Thank you, Senator Canavan. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing today and your evidence. Did Pfizer test whether your COVID-nineteen vaccine Could stop or reduce the transmission of the virus before its approval and rollout in late 2020? Speaker 0: Senator, to bring this vaccine to patients, we were required to show that the vaccine was Safe and effective in preventing illness, in preventing severe disease and in preventing hospitalizations. The primary purpose of vaccination was and remains to protect the person who received the vaccine. Speaker 1: I'll just repeat the question. I appreciate that there hasn't been an answer to it. And perhaps I might just add into the record that On the 3rd December 2020, your CEO, Mr. Albert Bourla, told NBC News, and I quote, when he was asked whether vaccinated people Karian spread the virus. He responded to NBC News that, and I quote, I think this is something that needs to be examined. We are not certain about that right now. So was Mr. Birla correct that as of December 3, 2020, Pfizer did not know whether the vaccine could stop Or reduce the spread of the virus. Speaker 0: Senator, as with all vaccines seeking regulatory authorization, the requirement is to demonstrate Great. In robust clinical programs, that the vaccine is safe and effective in preventing the infection, in this case, in preventing severe disease and hospitalization. Speaker 1: I might just give you one more. Sorry to interrupt, but I've got Verilymottonga, 5 minutes. So is it yes or no? Did you test Whether transmission would be reduced or stopped before the approval of the vaccine. Speaker 0: Senator, we designed our clinical In agreement with regulatory agencies, the purpose of which was to demonstrate the vaccine was safe and effective in preventing infections. Speaker 1: Okay. We might just move on then to another well, not another topic. But on the 14th January 2021, so just A month 6 weeks after Mr. Birla's statement to NBC News, 6 weeks later, the official Pfizer Twitter account tweeted that, and I quote, The ability to vaccinate at speed to gain herd immunity and stop transmission is our highest priority. On what evidential basis, what evidence did Pfizer have to make that public statement to imply that vaccination Could stop transmission. Speaker 0: Senter, I'm not familiar with the context or the details of those comments, but let me just Say that the primary purpose of vaccination, the approved product label, the regulatory approvals in Australia and around the world Well, to prevent infection, prevent severe disease and prevent hospitalization. That is what our clinical trial program sought to demonstrate. That Was what was demonstrated, and that was the evidence that was evaluated by regulatory agencies, by health authorities, And that was the evidence, the strong robust clinical evidence that led to the approvals that were received in Australia and in many other Speaker 1: Could I ask you to take that on notice then, the question being on what evidence did Pfizer have for their statement on Twitter on the January 14, 2021. Stennis, Speaker 0: I'd be happy to take that question on notice and Come back to the committee with what information we're able to provide. Speaker 1: So by June in 2021, in June, on the 8th June, the Pfizer yes, Mr. Albert Birla, he tweeted Birla, he tweeted, and I quote, that the vaccine was a critical tool to help stop transmission. Was there any evidence what evidence did Mr. Bolla have by that stage, by June 8, 2021, that the vaccination could stop transmission? Speaker 0: Senator, it has been very clearly demonstrated that the robust efficacy of Pfizer's COVID-nineteen vaccine has been a centrally important tool in enabling societies to open up international borders To reduce Okay. Speaker 1: I'm asking for what evidence? What is that evidence? Where can you point me to a study that Pfizer or an independent scientist has done That to give grounds for Mr. Bolla's statement that your vaccine stops transmission. Speaker 0: Senator, I'm not familiar with the context Of that statement, I think we've complied and worked very closely with the regulatory agencies around the world To probe the evidence that they required to approve this vaccine to prevent infection, severe disease and hospitalizations. Speaker 1: Okay. Well, could I ask you to take on notice again the evidential basis for Mr. Birla's comments on in, what was the date, June 8, 2021. Speaker 0: I'll be happy to take that. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Does do you still believe that the COVID vaccine or your COVID vaccine is a critical tool to help stop transmission? Speaker 0: Absolutely. It's a critical tool in preventing, as I Said earlier, infections, severe disease and hospitalization. Speaker 1: Okay. That wasn't my question. You did, I think, say absolutely. But just to be clear on that evidence, If I could get you to clarify, do you believe, as Pfizer's view, that your COVID vaccine It's a critical tool to help stop transmission. Speaker 0: Sorry, I may have misheard your question. I was Okay. Speaker 1: That's why I reasked it. I thought you might have misinterpreted But is your view that the convo vaccine is a critical tool to help stop transmission? Speaker 0: Pfizer's view is that The vaccine is a critical tool in protecting the health of individuals who are vaccinated and enabling society to operate normally as it is at the moment. Speaker 1: Well, okay. I'm taking from that that you don't think that it's a critical tool to help stop transmission. You haven't repeated Mr. Burler's statement today under oath. So it doesn't sound like you're that confident in it. What I'm concerned about here is you have a statement from your CEO that is obviously very has huge weight For governments around the world on their regulatory settings saying that the COVID vaccine could stop transmission or was a critical tool to help stop transmission. Can you point me to any statements made by Pfizer officials, Pfizer officials, Pfizer officials, Pfizer CEO, anything That has pulled back. That has somewhat moved away from that very strong statement, Mr. Burles, in June 2021 that was a critical tool to help Have you clarified the record since that time? Speaker 0: Senator, I'm very confident that the evidence that we have presented to regulatory agencies It still stands and clearly demonstrates that the vaccine is safe and effective for its intended use. Speaker 1: That's not my question. That's not I'm sorry. I'm very, very Sorry to pull you up. I don't normally do this, but we have very limited time. And you are being very, very shifty here. You are not answering the very clear questions.

@SaiKate108 - Kat A 🌸

Pfizer Australia refuses to acknowledge that MRNA technology is gene therapy. Despite the fact that Pfizer admits gene technology includes transfection which is part of the vaccine process. They refused to answer whether any potential claims would be indemnified by the Australian Government.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions whether the mRNA complexes in the vaccines meet the definition of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) under Australian legislation. The response states that mRNA technology is not gene therapy and does not alter human DNA. The speaker insists on knowing if the possibility was examined, but the response reiterates that the vaccines are not GMOs. The speaker then asks if Pfizer has notified its underwriters about potential litigation, but the response is uncertain and requests further investigation. Another speaker presents a document from Pfizer's website stating that gene technology includes a process used in the COVID vaccine. The committee agrees to review the document and suggests sending additional questions to Pfizer.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Right, okay. Well, I accept that you've been sent here to go the rope a dope like Ali Fraser, the thriller in Manila. So we're not going to get proper answers out of this, but I want you to answer this question. Did at any time your legal compliance teams look to the possibility that the lipid nanoparticle mRNA complexes satisfy the definitions of being properly deemed genetically modified organisms under the Australian legislation. And the question is, did you examine that possibility? Speaker 1: Senator, mRNA technology is not gene therapy. It does not alter human DNA. Speaker 0: So that's not an answer to the question. Was it examined? Considered. Speaker 1: Examined or considered, I am not sure the nature of your question. Can you be more specific? Speaker 0: Well, I can't really be more specific. It was very specific. Did you at any time did your legal compliance team look to the possibility or examine the possibility that these vaccinations satisfy the definitions of being properly deemed GMOs under the Australian legislation for the purposes of Australian legislation. Speaker 1: So again, Sato, Comerity is not a genetically modified organism. So you Speaker 0: didn't, your team did not consider that? Speaker 1: So Pfizer consulted with the Office of Gene Therapy Regulator and sought confirmation, in fact, that our vaccines did not fall under the gene therapy, Gene Technology Act 2000. Speaker 0: Has Pfizer notified its underwriters of the potential for future litigation as a result of claims? Or will those claims be offset pursuant to an indemnity given to the Australian government. Speaker 1: I can't answer that one, Senator. We'll need to take out the notices. Thank you. Speaker 2: So Ajay, can I just make a point of order there? I have a document here from Pfizer themselves, and I'm happy to table this. And they actually state that manufacturing gene therapies, and in particular, includes transfection, a process that uses HE AK cells. So they themselves admit on their own website, gene technology includes transfection, and transfection Is a part of the COVID vaccine process? So I table this document just to prove that people are confident in their own Firstly, let's pass Speaker 3: it up here. We'll have a look at it. Can you just be mindful that the Pfizer hasn't got a copy of this document Yes, that's correct. But also, we're going to get so much period of time. I would very much encourage if there's questions, Additional questions which may relate to this matter that we would send it to Pfizer following I'm sorry, Raj. I'm happy to say that. Speaker 2: I'd like to remind the So please don't contradict your own website, your own status. Speaker 3: Yes, and we'll circulate and the committee will circulate and send it over to Faiza.

@SaiKate108 - Kat A 🌸

https://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/LiveMediaPlayer?vID=%7BD159C121-C022-482C-B146-DF50BE8E82DC%7D&mibextid=Zxz2cZ Full hearing is worth a watch.

Maintenance Page – Parliament of Australia Maintenance Page aph.gov.au
AJKayWriter
Posted - August 16, 2023 at 4:10 AM
Saved - August 16, 2023 at 4:30 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The medical establishment faces scrutiny as JAMAnetwork investigates 52 American MDs countering Covid19 misinformation. Recourse is threatened against them. Misinformation and corruption plague the profit-driven pharmaceutical industry-funded system. Shea, a mouthpiece for ScienceUpFirst, funded by PHAC overseen by Health Canada, denies any conflict. Claims about preventable deaths are based on flawed models. Vaccines' potential to prevent deaths is highlighted.

@AJKayWriter - AJ Kay

Just when you thought the medical establishment couldn’t get any more untrustworthy, @JAMAnetwork publishes an “investigation” of 52 American MDs who countered Covid-19 lies & propaganda — & unambiguously threatens them with “recourse,” no less… 1/7

@AJKayWriter - AJ Kay

This utter nonsense is prime example of the type of misinformation — and corruption of their profession — they were fighting. The modern medical establishment is a profit-driven, politically-captured, pharmaceutical-industry-funded scourge with self-serving shills like Shea 2/7

@AJKayWriter - AJ Kay

To be clear, Shea is a mouthpiece for @ScienceUpFirst, an “anti-misinformation” initiative which is funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) which is overseen by Health Canada which derives most of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry. But no conflict, right? 3

@AJKayWriter - AJ Kay

@ScienceUpFirst Weird. Twitter won’t let me post the rest of the thread… 🤔

@AJKayWriter - AJ Kay

Even the claim about 1/3 of deaths being preventable if PH recommendations were followed is a misrepresentation of the info. They’re referencing a (flawed) model that made political inferences about at vaccine uptake — not general “PH recommendations.” 4/7 https://globalepidemics.org/2022/05/13/new-analysis-shows-vaccines-could-have-prevented-318000-deaths/

New Analysis Shows Vaccines Could Have Prevented 318,000 Deaths - Global Epidemics Brown School of Public Health and Microsoft AI for Health release a new dashboard that shows vaccine preventable death nationwide and for each state, providing critical insights for state and federal Covid-19 response teams. globalepidemics.org
JoshWalkos
Posted - November 5, 2023 at 4:40 PM
Saved - January 23, 2024 at 9:09 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
In a cross-examination, Dr. Teresa Holtrop, President of the Michigan AAP, is exposed for her lack of knowledge about the products she recommends. She frequently says "I don't know" and exhibits arrogance, blindly trusting the CDC. Her lack of familiarity with the literature raises concerns about the AAP's decision to make her president. The conflicts of interest with the AAP, CDC, and medical journals are scandalous. This video highlights the problems within our public health institutions.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Here it is, the full cross-examination of Dr. Teresa Holtrop who at the time was the President of the Michigan AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) , the states top Pediatrician. Aaron Siri [@AaronSiriSG] does a masterful job at exposing how little she actually knows about the products she recommends to families on a daily basis. Some Observations. - Watch her demeanor when he begins his questioning. She becomes very exasperated multiple times during the questioning. - She says “I don’t know” at least 42 times to questions she should know the answer to. - The arrogance is always there with her. Even when faced with information she should know. - The blind trust she exhibits in the CDC is disgraceful. She is clearly just a “yes man”. - It abundantly is clear she hasn’t really read the literature and that says a lot about the AAP’s decision to allow her to be President of the Michigan Chapter. I don’t know how anyone can watch this, even the proponents of the childhood schedule and come away confident in our public health institutions. The conflicts of interests Aaron covers with the AAP, CDC and medical journals do not phase her in the least and that is the core of this massive problem. It’s absolutely scandalous. Thank you to @HighWireTalk for sending this my way so I can highlight what the government and its industry “partners” undoubtedly want kept in the dark.

Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speaker discusses various government agencies and organizations that provide reliable information on vaccines, such as the CDC, FDA, and HHS. They mention the Institute of Medicine (IOM) but state that they do not rely on it for vaccine information. The speaker questions the reliability of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and its funding from pharmaceutical companies, including vaccine manufacturers. They also discuss the funding of the CDC and the limited reporting of adverse vaccine events. The presence of certain substances in vaccines and the use of aborted fetal tissue in vaccine development are also mentioned. The speaker challenges the expert's opinion on vaccine safety and efficacy, emphasizing the need for informed consent and consideration of both disease risks and vaccine risks. The discussion also covers topics such as cell lines, aluminum in vaccines, reporting adverse events, and the use of polio vaccines. The use of a new cell line from aborted fetal tissue is mentioned, and the safety of aluminum in vaccines is discussed. The reporting process for vaccine injuries and the possibility of phony reports are also brought up. The video concludes with a conversation about the form of aluminum in vaccines and its effects.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Morning, doctor Hochul. Speaker 1: Good morning. Speaker 0: Thank you for being here. What do you understand the CDC stand for? Speaker 2: The Center For Disease Control. Speaker 0: And do you consider its publications and website I see a reliable authority for information regarding vaccines? Speaker 2: I do. Speaker 0: And what do you understand the FDA stand for? Speaker 2: The Food and Drug Administration. Speaker 0: Do you consider the FDA's Publications and website of reliable authority for information regarding vaccines? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 3: What do Speaker 0: you understand HHS or DHHS to stand for? Speaker 2: Department of Health and Human Services. Speaker 0: And, do you consider the HHS's publications and its agencies to be reliable authorities with regard to vaccination? Speaker 2: Typically, yes. But they don't typically they they I'm sorry. The DHHS does not I mean, they do it through the CDC. Speaker 0: And and and they threw because CDC is an agency under Speaker 2: DHHS. Yes. Are there Speaker 0: any other agencies under DHHS that are involved in vaccination that you're Speaker 2: well, there's the American the the the advisory committee on immunization practices which is an advisory committee to the CDC. Speaker 0: K. Are there any other agencies that you're aware of under DHHS that are involved in vaccination? Speaker 2: Not off the top of my head. Speaker 0: Are you aware of which agency within DHHS is responsible for licensing vaccines? Speaker 2: I believe it is the Food and Drug Administration. Speaker 0: Are you aware of which agencies responsible for administering the vaccine injury compensation program? Speaker 2: It's VAERS vaccine add, it's it's it's an aid that's all I know is VAERS. Speaker 0: The name of the agency, do you know the name of that agent? Speaker 1: I don't Speaker 2: know off the top of my head. No. Speaker 0: What do you understand the IOM to stand for? Speaker 2: The IOM Institute of Medicine. Speaker 0: Which recently changed its name. Right? Speaker 2: I have no idea. Okay. Speaker 0: And are you are you familiar with the Institute of Medicine? Speaker 2: I am. Speaker 0: K. Do you consider the IOM's publications reliable authority Regarding vaccination? Speaker 2: There can sometimes be some difference of opinion between 1 in one authority and another. Speaker 0: Right. Right. I mean Okay. Speaker 2: It is not an institute that we go to for vaccine information. Speaker 0: So the Institute of Medicine, You're not aware of their prior publication regarding vaccination? Speaker 2: When I look for vaccine information In terms of safety and recommendations as to how to handle immunizations in children, I go to the CDC. Speaker 0: And and you said that experts can disagree. Surely, they can. Experts who are reliable authorities On both sides of an issue, you can certainly disagree at times. Correct? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: Yes. But that doesn't make either one not a reliable Authority on an issue. Right? Speaker 1: Who would object? She's already answered about the IOM. He's trying to get her to say that it's a reliable authority to defeat her with Speaker 4: her Run it. She's coaching Speaker 0: the witness. Sure. Completely inappropriate, your honor. Speaker 1: He's just answered the question. Speaker 0: Completely inappropriate to coach the witness Okay. In our objection. Speaker 4: Alright. Stop. Your objection is what? Speaker 1: That he's tracked she's asked the answer. She's answered the question as to how she feels about the Institute of Medicine and whether I Speaker 4: I don't think she did answer that. I'm gonna Overworld. So ask the question, please. And You've made your record Speaker 0: respectfully request that speaking objections that coach witness or not? Speaker 4: I I will rule on the objection as they as they Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, your honor. So, we we were at we were talking about whether or not reasonable experts experts who are in the field can disagree about things. Right? Speaker 4: Is that a yes or no? Speaker 2: Yes. I'm sorry. Yes. Speaker 0: And the Institute of Medicine is comprised of leaders in their respective fields, in medicine. Right? Including noble prize winners? Speaker 2: I have not studied the Institute of Medicine. It is not a source that I go to for information around immunizations. Speaker 0: Would you consider it a reliable authority though? Speaker 2: I would say I don't know. Speaker 0: Do you consider yourself a reliable authority to help them out? Speaker 2: On immunizations? Yes. No. I go and ask I I look for information from others as to what to do and that is what we are taught to do in pediatrics. Okay. Speaker 0: And and and so who do you look to for information regarding immunization? Speaker 2: The Center For Disease Control and the ACIP. Speaker 0: The Advisory Committee Immunization Practices? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: And those are the only authorities that you rely upon? Speaker 2: For this information, yes. Speaker 0: And you wouldn't consider any other governmental or non governmental organization that studies this topic to be a reliable authority? Speaker 2: I guess the answer is no. Speaker 0: You know or you don't know? Speaker 2: The answer is no. I I'm not sure where you're going with this. If I had a better sense of what you're trying to Speaker 0: I'm just asking you to answer truthfully Speaker 4: and understand that. So just yes, no, or you don't know? Speaker 2: No. K. No. I would not go anywhere else. Speaker 0: Would your answer change Based on whether where you knew I was going with this, would that change your Well, Speaker 2: so here's here's my thought process. If the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services came along and said such and such is happening around this and this vaccine. I would certainly pay attention to what they are saying and probably follow their guidelines. On the assumption that they are following recommendations from the CDC and and the, advisory committee on immunization practices. I admit I'm making an assumption here that MDHHS is trustworthy in that. Speaker 0: Right. Because and and they're relying on what CDC and ACIP are deciding. Speaker 3: Correct. Speaker 0: K. What is the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986? Speaker 2: It is the the act that established an entity to which, reports could be made about ad vaccine related, adverse events. Speaker 0: And and it's also the act that granted vaccine manufactured immunity from liability for Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: Injuries caused by vaccines. Correct? Speaker 1: Correct. Speaker 0: When you serve with the subpoena, to appear in a deposition in this case in February 6,018 Speaker 1: going to object. The court's already ruled on the It is on the permissibility of the deposition whether or not she's been served with the subpoena is completely inappropriate. Speaker 4: Oh, how was that? Ask about that. Speaker 0: I just wanna establish that she wasn't disposed. You deposed? Can I just ask who's opposing the case? Speaker 2: Sure. That's all I ask. Sure. Speaker 0: Were you deposed in this case? Speaker 2: No. Okay. Thanks. Speaker 0: Did you discuss your anticipated test anticipated testimony today with anybody? Speaker 2: With, Laura, I need, You I can never pronounce your name. With the attorney. Newsma. Speaker 0: Anybody else? Speaker 2: No. Speaker 0: How did you first learn about this lawsuit? Speaker 2: So the American Academy of Pediatrics is broken up into districts, and we are part of district 5. It was the chair of district 5 who sent an email to, several of us at the MIAAP He talking about the fact that there is a case and could somebody help out. As it turned out, it happened to be in the area that I live in. And since I do have some, experience in the area of immunizations, I volunteered. Speaker 4: Don't don't say where you live. Okay. Speaker 0: And, And who sent that that email from AAP? Speaker 2: Doctor Rick Tuck. Speaker 0: Okay. And and what what did What was your understanding of who is specifically, asking for? Speaker 2: Somebody to assistance for somebody to be able to Testify on behalf of the importance of immunizations in childhood. Speaker 0: Okay. So after you got that email, what's the next step That you talked in order. Speaker 4: Counsel, can you just speak up a little bit, please? Sure. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: Well well, after you receive that email, what's the next step you took that led you toward be here today on the stand? Speaker 2: I actually contacted some colleagues of mine to see if there were was anybody within the infectious disease world of those that I knew who might be interested In in, testifying. Speaker 0: And who did you contact? Speaker 2: I contacted doctor Eric McGrath, doctor Basim Osmar. Trying to think who else. I think those were the 2 primary ones. Speaker 0: Anybody else you remember? Speaker 2: Not that I remember right now. Speaker 0: And and and do you understand why they didn't wanna testify or did Speaker 2: We never discussed it. They did. They just said no. Understood. Speaker 0: So after that, what's the next step that you took in order to become an expert in this case? Did you did you reach out to somebody to say, hey. I'm willing to be an expert. What is it that you did next? Speaker 2: I did. Speaker 0: Okay. And Speaker 4: who to Speaker 2: who's that? Contacted the lawyer form, Mike Schmidt. Speaker 0: Directly. Speaker 2: I'm trying to remember exactly the process and I don't recall whether it was directly to the lawyer or whether it was to Mike Schmidt To himself. Speaker 0: That's great. And and how did you get that information? Speaker 2: It was passed on to me through, doctor Rick Tuck. Speaker 0: Oh oh, from the American Academy of Pediatrics. Speaker 4: Okay. Is that a yes? Speaker 2: Yes. I'm sorry. It's okay. Speaker 0: Did you review any documents prepared to testify today? Speaker 2: I reviewed the documents about, the CDC recommendations, the ACIP Schedule of immunizations, the VIS sheets, and the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services information that had been sent to me in February from the folks at MDHHS, which I received without having requested it. Speaker 0: And those are the only documents you reviewed, hard to take. Correct? Speaker 2: Mhmm. Speaker 0: You've never seen any of Faith's medical records. Correct? Speaker 2: No. I have never seen any of her medical records. Speaker 0: And you don't know anything about her medical history. Speaker 2: I do not know anything about her medical history. Speaker 0: Now earlier, I believe, You were being asked about what you would do to vaccinate a 2 and a half year old child who received no vaccines. Correct? Speaker 4: Mhmm. Speaker 0: Can we go through what vaccines you would recommend? Speaker 4: Leave. Keep your voice up. Speaker 0: Thank you, your honor. It Speaker 4: might be better if you if you work from the podium because the mic is closer but It's up to you. That's great. Speaker 0: Let's, if you could kindly, Doctor Haltrow, list the vaccines that you believe a 2 and a half year old child should receive? Speaker 2: If a 2 and a half year old child has not received any previous She would be due for the DTAP, polio, hepatitis b, measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox vaccine, pneumococcal vaccine, haemophilus influenza type The vaccine. Hepatitis a. Did I say hepatitis b already? Speaker 4: Yeah. Speaker 2: I I have to write it down in order to not miss anything. Speaker 0: You know what? I think we can help with that. Why don't we Okay. I think we can put a demonstrative out, so we Lay out all of the vaccines just so we can to track them as we go forward. Speaker 4: Well, we don't really If you wanna do that, you can set that up at some other time, but I just want you to proceed. Yeah. Speaker 2: I'll be okay. Speaker 4: I don't wanna break for this. Speaker 0: I won't break for that at all, Donna. I'll just keep going. So okay. So, hepatitis a? Yes. Any others? Speaker 2: Hepatitis a, hepatitis b. Uh-huh. Chicken pox vaccine which is the VZV. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 2: MMR. DTAP. Yep. Polio, Do I have them all? I think I have them all. Thank you. Speaker 0: Well, we're going over the same ones. I think you did. Okay. Great. And then can you tell me the number, of doses for DTaP? Speaker 2: Well, at two and a half years of age, if she's never gotten another, a previous Michael Turner. Speaker 0: We Why Speaker 4: would you why why do you wanna put it right here? Speaker 0: They're not there. Speaker 4: That's perfect. Speaker 0: So this Speaker 2: fish I'm Speaker 0: sorry. I'm sorry. How many DTaP? Speaker 2: For in order to be fully immunized she will need a total of, 3 doses at this age. Okay. Speaker 0: And how many doses of polio? Speaker 2: She will need a total of At least it depends a little bit. There's a delayed immunization schedule and it's would be a wise idea to look at that to to be sure. I Juana, normally she would have gotten 3 doses by now with a 4th dose after the 4th birthday. If there is By the time they get to their 4th birthday, if they haven't gotten the first three, then sometimes they get by with 2 before. It gets really How are 3? It she should've gotten 3 of that baby. 3. Speaker 0: And HepT? Speaker 2: HepT, she needs to have had 3. MMR? She will have gotten one and she will get get her second one, after the 4th birthday. Although, it can be given earlier. Speaker 0: Chicken packs? Speaker 2: Chicken packs is the same thing. Speaker 0: Mhmm. Mhmm. Mhmm. And, again, that one, I double checked. Speaker 2: Okay. And, always think of it as the same as the HIB vaccine. The HIB vaccine, if she has not gotten a previous dose of it and she's now over 15 months of age, she only needs one. If I'm not mistaken, the same is true for the pneumococcal vaccine. I always double check myself on that because it has gotten so complicated. Speaker 0: It's So one for Neil McConnell? Speaker 2: I believe so. And one for him. Speaker 0: And and and you believe she one for him. Speaker 2: Yes. I know one for him. Speaker 0: Hepatitis died? Speaker 2: She should have 2. 6 months apart. Speaker 0: And hepatitis b? Speaker 2: She should have 3. They're given the first one. The next one is a month later. And the next one is 6 months after the first one. And PCV 13? PCV 13 is like the hip. It's the pneumococcal vaccine. So one I believe it's just one shot that she needs. That's the one I would need to double check on. Speaker 0: Can you tell me the, and and you've administered all of these 100 of times. Correct? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: And and they all come in packaging I assume? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: And there's a product insert inside the packaging? Correct. And the name of the product is on the box? Correct. And the manufacturer's on the box. Speaker 2: And the lot number. Speaker 0: And the lot number. And you record that information? Speaker 2: Absolutely. Speaker 0: Right. Who so, can you tell me the Can you please take a look at this, cut out of a child? And can you tell me if this looks approximately the size of a 2 and a half year old child? Speaker 2: It does. Speaker 0: So for the, hepatitis, b vaccine, you indicated that there's 3 doses. Can you tell me the brand names and the That's her. Speaker 2: I can't tell you the man manufacturer. And It depends on which again, this is not something that I look at all that closely because I use whatever we are provided with By the vaccine for, the VFC program primarily. Speaker 0: Vaccines are products. Right? Speaker 2: The vaccine product. Yeah. I mean, there's Speaker 0: Go ahead, miss Sarah. Speaker 2: We we receive the package of the package of vaccines from the CDC's distribution site. And that's what I will use. I don't bother to try and memorize the vaccine manufacturer. Speaker 0: Okay. So you don't you don't know the manufacturers for any of the vaccines? Speaker 4: She doesn't have it memorized. Speaker 2: I don't have it memorized. Yes, ma'am. I'm not sure what The need for that is Okay. Speaker 4: So you've asked for that. Yeah. I know that. Speaker 0: And and do you know the the product names for any of them? Speaker 2: Some of them. Yeah. Speaker 0: Okay. Which ones do you know? Speaker 2: Pediarix is a combination vaccine. For hepatitis b, I wanna say there's Engerix. But again, this is not something that I spend a lot of time trying to memorize because it's pointless. Speaker 0: Doesn't matter who manufacture. Speaker 2: It doesn't. Speaker 4: What what do we The Speaker 2: original exhibits, Ron, are those Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Are those still in there? Speaker 4: I I don't know where your exhibits are. Okay. Speaker 0: May I approach what the Shawn or hander will has been previously The address is exhibit d u u? Yes. Thank you, Speaker 4: Excuse me. The exhibits were left here on on the clerk's chair from the last time That you want them to Speaker 2: be left here? Speaker 4: My copies. No. The witness's copies. I I don't know. That's true. I I don't know. Speaker 2: Okay. I approach it. Mhmm. This is so much. Speaker 4: K. Have Speaker 0: you seen this document before doctor Hultraub? Speaker 2: I have seen similar documents. Not this particular one. Okay. Speaker 0: Do you see that it provides that it's from the Centers for Disease Control? Speaker 2: I see that. Yes. Speaker 0: And you see that it lists each vaccine including by manufacturer and product names? Speaker 2: Yes. I see that. Okay. Speaker 0: For the hepatitis b vaccine, which I believe you indicated, they've you indicated that a child of 2 and a half should receive 3 doses. Do you see who the manufacturers are? Speaker 2: It says GlaxoSmithKline and Merck. They're 2 different manufacturers. Speaker 0: Okay. And and who, what is the product name for the Merck product? Speaker 2: It's Recombivax HB. Speaker 0: And for The GSA? Engerix b. So, Speaker 3: So we're Speaker 0: and where would you where would you approximately where would you, give these 3 back doses to the child. Speaker 1: So first of all, relevance of where she would administer the dosage. Her expertise in where vaccines are administered is not A question for the court today? Speaker 0: Your honor, she she she testified as to vaccine safety. This is all leading up to safety, your honor. She had testified about adverse reactions. You testified that the child she's just had herself 6 Speaker 4: I'll I'll allow it. Go ahead. Speaker 0: I mean Overrule. Speaker 2: She would not get 6 are 3 doses of hepatitis b on the same day. Speaker 0: Right. You have to you would space them out over a period of time. Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: Absolutely. And over time though, But you would recommend b for c three injections of 3 doses of hepatitis b. Correct? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: Okay. And, would it be? Okay. And and these so hepatitis B, this I'm just I wanna keep track of all of that. Okay. That we're gonna talk about. This way, you you know, this way you don't you said before you can't keep track. We'll just we'll put them all up and this way as we go through this we can point to this and we can go make sure we cover each one because each of these are separate product. Correct? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: Each of them have different ingredients. Correct? Correct. Each of them have different contraindications. Correct? Speaker 2: Overall, yes. Speaker 0: Okay. Each of them have a different have different effects on the body. Correct? Speaker 2: I would say Probably not that much different. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, we'll go through that. Great. So, we'll put up the 3, hepatitis b's. And then, I believe you said for DTaP. You said, wait. Doesn't matter. Arms, legs. That's where they would normally administer it. Right? Arms and legs, Doctor. Holteroff? Speaker 2: Certainly not down there. Speaker 0: Well, why don't we why don't we say Speaker 2: It is administered in the deltoid. Up here. Okay. There you go. Speaker 0: Okay. And, 3 doses of DTaP. Right? Speaker 2: Excuse me. If you're asking me what I would give on a given day, I don't think it is correct to put up 3 different doses of hepatitis B. I agree. Speaker 4: I am not I mean, I I know it's for a fact, but it's it's not gonna help me. It's only gonna mean to confuse. She doesn't support giving a child revaccinations of the same Speaker 0: Not asking about that at all. Speaker 4: Okay. So Speaker 0: I'm asking just I wanna understand the total number of doses that she's saying a 2 and a half year old child has received, so we can represent We Speaker 4: have established that Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 4: Already. And you're asking to do the demonstrative. Speaker 0: So we can keep track as we go along. Speaker 4: Well, no. I think what you're trying to do is put a bunch of stickers up there to show me how many in total. You don't need to do that. And So what she's saying is she wouldn't do it all at once. So put one up there. How's that? Then if you wanna do 3 different times of how many she'll receive each time, that would that's that's fine. Sure. I I don't think you need that. But if that's important to you, then you go ahead and do Speaker 0: That we just do it like that. You're on us. We know that we can keep track of this 3 doses Speaker 4: at the time. You put one up there at once because that's what she's testifying. Sure. That's what she's comfortable with, and you're using her her testimony to do to your your display. Speaker 0: She said that the child received 3 HEPAVDS b doses are on. Speaker 4: Not at once. Speaker 0: I'm it's not well, we obviously can't put them all in the same spot. Speaker 4: You're right. Speaker 0: So and and it's not supposed to represent at one time. I'm I'm making explicitly clear this is not about one Fine. This is just so we can keep track of all doses that she believes a 2 and a half year old should receive Could be over you know, it's probably gonna take what Speaker 4: I'm I'm not gonna argue with you anymore about this. Speaker 0: Yes, Ron. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Speaker 2: I have a suggestion. Speaker 0: Oh, wonderful. Speaker 2: Because it'll be impressive enough. The fact that this child has not gotten any immunizations previously Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 2: Means this poor child will have to be tortured with 6 different injections at the same time. And if you would like to put those 6 up At the one visit, at her first visit to get all these immunizations, I'm happy to do that. Speaker 0: Doctor Voltra, at 2 months of age, how many injections does a child Let's see. Speaker 2: Typically, if if we use a combination vaccine, it is typically the DTAP polio hepatitis b. Then it is the pneumococcal and it is usually, you can get by with 3. And then the oral, rotavirus. Speaker 0: And why can't you use the combination vaccine in this situation, doctor Paul? Speaker 4: You can't. Speaker 2: Way we're gonna get that in the rest Speaker 4: of the time. Stop. Stop. When I talk, everyone has to stop talking. Everyone has to stop talking. Counsel, you can't lean down, crouch down with your voice directed towards the box and expect it to be Speaker 2: on the phone. Speaker 0: Thank you. And why can't you use a combination vaccine in this instance? Speaker 2: You can use a combination vaccine. I am telling you that if you use a combination, the combination vaccines that are available, she will still need 6 immunizations all at once. Speaker 0: Okay. And what would those 6 be all at once? Speaker 2: It would be a combination of the DTAP polio hepatitis b if you wanted to use that one. There's another another combination one that you could also use. It would be the measles, mumps, rubella, and chicken pox vaccine. That is a combination one. Speaker 0: MMRV. Right? Speaker 2: MMRV. K. And that is it in terms of combination vaccines that are available. Speaker 0: And then what would the other 4 be that you need to receive? Speaker 2: She will need the, pneumococcal. She will need the Kib unless she uses a different, a a so backtrack a little bit. There is a combination Pediarix which is DTAP polio and hepatitis b. There's also a Pentacel which is DTAP polio and hip. In which case, you would have to give the hepatitis b separately. Mhmm. There is a combination hepatitis a and b called Twinrix. So if you had that available, the problem is you can't use that until age 18. So we haven't used that. So your hepatitis a is separate. Your pneumococcal is separate. Your HIB is potentially separate. If not the HIB, then the hepatitis b is separate. Speaker 0: Yeah. So that's 5 shots. Right? Speaker 4: What Speaker 2: am I leaving out? Oh, the flu vaccine. Speaker 0: Yeah. Just go to the line. And okay. So a child, who goes in for their 6 one shot. Which of these would they not need to receive? Speaker 2: It it depends completely on which one of these combination vaccines he or she received in the first, Speaker 4: Wait. And I'm there might be a better way to say it. Speaker 0: Yeah. I'll rephrase. Speaker 4: Okay. I'll rephrase Speaker 0: it on. Speaker 4: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Speaker 0: A child at their 6 month shop, They would receive DTaP. Correct? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: They would receive polio? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: Hep B? