reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
.@RobertKennedyJr: "The Media Is an Extension of the Pharmaceutical Industry" "75% of advertising revenues now on the mainstream media are now coming from pharma — and that ratio is even higher for the evening news." "Anderson Cooper has a $12 million a year annual salary.…
Video Transcript AI Summary
The media in our country is heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, with 75% of advertising revenues on mainstream media coming from pharma. The evening news, where pharmaceuticals are advertised, has an even higher ratio. Anderson Cooper, with a $12,000,000 annual salary, receives $10,000,000 from Pfizer. His allegiance lies with Pfizer, not CNN. They openly acknowledge this partnership, as seen in the "brought to you by Pfizer" tagline. Consequently, Cooper is unlikely to provide unbiased information about Pfizer's products. Instead, he aims to sell them and instill fear by suggesting that not using them could be fatal.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The media in our country is, is an extension of the pharmaceutical industry. You know, there is a 75% of advertising revenues now on the mainstream media are now coming from pharma. And that ratio is even higher for the evening news because the evening news is where you see pharmaceuticals advertised. And, you know, Anderson Cooper has a $12,000,000 a year annual salary. Well, 10,000,000 of that is coming from Pfizer.
Oh, his boss is not CNN. His boss is Pfizer. And, you know, they're they're unashamed of it. They're unabashed about it. They say, you know, on his program brought to you by Pfizer.
Of course, he's not gonna tell you the truth about Pfizer's product. He's going to try to sell them to you. He's going to try to scare the hell out of you. And he's saying, if you don't get this, you're going to die.
reSee.it AI Summary
Fox News terminated Tucker Carlson's employment after he exposed the influence of greedy Pharma advertisers on TV news content. Carlson's monologue on April 19th broke TV's two biggest rules by telling the truth about the promotion of lethal and worthless vaccines. Despite having the nation's biggest audience, Fox's decision to fire Carlson demonstrates the terrifying power of Big Pharma.
@RobertKennedyJr - Robert F. Kennedy Jr
Fox fires @TuckerCarlson five days after he crosses the red line by acknowledging that the TV networks pushed a deadly and ineffective vaccine to please their Pharma advertisers. Carlson’s breathtakingly courageous April 19 monologue broke TV’s two biggest rules: Tucker told the truth about how greedy Pharma advertisers controlled TV news content and he lambasted obsequious newscasters for promoting jabs they knew to be lethal and worthless. For many years, Tucker has had the nation's biggest audience averaging 3.5 million — 10 times the size of CNN. Fox just demonstrated the terrifying power of Big Pharma.
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
“The Godfather of Vaccines” Dr. Stanley Plotkin admits under oath he got paid from all of the big Pharma companies while consulting for an “Independent Report” on whether or not Vaccines cause autism. For some extremely odd reason he didn’t feel the need to disclose it in the report.
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2011 the IOM issued a vaccine-safety report, 'Adverse Effects of Evidence of Causality,' examining 158 serious injuries after vaccination. The speaker notes they were consulting for Sanofi, Merck, GSK, and others, not disclosed in the report. Tdap is on the childhood schedule and is given to pregnant women. On autism, the IOM concluded, 'The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, or acellular pertussis containing vaccine and autism.' The evidence doesn't exist to show whether DTaP or Tdap do or do not cause autism. 'There is not evidence to, say a million different things. We have no suspicions, at least I don't, that, autism is caused by DTaP.' 'absence of evidence is no proof whatsoever.' He could tell parents that DTaP, Tdap does not cause autism, and, 'I'm also willing to tell them it doesn't cause leprosy.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: 02/2011, the IOM then issued another report on vaccine safety, and this time it looked at a hundred and fifty eight of the most commonly claimed serious injuries after vaccination. Right?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Mhmm. Yes. K.
Speaker 0: The title of that report is Adverse Effects of Evidence of Causality. Did you provide information to the IOM committee conducting this review?
Speaker 1: Recall specifically whether I did or not. A lot of people ask for my opinions. When asked, I give my opinions.
Speaker 0: A: Do you see a section entitled Reviewers?
Speaker 1: Oh, yes. I'm on the list.
Speaker 0: The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institutions in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. It doesn't disclose that at that time you were working for all four of the major vaccine makers, correct? In 2011, were you receiving compensation and remuneration from Sanofi?
Speaker 1: I was yes, as I've said before. I was consulting for Sanofi as well as others.
Speaker 0: Were you consulting for Merck?
Speaker 1: A: Yes, probably at that time.
Speaker 0: And GSK? Yes. And as well as a whole host of other for profit companies seeking to develop vaccines, correct?
Speaker 1: A: Yes.
Speaker 0: I'm just saying that's not mentioned here, correct?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 0: Tdap is one of the vaccines on the childhood schedule, right? Yes. It's administered to babies during the first year of life?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: We already talked about this at two, four, and six months, right? Yes. Now as for Tdap, that's given to pregnant women, correct? Yes. Q: What was the IOM's conclusion in 2011 about whether these vaccines can cause autism?
Speaker 1: I'd have to look that up, but feel confident that they do not cause autism.
Speaker 0: Q: You feel confident that that's what the IOM concluded?
Speaker 1: I don't remember what the IOM concluded, but I don't believe there's any evidence that that's the case.
Speaker 0: Can you read the causality conclusion with regard to whether DTaP and Tdap cause autism?
Speaker 1: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, or acellular pertussis containing vaccine and autism.
Speaker 0: The evidence doesn't exist to show whether DTaP or Tdap do or do not cause autism, correct?
Speaker 1: Yes. Evidence not being available
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Does not allow you to conclude that the phenomena that there is a causal relationship.
Speaker 0: But it does allow you to conclude that the evidence doesn't exist to say that DTaP and Tdap do not cause autism.
Speaker 1: There is not evidence to, say a million different things. We have no suspicions, at least I don't, that, autism is caused by DTaP.
Speaker 0: You may not have that suspicion but it is one of the most commonly reported adverse events which is why it was reviewed in this IOM report. Can you make the statement that vaccines do not cause autism if you don't know whether DTaP or Tdap cause autism?
Speaker 1: I can say as a physician that no, they do not cause autism. You know, I can't be sure that DTaP doesn't cause leprosy. That doesn't mean that that stops me from using DTaP vaccine. Are people claiming that DTaP has caused leprosy?
Speaker 0: Are you aware of any such complaints?
Speaker 1: I'm not aware of any such complaints but I wouldn't be surprised to see it on the web one of these days.
Speaker 0: Okay. But people have made enough complaints about DTaP, Tdap causing autism that the Institute of Medicine at the Commission of HHS thought it was serious enough to do a scientific review, correct?
Speaker 1: Yes. I mean there are a million things on web including all kinds of diet advice based on ridiculous information. So why should I adopt that?
Speaker 0: Are you saying that the IOM was engaging in a ridiculous review here? The only thing I've asked you is whether or not one can assert that vaccines do not cause autism,
Speaker 1: Counselor, but they let's be let's be real. You're asking me these questions because you want me to legitimize a view that vaccines cause autism, and I will not do that because absence of evidence is no proof whatsoever. You're okay with telling the parent that DTaP, Tdap does not cause autism even though
Speaker 0: the science isn't there yet to support that claim?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. I'm also willing to tell them it doesn't cause leprosy.
Speaker 0: Have you ever used orphans to study
@iluminatibot - illuminatibot
YouTube removed this video. The real money is not in the vaccines. It’s in the remedies being sold for the injuries from the vaccines.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Various vaccines are being linked to different industries. The companies behind these vaccines are making a staggering $60 billion annually from vaccine sales. However, they are making an even larger profit of $500 billion each year by selling remedies for the injuries caused by these vaccines. This includes medications for diabetes, ADHD (such as Adderall and Ritalin), inhalers for asthma (like Advair and albuterol), and anti-seizure medications. It's clear that these companies have devised a highly profitable business plan.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Linking various vaccines to all of those industries. So what are they doing? Is it for money? Well, they're making $60,000,000,000 a year selling us vaccines, but they're making $500,000,000,000 a year selling the remedies for the injuries caused by vaccines. Oh, the diabetes medication, the Adderall, the Ritalin, The Advair inhalers, the albuterol inhalers, the anti seizure medications, all of those, This is a really great business plan for these companies.
reSee.it AI Summary
In 2006, Fox News investigated the connection between psychiatric meds and school shooters, finding that 7 out of 12 were on antidepressants or in withdrawal. Today, Fox avoids reporting on this issue due to advertising revenue from pharmaceutical companies. This profit-driven approach is disturbing. News orgs profit from reporting on shootings but refuse to investigate meds as a causal factor. It reflects a larger problem in America, where private interests dominate. America is one of two countries allowing direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads. Banning this would be a priority for @RobertKennedyJr. These companies should face nationwide class action lawsuits to hold them accountable.
@Inversionism - Inversionism
Nearly 20 years ago in 2006, Fox News reported on the connection between psychiatric meds like antidepressants and school shooters, and they actually put in the effort and investigated the backgrounds of previous shooters and found that 7 out of the last 12 were either on anti-depressants or were in withdrawal from them. Now today in 2023, Fox would never report on this issue because they get a significant amount of advertising revenue from the same pharmaceutical companies drugging children and teenagers, and don't want to risk losing profits. Can we all stop for a second and think about how disgusting that is? Not only do these news orgs profit from reporting on these school shootings and creating hysteria around them getting many eyeballs on their channels or websites, often calling for gun control as a result, but they also refuse to properly investigate or associate psychiatric meds as a causal factor because they're being paid advertising money from pharma. It's so unacceptable and really shouldn't be glossed over and casually dismissed. It's a grave symptom of a larger disease in America where quite literally everything has been captured by private interests, and we're all the expense. America is only 1 of 2 countries that allows direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising, and I know if @RobertKennedyJr became president, banning that would be one of his first orders of business. The restrictions should have never been relaxed by Reagan in 1985, and nor should they have been given immunity for vaccine injuries the year after in 1986 as well. All these companies need to be sued into oblivion for what they've done. Nation wide class action lawsuits to take every dime they've made at our expense.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Antidepressants and their potential effects on children are explored in this video. The speaker highlights cases of school shooters who were either on medication or experiencing withdrawal. The father of one shooter believes the medication caused his son's violent behavior. The video also mentions studies documenting the side effects of antidepressants, including mania and violent tendencies. The speaker suggests that the increase in school shootings may be linked to the rise in antidepressant use. A group called ablechild.org calls for an investigation into the correlation between psychiatric drugs and school shooters. The video concludes by stating that approximately 30 million Americans are taking antidepressants, with about 5% potentially developing mania.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Commercials, billboards, free samples, everywhere you look, antidepressants are being marketed, one of the biggest targets, children, here is a disturbing fact 7 out of the last twelve students responsible for school shootings were either on antidepressants or were in withdraw from them. Are these medications helping or hurting our kids?
Speaker 1: 2 years sixteen year old Corey Badsgaard took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage due describe around that time how you were feeling?
Speaker 2: In the morning, I just I didn't feel like going to school. I felt I felt sick. Didn't feel like really, you know, like, I could get up very well and sew in back to bed and make sure I remember and I'm in Juliet and detention center Bryce Love.
Speaker 1: Just one more, apparently, unexplainable violent outbursts at school, unexplainable to everyone, but Corey's dad So in your mind, there's no doubt what happened here.
Speaker 3: I had no doubt that the medication did this. I mean, he was had amnesia, you know, hallucinations earlier abnormal dreams, which are all side effects of the medication.
Speaker 1: That morning, Corey was on a mix of antidepressants prescribed for what doctors called situational depression. His father says the pills turn Corey from a sensitive teenage boy to a volatile marauder, susceptible to blind rage.
Speaker 3: He was never a violent kid. I mean, he's always been a good kid. Loved this hug this all. You know, he's never watched by violent videos and and until with medication, he you know, after that, then we realized that he was having aggression problems and, you know, he was out of character.
Speaker 1: At Fox News, we found the bad scar story with antidepressants compelling, so we investigated further. We found a disturbing number of recent school shooters were either on medication or were experiencing withdrawal. The list includes fifteen year old Chip Kinkle withdrawing from Prozac when he shot 22 classmates, killing 2 after murdering his mother and stepfather at his home in Springfield, Oregon. Teen year old Elizabeth Bush on Prozac when she blasted away at fellow students in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, wounding 1. Eighteen year old Jason Hoffman on Afekor and Celexa.
He opened fire at his California high school, wounding 5. 15 year old on Cooper on a mix of antidepressants when he shot students in Idaho. Fifteen year old TJ Solomon also on a mix of antidepressants when he his shotgun at classmates in Conyers, Georgia, from D6. And seventeen year old Eric Harris on Luvox when he and partner Dylan Klevel killed twelve classmates and a teacher in the bloodiest school massacre yet, Colin Bond.
Speaker 4: One of the things that in the past, we have known about impression is that it very, very rarely leads to violence. It's only been since the advent of these new SSRI drugs that we have a murder is sometimes even mass murderers taking antidepressant drugs.
Speaker 1: Take the key. This man sees another explanation for the student's violence.
Speaker 5: They may not be getting adequate, diagnostic evaluation. They may not be an intense enough treatment. They may not be on the right
Speaker 1: companies, including the maker of Paxel.
Speaker 5: There's no evidence that being on an antidepressant medicine would increase the likelihood of homicide or suicide
Speaker 1: as the number of drugs increased, so too have the number of school shootings. Bruce Wiseman runs a group that has monitored long term effects of antidepressants on kids for years. The drugs have got documented side effects of mania, of cosis in some cases of violence of suicidal tendencies, and you have studies documenting the fact that these kids were not violent took the drugs and became so. Indeed, Fox News recently obtained confidential documents belonging to the maker of Paxel The drug Corey Batsgaard had been taking when he snapped. The document suggests a patient taking Paxel is eight times more likely to attempt or commit suicide.
And patients taking placebo and data publicly available from the drug companies show a small percentage of patients on all antidepressants experienced mania a state of mind, sometimes associated with violent outbursts. When you take the figures of, one drug manufacturer talked about, Manae behavior of 4%. Well, if there are, as, some reports say 2,000,000 kids on these drugs, that's 80,000 time bombs waiting to explode. Waiting to explode. That's exactly what Corey Badskard's father said happened to Corey on antidepressants.
He says the solution is simple. Stop drugging our children.
Speaker 3: Just stop medicating the kids, and they've I don't think we'll have these problems or as many as we do now.
Speaker 1: And Corey agrees. He's out of jail and off the drugs. He says he's doing just fine.
Speaker 6: A 7 and 8. Their, horse drawn funeral procession wagons will pass right by us, here in front of this church, John. Rick Leventhal in Lancaster. Rick, thank you very much. Try to tragedy like this one in Pennsylvania and in Colorado last week seem to be inexplicable.
But listen this. More often than not, antidepressants are involved. In Colorado, for instance, police found antidepressants in suspects Duane Morrison's jeep. We still don't know if the Army School gunman Roberts was taking anything, but we do know the FDA recently warned doctors that antidepressants can cause both suicidal and homicidal thoughts. In 2002, big story correspondent Douglas Kennedy was the 1st national reporter to expose the link between antidepressants and violence, a report to Park congressional hearings.
He is here with us now. So what do we know about this, Doug?
Speaker 1: John, 4 years ago, we showed that 7 of the 12 previous school shooters were either on antidepressants or were withdrawing from antidepressants. Shooters like Kipp Kinkle, Elizabeth Bush, and Eric Harris at Colenbaum. Since then, the trend has continued with sixteen year old, Jeff Weiss, who in 2005 snapped while on Prozac, killing nine people and wounding 5 at his high school in Red Lake Minnesota. Just moments ago, I spoke with Sheila Matthews of ablechild.org, a group that's trying to get congress to protect school children from this kind of violent You want Congress to do here.
Speaker 7: I want an investigation into the correlation between the psychiatric drugs and the school shooters. I want toxicity screening done on the school shooters to see if they were on any antidepressants because clearly there's a link
Speaker 1: Now, you had a relative who had a, a bad time on antidepressants to describe estimates.
Speaker 7: My brother-in-law, committed suicide side, why we're drawing from, antidepressant or tripling. It's an over antidepressant. Totally out of character, loving the and we listen dearly and we want to prevent this from happening.
Speaker 1: And and you run into a lots of stories like that that describe some of those.
Speaker 7: Well, as a founder of Able Child, victims come to us all the time. Their children are committing suicide on these drugs. And, we're very concerned as public health issues.
Speaker 1: Now, lots of new studies show antidepressants not only don't prevent aside, they actually cause suicide and violence. Why are so many people still taking them?
Speaker 7: Because the evidence is not being broadcast. And I think it's a time with all these school shootings that we take a look and we get evidence based from toxicity screening on the school shooters on victims of suicide and start bringing the evidence forward to the American people because once they know, they'll see the correlation.
Speaker 1: Now Matthew says the real problem with antidepressants is how many people are taking them right now. That's about 30,000,000 Americans. Studies show about 5% of them will develop mania. So do the math, that's about a 1,500,000 potential maniacs waiting to explode.
reSee.it AI Summary
Title: Uncovering the Truth about Childhood Vaccinations
In this eye-opening article, we expose the hidden realities surrounding childhood vaccinations. From the lack of informed consent to the placebo myth, we delve into the controversies and concerns that have fueled vaccine skepticism. We explore the alarming rise in autoimmune diseases and autism rates, questioning the safety and efficacy of vaccines. We shed light on the ignored VAERS reports and highlight testimonies from experts who challenge the mainstream narrative. Join us in unraveling the complexities of the vaccine industry and advocating for truly informed consent.
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
Uninformed Consent A thread exposing the lies that your doctor, government and the media told you. Vaccine uptake is at an all time low. The government and the industry they collude with would have you think that it is because of “anti-science“ ignorance. Just millions of buck tooth, mouth breathers who can barely read and what they do read is nothing but dangerous “misinformation”. It couldn’t possibly be their fault. You know, the fact that virtually every autoimmune disease is skyrocketing and the rate of autism has consistently grown with the amount of vaccines administered to kids. It couldn’t possibly be the fact that they are still trying to push an experimental novel technology on the public, including being so brazen as to include it on the childhood schedule. It couldn’t possibly be the hundreds of thousands of debilitating injuries people have suffered with virtually zero recourse for compensation or the fact that they are either ignored, discounted or ridiculed for believing their injuries stem from the most likely variable introduced into their lives. It couldn’t possibly be the fact that people all over the world have watched loved ones including their own children go to sleep never to wake up again. Or they drop to the ground in the prime of their lives while playing a sport they love. The truth of the matter is that the tide of public consciousness is turning and everyday more and more people are realizing the uncomfortable truth. In no small part because of the people featured in this incredibly informative video. The Highwire [@HighWireTalk] aired this yesterday. It features a talk between Del Bigtree [@delbigtree] and Aaron Siri [@AaronSiriSG] where they show various depositions and testimonies of individuals over the years along with adding valuable context and commentary. This is something you can show to “true believers” in your lives with the hope that it may disrupt their programming. Expect a lot of cognitive dissonance to ensue because in 40 minutes they eviscerate various commonly held beliefs in relation to the childhood injections recommended by the CDC and most doctors. I am going to include some more clips as well as some other threads I’ve made to really drive home the point. The point being is that almost everything you think you know about childhood vaccinations is either completely misrepresented or outright lies. Please share this extremely important information and help create some truly informed consent. Funny thing about having real informed consent, it turns out people who have it, usually decide not to consent.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the issue of liability protection for vaccine manufacturers and the lack of safety testing for vaccines. They explain that in 1986, liability was taken away from manufacturers, leading to an increase in the number of vaccines given to children. They argue that vaccines should be tested for safety like any other pharmaceutical product, but this is not happening due to the lack of liability. The speaker also addresses the claim that vaccines do not cause injury, particularly autism, and highlights the lack of studies supporting this claim. They conclude by discussing the use of aborted fetal tissue in vaccine development and the objections raised by religious groups.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What about all of the rest of them? One of the issues you have when you're trying to look at vaccines as a journalist and investigate it is you've got this liability protection. In 1986, they took away all liability from manufacturers. Basically, the pharmaceutical industry blackmailed Ronald Reagan, said, We are losing so much money from death and injury cases in courtrooms, we cannot make a profit in our vaccine program, so either you protect us from liability or we're gonna stop making them. And so you can't sue the manufacturer.
It says right here, no person may bring a civil action against the vaccine administrator or manufacturer for damages arising from a vaccine related injury or death. Total and complete protection. And I say that to friends and they say, that's amazing. Doesn't that mean right there they must be admitting that there's injury? Of course they are.
There's no Such thing as a pharmaceutical product that doesn't injure somebody. There's a reason why you have multiple versions of drugs, because if one is giving you side effects, Try another one. Vaccines are no different, they have all the same types of elements. I wanted to get into this. And so we wanted to, investigate it.
Well, what happens, What happens when you take a product, one of the only ones in America, made by arguably one of the most, you know, corrupted Industries, when you look at pharma, who's paid out more money for death than injury? 1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 of dollars by Merck and Sanofi Aventis and Pfizer for having lied about the safety of their products. But they have 1 group of products that they cannot be sued for. Well, that created a gold rush and ultimately what happened to this is in 1986, there's about 3 vaccines given in multiple doses. So for all of you out there that are saying, I'm just vaccinating My kids the same way I was vaccinated.
No, you're not. You got maybe 10 vaccines by the time you were 18 years old. When we took liability away in 1986, this is what happened to our vaccine programme. Suddenly it explodes. 72 Your kids are getting or your grandkids are getting by the time they're 18.
And none of these need to be tested for safety. Why? Why would you? Let's be honest. Why would you spend money testing a product for safety if you cannot be sued if it kills or injures anybody?
You wouldn't do it. Why waste the money? It ends up being the perfect product. This is a product that we don't have to test for safety and we don't even have to advertise it because the government is going to force it on every child in America. This is why this product became one of the number one biggest sellers, biggest gold rush money making parts of the industry we now look at as the giant big pharma.
So I went to Iran and said, look, they have total liability protection. What do we do? And we started discussing, What if we sue the government? Since the government's taking on the liability, they're saying that manufacturers will handle this, so now you sue the government. Imagine this, When you're injured by a vaccine, you have to sue health and human services.
In fact, the head of health and human services is who you're naming as the defendant. So now the government's gonna use Department of Justice lawyers against you. Against you and tell you you're crazy, You're wrong, that injury didn't happen, you have to prove that it happened. That's how the court system works. And who was supposed to do the safety trials that you need to use in court so that you can prove this injury is caused by the vaccine.
Health and Human Services. The same group you are suing is the one that is supposed to be doing the safety trials. This is literally like a, a murder case where your murderer is the one doing all of your forensics. And that's how the system has been designed. So I brought in Aaron Sridh to look at this and say, how do we handle this in law?
And so when you start looking at it, what really sort of jumped out at you when we think about safety and how products are made?
Speaker 1: Well, one thing that really jumped out at me is that of all the products on the market, all the products on the market That you can't sue the manufacturer for injuries for effectively. It's not planes. It's not drugs. It's not all kinds of dangerous things we know are out there. It's a product injected into babies that we say That the health authorities say are safe.
Of all the products, that's the one product that effectively manufacture immunity for liability. That really struck me. That really struck me. Every other product is able to survive in the market, cars and so forth, They make them better, but for this product in 1986, manufacturers given immunity to liability, presumably They had a real issue in terms of being able to make them safer. And so what's the effect, you know, in terms of safety?
To answer your question more directly, Del, Yeah. As you know, we we, you know, we decided we're gonna look at what's the impact on the clinical trials, pre licensure, And what's the impact after licensure? So in terms of the clinical trials, I think that this chart Might help bring home the impact that in taking away liability from manufacturers of vaccines has had on how the clinical trials relied upon to license those products were conducted. If you look up on your screen, you're gonna see a chart And in that chart according these are putting COVID vaccine aside, my understanding this is a a site that explains these are the 5 top Selling drugs, pharmaceutical products that Pfizer has in all time. Look at that list.
4 of those are drugs. One of them is a vaccine. Take a good look. Which one looks a little different than the rest.
Speaker 0: This is like that Sesame Street game. Yeah. Right? One of these drugs is not like the other.
Speaker 1: You're right. Except this one can have Leaf of consequences. And if you look, Enbrel, Eliquis, Lyrica, and Lipitor, safety review periods during their clinical trials Into the years, PCV 13, PRODOT 13, that's the only vaccine on the list. Look at the safety review period, And look at the control. Was it a placebo control?
No. This is a list Of the vaccines administered to babies 3 times each by the time they're 6 months old.
Speaker 0: I I mean, think about this. I want you to think about the placebo controlled trial. This is something that's really starting to make in the news and they're saying, we have done these placebo controlled trials.' They haven't. And why is it important? When you're testing a drug, 1 group gets this testing drug, the brand new drug, another group gets what's a placebo, something that has no effect on the human body, but we don't know who got what.
It's double blind, they both get it. In the case of the drugs, 6 years, 7 years, 5 years, at least 2 years, We track both groups all the way through and ask obvious questions. Who had more diabetes or autoimmune issues or cancers or Mutagenic effects. And, obviously, at the end of it you unblind it, the scientists find out who was who, because they shouldn't be manipulating it And then you see: was the safety profile the same? Did the group that got the saline injection or got the sugar pill have the same amount of health issues as the ones that got the product.
So in the vaccines, there are no placebos. This is the only way to prove causation. When they say to you: Well, we've never proved causation of this injury, whether it's multiple sclerosis in vaccines or autism in vaccines. We don't have any evidence, there's no causal relationship because you never did the trial, which would be the only way to prove causation, which is a placebo based trial. You skipped it.
And this is what they're doing on all these vaccines.
Speaker 1: And Pfizer wants to know the safety profile of their drugs before it goes in the market. Why? What happens if the drug causes injury? They can be sued, and they're sued all day long on their drug products. Drugs come off the market all the time, but they can't be sued for the vaccine.
Speaker 0: Let's show you some evidence. There's a hepatitis b vaccine given to a baby in the 1st day of life. 1st 24 hours, they're getting this vaccine. We're not making this up. If you look at the vaccine, if you asked your doctor, I wanna see The insert wrapped around the vaccine.
Look what it says about the safety trial. This is how we licensed it. This is what the FDA saw and said, good enough for us. Put it on the market. In 3 clinical studies there was 4 34 doses of Recombivax HB that were 5 micrograms, We're administered to 147 healthy infants and children up to 10 years of age.
A 147 Was the size of this massively tested trial for the fate of every day 1 old baby in America and probably around the world. How long did that trial last? No placebo. They were monitored for 5 days.
Speaker 1: 5 days. And to put what you're looking at in context, just to understand, this is the FDA website. This is the package insert for the hepatitis b vaccine. Section 6.1, you can look at every single don't take our word For this chart on the right, those safety review periods seem incredible. And in fact, I wouldn't believe them if you showed them to me.