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: Pneumococcal? Yes. Pib? Speaker 2: It depends. It depends on the product that was used in the first two sessions. Speaker 0: Same same issue with catching up 2a half row. Right? Same same same choice. Speaker 2: Same choice. Yeah. In this case, yes. And Well, no. No. Remember, if she's over 15 months, then she only needs one dose of Hib and she needs one dose of pneumococcal vaccine. Less. So it'll be less. Speaker 0: And and hepatitis a At 6 months? Speaker 2: At 6 months after the first if she well, wait a minute. At 6 months old, you don't get the hepatitis a. You get it at 12 months. Speaker 0: Okay. So it's so 6 vaccines at 2a half is torture. And at Excuse me. At 2 and a half years of age, you're saying getting 6 vaccines is torture, but a 6 month old would have to receive we just counted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 vaccines. Correct? Speaker 2: That's not Sir, you have me so confused at this point. Speaker 4: Hold on. Are we talking about pokes or vaccines? Some of them are combinations. Speaker 0: Think we're talking about injections. Number of actual injections. Speaker 4: Right. So she's saying your testimony was you think it's torture to do that to 2 and a half year old to have 6 different injections At once. Speaker 2: It is a balance between whether you do it and cause the pain versus you don't do it and then put this child at risk. And typically, we will go ahead and do it and I have done it. Okay. Speaker 0: And how many Pokes, would there be at 6 months of age in a routine checkup during flu season? Speaker 2: In a routine 6 month old. Okay. Depending on how many what product they got in the at the 2 month and at the 4 month visit. It it isn't relevant for this child. Speaker 0: I'm asking how many folks doctor Haltrow? Speaker 2: It depends on whether she got the combination that had the HIB in it, that isn't required at 6 months or she got the one that is required at 6 months. There are 2 different hid products. And one of them is given the is given at 2 months, 4 months and then at, 12 months. And whereas the other two products are given at 2 months, 4 months, 6 months and then at 12 to 15 months. Speaker 0: So how many folks doctor Halter up in 6 months? Either 2 or 3. And what would the 3 be? Speaker 4: She just testified to that. Speaker 0: I I I'm I'm not clear what the 3 would be. Speaker 4: I know. And it's because you're talking to your co counsel and getting other things out of boxes. So if she states it one more time, please write it down and listen to it so we don't have to do this over and Speaker 0: over again. Your honor. Speaker 2: Okay. On the assumption that at 2 months and at 4 months she received the Pediarix vaccine which is the DTAP, hepatitis b, and polio. She would then at the 2 month visit also have received the, pneumococcal vaccine as well as the HIB vaccine, and the oral, Rotavirus vaccine. But we can skip the oral one because that's not necessary. At 4 months, she would have gotten d t a she would have gotten the pediatrics again even though the hepatitis b is not needed. Since she started with the pediatrics, we would have given the pediatrics at the 4 month visit. So she would get the same thing all over again. And then if she If the the HIB vaccine that she received at 2 months and at 4 months was the PBX, At the 6 month visit, she would get the Pediarix, DTAP, hepatitis b, and polio. She would get the, The pneumococcal vaccine and that would be it. Speaker 0: Flu vaccine Is it season. Right? Speaker 2: If it was in season. Correct. And that's the earliest that she can get the flu vaccine at 6 months. Speaker 0: Who manufactures the, DTaP vaccine? Speaker 2: Well, if you're looking at the combination vaccine, one of them is made by GlaxoSmithKline. Another one of them is made by Sanofi. Speaker 0: And who manufactured the vaccine? Speaker 2: Hold on a minute. Okay. Yeah. And those and there are two versions of the DTaP That's not a combination vaccine. One made by Sanofi and the other one by GlaxoSmithKline. Kib is made by Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, and then Merck makes the one that's the The where you only need the 2 doses in the 1st 6 months. Speaker 0: And who makes PCD 13? PCD 13 is made by, Speaker 2: Pfizer. Speaker 0: And the, inactivated polio vaccine, which manufactures that? Speaker 2: Sanofi. Speaker 0: And who manufactures a flu vaccine that would be appropriate for a 2 year old to receive? Speaker 2: Okay. So the one that is appropriate There's one put out by GlaxoSmithKline. There's one put out by Sanofi. Speaker 0: And the MMR vaccine, he manufactured that? Where? He manufactures the varicella vaccines. Speaker 2: Work. He Speaker 0: manufactured hepatitis a vaccines. Speaker 2: There's one put out by, GlaxoSmithKline and another one put out by Merck. Speaker 0: Is it okay if we refer to GlaxoSmithKline as GSK today? Correct. Great. Speaker 2: Yeah. That's right. Speaker 0: So every vaccine that the CDC every every vaccine that that the CDC recommends that you're saying a 2 and a half year old should be administered, was produced by either Merck, Sanofi, GSK, or Pfizer. Correct? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: And the number of vaccines recommended for children of age 2 has more than doubled since the 19 eighties. Correct? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: Are you aware that Merck's total revenue from vaccine sales in 2016 was over $5,700,000,000? No. Are you aware that Sanofi's total revenue for vaccine sales in 2016 was over $4,500,000,000? No. Are you aware that GSK's total revenue from vaccine sales in 2016 was over $6,400,000,000? No. Are you aware that Pfizer's total revenue from vaccine sales in 2016 was over $6,000,000,000? Speaker 4: No. Speaker 0: Are you familiar with doctor Stanley Plotkin? Speaker 2: I've heard the name. Yes. Speaker 0: Yeah. How are you familiar with him? Speaker 2: He's He's mentioned in, vaccine literature. Speaker 0: And what literature is that? Speaker 2: If I'm not mistaken, he is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics and has done stuff. I I I know the name. Do you know anything about him? No. Speaker 0: K. Are you aware that he was supposed as an expert for defending this action? Speaker 1: No. Speaker 0: Are you familiar with the textbook used in medical schools regarding vaccines? Speaker 2: There is no one textbook used in medical school for vaccines. Speaker 0: Okay. What are the what are the various testes used? Speaker 2: Currently, in medical school what is used is basically resources that are published online by reputable sources. It's not a So Speaker 0: I'm just talking about multiple text books. Is there is there a text book regarding vaccinology that you're aware of? Speaker 2: What I'm saying is there is not one text book that we ever used in medical school when I was in medical school and now even more so, folks aren't using textbooks and many of us have actually gotten rid of text books because it is primarily stuff that is available online. Speaker 0: Isn't it true that the American Academy of Pediatrics Sees and relies upon 1,000,000 of dollars of donations from pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer, Merck, Glaxo, The GSK and Sanofi? Speaker 2: What I can tell you is that the American Academy of Pediatrics very carefully reviews whether the donations that they receive from any source as to potential conflicts of interest. Speaker 0: Do you wanna move to strike the answer non responsive? Speaker 2: Can I'm Speaker 4: not gonna strike the answer. Speaker 0: Okay. It it I'll ask it again. Isn't it true that the AAP receives Speaker 3: the Speaker 0: American Academy of National Receives and the laws of 1,000,000 of dollars of donations from pharmaceutical Companies including the 4 major vaccine manufacturers that we just went through. Speaker 2: I have no idea. Speaker 0: American Academy of Pediatrics website to be a reliable authority? Speaker 2: I do. K. Speaker 0: And would you consider the a, The annual American Academy of Pediatrics giving report to be an invaluable authority. Speaker 2: Are you referring to their form 990? Speaker 0: He said that their public case is a lab authority. So your honor, May I approach? Speaker 2: Well, she Speaker 4: asked you a question to try to clear up what your question was. So Sure. I Speaker 0: Doctor Holdtrough, what was that? Speaker 2: Are you referring to their form 990? Speaker 0: No. I'm not. I'm referring to a document called stepping forward 2,000 16th annual giving report, American Academy of Pediatrics. Speaker 2: I haven't looked at it. Speaker 0: K. Well, you would consider if it was published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, you would consider it a reliable authority. Speaker 2: I would. Speaker 0: May I approach, Rana? Yes. Thank you. Could you please turn to the second to last page? 2nd oh. Speaker 2: Yes. Yes. Oh, the 2nd Speaker 0: time, please. Speaker 2: Yes. Go ahead. Speaker 0: Let me know when you're at the second last page. Okay. K. Thank you. In the first column, which lists the largest corporate and foundation given, Foundation donors. Correct? Correct. Do you see any vaccine any companies listed there that or foundations that either manufacture vaccines or promote vaccination. Speaker 2: Merck is listed, Pfizer is listed. Speaker 0: Are you are you aware that Nestle? Speaker 2: Sanofi is listed. I Okay. Speaker 0: Are you aware that AstraZeneca's involvement of that vaccine development? Speaker 2: Yeah. Yes. Speaker 0: And Johnson and Johnson is attempting to Speaker 2: I don't I'm not aware of that. I don't know. Speaker 0: And and foundations like the Bill and Linda Gates Foundation, they're also involved in promoting vaccines. Correct? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: The Connerty and Hilton Foundation? Speaker 2: I'm not familiar with the foundation but that's possible. Speaker 0: And Nestle Nutrition is also involved in promoting vaccines. Correct? Vaccination? Oh. Speaker 2: I think of them more as a nutritional company. Speaker 0: Mostly, I think. Yes. Okay. Do you do you see any companies in that column called the Vaccine Choice Coalition? Speaker 2: I do not see it. No. Speaker 0: How about, how about, do you see the physicians for informed consent listed? Speaker 2: No. Speaker 0: How about the Vaccine Injury Bar Association? Are they listed? No. Isn't it true that a significant portion of the American Medical Association's revenue also comes from pharmaceutical company? Speaker 2: I have I have no idea. Speaker 0: The American Medical Academy publishes numerous journals. Correct? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: Okay. Over a dozen journals. Does that Sound about right to you? Speaker 2: I don't know. Speaker 0: Okay. Are you aware that pharmaceutical companies are the primary advertisers in those journals? Speaker 2: I haven't looked at it. I could see that it might be true. Speaker 0: Isn't it true that journal revenue from pharmaceutical companies is nearly double the amount the American Academy of PD American Medical Association collects the membership dues? Speaker 2: I don't know. Speaker 0: K. Can you name me a single group involved with promoting vaccines that does not receive any funding from any pharmaceutical company? Speaker 2: A single group that is involved in promoting vaccine that is not well, Southeast Michigan for, Health Association. They're involved in in trying to promote immunizations in Southeast Michigan and do not receive any donations from a pharmaceutical What company? Speaker 0: What's the name of the association? Speaker 2: SEMHA. Southeast Michigan Health Association. They happen to be our fiduciary for the Wayne Children's Healthcare Access Program. Speaker 0: Do you need any other group that You that you're aware of that does not receive any funding from pharmaceutical companies? Speaker 2: I don't know this for a fact, but I would think that the Michigan Department of Health Human services does not receive, donations from pharmaceutical companies? Speaker 0: Do these organizations receive money from the Centers for Disease Control? Speaker 2: They do. Are Speaker 0: Are you aware that the Centers For Disease Control receives money directly and indirectly from pharmaceutical companies? Speaker 2: I am not. I'm not Speaker 0: I'm sorry. I didn't I didn't Speaker 2: I'm not involved in that. I wouldn't know. Speaker 0: So they may receive money from Speaker 2: I don't know. Speaker 0: Which you don't know. Speaker 2: I don't know. Speaker 4: She doesn't know. Speaker 0: Right. I'm just I just wanna make sure. Yes. Speaker 4: I need to clear. He does not know. Speaker 0: Illnesses, behaviors, or behaviors Make her more likely to develop ITPR RA from vaccination? Speaker 2: As I have said, I have not I have no specific knowledge of faith. Speaker 0: Isn't it true that the rate of autoimmune disease, chronic illness, and developmental delay in children has gone from 12.8% of children in 1986 to 54% of children in 2011. Speaker 1: Going to object, Some bad to lead a witness on an adverse witness, but at this point, he's testifying, not asking her Speaker 4: a question. Overruled. You answered the question. Are you aware of that? Speaker 2: I'm aware that the numbers that are reported nowadays are higher than they used to be. Speaker 0: Is it true that the rate of chronic illness, excuse me. Is it true that the rate of developmental delay among children today is approximately 15 to 18% of children. Speaker 2: It is true that we are now more aware of developmental delays than we were in the past because we are looking for them. Mhmm. Thank you. Speaker 0: The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services puts out an annual report of the number of so called vaccine preventable diseases. Correct? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: Okay. The last years in which they have issue these reports is in 2016 and 2015. Correct? Speaker 2: I have reports from them from 2017. You do? Yes. Do you have them Speaker 0: here today with you? Speaker 2: That is what I, what we were talking about yesterday. Speaker 0: They're not yet available on the website though. Right? Speaker 2: I believe not. Okay. Speaker 0: Isn't it true that there have been no cases of polio in the last, 3 years in Michigan? I believe that's true. K. Isn't it true that there have been no case The diphtheria, the last 3 years. Speaker 2: I believe that is true. Speaker 0: Okay. There have been no cases of rubella. Speaker 2: I am not sure that I believe there have been cases. Speaker 0: Do you have one? Okay. Well, the only thing available on the Michigan Power Club website is the 2016, 2015. So let me ask you about those. Have there been any cases of rubella in 2016 to 2015 in Michigan? Speaker 2: It's I'm sorry. I Would not know those specifics for those years. Speaker 3: May I approach Ron? Speaker 0: These are the summary reports issued by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. Correct? Regarding, the rate of vaccine preventable disease in Michigan? Speaker 2: That is the title on these sheets. Speaker 0: Yes, sir. Thank you. Do you have any reason to doubt these are not from the Michigan Department of Public Utilities? Speaker 2: I do not. Speaker 0: Can you go to the last page of the 2016 report, which Just the second Speaker 2: page. Speaker 0: Do you see in the first row it did list the number of cases of congenital rubella? Yes. What number does it provide for 2016? Speaker 2: For 2016, it says 0. Speaker 0: And for 2,000 15? Speaker 2: It says 0. Speaker 0: K. How many, isn't it true that there were 0 cases of HIB reported in 2,015 2018,016. Speaker 2: Actually, that's not No. That's oh, I see what it says. It has 17 cases of Haemophilus influenza, but 0 of the serotype b. Speaker 0: Right. And the vaccine only protects against the serotype b. Correct? Okay. So there were 0 cases of HIB, right, which is hemophilicic cleanser b In 2016 and 2015. Correct? Speaker 2: That is correct. That is not true for 2017 though, but it's not on here. Speaker 0: That's not you know, that's Apparently available to you but not to the public yet. And how many cases were there? Speaker 2: Of what? Speaker 0: Of KID in 2017? 0. Okay. Isn't it true that those reports showed only one case of tetanus in an adult male The 2015, 2016? Speaker 2: It reports one case. Speaker 0: Right. And if you look right up the page under tetanus, It says the patient was an adult male. Speaker 2: Yes. Okay. Speaker 0: Isn't it true that that the report showed only 2 cases of measles In 2015, 2016? Speaker 2: That is correct. Okay. Speaker 0: And both both were in adults. It's in the summary description. Accept what you say. Isn't it true that those reports showed, 8 or less cases, per year of meningococcal? Speaker 2: It says there are a total of 14 cases of meningococcal disease between 2016 and 2015. Speaker 0: Right. Six cases in 2016. Right? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: And 82015. Correct. K. Isn't it true that those reports showed a few dozen cases in months, In 2015 and 2016. Speaker 2: It shows 38 cases of suspected mumps in 2016 and 18 cases of mumps in 2015. Speaker 0: Right. They're not all laboratory Speaker 2: Include suspect. Speaker 0: Correct. Is isn't it true that the mumps vaccine is known to have efficacy issues and that the and that, they're working on creating a better version that's not doesn't have I'm saying efficacy issues. Speaker 2: I know that they have just made a recommendation to give a third dose of the MMR in certain situations. Speaker 0: Is Is that a yes to my question? Speaker 2: The answer is that there I know that there are issues with the efficacy of the MMR for which reason they have rec made a change in the recommendation as to the Patient as to the dosing, how many doses you should get. Okay. Speaker 0: Isn't it true that those, the the report that you're looking at showed a few 100 cases of pertussis each year because the FDA but but the FDA has concluded the vaccine has efficacy issues. Right? Speaker 2: Actually, I would disagree with that conclusion that you are suggesting the, rise in pertussis cases is attributed in general to a drop in, immunization rates. Speaker 0: Alright. If doctor Plotkin said that it was primarily attributable to efficacy issues and that he was personally working On creating a better pertussis vaccine, would you disagree with that? Speaker 2: I cannot comment on doctor Plotkin's testimony. Speaker 0: But would you disagree if he testify Speaker 2: I I cannot comment on his testimony. Speaker 0: Would you disagree yes or no? Speaker 4: You you she's answered. Okay. Speaker 0: Has there ever been a study which looked at the total health outcomes of children following the CDC's vaccination schedule and Those that are completely unvaccinated such as date. Speaker 2: Has there ever been a study that has looked at the outcome of those immunized versus those not immunized. I do know that there has been a large study done in another country looking at those who have been immunized against MMR versus those who have not been immunized against MMR. Speaker 0: But were those who are not immunizing SMR, were they otherwise not vaccinated? Meaning, did they not receive any other vaccine? Speaker 2: That was not part of the study. Speaker 0: That's right. So as far as you know, there's never been a study that's actually looked at total health outcomes between fully vaccinated children and children such as Faith that are vaccinated, correct? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: If the court orders Faith to be vaccinated and she has a seizure, develops an autoimmune disease, or has some other adverse reaction, Do you think the pediatrician should have the discretion to stop the vaccinating Faith? Speaker 2: If if she has Speaker 0: Can you Speaker 4: repeat the Speaker 0: question? Absolutely. If the court orders fate to be vaccinated and she has a seizure, develops an autoimmune issue, or has some other adverse reaction, do you think the pediatrician should have the discretion stop vaccinating people? Speaker 2: The question is a little bit too broad because it may depend on which of the vaccines administered is, can be attributed to having caused the problem. And if it is a seizure, the question becomes as to whether it was a febrile seizure, which is considered to be benign And it's not a contraindication to giving further immunizations. Speaker 0: It's complicated. Right? Speaker 2: It's very complicated. Speaker 0: Do you think that probably the pediatrician should have discretion. Right? Speaker 2: I think there are What's up? Yes. Speaker 4: You're asking her whether she thinks the court should decide her the pediatrician? Speaker 0: No. No. The pediatrician should be able to have discretion to stop vaccinating Speaker 4: And what does the court Speaker 2: have to do with that? Speaker 4: Why are you asking? Speaker 0: I've you know what? It's not necessary. It's Speaker 4: a question. Speaker 0: I I I I removed that portion of Speaker 4: the question. Speaker 0: So if if, if faith I just if faith were to be if if the Parents decide Let Speaker 4: me take a step out of prayer. Speaker 0: Oh, can I Speaker 4: If something if if you had a if if you were vaccinating a child and they had adverse reactions, what Would you Speaker 2: would you would you Speaker 4: stop the vaccination process? Speaker 2: Not necessarily the full vaccination process. It would It Speaker 4: would depend on It would depend on the reaction was. Speaker 2: It depends on the reaction. It depends on which vaccines were given that could potentially have caused it. Okay. Speaker 0: Checking antibody levels in the blood to a disease is also known as checking titers. Correct? Speaker 2: Correct. Okay. Speaker 0: Isn't it true that in the state of Michigan, a child that has sufficient titers for measles, mumps, rubella, hep B, Orbellis or varicella is not required to get these vaccines, the vaccines for these diseases to attend school. Speaker 2: That is correct. Speaker 0: Okay. What is the vaccine adverse events reporting system? Speaker 2: It is a reporting system where we report adverse events that appear in Association with vaccines. We do not always know the cause and effect, but we are required to report that. Speaker 0: And the CDC administers theirs. Correct? Yes. A long gift. Yeah. Speaker 1: If you say so. Okay. Speaker 2: That's very well possible. As I testified yesterday, I don't know the details of that. Speaker 0: Right. Right. You said you're not an expert vaccine. Speaker 2: Correct. Correct. Speaker 0: Okay. Isn't it true that fewer than percent of adverse vaccine events are reported to theirs. Speaker 2: They need to be, If the when you talk about adverse vaccine events, they have to be significant to be reported. If it's just the child You developed a fever, you would not report that? That's an expected side effect? Speaker 0: Right. So, isn't it true that less than 1% of the type of events that you're talking about that should be Or actually reported to them. Speaker 2: I I'm not aware of that. Okay. Speaker 0: Are you familiar with Harvard Medical School and the Harvard Children of Health Care? Speaker 2: I'm familiar with Harvard Medical School. And what was the other one? Speaker 0: Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare. Speaker 2: I'm assuming that's their healthcare system Ann Arbor? Yeah. Speaker 0: It it's, that's my understanding. Yes. And it's one of the, health care HMOs that's part of the vax the vaccine safety data link. You might be familiar with that, but the CTC administrator. Speaker 2: I'm not I'm not familiar with that. Speaker 0: Okay. Yes. So my understanding is that yes. It is the, it is the, it it it is the, health care system that's associated with Harvard Medical School. That is my understanding. Speaker 2: Okay. And your question was, am I familiar with it? No. I am not Familiar with that. Speaker 0: Are you familiar with Harvard Medical School? Speaker 2: Absolutely. Speaker 0: Okay. Would you consider a report prepared by Harvard Medical School researchers under a grant from the United States Department of Health and Human Services looking at the vaccine adverse event supporting system or bought liable authority. Speaker 2: My hesitation in answering that question is I'm not quite sure what you are implying by considering it a reliable authority. It is certainly something that I would take seriously. Would I Accepted as a 100% gospel? Not necessarily? Speaker 0: Well, we wouldn't mostly wouldn't accept most things that are still gospel. Correct? But you would consider an authority. Speaker 2: As it is is yes. Speaker 3: May I approach, Rona? Yes. Speaker 0: Can you kindly read the yellow highlighting in the report that I just mentioned? Speaker 2: This is from the electronic support for public health vaccine adverse event report system from 2,007 to 2,010, performed by the Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Incorporated. Under results, it says preliminary data were collected from June 2006 through October October 2009, on 715,000 patients and 1,400,000 doses of 45 different vaccines and 1,400,000 doses in parentheses of 45 different vaccines were given to 376,400 and d two individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions, in parenthesis, 2.6% of vaccinations were identified. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician per month. Those data were presented at the 2009 AMIA conference. And then the other part that is in yellow reads Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event less than 0 point 3% of all adverse drug events, and 1 to 13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration. Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Speaker 0: Isn't it true that in the last 10 years, theirs has received reports of 511 deaths, 829 permanent disabilities, and 303,021 Hospitalizations following polio antigen containing vaccines? I don't know. Speaker 2: That's not my area of expertise. Speaker 0: But you said you consider the CEC website a reliable authority. Correct? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: May I Speaker 3: press on it? Mhmm. Yes. Speaker 1: I'm going to object to this line of showing that these reports that if reports are missed, well, I presume this is a reliable authority 707 argument or dismissal only for impeachment purposes. He's trying to admit these for hearsay purposes to get their get the evidence contained within these reports submitted by having her read them into the record. They don't mention doctor Holdrip. Doctor Holdrip hasn't been qualified as an expert in immunology Speaker 4: or vaccines. There's no expert. She's aware of these. But have you either she get in. Is where my objection okay. Overruled. Do you have a question? Speaker 0: Yes. That's your role. So We're holding a report from the CDC of of of reported, adverse events from portfolio containing vaccines for the last 10 years. Across the gaps. Can you read it? What's the number of reports? Speaker 2: I'm sorry. I cannot tell what this courts. It just says the vaccine adverse event reporting system bears results. Speaker 0: Absolutely. Speaker 2: It does not say what this is specific to. Sure. Speaker 0: If you go to page 4 okay. Do you see the date report received line? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: K. Do you see that it says the January 2007 to December 2017? Speaker 2: I do. Speaker 0: Do you understand that to be around a 10 year period? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: Okay. When you see the next page that's in products, it's contained with products that will that have, polio antigens in them. Speaker 2: It has the vaccine products are numerous, And it's not all just ones that contain dex, polio. Speaker 0: No. I I've got limited time, so I might have to make a proper honest at the end or can I can I get a little extra time to get further Speaker 4: What do you wanna ask her Speaker 2: about that? Speaker 0: Well, I I just want her to I'm just trying to confirm have her confirm the the number of deaths, permanent security and hospitalizations. Speaker 2: Well, it it my question my my my concern is that you asked me about polio and this is not specific to polio. This looks at all the different vaccines that are listed. Speaker 0: These are all vaccines that have polio containing antigens? Speaker 2: Actually, no. The first one listed is diphtheria and tetanus toxoid. The next one is acellular Speaker 0: Pertussis. That's one vaccine. Speaker 2: There there is no way to be able to tell that that's the case. Speaker 0: Do you see the plus symbols? Each plus symbol denotes a different vaccine. The break between a different vaccine. Speaker 2: If that's the case, then why is diphtheria and tetanus toxoid listed twice before the first plus? Speaker 0: I I I did not design the bear system. I'm just telling you that that's Speaker 2: I cannot tell what this is based on what you have handed me. Speaker 0: Okay. That's fine. Fair enough. We're limited on time anyway. Isn't it true the last case of wild bogey in the United States has was in 1979? Speaker 2: I believe that's true. Speaker 0: Isn't it true that in the last 10 years, VAERS has received reports of 615 deaths, 888 permanent disabilities, and 4,600 66 hospitalizations following the theory of many vaccines. Speaker 2: I I have no idea if that's true or not. Speaker 0: Assuming it's true, since VAERS only captures a small fraction of action and adverse events, these numbers are likely to be higher. Correct? Speaker 2: Based on what you pointed out earlier, I would say yes. Speaker 0: The tennis vet team was introduced into the routine childhood schedule in the late 19 forties. Correct? Speaker 2: Correct. K. Speaker 0: According to the CDC, prior to its introduction to the routine childhood schedule, there were only 500 to 600 cases, not deaths, cases, A year of tetanus. Correct? Speaker 2: I I wouldn't know. Speaker 0: Isn't it true that in the last 10 years, VAERS has received reports of 10 60 deaths, 1341 permanent disabilities, and 10,974 hospitalizations following Tetanus containing vaccines? Speaker 2: Again, this is not my area of expertise. Also, I would like to point out that when you make a report to VAERS, An association does not mean causation. Speaker 0: Right. You would need a you you should do a clinical trial which aren't done to check those who receive a versus those who don't. But but those it worked out right? Speaker 2: Correct. Okay. Speaker 0: And since and assuming those statistics were true that I just read from the VAERS report, And it's since VAERS only receives a tiny fraction of vaccine adverse events, isn't it true that these numbers are likely higher? Speaker 2: Yes. Isn't Speaker 0: it true that there are 1,200,000 people in Oakland County and that there that there have only been around a 100 cases of hep B total Since the outbreak you mentioned yesterday? Speaker 2: The outbreak I mentioned was not Hepatitis. Speaker 0: Okay. I apologize. Speaker 2: And say the question again? Speaker 0: Absolutely. Isn't it true that there are 1,200,000 people in Oakland County and there have Only been a 100 cases of hep a total since the outbreak you mentioned yesterday. Speaker 2: That is not Speaker 1: correct. Object to the compound nature of the question. She's answering it. Speaker 2: It's it's actually not true anyway. Speaker 0: Okay. What part is not true? Speaker 2: The number. There have Speaker 0: been more cases in Oakland County? Yes. Okay. You consider the, the Department of Community Health of Michigan, a Revolontal Authority. Right? Speaker 2: I do. And yesterday afternoon after Being in court here, I went to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services and where, an official from the from Michigan Medicaid presented on the hepatitis a outbreak and presented us with data by county. Speaker 0: Okay. And and what was the number for Oakland? Speaker 2: I don't know the exact number, but it was in the several 100. K. Speaker 0: Do you wanna move to strike his hearsay? Speaker 4: You asked her a follow-up question. Speaker 0: I know. I know. But, you know, Speaker 3: there's no Speaker 4: I'm not gonna start here. Let's just move on. Speaker 3: But I yes. That's why I Speaker 4: thought I can't hear what you say when you duck down. We talked about this yesterday. Speaker 0: Okay. Sorry. I'll have to come back to that. Alright. Aluminum adjuvants are using vaccines. Correct? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: Why are your Lumen and Maggies using vaccines? Speaker 2: Because they make the vaccine more effective. Speaker 0: Okay. And how do they do that? Speaker 2: I don't know. Speaker 0: Okay. What's an antigen? Speaker 2: An antigen is a typically a protein that, in this case, it would be, if you're talking about vaccines, an antigen is a protein that causes a reaction. And oftentimes, there's an an infectious agent, but not always. Speaker 0: Okay. Antigen. Okay. And antigens are contained in vaccines. Correct? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: Antigens bind to the aluminum. Correct? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: What are macrophages? Those are Speaker 2: a type of cell in the blood. Speaker 0: Only in the blood? Speaker 2: And other parts of the body too. Speaker 0: What do they do? Speaker 2: They eat up, stuff that you shouldn't have in your body. K. Speaker 0: And antigens bound to aluminum are taken up by macrophages. Correct? Speaker 2: Yes. K. Speaker 0: And macrophages present the stuff they gobble up to the parts of the immune system that create antibodies. Correct? Speaker 2: I believe so. I don't I have not studied the actual mechanism of action. Speaker 0: And they also travel to different parts of the body including the grains. Correct? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: And they'll deposit the materials that gobble up there. Correct? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: What is encephalitis? Speaker 2: It's an inflammation of the brain. Speaker 0: What is encephalopathy? Speaker 2: It is a chronic condition of of of the brain being out of whack. Speaker 0: What is encephalomyelitis? Speaker 4: Encephalomyelitis. Speaker 2: It is an inflammation of the myelin within the brain? Speaker 0: Isn't it true that most vaccine inserts report For most vaccines excuse me, Clark, strike that. Isn't it true that most package inserts for most vaccines report Encephalitis or encephalopathy as a reported adverse event from vaccination. Speaker 2: I would have to look at all the package inserts to be able to say yes or no to that. It is possible. Speaker 0: Are you aware that all DTaP containing vaccines with encephalopathy within 7 days of a prior potential sustaining vaccine is a contraindication? Speaker 2: Yes. K. Speaker 0: Do any of the vaccines in the toxic cell will contain monkey kidney cells? Speaker 2: I do not know. Speaker 0: Blood serum from cows? Speaker 2: I do not know. Speaker 0: Do you need pig cell cultures? Speaker 2: I do not know. Speaker 0: Gelatin from pigs and cows? Speaker 2: I don't know. Speaker 0: MRC 5 human diploid cells? Speaker 2: MRC 5 I see the diphoid. So those are specifics that I typically do. Speaker 0: Are you aware that MRC 5 diphoid cells are cells cultured from the lung Is she an aborted fetus? Speaker 2: I am aware that there are 2 vaccines out on the market. The MMR and the VZV that have, that use a cell in the production of it, use a cell line, from aborted fetuses from 1962 and 1966. Those are the only 2 aborted fetus Tissue cell lines that are used. And there is no alternative to it. Speaker 0: So the cultures the the the Japan has an MMR vaccine. Correct? Speaker 2: I believe so. Speaker 0: And theirs doesn't have any human fetal cell disease. Speaker 2: I'm not aware that there is one that is licensed in the United States other than what we have. Speaker 0: Okay. So there are vaccines that contain the cell lines from aborted fetal tissue. Correct? Speaker 2: From 1962 and 1966, yes. Speaker 0: But Speaker 2: Actually, the the vaccine doesn't contain the cell line. The the antigen, the the the vaccine is requires culture within those cell lines. Speaker 0: And you're saying that none of those none of the aborted fetal tissue culture cell lines actually end up in the vaccine product? Speaker 2: The vaccine doesn't have cells in it. Speaker 0: The cellular pieces from the aborted That Speaker 2: is potentially possible. Yes. Speaker 0: Isn't it true that in fact there is more of that cellular debris in the MMR for example, and there is actually antigen. Speaker 2: I don't know. Speaker 0: Okay. Isn't it true that, That the, Havrix hepatitis a vaccine hepatitis a vaccine contains millions of fragments of human DNA? Speaker 2: Possible. I don't know. Speaker 0: If doctor Plotkin said that it does, would you disagree? Speaker 2: If he says it does, then I will agree. Speaker 0: Isn't it true that Varivax, the chickenpox vaccine contains approximately 1 trillion fragments of human DNA? Speaker 2: Again, if doctor Plotkin says it does, then I will agree. Speaker 0: Okay. Do do any vaccines on child vaccine schedule contain human albumin which is part of the human blood? Speaker 2: Not to my albumin is is, yes. It is found in human blood, it can also be produced separately to the best of my knowledge? Speaker 0: But you're not aware of whether it's Speaker 2: I I I don't know if it's in there or not. Speaker 0: Isn't it true that a monkey Virus s v 40 infected millions of Americans before it was discovered in the polio vaccine? Speaker 2: That is possible? Speaker 0: You're not aware? Speaker 2: I'm not aware of that. No. Speaker 0: K. Isn't it true? Are you aware that s c 40 has been and continues to be found in various human tumors? Speaker 2: I'm not aware of that. Speaker 0: Isn't it true that an adjuvant will only will not only bind to the target antigen that's in the vaccine, But also, to the impurities and byproducts such as the animal and human parts left in the vaccine or the manufacturing process? Speaker 2: You're asking me specifics about physiology, that I am not that's not my area of expertise. Speaker 0: Are you aware I asked doctor Klotkin the same question? He said probably yes. Speaker 2: As I've mentioned previously, I have no idea what you asked doctor Klotkin. Speaker 0: That's correct. Speaker 2: I suppose that would make sense from a physiologic point of view. Speaker 0: And and if doctor Klotkin said that it might it could, Would you disagree? Speaker 2: I would not disagree. Speaker 0: Isn't it true that in just one study related to vaccine development conducted by Doctor. Plotkin, He used 70 4 normally developed thesis 3 months or older, many of which were electively awarded. Speaker 1: One's objection to relevance is what doctor Plotkin did in his study. She's already testified that she's not an expert on everything he's written. He's not here today. I realize they want to spend a lot of time in teaching him, but he's not a Speaker 0: Your your honor, my client has objection of a religious nature to vaccination that relates to the use of aborted fetuses. The use of aborted fetuses develop the vaccines is clearly relevant to this dispute. Speaker 2: Hold on. Speaker 0: I've only got 2 more questions on it and, all this. Okay. Done. K. Yeah. Alright. Isn't it true these 74 aborted fetuses had almost every piece of their bodies including skin, tongue, and heart cut into little cubes to be used for culture. Speaker 2: I'm not aware of any studies that doctor Plotkin The specifics of any studies that doctor Plotkin did? Speaker 0: You're aware that he's developed numerous vaccines. Correct? Speaker 2: I am aware of that. Yes. Speaker 0: Isn't it true that at least 100 of aborted fetuses have been sacrificed in the development of vaccines. Speaker 2: Again, I cannot comment on that. I can't comment on what the Vatican has said about the vaccines and whether to use them or not. Speaker 0: What principles and methods did you rely upon In reaching your opinion regarding vaccine safety. Speaker 2: I use the, again, the recommendations of the CDC And the American, the, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the American Academy of Pediatrics to make form an opinion about the vaccine safety. And, also, I used my experience in seeing children who have died from conditions that were vaccine preventable. Once you have seen a child die from a vaccine preventable disease, Your focus on how you feel about vaccines changes dramatically. I have seen children die from meningococcal disease Very rapidly. As soon as the vaccine became available on the market, I made sure that my daughters got that vaccine. The same is true for for, HPV vaccine. Speaker 0: You believe in informed consent, I presume? Speaker 2: I believe in informed consent. Informed consent involves also knowing not just what the potential side effects are, But what the actual risks are of having the disease? Speaker 0: That's right. But it also involves understanding the risks of the product itself. Correct? Speaker 2: You have to balance the risks versus the benefits. In this case, the benefits far outweigh the risks. Speaker 0: Okay. And the basis for that opinion is the information on the c d that is the CDC web. It is is because it's a CDC recommendation. Correct? Speaker 2: Both that as well as what I have personally experienced. Speaker 0: Okay. So your basis so I'm gonna say the principle methods that you relied upon of reaching your opinion regarding vaccine safety and vaccine efficacy are what the CDC recommends And and your claim that you've seen some people die of some diseases that for which their vaccination. Is that correct? That's the sum total. Right? Speaker 2: And the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations. Speaker 0: K. That's it. Speaker 2: How we form opinions is quite complex, And you're asking me how I formed all of these opinions? And and I have to say there are probably other influences that I am not thinking of at this point. But in general in general, those are the major. Speaker 0: Your honor, I I'm On that basis, those are the principles and methods she's relied upon. I moved to disqualify her as an expert with regards to vaccine safety and efficacy. Daubert's standard requires Principles and methods that are reliable, that are reproducible, that you can actually evaluate the peer reviewed publication based with damage. Speaker 4: She's already been qualified as an expert in Speaker 0: Right. But I'm I'm moving to to I understand that, but I'm moving to have all of her testimony regarding vaccine safety and efficacy. Pediatrics can be viewed broadly, your honor. And I and obviously, you you know, I objected at the beginning. And so I'm I'm in some ways renewing my objection in that To the extent that her qualification as a pediatrician, which is fine, as she I I I don't contest that there are certainly areas in pediatrics where she is qualified to be Speaker 4: a or an expert. You're welcome to break it. It sounds like you probably should, but we're now are you done with Speaker 0: Okay. But but that's an issue that you'll take under advisement, your honor? Speaker 4: If you'd like to brief it, but you're gonna have to come more with a than a 2 minute, oral argument with some case law and court rules. Okay. Anything else? Speaker 0: Well well, I, you know, I I, I went through things a bit a lot quicker than I would have normally done given that, 30 minute limitation. Speaker 4: I I gave you 45 minutes. Speaker 0: I paused. Speaker 4: It's like 45 minutes. Speaker 0: I did pause it every time. I wasn't every time somebody else did something. I've I've got 30 minutes and 42 seconds. But I do appreciate that, your honor. I do appreciate that. Speaker 2: What's your Speaker 4: what's your conclusion? Right? Speaker 0: I'm I'm concluding just reserving for any Recross the That's That comes up. Speaker 1: Redirect. Alright. Doctor Holter will make this pretty quick. Tends to be my habit. Let's Start with I'm gonna go in reverse chronological order as well. So we've there's some conversation about aborted fetal cell lines. And not a lot Speaker 2: of Can you tell me what you mean when you say a cell line? A cell line is a stem cell typically that, a cell that can still, reproduce and in for example, if you take tissues from, lung, fibroblasts. Those can be, made to reproduce and continue to be lung fibroblast cells, and they have been reproduced Year after year after year. Speaker 1: How are they reproduced? Speaker 2: Those are specifics that I cannot tell you. Speaker 1: Are they grown in a lab? Speaker 2: They're grown in a lab. Yes. So there's Speaker 1: we the word aborted fetal cells has been used a lot. Is there a further and I'm trying to phrase this delicately. Are there new awarded cells being added to this? Speaker 2: To the best of my knowledge, there are not new awarded cells being added to it. But, again, this is Vaccine, manufacturing is not my area of expertise. Speaker 1: Alright. I'm going to go to something that kind of is. Speaker 2: So they'll appreciate that. We talked Speaker 1: about encephalitis, encephalopathy, and myelitis. And we also spent a lot of time discussing aluminum. You've done have you done research on specifically metal toxicity Does it be in the human body? Speaker 2: I have lead poisoning specifically. Speaker 1: Why isn't the aluminum in vaccines concerning to you? Or is the aluminum in vaccines Speaker 2: It is not concerning to me because the amount of aluminum that we ingest in general, just through our diet is much higher than what we get through vaccines. There's no reason to believe that that amount, that additional small amount is anything to be concerned about. Alright. Speaker 1: Are you aware of the relative proportions of the aluminum that we ingest versus the aluminum that we receive? Speaker 2: It is significantly, higher what we ingest. I would it's somewhere between 50 to a 100 times more than what we did in vaccines. Speaker 1: Thank you. Let's talk about VAERS for a bit. Are you familiar with the process to report a vaccine injury to VAERS? Speaker 2: There is a there is a a website to report it on and a Phone number that what can be called? Speaker 4: Alright. Is Speaker 1: it the physicians reporting these adverse events? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: Can someone report their own adverse event without a Speaker 2: It would be possible. Yes. There's no limitation as to who makes the report. Speaker 1: So would it be possible for a person or persons with an agenda to make reports? Speaker 2: That is possible. I would I would assume. Speaker 1: Alright. And are there any standards for the timeline to make a report to VAERS? Speaker 2: You you typically are required to make that report as soon as possible. As soon as you become aware of that. Speaker 1: Is there a timeline for how long the alleged adverse reaction takes place after the administration of the vaccine? Speaker 2: I'd have to look up the guidelines. It's generally within, a few days of after the vaccine. Speaker 1: Alright. And Speaker 2: alright. So we also talked about tigors Speaker 1: a bit. And that how would a child develop immunity that would show in a titer? Speaker 2: Okay. So when you are when your body is, encounters an antigen, the body typically, response to it by producing an antibody. Antibodies are sort of like the little soldiers that help to fight off the antigen or the infection. Some antibodies are effective, some are not effective. And that is actually part of the process of developing a vaccine is, to help her body produce antibodies that are effective in fighting off the infection. Speaker 1: And so there was a lot of talk about the fact that Speaker 2: a lot of vaccine preventable diseases we don't see. Correct. Why do we still vaccinate against those diseases? Because they haven't been eliminated and because, in a globalized world, it is possible to be exposed to them from somebody traveling on an airplane, bringing it into the country, and we know that that has happened with, a number of diseases. Speaker 4: Alright. And Speaker 1: next, this is almost my last question. I've got these for you. So when you're looking at patient, making the determination as to what vaccines they should receive, what family history factors Our concern with TB. Speaker 2: One of the big family history factors that I would take into consideration is is there, a history of anybody who's immune suppressed. And actually, in certain knowing that there's certain conditions in the family would make me more likely to immunize rather than less likely because especially, folks who have a a a chance of having diabetes or asthma may, If there's a family history of it, the chance that the child might have it is higher. And then the child may be more likely to suffer the severe, side effects if they were to catch that disease. Speaker 1: Alright. And are you familiar with the Institute of Medicine at all? Speaker 2: I'm familiar with it. Yes. Speaker 1: Can you explain briefly what it is? Speaker 2: I I can't. Alright. It's fine. I know that there are recommendations that come out from the Institute of Medicine and I'm I'm sorry. I have That's Speaker 4: fine. That's perfect. Anything Yeah. Moment related anything new that was from Speaker 0: No. Only exactly what Speaker 4: was going on. Speaker 0: I'm not gonna go outside. Okay. If I do, I'll I'll gladly take that objection. Okay. Okay. Isn't it true that there actually has recently been a new cell line, human cell line from a board of fetal tissue that's been approved for use in that case? Speaker 2: I'm not aware of that. Speaker 0: Isn't it true that the only polio vaccine used in the United States is an activated polio vaccine which is injected with muscle Speaker 2: Incorrect. It's an inactivated that's what Speaker 0: I'm hearing. Speaker 4: Liver cancer. Speaker 2: It's an inactivated poliovirus vaccine. Speaker 0: Right. And it's injected in muscle Speaker 2: tissue. Correct. Speaker 0: Versus what we used to be using as a Speaker 2: Actually, it's not into the muscle tissue. It's given sub q typically. Speaker 0: And and isn't it, And the, the polio vaccine that used to be used in America and the one that's still used most of world countries, oral polio vaccine. Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: And isn't it true that the World Health Organization recommendation provides that because strike that. Polio vaccine is polio vaccine is, polio is transmitted from mouth to fecal contamination, correct? Mhmm. Right? Correct. Okay. So it, it it it it infects and proliferates in the intestines? Speaker 2: Correct. K. Speaker 0: Isn't it true the World Health Organization provides that If there's an outbreak of polio in a country that uses IPV, they're supposed to switch over to OPV Because IPV gives personal protection because it only creates immunity in the blood, not in the intestines. So, therefore, It it the polio vaccine can still proliferate and spread if all you have is IPV and not OPD. Correct? That Speaker 2: is correct. Speaker 0: Alright. So so, the right. So the pull okay. And that goes to the point that my opposing counsel is saying that, the reason we need to strike that to point to there. In terms of theirs, for the very small fraction of of adverse events that are reported to theirs, the CDC does follow-up on some of them, correct? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: And and and so people were making phony reports to theirs. They find out. What is that? I would assume so. Have you ever read any article about Phony bears reports. Speaker 2: I have not. Speaker 0: Okay. Are you aware of any phony bears reports? Speaker 2: I have not. Okay. Speaker 0: Last topic, aluminum and then I'm I'm done. So you said that the quantity of ingested aluminum is small or is excuse me, is is much larger than the amount injected aluminum and therefore you deem it safe? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: Are you aware that the, this FDA provides that in terms of inject jested aluminum, eaten aluminum, 0.3% or less is actually taken up by the blood. Do you know that or not? I I Speaker 2: guess that I don't know the exact numbers. Speaker 4: And that Speaker 0: if it is, it's taken up in ionic form. Do you understand what I mean? Speaker 2: I understand what you mean by that. Speaker 0: I mean in its in its smallest elemental form, that's what's taken into the blood. Right? Speaker 1: Correct. Speaker 0: And and aluminum and ionic form is not able to cross the blood brain barrier. Correct? Speaker 2: I am not aware that that's true. Speaker 0: You don't know? Speaker 2: I don't know that that's true. Speaker 0: Okay. If you don't know, that's fine. In contrast, injected aluminum is our nanoparticles. Correct? They're there to create an irritant to the immune system so that the the vaccine creates antibodies. And so they're actually these nano Particles that are in the vaccine, right, or do not know? Speaker 2: You're talking about specifics that are are very Detailed? Speaker 0: Are the are the details important? I mean, you you said that Speaker 2: Not in this case. Because we're talking about a metal And we're talking about a metal that doesn't change its form in a in a way that is, it's not like the There was a law a big controversy about mercury in vaccines. And the mercury in vaccines, the form was different than the mercury that was typically ingested in fish, for example. Speaker 0: I'm not I'm not asking about mercury. Speaker 2: I know you're not. But that concern is not present for aluminum. Speaker 0: I'm gonna ask Speaker 2: The amount of Again. Speaker 0: Do you have It is the aluminum that's injected into the body, are you aware that it's in nanoparticle form. That it's it is in in in in chemistry. Speaker 2: Bound to something else. Speaker 0: I'm sorry? Speaker 2: It is bound to something else. It's it's used as an adjuvant. Speaker 0: Right. Meaning, you can't have ionic aluminum binding to these giant antigens. You need big pieces of aluminum to bind to the protein antigens. Right? Speaker 2: When you say big pieces of aluminum Speaker 0: Relative to to an an ion of aluminum that would be ingested. Speaker 2: Sir, you're asking me specifics. They don't require beyond my area of expertise. Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. The so you don't know that's fine. But I'm there is. Okay. So you're not aware that there's a difference between the form that aluminum, so when it's ingested, it's taken up an ionic form. When it's injected, It's in these nanoparticle forms. And the nanoparticle forms She Speaker 4: hasn't presented any other just to say that she's almost done. Speaker 0: And the nanoparticle forms that we discussed earlier are gobbled up by macrophages and deposit around the body including frames. You know, strike that. I I think she she's already said she doesn't know. So thank you very much, your honor. Speaker 4: Thank you. You can step down and Speaker 2: Thank you.
naomirwolf
Posted - November 20, 2023 at 10:51 PM
Saved - November 21, 2023 at 1:50 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Writer Naomi Klein's husband, Avi Lewis, has been involved in pro-pharma activities while she was on a book tour criticizing mRNA vaccine harms. Influencers can earn thousands per social media post promoting pharmaceuticals. Lewis hosted events for a multi-billion dollar Canadian pharma campaign, raising questions about conflicts of interest. The launch of his campaign coincided with Klein's book release. The Council of Canadians, potentially Lewis' employer, supported a policy using taxpayer money to underwrite billions in pharmaceuticals. This raises concerns about transparency and ethical journalism.