But all you have to do
Speaker 0: Would you take any drug that had 5 days, 3 days, 28 days safety trial? That would be insane. And by the way, we've brought lawsuits against CDC and FDA on this. We said, If there's a safety trial longer than 7 days on the on the h, hepatitis B vaccine, we'd like to see it. FOIA request, Right?
Speaker 1: Right. So for all of these clinical trials, in section 611, they summarize the safety review period, the control used, and how big the trial is, how Powered it is and those numbers seem so unbelievable that we actually FOIAed Freedom of Information Act, Sent request to the FDA to get copies of clinical trial reports and that in fact, for example, for this, hepatitis b vaccine, it is 5 days of safety review after injection With a 147 children, you that doesn't determine anything. And the only reason I think the company that sells this product, Merck, Is is okay with this, why the FDA is we'll get into, is because they don't have to worry about paying for injuries after his license.
Speaker 0: Let's get to some videos. Okay. We plan on this going faster. I'm like, wow, that clock's moving quickly. I wanna show you what some of these people are saying on the stand.
So, this is Stanley Plotkin. Yep. Right? So Stanley Plotkin is arguably the leading voice in vaccines in the world. He's on almost every vaccine company's board of directors in one way or another across the world.
And if you go to the CDC and you sit in one of their meetings at the ACE IT, the Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices, the gavel is called the Plotkin Gavel And the book written on vaccines that's this big is Plotkin' on vaccines. When he was asked Wanna play it?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Go ahead. And this is just the world's leading vaccinologist and vaccines when I asked him about, and I confronted him about the hepatitis B vaccine that we looked at. Under oath. And when they're under oath, you get a little bit of a different answer than when they're on TV or they're doing commercial.
Speaker 2: It is my great Honored to use the Stanley Plotkin gavel to open this meeting.
Speaker 3: Our good friend and colleague, doctor Doctor. Plotkin. Doctor. Plotkin.
Speaker 4: Virtually every country in the world is affected by his vaccines.
Speaker 3: He was involved in pivotal trials on anthrax, Oral polio, rabies vaccine,
Speaker 1: rubella vaccine, the rotavirus vaccine, rabies.
Speaker 5: He has earned the distinguished physician award of the pediatric Infectious Disease Society, the Finland Award of the National Foundation For Infectious Diseases, the Hilleman Award of the American Society For Microbiology, the French Legion of Honor, and the Bruce Medal Preventive medicine.
Speaker 3: He's a member of the Institute of Medicine and the French Academy of Medicine.
Speaker 6: One of the very special things about him is the global impact that he's had, Not just from the products, but from his book.
Speaker 3: He developed a standard textbook for vaccines in 1988.
Speaker 5: Bill Gates calls his book a bible for vaccinologists.
Speaker 7: I hope you all have, indeed have read the book, and I hope it's more accurate than the bible.
Speaker 8: He trained, just a generation of scientists, including myself, to, to think like he thinks. Doctor Plokken, earlier you you testified that there are 2 hep B vaccines in the market, 1, by Glaxo GSK, That's Engerix B and the other one is by Merck, Recombivax HB, right?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: This is the Product, the manufacturer insert for Recombivax HB, correct?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: And the clinical trial experience would be found in Section 6.1, correct? Correct? Doctor. Plotkin?
Speaker 7: Doctor. Yes.
Speaker 8: Doctor. Okay. In Section 6.1, When you look at the clinical trials that were done pre licensure for COMVAX HB, how long does it say that safety was monitored after each dose?
Speaker 7: Let's see. 5 days.
Speaker 8: Is 5 days long enough to detect an autoimmune issue that arises after 5 days?
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 8: Is 5 days long enough to detect any neurological disorder that arose from the vaccine after 5 days? No. There is no control group, correct?
Speaker 7: It does not mention any control group, no.
Speaker 8: If you turn to Section 6.2, under immune system disorders, Does it say that there were reports of hypersensitive reactions, including anaphylactic, anaphylactoid reactions, bronchospasms, And urticaria having been reported within the 1st few hours after vaccination? Yes. There have been reports of hypersensitivity syndrome?
Speaker 7: Yes. That's what
Speaker 8: it states. Does it reports of arthritis?
Speaker 7: It is mentioned. Okay.
Speaker 8: It also reports, autoimmune diseases, including Systemic lupus, erythematoses, lupus like syndrome, vasculitis, And polyteritis nodosa as well. Correct?
Speaker 7: Yes. That's what it states.
Speaker 8: And also, it states that, under the nervous system disorders, it states that, after that, there have been reports of Guillain Barre Syndrome, correct?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: As well as multiple sclerosis, exacerbation of multiple sclerosis, Myelitis, including transverse myelitis, seizure, febrile seizure, peripheral neuropathy, including Bell's palsy, Radiculopathy? Radiculopathy. Thank you very much. Muscle weakness, Hypothesia and encephalitis, correct?
Speaker 7: Correct.
Speaker 8: These are, events that are reported after vaccination. And as we've just Discussed, in order to establish whether it's causal between the vaccine and the condition, you need A randomly a randomized placebo controlled study, but that was not done for the this hepatitis B vaccine before licensure, was it?
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 8: Okay. And given that the DXC now appears on the CDC's recommended list, Isn't it true that it would now be considered unethical to conduct such a study today?
Speaker 7: It would be yes. It would be ethically difficult.
Speaker 0: And there you have it. That's how every vaccine has made it through the process. Imagine how many of us gave the day 1 old baby with all of those side effects that were known, but the reason they get away with saying that there's no causal relationship is they refuse to do the study that would have allowed you to say they were causally related and therefore gets approved, 5 days of safety. That is the massive amount of studies that have been done for products given in day 1 old babies. And let me point this out.
We have more babies die on the 1st day of life in the United States of America than every other industrialized nation combined. That is a terrible death rate for the greatest hospital system in the greatest nation in the world. And can they explain it? And why does your baby need a hepatitis B vaccine, a sexually transmitted disease that you usually only get if you were involved in multiple partners, prostitution or sharing heroin needles. Why does our baby on the 1st day of life need to get that vaccine?
And they might say, well, the mom could be hepatitis B positive. Yeah, but every mother in America is tested and gets a blood test and we know whether she has it or not. So then why is every baby getting it when we know they're the only mothers with a baby might even need it. This is how ridiculous this entire system is and it starts there. Let's continue on.
Post licensure, right? We talked pre licensure, that's like what happens before it's licensed, what happens after it's post, you know, out there in the market.
Speaker 8: So if,
Speaker 1: you know, before licensure, you don't have proper clinical trials that review safety for long duration against a control group that you can really compare it against, You'd at least hope that after licensure that studies are being conducted to assure the safety of childhood vaccines. Well, As we all know and you probably heard the CDC and other health agencies say all the time, all claimed harms
Speaker 8: are thoroughly studied.
Speaker 1: And, and they'll and, you know, you'll hear this, always, you know, rest assured if you say vaccines cause x, they'll tell you it doesn't And and probably the most famous claim, they'll tell you that don't worry vaccines do not cause. Right.
Speaker 4: You
Speaker 1: do that all the time. And so, in looking at this issue, you know, I I remember Dell, we discussed, Well, if we're gonna start to see how well do our health authorities, how well do the pharmaceutical companies really study The claimed harms the vaccines. Let's start by seeing how well they've studied The injury that they have told us, they have studied more thoroughly than anything else.
Speaker 0: This one The vaccine is definitely covered. We've proved beyond a Shout of a doubt that vaccines do not cause autism. We have no idea what causes autism, they'll say on the news. Totally blind to that concept, but we do know what doesn't cause it.
Speaker 5: We're not sure of the scientific community what causes autism, but we know that vaccines Do not.
Speaker 1: Vaccines are really the one thing we have looked at as causing autism.
Speaker 3: We know that vaccines don't cause autism. The science is Clear.
Speaker 6: Vaccines don't cause autism.
Speaker 1: I do not deny in any way that we need to do more about autism, but it has nothing to do The vaccines.
Speaker 2: Let me be clear. Vaccines do not cause autism.
Speaker 8: Vaccines don't cause autism. Absolutely sure. Absolutely sure.
Speaker 1: Well, then great. The studies must be prolific. They must have studied every vaccine to assure that in fact vaccines don't cause autism. Here's the thing. Despite the fact that they're on the news and they're constantly telling everybody out there vaccines don't cause autism, studies surveying parents With children with autistic children, to this day, still 40 to 70% according to these studies of these parents say They believe that vaccines, 1 or more, cause autism.
And when you ask them, what vaccine? What vaccine are you attributing to your child's autism? These are the vaccines that they'll typically list, the ones that it just got highlighted in red. This is the CDC vaccine schedule, and you can see it's the hepatitis b vaccine given 3 times by 6 months of age, And the DTaP, Hib, IPV, these are the vaccines that they will look at as and and click as well as the MMR vaccine, which is at the very bottom, Which is given no earlier than 1 year of age. So if you're gonna study, vaccines, and you're gonna say vaccines don't cause autism.
You're gonna study the vaccines the parents are claiming are causing autism. Right? The vaccines given in the 1st months of 6 months of life. And just to be clear, This claim that these vaccines are causing autism goes way back. This is this what I'm about to show you is a decade Before Andy Wakefield said a word about vaccines and autism.
This is the National Child Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, The law that Del referred to earlier that gave manufacturers immunity liability, when it did that, the law itself, Congress required their health authorities to study the 10 or 11 most commonly claimed injuries from these products. One of them on that list was autism. It said to our health authorities, study whether pertussis containing vaccines does or does not cause autism because It is something that is one of the most claimed injuries from this product. Again, a decade before Andy Wakefield said a word about vaccines and autism. In 1991, the Institute of Medicine did that study.
They reviewed all the literature to see whether or not Vaccines, the pertussis vaccine, causes autism.
Speaker 0: The most studied issue there is with vaccines, autism. And we The Institute of Medicine looks into it. How many studies have been done? What do we know about it?
Speaker 1: So in 1991, 0. No studies have been done. Okay. Early days. No studies.
0. That's what they conclude. And, and then
Speaker 0: when you think about this, Imagine you're a scientist or a doctor, you care about this issue. Well, one of those was Bernadine Healy, head of the NIH, the most powerful research institute in America and for the entire world. She got in, she's running the place, she's the top doctor in the United States of America, looks into the autism vaccine connection. She's asked in 2008 in a CBS interview by Cheryl Atkinson what she thinks. Remember, Oh, we figured this out.
The science is settled. Top scientist head of NIH, former head of NIH.
Speaker 6: This is the time when we do have the opportunity to understand Whether or not there are susceptible children, perhaps genetically, perhaps they have a metabolic issue, mitochondrial disorder, Immunological issue that makes them more susceptible to vaccines, plural, Or to one particular vaccine or to a component of vaccine, like mercury. So we now, in these times, Have to, I think, take another look at that hypothesis, not deny it. And I think we have the tools today that we didn't have 10 years ago, We didn't have 20 years ago to try and tease that out and find out if indeed there is that susceptible group. Why is this important? A susceptible group does not mean that vaccines aren't good.
What a susceptible group will tell us is That maybe there is a group of individuals or a group of children that shouldn't have a particular vaccine or shouldn't have vaccine on the same schedule. It is the job of the public health community and of physicians to be out there and to say, Yes, We can make it safer because we are able to say this is a subset. We're going to deliver it in a way that we think is safer.
Speaker 9: Do you feel the government was too quick to dismiss out of hand that there was this possibility of a link between vaccines and autism?
Speaker 6: I think the government or Certain public health officials in the government have been too quick to dismiss the concerns of these families without studying the population that got sick. I haven't seen major studies that focus on 300 kids who got, Autistic symptoms Within a period of a few weeks of a vaccine, the reason why they didn't want to look for those Susceptibility Groups Was because they were afraid that if they found them, however big or small they were, that that would scare the public away. The fact that there is concern that you don't want to know that susceptible group is a real disappointment to me. If you know that susceptible group, you can save those children.
Speaker 9: It sounds like you don't think the hypothesis of a link between vaccines and autism It's completely irrational.
Speaker 6: So when I first heard about it, I thought, Well, that doesn't make sense to me. The more you delve into it, if you look at the basic science, if you look at the research that's been done in Animals. If you also look at, some of these individual cases and if you look at the evidence that there is no link, What I come away with is the question has not been answered.
Speaker 0: What? Head of NIH, 2008? What? The question hasn't been answered, what am I hearing on the news every single day? And I want you to remember, if you take one thing away, listen to what she said.
We are so afraid That if we do a study that finds a small group of children that are susceptible, not the whole group, just a small group, that are having a bad reaction to this. We're afraid that no matter how small that group is, that if we discover it, it will scare everybody away from taking vaccines and therefore, we are not doing those studies. That is the fact. You want a motive? It's not evil.
It's not money grubbing. It's that they are so afraid that they will hurt the vaccine program by investigating and finding the truth that they refuse to find the truth. And no studies are being done on these issues at all.
Speaker 1: Well, in 2012, To that point, our health authorities again hire the Institute of Medicine to look again at whether or not pertussis containing vaccine, Seen this time as well as diphtheria and tetanus containing vaccine do or do not cause autism. The Institute of Medicine then Created this massive panel that reviewed all the scientific literature out there and they only could find 1 study Relating to DTaP, again, the vaccine given at 2, 4 6 months of life and autism. This Geyer and Geyer study which actually found That there was a correlation between DTaP vaccines and autism, but they threw out the study because it was based on VAERS data. The important point is not that study. The important point is, here we are in 2012, over 2 decades After the 1986 act told our health authorities, study whether pertussis containing vaccine does or doesn't cause autism, And there is still not a single study conducted.
Speaker 0: The biggest complaint parents have across the world of this vaccine, the number one biggest complaint, the most dangerous complaint, our government is saying study it, In 2 decades, they've still refused to do a single study and you're told this has been handled extensively.
Speaker 1: So I had an opportunity again to ask the world's leading vaccinologists about exactly that finding.
Speaker 8: Gonna hand you what's being marked as exhibit 22. This is an excerpt from the IOM's report.
Speaker 7: Right? Yes. Okay.
Speaker 8: And this is where the IOM discusses the evidence with regard to whether DTaP or Tdap Cause autism correct? Correct. Okay. If you turn to the 2nd page can you read the causality conclusion with regard to whether TAP and TDAAP cause autism.
Speaker 7: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, Or acellular pertussis containing vaccine and autism.
Speaker 8: So the IOM reviewed the available evidence with regard to whether Tdap or DTaP can cause autism and their conclusion was the evidence doesn't exist To show whether DTaP or TDaP do or do not cause autism, correct?
Speaker 7: Yes, but the point is that there are no studies showing that it does cause autism except one study By 2 well known anti vaccination figures, Guyer and Guyer, who have no legitimacy whatsoever. So what they're saying is that there's no evidence and, the important point from my point of view is that there is no positive evidence to do a proper study As we've been discussing which would disprove it would involve The controlled administration of vaccines and, withholding vaccines from children who should have them.
Speaker 8: But since there's no evidence that DTaP or Tdap don't cause autism, you can't yet say that vaccines do
Speaker 7: not cause autism, correct? I cannot say that as a, as a scientist or a logician, But I can say as a physician
Speaker 8: that no, they do not cause autism. So what you're saying is as a physician or logician, Then you couldn't say vaccines do not, you could not say vaccines do not cause autism, But as a pediatrician, you're saying that you would say that to a parent because You want to make sure they get the vaccine is that right?
Speaker 7: You know I can't be sure that DTaP doesn't cause leprosy. That doesn't mean that that stops me from using a DTaP vaccine. Are people Claiming
Speaker 8: that DTAP has caused leprosy?
Speaker 1: I Are you aware of any such complaints?
Speaker 7: I'm not aware of any such complaints but I wouldn't be surprised To see it on the web one of these days.
Speaker 8: Okay, but but people have made enough complaints about DTaP, Tdap causing autism, that the Institute of Medicine at the commission of HHS thought it was serious enough To do a scientific review, correct?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: If you don't know whether DTaP or Tdap cause autism, Shouldn't you wait until you do know, until you have the science to support it? To then say that vaccines do not cause autism?
Speaker 7: Do I wait? No. I do not wait because I have to take into account the health of the child.
Speaker 8: And so for that reason, you're okay with telling the parent that DTaP, Tdap does not cause autism Even though the science isn't there yet to support that claim?
Speaker 7: Absolutely. I'm also willing to tell them it doesn't cause leprosy.
Speaker 8: Okay. Again, did the IOM review whether DTEF caused a leprosy?
Speaker 1: No. Okay. You know, I will say that in my experience deposing vaccinologists, immunologists, pediatricians, infectious disease specialists, particularly vaccinologists, When there isn't any evidence, one or another, their conclusion is it doesn't cause it. I've not experienced that in any other area of science. Let's move on before we run out of time.
So, you know, one of the things we wanted to do was we said fine. Maybe the Institute of Medicine couldn't find it. Maybe the head you know, the the the leading vaccine knowledge in the world doesn't have these studies. But the CDC surely should have these studies. The CDC, on its website, says vaccines don't cause autism.
So here, we submitted a Freedom of Information Act request To the CDC asking them, please provide all studies relied upon by the CDC to claim that DTaP vaccines don't cause autism. We did the same for hep b vaccine, Prevnar, Hib, inactivated polio vaccine, as well as all those vaccines combined. We said, please give us the studies. Guess what? They didn't give it to us.
So we had to sue them in federal court. And here is the conclusion of that federal lawsuit. The CDC finally Listed 20 studies that they rely upon, they say, to claim that vaccines don't cause autism for the vaccines given in the 1st 6 months of life. I can only assume they think we don't read or something, but we do. So we read the 20 studies.
Here's the thing about them. 18 of them involve the Marisol, an ingredient not in any of the vaccines we asked about, or the MMR vaccine not given Until at least 1 year of life. One of them involved antigen, one of the studies, not vaccine exposure. And that study even says it cannot tell you whether don't cause autism because they didn't study them. Just studied a con a component of it.
And then finally, the last thing it provided, incredibly, Was a review from 2012, the one we looked at before, that looked at MMR demerisole. Again, MMR, not a vaccine we've asked about. Demerisole, not an ingredient in the vaccines. And DTaP. That's the DTaP review we just read from 2012.
So the only reviewer study they provided us That actually involved a single one of the vaccines given in the 1st 6 months of life Was a study by the Institute of Medicine that found we don't have a single study of whether DTaP does or doesn't cause autism. I had an opportunity to depose, maybe the 2nd or 3rd leading vaccinologist in the world today, doctor Kathryn Edwards, in a case Specifically about vaccines and autism, actually. You see there you can see the medical textbook on vaccines
Speaker 0: He's one of the authors on the same Plotkin book. You can see her
Speaker 1: right there listed One of the, the editors, and, and you could hear when I confronted her about this issue, what she had to say about the state of the science With regards to whether vaccines don't cause autism again the the issue they say they have studied more thoroughly and robustly than any other claimed vaccine injury.
Speaker 8: According to your profile, you have done most of the treatable trials relied upon to license many of the vaccines, correct, on the market?
Speaker 10: Yes, sir. Okay.
Speaker 8: So you're highly experienced in conducting clinical trials, correct?
Speaker 10: I'm highly experienced conducting clinical
Speaker 8: And you're familiar with many of the clinical trials that rely upon to license many of the vaccines currently on the market. Correct?
Speaker 2: I am.
Speaker 1: In your opinion,
Speaker 8: did the clinical trials relied upon to license the vaccines that Gates received, Many of which are still on the market today. Were they designed to rule out That the vaccine causes autism.
Speaker 2: No. You badgered me into answering the question the way you want me to, but I I think that, That, that I've, that's probably the answer.
Speaker 8: Is it, is that your accurate and truthful testimony?
Speaker 4: Yes. In the expert disclosures for this case, it it asserts that among other things, you will testify that quote, The issue of whether vaccines cause autism has been thoroughly researched and rejected, end quote. It's your testimony that MMR vaccine cannot cause autism.
Speaker 10: That's correct.
Speaker 4: It's your testimony that hep b vaccine cannot cause autism.
Speaker 10: That's correct.
Speaker 4: It's your testimony that IPOL cannot cause autism.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 4: It's Is your testimony that Hib vaccine cannot cause autism?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Is
Speaker 4: your testimony that Varicella vaccine cannot cause autism?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 4: It's your testimony that Prevnar vaccine cannot cause autism?
Speaker 10: Yes.
Speaker 4: And it's your testimony that DTAB vaccine cannot cause autism?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 4: And do you have a study that supports that DTaP doesn't cause autism?
Speaker 10: I have I do not have a study that's that DTaP
Speaker 2: causes autism. So I don't have either.
Speaker 4: Do you have any study one way or another of whether Ipol causes autism?
Speaker 10: I no. I do not, sir.
Speaker 4: Do you have any study one way or another of whether Engerix B causes autism?
Speaker 10: I do not have any, evidence that it causes autism nor that it does not.
Speaker 4: And what about, HID titers Vaccine. Any evidence one way or another, whether it causes autism? And what about Prevnar vaccine? Any evidence one way or another?
Speaker 10: No, sir.
Speaker 4: And how about varicella vaccine? Let me just finish. Are there any studies one way or another that support whether it does or doesn't cause autism?
Speaker 10: Part of of MMR, but but not as, varicella by itself. No, sir. No Studies that say it does or no studies that say it doesn't.
Speaker 4: Right. There have been studies that have found An association between hepatitis B vaccine and autism, correct?
Speaker 10: Not Studies that I feel are credible.
Speaker 4: K. Which study which study do you are you referring to when you say that? Well, why
Speaker 10: don't you show me the study and then I'll see whether I agree with it.
Speaker 0: Ultimately, here's what it comes down to. Of all the studies they've told you, they've done all these studies of the vaccine program. They've only ever looked at 1 vaccine truly, that's the MMR vaccine, none of the other 16 vaccines given in 72 doses, They've only done studies on one of all of those ingredients and that's the mercury that's no longer in most of the vaccines and you still have 50 to 70% of parents saying I'm pretty sure it happened right after the vaccine, that's when I lost my kid and I want to point out, get to the next video and you can set it up, but I want to point this out: they will tell you, Well, that's just a knee jerk reaction of a parent, they need something to blame, they blame the vaccines because vaccines are something you're giving your kids every day. I will assure you I have interviewed thousands of these parents and these stories. And what they will end up telling you is it was the last thing that they ever wanted to blame.
They listened to their doctors, they chased every other red herring they could find for an excuse. They wanted it to be their DNA. Please let it be my DNA so there's nothing I had involved with When they finally come to the conclusion that it's a vaccine that they chose to give their child, that is one of the darkest days for every one of these parents that's ever been through it. Because now I did it. I gave my kids something that I could have opted out of, I could have been against, I could have done some reading on it and now the guilt is with them the rest of their lives.
I assure you, this is not a go to, jump to, I just want to blame vaccines because the day you come to that conclusion, you're gonna be blaming yourself the rest of your life and no one makes that their first choice. So when you have up to 70% of parents saying it's the vaccine, these are parents in pain that have looked for every other reason there could have possibly been and they're only left with one obvious conclusion.
Speaker 1: So a lot of people say, well, how could this happen? How could regulators allow this to happen? 2000, there's a congressional report that found that most of the members of the, CDC and FDA vaccine committees have substantial substantial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. 2009, they find it again, and here's the deposition again of Doctor. Edwards, who was one of the members of the 5 person, Data Safety Monitoring Board for the Pfizer COVID nineteen vaccine.
Speaker 8: Isn't it true that
Speaker 11: you have also been an advisor to Pfizer?
Speaker 2: Yes, sir. I have been an advisor to Pfizer, and I've been Working very, very closely with Pfizer, particularly with their COVID vaccines, and going over lots So a reaction to that risk event. So yes, I am working and be paid by Pfizer for my assessment of vaccine safety.
Speaker 11: The part of the Data Safety Monitoring Board
Speaker 8: for the project COVEX, you know, you said that.
Speaker 11: You're one
Speaker 8: of the only 5 members
Speaker 11: of that Data Safety Monitoring Board, so with Pfizer COVID nineteen vaccine, right?
Speaker 2: Yes, you're right.
Speaker 11: That's supposed to be independent Data Safety Monitoring Board, correct?
Speaker 2: It is an independent Data Safety Monitoring
Speaker 11: That's the board that
Speaker 8: all of us
Speaker 11: in America Our hoping on and relying upon is going to independently make sure that safety is properly assessed
Speaker 8: as the clinical trial for that Pfizer COVID
Speaker 2: That's true. And let me tell you that that we have worked very hard to to do that indeed, as comprehensively as we possibly can.
Speaker 11: And since it's supposed to be independent, it's critical that the members of that independent Data Safety Monitoring Board are in fact independent Of the pharmaceutical company whose product is being evaluated, correct?
Speaker 2: That's correct.
Speaker 11: But this is true that directly before becoming a member of the Independent Data so
Speaker 8: you can monitor the Pfizer COVID nineteen vaccine. You were Pfizer to Pfizer?
Speaker 2: Pfizer pays me To evaluate the safety of the vaccines because I'm an expert. So I do get paid to do the work
Speaker 11: My question was, Before you became a member of the independent data safety monitoring work for the Pfizer COVID nineteen vaccine, isn't it true that
Speaker 1: you were
Speaker 11: Separate before you held that independent position, you were an advisor to Pfizer.
Speaker 2: Yes, sir. But I think what you're presuming is that because I've been an advisor makes me on their door What makes me, going to say what they want me to say, that head is not and has never been a part of my being. I'd say what I believe based on my expertise.
Speaker 11: So, you don't think that financial Incentives can sway people's judgment at all.
Speaker 2: It does not sway my judgment, sir.
Speaker 8: Why BOGS having an independent Data Safety Monitoring Board? Why isn't Pfizer just have some of its employees on it?
Speaker 2: Because we are independent.
Speaker 11: Meaning folks who were never advisors to Pfizer.
Speaker 2: We are independent from Pfizer in this assessment.
Speaker 1: The one thing to think about though, it's it's comical in in a way, but it's also, it's deadly serious because doctor Edwards was the vaccinologist Just on that 5 member independent data city monitor board who sat there evaluating the data while the COVID nineteen vaccine, Pfizer's COVID nineteen vaccine That's been given to about 200,000,000 Americans as being assessed Yep. Before it rolled out and was put into the arms of people across this country. You go and you inject almost every healthy person with something. You only need to mess that up one time one time to break our society. We'll we'll move on to, I guess we're almost out of time.
Speaker 0: Final issue of abortion, which we're going to Mississippi tomorrow because Aaron Siri managed to win the biggest lawsuit in this space and return the religious exemption to Mississippi. Yeah. They lost that ability to opt out of the program in 1979 and just a couple months ago, you managed to win that. Why is it important? It's important for people, especially in the Bible Belt, that maybe don't want aborted babies being used in the processing, development and manufacturing of vaccines.
You're told, well, it was 1 baby in the 1960s. Aaron Seery put Stanley Plotkin on the stand. Let's see if it really was 1 baby. In your work related to vaccines, how many fetuses have been part of that work?
Speaker 7: My own personal work? 2.
Speaker 8: I'm gonna hand you what's been marked plaintiff's exhibit 41. Okay. Are you familiar with this article, doctor Plotkin?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: Okay. Are you listed as an author on this article?
Speaker 7: Yes. Okay.
Speaker 8: This study took place at the Wistar Institute, correct?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: You were at the Wistar Institute, correct?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: How many fetuses were used in the study described in this article? Quite a few. So This study involved 74 fetuses, correct?
Speaker 7: I don't remember exactly how many.
Speaker 8: Turn to Page 12 of the study. Yeah. 76. 76. Mhmm.
And, these fetuses, were all 3 months or older when aborted, correct?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: Okay. And these were all normally developed fetuses, correct?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: What organs did you harvest from these fetuses?
Speaker 7: Well, I didn't personally harvest any, But, a whole range of tissues were harvested, by coworkers.
Speaker 8: Okay. And these pieces were then cut up into little pieces, right?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: And they were cultured? Yes. Okay. Some of the pieces of the fetuses were pituitary gland That were that were chopped up into pieces to
Speaker 7: Mhmm.
Speaker 8: Okay. Included the lung of the fetuses?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: Okay. Included the skin?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: Kidney?
Speaker 7: Yes. Spleen? Yes. Heart? Yes.
Speaker 8: And and tongue?
Speaker 7: I don't recall, but probably yes.
Speaker 8: So I just want to make sure I understand. In your entire career and this was just 1 study, so I'm going to ask I'm going to ask you again. In your entire career, how many fetuses have you worked with?
Speaker 7: Well, I don't remember the exact number, but quite a few When we were studying them, originally before we decided to use them to make vaccines.
Speaker 8: Do you have any sense? I mean, this one study had 76. How many other studies did you have that you used the Border Fetuses for?
Speaker 7: Oh, I don't remember how many.
Speaker 8: You're you're aware are you aware that the one of the, objections to vaccination by the plaintiff in this case is The inclusion of aborted fetal tissue in the development of vaccines and the fact that it's actually Part of the ingredients of vaccines?
Speaker 7: Yes. I'm aware of those objections. The Catholic Church has actually issued a document on that which says that individuals who need the vaccine should receive the vaccines regardless of the fact and that, that, I think it implies that I am the individual who will go to hell because of the use of aborted Tissues, which I am glad to to do. Okay.
Speaker 8: Do you know if the mother is Catholic?
Speaker 7: I have no idea.
Speaker 8: Okay. Do you take issue with religious beliefs?
Speaker 7: Yes. Okay.
Speaker 8: You've said that, quote, vaccination is always under attack by religious zealots who believe that The will of God includes death and disease?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: You stand by that statement?
Speaker 7: I absolutely do. Okay.
Speaker 8: Are you an atheist?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 0: That's just some of the truths you can find at the highwire.com and the great work that Aaron Seery's been doing, getting the truth exposed. Hopefully, this will help you understand as you hear this conversation. You hear attacks on people like Robert Kennedy Junior being said that he's lying when he says that the safety trials haven't been done. Now, you know the truth. Spread the word.
Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
The Placebo Myth with receipts.
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
Every disease was in precipitous decline when the vaccine was introduced.
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
VAERS, designed to be ignored.
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
More testimony exposing “the $cience”
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
Under oath and clueless. PART 1
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
Under oath and clueless Part 2
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
Full Testimony
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
Admitting the quiet part out loud.
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
Plotkin conflicts of interest
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
Maurice Hilleman and Leonard Hayflick aren’t household names but in the world biological sciences they are legends. Hilleman passed away in 2005 and is credited with developing over 40 vaccines and is widely credited as the most influential vaccinolgists ever. Hayflick who is still alive and currently a Professor of Anatomy at UCSF School of medicine, is known for discovering that normal human cells divide for a limited number of times in vitro, known today as the Hayflick Limit. His cell strain WI-38 replaced the monkey kidney cells as the substrate used for producing human vaccines. These are serious scientists and widely celebrated by all stripes so when they speak, people tend to listen. I say this because what you are about to watch is an edit of three different documentaries that compliment each other nicely because each presents evidence from a different perspective on generally the same topic. The first clip is presented by Leonard Horowitz, a Harvard trained public health expert, author and pharmaceutical industry whistleblower. He located a segment that was left on the cutting room floor of a PBS Documentary entitled “The Health Century” which featured a Maurice Hilleman interview. He also mentions Litton Bionetics, a US bio weapons contractor who was responsible for the 1967 Marburg virus outbreak that killed 7 people. 🤔 Marburg Incident: https://is.gd/u1cmpo In it Hilleman reveals information that he and a colleague while working at Merck, discovered a new virus in the monkeys whose kidneys were being used as a substrate in the production of the polio vaccines. When I first heard it I was slightly incredulous because the implications are frightening, so I sought out corroborating evidence. After a couple weeks of searching I came across an interview of Hayflick where he is discussing the problems with using monkey kidneys as a substrate for vaccine production, in particular for the Polio vaccines. Well obviously my ears perked up and he even went on to name drop Hilleman and refer to his morbid discovery. The Virus you ask? Simian Virus 40 (SV40), that was found to be highly carcinogenic. Those two clips are sandwiched between a 2004 documentary called “The Origin of AIDS”. It’s extremely well done with historical footage and some serious investigative journalism spanning the globe, definitely watch it in full some time. The theory it proposes dovetails nicely with the other two clips. If what they propose is true, the implications boggle the mind. Personally, I don’t know if it’s the truth but it sure gets the wheels turning if you can view the evidence objectively. After you watch, let me know what you think below.👇🏻
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Marburg virus, known as the mother of Ebola, broke out in three vaccine production facilities in 1967, causing deaths and injuries. The monkey supplier, Litton BioNetics, was also a biological weapons contractor for the military and the CIA. Dr. Maurice Hilleman, a vaccine expert, discovered that imported monkeys were carrying viruses, including the AIDS virus. The polio vaccine, derived from monkey organs, was contaminated with the SV40 virus. Independent journalist Tom Curtis published an article suggesting that the polio vaccine could have led to the spread of AIDS. However, the theory was challenged and the scientific community dismissed it. The true origins of AIDS remain uncertain.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The mother of Ebola is the Marburg virus that first broke out in 3 vaccine production facilities in 3 different parts of the world simultaneously in 1967, killing 7 people and injuring another 31. This grave risk came from the fact that the monkey supplier, Litton BioNetics, was also a leading biological weapons contractor, for the military and the CIA by 1969. With military and White House influence, no one would dare declare biokinetics as negligence and liability in any outbreak. Listen now to the voice of the world's leading vaccine expert, doctor Maurice Hilleman, chief of the Merck Pharmaceutical Company's vaccine division, relay this problem he was having with imported monkeys. He best explains the origin of AIDS, But what you are about to hear was cut from any public disclosures.
Speaker 1: And I think that vaccines have to be considered the The bargain basement technology for the 20th century.
Speaker 2: Fifty years ago, when Morris Tilleman was a high school student in Miles City, Montana. He hoped he might qualify as a management trainee for the local JCPenney store. Instead, he went on to pioneer more breakthroughs in vaccine research and development than anyone in the history of American medicine. Among the discoveries he made at Merck are vaccines for mumps, rubella, and measles.
Speaker 3: Tell me, how you found SV 40 and the polio vaccine.
Speaker 1: Well, that was a Merck thing. Yeah. I came to Merck, and I was going to develop vaccines. And we had wild viruses in those days. Wild monkey kidney viruses and so forth.
And I finally, after 6 months, gave up. I said that you cannot develop vaccines with these damn monkeys. We're we're finished, and if I can't do something about it, I'm gonna quit. Mhmm. I'm gonna try it.
Mhmm. So I went down to see Bill Nann at The zoo in Washington, DC, and and I told Bill Nanna, I said, look. Here's a I got a problem. I don't know what the hell we're doing. Bill Mann is a very bright guy.
I said these lousy monkeys are picking it up and while being stored in the airports in transit with these loading, offloading, he said. It's very simple. He said, you go ahead. Get your monkeys out of West Africa. Get the African green.
Bring them into Madrid. One load them there. There are no other traffic through there for animals, fly them into Philadelphia, pick them up, or fly them into New York and pick them up right off the airplane. So I brought African Greens, and I didn't know we were importing AIDS virus at the time.
Speaker 3: And when it was To you, we have to save virus. I don't know. It was you, we have to save virus. We have to It became historic. It became historical.
Speaker 4: Verbal due to the overbangs. So
Speaker 1: what he did, He he brought in I mean, we brought in those monkeys. Now we had those. So this was the solution Because those monkeys didn't have the wild viruses, but we had all these
Speaker 3: Why didn't the greens have the wild viruses since they came back after?
Speaker 1: Because they weren't, well, they weren't They weren't being infected in these group holding things with all the other 40 different viruses. But they had
Speaker 3: the ones they brought from the jungle, Yeah.
Speaker 1: They had those, but there were relatively few. What what you do is you have a gang housing, you're gonna have an epidemic Transmission of infection in a confined space.
Speaker 5: Oh, it's not that bad.
Speaker 1: So, anyway, the Greens came in. Now we had these, and then we're we're taking our seed stocks to clean them up, and god, now I'm discovering new viruses. So I said, shoot, that's priest. Well, I got an invitation from his sister Kinney Foundation, you know, which was the opposing Foundation. You know, it was the live virus.
Alright. Yeah. They they jumped on the savings bandwagon. Mhmm. And they asked me to come down and give a talk I had a sister Kenny Foundation meeting, and I said it was an international meeting.
I was like, god. What am I gonna talk about? I know what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna talk about the detection of nondetectable viruses as a topic.
Speaker 6: There were those Who didn't want a live virus vaccine. They concentrated. National Federation for Infantile Paralysis concentrated all its efforts on getting more and more people to use the killed virus vaccine while they were supporting me for research on the live virus
Speaker 1: So now I gotta have something, you know, that's gonna attract attention. Uh-huh. So I thought, gee, that damn STD 40 I mean, that that damn that vacuuming the agents that we have. I'm gonna just pick that particular one. Mhmm.
That virus has got to be in in vaccines, and, It's gonna be in the Sabin's vaccine, so I quickly tested it. Sure enough, it was in there, and we'll be down. So now, so I'll go ahead and
Speaker 3: So you just took stocks of Sabin's vaccine off the shelf here at Merck?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, that had not been made at Merck it was made at Merck
Speaker 3: You were making it for Sabin at Yeah.
Speaker 1: It was made before I came.
Speaker 3: Yeah. But at this point, Sabin is still just doing these massive field trials. Mhmm. Okay.
Speaker 1: In Russia and so forth. So I go down. I talked about the the detection of non tech first, and I told Albert
Speaker 3: But at this point, Sabin is still just doing these massive field trials.
Speaker 1: Mhmm. Okay. In Russia and so forth. So I go down. I talked about the, the detection of non tech I told Albert.
I said, listen, Albert. I said, you know, you and I are good friends. But I said, I'm gonna I'm gonna go down there. You're gonna get I'm gonna talk about a virus that's in your vaccine. If you're gonna get rid of the virus, don't worry about it.
You're gonna get rid of it. But, So, of course, Hunter was very upset with me. What did he say? Well, he said basically that this This is just another obfuscation that is going to upset vaccines. And I said, well, you know, you're absolutely right.
And I said, we have a new era here. We have a new era of the Protection. And the important thing is to get rid of these viruses.
Speaker 3: Why would he call it an obfuscation if it was a virus
Speaker 1: that was contaminated? Because we well, there are 48 different viruses in these vaccines, anyway, that we were inactivating. And, but
Speaker 3: you weren't activating the That's correct.
Speaker 1: No. That's right. But yellow fever vaccine had leukemia virus in it, and, you know, this is in the days of Very crude science. So, anyway, I went down and talked to him, and I always said, well, why are you concerned about it? I said, well, tell
Speaker 3: me about it.
Speaker 1: I said, I have a feeling in my bones that this virus is different. I I don't know why to tell you this, but I've been around biology a long time. I just think this virus may have some long term effects. Mhmm. And he said, what?
Cancer.
Speaker 6: I love it.
Speaker 3: I love it. Go ahead. Yeah.
Speaker 1: No. I said, Albert, I said, you you probably think I'm nuts, but
Speaker 3: I just have that feeling. Well, in the
Speaker 1: meantime, we had taken this virus person
Speaker 3: put it into monkey and into hamsters.
Speaker 1: Uh-huh. So we had this meeting, and that was started the topic of the day, and the jokes that were going around was, gee, we would win the Olympics because, the The Russians went on. They loaded down these tumors. This is where the vaccine was being tested. This was this was Yeah.
Right. Understand. Right. So, it'd be really destroyed.
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, it was a big image. Yeah. Right.
Speaker 1: So this sort of a topic. Anyway
Speaker 3: Was this the Cancer Society meeting in the New York, kind
Speaker 1: of time? This was the,
Speaker 3: sister Kenny. Oh, it's sister Kenny. Right.
Speaker 1: And, Del Becco he said, that he saw problems with these kinds of agents.
Speaker 3: Why didn't this get out in the press?
Speaker 1: Well, I guess it did. I don't remember. We had no press release. I mean, obviously, you don't go up. This is a scientific affair within
Speaker 7: An historic victory over a dread disease has dramatically unfolded at the University of Michigan. Here, scientists usher in a new medical age with the monumental reports that prove the Salk vaccine against crippling polio to be a sensational success. It's a day of triumph for 40 year old doctor Jonas e Salk, developer of the vaccine. He arrives with Basil O'Connor, head of the National Foundation For Infantile Paralysis, which Finance the tests. Hundreds of reporters and scientists from all over the nation gather for the momentous announcement.
Speaker 6: It was too much of a show. There was too much Hollywood, there was too much exaggeration, and the impression in 1957 that was no. In 1954, that was given was that the problem had been solved, polio had been conquered.
Speaker 1: But, anyway, we know it was the virus seed stock for making the vaccine. Vaccine. Mhmm. That virus, you see, is 1 in 10,000 particles is not inactivated by fermata. It was good science at the time because that was what you did.
You didn't worry about these wild viruses.
Speaker 3: So you discovered it wasn't being inactivated in the salt factory?
Speaker 1: So then, the next thing we know is 3, 4 weeks after that, and I found that there were tumors popping out of these hamsters.
Speaker 0: Despite AIDS and leukemia suddenly becoming pandemic from wild viruses. Hilleman said this was good science at that time. So imagine what bad science might yield, science directed for profit and population control by the military medical petrochemical pharmaceutical cartel.
Speaker 5: In 1992, an independent journalist Tom Curtis published an article with unexpected consequences.
Speaker 8: I had a source in California, an AIDS treatment activist, who, sent me a packet of, clips one day saying, this is a bombshell story waiting for an investigative reporter. What what I had been sent was a couple of documents, saying, well, it's all very well and good to talk about these bizarre tribal rituals or other possible explanations of the cause of AIDS, but it is a fact that the virus, the monkey virus SV 40, was transmitted to millions of people across the world. And, and they sort of planted the suggestion that something similar might have happened, with AIDS.
Speaker 5: This revelation was a bombshell. Tom Curtis speculated that if during the fifties, polio vaccines were contaminated with the monkey virus, s s v forty. Something similar could have happened with AIDS. SIV, the ancestor of the AIDS virus, is also a monkey virus. And Curtis connected this fact to a mass polio vaccination campaign in the Congo.
Speaker 8: It looked at The polio campaign that doctor Koprowski had, undertaken in the former Belgian Congo In the middle to late 19 fifties, and, I did focus on that campaign because of certain geographic similarities to Where scientists were saying AIDS had, begun in the human population, which was in this same region.
Speaker 5: And this particular region of Africa is the epicenter of the AIDS epidemic. Curtis' hypothesis jolted the scientific community because it implicated one of its own, Hilary Koprowski, a renowned researcher and pioneer in the fight against polio.
Speaker 9: There was a a tremendous feeling in the scientific community That they were somehow endangered. If you had journalists writing articles in the Rolling Stone, My god. What about our dignity? So there was a lot of concern from that viewpoint. There was a lot of concern that it was written by a person who was a professional journalist and that they were afraid that people would no longer immunize their children against polio.
Speaker 5: How could a simian virus possibly contaminate a vaccine? Curtis's argument was extremely serious because it put in question the manufacturing of polio vaccine, one of modern medicine's greatest triumphs. To understand what could have happened, we have to return to the polio years. In 1958, America was beginning to recover from a scourge that had haunted it for more than 50 years, polio. The disease is still incurable at the time, paralyzed and killed, 90,000,000 Americans were vaccinated in one of the largest mass vaccination campaigns ever.
Polio vaccine, one of modern medicine's greatest successes, Made its inventor, Jonas Salk, a hero.
Speaker 7: 164,000,000 Americans do say nothing of all the other people in the world that'll profit from
Speaker 10: your discount.
Speaker 5: But polio vaccine had one distinctive feature. It was the first to be derived from monkey organs. Mass commercialization began and gave rise to the development of an enormous market for monkeys used both as test animals and as raw material from which to create the polio vaccine. Entire shipments of macaque arrived in America from India and the Philippines.
Speaker 9: To make primary cultures of monkey kidneys, You needed monkey kidneys. You needed flasks or bottles. You needed culture medium, And this was usually supplemented with fetal calf serum or with horse serum, which was used Extensively. And, you were in business. 1 obtains a piece of tissue, And, then one divides it.
And the way you divide it is you first of all, in the crudest sense, you take a pair of scissors, And you snip, snip, snip, snip, snip until you have a suspension of cells that is Relatively crude. That is there are lumps and bumps in there. Put them into the flasks. Let them settle down and make a multilayer of cells. Add poliovirus, and then you would collect the liquid from the cultures, Filter out the cells, remove the cell remains, and then you would have a virus suspension.
Then you could Kill it with formaldehyde, put it into bottles, and call it polio vaccine. That was it. So trying to get entirely pure cultures as primary cultures is very difficult. You can have a culture of monkey kidney cells that looks to be very pure. But if you Look at those on the surface or if you stain them or you look with a special microscope, you can see that there are other cell types present in there.
Speaker 5: And other viruses could have infected these other cells. Driven to eradicate 1 disease, we risked creating another. Scientists and governmental organizations knew this. The powerful Food and Drug Administration was aware of the risks but kept the information hidden.
Speaker 10: It was the researcher, Venice Eddy, At the Food and Drug Administration, who first had indications that these viruses existed, and Her findings were essentially suppressed. There is a lot of inner discussion within, FDA, of her taking examples of mouse tumors to her supervisors, And they're seemingly being biased against the possibility that this could be a nasty virus. She did, however, present her work at a New York meeting To which again she was criticized for doing that. Subsequently, doctor Sweet and doctor Hilleman found the same virus, having heard about it, And, named it SV 40.
Speaker 5: During this same period, The terminology for these monkey viruses was established and published in the medical literature. SV 40 was only the 40th virus in a very long list.
Speaker 9: We should have stopped using monkey kidney tissues, I think, for virus production in 1960, and we've continued to do so. The drug companies are the ones who really determine this. They have developed facilities. They develop processes that would cost them a lot of money if they had to do it a different way. The thing that makes me physically angry Is the fact that we now have the genetic ability to make synthetic polio vaccine from recombinant proteins and we are not doing that we continue to take ground up monkey parts and inject them into children.
Speaker 5: Using monkeys to manufacture vaccines was and still remains dangerous. Curtis' basis for his theory was correct. Polio vaccines at the time were contaminated with a monkey virus, But that didn't explain the appearance of AIDS. Curtis proposed that Koprowski made his vaccine using a monkey other than the macaque, The African green monkey. But this was a mistake.
The African green monkey does carry an IV. But this is not the direct ancestor of HIV one, our AIDS virus.
Speaker 9: Hillary Koprowski felt that his honor had been filed and that he had been done serious injury. The Rolling Stone folded under And publicly apologize for having published the article. And that was, as they say, that for the time being.
Speaker 8: I thought, you know, people should think for themselves, evaluate the evidence, decide. And mostly, I thought they should simply test the vaccine to find out whether this theory had merit or not, because theories are the way scientific knowledge advances. And even theories that turn out not to be true help advance scientific knowledge. So I felt it was a legitimate question, And I felt a little bit under siege by the medical community and, and some in the science press and so on who were Acting like I was an apostate. You know?
Speaker 5: Hilary Koprowski, the man Curtis had attacked, is a well known and respected scientist, a pioneer of research into rabies and polio. He is also an expert on cancer and AIDS. Back in the polio years, Hilary Koprowski was a young Polish researcher. Brilliant and ambitious, he was determined to make a name for himself in his newly adopted country, The USA. In 1950, he secretly tested his first prototype of a live oral polio vaccine On 20 handicapped children at Letchworth Village in New York state.
When the scientific community learned that Hilary Koprowski was experimenting on human beings, it was a scandal, even though the test was deemed to have done no harm. The community's condemnation of Koprowski's secret research led to the loss of official support for his work with preference shifting to Jonas Salk's injected polio vaccine, but Koprowski refused to quit. With the support of a large pharmaceutical company, Lederle, he proceeded to test different versions of his oral polio vaccine on small groups of human subjects, 52 at Sonoma, 53 at Letchworth Village, 54 at Woodbine, and 55 at Clinton Farms. A tragic event lent him unexpected support. On April 23, 1955, 260 children injected with Salk's vaccine became sick.
11 died. The investigation showed that some of the Salk vaccine lots were defective. Confidence in Salk's injected vaccine was shaken, clearing the way for Koprowski to assert himself.
Speaker 9: One hand, you had Albert Sabin who looked on this as an enormous challenge. On the other hand, Hillary Approached it from the standpoint that, yes, this was a challenge. Yes, this was a medical problem. Yes. It was gonna be interesting to solve it.
And, yes, we'll go off and do it by whatever means that are available to us that are illegal. So you have these 2 conflicting individuals who are all working towards the same goal, And it's, one of the great dramas of modern times of how they interacted and how they worked. They were willing to go and take, subjects who may or may not have been informed of what they were doing, they were able they were willing to go, to the backside of the moon if it meant that they could find out whether or not they had a viable product.
Speaker 5: To win this race, they have to test. And to test, they need the largest possible population of nonimmunized people, something no longer available in America. The first to prove the reliability and safety of his vaccine will be the winner. Sabin makes a secret deal with his native country, the USSR, where he will vaccinate more than 6,000,000 people in Latvia, Estonia and Kazakhstan. Koprowski chooses an African country, the Belgian Congo, a long standing possession of King Leopold and the jewel of his colonial empire.
Because of the Congo's uranium mines, Commercial accords had existed between America and Belgium since the 2nd World War. This was also a country with one of Africa's best organized and most modern health care infrastructures. The Efficient Organization of Medical Records made the local population extremely suitable for experimentation.
Speaker 4: Return to political quiet After the recent disturbances, Leopoldville engages in an all out fight against infantile paralysis, crowding every clinic with mothers and their children. The latter to receive orally administered shots of a new vaccine against the scourge of childhood. It is a live virus preparation developed in the United States by Philadelphia's doctor Hillary Koprowski. And it differs from our famed soft vaccine in that it does away with injections. It must taste Good if the children's receptivity to it is a criterion.
Speaker 9: Hillary Koprowski went to the Congo and took people who had been abused, mistreated, and had been the victims of, If you wanna put it that way, of colonial expansion for nearly a 100 years and use them. The ethics of that, I don't think occurred to anyone at the time. The opportunity was there. It was legal. It was allowed by the Belgian government.
They went in and did their job, and that was it. No big deal.
Speaker 5: Sabin and Koprowski They conducted their experiments at the same time with the same type of vaccine. No AIDS cases were detected in Russia, But in the Congo, the first known HIV infections surfaced a couple of years after the start of the vaccinations. Was it coincidental, or was there, as Curtis suggested, something different with Koprowski's vaccine? To get a definitive answer, Curtis had tried to get the vaccine used in the Congo tested, something Cecil Fox had wanted to do in 1985.
Speaker 9: When I went to the Food and Drug Administration as a government employee to ask if I could obtain Early lots of polio vaccine to test for the presence of sequences or presence of viruses in them. I was told that they didn't exist. Well, I was told they did exist, but something happened, and then they didn't exist. And they were unavailable to me. I could not get them.
I could not find them. There was no way I could go through and find out what they had in their freezers. I was told by other people that all of that work had already been done, and it was not true. Now I had to take that on faith. I did not believe them.
So, because I work for the government, I had to kind of let it day where it was, I could not pursue it more energetically.
Speaker 5: Why wasn't Cecil Fox able to gain access to the Congo polio samples, maybe because in 1958, Albert Sabin analyzed Koprowski's vaccine, Called CHAT and found it to be unstable and contaminated by an unknown virus, which he called virus X. He told Koprowski about the findings. The response was immediate. Dear Albert, I have carefully considered your extraordinary letter of November 17th with its even more extraordinary enclosures. Like you, I am trying to put myself in your position, but I cannot imagine for a moment that I would dismiss 10 years of work by another investigator With 1 airy wave of an inter spinal needle.
I'm also sure that you are familiar with the maxim of La Rochefoucauld. Sabin replied, Sir, your letter of December 1st does not merit a reply. It is clear that dispassionate analysis and discourse are impossible with you. Sarcasm and invectives do not take the place of reproducible facts in science. Farewell, my one time friend and colleague.
Koprowski's CHAT vaccine was, therefore, less safe than claimed and possibly even contaminated. Sabin decided to make his findings public. In June 1960, his vaccine, Deemed more reliable was chosen to replace Salk's. Koprowski lost the race, but ironically, Sabin's vaccine wasn't perfect either. Like Salk's, It was contaminated by the macaque monkey virus, SV 40.
Hamilton believed that immensely powerful medical and pharmaceutical interests play a huge role in science. Because these institutions are preoccupied with ever greater profits, scientists bear the responsibility to guard against potential dangers to society that they might find in the course of their research.
Speaker 11: The idea that this great triumph, and it certainly was a wonderful triumph of defeating polio was accompanied by a disaster as big as AIDS. And, obviously, it knocks you off your, plenty of success to have to admit that this even might have happened, let alone that it actually did happen. And I seem to encounter this every time I I talk to people who are connected with medical science. They just don't want to hear about this this theory.
Speaker 12: Is there a possibility here scientists simply don't want to know, don't want to accept perhaps at least the moral, if not the legal liability for What has been done for the AIDS virus?
Speaker 11: I feel that this is so and it's one of the most worrying aspects of the case. I feel it's not only, the origin of AIDS that is in question here. It is the conduct of science Towards this hypothesis, which has been one of almost paranoid rejection, I would say. I think I would not exaggerate To describe it as medical science's worst hated hypothesis, and there seems to be a great reluctance to publish Anything about it or to test any of the available evidence that could be more directly tested.
Speaker 5: For Bill Hamilton, there was a 95% possibility that the theory would prove valid, So he decided to leave for the Congo with Ed Hooper to follow-up on the chimpanzees. In a letter he sent to the British Science Academy, the prestigious Royal Society, he wrote.