@naomirwolf - Dr Naomi Wolf

So the writer, @NaomiAKlein, who wrote a whole book seeking to assail my credibility as I expose mRNA vaccine harms, has a husband, Avi Lewis, who became a spokesperson for a multibillion $$$ Canadian Pharmaceuticals policy — hosting pro-Pharma ‘round tables’ and ‘town halls’ while she was on book tour. https://rumble.com/v3wwl1g-dr.-naomi-wolf-exposes-naomi-klein-for-promoting-vaccines-only-weeks-after-.html https://gettr.com/post/p2v13sz8c21

Avi Lewis, Naomi Klein’s Husband, Lands Gig as Pharma Advocate While Wife Assails Dr Wolf’s Work on Vaccines Avi Lewis, Naomi Klein’s Husband, Lands Gig as Pharma Advocate While Wife Assails Dr Wolf’s Work on Vaccines rumble.com
DrNaomiRWolf on GETTR : So the writer, Naomi Klein, who wrote a whole book about her hostility for me and which seeks to assail my credibility, has a husband, Avi Lewis, who became a spokesmodel for a multibillion pharma policy while she was out on book tour. https://rumble.com/v3wwl1g-dr.-naomi-wolf-exposes-naomi-klein-for-promoting-vaccines-only-weeks-after-.html Avi Lewis, Naomi Klein’s Husband, Lands Gig as Pharma Advocate While Wife Assails Dr Wolf’s Work on Vaccines gettr.com

@naomirwolf - Dr Naomi Wolf

2/ Influencers who pitch pro-pharma messages can make "several thousand dollars" per POST on social media. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/17/patient-influencers-tiktok-instagram-medical-prescription-drugs

‘I’m not a doctor just FYI’: the influencers paid to hawk drugs on TikTok Many ‘patient influencers’ offer medical advice without always revealing ties to pharmaceutical companies theguardian.com

@naomirwolf - Dr Naomi Wolf

3/ Mr Naomi Klein -- @AviLewis -- in his role as a pro-Pharma social media spokesperson and multi-city event convener for multi-BILLION dollar Canadian pharma payday policy PharmaCare, a campaign that proceeds even as his wife seeks to discredit me as I reveal catastrophic mrna vaccine harms. Will all those MSM news articles that featured her book-length attempted takedown of my work, and tried to censor me, now disclose this massive conflict of interest? How much money was involved here? This is a grotesque conflict of interest that any ethical journalist knows should have been disclosed from the start. https://www.instagram.com/p/CsZfbbNxxCB/?ref=broleur.com

Instagram instagram.com

@naomirwolf - Dr Naomi Wolf

4/ The launch by @AviLewis of the campaign "Public PharmaCare NOW!", from about eight months ago -- as his wife @Naomiaklein's book seeking to discredit my work -- as I reveal harms of mRNA vaccines - was going to press. What edits may there have been after that deal with Big Pharma was locked in? Is that a broadcast from Ms Klein's HOME, as she prepares for her part to try to "take down" a critic of mRNA pharma harms, whose team's expose of vaccine damages was making a global impact? You cannot make up this level of corruption.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of8xUHBXNHk

@naomirwolf - Dr Naomi Wolf

5/ The "Council of Canadians", who appear to have tasked or employed @AviKlein for his role in fronting for "many" events to support a policy that would use taxpayer money to underwrite with zero market risk to Pharma, $42 billion of pharmaceuticals that Canadians use a year (nearly doubled in a decade), right as his wife @Naomiaklein's book seeking to smear me was going to press.

@naomirwolf - Dr Naomi Wolf

@aviklein 6/ More from Mr @NaomiAklein's colleagues or, potentially, employers:

@naomirwolf - Dr Naomi Wolf

7/ And more, from those who booked Mr @NaomiAKlein to host multiple events around Canada, right as his wife's book-length attempted hit piece against me was going to press:

@naomirwolf - Dr Naomi Wolf

8/ Gross me out. And WE, on the side seeking medical transparency and human rights, are the "dangerous" ones? A spouse accepting a relationship with Big Pharma - at a time when thousands of Canadians have been injured and/or killed by "mandates" -- and the writer @naomiaklein NOT DISCLOSING THIS RELATIONSHIP TO READERS -- poses the real -- murderous -- danger to the public.

@naomirwolf - Dr Naomi Wolf

9/ @avilewis, husband of @NaomiAKlein, kicking off his multi-city pro-Pharma Canadian tour. Was this series of events funded in any way by Pharma interests? Or did @avilewis contribute his time, name and reputation to travel from city to city across Canada purely as a volunteer? Ethical journalism (talking to you, @NYtimes, @WashingtonPost, @Guardian, @BBC) would demand these answers now, having featured the book by his wife attacking a critic of Pharma harms, without having revealed to readers this Pharma connection to the household. Ethical journalism requires an update of every article, revealing to readers this conflict of interest. https://www.instagram.com/p/CrWmVwOgOes/?ref=wp&hl=ja

Instagram instagram.com
RepThomasMassie
Posted - January 19, 2024 at 4:42 PM
Saved - January 19, 2024 at 6:06 PM

@RepThomasMassie - Thomas Massie

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

JoshWalkos
Posted - April 16, 2024 at 1:24 PM
Saved - April 16, 2024 at 4:16 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
In 2023, fatalities increased by 230% due to the surge in prescriptions. Experts acknowledge the correlation between more drug users and higher fatality rates. The posts highlight the profitability of these drugs, despite the 100 deaths mentioned.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

It’s only 100 deaths, just think of the greater good these repurposed, extremely profitable drugs are doing. Next up, the kids.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

You’ve gotta crack a few eggs to make a money omelette. “Fatalities surged 230 percent in 2023 compared to previous years, although experts said that about this time prescriptions also exploded. If there are millions more people taking a drug, then this raises the likelihood of fatalities in patients using it.” Story: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13276757/deaths-linked-ozempic-weight-loss-drugs-analysis.html

More than 100 US deaths linked to Ozempic and similar drugs The cases have been recorded in an FDA monitoring system used to track the safety of medicines used in the US, called FAERS. dailymail.co.uk
iluminatibot
Posted - April 28, 2024 at 7:34 AM
Saved - April 28, 2024 at 2:32 PM

@iluminatibot - illuminatibot

Pfizer knew what would happen to newborns https://t.co/AsjF9nuleX

Video Transcript AI Summary
Pfizer documents show an 80% miscarriage rate among pregnant women, with 236 out of 270 records lost. Babies exposed to the vaccine in utero experienced transplacental exposure. The vaccine was found in breast milk, causing convulsions and deaths. Newborns were known to have air sacs between lungs and chest walls, leading to respiratory distress. Despite this, babies appeared fine initially but later returned due to air pocket issues.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There's a section in Pfizer documents where there's an 80% miscarriage rate, of the women whom they're following to term, and they happen to lose 200 and 36 out of the 270 records of pregnant women that they have. But the ones that they keep, 80% lose their babies. And then later on, then this is report 69 and doctor Walensky resigned 5 days after we posted report 69, it shows that Pfizer knew that babies in utero were being exposed to the vaccine in their words through the babies were dying through transplacental exposure. Mhmm. But they knew that and they knew that they were poisoning breast milk and that the lipid nanoparticles, the mRNA, and presumably the spike was getting into the breast milk and causing convulsions and deaths. And apropos of what doctor Thorpe has found and what you brought up about, problems with newborns, I interviewed doctor not doctor. I interviewed a midwife named Ellen Jasmer, who's finding what is in the Pfizer documents from 2 years before they knew that newborns would have, some of them air sacs between their tiny lungs and their tiny chest walls and this would cause respiratory distress. They knew it. It's in the Pfizer documents, and and yet 2 years later, doc Ellen Jasmer is finding babies go home. They seem fine. They're coming back because there's an air pocket between their tiny lungs and their chest walls.
liz_churchill10
Posted - May 10, 2024 at 5:15 AM
Saved - May 10, 2024 at 10:12 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
According to Dr. James Thorp, the government's data shows an 81% miscarriage rate after the Covid vaccine. He claims to have been offered millions to stay silent but refused and was subsequently fired. A correction states that the bribe was for $100K, and the hospital involved allegedly accepted a bribe of $307 million.

@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill

“There was an 81% miscarriage rate after the ‘Covid Vaccine’. This is the Government’s own data…and when I spoke up…I was offered $M’s to stay quiet…which I refused…so I was immediately fired…” -Dr. James Thorp on the Mass Casualties of the ‘Covid Vaccine’.

@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill

Correction: the bribe was for $100K…and the hospital committing the Genocide took a bribe of $307 Million Dollars. OMFG. https://t.co/PpIzNCDjuf

CartlandDavid
Posted - May 10, 2024 at 7:51 AM
Saved - May 12, 2024 at 5:08 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
ITVGate has uncovered a significant pyramid of payments from Astrazeneca and Pfizer to UK doctors, raising concerns about their objectivity in promoting vaccine safety. The disclosure of these payments, which are not mandatory to declare in the UK, may just be the beginning, as there are 200 pages of recipients listed. The post also mentions plans to silence a doctor named Dave Cartland for speaking up. For more information, visit the provided link.

@CartlandDavid - Dr David Cartland

BREAKING: #ITVGate has uncovered a massive pyramid of payments from Astrazeneca and Pfizer to doctors in the UK. The same doctors that told you the vaccines were safe and effective and we were all in this together. Oh and don't forget to clap, every Thursday, while we rehearse our TikToks. Oh and that Dave Cartland dude speaking up - we're going to destroy him so that no doctor will ever speak up again. There are 200 pages of recipients of pharma payments - and bear in mind that it is not compulsory to declare these payments in the UK, so this could be the tip of the iceberg. https://search.disclosureuk.org.uk/

Disclosure Search search.disclosureuk.org.uk
StarkNakedBrief
Posted - May 20, 2024 at 7:20 PM
Saved - May 20, 2024 at 8:54 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Many TV doctors have been caught receiving payments from pharmaceutical companies involved in Covid treatments and tests. Dr. Sarah Jarvis received payments from AstraZeneca and Merck & Dohme while promoting vaccination and exaggerating Covid risks. Dr. Amir Khan was paid by Teva while promoting Covid tests. Dr. Hilary Jones received payments from Merck & Dohme while exaggerating Covid dangers. The conflicts of interest should have been disclosed, and it raises questions about the credibility of these doctors and the media's role in promoting their interests.

@StarkNakedBrief - The Stark Naked Brief.

It's not been a good month for our "impartial" TV doctors... Many were caught encouraging vaccination while receiving direct payments from C jab manufacturers. What you might not know is that others have been paid by companies that made Covid treatments and tests. Thread 🧵

@StarkNakedBrief - The Stark Naked Brief.

1. Dr Sarah Jarvis is a GP and broadcaster. Sarah has been the resident doctor for the Jeremy Vine show on BBC Radio 2 for the last 16 years. She has presented on the BBC’s One Show for the last 10 years, and on Good Morning Britain on ITV.

@StarkNakedBrief - The Stark Naked Brief.

In 2022, during a segment on ITV News, Jarvis told viewers it is important that “young people are vaccinated because they can pass it on to older and vulnerable people...”. By then, dozens of studies and the government’s own data conclusively proved the vaccine did not prevent transmission.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Children aged 5 to 11 can now get the COVID vaccine to protect older and vulnerable individuals. The vaccine has low side effects, with only a few cases of heart inflammation out of millions vaccinated in the US. Getting COVID poses a higher risk of heart inflammation than the vaccine. Vaccinating kids can reduce school disruptions and help safeguard older people.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And 5 to 11 year olds can now, receive the COVID vaccination. What is your reaction to that? Is that, the the way forwards? Speaker 1: I think it is important that young people are vaccinated because they can pass it on particularly to older and really vulnerable people. We know that the vaccine has a very, very low instance of side effects. Myocardial inflammation of heart muscle is the one that everyone was worried about, but we've now had millions of children. In fact, in the US, 8,700,000 children aged 5 to 11 got the vaccine, and there were only 11 cases of inflammation of the heart muscle, most of them very mild. And, of course, you can get that same into inflammation more commonly if you get COVID than if you have the virus. So I think it will reduce the time of school for children, and I'm really hoping that it will be a way of keeping older, more vulnerable people safe. Speaker 0: Doctor Sarah Jarvis, appreciate your time. Thank you.

@StarkNakedBrief - The Stark Naked Brief.

ABPI’s disclosure records show that Jarvis took home an impressive £39,602.00 in contracted service fees and expenses from pharmaceutical companies in 2022. AZ paid her £4,440.83. ITV did not disclose Jarvis’s conflicts

@StarkNakedBrief - The Stark Naked Brief.

Jarvis would also routinely talk up the risks Covid posed. Her warnings coincided with the approval of Merck & Dohme's Covid antiviral drug Molnupiravir, who naturally stood to profit from Covid alarmism as their product was designed to reduce hospitalisations. (It failed)

Video Transcript AI Summary
COVID spreads quickly in crowds, especially as winter approaches and people spend more time indoors with less ventilation. Seeing friends, colleagues, and family also increases the risk of transmission.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We know COVID is spreading really fast, and we also know COVID loves a crowd. As the winter nights draw in, it makes it easier for it to spread. We're spending more time indoors with less ventilation, and we're also seeing more of friends, colleagues, and family. All of those make it much easier for COVID.

@StarkNakedBrief - The Stark Naked Brief.

Merck & Dohme paid her a further £1,400.00 in 2020, £1,662.50 in 2021, and £1,680.00 in 2022. Curiously, Jarvis also peer-reviewed a paper attesting to Molnupiravir’s effectiveness in 2022 for Patient but it omitted any reference to her conflict.

@StarkNakedBrief - The Stark Naked Brief.

2. Dr Amir Khan, a full-time GP and best-selling author working in inner city Bradford, is a resident doctor for ITV’s Lorraine and Good Morning Britain.

@StarkNakedBrief - The Stark Naked Brief.

In March 2021, Khan partnered directly with the DHSC and NHS. This involved the presentation of a series of videos in which he promoted the use of Covid tests (both PCR and LFT). In July 2021, he stated that people should conduct these tests “twice a week”.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Test twice weekly, get a PCR test if symptomatic, wash hands, wear a mask in crowds, use NHS COVID 19 app to check-in.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But there are simple things we can do to help reduce the spread. It's really important to keep testing twice a week, And if you have symptoms, however mild, take a PCR test. Keep washing those hands and wear a face covering in crowded places. Use the NHS COVID 19 app to check-in.

@StarkNakedBrief - The Stark Naked Brief.

ABPI’s database shows that Teva, a multinational pharmaceutical company that purveys in manufacturing services, paid Khan £3,400.00 in 2021. According to Teva UK’s website, the company “assisted the UK’s COVID-19 testing program” with the NHS.

@StarkNakedBrief - The Stark Naked Brief.

Specifically, they worked to “repurpose sodium chloride saline solution… to help with mass testing”. Khan encouraged use of a product that was made by a company paying him - on government promotions. His conflict was not disclosed.

@StarkNakedBrief - The Stark Naked Brief.

Experts have criticised both PCR and LFT tests, claiming that they're ineffective due to false positives. In 2021, a Cochrane review of 64 studies found LFTs picked up more false than real positives when infection rates were low in the community.

@StarkNakedBrief - The Stark Naked Brief.

3. Dr Hilary Jones is a GP, TV presenter, medical broadcaster, and author. He currently works as the Health Editor of ITV’s Breakfast show.

@StarkNakedBrief - The Stark Naked Brief.

In October 2020, Jones featured on ITV’s This Morning stressing that Covid was so serious it constituted “the biggest threat to public health for so many decades”. Frequently, he exaggerated the dangers of Covid, particularly if people did not take certain treatments.

@StarkNakedBrief - The Stark Naked Brief.

According to ABPI’s database, Covid antiviral manufacturer Merck & Dohme paid Jones a whopping £24,380.00 in 2020 and an additional £5,000.00 in 2021. He purveyed in Covid alarmism while being paid by a company that stood to financially benefit from such alarmism.

@StarkNakedBrief - The Stark Naked Brief.

Research found that Merck's Molnupiravir makes “no significant difference” to hospitalisation or death rates. Less than 2% of the 2.23 million courses of the drug procured by the Department of Health have ever been prescribed to patients.

@StarkNakedBrief - The Stark Naked Brief.

4. To recap, it is impossible to know what exactly these companies paid Jarvis, Khan, and Jones for. We haven't seen the contracts. Sometimes these docs directly and publicly endorsed products made by companies that were paying them.

@StarkNakedBrief - The Stark Naked Brief.

Sometimes they overstated Covid risks, which benefited the companies financially involved in the Covid response who were also paying them. Investigations have shown that both the media and government purposely exaggerated the danger of Covid to increase public compliance.

@StarkNakedBrief - The Stark Naked Brief.

Is it that much of a jump to consider that doctors might do similar to help these companies? What's clear is that the govt/media should have disclosed these conflicts or these docs should have recused themselves on ethical grounds.

@StarkNakedBrief - The Stark Naked Brief.

@LeilaniDowding @Lewis_Brackpool @TheRustler83 @BGatesIsaPyscho @Johnincarlisle @ABridgen @beverleyturner @FatEmperor @dystopian_DU @Resist_05 @PWestoff @LozzaFox @mattletiss7 @DuttyMonkey_

@StarkNakedBrief - The Stark Naked Brief.

@LeilaniDowding @Lewis_Brackpool @TheRustler83 @BGatesIsaPyscho @Johnincarlisle @ABridgen @beverleyturner @FatEmperor @dystopian_DU @Resist_05 @PWestoff @LozzaFox @mattletiss7 @DuttyMonkey_ If you appreciate this kind of info... I post reports at https://news.starknakedbrief.co.uk/ The media should be doing this shit but they too have a financial interest not to.

The Stark Naked Brief. | JJ Starky | Substack Concise, investigative reports on the defining political issues of our time. Showing rather than telling. Former political strategist. Part-time citizen journalist. Based in 🇬🇧. Click to read "The Stark Naked Brief.", by JJ Starky, a Substack publication with hundreds of subscribers. news.starknakedbrief.co.uk
JoshWalkos
Posted - May 21, 2024 at 1:17 AM
Saved - June 29, 2024 at 3:54 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
New research reveals extensive conflicts of interest among participants in FDA workshops on hematology and oncology. The study found that 78% of US-based physician participants received industry payments, with an average annual payment of $16,434. Patient advocacy speakers and regulatory agency representatives were also financially supported by the pharmaceutical industry. Disclosure issues were also identified. The study highlights the intertwined relationship between government and industry, raising concerns about exploitation for profit.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Thread 🧵 New research reveals extensive conflicts of interest among the presenters, panelists and moderators who participate in the FDA’s hematology and oncology workshops. https://t.co/sIAio6bGVj

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

The paper, published in the European Society for Clinical Investigation analyzed financial ties between advisors and drug companies. Of course what they found only confirms what anyone who has been paying attention already knows. https://t.co/lsmdPUjLCt

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

That we have a system that is so irredeemably corrupt that is simply cannot be entrusted to have our best interests at heart. Every single level is awash in conflicts of interests both blatant and expertly hidden.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

The study examined presenters, panelists, and moderators at FDA workshops from 2018 to 2022, finding that 78% of U.S.-based physician participants received industry payments within five years prior. The analysis focused on general payments, which do not include research funding, revealing an average annual payment of $16,434 within the study group. This amount surpasses the average annual payment of $7,750 typically received by physicians in this field.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Workshops are uniquely different from advisory committee meetings because they focus on comprehensive regulatory strategies for a particular disease condition rather than being linked to specific drug products. While FDA commissioners cannot directly accept money from the industry to avoid potential bias, there exist several less obvious mechanisms within the agency that result in financial conflicts of interests, workshops and panels being two of them.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

On average, these payments were substantial. The average general payment over 5 years was $82,170, which breaks down to $16,434 per year, well above the median of $2,981 per year. Among the 52 organizations represented, 56% (n= 29) received funding from the industry based on the description of supporters on their webpage or their tax filings.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

23% received between $10,000 and $50,000 per year, 8% received between $50,000 and $100,000 per year and the top 3% received above $100,000 per year https://t.co/VRD1aebaVe

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

This is not just physicians, a whopping 69% of patient advocacy speakers represented organizations financially supported by the pharmaceutical industry. The study also highlighted the “revolving door” politics, showing 16% of regulatory agency representatives later worked for the pharmaceutical industry, and 12% of industry reps had regulatory backgrounds.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Here is the percentage of presenters, panellists and moderators with a conflict of interest among US physicians, representatives of regulatory agencies and representatives of patient advocacy organizations. https://t.co/08rLvUPsjv

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

The diagram below illustrates the average annual general payments made to US-based physician presenters, moderators, and panelists, where the highest 3% earn over $100,000 annually. https://t.co/tM5GbyWJ8w

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Disclosure issues compound the problem. Only 50% of the presenters reviewed had disclosed their financial conflicts of interest during the workshops, with discrepancies found in the data from the Open Payments database.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

This study highlights the myriad ways that government and industry are intertwined in hidden ways, all the while insisting they are independent and solely in it for the health of the people they exploit for profit. It truly is “turtles all the way down” with these people and unless we have a major reformation nothing is going to stop the exploitation of the populace at the hands of greed filled ego maniacs with a messiah complex. Here is a link to the study referenced if you’d like to read it yourself: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1APbxEqbwJbNCMT8Ffw0aw2ws1mabMnbs/view?usp=drivesdk

mayunion8
Posted - May 21, 2024 at 10:30 AM
Saved - May 21, 2024 at 11:21 AM

@mayunion8 - May Scottish/British

A very interesting informative thread

@StarkNakedBrief - The Stark Naked Brief.