Speaker 13: It's inspired by the extraordinary fact But despite a very plausible hypothesis that the human version of the AIDS virus first took off in humans From chimpanzees and exactly the Upper Congo area, no one has been there to collect samples for analysis for SIVs, But we hope to collect and bring back faeces in alcohol from as many chimps and bonobos as we can approach.
Speaker 5: Bill Hamilton returned to the Congo to collect samples. During that second visit, he contracted malaria and died in March 2000.
Speaker 14: He went to Africa. He died because of his 2nd trip to Africa. What was his 2nd trip to Africa? Collecting chimpanzee stools because we know that you can get from chimpanzee stools, you can amplify out genetic material. And this was a way of because we're not allowed to shoot chimpanzees for, obviously, I mean, as Chris is.
And this is the substitute, so you're getting chimps here. Look, You can say Bill Hammond was ethereal. He was, had these odd ideas. He was this, and he was that. But what was the guy doing?
Collecting data. Data collecting. So he knew very well that maybe it was a you could say it was a wacky theory. It was a possible idea, And he knew the only way to resolve it was by getting data. So you have this remarkable sort of figure, Comes up with some wacky ideas.
Comes up with some brilliant ideas. Bigger scientist than I. But what was he doing? Scientific method.
Speaker 5: Before his trip to Africa, Hamilton had asked the Royal Society to stage a debate on the origins of AIDS. After he died, Robin Weiss and Simon Wayne Hobson, the remaining co organizers, decided to go ahead with the conference. The scientific stakes were huge. There would be a chance for a debate between the supporters of the cut hunter theory and oral polio vaccine theory. It would be the first time in the history of the Royal Society that a nonscientist was allowed to debate with some of the most respected experts in their fields.
Speaker 13: When I arrived at the conference that morning, I was feeling I was feeling quite nervous, I I freely admit. I didn't know what to expect. I never even attended a scientific conference of this type before. So I walked in there with my sheaves of notes and my speech prepared, and, I Had made a decision before I arrived that if the theory was was fairly dealt with by the scientific community, That at the end of the conference, if I had the opportunity, I was gonna stand up from the floor and commend the scientists present on their openness and honesty And say that I felt at this stage, it was time for me as an investigator, who who was originally a journalist back in the eighties, To withdraw from the debate, to make the materials that I collected available to the scientists if they wish to use them, But to withdraw from the debate and leave it to them to take it from there.
Speaker 15: And why is the theory so hated? Well, most of all, of course, because it suggests the west gave Africa AIDS. But its critics say it also undermines confidence in vaccination, so it jeopardizes the campaign to eradicate polio. It blackens the reputation of a man hailed as a hero, Hillary Kebrowski, And it also shows how dangerous animal viruses can be, and that threatens research on using animal organs for human transplants.
Speaker 16: I am not to defend myself. Hooper is to defend himself. Certainly, this meeting is very welcome. I think it's a good meeting. It's an unusual meeting.
A journalist presents a hypothesis without facts and here come the scientists and give him all the scientific facts.
Speaker 14: We need you simply to get the protagonists together. This means get the protagonists together, not have some sort of whitewash where you get sort of, Discuss it here. You've get the get the people. Get Koprowski and Hooper in the same room Chain exchanging comments.
Speaker 3: I think we're gonna have, a real debate today. I think it's gonna be a worthwhile debate.
Speaker 13: I don't think it's between Koprowski and myself. I think it's, about something far more important than that.
Speaker 16: To whom?
Speaker 15: To who? To who? To who?
Speaker 16: I'm not talking to him. I'm talking The audience are
Speaker 5: focused. When Hooper arrived at the conference, he did not know that the die had already been
Speaker 14: And we did that over that OPV conference again. Huge amount of criticism from my colleagues, huge amount of criticism from our colleagues. But I think that it launched the abscess And I don't think Cooper could prove his case. And I think our subsequent work shows that it doesn't fit. But it could have.
Robin was right. He was a cloche butt. It didn't?
Speaker 5: From the start of the conference, arguments were piled up against Hooper's theory. Even the date HIV emerged among humans was challenged with theoretical calculations that it already existed in 1931, long before the Congo vaccinations took place. But the final blow was an announcement that samples of CHAT vaccine had been located, tested, and contained no trace of HIV, SIV, Or chimp DNA. The conclusions were final and left little room for Hooper to respond.
Speaker 1: Mister Hooper has used the word smoking guns. There is no gun. There is no bullet. There is no shooter. There is no motive.
There is only smoke Created by mister Hooper.
Speaker 13: I think the smokescreen that has appeared today has been a smokescreen from the people who made the vaccine.
Speaker 5: This dramatic turn of events had eliminated the oral polio vaccine theory from the scientific debate on the origins of AIDS.
Speaker 17: This did offend Ed Hooper because he was clearly the underdog at the meeting. But science is a very cruel culture. We go by evidence. And although we may be fooled In our interpretation, we may fool ourselves in misinterpreting evidence. In the end, Hard evidence wins the day.
Speaker 14: Science is not like is not democratic in that respect. It's not like, well, you have the you have Your opinion, and I have mine, and we agree to differ. In science, you have your theory, and I have my hypothesis. If I can kill your hypothesis, I can kill your hypothesis. Your hypothesis doesn't exist.
I can wipe it out. It's it's not Appreciate it, hun. Scientists are making hypotheses every day, and they're breaking them. We call it hypothesis breaking. Hypothesis making and hypothesis breaking.
And we break more hypotheses than we make.
Speaker 5: But the scientific evidence that signaled the death knell for the polio vaccine theory Still needed to be re examined. Exactly what was tested?
Speaker 17: The actual samples That were used in the Congo between late 1957 and the beginning of 1960, of course, don't exist anymore, they were used. But one of the samples tested was the very same lot of virus as Hooper thinks is by far the most likely to have been contaminated, that was used in the Congo, the CHAT 10 A 11.
Speaker 5: Are these really the same samples?
Speaker 17: And this was discovered Here in the UK, who had received it in 1981 from the State Serum Institute in Stockholm, Who in turn had received it from the Wistau Institute around the time it was made. But and it was sealed and had never been opened.
Speaker 5: The very organizer of the Royal Society Conference admits that samples of the CHAT vaccine used in the Congo no longer exist. So for this sample that remains sealed since it was made in Koprowski's laboratory, all one can say for certain is that it was never used in the Congo. In all scientific rigor, how can it be used as the decisive proof against the oral polio vaccine theory?
Speaker 9: This was another event in which the scientists eventually conjoined and Had a public lynching in London for the Royal Society in which they once again claimed to have laid rest to the idea that's a very good question. There are still great gaping holes in their story.
Speaker 13: I don't I have I see no evidence Of people examining the cells from the different monkeys they were using for the final passage to see whether They had any contraindications for humans. It was an extraordinary lapse, and everyone was doing it.
Speaker 5: Between 1957 and 1959, 1,000,000 people received experimental vaccine. These trials were criticized by the World Health Organization. In a confidential letter dated November 11, 1958, one of its members wrote, The Belgian Congo trial was, in my opinion, an excellent example of how such large scale studies Should not be carried out.
Speaker 13: It would be absolutely unfair if Responsibility for this this sequence of events, for the making of the vaccine in chimpanzee cells, was to fall solely on the shoulders of Paul Osterreeth. He was the corporal or sergeant, but we must look for the generals here. His boss, Gilane Courtois, the head of the medical laboratory in Stanleyville, Clearly approved this course of action. There's no doubt about that. And just a few months before he began making the vaccine in chimp cells, Osterath was being trained in tissue culture techniques At the Wistar Institute, he was called there at the specific request of Hilary Koprowski.
The person with overall responsibility For this sequence of events, without a doubt, is doctor Koprowski. Without his approval, without his direction, this Sequence of events would not have taken place.
Speaker 16: I have no knowledge about it. I don't think the Belgians have knowledge about it. You should stake his evidence with grain of salt.
Speaker 15: I mean, is it is it possible that that that this was done without you knowing, that chimpanzee kidneys were used without you knowing about it?
Speaker 16: No. There was no possibility to do something like that.
Speaker 5: Can we be satisfied with such an answer When it is not backed up by any proof nor any studies, can we forget that 1,000,000 people received an experimental vaccine that may be linked to the origins of the AIDS pandemic. From our inquiry in the Congo, Thanks to our witnesses and Ed Hooper's documents, we have discovered how the Stanleyville laboratory could produce the CHAT vaccine. It would have been perfectly normal, but the Lindy camp was something unique in the fact that its chimpanzees were used in producing the vaccine. But does this resolve the question of the origins of AIDS? Final proof can only be the testing of a vaccine sample actually used in the Congo, but until now, none has been found.
As long as the key actors of this story keep silent, there will always be a doubt. During the inauguration of the Stanleyville laboratory in 1957, Koprowski made a speech about his polio research. The last sentence is foreboding. With these facts in mind, we must conclude that the price that each of us is asked To pay at this time in order to safeguard the comfort of future generations is, in truth, negligible. 3 years after the Royal Society conference, where are we?
The main scientific argument used to destroy the oral polio vaccine hypothesis, the dating of the HIV virus to the 19 thirties, has been challenged by new studies. The true scientific debate on the origins of AIDS Today, most governments are cutting research funding, leaving pharmaceutical companies to establish their own medical priorities with limited public oversight. Contaminated blood, mad cow disease, and the emergence of new, unexplained diseases are only a few examples pointing to the fact that little has changed. As Bill Hamilton warned, If the relationship between pharmaceutical groups and science is not challenged, other catastrophes may already be in the making.
Speaker 18: As a consequence of these unfortunate events associated with the use of primary monkey kidney cells in the early sixties And the emergence of approximately 20 or 30, viruses and different viruses found in the cells and the necessity for tests to exclude them and all of the other, efforts in this regard. The, my proposal of using norm My normal human cell strains for this purpose, in particular, WI 26, which became widely for experiments that addressed this problem. The, There occurred another event that was even of greater consequence, and that was that in efforts To explore the use of other monkey species for vaccine development And manufacture, and hopefully to find a species that lack these dangerous viruses. The Maurice Hilleman at Merck And by the name of Benjamin Sweet, did experiments. I believe it was with the green monkey, sarcopithecus aetiops, which revealed something very interesting.
I won't go through the technology in in which this was discovered. It's rather detailed and Irrelevant other than the conclusion, and the conclusion was that green monkey cells, yielded a result implying that a new virus was present in the cells from from Pheresis and cynomolgus monkeys that had very strange properties, And they called this virus, I believe they were the ones who named it, SV 40. All of the viruses found in monkey kidney were given the name SV, standing for simian virus, and they were numbered. This one then received the number 40. And about the same time, Events were occurring that would link with this observation in And, at the National Institutes of Health, there was a woman scientist who was working in the, What's called the division of biologic standards, which at that time was the unit at the NIH, not at the FDA.
They were not at the FDA that time. This unit was at the NIH, and its its purpose was to approve or disapprove vaccines for sale in the United States. It was called the DBS, standing for the Division of Biologics Standards. It was run by a man by the name of Roderick Murray. He was actually a South African by birth, A rather conservative figure.
And, in one of his labs, this woman scientist, whose name hopefully will surface in a minute or 2, was in the process of testing vaccines submitted for approval. And in the course of her research, and again, I won't go into the technical details, she inoculated Some of the vaccine preparations sent for testing and approval into hamster cheek pouches. The hamster has cheek pouches in which it stores its food for later consumption or storage, so it packs its cheeks with these Food particles. The cheek pouch is a particularly interesting organ because it's it has, Very little in the way of immunity. And consequently, it Can grow things that ordinarily would not grow in other tissues, and so it's a very useful organ.
The lady's name is Bernice Eddy, e d d y. Bernice, who I was Who I know well, at that time, inoculated polio preparations into the cheek pouch of hamsters and discovered that tumors were produced, which was quite alarming. Later Developments, and these have developments occurred rather quickly, showed that that the virus that there was a virus involved And that the virus was the same one discovered by Sweden Hilliman at Merck called SV 40. And SV 40 has the alarming capability not only of producing tumors in the cheek pouch of hamsters, But worst of all, when introduced into cell cultures of human cells, frequently causes them to transform into cell lines or cancer cells. Obviously, very obvious, probably the worst calamity you can think of.
Furthermore, by this time, in the early sixties, the Salk vaccine had been approved and widely used. Sabin's vaccine, I believe, was just also being used in many countries, including the US. And it was easy to learn that several 1000000 people worldwide had received those vaccines that contained at no extra cost SV 40 virus.
1967 Marburg virus outbreak - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
reSee.it AI Summary
Former big pharma director, John Virapen, reveals bribery of Swedish government to sell controversial drugs. Beware of big pharma's deceptive practices. Check out the video for more insights.
@MarauderMag - Marauder Magazine
Former big pharma director, John Virapen, describes bribing the Swedish government to approve the sale of controversial drugs. Big pharma is not your friend. Remember that when people urge you to "do your part for society" and get vaccinated. https://t.co/xWyJFSfb9y
Video Transcript AI Summary
General practitioners, including the speaker, were prescribing psychotropic drugs to children. The European Medical Association planned to approve Prozac for children, and Ritalin was already being prescribed. The speaker realized the consequences of their actions, as people were dying from medication they had bribed the Swedish government to legalize. The speaker regrets their involvement, especially considering Sweden's reputation as a transparent country with the Nobel Prize of Medicine. The speaker's American friends emphasized the importance of obtaining Prozac registration in Sweden for prestige and career advancement.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I found out also that general practitioners just like this woman and other doctors were prescribing psychotropic drugs to children. Shortly after that, I read in an article that was posted from, the European Medical Association that they were going to approve The drug Prozac to give to children. Seisfluktine in, in, Deutschland. They were already prescribing another one called Ritalin. Now I started to see red And I all the memories, all the memories from the 1st day I joined the company as a salesman, It all started to come back and I started seeing shadows at night.
People dying from taking medication that was legalized because I had bribed the Swedish government to get the Sulasom for Prozac in Sweden. Now can you imagine that? Sweden is reputedly one of the cleanest, Most transparent countries in the world, they have the Nobel Prize of Medicine. And what I didn't think of at the time, the Americans, my friends were talking about them. Sorry, Jim.
They loved the prestige of the Nobel Prize. That is why it was important for them to get the registration of Prozac in Sweden. That was one of the major things that I did because the company told me your career may depend on it.
@MarauderMag - Marauder Magazine
Full video: https://t.co/qhoi5XXjZu
reSee.it AI Summary
Tucker Carlson discusses his firing from FOX News, highlighting the influence of corporate advertisers on news coverage. He mentions Big Pharma's significant role and how they shape coverage. Tucker wasn't surprised by his firing, as conflicting opinions with advertisers often lead to termination. Glenn Greenwald's analysis supports this, showing how corporate advertisers control modern journalism. The ongoing corporate boycott of X, based on a false antisemitism claim, reflects this pattern. It aims to stifle freedom of speech online. Elon Musk, Greenwald, and Tucker expose the dangerous alliance between corporate and government power, opposing principles of freedom and enlightenment.
@KanekoaTheGreat - KanekoaTheGreat
The All-In Pod asks @TuckerCarlson why he was fired by FOX News and what role corporate advertisers play in shaping news coverage? Tucker highlights Big Pharma, constituting 75% of TV ads in 2020, then delves into COVID, lockdowns, mRNA shots, January 6th, and the War in Ukraine. "It not only exists, it defines news coverage. Especially on pharma because pharma is the biggest advertiser on television. If Pfizer is sponsoring your show, you are not going to question the vax... And that's why they are the biggest advertiser. So they can shape news coverage." Tucker explains that he was not surprised by his firing because it is implicitly understood within the industry that sharing opinions that conflict with corporate advertisers eventually gets you fired. "I had a lot of opinions that were unpopular with people who might have influenced my show getting canceled... But I was not shocked at all. You can't give the finger to everybody and persist in a corporate job." This aligns with Glenn Greenwald's (@ggreenwald) recent analysis, shared by @elonmusk, illustrating how modern journalism, once a check on established power, is now controlled by corporate advertisers. (https://t.co/4N6HWeDs4j) The ongoing corporate boycott of @X, ostensibly based on a false antisemitism claim, reflects this broader pattern. Empirical data reveals platforms like TikTok and Instagram promote significantly more antisemitism than @X, yet corporate advertisers are only targeting this platform. (https://t.co/HBZPjGuuMb) This contradiction underscores the corporate @X boycott is less about combating antisemitism and more about stifling freedom of speech online. When @elonmusk defiantly tells this union of major corporate advertisers and establishment power to "go f**k yourself" for attempting to bankrupt his company, he's pointing at the authoritarian illiberal forces attempting to control online speech through advertising dollars. Elon Musk, Glenn Greenwald, and Tucker Carlson rightly point the finger at this dangerous alliance of corporate and government power, manipulating news and shaping social media platforms through advertising dollars. These authoritarian illiberal forces starkly oppose the core principles of freedom, liberty, and enlightenment that have fostered the modern prosperity of so many people in the Western world. Full @theallinpod: https://t.co/t6tfmBS386
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker reflects on being fired from their show and acknowledges that there were many factors at play. They mention having unpopular opinions and speculate that this may have influenced the decision. They also discuss how being a top-rated host doesn't guarantee job security and that there are complex dynamics within big companies. The speaker admits to not being shocked by the firing and expresses no hard feelings. They mention the influence of advertisers on news coverage, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. The speaker states that they were never explicitly told what to say, but they were always clear that they would speak their mind. They believe their willingness to express unpopular views may have contributed to their dismissal. The speaker also comments on the lack of communication and explanation from the company regarding their firing. They conclude by acknowledging the harsh realities of the industry and accepting the consequences.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I don't know why I was fired. I mean, it kind of isn't an Agatha Christie story. There are, like, so many suspects. You know what I mean? But I don't know.
I was never told I can only speculate. There were a lot of different things going on. I had a lot of opinions that were unpopular, you know, with people who might have influenced, my show getting canceled. So I really don't know. I will say, you know, right after it happened, people said, well, how can they fire the top guy?
Because that's what it is. I'm certainly not the 1st high rated host to get Fired. It's not only about ratings. There are a lot of different factors. It's a big company.
You all have worked for and run big companies. And you know, there's a lot of complicated stuff going on. And, it's never exactly clear, you know, why things happen the way they do. But I was not shocked by by it. I mean, I was shocked by it in the short term sense.
I didn't expect to have my show canceled that morning. But, but I was not shocked at all when I thought about it for a minute, I'd expected that, you know, you can't kind of give the finger to everybody and persist in a corporate job. So no hard feelings. And in fact, I said that on the call when I received the news. It's not my company.
And I never felt like I had a right to be on the air. I was I was working at the pleasure of the family that runs the company, who treated me very well. And and, and they wanted me off and so I was off.
Speaker 1: Did you ever have moments where somebody taps you on the shoulder and says, advertiser x y z is getting uncomfortable or We're trying to land this new advertiser and
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: They want you to shape things in one route. Did you ever feel that pressure? Is that or is that just A thing that is kind of like a boogeyman that doesn't actually exist.
Speaker 0: Oh, wait. Well, it not only exists. It defines news coverage, especially on pharma, you Because pharma is the biggest advertiser in television is. I know you know. And so for sure, I mean, if Pfizer is sponsoring your show, you're not gonna question the facts.
I mean, it's kind of that simple. So absolutely. And, of course, that's why they're the biggest advertisers, so they can shape news coverage. I mean, that's the point. But, I personally never had a single person say to me, don't say this, that I recall.
I haven't thought about it too much, but that certainly I was there 14 years, and I didn't have that experience regularly or at all, really, that I can remember. And I think, you know, my producers may have been told that, but it didn't ever get to me because I was always really clear, which is I always said out loud to the supervisors there, you know, I work for your company. I don't own this network. All I can control is what I say. If you don't like what I say, don't have me on TV.
But as long as I'm on TV, I'm gonna say what I think is true. And in a 1000000 cases, I said only part of what I think, not because of my employer, but just because you shouldn't actually say everything you think. I mean, I have some crackpot views too or I have resentments that I didn't want to work out on the air. I mean, you restrain yourself and you want to, as you do in your personal life. But on no question of principle did I ever pull back because I just I wouldn't do that.
And again, I was just super clear. If you don't like what I'm saying, take me off the air. But I'm not gonna, you know, toe a line. And because I was so clear about that, I just think they didn't think it was worth having some kind of dispute with me. And to their great credit, for the time that I was there, and I said this many times in public, like, I took positions on the Ukraine war, on the COVID vaccine, on the COVID lockdowns, among other issues that I think you know, I've been vindicated on pretty conclusively on the origins of COVID.
And all of those are super unpopular. On January 6th, which was so hated at the company where I worked, that people a number of people, including on air people, 4 that I can think of resigned in protest over my over me suggesting that actually it was more complicated than it looked, And there were a bunch of federal agents in the crowd. How can you say that? Are you claiming a false flag? Well, no.
Not wouldn't use that phrase, but, like, this is something weird going on here. Well, I've been vindicated on that. That sounds like I'm bragging. I'm not. I'm just stating factually that, I said things that were Truly hated by a lot of the people who work there, and they let me keep saying them.
So it's kinda hard to complain, really, at this point. Right? Again, it's not my company.
Speaker 2: Just from a business standpoint, I think it's weird for a company to fire their top performer and to do so without Giving any notes. I mean, if any of us had a superstar executive or a superstar engineer, like a 100 x engineer Working at one of our companies and, like, day in and day out, they were, you know, hitting every milestone and crushing it, Like, if you had a problem with them, you would give them a note. You would just, like, try to say, hey, can we just, like so I just think from, like, a business standpoint, it's so weird. It just seems like self destructive and I think it was. I mean, their ratings really cratered in the wake Right.
Of making this change. Maybe they've come back a little bit, but I don't think it's ever been the same. I just think it's a crazy way to operate a business. So, yeah, it's their right. I mean, they can do whatever they want, but I don't understand it as a way of doing business.
Speaker 0: Well, I don't understand there's a way of living either. I mean, you know, everybody in the course of life, whether it's a parent or an employer or just a friend has to deliver uncomfortable news or disagree with someone that you deal with, and you have a moral obligation to explain the disagreement. You you can't just, you know, levy the penalty and leave it at that. You have to explain why you're doing that. And and I think that's it's it's incumbent on us morally to do that.
I wasn't that mad about it actually because I know the rules of that particular business, which are really harsh. And I've been in it, you know, my whole life. And so I've seen a lot of people as talented or more talented than I meet bad ends and in you know, for reasons that I thought were not justified. And and I I know them all really well. So I you you work in a business like that.
You know what it is. You know the black car is gonna show up at 3 a. M. And tow it to Lou Bianca, and that's just what it is. You know what I mean?
You can't kinda whine about it, you know?
@antgoldbloom - Anthony Goldbloom
A new survey suggests TikTok is a meaningful driver of a surge in antisemitism. #TikToxic Spending at least 30 minutes a day on TikTok increases the chances a respondent holds antisemitic or anti-Israel views by 17% (compared with 6% for Instagram and 2% for X).
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
Well said
@KanekoaTheGreat - KanekoaTheGreat
The All-In Pod asks @TuckerCarlson why he was fired by FOX News and what role corporate advertisers play in shaping news coverage? Tucker highlights Big Pharma, constituting 75% of TV ads in 2020, then delves into COVID, lockdowns, mRNA shots, January 6th, and the War in Ukraine. "It not only exists, it defines news coverage. Especially on pharma because pharma is the biggest advertiser on television. If Pfizer is sponsoring your show, you are not going to question the vax... And that's why they are the biggest advertiser. So they can shape news coverage." Tucker explains that he was not surprised by his firing because it is implicitly understood within the industry that sharing opinions that conflict with corporate advertisers eventually gets you fired. "I had a lot of opinions that were unpopular with people who might have influenced my show getting canceled... But I was not shocked at all. You can't give the finger to everybody and persist in a corporate job." This aligns with Glenn Greenwald's (@ggreenwald) recent analysis, shared by @elonmusk, illustrating how modern journalism, once a check on established power, is now controlled by corporate advertisers. (https://t.co/4N6HWeDs4j) The ongoing corporate boycott of @X, ostensibly based on a false antisemitism claim, reflects this broader pattern. Empirical data reveals platforms like TikTok and Instagram promote significantly more antisemitism than @X, yet corporate advertisers are only targeting this platform. (https://t.co/HBZPjGuuMb) This contradiction underscores the corporate @X boycott is less about combating antisemitism and more about stifling freedom of speech online. When @elonmusk defiantly tells this union of major corporate advertisers and establishment power to "go f**k yourself" for attempting to bankrupt his company, he's pointing at the authoritarian illiberal forces attempting to control online speech through advertising dollars. Elon Musk, Glenn Greenwald, and Tucker Carlson rightly point the finger at this dangerous alliance of corporate and government power, manipulating news and shaping social media platforms through advertising dollars. These authoritarian illiberal forces starkly oppose the core principles of freedom, liberty, and enlightenment that have fostered the modern prosperity of so many people in the Western world. Full @theallinpod: https://t.co/t6tfmBS386
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker reflects on being fired and acknowledges that there were many factors at play. They mention that being a high-rated host doesn't guarantee job security and that there are complex dynamics within big companies. They express that they weren't shocked by the firing and understood that they couldn't defy everyone and expect to keep their job. The speaker also discusses the influence of advertisers on news coverage, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. They state that while they personally never faced pressure to shape their views, they were always clear that they would speak their truth. The speaker acknowledges that their positions on certain issues were unpopular within their company but appreciates that they were allowed to express them. They also discuss the lack of communication and explanation from the company regarding their firing. The second speaker finds it strange that a top performer would be fired without any feedback and believes it to be self-destructive from a business standpoint. The first speaker agrees and emphasizes the importance of explaining disagreements and delivering uncomfortable news. They mention that they weren't too upset about being fired as they were aware of the harsh realities of the industry.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I don't know why I was fired. I mean, it kind of isn't an Agatha Christie story. There are, like, so many suspects. You know what I mean? But I don't know.
I was never told I can only speculate. There were a lot of different things going on. I had a lot of opinions that were unpopular, you know, with people who might have influenced, my show getting canceled. So I really don't know. I will say, you know, right after it happened, people said, well, how can they fire the top guy?
Because that's what it is. I'm certainly not the 1st high rated host to get Fired. It's not only about ratings. There are a lot of different factors. It's a big company.
You all have worked for and run big companies. And you know, there's a lot of complicated stuff going on. And, it's never exactly clear, you know, why things happen the way they do. But I was not shocked by by it. I mean, I was shocked by it in the short term sense.
I didn't expect to have my show canceled that morning. But, but I was not shocked at all when I thought about it for a minute, I'd expected that, you know, you can't kind of give the finger to everybody and persist in a corporate job. So no hard feelings. And in fact, I said that on the call when I received the news. It's not my company.
And I never felt like I had a right to be on the air. I was I was working at the pleasure of the family that runs the company, who treated me very well. And and, and they wanted me off and so I was off.
Speaker 1: Did you ever have moments where somebody taps you on the shoulder and says, advertiser x y z is getting uncomfortable or We're trying to land this new advertiser and
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: They want you to shape things in one route. Did you ever feel that pressure? Is that or is that just A thing that is kind of like a boogeyman that doesn't actually exist.
Speaker 0: Oh, wait. Well, it not only exists. It defines news coverage, especially on pharma, you Because pharma is the biggest advertiser in television is. I know you know. And so for sure, I mean, if Pfizer is sponsoring your show, you're not gonna question the facts.
I mean, it's kind of that simple. So absolutely. And, of course, that's why they're the biggest advertisers, so they can shape news coverage. I mean, that's the point. But, I personally never had a single person say to me, don't say this, that I recall.
I haven't thought about it too much, but that certainly I was there 14 years, and I didn't have that experience regularly or at all, really, that I can remember. And I think, you know, my producers may have been told that, but it didn't ever get to me because I was always really clear, which is I always said out loud to the supervisors there, you know, I work for your company. I don't own this network. All I can control is what I say. If you don't like what I say, don't have me on TV.
But as long as I'm on TV, I'm gonna say what I think is true. And in a 1000000 cases, I said only part of what I think, not because of my employer, but just because you shouldn't actually say everything you think. I mean, I have some crackpot views too or I have resentments that I didn't want to work out on the air. I mean, you restrain yourself and you want to, as you do in your personal life. But on no question of principle did I ever pull back because I just I wouldn't do that.
And again, I was just super clear. If you don't like what I'm saying, take me off the air. But I'm not gonna, you know, toe a line. And because I was so clear about that, I just think they didn't think it was worth having some kind of dispute with me. And to their great credit, for the time that I was there, and I said this many times in public, like, I took positions on the Ukraine war, on the COVID vaccine, on the COVID lockdowns, among other issues that I think you know, I've been vindicated on pretty conclusively on the origins of COVID.
And all of those are super unpopular. On January 6th, which was so hated at the company where I worked, that people a number of people, including on air people, 4 that I can think of resigned in protest over my over me suggesting that actually it was more complicated than it looked, And there were a bunch of federal agents in the crowd. How can you say that? Are you claiming a false flag? Well, no.
Not wouldn't use that phrase, but, like, this is something weird going on here. Well, I've been vindicated on that. That sounds like I'm bragging. I'm not. I'm just stating factually that, I said things that were Truly hated by a lot of the people who work there, and they let me keep saying them.
So it's kinda hard to complain, really, at this point. Right? Again, it's not my company.
Speaker 2: Just from a business standpoint, I think it's weird for a company to fire their top performer and to do so without Giving any notes. I mean, if any of us had a superstar executive or a superstar engineer, like a 100 x engineer Working at one of our companies and, like, day in and day out, they were, you know, hitting every milestone and crushing it, Like, if you had a problem with them, you would give them a note. You would just, like, try to say, hey, can we just, like so I just think from, like, a business standpoint, it's so weird. It just seems like self destructive and I think it was. I mean, their ratings really cratered in the wake Right.
Of making this change. Maybe they've come back a little bit, but I don't think it's ever been the same. I just think it's a crazy way to operate a business. So, yeah, it's their right. I mean, they can do whatever they want, but I don't understand it as a way of doing business.
Speaker 0: Well, I don't understand there's a way of living either. I mean, you know, everybody in the course of life, whether it's a parent or an employer or just a friend has to deliver uncomfortable news or disagree with someone that you deal with, and you have a moral obligation to explain the disagreement. You you can't just, you know, levy the penalty and leave it at that. You have to explain why you're doing that. And and I think that's it's it's incumbent on us morally to do that.
I wasn't that mad about it actually because I know the rules of that particular business, which are really harsh. And I've been in it, you know, my whole life. And so I've seen a lot of people as talented or more talented than I meet bad ends and in you know, for reasons that I thought were not justified. And and I I know them all really well. So I you you work in a business like that.
You know what it is. You know the black car is gonna show up at 3 a. M. And tow it to Lou Bianca, and that's just what it is. You know what I mean?
You can't kinda whine about it, you know?
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared insights on how Big Pharma influences TV news content, revealing that advertising goes beyond promoting products; it shapes narratives. I recounted a conversation with the founder of Fox News, who admitted that his network's revenue reliance on pharmaceutical companies prevented him from giving me a platform to discuss the dangers of certain medical products. He emphasized that any host who invited me would face termination. This illustrates how pharmaceutical companies not only sell but also control media messaging.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
RFK Jr. Exposes the Dirty Secret Between TV News and Big Pharma He says Big Pharma ads aren’t just about pushing products—they’re there to DICTATE content. Kennedy witnessed this firsthand. The founder of Fox News admitted to him that he had a family member injured by a medical product containing mercury, but said he couldn’t give Kennedy a platform to talk about the issue because “70% of our revenues are coming from pharmaceutical companies.” Roger Ailes told Kennedy, “If any of my hosts allowed you on TV, I'd have to fire them. And if I didn't, I would hear from Rupert [Murdoch].” Kennedy says, “Those [pharmaceutical] companies are advertising not just as a platform for selling products but also because they can dictate content. They can make sure that whoever is on that news show is toeing a line.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Television networks are very dependent on pharmaceutical advertising. The speaker knew Roger Ailes, the founder and CEO of Fox News, who told him he couldn't allow him on the network to discuss his film about mercury in medical products and neurological injuries. Ailes said 70% of the evening news division's revenues came from pharmaceutical companies, with an average of 17 out of 23 ads being pharmaceutical ads. Ailes said any host who allowed the speaker on TV would be fired, and Rupert Murdoch would know within 10 minutes. The speaker claims networks are sensitive to advertisers, who dictate content and ensure compliance from those on news shows.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Why do you think they're so threatened? Are we following the money here? Is that what it gets down to? I think the in terms of the television networks are very, very dependent on pharmaceutical advertising. I knew Roger Ailes very well.
Roger Ailes was, of course, the founder of Fox News and the CEO of Fox News for many years. He and I were on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but we had this friendship that that survived all that. He would always made sure that I could get on his platform to talk about environmental issues. So I was the only environmentalist who was going on Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly and Neil Cavuto for many, many years. And at one point, I made a film about the impacts of the relationship between mercury and this epidemic of neurological injuries and mercury in in medical products.
And I showed him the film, and he he said, you know, I have a family member who I think was, injured by this. And he said, this is a really important film. He said, I can't allow you onto my network for this because for the evening news division, about 70% of our revenues are coming from pharmaceutical companies. And he said to me at that time that typically, there are 23 ads on a evening news segment show, and that 17 of those on average are pharmaceutical. He said if any of my hosts allowed you on TV, I'd have to fire them.
And if I didn't, I would hear from Rupert, meaning Rupert Murdoch, within 10 minutes. He was very clear to me about that. I've seen that evidence across the board with all of the networks. They're very, very sensitive to their advertisers. And those companies are advertising not just as a platform for selling product, but also because they can dictate content.
They can make sure that, you know, who's ever on that new show is, is towing the line.
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared a series of posts highlighting significant stories that the media overlooked. Tucker Carlson called for the repeal of the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act, criticizing Big Pharma's immunity from lawsuits. James Carville expressed frustration with Democratic arrogance, while Scott Jennings defended Trump's Defense Secretary pick against CNN critics. Harvey Levin reported Hollywood's panic over the Diddy scandal, and Mike Benz warned of social media censorship efforts. Additionally, the owner of the Los Angeles Times fired the editorial board to restore journalistic integrity. Lastly, Ed Dowd predicted economic challenges for Trump’s incoming administration.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
10 Shocking Stories the Media Buried Today #10 - Tucker Carlson calls for an IMMEDIATE repeal of the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act. This would strip Big Pharma of its liability shield, making them accountable for injuries caused by their products. In fact, Carlson called the vaccine enterprise, particularly the COVID vaccine, a “scam.” Here’s why: 1. “You convince politicians to force the population to buy your product.” 2. “Anyone who complains gets fired.” 3. “You can’t be sued.” “How is it that there’s this one category that’s exempt from the risk [lawsuits] that all the rest of us who are involved in any kind of business face every single day?” Carlson asked. “I have liability insurance on my house in case the UPS guy slips delivering a package from Amazon. But somehow, Albert Bourla [CEO of Pfizer] and all the other creepy, creepy billionaires who run these disgusting pharma companies are in no danger of being sued because their corrupt pals in Congress in 1986 gave them blanket immunity? Let’s tear that down immediately,” Carlson urged. To the argument that vaccines “can’t compete” without blanket immunity, Carlson countered, “Well, why don’t you just make a safer vaccine then? How’s that sound? Why don’t you face the same risk [lawsuits] that every other person who conducts any other kind of commerce or lives in this country faces every single day?” He demanded, “Let’s see the numbers right now,” highlighting that the government has access to vaccine data that it’s hiding from the public. “If somehow you’re being prevented from knowing, then you can be absolutely certain that crimes are being committed,” Carlson concluded, “because why else would they be hiding it from you?” (See 9 More Revealing Stories Below)
Video Transcript AI Summary
A Michigan jury awarded a woman $1 million after she was fired for not taking the vaccine, highlighting the need for accountability in the vaccine industry. There's a call to strip vaccine makers of their blanket immunity, arguing that it's unfair they cannot be sued while others face liability in business. The speaker expresses frustration over the lack of transparency in government and vaccine trials, insisting that if the government is hiding information, it likely indicates wrongdoing. They advocate for restoring honesty through transparency, emphasizing that the public deserves to know how their money is being used.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Jury in Michigan just awarded a woman fired for not taking the vax 1,000,000 of dollars, and I hope that that is a nationwide trend where everyone whose life was destroyed in that fit of lies and hysteria is made whole. I really hope so. And I do hope that congress can immediately strip the blanket immunity from the vaccine makers. I don't understand that. I I've sold products my whole life.
I mean, imagine you have a product. You convince politicians to force the population to buy your product. Anyone who complains gets fired and you can't be sued. I'm sorry. And I'm not attacking vaccines by the way.
I'm sure there are fine vaccines. I I don't know. I'm not taking any of them, but, it's okay if other people do. I'm not mad about people taking vaccines. I'm not mad about vaccines, but that's a scam.
And anyone who says it's not a scam can just explain to me how it's not a scam. How is that not a scam? You're not allowed to sue. You can sue anybody for anything in this country, anything. That's why you don't have playgrounds anymore because people made slot remember merry go rounds?
Remember those? Is anyone old enough to remember a merry-go-round? They don't exist. They were awesome. I have, like, 10 friends who have fewer teeth than they were born with because of merry go rounds.
But they have stronger spirits because they were great. They don't exist anymore because the trial bar decide we're gonna get rich suing merry ground go round makers and people who are nice enough to build playgrounds. So, like, so many good things in American life have been eliminated by the greed of the trial bar. You got by the way, next time in the Caribbean, go down to the yacht basin wherever you are. It doesn't matter what island you are.
Look at the biggest boats and just ask like the the boat guys and the, you the matching polo shirts with the yacht names. I'm like, what does the owner of this boat do for a living? And just keep a list of how many of them are trial lawyers, like a lot. It was the tobacco settlement or asbestos or whatever. It was talcum powder or whatever case they were.
And I'm not attacking all lawyers, though I I I want to because I do hate them with a passion. But even if I like lawyers, I would say, how is it that there's this one category that's exempt from the risk that all the rest of us who are involved in any kind of business face every single I have liability insurance on my house in case the UPS guy slips delivering a package from Amazon. But somehow, Albert Bourla and all the other creepy, creepy billionaires who run these disgusting pharma companies are in no danger of being sued because their corrupt pals in congress in 1986 gave them blanket immunity? Like, let's tear that down immediately. Oh, well, we can't compete.
Well, why don't you just make a safer vaccine then? How's that sound? Why don't you face the same risk that every other person who conducts any other kind of commerce or lives in this country faces every single day? Oh, we can't. Oh, shut up.
Go away. And so, that's the first thing. I don't even know how I got off from that, but I'm so mad about it. It's so crazy and that no one can say anything about it. And it's like, oh, you're against science.
So I'm not against science at all. I wish we practiced it in this country. I do. I actually believe in science. And if by the way, if you believe in science, let's see the numbers.
Let's see the numbers right now. Do you know what I mean? Social Security has the numbers. We know a lot about who was injured, who took it, who didn't, about the trials that are all sealed. Like, I'll just say this, and I'll stop.
If you want to restore honesty to government, if you wanna get rid of corruption, there's a very simple way to do that, and it's with transparency. It's allowing people to know what their government is doing with their money in their name. And if you can't know, if somehow you're being prevented from knowing, then you can be absolutely certain that crimes are being committed because why else would they be hiding it from you?
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
#9 - Dem strategist James Carville BLOWS UP on his party’s “arrogance” and “stupidity” in glorious rant. “What you’ve done ain’t worth a sh*t. Get your head around that. And all of the Washington-based Democrats farting around, going to wine and cheese parties, and talking about how misogynistic the race is, get your ass out of Washington, and go work on a 2026 campaign and do penance to make up for your goddamn arrogance and stupidity.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
You have no legislative, executive, or judicial power. As an opposition party, justify your past actions and explain how you'll change because what you've done isn't acceptable. Instead of engaging in social events in Washington, focus on the 2026 campaign and acknowledge your mistakes. We warned you that identity politics would be a disaster and urged you to prioritize public safety. We advised you to showcase the talent within the Democratic Party and to distinguish yourselves from Biden, but you failed to do so. These points are part of the record.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Have no legislative power. We have no executive power. We have no judicial power. So when you're out of power, you're an opposition party, and go and tell all of the people that are sending you and asking you for money, justify what you did, justify what you did wrong, and tell us what you're going to do different, because what you've done ain't worth a shit. Get your head around that.
In all of the Washington based Democrats farting around, going to wine and cheese parties, and talking about how misogyny, Michigan, get your ass out of Washington and go work on a 2026 campaign and do penance to make up for your goddamn arrogance and stupidity. Well, we're gonna say we told you so. We told you this identity shit was disaster. We told you to get out in front of public safety issues. You didn't.
We told you to have an open process and demonstrate the magnificent, staggering, and deep talent that exists in the modern Democrat party. You didn't. We told you to differentiate yourself from Biden. You didn't. I hate to be some fucking know it all, but all of these things are part of the record.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
#8 - @ScottJenningsKY expertly DESTROYS CNN critics of Trump’s Defense Secretary pick. “All the criticism of him [Pete Hegseth] is that he’s not the expected Washington pick. And I’m just saying to you that the American people just voted against the expected Washington pick.” “Does anyone have confidence in the current leadership of the Pentagon and the way the defense situation has been operating for the last several years? I mean, from the Afghanistan pullout, which was an extreme debacle for which no one was held accountable. We’ve had spy balloons flying over the United States. We built a $300 million pier as a public relations stunt, which wound up killing an American service member.” “I’d say I’ve had just about enough of the so-called insiders running the Defense Department. I think we ought to give Pete Hegseth a chance.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Is there confidence in the Pentagon's leadership after recent failures like the Afghanistan pullout and incidents involving spy balloons? The current insiders have not been held accountable for these issues. Pete Hegseth deserves a chance; he has 20 years of military service, two bronze stars, and an education from Princeton and Harvard. Critics say he’s not the typical Washington choice, but the American people have rejected the usual picks. While civilian leadership made decisions, the military executed them, leading to disastrous outcomes. With a new president, there’s hope for change by appointing non-insiders. Hegseth, as a veteran advocate, must prove his capability in the role, but he should be given an opportunity to succeed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Anyone have confidence in the current leadership of the Pentagon and the way the defense sit situation has been operating for the last several years? I mean, from the Afghanistan pullout, which was an extreme debacle for which no one was held accountable. We've had spy balloons flying over the United States. We built a $300,000,000 pier as a public relations stunt, which wound up killing an American service member. I'd say I've had just about enough of the so called insiders running the defense department.
I think you ought to give Pete Higgs that the chance because he's got he's got the insiders. I think you ought to give Pete Hegset the chance because he's got he's got insiders. I'm I all the criticism of him is that he's not the expected Washington pick. And I'm just saying to you that the American people just voted against the expected Washington pick. So he's got 20 years in service, Afghanistan, Iraq, 2 bronze stars, Princeton, Harvard.
Yeah. He's on TV, but so are the rest of us.
Speaker 1: By the way,
Speaker 0: that's my and I I just I think
Speaker 1: I think he obviously is really interesting because you highlighted a bunch of things that the civilian leadership of the country decided on. And the military, their job was just to execute. They they executed
Speaker 0: did it go?
Speaker 1: I'm just saying. I'm just saying. In terms of the decision making, you're assigning decision making, responsibility to the military over things that civilians were responsible for.
Speaker 0: So so you make a good point. The civilian leadership made decisions, and then the people they put in charge of the Pentagon carried it out. And it was all pretty much a disaster. So while now we have a new president who I think got elected in part because of some of those disasters, and he's gonna put in some of the non insiders in charge of not just this agency, but a bunch of them. Now look, you
Speaker 1: know, they've gotta perform.
Speaker 0: They've gotta perform. I mean, we got 53 US senators and the Republicans. And Pete Hegseth, he's an American hero. The man won 2 bronze stars for his service, and he's been a champion for veterans. I don't I mean, he's gonna have to go up there just like everybody else and prove his knowledge of how to do this job.
He's not immune from that, but we ought to give this man a chance in my opinion.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
#7 - TMZ Founder Harvey Levin says Hollywood is in a state of PANIC over the Diddy sex crime scandal. “Every celebrity in the world seems to have gone to one of these white parties. Everybody wanted to go. And if you got an invitation, you went. So you can pretty much count every high profile [celebrity] has been to one of these parties.” Levin went on to explain that Hollywood can get very loud very quickly when it wants to. But oddly, they are utterly silent on the Diddy allegations. Levin further detailed that there are numerous videos that have reportedly been kept by Diddy over the years that have now been seized by federal authorities and are being shared with civil lawyers. This has caused widespread panic in Hollywood, as people are questioning whether they might appear in the footage or be implicated in past events. “I think there’s a lot of panic, and that’s what we’re hearing. And people just don’t want the association, and they don’t want to talk about it. I think it’s that simple,” Levin said.
Video Transcript AI Summary
There's a noticeable silence in Hollywood regarding certain parties, especially compared to past scandals like Harvey Weinstein's. Many high-profile celebrities attended these events, but that alone doesn't imply wrongdoing. The focus is on after parties and questionable activities. The federal seizure of videos kept by Diddy has sparked concern among many in the industry. Civil lawyers, like Busby, have received numerous videos, leading to anxiety about potential implications for those involved. People are worried about being linked to past events that could be misinterpreted or brought to trial, resulting in a general reluctance to discuss the situation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Gets loud very quickly in certain cases. They did certainly with Harvey Weinstein and others. They have been very, very silent here, and I I agree with you. I don't think just be look. There every celebrity in the world seems to have gone to one of these white parties.
I mean, everybody wanted to go, and if you got an invitation, you went. So you can pretty much count everybody high profile has been to one of these parties. That's not disqualifying. That doesn't mean it's untoward. We're not talking about white parties.
We're talking about after parties. We're talking about threesomes. We're talking about all sorts of things that are not those parties. But that said, there are lots of videos that Diddy kept over the years that have been now seized by the feds, And a lot of these videos are also going to some of the civil lawyers. Busby told us he has gotten a slew of these videos, and I think there's just panic in Hollywood.
Am I on that video? Was I in some situation in 1999 or 2002 where it might be interpreted a certain way or might end up in trial? I think there's a lot of panic, and that's what we're hearing. And people just don't want the association, and they don't wanna talk about it. I think it's that simple.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
#6 - @MikeBenzCyber warns deep-blue states are intending to “box out” social media platforms that allow free speech by creating state-level restrictions on what platforms can host. “There’s going to be a big push by the censorship industry activists there to codify laws that put restrictions on the kind of content that social media platforms can host. “And their goal there is going to be to balkanize the country and create a sort of market disruption so that the only tech companies who are allowed to proliferate that kind of content there, lest they lose their ability to operate in the state or suffer heavy revenue fines, are going to be the ones who comply with those content restrictions.” Clip: @UngaTheGreat
Video Transcript AI Summary
Two main strategies will emerge for censorship in a post-Trump era: state and global. The state strategy involves new laws in blue states like California and New York, aimed at restricting social media content and creating market disruptions. This will push compliant tech companies to the forefront while limiting access to platforms that support free speech. The global strategy mirrors the post-2016 election response, where former officials will leverage their connections to influence foreign governments into imposing censorship on American companies hosting pro-Trump content. This will lead to a battle between the Trump administration's diplomatic efforts and the censorship initiatives from civil society groups aligned with the previous administration.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But I'm just curious your thoughts on how you think they will be able to continue to wage, you know, censorship warfare in a post Trump victory era.
Speaker 1: Yeah. They have two main strategies for this. There's the the there's the state strategy, and then there's the global strategy. So the state strategy is going to involve a a whole swarm of new state laws, California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Illinois, all the big blue states, there's going to be a big push by the censorship industry activists there to codify laws that put restrictions on the kind of content that social media platforms can host. And their goal there is going to be to balkanize the country and create a sort of market disruption so that the only tech companies who are allowed to proliferate that kind of content there, lest they lose their ability to operate in the state or suffer heavy revenue fines are going to be the ones who comply with those content restrictions.
They're also going to use a push around something called media literacy, which is those states are going to box out social media platforms that allow free speech and box out news institutions like the like the war room, in order to prevent them from being accessed in public Wi Fi's, in order to be able to prevent them from being cited in, in high school or middle school or elementary school exams. You already see this, a major push to to start that effort began in in 2021. It really began in 2017, but it's escalated dramatically in the past few years, and it will fall on effectively the legal system to enforce the first amendment against these states, which are going to try to create state level restrictions on what the platforms can host. But that's one battle at home. The second battle is that we are we are about to witness a replay of the transatlantic flank attack, as I call it, from the immediate aftermath of the 2016 election.
They blame the 2016 election on free speech, And that that is what gave rise to the creation of the censorship industry that spans all of NATO and now beyond, which is that they were out of power after 2016. Just like just like now, Democrats lost the executive branch, they lost the house, and they lost the senate all there in in 2016. And so what they did in order to get the ball rolling on censorship is you had these exiles from the Hillary Clinton State Department and the John Kerry State State Department take their special set of skills which is back channeling with foreign regulators and foreign diplomats to do shadow diplomacy, to essentially leverage their financial heft, to leverage the favors that they can repay once they return to power in order to get foreign governments to institute censorship restrictions on American companies that were hosting pro Trump content or pro Trump accounts. So that was a sort of transatlantic flank attack 1.0. You are going to, mark my words, you are going to see an exodus from Tony Blinken's state department and they are going to go straight into civil society jobs at Brookings, at the Atlantic Council, at CSIS, at the Council on Foreign Relations, at at the Penn Biden Center, at at Stanford University, in the har in the Harvard Belfer Center, and and you name it.
They are all going to get their little purchase there and they're going to take that residual influence and they're going to be making back channel deals with NATO, with the European Union, with the governments in Brazil, in Australia, and they are going to try to do that Brazil strategy that they were able to successfully do under Brazil and to make it so that the only platforms that are allowed to have global dominance on social media are the ones who do not allow their political enemies to have a voice. And there will be a constant fight between the Trump administration's diplomatic efforts through the government and the blob's, censorship diplomatic efforts in the shadow government.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@ScottJenningsKY @MikeBenzCyber While you’re here, don’t forget to follow (@VigilantFox) and hit the bell 🔔 for more daily news roundups.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
#5 - The owner of the Los Angeles Times has fired his entire editorial board filled with far-left activists as he seeks to return the paper to its journalistic roots. Posting on the X platform, the paper’s owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, said he was proud to have posted a letter opposing attacks on white women for voting for Donald Trump and that the paper would be undergoing some major changes moving forward. Read More: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/11/los-angeles-times-owner-fires-far-left-editorial/
Los Angeles Times Owner Fires Far-Left Editorial Board - Wants 'Factual and Balanced Coverage' of Trump Presidency | The Gateway Pundit | by Ben Kew
The owner of the Los Angeles Times has fired his entire editorial board as he seeks to return the paper to its journalistic roots.
thegatewaypundit.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
#4 - Special Counsel Jack Smith is reportedly scrambling to finalize what is left of his work so he can retire before President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January – denying the Republican a chance to fire him. Smith is trying to wind down the two federal cases he has been pursuing against the 45th president so he can get ahead of Trump’s promise to axe him within “two seconds” of being sworn back into the White House, the New York Times reported Wednesday, citing sources. He is aiming to not leave behind any significant work for others to complete in the wake of Trump’s inauguration in January – and has already started telling members of his team they can start planning their departures over the next few weeks, the outlet said. Read More: https://nypost.com/2024/11/13/us-news/special-coounsel-jack-smith-plans-to-retire-before-trump-takes-office/
Special counsel Jack Smith plans to retire before Trump takes office: report
Special Counsel Jack Smith says he plans to retire before President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January, denying the incoming president a chance to fire the lawyer.
nypost.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@ScottJenningsKY @MikeBenzCyber #3 - Elon Musk Calls for Defunding NPR After Orwellian Clip of CEO Resurfaces Online https://vigilantnews.com/post/elon-musk-calls-for-defunding-of-npr-after-orwellian-clip-of-ceo-resurfaces-online/
Elon Musk Calls for Defunding NPR After Orwellian Clip of CEO Resurfaces Online
Absolutely! This is long overdue.
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@ScottJenningsKY @MikeBenzCyber #2 - Trump Picks Matt Gaetz for Attorney General, Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence https://vigilantnews.com/post/trump-picks-matt-gaetz-for-attorney-general-tulsi-gabbard-for-director-of-national-intelligence/
Trump Picks Matt Gaetz for Attorney General, Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence
The hits to the establishment keep on coming.
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@ScottJenningsKY @MikeBenzCyber #1 - Don Lemon, now reduced to doing the work of a junior street journalist, gets owned by an average, everyday citizen.
Video Transcript AI Summary
I've spoken with many concerned individuals who have valid emotions. Politicians, including Trump, are imperfect, but we achieved significant progress during his administration. While Trump's stance on abortion may not resonate with everyone, a notable percentage of women still voted for him, indicating that abortion isn't the sole issue for many. People have diverse concerns, such as border security, crime, and inflation. Women and men alike have multifaceted priorities. If abortion is your primary concern, consider living in a pro-choice state. However, many voters prioritize other issues and believe Trump can address them, even if not perfectly. I acknowledge my perspective as a man and refrain from commenting on abortion.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I mean, I've been talking to a really, really concerned and they're emotional and I think a lot of them have a right to be.
Speaker 1: Politicians aren't perfect. They're imperfect like everybody else. Trump's rhetoric isn't for everybody. His style isn't for everybody. We got a lot of good things done under Trump.
Speaker 0: Okay. Then what they did, meaning a woman's right to
Speaker 1: choose, is removed under Trump. Only issue in this world. Okay? A percentage of the female vote went up 2%. So are those women crazy?