It's not been a good month for our "impartial" TV doctors... Many were caught encouraging vaccination while receiving direct payments from C jab manufacturers. What you might not know is that others have been paid by companies that made Covid treatments and tests. Thread 🧵 https://t.co/3OW9BHFINa

JoshWalkos
Posted - July 2, 2024 at 5:26 PM
Saved - July 3, 2024 at 5:39 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The FDA's relationship with the pharmaceutical industry is under scrutiny. A recent investigation reveals that many FDA officials involved in COVID-19 vaccine reviews now work for or consult with vaccine manufacturers. This revolving door between the FDA and industry raises concerns about conflicts of interest and undermines the agency's integrity. The FDA's lack of record-keeping on employees' post-government service further adds to the suspicion. This behavior is seen as outrageous and detrimental to public health. Trust in the FDA's decision-making is called into question.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

BREAKING 🚨🚨🚨 The FDA’s Legalized Corruption This brand new investigation by Peter Doshi over at the BJM reveals that the FDA-to-industry transition is common, with 11 out of 20 FDA officials who worked on COVID-19 vaccine reviews now working or consulting for vaccine manufacturers. The FDA's standard exit guidance states: "Many departing employees ask how they can stay in touch with former FDA colleagues or continue to support FDA's public health mission. Although you may not communicate directly with FDA on behalf of your new employer, you may continue to work 'behind the scenes' to assist your new employer in its interactions with FDA."

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Let this sink in: “Since 2000 every FDA commissioner, the agency’s highest position, has gone on to work for industry. These include Robert Califf, the agency’s current chief, who re-established ties with industry in between his two stints at the agency’s helm.” “Less is known about the post-FDA trajectories of agency staff not in senior roles. The topic has been studied only sporadically,910 generally finding that a majority of former FDA reviewers take up jobs in industry. In early 2023, when The BMJ asked the FDA whether it kept records on where employees went after they left government service, the FDA spokesperson Jeremy Kahn said, “No, FDA does not keep such records.” So the FDA doesn’t even attempt to learn if the revolving door even exists. This is willful misconduct in order to obfuscate people from learning just how bad it is. Truly incredible.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

I mean this is totally outrageous behavior, they don’t even try to hide the conflicts of interest and regulatory capture. From the article: "It's appalling that the FDA is telling its employees that they are free to do the bidding of the industry behind the scenes. This practice undermines the integrity of FDA decision making and regulation of the industry and is detrimental to public health." How can anyone trust that our best interest are in mind when you have this level of fuckery?

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Full Investigation: https://www.bmj.com/content/386/bmj.q1418

Revolving door: You are free to influence us “behind the scenes,” FDA tells staff leaving for industry jobs Internal emails show that the US Food and Drug Administration informs employees leaving for industry jobs that, despite restrictions on post-employment lobbying, they are still permitted to influence the agency. Peter Doshi reports During his final three years at the US Food and Drug Administration the physician scientist Doran Fink’s work focused on reviewing covid-19 vaccines. But a decade after joining the agency Fink had accepted a job with Moderna, the covid vaccine manufacturer, and was undergoing mandatory FDA exit requirements. As he left for the private sector, the FDA’s ethics programme staff emailed him guidelines on post-employment restrictions, “tailored to your situation.” The email, obtained by The BMJ under a freedom of information request, explained that, although US law prohibits a variety of types of lobbying contact,1 “they do not prohibit the former employee from other activities, including working ‘behind the scenes.’” The legal ability to work “behind the scenes” is enshrined in federal regulations2 and highlights a “critical, critical loophole” in US revolving door policy, says a leading consumer advocate. Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for the organisation Public Citizen, told The BMJ that the rules forbid various forms of direct lobbying contact but permit lobbying activity that is indirect. “So, people will leave government service and can immediately start doing influence peddling and lobbying,” Holman explained. “They can even run a lobbying campaign, as long as they don’t actually pick up … bmj.com
drsimonegold
Posted - August 1, 2024 at 7:42 PM
Saved - August 2, 2024 at 2:36 PM

@drsimonegold - Dr. Simone Gold

This is what happens when Big Pharma installs their allies into positions of power. https://t.co/f2VaG36I7K

JoshWalkos
Posted - August 31, 2024 at 10:11 PM
Saved - September 1, 2024 at 9:12 AM

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Novavax is recruiting children 6 months to 2 years old for their pediatric covid injection. Parents are getting up to $3000 to allow their kids to be guinea pigs for big pharma. Listen to this father who enrolled 4 of his 7 kids. This shit is so unbelievably manipulative & evil. https://t.co/BQOYvuW96g

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Hummingbird Study allows kids to participate in science and contribute to medical research. According to Peter Johnston, a pastor with four children in the study, the COVID stuffed animal helped his family discuss their participation. One speaker noted that children are often more enthusiastic about the study than their parents, driven by the idea of contributing to new discoveries. Researchers obtain parental consent, answer all questions, gather medical history, and ensure participant comfort. The study involves lab work and vaccinations, with participants monitored for 30 minutes afterward. Future steps are then explained. The study is still recruiting families, and researchers hope to reach their goal, noting that the volunteer spirit and interest in contributing to a good cause is still alive.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: My name is Peter Johnston. I am a pastor in Lafayette, Louisiana and, we have 7 kids, 4 of which are enrolled in Hummingbird Study. The Hummingbird Study is a great opportunity to, participate in science to contribute to medical research. The kids are are interested in study and some of the different things that they, get and and allow them to think about it. So, for example, the, COVID stuffed animal has been a, a hit in the household, not only because it's fun, but because it gives us an opportunity to talk about what it is that we're doing. Speaker 1: Well, the kids at times were far more excited than the parents, and they're the one who drove the parents to enjoy the study. And, many many kids, like the idea of, being a first, in exploring something or discovering something or contributing to a new discovery. Speaker 2: The first thing that we do is we make sure we get the consent of the parent. We make sure we answer all questions before we start any of the study procedures. And then from there, we'll go into getting, kind of a background on the participant. We'll get their medical history. We'll make sure they're comfortable with everything that we're doing. And then we go in, we get a few labs. And from getting the labs, we go in into the vaccination part of the visit. And then afterwards, we keep them here for 30 minutes on-site just to make sure they're feeling okay, they're still doing well. And then we kind of explain the following steps of the next visits. Speaker 1: The volunteer spirit and the interest in, contributing to a good cause is still alive and well. We still are, recruiting more families to join us in the study and, hoping to reach our goal.
drjasonfung
Posted - October 11, 2024 at 3:08 AM
Saved - October 11, 2024 at 10:00 PM
SwipeWright
Posted - October 23, 2024 at 3:23 PM
Saved - October 23, 2024 at 7:39 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I came across a striking article in the New York Times about Johanna Olson-Kennedy, a leading gender doctor who has withheld data on puberty blockers due to concerns over political backlash. This raises serious questions about the effects of these treatments on children's mental health and development. If the data reveals no benefits and potential harm, then these treatments should be reconsidered. It's crucial for the Supreme Court to be aware of this information. A pediatrician who observed Olson-Kennedy's work also shared their perspective on the situation.

@SwipeWright - Colin Wright

🚨ALERT: A bombshell article in the @nytimes reveals that Johanna Olson-Kennedy, a prominent gender doctor who received millions in funding from the @NIH, has withheld her data on puberty blockers, fearing that the lack of positive results might "fuel...political attacks" and prompt bans on "youth gender treatments." The truth is not political, but concealing it certainly is. If the data shows no positive effects of puberty blockers on children's mental health, while at the same time stunting their development and harming their future fertility, then these treatments should be banned. The Supreme Court should be informed of these findings to help them make an informed decision. Withholding this data is a political act that will harm children.

@SwipeWright - Colin Wright

@nytimes @NIH The full story can be read below. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/science/puberty-blockers-olson-kennedy.html

U.S. Study on Puberty Blockers Goes Unpublished Because of Politics, Doctor Says The leader of the long-running study said that the drugs did not improve mental health in children with gender distress and that the finding might be weaponized by opponents of the care. nytimes.com

@SwipeWright - Colin Wright

@nytimes @NIH Read more about Johanna Olson-Kennedy below by a pediatrician who shadowed Olson-Kennedy at her Los Angeles clinic. "I’m fortunate not to have my empathy and capacity to reason parasitized by a pernicious ideology disguised as righteousness." https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/a-gender-doctors-descent-into-medical?utm_source=publication-search

A Gender Doctor’s Descent Into Medical Extremism I almost joined Johanna Olson-Kennedy’s team of gender doctors. I’m glad I didn’t. realityslaststand.com
PaulMitchell_AB
Posted - December 2, 2024 at 6:03 PM
Saved - December 2, 2024 at 8:31 PM

@PaulMitchell_AB - Paul Mitchell

How many "doctors" got rich injecting harmful jabs into the arms of Canadians? Does anyone still trust these "doctors"? Just asking. https://t.co/qSkw8nl3V3

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

@BlendrNews - BlendrNews

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

Video Transcript AI Summary
A Kingston doctor, Elaine Ma, has been ordered to repay over $600,000 for COVID-19 vaccination payments from the Ontario government. In December 2021, she set up mass vaccination clinics, using undergraduate medical student volunteers, which violated Ontario's rules requiring that vaccine administrators be employees and that vaccinations occur at the doctor's registered office. The financial incentives for COVID vaccines were significantly higher than for other vaccines, creating a scenario where speed and volume were prioritized over compliance and patient care. This situation raises concerns about the balance between incentivizing vaccinations and ensuring proper healthcare delivery. With over 100 million doses administered in Canada, the financial implications are substantial, leading to questions about trust in healthcare institutions when financial incentives overshadow proper care.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In a rather stunning example of how pandemic policies can spiral into financial chaos, Kingston based doctor Elaine Ma has been ordered to repay over $600,000 in payments made by the Ontario government for administering COVID 19 vaccinations. That's a lot of money for administering vaccines though. No? In December 2021, doctor Ma set up multiple mass vaccination clinics injecting thousands of people every day. To administer the vaccines, she enlisted undergraduate medical student volunteers. A decision that ultimately invalidated her claims under the Ontario government's rules. So here's how it worked. Ontario's COVID 19 vaccine program paid doctors $13 per shot through its fee for service model. An additional $5.60 could be claimed if the visit was solely for vaccination. Doctor Ma eager to make that money, organized large scale operations outside her licensed practice. However, Ontario rules stipulated 2 crucial conditions, vaccine administrators had to be the doctor's employees and the vaccinations had to occur at the doctor's registered office. Neither was true in doctor Ma's case. Now in addition to her blatant disregard for the rules to make that money, here's what I wanna highlight. The financial incentives for COVID vaccines at $18.60 per shot were more than double what doctors typically received for administering other vaccines like flu shots or those in the childhood schedule. So while one could argue that the program was designed to speed up vaccinations, it ended up fostering the environment rife with financial complications. Raising critical questions about the balance between incentivizing rapid vaccination and ensuring proper patient care and informed consent. I mean how are undergraduate medical student volunteers focused on speed and volume providing informed consent? Anyway, this is just one doctor who's now been forced to repay $600,000 which doesn't even include what she gets to keep. At scale, according to the government's own figures, over 100,000,000 doses were administered in Canada. By this math, we're talking about 1,000,000,000 of dollars in government funding that was up for grabs. The government practically created a wild west gold rush scenario for physicians where financial incentives prioritize speed and volume over strict regulatory compliance, all for a vaccine that the NIH itself now admits was rushed, risky, and ineffective. So my question is, how can anyone be expected to trust our institutions when it's so clear that the government's financial incentives completely overshadowed the proper delivery of health care specifically for a product that was rushed, risky, and ineffective?
JoshWalkos
Posted - December 17, 2024 at 3:57 AM
Saved - December 17, 2024 at 4:28 PM

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Dr. Teresa Holtrop who is President of the Michigan American Academy of Pediatrics being questioned under oath about her knowledge of the ingredients in the products she so vehemently defends. It did not go well. https://t.co/XdsfNnYDg9

Video Transcript AI Summary
I suggest administering six vaccinations at once for a child who has not been immunized before. At six months, the child would receive DTaP, polio, Hep B, and pneumococcal vaccines. Adjuvants are used in vaccines to enhance effectiveness. An antigen is a protein that triggers an immune response. The amount of aluminum in vaccines is much lower than what we consume in our diet, which is deemed safe. There are concerns about the presence of cellular debris from aborted fetal tissue in some vaccines, but these do not end up in the final product. Vaccine safety opinions are based on CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations, considering family history factors like immune suppression. The polio vaccine used in the U.S. is an inactivated version, typically administered subcutaneously.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I have a suggestion. Speaker 1: Oh, wonderful. Speaker 0: Because it'll be impressive enough. The fact that this child has not gotten any immunizations previously Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 2: Means this poor child will have to be tortured Speaker 0: with with 6 different injections at the same time. And if you would like to put those 6 up at the one visit and her first visit to get all these immunizations, I'm happy to do that. Speaker 1: A child that they're 6 months shot, they would receive DTaP. Correct? Speaker 0: Correct. Speaker 1: They will receive polio? Speaker 0: Correct. Speaker 1: Hep b? Correct. Pneumococcal? Yes. Pib? Speaker 2: It depends. It depends on the product Speaker 0: that was used in the first two sessions. Speaker 1: Same same issue with catching up 2a half year old. Right? Same same Speaker 0: same choice. Same choice. Yeah. In this case, yes. Speaker 1: And at excuse me, at 2a half years of age you're saying getting 6 vaccines is torture, but a 6 month old would have to receive, we just counted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 vaccines. Correct? Aluminum adjuvants are using vaccines. Correct? Speaker 0: Correct. Speaker 1: Why are you moving to adjuvants using vaccines? Speaker 0: Because they make the vaccine more effective. Speaker 1: Okay. And how do they do that? Speaker 0: I don't know. Speaker 1: Okay. What's an antigen? Speaker 0: An antigen is a typically a protein that, in this case, it would be if you're talking about vaccines, an antigen is, a protein that causes a reaction and oftentimes is an an infectious agent, but not always. Speaker 1: Isn't it true that an adjuvant will only will not only bind Speaker 0: to the target antigen that's in the vaccine, but also, Speaker 1: to the impurities and byproducts such as the animal and human parts left in the vaccine or the manufacturing process? Speaker 0: You're asking me specifics about physiology that I am not that's not my area of expertise. Speaker 1: But I'm there is okay. So you're not aware that there's a difference between the form of aluminum. So when it's ingested, it's taken up an ionic form. When it's injected, it's in these nanoparticle forms. And contrast, injected aluminum is our nano particles, correct? They're there to create an irritant to the immune system so that the vaccine creates antibodies. And so they're actually these nano particles that are in the vaccine, right, or do not know? Speaker 0: You're talking about specifics that are are very detailed. Are the are Speaker 1: the details important? I mean, you you said that Speaker 0: Not in this case because we're talking about a metal. It is not concerning to me because the amount of aluminum that we ingest in general, just through our diet is much higher than what we get through vaccines. There's no reason to believe that that amount that additional small amount is anything to be Speaker 1: So you said that the quantity of ingested aluminum is small or excuse me, is is much larger than the amount of injected aluminum and therefore you deem it safe? Speaker 0: Correct. Speaker 1: Are you aware that the, this FDA provides that in terms of ingesting ingested aluminum, eaten aluminum, 0.3% or less is actually taken up by the blood? Do you know that or not? I it's Speaker 0: just I I don't know the exact numbers. No. Speaker 1: And that if it is, it's taken up in ionic form. Do you understand what I mean? Speaker 0: I understand what you mean by that. Speaker 1: I mean, in its in its smallest elemental form, that's how it's taken into the blood. Right? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 1: And and aluminum and ionic form is not able to cross the blood brain barrier. Correct? Speaker 0: I am not aware that that's true. Speaker 1: You don't know. Speaker 0: I don't know that that's true. Speaker 1: Okay. If you don't know, that's fine. An antigens bound to aluminum are taken up by macrophages. Correct? Speaker 0: Yes. K. Speaker 1: And macrophages present the stuff they gobble up to the parts of the immune system that create antibodies. Correct? Speaker 0: I believe so. I don't I have not studied the actual mechanism of action. Speaker 1: And they also traveled to different parts of the body. Correct. Correct? Speaker 0: Correct. Speaker 1: And they'll deposit the materials they gobble up there. They didn't show that most package inserts for most vaccines report encephalitis or encephalopathy as a reported adverse event from vaccination? Speaker 0: I would have to look at all the package inserts to be able to say yes or no to that. It is possible. Yes. Speaker 1: Do any of the vaccines in the toddlers that will contain monkey kidney cells? Speaker 0: I do not know. Speaker 1: Blood serum from Speaker 0: cows? I do not know. Do you Speaker 1: need pig cell cultures? Speaker 0: I do not know. Speaker 1: Gelatin from pigs and cows? Speaker 0: I don't know. Speaker 1: MRC 5 human diploid cells? Speaker 0: MRC 5 human human diploid cells. Those are specifics that I typically do. Speaker 1: Are you aware that MRC 5 diploid cells are cells cultured from the lung tissue in a porta fetus? Speaker 0: I am aware that there are 2 vaccines out on the market, the MMR and the VZV that have, that use a cell in the production of it, use a cell line, from aborted fetuses from 1962 and 1966. Those are the only 2 aborted fetus tissue cell lines that are used. Speaker 1: Isn't it true that there actually is recently been a new cell line, human cell line from the border fetal tissue that's been approved for use in that case? Speaker 0: I'm not aware of that. Okay. Speaker 1: And none of those none of the aborted fetal tissue culture cell lines actually end up in the vaccine product. Speaker 0: The vaccine doesn't have cells in it. Speaker 1: The cellular pieces from the aborted Speaker 2: That is potentially possible. Yes. Speaker 1: Isn't it true that in fact there is more of that cellular debris in the MMR, for example, and there is actually antigen? Speaker 0: I don't know. Speaker 1: Okay. Isn't it true that, that the, Havrix hepatitis a vaccine the hepatitis a vaccine contains millions of fragments of human DNA? Speaker 0: Possible. I don't know. Speaker 1: Doctor, isn't it true that Varivax, the chickenpox vaccine contains approximately 1,000,000,000,000 fragments of human DNA? Speaker 0: Again, if doctor Plotkin says it does, then I will agree. Speaker 1: Isn't it true that these 74 aborted fetuses had almost every piece of their bodies including skin, tongue, and heart cut into little cubes to be used for culture? Speaker 0: I'm not aware of any studies that doctor Plotkin, the specifics of any studies that doctor Plotkin did. Speaker 1: What principles and methods did you rely upon in reaching your opinion regarding vaccine safety? Speaker 0: I use the, again, the recommendations of the CDC and the American, the, advisory committee on immunization practices and the American Academy of Pediatrics to make form an opinion about the vaccine safety. Speaker 1: So your basis so I'm gonna say the principle method that you relied upon of reaching your opinion regarding vaccine safety and vaccine efficacy are what the CDC recommends and and your claim that you've seen some people die of some diseases that for which there are vaccinations. Is that correct? Correct. That's the sum total. Right? Speaker 0: And the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations. Speaker 1: K. Speaker 3: So when you're looking at a patient, you're making the determination as Speaker 4: to what vaccines they should receive. What family history factors are concerning to you? Speaker 0: One of the big family history factors that I would take into consideration is is there, a history of anybody who's immune suppressed? Speaker 1: Isn't it true that the only polio vaccine used in the United States is an activated polio vaccine which is injected in muscle? Speaker 0: It's an inactivated poliovirus vaccine. Speaker 1: Right. And it's injected the muscle tissue. Speaker 0: Correct. Speaker 1: Okay. Versus what we used to be used Speaker 0: as a Actually, it's not into the muscle tissue. It's given sub q typically.
liz_churchill10
Posted - March 9, 2025 at 4:25 AM
Saved - May 12, 2025 at 6:48 PM

@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill

DOGE must investigate this and this must be outlawed. “Today, over 100 Members of Congress support a Bill to fund Ozempic with Medicare at $1,500 a month. Most of these members have taken money from the manufacturer of that product…” -HHS RFK Jr. https://t.co/DrseGnYTHE

Video Transcript AI Summary
Over 100 members of Congress support a bill to fund Ozempic with Medicare at $1,500 monthly, with most having received money from Novo Nordisk, its manufacturer. Approval for Medicare would extend to Medicaid, with potential recommendations for Americans as young as six for obesity, a condition claimed to be preventable and recently rare. With 74% of Americans obese, the total cost of Ozempic prescriptions could reach $3 trillion annually. Ozempic has made Novo Nordisk the biggest company in Europe, yet the Danish government recommends diet and exercise instead. The company's value relies on projected Ozempic sales in America. For half the cost of Ozempic, every American could receive regeneratively raised organic food and obese Americans could receive gym memberships. The speaker questions why Congress is supporting Novo Nordisk over American farmers and children, suggesting Novo Nordisk's funding of medical research influences media, politicians, and medical schools.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Today, over a hundred members of congress support a bill to fund Ozempic with Medicare at $1,500 a month. Most of these members have taken money from the manufacturer of that product, a European company called Novo Nordisk. As everyone knows, once the drug is approved for Medicare, it goes to Medicaid. And there is a push to recommend Ozempic for Americans as young as six over a condition obesity that is completely preventable and barely even existed one hundred years ago. Since seventy four percent of Americans are obese, the cost of all of them if they take their Ozempic prescriptions will be $3,000,000,000,000 a year. This is a drug that has made Novo Nordisk the biggest company in Europe. It's a Danish company, but the Danish government does not recommend it. It recommends a change in diet to treat obesity and exercise. Virtually Novo Nordisk's entire value is based upon its projections of what Ozempic is going to sell to Americans. For half the price of Ozempic, we could purchase regeneratively raised organic agriculture or organic food for every American, three meals a day, and gym membership for every obese American. Why are members of congress doing the bidding of this Danish company instead of standing up for American farmers and children? Because Novo Nordisk is one of the largest funders of medical research, The media and politicians and the medical schools all go wrong with them.
dbdugger
Posted - June 17, 2025 at 11:42 PM
Saved - June 18, 2025 at 10:23 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I express concern over the cardiovascular complications, particularly Corrected QT Interval Prolongation, that children are facing, which seems overlooked by many. I reference the harmful impact of the Tat protein from HIV on ribosomal RNA biogenesis and its connection to cardiovascular diseases. I highlight the frequent occurrence of QTc prolongation in HIV-positive patients, emphasizing its predictive nature for cardiovascular mortality. I challenge those who downplay the similarities between COVID-19 and HIV, warning of the potential consequences of such dismissals.