I mean, it's not 50%, but it's high forties and he got that. So ask those women, like, they voted for Trump. So clearly, it wasn't just abortion was the issue. Now I agree. Even in very Republican states, you know, pro choice amendments have done very, very well.
Okay? So it is a concern. I think most people are pro choice. Okay? But at the end of the day, like, there's a lot of people there's other things.
They're concerned about the broken border. They're concerned about crime. They're concerned about inflation. They're concerned about a lot of other things. So women are not one dimensional.
Men are not one dimensional. And so if you're upset about abortion, great. If that's your prime issue, then go live in a state that's pro choice. If it's not your one issue, like a lot of people vote for Trump, you got other things to care about, and he'll fix those things. Not totally, but he'll do his best.
Speaker 0: I think it's easy for you to say as a man.
Speaker 1: Well, dude, it's easy for me to say about a lot of things. Sure. I'm not a woman. That's why I don't I don't opine on abortion.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@ScottJenningsKY @MikeBenzCyber BONUS #1 - MSNBC, CNN Viewership Plummets Post-Election https://vigilantnews.com/post/msnbc-cnn-viewership-plummets-post-election/
MSNBC, CNN Viewership Plummets Post-Election
Americans' trust in mainstream media has collapsed to a historic low...
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@ScottJenningsKY @MikeBenzCyber BONUS #2 - Twelve ‘Ancient’ Natural Remedies Better Than Drugs https://vigilantnews.com/post/12-ancient-natural-remedies-better-than-drugs/
12 ‘Ancient’ Natural Remedies Better Than Drugs
These "Grandma-approved" remedies were passed down through the ages because they actually work.
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@ScottJenningsKY @MikeBenzCyber BONUS #3 - The Greatest Medication You’ve Never Heard of https://vigilantnews.com/post/the-greatest-medication-youve-never-heard-of/
The Greatest Medication You’ve Never Heard of
It's not ivermectin, and it's not hydroxychloroquine. But it does have something in common with both of those drugs.
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@ScottJenningsKY @MikeBenzCyber BONUS #4 - CNN Panel MELTS DOWN as Scott Jennings Erupts on Late-Night Comedians https://vigilantnews.com/post/cnn-panel-melts-down-as-scott-jennings-erupts-on-late-night-tv-for-giving-joe-biden-a-free-pass/
CNN Panel MELTS DOWN as Scott Jennings Erupts on Late-Night TV for Giving Joe Biden a Free Pass
It's mind-boggling how out of touch they are.
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@ScottJenningsKY @MikeBenzCyber BONUS #5 - How to Clean Your Arteries with One Simple Fruit https://vigilantnews.com/post/how-to-clean-your-arteries-with-one-simple-fruit/
How to Clean Your Arteries with One Simple Fruit
Let this delicious fruit work its artery opening magic.
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this post, please do me a quick favor and follow this page (@VigilantFox) before you go. In other news, one former money manager warns Trump is “going to get blamed for what is coming.” Read more on that here: https://t.co/1iCIvGZONH
reSee.it AI Summary
I’ve been reflecting on the overwhelming presence of pharmaceutical ads on TV and how they influence media coverage. A TV news president revealed that hosts who criticize Big Pharma risk losing their jobs, highlighting the financial dependency of news outlets on pharma advertising. This situation mirrors past hesitations to expose Big Tobacco due to similar financial ties. With the potential appointment of RFK Jr. to HHS, there's concern in the media about the future of these ads, which could significantly impact their revenue. Additionally, a docuseries claims that the media has misled the public about health and medicine for years due to funding.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Why are there so many pharma ads on TV? HINT: It’s not to sell drugs. A TV news president admitted to RFK Jr. that any host allowing him to speak negatively about Big Pharma on air would be FIRED because “this is where our advertisers are.” Jaws dropped when former pharma insider @CalleyMeans told Tucker Carlson on his show, “The news ad spending from pharma is a public relations lobbying tactic, essentially to BUY OFF the news... The media plays referee because they're funded by so on all levels.” There are only two countries that allow pharma ads on TV: one is the United States, and the other is New Zealand. And those pharma ads make up a BIG chunk of money. RFK Jr. was told by a network executive that “during non-election years, during some months, up to 70% of his news division revenues are coming from pharma.” During the 1950s and 1960s, when evidence about the dangers of smoking began to emerge, news organizations hesitated to expose Big Tobacco because they depended on the industry for its ad revenue. Now, the same conflict exists today with the pharmaceutical industry and TV news. This is why the mainstream media is in full-blown PANIC over RFK Jr.'s HHS appointment. They know that once he gets in, he is going to END pharma ads on TV. And that's going to be a devastating blow to their wallets.
Video Transcript AI Summary
A network president revealed that allowing certain voices on air could lead to the host's firing due to advertiser pressures, particularly from pharmaceutical companies. During non-election years, up to 70% of news revenue can come from pharma ads, which serve as a public relations tactic rather than simply promoting drugs. This funding influences the media, making it reluctant to investigate pharmaceutical practices, even when there are serious concerns about vaccine safety and corporate misconduct. The media often dismisses legitimate questions as anti-science, silencing discussions about vaccine injuries. There's a growing need to reconsider trust in the pharmaceutical industry, especially with the increasing government funding for drugs like Ozempic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This network president told me that if one of his talk shows allowed me on the air, that he would fire the host. This person is a friend of mine. Mhmm. And I would have to fire the host because, this is where our advertisers are. And if he if he lost an advertiser, it's a major catastrophe for the network.
The press has effectively been neutralized if, you know, all you have to do is sit down and and watch the 6 o'clock news on TV and see how many of those stories are bracketed by pharmaceutical ads. I was told by a network executive that during nonelection years, during some months, during nonelection years, up to 70% of his news division revenues are coming from pharma.
Speaker 1: But you're saying that that pharma buys TV spots not to convince people to ask for specific drugs from their physicians, but to subvert the news business?
Speaker 2: This is a this is an open secret working for pharma.
Speaker 1: I never even thought of that.
Speaker 2: This is an open secret. The the the kind of, silly ads you see between the news breaks, the points of that is not it's largely to impact the customer. But but the the pharma's already got that. They've already bought off the doctors. The the they're they're good on that.
No. No. This is an open secret. The news ad spending from pharma is a public relation lobbying tactic, essentially, to buy off the news. The the news is a refer they're not investigating pharma.
There's a thing. Oh, I've noticed. The the news has become the news has become basically a referee that you were a terrible, anti science Luddite for asking why, you know, the the shots that we require our kids to get that fundamentally, by their own advertising, change, the immune system of that child for life, why it's gone from 20 to 70. To even ask that question, the news referees that and calls you anti science when the 2 largest vaccine makers in the country are literally criminal enterprises. Blackstone Smith, Kline, and Merck, in the past 5 years, has settled 2 of the largest criminal penalties in American corporate history for bribing and misleading, bribing doctors and misleading, creating misleading research who who may who are the 2 largest vaccine makers.
So you literally have the media playing referee that you can't even ask a question. Parent is actually If
Speaker 1: you have a vaccine injury, and many people Right. Have, including some I know very well, even a profound vaccine injury, you're not allowed to complain about it.
Speaker 2: No. No. No. You're anti
Speaker 1: you're anti science Even if it can be shown, it was this is a vaccine injury.
Speaker 2: The media the media plays referee because they're funded. But so so so in all levels. Right? Wow. On all levels.
And and
Speaker 1: I'm not dark, Kelly, means.
Speaker 2: Well well, I think it's hopefully empowering. I I I think this is why we have an opportunity here, Tucker. Like Ozempic, this is not some, like, new like, you know, it's kind of this funny thing. Like, oh, you know, it's kind of vain. I can lose weight.
This is go the reason the stocks are going up is because this is gonna be a lot of government money. This is gonna be the highest funded drug from the US taxpayer in history. And we've got a society when are we gonna say, let's go another direction? Why are we trusting pharma now when they've been completely acting to to garner no trust?
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
The media has been lying to you about health and medicine for decades because they've been funded to do so. Discover a series of shocking truths, as told by doctors and thought leaders, in this eye-opening docuseries by @TTAVOfficial: https://propagandaexposed.tv/Fox
Propaganda EXPOSED! [UNCENSORED] Starts Nov 13
9 Day Docuseries - The Truth About Health Freedom & Big Pharma
propagandaexposed.tv
@IanCarrollShow - Ian Carroll
Have you ever looked at how much money BIG PHARMA actually spends on TV advertising? Once you do, it becomes obvious why so many people still don’t know the COVID vaccines are deadly. Send this to your normie friends. And tune in live this afternoon @OldStateSaloon https://t.co/U2BexznFSd
Video Transcript AI Summary
Big Pharma spends heavily on media propaganda, influencing public perception and political campaigns. A recent vote in Idaho ended funding for COVID-19 vaccines, reflecting growing skepticism. Studies show vaccines may harm natural immunity, with significant increases in severe health issues among vaccinated individuals. The pharmaceutical industry is a major advertiser on networks like CBS and MSNBC, with top drugs linked to companies like Pfizer. In the 2020 election, a large portion of Congress received funding from pharmaceutical companies. Since 2011, digital ad spending in healthcare has surged, with billions spent on advertising and censorship efforts. The COVID-19 response is viewed as a significant wrongdoing, and there’s a call for accountability and a return to health. It's never too late to seek justice for those affected.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Dude, do you know how much money Big Pharma actually spends on propaganda on our news media? We'll get to this chart in just a second because it explains why it's taken so long for regular people to wake up to what is going on here. But one of the counties here in Idaho just voted to stop funding COVID 19 vaccines, and they're no longer offering them. But it was close. It was a 4 to 3 vote, thanks to people like doctor Tribble making basic arguments like we are here to protect public.
And studies like this have been coming out for a long time now, showing that the vaccine decimates our natural immune responses, leaving especially young people open to all kinds of severe diseases that they otherwise would never, ever, ever get. Study finds 1,700,000 vaccinated kids now have severe heart defects. These are disability claims in the civilian labor force over the age of 16, taken from official data points. Clear downtrend until the vaccines are introduced. And then what the hell is this?
Not only are we disabling American healthy workers, but we're also paying public money to now support them because they can't support themselves. That's on top of us already spending more than any other nation and receiving a lower life expectancy on average than any other developed nation by a large margin. So like always follow the money. Who are the top 5 prime time news advertisers by network? Well, Pfizer's not actually listed anywhere.
Right? But hold on. Read a little closer. Duplexent, Humira, Ibrance, Elquis. What are those?
Those sound like the names of drugs. Right? That's because they are. And when you look up who owns all of those drugs, you're like, oh, Pfizer owns both Elquis, that blue one, and Xeljanz, that blue one, and Ibrance, that red one. In fact, when you overlay all of these pieces of these bars that are actually just big pharma hiding behind the names of their drugs, this is what the top spenders on the biggest media actually looks like.
CBS's entire top 5 advertisers are big pharma. More than half of MSNBC and NBC's top advertising spenders are big pharma. And Fox News is just the my pillow guy. I don't like, is he laundering money? What is is there a story there that I should be digging into?
Then you dig into how big pharma influences political campaigns. And in the 2020 election cycle, 72 senators and 302 members of the house cashed a check from the pharmaceutical industry. That represents more than 2 thirds of Congress. And they're not just funding federal or congress. Pfizer wrote checks to 1,048 individual candidates in state legislative races as well.
In this article, if you look up, like, this title and maybe that author, these keywords, you'll find these interactive maps where you can click on the different, pharmaceutical companies, and you can see how much money they've donated and to exactly who and what races they've donated money. Pfizer, $1,300,000,000 Novo Nordisk, half a $1,000,000,000 AstraZeneca, half a 1000000000, Merck, 888,000,000 Amgen, $1,200,000,000. And that's if you round down. Since 2011, health care and pharma digital ad spending is up almost 2,000%. In just q one of 2023, Big Pharma in total spent $2,100,000,000 on advertising on cable and broadcast news.
And that's not even including the money they're giving to people like Google and Facebook, etcetera, to censor all of us talking about what we all know is true. They're making money off of killing us and making us sick, and then they're spending money to keep us from talking about it. And so today, I'm gonna be talking about it at Old State Saloon with doctor Tribble, a leader in the medical freedom movement. He's up here in Idaho doing the Lord's work. We'll be streaming it live on here on x as well as across Rumble, I would assume, and it'll be out later for everyone to watch after the fact too.
What happened during COVID was one of the largest crimes against humanity in our lifetimes, probably the largest in our lifetimes, and we are still waiting on a reckoning. And we don't get that if we stop talking about it. And if you got tricked into taking that shot, it's okay to wake up now. It's never too late to demand justice. Because all of us that didn't get it, that were told we were gonna die and get sick and ruin the world, we're doing just fine.
We are so okay. We are so happy that we did not get that thing. But what's done is done, and now it's time to make America healthy again. Oh, yeah. And it's time for Nuremberg 2.0.
reSee.it AI Summary
I recently watched a heated debate on CNN where I challenged Dr. Paul Offit on his financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry while discussing vaccine safety. I highlighted how conflicts of interest undermine public trust and questioned the focus on measles over pressing health issues like obesity and chronic disease. Despite Offit's assertions about vaccine safety, I argued that the media often overlooks critical health concerns. The segment ended abruptly, showcasing how mainstream media struggles when confronted with challenging viewpoints.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Calley Means Stuns CNN Viewers With Two Devastating Takedowns Live on Air Paul Offit and Pamela Brown came prepared for a debate. What they received was a reckoning. 🧵 THREAD https://t.co/iUBRquJ8Hf
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Calley Means (@CalleyMeans), ex-pharma consultant turned industry critic, came out swinging on CNN Wednesday in a fiery debate against infamous vaccine pusher Dr. Paul Offit. Offit thought he could call RFK Jr. an anti-vaxxer without his own financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry being exposed—but he was wrong. Things immediately got heated when Means exposed Offit’s shocking conflicts of interest on live TV while CNN’s Pamela Brown stood by and let it happen like a deer caught in headlights. “What’s causing distrust in public health authorities is conflicts of interest, like Dr. Offit taking millions of dollars from pharmaceutical makers like Merck while approving and recommending pharmaceuticals on ACIP committees. “Dr. Offit says that science is always settled when he himself has approved vaccines that have been recalled for causing organ failure in kids. “Dr. Offit is talking about measles… But there were 300 deaths from measles a year before the invention of the vaccine. We have 38% of children right now with prediabetes. Bobby is focused on that. He’s focused on reorganizing the department. And that’s what we should be talking about, not this distraction,” Means argued.
Video Transcript AI Summary
What's causing distrust in public health isn't the idea of public health itself, but the actions of its leaders. We need to address the conflicts of interest, like Dr. Offit taking millions from pharmaceutical companies while approving their products.
It's also about holding people accountable when they make definitive statements about science, yet have approved products, like vaccines, that have later been recalled for causing harm.
While measles is important, let's remember that before the vaccine, there were 300 deaths a year from measles. Today, we have a much bigger problem, with 38% of children having prediabetes. It is important that we focus on reorganizing the department to address issues like this, instead of being distracted.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Trust in public health. No. It it it's the public health leaders themselves. It's people defending with the record that's happening to health at HHS. Why cuts are bad?
Of course, we should make cuts. Of course, the personnel should be changed. What's causing distrust in public health authorities is conflict of interest, like doctor Offutt taking millions of dollars from pharmaceutical makers like Merck while approving and recommending pharmaceuticals on ACIP committees. It's the fact that doctor Offutt's saying that science is always settled, when he himself has approved vaccines that have been recalled for causing organ failure for kids. And it's the fact that doctor Offit is talking about measles, which is important.
And I wanna be clear, Hamel. I don't wanna get this out. It's important. But there were three hundred deaths from measles a year before the invention of the vaccine. We have thirty eight percent of children right now having prediabetes.
Bobby is focused on that. He's focused on reorganizing the department, and that's what we should be talking about, not this distraction.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@calleymeans After Offit finished uncomfortably smiling during Means’ rebuke, he responded to the claims, saying, “I don’t have a relationship with a pharmaceutical company.” https://t.co/Z2KBFVNh7P
Video Transcript AI Summary
I serve on the FDA's vaccine advisory committee because I don't have relationships with pharmaceutical companies, which is a requirement. I actually agree with some of the concerns raised, such as obesity rates, chronic illnesses, and overmedication of children. I even wrote a book about the excesses of modern medicine. However, I strongly disagree with the claim that vaccines are harmful, as RFK Jr. suggests. RFK Jr. continues to falsely claim that vaccines cause autism, and he's now targeting childhood vaccines, which will ultimately harm children.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Made a lot of claims there. I want you to respond to that. And we should note, you are a member of the FDA vaccine advisory committee, and you recently told CNN that RFK junior will hurt America's vaccine infrastructure. So please respond to that and tell us
Speaker 1: And, Pamela, I hope we can disclose his I hope we can disclose his millions of dollars of pharmaceutical payments while serving in that committee.
Speaker 0: Okay. Doctor Offit, please go ahead and respond.
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, you're not allowed to serve on the FDA's vaccine advisory committee if you have a relationship with a pharmaceutical company. And so because I don't have a relationship with a pharmaceutical company, I'm able to serve on that committee. Secondly, and most importantly, actually, the things that that, that Cali talks about, I actually agree with in some ways. I think that we are, for example, more obese as a country than than we should be. And that the consequence of obesity like hypertension and type two diabetes, I think we do have, in many ways, more chronic illnesses.
I think we overmedicate our children. I think there's many things we can do better. I actually wrote a book called Overkill When Modern Medicine Goes Too Far. So I agree with all that. What I don't agree with is that in any way, vaccines are are, harmful as RFK Jr says.
I mean, RFK Jr continues to claim that vaccines cause autism when they don't. He's now made childhood vaccines a major target of this. And and that's that's, only gonna be to the detriment of children.
Speaker 0: Hold on. No. No. Callie Callie, I have to let doctor Offit speak. This has to be a civil respectful conversation in order for this to work and for Americans, peep viewers to to soak this up.
So I wanna let Doctor Offit finish and then I'll go to you, Callie, I promise. Go ahead Doctor Offit.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
But Means later questioned: “Is it appropriate for a member of a government advisory committee (ACIP) to have a $1.5 million salary paid by Merck and receive millions in pharma royalties while he’s issuing guidance on products those companies make?” https://t.co/uSf5aMFZoL
@calleymeans - Calley Means
Is it appropriate for a member of a government advisory committee to have a $1.5 million salary paid by Merck and receive millions in pharma royalties while he’s issuing guidance on products those companies make? https://t.co/Slm88xdWyH
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Offit went on to say that he doesn’t know what the cause of autism is, mentioning several “interesting” theories. However, he stated with certainty that vaccines are “the one thing that doesn’t cause autism.” “Vaccines, I think, are really the safest, best-tested things that we give to children,” Offit said.
Video Transcript AI Summary
RFK Jr. continues to falsely claim that vaccines cause autism, and he's made childhood vaccines a major target. This is dangerous and will lead to the death of children.
When RFK Jr. says we have more chronic diseases in children than ever before, he's citing the instance of autism spectrum disorder. There are many interesting causes of autism spectrum disorder, like the infant microbiome, genetics, or medicines that pregnant people take during their pregnancy. But by focusing on childhood vaccines, he's focusing on the one thing that doesn't cause autism.
Vaccines are really the safest, best-tested things that we give to children, and that's what is making America healthy. To focus on vaccines as a target and claim that they're causing harm when they're not is only a detriment to America's children.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What I don't agree with is that in any way, vaccines are are, harmful as RFK Jr. Says. I mean, RFK Jr. Continues to claim that vaccines cause autism when they don't. He's now made childhood vaccines a major target of this.
And and that's that's, only gonna be for the death of children. Hold on.
Speaker 1: No. No. Callie Callie, I have to let doctor Offit speak. This has to be a civil respectful conversation in order for this to work and for Americans viewers to to soak this up. So I wanna let doctor Offit finish, and then I'll go to you, Cali.
I promise. Go ahead, doctor Offit.
Speaker 0: So I I think that when, for example, he says we have more chronic diseases in children than ever before, he says that the instance is one in thirty six. Well, that's the instance of autism spectrum disorder. There's a lot of interesting, cause or causes of autism spectrum disorder, like the infant microbiome or genetic or, medicines that women or pregnant people can take during their pregnancy. That's interesting. But by focusing on childhood vaccines, he's focusing on the one thing that doesn't cause autism.
And so vaccines, I think, are really the safest, best tested things that we give to children, and that's what make is making America healthy again. And I think to focus on vaccines as as a target and and claim that they're causing harms when they're not is only a detriment to America's children.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
The next disaster for CNN unfolded when host Pamela Brown asked @CalleyMeans a vaccination question that completely backfired. Means flipped the script, using her question to highlight how the media obsesses over “measles” instead of focusing on health concerns that truly matter. PAMELA BROWN: “Is now a time to promote vaccines... especially among children who are being impacted by measles in places like Texas and in these six states where, according to health officials, they are unvaccinated?" CALLEY MEANS: “Pamela, with respect, why aren’t you asking me about the fact that 50% of teens have obesity? There are breathless segments being run and seen on [infectious disease] day after day after day, Pamela. It’s breathless coverage of five measles cases. “Why aren’t we asking why 16% of COVID deaths worldwide were Americans when we’re only 4% of the world population? Because the CDC said our immune system—no, it is related, Pamela. And let me say why: because the entire coverage of Bobby Kennedy is around measles. “The Democrats said the word ‘measles’ 25 times in the first hearing and said the words ‘obesity,’ ‘diabetes,’ and ‘chronic disease’ zero times. The HHS priority document under President Biden said the word ‘equity’ 25 times, said the word ‘vaccines’ countless times, and did not say the word ‘obesity’ or ‘diabetes.’ “There is a problem right now because this is not zero-sum. We are focused on a very small subset that’s important—we need good infectious disease management. Bobby Kennedy, Dr. Offit, is not correct. Bobby Kennedy has said one thing about vaccines and one thing only: that they should be studied like any other product. “Dr. Offit, on the ACIP committee, has recommended vaccines that have ended up being recalled for causing mass issues to kids. Bobby Kennedy has written multiple books, not about being anti-vax, but about having good science. And Dr. Offit is calling him anti-vaccine for literally just saying we need studies. “Bobby Kennedy is not concerned with measles. He wants good policies with measles. He wants to attack the 92% of deaths in the United States, which is chronic conditions,” Means said.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Why is everyone so focused on measles when so many other health issues plague our country? The media breathlessly covers five measles cases while ignoring the obesity epidemic affecting 50% of teens. Sixteen percent of COVID deaths worldwide were Americans, but our health priorities seem misdirected.
The focus on measles is overshadowing other critical health concerns. Bobby Kennedy's stance isn't anti-vaccine; he simply advocates for rigorous studies on vaccines, like any other product. He, and others, are concerned with the chronic conditions responsible for 92% of deaths in the United States, and want to address the bigger picture of health policy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is it now a time to promote vaccines, which again, the CDC says safe effective that two doses are ninety percent effective against measles? Is it now a time to promote that especially among children who are being impacted by measles in places like Texas and in these states who are unvaccinated according to health officials.
Speaker 1: Pamela, with with respect, why aren't you asking me about the fact that fifty percent of teens have obesity? Why aren't there there there are breathless
Speaker 0: I have other questions for you, but we're talking about this.
Speaker 1: Day after day after day, Pamela. It's breathless coverage of five measles cases. Why aren't we asking why sixteen percent of COVID deaths worldwide were Americans when we're only four percent of the world population because the CDC said, Our immune system, no, it is related, Pamela, and let me say why. Because the entire coverage of Bobby Kennedy is around measles. The Democrats said the word measles twenty five times in the first hearing and said the words obesity, diabetes, and chronic disease zero time.
The HHS priority document under President Biden said the word equity 25 times, said the word vaccines countless times, did not say the word obesity or diabetes. There is a problem right now because this is not zero, this is zero sum. We are focused on a very small subset that's important. We need good infectious disease management. Bobby Kennedy, Doctor.
Offit is not correct. Bobby Kennedy has said one thing about vaccines and one thing only, that they should be studied like any other product. Doctor. Offit on the ACIP committee has recommended vaccines that have ended up being recalled for causing mass issues to kids. Bobby Kennedy has written multiple books not about being anti vaxx but about having good science.
And Doctor. Offit is calling him anti vaccine for literally just saying we need studies. Bobby Kennedy is not concerned with measles. He wants good policies with measles. He wants to attack the ninety two percent of deaths in The United States, which has chronic conditions.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Means continued to hammer the medical industry, exposing how it “doesn’t make money when children are healthy.” “Pharma doesn’t make money when children are healthy. The hospitals don’t make money when the beds are empty. Chronic disease, just as a demonstrable statement of economic fact, is a great economic invention for the healthcare industry, which demonstrably makes money when patients are sick,” Means said. Visibly frustrated as @CalleyMeans dismantled the narrative CNN wanted to push, Pamela Brown began frantically cutting him off before abruptly ending the segment, calling it a “spirited discussion.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
I support discussing issues like obesity and overmedicating children. Bobby Kennedy is fighting against the incentive for pharma to profit from sick children, and he's supporting efforts to remove soda from SNAP. The problem is that organizations like Merck don't have children's best interests at heart, considering their history of criminal penalties for misleading information.
When the data isn't on their side, RFK Jr. and personal injury lawyers attack the person. My Merck chair is defined by Penn, and there's no quid pro quo. The science continually proves RFK Jr. wrong about vaccines.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He talked about childhood vaccines, number one. He talked about electromagnetic radiation, number two. He talked about pesticides. He didn't talk about the things that Cali's talking about here, which is things like obesity or overmedicating children or sugar drapes. I'm all for that.
I agree with you. You can have both
Speaker 1: powerful he gave a he gave a powerful speech about these issues. This this is what Bobby Kinney is fighting against, doctor Offit. As you know, you were the chair at the Children's Hospital, the Merck chair. You you it was like a NASCAR driver wearing their sponsors. Merck paid your $1,500,000 salary.
And this is what Bobby is saying, is that fundamentally, pharma can create good innovations, but they're foundationally incentivized for children to be sick. Pharma doesn't make money when children are healthy. The hospitals don't make money when the beds are empty. Chronic disease, just as a demonstrable statement of economic fact, is a great economic invention for the health industry which demonstrably makes money when patients are sick. And that's an incentive Bobby Kennedy is going hard after.
I'm in Florida. I'm in I'm in a state senator's office right now. I'm actually lobbying for the state's SNAP bills, which Bobby is really supporting, to get soda off of SNAP. I think the problem is that the public health community, the Merck chairs of pediatricians, I mean, that is just insane. Merck does not have children's interest at heart.
Merck itself has settled billions of dollars in criminal penalties for misleading and to know.
Speaker 2: For transparency, you used to be a pharmaceutical rep. Right, Cali?
Speaker 1: No. No. No. I was there about thirteen years ago with a was a was a lobbyist, which which included
Speaker 2: So you were a lobbyist for pharmaceuticals. Okay.
Speaker 1: That out.
Speaker 2: Right. But really quick, we we do have to go. But doctor Offit, I have to have you respond to his claims about Merck and your ties.
Speaker 0: Sure. What he does is what RFK Jr. Does, which is what all personal injury lawyer types do, which is when the the data aren't on their side, then they attack the person. I'm not Bobby Kennedy's ears.
Speaker 2: Hold on. Hold on, Callie. Let him talk. Chair? Callie, please.
Please.
Speaker 0: I I wanna I don't receive a a okay. It's it's it's I do not have a conflict of interest. The Merc chair is is defined defined by, Penn. And Penn, there is no quid pro quo to being having an endowed chair. Anybody who receives an endowed chair an endowed chair would know.
Secondly, it's like because they they there aren't the data on their side regarding vaccines. They do what all personal injury lawyer types do, which is attack the witness. I'm not RFK Jr's problem. The science that has continually shown he's wrong about vaccines
Speaker 1: for sure. Millions of people. That. That's
Speaker 2: the problem. Thank you both for coming on. Thank you for
Speaker 0: coming again. Of
Speaker 2: Okay. Callie, I let you say your piece, doctor Offit. I let you also respond, and I I appreciate you coming on for this spirited discussion, shall we say? Thank you for joining us. We'll be right back.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
This debate made one thing clear: when mainstream news networks face someone who can challenge their narratives in real time, their arguments crumble, leaving viewers exposed to the truth. While it’s safe to say that @CalleyMeans won’t be invited back on CNN anytime soon, this segment should serve as a stark reminder that the media’s goal is to push narratives, not to report the truth or host an honest debate.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@calleymeans Click here to watch the full debate below: https://t.co/g0bStZqgU0
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@calleymeans Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this report, please do me a quick favor and follow me (@VigilantFox) for more posts like this one. In other news, Elon Musk recently shut down RFK Jr. critics with one profound statement. Read more below: https://t.co/dcrDfMmMzy
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Elon Musk Delivers a Powerful Statement on Bobby Kennedy Jr. Plus, more must-see moments from the Trump-Musk interview. 🧵 THREAD https://t.co/AVPelCMAbh
reSee.it AI Summary
In 2008, CBS aired a report by Sharyl Attkisson revealing that leading vaccine advocates were funded by pharmaceutical companies, highlighting potential conflicts of interest in vaccine safety claims. I wonder if mainstream media would dare to air something like that today.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
In 2008, CBS actually aired a report by Sharyl Attkisson exposing how top vaccine advocates received substantial funding from pharmaceutical companies—raising serious concerns about conflicts of interest in vaccine safety claims. Can you imagine the MSM airing such a report today? 🤣 Credit: @SharylAttkisson
Video Transcript AI Summary
The American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child by Two, and pediatrician Dr. Paul Offit are trusted voices in vaccine defense, but CBS News found they have financial ties to the vaccine industry. The vaccine industry gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for various purposes, but the totals are kept secret. Wyeth gave the Academy $342,000 for a community grant program, and Merck contributed $433,000 the same year the Academy endorsed Merck's HPV vaccine. Sanofi Aventis, a maker of 17 vaccines, is also a top donor.
Every Child by Two admits to taking money from the vaccine industry, but wouldn't disclose the amount. An official from Wyeth and a paid adviser to big pharmaceutical clients have been listed as the group's treasurers. Dr. Offit holds a $1.5 million research chair funded by Merck and holds the patent on an anti-diarrhea vaccine he developed with Merck. Future royalties for the vaccine were sold for $182 million. The American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child by Two and Doctor. Offit wouldn't agree to interviews, but all told CBS they're upfront about the money they receive and it doesn't sway their opinions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: For years now, parents have wondered if vaccines are linked to conditions like autism and ADD. Government officials and some scientists say there is no connection, and they're often backed by independent experts. But just how independent are they? You may be surprised at what Cheryl Atkinson found when she set out to follow the money.
Speaker 1: Just waiting for it to come. They're some of the most trusted voices in the defense of vaccine the American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child by Two, and pediatrician Doctor. Paul Offit. But CBS News has found these three have something more in common. Polio number two Strong financial ties to the industry whose products they promote and defend.
The vaccine industry gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for conferences, grants, medical education classes, even help pay to build their headquarters. The totals are kept secret, but public documents reveal bits and pieces. Dollars 3 and 42,000 was given to the Academy by Wyeth, maker of the pneumococcal vaccine, for a community grant program. Dollars 4 and 33,000 was contributed to the Academy by Merck, the same year the Academy endorsed Merck's HPV vaccine. Another top donor, Sanofi Aventis, maker of 17 vaccines, and a new five and one combo shot just added to the childhood vaccine schedule last month.
Every Child by Two, a group that promotes early immunization for all children, admits the group takes money from the vaccine industry too, but wouldn't tell us how much. A spokesman told us there are simply no conflicts to be unearthed. But guess who has been listed as the group's treasurers, an official from Wyeth and a paid adviser to big pharmaceutical clients. Then there's doctor Paul Offit, perhaps the most widely quoted defender of vaccine safety. He's gone so far as to say babies can tolerate quote 10,000 vaccines at once.
This is how Offit described himself in a previous interview.
Speaker 2: I'm the chief of infectious diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a professor of pediatrics at Penns Medical School.
Speaker 1: Doctor Offit was not willing to be interviewed on this subject. But like others in our investigation, he has strong industry ties. In fact, he's a vaccine industry insider. Doctor. Offit holds a $1,500,000 research chair CHH funded by Merck.
He holds the patent on an anti diarrhea vaccine he developed with Merck, Rotatec, which has prevented thousands of hospitalizations in The U. S. And future royalties for the vaccine were just sold for $182,000,000 cash. Doctor Offit's share of vaccine profits unknown. There's nothing illegal about the possible conflicts of interest, but as one member of Congress put it, Money from the pharmaceutical industry can shape the practices of those who hold themselves out to be independent.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child by Two and Doctor. Offit wouldn't agree to interviews, but all told us they're upfront about the money they receive and it doesn't sway their opinions. Today's immunization schedule now calls for kids to get 55 doses of vaccines by age six. Ideally, it makes for a healthier society. But critics worry that industry ties could impact the advice given to the public about all those vaccines.
@RickyDoggin - A Man Of Memes
In 2008, CBS actually aired a report by Sharyl Attkisson exposing how top vaccine advocates received substantial funding from pharmaceutical companies—raising serious concerns about conflicts of interest in vaccine safety claims. Can you imagine the MSM airing such a report today?
Video Transcript AI Summary
The American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child by Two, and Dr. Paul Offit are trusted voices in vaccine safety, but CBS News found they have financial ties to the vaccine industry. The vaccine industry gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for conferences, grants, medical education, and building costs. Wyeth gave $342,000 to the academy for a community grant, and Merck contributed $433,000 the same year the academy endorsed Merck’s HPV vaccine. Every Child by Two takes money from the vaccine industry, and its treasurers have included an official from Wyeth and a paid adviser to pharmaceutical clients. Dr. Offit holds a $1.5 million research chair at Children's Hospital funded by Merck and holds the patent on Rotatec, an anti-diarrhea vaccine he developed with Merck. Royalties for the vaccine were sold for $182 million. The American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child by Two, and Dr. Offit say they are upfront about the money they receive and that it doesn’t sway their opinions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Years now parents have wondered if vaccines are linked to conditions like autism and ADD. Government officials and some scientists say there is no connection and they're often backed by independent experts. But just how independent are they? You may be surprised at what Cheryl Atkinson found when she set out to follow the money. Just waiting for it to come.
Speaker 1: They're some of the most trusted voices in the defense of vaccine safety. The American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child by Two, and pediatrician Doctor. Paul Offit. But CBS News has found these three have something more in common. Strong financial ties to the industry whose products they promote and defend.
The vaccine industry gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for conferences, grants, medical education classes, even help pay to build their headquarters. The totals are kept secret, but public documents reveal bits and pieces. Three and forty two thousand was given to the academy by Wyeth, maker of the pneumococcal vaccine for a community grant program. 433,000 was contributed to the academy by Merck, the same year the academy endorsed Merck's HPV vaccine. Another top donor, Sanofi Aventis, maker of 17 vaccines, and a new five and one combo shot just added to the childhood vaccine schedule last month.
Every Child by two, a group that promotes early immunization for all children, admits the group takes money from the vaccine industry too, but wouldn't tell us how much. A spokesman told us there are simply no conflicts to be unearthed. But guess who has been listed as the group's treasurers, an official from Wyeth and a paid adviser to big pharmaceutical clients. Then there's doctor Paul Offit, perhaps the most widely quoted defender of vaccine safety. He's gone so far as to say babies can theoretically tolerate quote 10,000 vaccines at once.
This is how Offit described himself in a previous interview.
Speaker 2: I'm the chief of infectious diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a professor of pediatrics at Penns Medical School.
Speaker 1: Doctor. Offit was not willing to be interviewed on this subject, but like others in our investigation, he has strong industry ties. In fact, he's a vaccine industry insider. Doctor. Offit holds a $1,500,000 research chair at Children's Hospital funded by Merck.
He holds the patent on an anti diarrhea vaccine he developed with Merck, Rotatec, which has prevented thousands of hospitalizations in The US. And future royalties for the vaccine were just sold for $182,000,000 cash. Doctor Offit's share of vaccine profits unknown. There's nothing illegal about the possible conflicts of interest. But as one member of Congress put it, money from the pharmaceutical industry can shape the practices of those who hold themselves out to be independent.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child by Two and Doctor. Offit wouldn't agree to interviews, but all told us they're up front about the money they receive and it doesn't sway their opinions. Today's immunization schedule now calls for kids to get 55 doses of vaccines by age six. Ideally, it makes for a healthier society. But critics worry that industry ties could impact the advice given to the public about all those vaccines.
@WallStreetApes - Wall Street Apes
Robert F Kennedy Jr says heads of medical journals are coming forward to say it’s all Big Pharma propaganda now “We are no longer science journals. We are about promoting pharmaceutical products and that's what we do” This is the state of global healthcare. It’s ALL for profit https://t.co/c5YYSh045Q
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker asserts that publications like The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and JAMA are corrupt and will no longer be used by NIH scientists. They claim these journals have become vessels for pharmaceutical propaganda, alleging that pharmaceutical companies control the journals and that publishing requires a $10,000 payment.
The speaker references past heads of these journals, who they claim have admitted the journals prioritize promoting pharmaceutical products over scientific integrity. As a result, the speaker states they will stop NIH scientists from publishing in these journals. Instead, they plan to create new journals within each institute that will become preeminent.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We're probably gonna stop publishing in the in Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and those other journals because they're all corrupt. Mhmm. And even the heads of those journals, like Marsh Angle, who for twenty years was the head of the New England Journal of Medicine, says that this that we no longer are a science journal. We are a vessel for pharmaceutical propaganda. No kidding.
Because they control the journals. They buy the preprints. Right? Which is and they they find that you if you wanna publish in a journal, you have to pay $10,000 to get the study published. And so what we're gonna do is change the system and say, can't you know, Richard Horton was the head of of the Lancet Mhmm.
Who really disgraced himself during COVID with the, you know, The Lancet letter and all this. I remember. But but he says the same thing. He says, yeah. We're not we are no longer science journals.
We are about promoting pharmaceutical products, and that's what we do. So unless these journals change dramatically, we are gonna stop NIH scientists from publishing there, and we're gonna create our own journals in health in each of the institutes. And they will become the preeminent journals. And they're gonna become the preeminent journals.
reSee.it AI Summary
During COVID, I felt like the curtain was pulled back, revealing the actions of figures like Dr. Fauci, Bill Gates, and Klaus Schwab. It became clear that a long-standing narrative has aimed to undermine alternative health practitioners since at least 1910. Pharmaceutical companies have influenced medical education and government boards, prioritizing profit over patient care. This system seems designed to protect its own interests, often at the expense of vulnerable individuals, showing that the focus is on making money rather than genuine health concerns.
@newstart_2024 - Camus
Dr. Josh Axe: "How many of you were sitting there during COVID and you could see it's like we pulled back the curtain and we saw what was going on. You saw what doctor Fauci was doing. You saw what Bill Gates was doing. You saw what people at the World Health Organization was doing, Klaus Schwab. And you were sitting there and you saw, why isn't everybody seeing this?" "That narrative during COVID, that same narrative has been going on since 1910 at the very least. Okay? We're talking about over a hundred years. The same narrative has been trying to put chiropractors out of business, naturopaths out of business, nutritionists out of business, functional medicine doctors discredit them. It's we're talking about what happens is you have these pharmaceutical companies, and they pay doctors things like kickbacks." "And they they created the schools to educate the actual doctors or at least, you know, put all the money into them. And and so you've got this sort of these doctors that are that are educated by the pharmaceutical industry, and then oftentimes then they go and sit on government boards." "And so everybody's sort of in the same sort of family of trying to protect each other and take advantage of people that are vulnerable, the sick. So as you can see, the pharmaceutical companies, which then educate the doctors, they don't care about you. They only care about make money." "In fact, if they killed millions of people, which they have, they don't care because they made money."
Video Transcript AI Summary
During COVID, some people saw the actions of figures like Dr. Fauci, Bill Gates, the WHO, and Klaus Schwab, and wondered why more people didn't notice. This narrative has been ongoing since at least 1910, aiming to discredit chiropractors, naturopaths, nutritionists, and functional medicine doctors. Pharmaceutical companies pay doctors kickbacks and fund the schools that educate them. These doctors often sit on government boards, creating a system that protects its members and exploits vulnerable, sick individuals. Pharmaceutical companies, which educate doctors, prioritize profit over people's well-being, and are unconcerned about the millions of deaths they may have caused as long as they profit.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And how many of you were sitting there during COVID and you could see it's like we pulled back the curtain and we saw what was going on. You saw what doctor Fauci was doing. You saw what Bill Gates was doing. You saw what people at the World Health Organization was doing, Klaus Schwab, and you were sitting there and you saw, why isn't everybody seeing this? That narrative during COVID, that same narrative has been going on since 1910 at the very least.
Okay? We're talking about over a hundred years. The same narrative has been trying to put chiropractors out of business, naturopaths out of business, nutritionists out of business, functional medicine doctors discredit them. It's we're talking about what happens is you have these pharmaceutical companies, and they pay doctors things like kickbacks. And they they created the schools to educate the actual doctors or at least, you know, put all the money into them.
And and so you've got this sort of these doctors that are that are educated by the pharmaceutical industry, and oftentimes then they go and sit on government boards. And so everybody's sort of in the same sort of family of trying to protect each other and take advantage of people that are vulnerable, the sick. So as you can see, the pharmaceutical companies which then educate the doctors, they don't care about you. They only care about making money. In fact, if they killed millions of people, which they have, they don't care because they made money.
@newstart_2024 - Camus
Credit: @drjoshaxe
reSee.it AI Summary
In a recent discussion with Tucker Carlson, RFK Jr. addressed critical issues surrounding vaccines, autism, and the pharmaceutical industry. He highlighted concerns about the CDC's failure to conduct necessary studies on vaccine injuries and the manipulation of data. He criticized the profit-driven motives of healthcare providers and the media's ties to pharmaceutical advertising. RFK Jr. also shared insights about his views on political figures, including Pam Bondi and President Trump, revealing unexpected emotional connections Trump has with music.
@AnnaRMatson - Anna Matson
RFK Jr went on Tucker Carlson and talked about everything: -Pharma holding our health hostage -What he really thinks of Pam Bondi -To what makes President Trump cry. You won’t want to miss this 🧵 https://t.co/p8XDbSZpne
@AnnaRMatson - Anna Matson
Tucker went right for it and asked Secretary Kennedy about studying vaccines and autism. “The Institute of Medicine…had said in 2001 that the link between autism and vaccines is biologically plausible.” The Institute of Medicine then recommended several thorough studies. “CDC never did those.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker states that previous CDC studies on autism were epidemiological and designed to avoid finding a link. They claim the Institute of Medicine criticized the CDC's vaccine schedule decision-making, alleging the ASIP panel was captured by industry due to financial entanglements.
The speaker says the Institute of Medicine recommended various studies, including animal models, which the CDC allegedly ignored, opting instead for manipulated epidemiological studies. They claim these studies didn't compare fully vaccinated to unvaccinated groups.
According to the speaker, a 1999 CDC study led by Thomas Verstraten found an 1135% elevated autism risk in vaccinated children. They allege the CDC concealed and manipulated this study to bury the link by removing older children from the data and using other statistical tricks. The speaker asserts that over 100 external studies indicate a link between vaccines and autism.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: One of the first things you did to Secretary, I think, tell me if I'm misstating it, is commissioned a kind of study of autism. Can you tell us what that is? What are you seeking to do with that?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, you know, the studies, there are a handful of studies that CDC has generated on autism. They were all epidemiological studies, and they all say what the CDC wanted them to say is they couldn't find a link. The problem is that the Institute of Medicine, which is part of the National Academy of Sciences, had said in 2001 that the link between autism vaccine is biologically plausible. And they they were highly critical of the way that CDC was making decisions about the vaccine schedule, that it was, you know, the the this group ASIP, which is an external panel, which has the responsibility of deciding which new vaccines will be added to the schedule, that they had essentially been captured by industry.
The people who serve on that panel, almost all of them, have financial entanglements with the industry. And the Institute of Medicine recommended a litany, a retinue of studies, including animal models, observational studies, bench studies, and epidemiological studies. They said, You need this whole rant node to answer this question. The CDC never did those. Instead, it commissioned the creation of these six epidemiological studies, and none of them does what?
All of them are 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 do if you wanted to find the answer, which is to 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 the first thirty days of life, and compared those children to children who had received the vaccine later or not at all.
And they found an eleven 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. 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 data, and they did a lot of other tricks. And all of those uddis were the subject of those kind of that kind of trickery. And so what we're gonna 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.
@AnnaRMatson - Anna Matson
Instead, CDC manipulated a study to remove older kids. Here is the problem with that: The average age of diagnosis is five. By removing that age group, there is no way of know if vaccines cause autism or not. https://t.co/JGIZ2ERdG6
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims that the CDC commissioned six epidemiological studies using fraudulent techniques, instead of comparing health outcomes between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. According to the speaker, a 1999 CDC study led by Thomas Verstraten compared children who received the hepatitis vaccine within their first thirty days of life to those vaccinated later or not at all. This study allegedly found a 1,135% elevated risk of autism among vaccinated children. The speaker states that the CDC kept the study secret and manipulated it to bury the link by removing older children and stratifying the data. The speaker asserts that over 100 external studies indicate a link between vaccines and autism.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Instead, it commissioned the creation of these six epidemiological studies, and none of them does what all of them are 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 do if you wanted to find the answer, which is to 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.
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 gonna 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.
@AnnaRMatson - Anna Matson
Did you know most doctors will fire you as a patient if you want to delay certain vaccines? This is why 👇 “If their clients are fully vaccinated they get a huge bonus. It can be 10s of thousands of dollars.” Only complete compliance is profitable. https://t.co/E59LOTIK4B
Video Transcript AI Summary
According to the speaker, 50% of pediatricians' revenue comes from vaccines, with insurance companies like Blue Cross offering bonuses for high vaccination rates, potentially influencing doctors' recommendations. The speaker claims that pediatricians may dismiss families who want alternative vaccine schedules to protect these bonuses.
The speaker alleges that 80% of doctors now work for corporations focused on revenue over patient care, creating pressure to generate funds due to medical school debt. The speaker suggests the entire system is incentivized to keep people sick, not necessarily deliberately, but through financial incentives.
Insurance companies allegedly profit more from a sick population because they collect money as friction, taking a cut of revenues. The speaker claims that doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies also benefit financially from people being sick, creating systemic pressure regardless of individual intentions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There's a published article out there now that says that 50% of 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 can be tens of thousands of dollars. And that's why your 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, 20% 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. And, you know, these doctors are coming out of medical schools with ginormous bills, and that will bankrupt them if they don't have a job.
And so they're under tremendous pressure just to to keep generating those funds, and the whole system, as you know, is is just a bundle of perverse incentives that, you know, that where everybody is making money by keeping us sick. You know? And I'm not saying that's deliberate or purposeful or or, you know, planned in any way. It's just the incentive system that everybody makes money. Insurance companies make money if you're sick.
Ironically, they make more money if the population is sick. And, you know, that may seem counterintuitive to people. And a guy said to me once who worked for AIG, one of the big insurance companies, he said I said I said, I wanna go with some data to AIG and show them that, you know, what they're doing is actually I can show them on paper what they're doing is actually making their people sicker. And and they're the one group that you would think would want healthy people because they'd have to pay out less. And this guy said to me, think of it this way.
If you're Lloyds of London and you insure all the shipping in the world, is it better for you if one ship sinks a year or if 500 sink a year? And I would say I I said to him, it's it's better if only one sinks. He said, no. It's better if 500 sink because then everybody has to get insurance. And what the insurance companies are collecting money, money is friction.
They're taking a cut of the revenues that come through them. The more people that buy insurance, it doesn't matter what the claims are. If the claims are high, they just raise their premiums. And it's the amount of money that flows in the system that gives them money. So they're making money that way.
The doctors are making money from keeping us sick. The hospitals are making money from keeping us sick. The pharmaceutical companies are making money from keeping us sick. So every level of the system is incentivized financially, no matter what your intention is. If you're a doctor, of course you don't want sick patients.
There's tremendous pressure from every angle of the system to you know, to keep us all sick.
@AnnaRMatson - Anna Matson
Pharma isn’t just holding our doctors hostage, they are holding the media hostage too. This is how they do it: We are only one of two countries in the WORLD who allow pharmaceutical advertisements on TV. “On a typical evening news show, there are 22 ads and 17 of those are pharmaceutical ads.” Do you think the media will be critical of big pharma when they are paying their bills?
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 1999, claims of a connection between autism and vaccines were met with media backlash. It's alleged that pharmaceutical companies, a major revenue source for media companies, buy protection. The U.S. is purportedly one of two countries allowing this.
A Supreme Court case gave pharmaceutical advertising First Amendment protection, treating it as political speech. Direct-to-consumer advertising exploded after changes in the 90s.
Roger Ailes, despite political differences, allowed the speaker to discuss the environment on Fox News. However, Ailes refused to air a documentary about mercury in vaccines, fearing repercussions from Rupert Murdoch. Pharma ads allegedly constitute 75% of evening news revenue, with 17 out of 22 ads being pharmaceutical. This revenue is purportedly keeping many television networks afloat amidst financial struggles.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There hasn't been much of a discussion. You said there were signals in 1999 that there was a connection between autism and vaccines. The response from the American media was just to throw you out, take away your New York Times presence, ban you from Rolling Stone, etcetera, attack you as a Nazi. You made the point years later that the reason that happened was because pharmaceutical companies are the single biggest source of revenue for a lot of media companies, and they're buying the protection with that money.
Speaker 1: And that's another perverse incentive, right?
Speaker 0: Absolutely. I think we're one of only two countries in the world that allow that. Can that be stopped?
Speaker 1: That's a question that we are looking at right now, you know, and there's a bad Supreme Court case from a couple of years ago that gave that essentially anointed pharmaceutical advertising with First Amendment protection. The First Amendment protects political speech. So if you have if you're saying something, you know, political, you should have absolute protection under the First Amendment. If commercial speech has a lower level of protection and the pharmaceutical advertising was regulated as commercial speech, and it was until 1990 really around 1992, it was you didn't see pharmaceutical ad there was no direct to consumer advertising on TV. And after that, and then there were new more changes made in 1997, that's when it became you know, it exploded.
And today, Roger Ailes, who both you and I knew you know, I had this very Roger Ailes, for your audience who doesn't know him, which I think most of them do, 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, wouldn't be 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 I was the only environmentalist who was going on Fox News.
But I brought him one time this 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 kind of collapsing financially.
Speaker 0: Collapsing due to lack of popular demand for their presence.
@AnnaRMatson - Anna Matson
On a personal note- This is why I am independent. I am supported by my viewers so I can continue bringing you the stories that matter- free from influence. Liking, commenting, sharing, and subscribing all helps me continue this work 🙏
@AnnaRMatson - Anna Matson
🚨 What RFK Jr says next is insane! “The pharmaceutical advertisers are advertising the most expensive version of every drug…it’s Medicaid and Medicare that are paying for it. It’s us, it’s the tax payer.” “AND we are paying for the ads because they’re tax deductible.” https://t.co/ALVZ1QnQ7s
Video Transcript AI Summary
Pharmaceutical advertising on TV targets consumers with the most expensive drugs, not generics, which have the highest profit margins for the companies. Unlike typical ads where consumers pay directly, pharmaceutical drugs are often paid for by Medicaid, Medicare, and taxpayers. Taxpayers also fund the ads themselves through tax deductions.
These ads may lead people to request ineffective drugs from doctors who, under time constraints from corporate management, may find it easier to prescribe the requested drug rather than argue against it. The American Medical Association has opposed this practice for 30 years. This system distorts the market and cannot be considered a free market because the federal government subsidizes it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: From England or Europe and watch our TV are shocked by what they're seeing on it. And it it's insidious because of this. The pharmaceutical advertisers are advertising the most expensive version of every drug. They're not going to advertise the generics because they're not making any So they're advertising the ones that are the highest profit margins for them. Normally, if you see an advertisement on TV, like for Coca Cola, you then have a choice to go get that, and you're paying out of your pocket for it.
When somebody buys a pharmaceutical drug, it's it's Medicaid and Medicare that are paying for it. It's us. It's the taxpayer. So they're advertising something to the consumer when the consumer has no skin in the game. And then the consumer and we're paying for the ads because they're tax deductible.
So they're we're paying for them to advertise, the advertisements are getting people to buy drugs that may be ineffective, that may be the least effective drug of the ones that are available. And they go to their physician. The physician is told by his boss, who's the, you know, the corporate bean counter, you have 11 with each patient, and that's it. And the physician then can spend that eleven minutes trying to talk the patient out of something that they want, and then the patient's going to go away unsatisfied. Or the physician could just say, All right, you want this prescription?
I'll write it for you. And then, you know, the patient is then going to come back because he's happy. The doctors hate it. The American Medical Association has been against it for, you know, for thirty years. And nobody thinks that this is good for public health.
It is hurting us, and it's distorting the markets, and it is not it's not a can't even call it a a free market because everything's paid for by the federal government.
@AnnaRMatson - Anna Matson
“158 injuries are suspected to be vaccine injuries, only 38 of those have been studied. Most of those, it was positive. “The others have never been studied. CDC’s job is to study them, and yet they never studied them AND THAT WAS PURPOSEFUL. I’m not saying that out of speculation, I’m saying that because I’VE SEEN THE EMAILS.” To make matters worse, publishers will not publish a study that is critical of vaccines…
Video Transcript AI Summary
If analysis of public data sets reveals a connection between government-promoted vaccines and autism, it would constitute a tort, potentially impacting many injured individuals. However, the 1986 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program grants vaccine companies immunity from liability, regardless of recklessness or product toxicity.