@dbdugger - Daniel Brittain Dugger

Agenda? Children have been left to suffer Tat-like cardiovascular complications, including Corrected QT Interval Prolongation. Too bad you don't know what you are talking about.

@thereal_truther - The Real Truther

Shame on all of you exploiting a tragedy for your own agenda.

@dbdugger - Daniel Brittain Dugger

SARS-CoV-2 targets ribosomal RNA biogenesis https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/pdf/S2211-1247(24)00219-5.pdf "Finally, the Tat protein of human immunodeficiency virus interacts with FBL and U3 snoRNA, impairing prerRNA processing and depleting mature ribosomes."

@dbdugger - Daniel Brittain Dugger

COVID-19 Infection and Corrected QT Interval Prolongation—Collateral Damage From Our Newest Enemy https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2779057

@dbdugger - Daniel Brittain Dugger

The role of HIV Tat protein in HIV-related cardiovascular diseases https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5941636/

The role of HIV Tat protein in HIV-related cardiovascular diseases The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a major global public health issue. HIV-related cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in HIV positive patients. HIV Tat is a regulatory protein encoded by tat gene of ... pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

@dbdugger - Daniel Brittain Dugger

Same Tat. Same Corrected QT Interval Prolongation. "Corrected QT (QTc) prolongation is predictive of cardiovascular mortality. Frequent occurrence of QT interval prolongation have been found in HIV-positive patients."

@dbdugger - Daniel Brittain Dugger

You said the virus was nothing like HIV. We'll see how many more people like you destroy. Be proud!

karlmehta
Posted - July 1, 2025 at 1:15 PM
Saved - July 2, 2025 at 9:16 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
RFK Jr.'s interview with Tucker Carlson has gained significant attention, revealing a 1,135% increase in autism risk linked to vaccines, according to a buried CDC study. The CDC allegedly manipulated data and faced corruption within its vaccine advisory committees, where many members had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies. Additionally, the current injury reporting system captures less than 1% of vaccine-related injuries. RFK Jr. advocates for transparency by making CDC databases public, emphasizing the need for honest science over industry propaganda.

@karlmehta - Karl Mehta

RFK Jr.'s interview with Tucker Carlson is going viral. He exposed how the CDC found vaccines increased autism by 1,135% and their 25-year cover-up. 99% of people still don't know about any of this.. Here are 8 more shocking revelations every American should know about: 🧵 https://t.co/6yOP44Drtz

@karlmehta - Karl Mehta

1/ The 1999 CDC Study They Buried The CDC commissioned researcher Thomas Verstraeten to study hepatitis B vaccines given in the first 30 days of life. Result: 1,135% higher autism risk in vaccinated children. CDC's response? Bury it and manipulate the data through 5 revisions. https://t.co/8pIHj042Ap

Video Transcript AI Summary
Epidemiological studies are easily manipulated, and studies comparing health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups are lacking. The CDC conducted such a study in 1999 under Thomas Verstraten, examining children who received the hepatitis vaccine within their first thirty days of life compared to those vaccinated later or not at all. The study found a 1,135 percent elevated risk of autism among the vaccinated children. This result was shocking, so the study was kept secret and manipulated through five iterations to bury the link.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: They use fraudulent techniques. You know, they say statistics don't lie, but statisticians do. And epidemiological studies are very easy to manipulate. None of those studies did what you would want what you would do if you wanted to find the answer, which is compare outcomes in a fully vaccinated group to health outcomes in an unvaccinated group. And CDC did that study in 1999. They brought in a team of scientists under a Belgian researcher named Thomas Verstraten, and they looked at the data. They looked at children who had received the hepatitis vaccine within their first thirty days of life, and compare those children to children who had received the vaccine later or not at all. And they found an eleven, one hundred and thirty five percent elevated risk of autism among the vaccinated children. And it shocked them. They kept the study secret, and they manipulated it through five different iterations to try to bury the link.

@karlmehta - Karl Mehta

2/ How They Manipulated the Data "They got rid of all the older children essentially and just had younger children who were too young to be diagnosed with autism." Classic move: Change the study population until you get the result you want. https://t.co/eBSxZhO9DC

Video Transcript AI Summary
They got rid of all the older children and had younger children who were too young to be diagnosed. They stratified the data and did a lot of other tricks. All of those studies were the subject of that kind of trickery. Meanwhile, the external literature is showing over a 100 studies that indicate that there is a link. They are going to do all the kind of studies that the Institute of Medicine originally recommended. They're going to do observational studies, retrospective studies, and epidemiological studies. They're going to do real science and make the databases public for the first time.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And, you know, we know how they did it. They got rid of all the older children essentially, and just had younger children who were too young to be diagnosed. And they stratified the stratified the data, and they did a lot of other tricks. And all of those studies were the subject of those kind of that kind of trickery. And so what we're going to do now and meanwhile, the external literature is showing, you know, over a 100 studies that show that there indicate that there is a link. But what we're going to do now is we're going to do all the kind of studies that the Institute of Medicine originally recommended. And we're going to do observational studies, retrospective studies, and epidemiological studies. We're going to do real science. And the way that we're going to do that is we're going to make the databases public for the first time.

@karlmehta - Karl Mehta

But the corruption goes much deeper than just one study. The entire system that decides what vaccines your kids get has been captured...

@karlmehta - Karl Mehta

3/ The Vaccine Committee Scandal 97% of vaccine advisory committee members had financial conflicts with pharma companies. Dr. Paul Offit voted to add rotavirus vaccine while developing his own competing version. He sold it to Merck for $186 million. https://t.co/hjvE3ND5H7

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker states that a board was fired for being a "sock puppet" for the industry it regulated. In 2002, a government oversight committee held hearings about the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), finding that 97% of its members had undisclosed conflicts of interest. As an example, the speaker claims that when the ACIP approved the rotavirus vaccine, four of the five members had direct financial interests in it. One member, Paul Offit, allegedly voted to add the rotavirus vaccine to the schedule while he had a rotavirus vaccine in development. The approved vaccine was withdrawn due to causing intussusception. Offit's vaccine then replaced it. The speaker claims that Offit and his business partners sold that vaccine to Merck for $186 million.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, we fired that board because they were it was an utterly it was just an instrument. It was a sock puppet for the industry that it was supposed to regulate. So, you know, they in fact, you know and this was a long time coming, Tucker. In 02/2002, the government oversight committee and the United States Congress held hearings about that board, which is called the ASIP, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. And they said that 97% of the people on that board had undisclosed conflicts. Many of them had disclosed conflicts as well. But they said that congress said that it gave an example. It said the rotavirus vaccine was approved by that board, and there were five members of that board at that time, and four of them had direct financial interests in the rotavirus vaccine. They were working for the companies that made the vaccine or they were receiving grants to do clinical trials on that vaccine. They all had overwhelming financial interests. One of the people on that board was a guy called Paul Offit, and who is one of the big voices for vaccines that they CNN goes to him all the time when it wants to have vaccines. He voted to add the rotavirus vaccine to the schedule when he had a rotavirus vaccine in development. Because it's now on the schedule, his developing vaccine is virtually guaranteed to get on the schedule. It's a competitive product. But once you say rotavirus vaccine has to be vaccinated for, his vaccine is now guaranteed to get on the schedule. The one they voted on that he voted on, within a year it had to be withdrawn because it was causing this really disastrous disease in kids that is often lethal, called intussusception, agonizingly painful when your intestines kind of tie up against each other, and it kills children, you know, on on occasion. That vaccine was pulled the following year, and his vaccine then replaced him. He was still on the committee. He didn't vote on that, but he was still on the committee. But he voted to make rotavirus vaccine mandatory for the And he he he then he and his business partners, Stanley Plotkin and, you know, a couple of other people sold that vaccine and to Merck for a $186,000,000.

@karlmehta - Karl Mehta

4/ They Never Said No to Anything @RobertKennedyJr just fired all 17 committee members because they "never recommended against a vaccine—even those later withdrawn for safety reasons." They became a rubber stamp for the industry they were supposed to regulate. https://t.co/l1W96nxwMh

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker describes a committee conflict investigated by the office of inspector general and Congress, who urged change, but nothing happened. They claim medical malpractice by this group is evident in the approval of vaccines. The speaker states that in 1986 there were 11 vaccines, which increased to 69, then 92. They assert that, except for the COVID vaccine, none had a pre-licensing safety trial involving a true placebo. According to the speaker, these vaccines were introduced without safety studies, resulting in a lack of understanding regarding the risk profiles of these products. The speaker attributes this to corruption and agency capture.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So that and that kind of conflict was typical on that committee, but that was the most Did did people know this was going on? That that's such an obvious conflict. The office of inspector general in this department investigated, and they said this is a disaster. You gotta change it. Congress investigated and said you gotta change it, and they did nothing. That's the most most sort of a glaring example of medical malpractice by this by this group is that they approved all these vaccines. We went from 11, remember, to 69 to 92, 11 vaccines in '86, and not one of them had except for COVID. COVID is the only one that had a pre licensing safety trial that involved a placebo, a true placebo. And so all of those other vaccines were ushered in without safety studies, and that means nobody understands the risk profile of those products. How how can you do that? That's they did it. It's corruption, and it's, you know, it's because of agency capture.

@karlmehta - Karl Mehta

5/ The Broken Injury Reporting System Harvard built an automated system to track vaccine injuries. They found that the current VAERS system captures less than 1% of injuries. Their system found 1 injury per 37 vaccines given. CDC's response? Shelved it. https://t.co/Gyx9pdrHed

Video Transcript AI Summary
The CDC funded a machine counting system designed to identify unique injury clusters related to vaccines. This system, developed by a team led by Lazarus, was tested at Harvard Pilgrim HMO. The machine counting system's data on vaccine injuries was compared to VAERS data from the same period at Harvard Pilgrim. The study found that VAERS captured less than one percent of vaccine injuries, while the new system captured over ninety-five percent. Data showed injuries in about two point seven percent of all vaccines, approximately one out of every thirty-seven. The CDC then shelved the system in 2010 and continues to use VAERS, a system they know doesn't work. The speaker advocates for changing VAERS or creating a supplementary system that actually works.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: CDC designed a machine counting system that would do essentially a cluster analysis. They would look at the vaccine, and then they would look at clusters of injuries that were unique or anomalous to that vaccine. And it was a very accurate system according to the, you know, the group that designed it. It was a team led by a guy called Lazarus. And CDC paid for the whole thing, millions of dollars, and it was a long term study. And they looked at one HMO, which was Harvard Pilgrim up in Massachusetts, and they did this machine counting system for Harvard Pilgrim. And then they compared what the machine counting system had gotten, you know, had yielded and collected in terms of vaccine injuries. They compared that to what VAERS had collected during the same period at Harvard Pilgrim. And they said that VAERS was capturing fewer than one percent of vaccine injuries. And they had a system now that would capture over ninety five percent, And they were very proud, and they brought it to CDC and said, our system works. Here's the data. The data showed injuries in about two point seven percent of vaccines. Of all vaccines? Yeah, all vaccines. About two point seven percent. Wow. Which I think is something like one out of every thirty seven vaccines you get, there's an injury. And CDC saw that and said, We're not going to use the system. And they shelved it in 2010, and they've continued to use now for, you know, twenty two years when they know that it doesn't work, it was to fail. We're going to absolutely change VAERS, and we're gonna make it we're we're going to create either in within VAERS or supplementary VAERS a system that actually works.

@karlmehta - Karl Mehta

6/ Media Capture Through Advertising Roger Ailes told @RobertKennedyJr he couldn't discuss vaccines on Fox News. Why? "75% of evening news advertising revenues are coming from pharma." Pharma spent $4.58 billion on TV ads in 2020 alone. https://t.co/65JeQy37xu

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker had a close but politically opposed relationship with the founder of Fox News, stemming from a shared experience in Africa. Despite their differences, the founder, whom the speaker describes as witty, engaging, paranoid, and brilliant, would have Fox News hosts put the speaker on air to discuss environmental issues. In 2014, the speaker presented the founder with a documentary about mercury in vaccines, which the founder was convinced by, especially because he believed a family member had been affected. However, he couldn't allow the speaker to discuss it on air because pharmaceutical companies provided 75% of the evening news division's advertising revenue. The founder stated that 17 out of 22 ads on a typical evening news show were pharmaceutical ads, which was the principal source of revenue for many television networks.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Was the founder of Fox News, and I had this odd relationship with him because politically we were at loggerheads. But I had spent when I was 19 years old, I spent three months with him in a tent in Africa. And I and we developed a friendship then. And as you know, he was very, you know, he was a very engaging guy. He was very witty, really fun to be with, very paranoid, but at the same time brilliant. Yes. And he and so he was very kind to me. He was a very loyal friend to me, and he would make Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly and Neil Cavuto and all the other hosts, who your former colleagues, put me on TV to talk about the environment. Even though he didn't agree with me on it, he made them put me on. So during the eighties and nineties, I was the only environmentalist who was going on Fox News. But I brought him one time this around I think it was like 2014, I brought him a a documentary that we had done about mercury and vaccines, and he had he watched it. He was completely sold on it. He had a family member who had been affected, he felt. And he said, but I can't put you on because if I did, I if any of my hosts allowed you on to talk about this issue, I would have to fire them. And if I didn't, I would get a call from Ruper within ten minutes. And he said, for the evening news division, about 75% of the advertising revenues are coming from pharma. And then he told me something that, if I remember it correctly, he said that on a typical evening news show, there are 22 ads, and 17 of those are pharmaceutical ads. And so this was the principal source of revenue. And for a lot of these television networks, it's keeping them alive. As you know, they're all, you know, kind of collapsing financially.

@karlmehta - Karl Mehta

7/ Your Doctor's Financial Incentives Insurance companies pay doctors bonuses when 95% of their patients are "fully vaccinated." Want to space out vaccines? Many pediatricians will drop you. Your medical choice threatens their bonus check. https://t.co/rQo9yryCzA

Video Transcript AI Summary
Pediatricians may be incentivized to administer vaccines due to revenue structures. One article claims that 50% of pediatricians' revenue comes from vaccines. Insurance companies like Blue Cross allegedly pay bonuses to pediatricians who maintain a 95% vaccination rate among their clients. This bonus structure may disincentivize pediatricians from accommodating alternative vaccination schedules, potentially leading them to dismiss patients who request them. These incentives may prevent doctors from prioritizing patient care due to financial considerations. The speaker claims that twenty years ago, 20% of doctors worked for corporations, but now 80% do, and these corporations prioritize revenue over patient well-being.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Of the doctors also have their own incentives, you know, prefers incentives. There's a published article out there now that says that 50% revenues to most pediatricians come from vaccines. And then there's a whole structure where Blue Cross and the other insurance companies pay bonuses to the pediatrician to make sure if, for example, ninety five percent of their if their clients are fully vaccinated, they get a huge bonus. It could be tens of thousands of dollars. And that's why pediatrician, if you say I want to go slow on the vaccines or I want to have a little different schedule, your pediatrician will throw you out of his practice, because you're now jeopardizing that bonus structure. And these are all perverse incentives that stop doctors from actually practicing medicine and caring for the client because they're looking at the bottom line. Twenty years ago, twenty percent of the doctors in this country worked for corporations. Today, 80% do. And that corporation is telling you, you know, we don't care what happens to your patient. We care about how much revenue you're generating.

@karlmehta - Karl Mehta

8/ Complete Legal Immunity The 1986 Vaccine Act gave manufacturers total immunity from lawsuits. No matter how reckless, how toxic, how damaging—you can't sue them. Since then: vaccine schedule went from 11 to 92 doses by age 18. https://t.co/93NYEOgyjC

Video Transcript AI Summary
There is a connection between autism and vaccines that the government promoted, and this constitutes a tort, meaning many people were injured by the product. However, in 1986, Congress passed the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, giving vaccine companies immunity from liability. Therefore, no matter how reckless the company, how toxic the product, or how egregious the injury, they cannot be sued. This is one reason for the explosion of vaccinations.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There is a connection between autism and vaccines, vaccines the government promoted, in some cases effectively required. That's a tort. I mean, that means there are a lot of injured people who can now show they were injured by this product. How were they made whole? What happens to them? Speaker 1: Well, that's going to be complicated because in 1986, Congress passed an act, the Vaccine Act, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and they gave the vaccine companies immunity from liability. So no matter how reckless the company is, no matter how toxic the product, no matter how egregious your injury, you cannot sue them. And that's one of the problems is and that actually is why we one of the reasons we had this explosion of the vaccination

@karlmehta - Karl Mehta

The result? Epidemics of autoimmune diseases, autism, ADHD, and allergies that were virtually unknown when we were kids. Each vaccine is "designed to permanently alter your immune system." https://t.co/C3MqAb8z7d

Video Transcript AI Summary
As a child, the speaker received three vaccines; by 1986, children received 11 doses of five vaccines. Now, children in states with mandates may receive 69 to 92 vaccines between conception and age 18, with varying dose requirements depending on the brand. Each vaccine is designed to permanently alter the immune system. The speaker believes this contributes to an epidemic of immune dysregulation. The speaker claims there is a rise in diseases like diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, seizure disorders, ADD, ADHD, speech delay, language delay, tics, Tourette's syndrome, narcolepsy, and autism, which they rarely saw as a child, suggesting this generation is damaged by these diseases.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know, when I was a kid, we only had three vaccines. And, by 1986, the year the act was passed, there were 11 doses of, I think, five vaccines. And today, there are a child to to go to school in states like California and New York and many other states where you have mandates. The an American child now has to receive between sixty nine and ninety two vaccines between conception. So some of those are given to the mom during pregnancy and age 18. And the reason it's 69 to 80 two is some of the vaccines have or or the different brands have different dose requirements. So some will require three doses. Some will require one dose, some will require four doses. But that's a lot of vaccines for a kid, and each one of those is is designed to permanently alter your immune system. And so we have now this epidemic of immune dysregulation in our country, you know, and there's no way to rule out vaccines as one of the key culprits. And if you look at all of these diseases that have become epidemic, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, all of these seizure disorders, and neurological disorders like ADD, ADHD, speech delayed, language delayed, tics, Tourette's syndrome, narcolepsy, ASD, autism, all the diseases. UNN, I never saw when we were kids. And suddenly, they're this generation is damaged, and it's incredibly damaged by all these disease.

@karlmehta - Karl Mehta

@RobertKennedyJr's solution is revolutionary transparency. He's making CDC databases public for the first time. Using AI to detect real injury patterns. Independent scientists worldwide will finally study the data.

@karlmehta - Karl Mehta

This isn't anti-vaccine or pro-vaccine. It's about having honest science instead of industry propaganda. For 25 years, they've hidden the data. Now we'll finally see what they don't want us to know. A major breakthrough in our healthcare system.

@karlmehta - Karl Mehta

Thanks for reading. If you enjoyed this post, follow @karlmehta for more content on AI and politics. Repost the first tweet to help more people see it: Appreciate the support.

@karlmehta - Karl Mehta

RFK Jr.'s interview with Tucker Carlson is going viral. He exposed how the CDC found vaccines increased autism by 1,135% and their 25-year cover-up. 99% of people still don't know about any of this.. Here are 8 more shocking revelations every American should know about: 🧵 https://t.co/6yOP44Drtz

drsimonegold
Posted - August 18, 2025 at 1:41 PM
Saved - August 21, 2025 at 4:06 AM

@drsimonegold - Dr. Simone Gold

RFK Jr just exposed that 36,000+ doctors had their Medicare payments manipulated to push childhood vaccines. This isn’t medicine — it’s bribery. Big Pharma & government turned doctors into sales reps. The corruption is staggering. https://t.co/gxnBOtZUX8

TedLogan1010
Posted - October 14, 2025 at 4:24 PM
Saved - October 15, 2025 at 5:08 PM

@TedLogan1010 - Ted Logan

We told you doctors got kick backs for pushing vaccines and you didn’t believe us. Once again, we were right. How many times will it take before you start paying attention? https://t.co/hoy8hz1wWD

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss the perceived truth about pediatric vaccination incentives and the behavior of pediatricians. The conversation opens with a question about whether there is an incentive for pediatricians to promote vaccination, and the back-and-forth suggests uncertainty about this issue. One participant mentions that Dr. Paul Thomas has produced a substantial video on the topic and notes that many other pediatricians have followed his lead, adding that perhaps Dr. Hooker could provide a sharper answer. A subsequent speaker clarifies the proposed mechanism of incentives, stating that pediatricians are typically incentivized directly by HMOs. The claim is that HMOs buy and sell vaccines, making vaccines a big business for HMOs. The incentive, according to this account, is usually between $200 and $600 per fully vaccinated patient, as long as their vaccines meet a required percentage threshold for the practice. The speaker contends that some pediatricians can make upwards of a million dollars a year solely from these incentives, underscoring the potential scale of earnings. The discussion then turns to empirical observations or anecdotes, with the claim that pediatricians often fire patients who refuse to get vaccinated. This is presented as a recurrent story that the speakers have heard repeatedly. In addition to the firing of patients, the speakers recount alarming claims attributed to some physicians. They mention the “lies that the pediatrician tell” about dire consequences of not vaccinating, such as “our baby will die” if vitamin K is not given at birth, or that the baby will bleed out before it gets to the car. They also reference the belief expressed by some that “if you don’t get the HPV vaccine, then you will die of cancer.” These stories are described as being told repeatedly by parents who have encountered such warnings. The segment closes with a rhetorical and emotional question about accountability: how can doctors get away with lying like that to parents? The speakers convey a sense of concern and frustration about the repetition of these claims and the impact they have on parents who are trying to make informed decisions for their children.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What is the truth? Because I hear back and forth. I mean, do pediatricians get incentivized with percent vaccination of their Speaker 1: Yes. Paul doctor Paul Thomas has done a very good video on that, and many other pediatricians have followed. Maybe doctor Hooker could answer better on that. Speaker 2: Yeah, they're typically incentivized directly by HMOs. HMOs buy and sell vaccines, so vaccines are big businesses for HMOs. But the incentivization is usually anywhere from $200 to $600 per fully vaccinated patient as long as their vaccines, a certain percentage of their practice is fully vaccinated. So some pediatricians can make upwards to a million or more a year just in those incentives. Speaker 0: I've all heard stories of pediatricians basically firing patients because they won't get vaccinated because that that'll Speaker 2: that's correct. Speaker 1: We hear that story over and over again. And also, the lies that the pediatrician tell tell us that our baby will die. If we don't get vitamin k at birth, the baby will bleed out before it gets to the car. And these stories, if you don't get the HPV vaccine, then you will die of cancer. These parents have told us these stories, and they're the same over and over again. How can they get away with lying like that to us, the parents?
SaiKate108
Posted - August 3, 2023 at 8:38 AM
Saved - August 3, 2023 at 8:20 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Pfizer Australia faced tough questions in Senate hearings. They admitted not understanding how the vaccine causes myocarditis pericarditis. They also failed to provide evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission. Despite gene technology being part of the vaccine process, they refused to acknowledge it as gene therapy. Critics likened their responses to bots. Full hearing available. Health authorities worldwide continue to deceive. Kudos to Senator Rennick for exposing the truth.

@SaiKate108 - Kat A 🌸

A tough day for Pfizer Australia in Senate hearings today. Senator Gerard Rennick on fire as he forced them to admit they didn’t understand the mechanism by which the vaccine causes myocarditis/ pericarditis. So much for trusting the science. They have no idea!!

@SaiKate108 - Kat A 🌸

God forbid anyone mention the word transmission to Pfizer Australia because they refuse to acknowledge it. They were unable to provide Senator Matt Canavan with any evidence to support Albert Bourla’s claims that the vaccine would prevent transmission. The fundamental basis upon which all mandates were issued has no evidence to support it. Warning this clip is excruciating to watch.

@SaiKate108 - Kat A 🌸

Pfizer Australia refuses to acknowledge that MRNA technology is gene therapy. Despite the fact that Pfizer admits gene technology includes transfection which is part of the vaccine process. They refused to answer whether any potential claims would be indemnified by the Australian Government.

@SaiKate108 - Kat A 🌸

https://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/LiveMediaPlayer?vID=%7BD159C121-C022-482C-B146-DF50BE8E82DC%7D&mibextid=Zxz2cZ Full hearing is worth a watch.

Maintenance Page – Parliament of Australia Maintenance Page aph.gov.au

@cryptopunkard - Crypto Punkard

@SaiKate108

@burnelll - Laurie Burnell

@SaiKate108 One out of 35 people is rare?

@dystopian_DU - Rebekah Barnett

@SaiKate108 It’s like watching bots trying to answer a question that’s not in their FAQ database.

@The_Chris_Bell - Chris Bell

@dystopian_DU @SaiKate108 Or an episode of Fawlty Towers where the first lie gets covered up but 50 more.

@GRUFOR2 - Grufor 🐂 🟠

@SaiKate108 FUCK PFIZER DOGS < FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD > ITS NOT EVEN A VACCINE!!!!!!! FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD

@finaxe - Mario Fréchette

@SaiKate108 🐀🐀 ♨️♨️ 👌

@Crash_the_Flash - Crash_the_Flash 🐭

@SaiKate108 Health authorities around the world CONTINUE TO LIE… God bless you, Senator! They knew exactly what you were asking.

@CHDC2983 - Charles Charles

@SaiKate108 Pfizer witness would be held in contempt of court for obfuscation, evasion and refusal to answer direct and reasonable questions and would be eviscerated by a top advocate, barrister or trial lawyer regardless of the jurisdiction. Class actions the way forward everywhere.

@ablindeye007 - JohnHagan

@SaiKate108 It is all coming apart. The jab affects the bodies immune system permanently and any illness or infection in the future. Such was and still is the advice by those scientists and medical professionals who were silenced in the first instance.

@angelovalidiya - Lidiya Angelova, microbiologist, PhD

@SaiKate108 Medical doctors don't study molecular biology, they study how to sell drugs. The list I made is enough to cancel any use of so called COVID-19 vaccines and any mRNA or other gene products but instead being stopped these products are promoted. Why? https://genuineprospect.com/2023/07/25/covid-19-vaccines-adverse-reactions-science-evidence/

COVID-19 Vaccines Adverse Reactions Science Evidence Scientific studies show that COVID-19 vaccines cause adverse reactions and death. COVID-19 vaccines were pushed into widespread use without adequate long-term clinical trials. genuineprospect.com

@JaniceW78256134 - JusticeWillPrevail

@angelovalidiya @SaiKate108 Quite correct and in week 1 at med school the pharma reps are there, providing free cheese and wine to the 18 yr old naive students. Gotta get them onside young.

@Shak00r96 - Akbar Shakoor

@SaiKate108 It seems to affect the brainstem too which could be why ppl are dropping dead from their hearts stopping. The brainstem controls things like unconscious breathing and heartrate etc

@GeraldAdamsIWV - Gerald Adams

@SaiKate108 it is getting harder and harder for them to explain how they got richer, and everyone is dropping like flies, so they grasp for logic that really is not real...

@LindaJo46384842 - livinginthematrix

@SaiKate108 So these are the so called experts we were supposed to listen to???

@amrice62 - ann marie rice

@SaiKate108 Slime

@HeartBeatsCare - HeartBeats Care

@SaiKate108 @reSeeIt save thread

@john_bumblebee - Jan B. Hommel

@SaiKate108 They didn't. We still don't.

@Warcrimereport - METATRON LEVENDI🐭🇦🇺🇿🇦🇱🇧

@SaiKate108 He used the word therapy

@ImSooooOverIt - I'm So Over This! 👸💘

@Warcrimereport @SaiKate108 👍

@MoodAngelATX - MoodAngel.eth 🟪

@SaiKate108 🦄 💩 ☑️

@LetConst - Paul Vardy

@SaiKate108 One more thing, we know, very roughly, the mechanism of how the vaccine can induce myocarditis. The idea that "Dr. Threw(?)" does not understand this is highly unlikely. I explained, very roughly in another X post:

Paul Vardy on Twitter “@mark3415 @gillx83 @TexasLindsay_ I can absolutely sympathise with that point of view. The trouble is I've been looking into the mRNA tech since the beginning of all this, and it's just not ready. Knowing what I know, personally I would be afraid of vaccinating that little girl. When you get covid, your immune…” twitter.com

@julesserkin - jules serkin

@SaiKate108 - @MRobertsQLD

@Rikkoroo - XRPfaithful

@SaiKate108 @GetVideoBot

@GetVideoBot - GetVideoBot

@Rikkoroo @SaiKate108 Video? Here we go: https://getvideobot.com/video/1687020049734017024 Ad: Follow @CrazyVideoClips for crazy and viral videos.

@LetConst - Paul Vardy

@SaiKate108 "I was referring to the benefit risk ratio, and Health authorities around the globe continue to recommend the benefits..." oh wow. No money == "no longer recommend", right? Covid is no longer a threat to human kind. We no longer need this vaccine. Just give it up already.

@Vomit911 - Michigan Chemtrails

@SaiKate108 BS...They knew...Murders..!

@HuonHoogie - Huon H

@SaiKate108 Who is the chair??? Also a flog

@JoChristianse13 - Jo Christiansen

@SaiKate108 Tried to hide their Study Documents for 75 years.......

@paulbentleymelb - Paul Bentley 😷

@SaiKate108 @GetVideoBot

@GetVideoBot - GetVideoBot

@paulbentleymelb @SaiKate108 Yes! video is ready: https://getvideobot.com/video/1687020049734017024 Ad: Follow @CrazyVideoClips for crazy and viral videos.

@KobieOne01 - KobieOne aka HEXLOCKER

@SaiKate108 @threadreaderapp unroll

@threadreaderapp - Thread Reader App

@KobieOne01 @SaiKate108 @KobieOne01 Hello, please find the unroll here: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1687020049734017024.html Talk to you soon. 🤖

Thread by @SaiKate108 on Thread Reader App @SaiKate108: A tough day for Pfizer Australia in Senate hearings today. Senator Gerard Rennick on fire as he forced them to admit they didn’t understand the mechanism by which the vaccine causes myocarditis/ pericar...… threadreaderapp.com

@LetConst - Paul Vardy

@SaiKate108 "Pfizer is aware of very rare reports of myocarditis..." Really? Apparently 1 in 35 vaccinated get myocarditis. Not so rare. "...being temporarily associated.." again, myocarditis is not like having a cold. It has long term implications.

Inversionism on Twitter “This is the highest quality paper ever produced on myocarditis risk post vaccination. https://t.co/yOmDTEyVM0 The debate is unironically over. With this paper, on top of the numerous others and the mountain of anecdotes and examples with the never ending stories of athletes…” twitter.com

@ablindeye007 - JohnHagan

@SaiKate108 I want to know how much money he gets paid for introducing a experimental jab into a large percentage of the Aussie population without being (or being) aware of the consequences. Rather like some people wanting to introduce sex education to young children without consequences.

@PJBottoms4 - PJB “We fight for our freedom, for our children”

I also suspect they don’t understand the mechanism because they simply don’t have the desire to investigate it preferring to be willfully blind and just obscure the relationship or downplay it. There’s a cynical old pharma saying I heard years ago… what do you do when you find your drug causes liver enzyme elevations (substitute any bad adverse event for this). Stop testing (or looking) for it… 🙄😔😢

@twocentsoz - Ari

@SaiKate108 Slippery drg dealers

@Blue22Dave - Dave W. Palmer, CD

LET'S NOT MINCE WORDS! WAS THE COVID EVENT A PLANDEMIC? 1. Was it planned by Wealthy Elites? 2. Was the intent of the vaccine to exterminate humans? 3. While yes this probably man-made disease did kill people, was the disease and the vaccine designed for that purpose? CONTINUES ---> 4. Do the people deserve the TRUTH? 5. If this is actually true, Who deserves to be held accountable? 6. Was the Nuremberg Code violated by any government in the forcing or mandatory need to be vaccinated? 7. Will we, the Citizens of the world protect honourable Whistle Blowers? 8. Truthfully, if that's a possibility anymore; Were the Elitists of the WEF, the UN and the WHO involved in trying to ensure all humanity was vaccinated with these vaccines ? If so, WHY? 9. Is there unreported evidence that the vaccine has severe and detrimental side effects, including but not limited to: Sudden Death, Heart Issues, Strokes, Bells-Palsy, Blood Clots and other associated health issues! 10. If there was a Conspiracy by any Person, Persons or Organization, or group that were found responsible; "Would The World Court initiate appropriate action to deal with this matter?" CITIZENS OF THE WORLD, ALL OF US WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT WHAT THIS COVID EVENT WAS REALLY ABOUT! They made their beds, now it's time to face the music!

@JEM_Books - STELLLLLLLAAAAAAA! ✝️📖🇺🇸🤺

@SaiKate108 But they did understand the mechanism and did it anyways. This let’s them off easy.

@gu_ru_bi - Jing Gu

@SaiKate108 Is it fair to say financial fraud uncovered by the royal commission a few years ago is a lot less egregious then these health services professionals

@menschmodus - menschmodus 🚜

@SaiKate108

@lekiend - Dimitri Lekien 🇧🇪🇫🇷

@SaiKate108 @ezdubs_bot English French

@ezdubs_bot - EzDubs

@lekiend @SaiKate108 @SaiKate108 @lekiend Done! Here is your French dub: https://ezdubs-vod-api.com/result/1687020049734017024_en_fr 📺🔴 𝙔𝙤𝙪𝙏𝙪𝙗𝙚: bit.ly/3WUC0iq 💬🟢 𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩𝙨𝘼𝙥𝙥: https://bit.ly/3NbkOne 📱🔵 𝙏𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙢: https://t.me/ezdubs_bot

EzDubs Business Account api.whatsapp.com
ezdubs_bot You can contact @ezdubs_bot right away. t.me

@Vettecrazed - Karen

@SaiKate108 How disgusting 🤢

@kbit2323 - Lizzy

@SaiKate108 Temporary???? You’re effing kidding me? My son still has it 2 years on. This is an effing joke

@PrimalDaoist - The Primal Daoist's Renaissance Salon

@SaiKate108 Of course they don’t understand what causes myocarditis They think viruses and other germs cause disease!

@Bgkaster - BGKaster (Brenda)

@SaiKate108 Lies.

@tenennessy - Tenennessy

@SaiKate108 @ezdubs_bot english spanish

@ezdubs_bot - EzDubs

@tenennessy @SaiKate108 @SaiKate108 @tenennessy Done! Here is your Spanish dub: https://ezdubs-vod-api.com/result/1687020049734017024_en_es 📺🔴 𝙔𝙤𝙪𝙏𝙪𝙗𝙚: bit.ly/3WUC0iq 💬🟢 𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩𝙨𝘼𝙥𝙥: https://bit.ly/3NbkOne 📱🔵 𝙏𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙢: https://t.me/ezdubs_bot

EzDubs Business Account api.whatsapp.com
ezdubs_bot You can contact @ezdubs_bot right away. t.me

@Thomas_Binder - Dr. Thomas Binder, MD

@SaiKate108 Autoimmune attack against the foreign antigen expressing cells can induce inflammation of any organ. Myocarditis is diagnosed more often than other inflammation as there's a sensitive/specific marker, inexistent for other organs & sudden death is striking.

Dr. Thomas Binder, MD on Twitter “#modRNAgenocide Why the whole mRNA "vaccine" platform must be prohibited immediately (The two fundamental flaws of the m[od]RNA "vaccine" platform - even if the LNPs and the foreign antigen are not toxic, and there is no relevant contamination with functional DNA or with whatever…” twitter.com

@rn_lilydale - RNLilydale 🐭

Well no wonder the risk/benefit ratio is “conveniently” in their favour when Australian doctors are STILL refusing to link known & documented side effects with their 💉💉💉I know ppl that have died and are permanently disabled by the 💉💉and they CANNOT get a doctor to admit or consider that their condition or death is associated with their 💉💉uptake. It’s criminal!!

@ImSooooOverIt - I'm So Over This! 👸💘

@SaiKate108 This is just ridiculous. This is science today 🤦🏼‍♀️ Inventing climate change and the ridiculous theory invented behind it means all of 'science' has to be equally for spastics. I imagine this is fine for the lefties - probably even a little too wordy for them 🤦🏼‍♀️

@amrice62 - ann marie rice

@SaiKate108 I think there should be an inquiry/database on HOW MANY PFIZER KIDS, PREGNANT WOMEN and adult males took this vaccine.

@CptnSafemoon - Capt Grove

@SaiKate108

@miros2424 - Miroslaw Sowa

@SaiKate108 The same way the cigarette companies did not undestand how cigarettes cause cancer.

@LetConst - Paul Vardy

@SaiKate108 They "retain confidence, strong confidence in the safety profile of the vaccine..." their data handed to the CDC in the USA indicated more people died in the control group than the placebo in 2020; in Dec 2020 the CDC lied and said "there were no deaths from the vaccine". Liars.

@MoonMilk64 - ⭐️💜🇺🇸🎃MoonMilk64🎃💜🌙🇺🇲

@SaiKate108 It's almost like they're not aware of how science works. You question and test, not worship like a god that poisons the masses

@PrydePoet - Pryde

@SaiKate108 Generally don' get onboard with the Nuremberg 2.0 chant but for this guys and those like him still recommending these shots after the mountain of scientific evidence showing unequivocally the shots are neither safe nor effective ... these folks do indeed deserve prison.

@Blue22Dave - Dave W. Palmer, CD

LET'S NOT MINCE WORDS! WAS THE COVID EVENT A PLANDEMIC? 1. Was it planned by Wealthy Elites? 2. Was the intent of the vaccine to exterminate humans? 3. While yes this probably man-made disease did kill people, was the disease and the vaccine designed for that purpose? CONTINUES ---> 4. Do the people deserve the TRUTH? 5. If this is actually true, Who deserves to be held accountable? 6. Was the Nuremberg Code violated by any government in the forcing or mandatory need to be vaccinated? 7. Will we, the Citizens of the world protect honourable Whistle Blowers? 8. Truthfully, if that's a possibility anymore; Were the Elitists of the WEF, the UN and the WHO involved in trying to ensure all humanity was vaccinated with these vaccines ? If so, WHY? 9. Is there unreported evidence that the vaccine has severe and detrimental side effects, including but not limited to: Sudden Death, Heart Issues, Strokes, Bells-Palsy, Blood Clots and other associated health issues! 10. If there was a Conspiracy by any Person, Persons or Organization, or group that were found responsible; "Would The World Court initiate appropriate action to deal with this matter?" CITIZENS OF THE WORLD, ALL OF US WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT WHAT THIS COVID EVENT WAS REALLY ABOUT! They made their beds, now it's time to face the music!

View Full Interactive Feed