While childhood vaccination schedules have expanded from three vaccines to potentially 69-92 doses between conception and age 18, this increase may contribute to an epidemic of immune dysregulation and various diseases like diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, seizure disorders, ADD/ADHD, speech/language delays, tics, Tourette's, narcolepsy, autism, peanut allergies, anaphylaxis, and eczema.
These injuries are listed as potential side effects on vaccine inserts, yet the CDC has allegedly failed to adequately study suspected vaccine injuries, despite recommendations from the Institute of Medicine. It's claimed that the CDC has deliberately derailed such studies, and scientific publishers often reject studies critical of vaccines. There is a need to remove the taboo around discussing this issue and conduct honest research.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So if, starting in September, when we start to see the results of the analysis of these massive data sets that you're putting out there in public, and if it becomes clear that 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. And that actually is why we one of the reasons we had this explosion of the vaccination program. When, 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 child 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 82 is some of the vaccines have are are 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 calculate 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, the neurologic disorders like ADD, ADHD, speech delayed, language delayed, tics, Tourette 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.
The autoimmune diseases like diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, the allergic disease like peanut allergies, anaphylaxis, eczema. I know did you ever know anybody with eczema? No. Right. So and now it's ubiquitous in every classroom.
And all of those injuries are listed as side effects on the manufacturer's inserts of those products. Oh, we would be have to be blind and not say we have to look at this as a potential culprit. We have to do the studies that the Institute of Medicine has been telling the CDC to do for twenty five years. The Institute of Medicine told CDC in 2013, there are one hundred and fifty one one hundred and fifty eight injuries that are suspected to be vaccine injuries. Only thirty eight of those have been studied, and almost most of those, it was positive.
It was, yeah, this is a vaccine injury. The other hundred and twenty, whatever, and I'm not doing the math in my head, but the others have never been studied. CDC's job is to study them, and yet it never studied them. And that was purposeful. And I'm not saying that out of speculation.
I'm saying that because I've seen the emails. And CDC deliberately derailed any study on that. And if somebody does, independent scientist does do a study, they can't get published. The scientific publishers will not publish a study that is critical of vaccines. So we need to change that taboo, and that's one of the things Jay Bhattacharya is doing at NIH, is we're gonna remove the taboo about talking about this issue, and we're gonna be honest with the
Speaker 0: American
@AnnaRMatson - Anna Matson
“The Institute of Medicine…said that ‘the only system that CDC has to study vaccine injury is so bad that any study done on it, we’re not gonna count.’” It’s unreliable because it’s self reporting, takes doctors a lot of time to fill out, and it’s hard to tell what side effect came from what medical intervention.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, stated that the CDC's system for studying vaccine injury is so poor that any studies done with it are invalid. Former Surgeon General David Kessler and others have also criticized the VAERS system and called for a new one.
The VAERS system is voluntary, requiring doctors to report vaccine injuries, but there is no penalty for not reporting. Doctors may not recognize vaccine injuries, especially if they occur months or years later, and there is no vaccine injury education in medical school. Doctors also have an emotional incentive not to report, as they may be reluctant to admit a vaccine they recommended caused harm.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is too unreliable. So they what they were saying, the Institute Medicine, which is part of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the only system that CDC has to study vaccine injury is so bad that any study done done on it, not gonna count. I'll tell you something else. David Kessler, who was a very famous surgeon general, who you remember, and many, many, many other people have said that VAERS system does not work, and you need a new system. So in 2010, CDC designed a new system, and it was a machine counting system.
The problem with VAERS, with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, is that it's voluntary. Yes. And so the doctor has to if he sees a vaccine injury, he's required to report it to VAERS. But there's no penalty if he doesn't. It takes him a half an hour to fill out the paperwork.
So there's a big incentive for him not to do it. There's another incentive, though. He doesn't know if something is a vaccine injury. If you get you get a vaccine and then four months four years later, you come in with a food allergy, how do you know? Will any doctor in the world say that's a vaccine injury or seizure disorder?
And the other thing is so they don't know, you know, what to look for. They've never been taught that at medical school. There's no course on vaccine injury in medical school, in any medical school in this country. And then the other thing is he has a big emotional incentive because he told that mom to give that child that vaccine. And if the child has a seizure three weeks later and she comes back and and she says, I think it might be the vaccine.
A lot of doctors will say, no. That's normal for that age, and they're not gonna call it into theirs.
@AnnaRMatson - Anna Matson
So CDC created a new system in 2010 for millions of dollars to track vaccine injuries reliably. “Vaers was capturing fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries.” “They had a system now that would capture over 95%.” “The data showed injuries in about 2.7% of vaccines… CDC saw that and said ‘we’re not going to use this system.’ And they shelved it in 2010 and they’ve continued to use Vaers.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The CDC funded a machine counting system, designed by a team led by Lazarus, to analyze vaccine injuries through cluster analysis. This system was tested at Harvard Pilgrim HMO, comparing its findings to VAERS data. The study found VAERS captured less than 1% of vaccine injuries, while the new system captured over 95%.
The data revealed injuries in approximately 2.7% of all vaccines, which is about one out of every 37 vaccines. Despite the system's accuracy, the CDC shelved it in 2010 and has continued using VAERS for 22 years, despite knowing it doesn't work.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So 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 did this 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 entries, and 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. 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 VAERS now for, you know, twenty two years when they know that it doesn't work, when Can you
@AnnaRMatson - Anna Matson
Now here is the good news: “We’re going to create…a system that actually works.” Even the 2010 system is outdated now though. AI is going to look at all the data the department has to see how each drug works on the population. https://t.co/TWCAG59smR
Video Transcript AI Summary
HHS is initiating an AI revolution, attracting experts from Silicon Valley to improve government systems. Changes include improving or supplementing the VAERS system using AI.
The FDA is using AI to accelerate drug approvals, potentially eliminating the need for primate or animal models. CMS is implementing AI to detect waste, abuse, and fraud. The CDC and other departments will use AI to analyze mega data for better decision-making regarding interventions.
AI can assess the effectiveness and side effects of drugs like diabetes medications, statins, and SSRIs across the population. This use of AI has the potential to revolutionize medicine.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: 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. Oh, and, you know, that right now, even that system is antiquated because we have access to AI. And one of the you know, we are creating here at HHS an AI revolution. We've been able to attract the top people from Silicon Valley, people who've walked away from billion dollar businesses, and they don't want prestige. They don't want position.
They don't want power. They want to change. They want to make the system work. And we're going to We are at the cutting edge of AI. We're implementing it in all of our departments.
At FDA, we're accelerating drug approvals so that you don't need to use primates or even animal models. You can, you know, you can do the drug approvals very, very quickly with AI. And we're also implementing a CMS to detect waste, abuse, and fraud, which is it's extraordinary at that. But we're also gonna, you know, use it on the at CDC and throughout our system to look at the mega data that we have and be able to make really good decisions about interventions. For example, if you look at the population as a whole and say, okay, we're using three different diabetes drugs or five different statin drugs, or all these SSRIs and others.
You can then look drug by drug, and you can tell on the population whether it's working or not, and which one is giving you the best bang for the buck, and which one has the most side effects. We have a potential now to use AI in ways that are gonna revolutionize medicine.
@AnnaRMatson - Anna Matson
But when someone is injured by a vaccine, they can’t sue the manufacturer. They can only sue the government over the injury. “We just brought a guy in THIS WEEK who’s going to be revolutionizing the vaccine injury compensation program.” Kennedy wants to expand the statute of limitations and start taking care of families who have been injured instead of protecting pharma.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker states that many people have been injured by the COVID vaccine, some fatally or permanently disabled, and that these people are not receiving sufficient care or attention.
The speaker says that the 1986 Vaccine Act is a major impediment to change. According to the speaker, Congress recognized that vaccines were "unavoidably unsafe" when it granted vaccine companies immunity, so it created a federal program with a trust fund to compensate those injured. The program is funded by a 75% surcharge on every vaccine.
The speaker says the vaccine court is supposed to be generous and fast, but the speaker believes the lawyers defaulted to protecting the trust fund instead of taking care of people. The speaker says the program has paid out over $5 billion to about 12,000 people. The speaker says they are looking at ways to enlarge the program so that COVID vaccine-injured people can be compensated, including enlarging the statute of limitations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What about all the people who are injured by the COVID vaxx? There are a lot of them. I know a lot of them. Some died. Some were permanently disabled.
Nobody seems to care. You never hear about them, and they don't seem to be getting any help. Will that change?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's going to change. I mean, as I said, the big impediment is the 1986 Vaccine Act. Yes. And so it's complicated about how we fix this, you know, so that we can get compensation to those people. We just brought a guy in this week who's going to be revolutionizing the vaccine injury compensation program, which is a program you know, when Congress passed the Vaccine Act and gave immunity from liability to vaccine companies, it it recognized that vaccines were, in the word of the in in the description, the characterization of the American Academy of Pediatrics were unavoidably unsafe.
And some people, like for every medicine, some people are going to be injured and killed. And so it set up a program that's in the federal government called the vaccine courts, and they have a trust fund. The trust fund is endowed by a 75% surcharge on every vaccine. And that program is supposed to there's supposed to be a vaccine court that's supposed to be generous and fast and and give the tie to the runner. In other words, if there's doubts about, you know, whether somebody's injury came from vaccine or not, you're going to assume they got it and compensate them.
And it's paid out over $5,000,000,000 now to about 12,000 people. And we're looking at ways to enlarge that program so that COVID vaccine injured people can be compensated. And we're changing the program so that, you know, we're we're looking at ways to enlarge the statute of limitations. Only three years. A lot of people don't discover their injuries after that.
And the there's no discovery in that program. There's no rules of evidence. The program has default into lawyers from the justice. You're not suing the vaccine company. You're you're petitioning the my agency, and it's represented traditionally by Department of Justice.
And the lawyers in the Department of Justice, the leaders of it were corrupt, and they were they saw their job as protecting the trust fund rather than taking care of people who made this national sacrifice.
@AnnaRMatson - Anna Matson
And never forget what the Biden administration did. They ordered social media companies to take down anyone or any post discussing vaccine injury. Thats not a theory, it’s reality. Lawsuits and investigations prove it. https://t.co/sQB54nWcaz
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mark Zuckerberg stated he was ordered by the White House to suppress mentions of vaccine injuries on Facebook and Instagram. He expressed being stunned by this order from the federal government to deny facts.
According to the speaker, they sued the Biden administration and obtained documents showing that 37 hours after taking office, a White House group was formed to suppress dissent regarding government policy. The speaker claims they were the first target, with Facebook being told to remove them from Instagram, which Facebook did. The speaker asserts they had almost a million followers and posted no vaccine misinformation, challenging Facebook to identify any factual errors in their posts, which were cited and sourced to government databases or peer-reviewed publications.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mark Zuckerberg publicly said that he was ordered by the White House to suppress anybody on his platform, on Facebook or Instagram, who mentioned vaccine injuries. Oh, he was ordered by the Biden administration to and he said, you know, I he said, I was stunned. I was being ordered by the federal government to deny facts. Anybody can look him up on YouTube saying that. So and we know that too because I sued the Biden administration, and we got all this discovery documents that showed that he was thirty seven hours after he took the oath of office, swearing to uphold the constitution, he opened up a group in the White House who were whose job it was to suppress any dissent about, you know, this government policy.
And I was the first person that they went after. Thirty seven hours after he took that oath, they were telling Facebook to take me off of Instagram, which Facebook did. I had almost a million followers, and there was no vaccine misinformation on there. I asked Facebook again and again, show me one fact I got wrong. Everything I put on there that, you know, was vaccine related was cited and sourced to government databases or to peer reviewed publications.
@AnnaRMatson - Anna Matson
In case you didn’t think pharma was corrupt yet… Paul Offit was on the board that creates the vaccine schedule. While he was developing a rotavirus vaccine, he voted to put rotavirus vaccine on the childhood schedule… “He and his business partners…sold that vaccine to Merck for 186 million dollars. He told Newsweek that he won the lottery.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
A rotavirus vaccine was approved by a board with five members, four of whom had financial interests in rotavirus vaccines through employment or grants. One member, Paul Offit, voted to add the rotavirus vaccine to the schedule while developing his own.
The approved vaccine was withdrawn within a year due to causing intussusception, a potentially lethal disease. Offit's vaccine then replaced it. Offit remained on the committee but didn't vote on the replacement. He and his business partners sold their vaccine to Merck for $186 million. Offit told Newsweek he "won the lottery."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: 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 interest. 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, he is developing vaccine. It's 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 it. 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. He told Newsweek that he won the lottery.
@AnnaRMatson - Anna Matson
The vaccine advisory board NEVER turned down a vaccine. “A lot of these vaccines are for diseases that are not even casually contagious.” “You know they recommended the hepatitis b vaccine for babies when they’re an hour old- the first day of life.” “Every mother that goes to the hospital in this country tested for it, so we know which ones, you know, are vulnerable and which aren’t.” “The risk to a one day old baby was one in seven million.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
ACE has never turned away a single vaccine, even for diseases that are not casually contagious. The hepatitis B vaccine is recommended for babies when they're an hour old, despite the fact that it's transmitted through sexual contact or shared needles. While maternal transmission is possible, every mother is tested, so we know who is vulnerable.
The speaker claims the risk to a one-day-old baby is one in seven million, and that financial incentives are a factor. Many of the targeted diseases' vaccines don't prevent transmission, making mandates questionable. Vaccines can cause chronic injuries that last a lifetime.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And this and ACE have never turned away a single vaccine. Everyone that was that came to them, they, you know, recommended. And a lot of these vaccines are for diseases that are not even casually contagious. You know? How you you know, I mean, you know, they recommended the hepatitis b vaccine for for babies when they're an hour old.
The first day of life, they get that. And, you know, hepatitis B, if your mother's got it, you you should get it. And you can, you know, you can pass through maternal transmission. But every mother that goes to the hospital in this country is tested for it, so we know which ones, you know, are vulnerable and which aren't. Oh, but the mass vaccination of the entire population, including wild children, this is a disease.
You get through sexual transmission or you get it from sharing needles, and particularly it was prevalent among promiscuous gay men. But a one day old baby has risk to a one day old baby was one in seven million. Very few of whom are promiscuous. Very few of whom are, you know, uninvolved in prostitution or drug addiction. So, you know, but it was a financial they were all financial drivers.
So and a lot of the diseases that they target are not disease the vaccine itself does not prevent transmission. And so, you know, the justification for having it mandated is very ephemeral. And, you know, these are all things that we need to look at. We want to protect public health, but, you know, that means protecting against chronic disease too. And, you know, these vaccines have there's nobody who will contest that they cause that they can cause chronic disease, chronic injuries that last a lifetime.
@AnnaRMatson - Anna Matson
Now let’s shift gears. Tucker asked Kennedy who he likes in the President’s cabinet and I was not ready for his first choice. “I really get along with Pam Bondi.” “Marco Rubio is the funniest guy in the cabinet.” “I was never very, let’s say, approving of Marco because he was kind of a neocon warhawk. But now he has had this incredible transformation.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker expresses friendship with people they never expected, including Pam Bondi, Marco Rubio, Scott Turner, Sean, and Linda McMahon. Marco Rubio is described as the "funniest guy in the cabinet" who makes people laugh at every meeting. The speaker admits to previously disapproving of Rubio as a "neocon war hawk" but notes his "incredible transformation." The speaker believes Rubio is now aligned with them on most issues, particularly regarding Ukraine and the idea that the U.S. should no longer be the "policeman of the world."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm I'm friends with a number of the people I never thought I'd be friends with, but they're you know? Who do you like? I mean, I really I really get along with Pam Bondi, and and, you know, Cheryl loves Pam and and her husband, John. And then I really and Marco Rubio. Marco Rubio is the funniest guy in the cabinet.
He he says things that make people belly laugh at every cabinet meeting, and he's you know, I I I always I never was very, let's say, approving of of Marco because he was kind of a neocon war hawk, but now he's had this incredible transformation. And, you know, I think he, you know, yeah, I I think he very aligned with me on most issues on Ukraine, you know, and just the fact that we should not be the policeman of the world anymore, that we've gotta that, you know, we've gotta withdraw from that from that role. But I get I really I you know, Scott Turner is my friend, Sean, you know, and, all all of them. I get it. Lynn Linda McMahon.
@AnnaRMatson - Anna Matson
President Trump’s cabinet is made up of people who are very well spoken- and that’s by design. “One of the things President Trump did when he picked the cabinet, and I was on the transition team so I watched what he was doing, for every one of the positions that he picked, he wanted to see three clips of them performing on TV.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump knows how to pick talent, evidenced by the erudite and fluid speakers in his cabinet. When selecting cabinet members, Trump, according to the speaker who was on the transition team, reviewed three TV clips of each candidate. This was because he was conscious of how these individuals would sell his program to the public.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Trump is that he really knows how to pick talent, and he, and I'm not talking about me. I'm but the other people on there when you sit in those cabinet meetings. And every one of those people is incredibly erudite and just fluid in the way that they speak and very, very comfortable in their one of the things that president Trump did when he picked the cabinet, and I was on the transition team, I watched what he was doing. For every of one of the positions that he picked, he wanted to see three clips of them performing on TV. And so, you know, he's very conscious of the way of of that these people are gonna be out selling his program to the public.
@AnnaRMatson - Anna Matson
I never expected to learn what makes President Trump cry… “He’s encyclopedic in certain areas that you wouldn’t expect like music.” “He gets very emotional about music…he cries when he hears Pavarotti.” https://t.co/3IVCS62weM
Video Transcript AI Summary
Adam Pegg is immensely knowledgeable, especially about music and sports, and knows the stories behind everything. He cries when he hears Pavarotti and is an incredible storyteller about Wall Street. Despite being perceived as a narcissist, he is empathetic, always considering the human impact of events like the Ukraine war, vaccines, and healthcare. He focuses on how policies affect the "little guy," contrary to the perception that he aims to enrich billionaires. Pegg is seen as uniquely suited for the country right now, addressing issues like deficits and trade imbalances at great political cost. His actions are expected to benefit the country in the long term.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And immensely knowledgeable. He's encyclopedic in certain areas that you wouldn't expect like music, and, you know, he gets very emotional about music. And Yes. And and he has and he knows the whole story behind every song. Pavarotti and James Brown.
Yeah. Yeah. He cries when he hears Pavarotti. He said I he said to me one night when we were at Martellaga with the Amaryllis, he said he said, Amaryllis, you understand this because she loves music too. And he said, but most of the people here, they don't understand it.
They don't get it. And then in terms of sports, he is he just he's an encyclopedia. He knows everything. And then, you know, on Wall Street, he knows how everybody made their money and and the stories, and he's, you know, an incredible raconteur about telling all these stories. And then and also the most surprising thing is because I Adam Pegg is a narcissist.
When narcissists are incapable of empathy, and he's one of the most empathetic people that I've met, You notice whenever he talks about the Ukraine war Yes. He always talks about the casualties on both sides. Every time he talks about it I have noticed that. And he does that in every theater. He talks about how human beings are affected by it, you know, whether it's vaccines or Medicaid or Medicare.
He's always thinking about how this impacts the little guy. And, you know, the Democrats haven't pegged as a guy who's sort of sitting, you know, in the cabinet meeting talking about how can we make billionaires richer. He's the opposite of that. He's a genuine populace. And, you know, like all of us, we're we're all flawed characters in one way or another.
But I think he's really a uniquely right person for this country right now because we were in a death spiral. And not only just, you know, morale, but also just, you know, the the deficits are you know, who could ever would you believe we'd ever have a present in our lifetime who would actually be addressing, you know, the cost of government in a dramatic way? No. And and the trade deficits, how could you ever cure that? It's too entrenched and so many people, you know, making money and but meanwhile, all us all going to hell in a handbasket.
And, you know, so I think he's doing stuff at great political cost to him that is gonna benefit this country ten years from now and twenty years from now. And, you know, I'm really proud to be part
@AnnaRMatson - Anna Matson
If you made it this far, you get a gold star ⭐️ Make sure you bookmark this for later!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
reSee.it AI Summary
In a recent interview, RFK Jr. claimed that CDC data indicated vaccines increased autism risk by 1,135% and alleged a 25-year cover-up. He highlighted a 1999 study manipulated to downplay risks, revealing that 97% of vaccine advisory committee members had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies. He criticized the vaccine injury reporting system for underreporting and pointed out that doctors face financial incentives to ensure high vaccination rates. RFK Jr. advocates for transparency in CDC data to enable independent research on vaccine safety.
@Nas_tech_AI - Nas
RFK Jr. interview went viral In an interview with Tucker Carlson, he revealed the CDC’s own data showed vaccines increased autism by 1,135% and the 25-year cover-up that followed. 99% of Americans have never heard this. Here are the shocking revelations you need to know…(🧵) https://t.co/dnqTDrqYAU
@Nas_tech_AI - Nas
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/aLh1v9TC9i
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims epidemiological studies are easily manipulated and that proper studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated groups are lacking, except for a CDC study in 1999. This CDC study, led by Thomas Verstraten, allegedly compared children who received the hepatitis vaccine within the first thirty days of life to those vaccinated later or not at all. The speaker asserts the study found a 1,135% elevated risk of autism in vaccinated children, which "shocked" researchers. The speaker alleges the CDC then kept the study secret and manipulated it through five iterations to bury the link.
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 the 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 and they manipulated it through five different iterations to try to bury the link.
@Nas_tech_AI - Nas
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/NcQvZbdWD1
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims previous studies indicating no link between certain factors and specific outcomes were flawed. They allege researchers eliminated older children from the data, stratified the data improperly, and used other "tricks." The speaker states that external literature shows over 100 studies indicating a link. They announce plans to conduct new observational, retrospective, and epidemiological studies, as originally recommended by the Institute of Medicine, using publicly available databases. They characterize this new approach as "real science."
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 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 gonna 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.
@Nas_tech_AI - Nas
But the corruption goes much deeper than just one study. The entire system that decides what vaccines your kids get has been captured...
@Nas_tech_AI - Nas
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/8Cu0EUBwrL
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker says 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), stating that 97% of its members had undisclosed conflicts of interest.
The rotavirus vaccine's approval was cited as an example, with four out of five board members having direct financial interests in it. Paul Offit, who frequently speaks about vaccines, voted to add the rotavirus vaccine to the schedule while developing his own. After the rotavirus vaccine was mandated, Offit's vaccine was guaranteed to be on the schedule.
The approved vaccine was withdrawn due to causing intussusception in children. Offit and his business partners then sold their rotavirus vaccine to Merck for $186 million.
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 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, he is developing vaccine. It's virtually guaranteed to get on the schedule. It's a competitive product. But once you say rotavirus vaccine has to be vaccinated for, its 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 the intussusception, agonizingly painful when your intestines kind of tie up against each other. 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 schedule. 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.
@Nas_tech_AI - Nas
4/ They Never Said No to Anything RFK Jr. 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/YpXAfSRpO3
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims a committee experienced typical conflict, but a specific conflict was particularly obvious. The Office of Inspector General and Congress investigated and urged change, but nothing happened.
The speaker asserts this group committed medical malpractice by approving vaccines, increasing the number from 11 in 1986 to 69 and then 92. They state that, except for the COVID vaccine, none had pre-licensing safety trials with a true placebo. According to the speaker, these vaccines were introduced without safety studies, meaning the risk profiles are unknown. The speaker attributes this to corruption and agency capture.
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.
@Nas_tech_AI - Nas
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/OZPMTCjqZo
Video Transcript AI Summary
The CDC funded a machine counting system designed to analyze vaccine injuries through cluster analysis. Led by Lazarus, the team tested the system at Harvard Pilgrim HMO, comparing its findings to VAERS data. The study revealed that VAERS captured less than 1% of vaccine injuries, while their system captured over 95%.
The data indicated injuries in approximately 2.7% of all vaccines, roughly one out of every 37. Despite the system's accuracy, the CDC allegedly shelved it in 2010. The speaker claims that for 22 years the CDC has continued to use VAERS, a system they know doesn't work. The speaker advocates for changing VAERS or creating a supplementary system that accurately tracks vaccine injuries.
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 they did this 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 entries, and 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 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.
@Nas_tech_AI - Nas
6/ Media Capture Through Advertising Roger Ailes told RFK Jr. 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/CDp0BUBfJZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker had a long-standing, if politically opposed, friendship with the founder of Fox News, stemming from time spent together in Africa. Despite their disagreements, the founder was loyal and ensured the speaker, an environmentalist, appeared on Fox News programs with hosts like Sean Hannity.
In 2014, the speaker presented the founder with a documentary about mercury in vaccines, which resonated with him due to a personal connection. However, the founder said he couldn't allow the speaker to discuss it on air because doing so would lead to repercussions from Rupert Murdoch and potential firings, as pharmaceutical companies accounted for 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, a primary revenue source vital for the financially struggling networks.
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, your former colleagues, wouldn't be 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 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 kind of collapsing financially.
@Nas_tech_AI - Nas
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/C1zCGdToUj
Video Transcript AI Summary
Doctors have incentives related to vaccines, with one article claiming that 50% of pediatricians' revenue comes from them. Insurance companies like Blue Cross allegedly pay bonuses to pediatricians who maintain high vaccination rates among their clients, potentially tens of thousands of dollars. This bonus structure is claimed to be the reason pediatricians might dismiss patients who want alternative vaccine schedules. These incentives are characterized as perverse, hindering doctors from prioritizing patient care over financial gain. It is claimed that twenty years ago, 20% of doctors worked for corporations, but now 80% do, with corporations prioritizing revenue over patient well-being.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So the doctors also have their own incentives, you know, prefers incentives. There's a published article out there now that says that 50% of 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 their clients are fully vaccinated, they get a huge bonus. It could be tens of thousands of dollars. And that's why your 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.
@Nas_tech_AI - Nas
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/QeffO3lHzC
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims there is a connection between autism and government-promoted vaccines, which constitutes a tort, implying many people were injured. They ask how these injured parties can be made whole.
Another speaker explains that the 1986 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Vaccine Act gave vaccine companies immunity from liability, regardless of recklessness, toxicity, or injury severity. This immunity prevents lawsuits against vaccine companies and is presented as a reason for the increase in vaccinations.
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, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 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
@Nas_tech_AI - Nas
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/CBcFO7aaSa
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 suggests vaccines could be a key culprit in the rise of diseases like diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, seizure disorders, ADD, ADHD, speech delay, language delay, tics, Tourette's syndrome, narcolepsy, and autism, which the speaker claims were rare in their childhood. The speaker believes this generation is damaged by these diseases.
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 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 82 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 calculate 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 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.
@Nas_tech_AI - Nas
RFK Jr.'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.
@Nas_tech_AI - Nas
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.
@Nas_tech_AI - Nas
Thanks for reading. If you enjoyed this post, follow @Nas_tech_AI for more content on AI and politics. Appreciate the support.
@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
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m reflecting on Tucker Carlson's comments about American pharmaceutical companies, which he claims are essentially government contractors profiting off taxpayers. He highlights the absurdity of Donald Trump needing to demand real Covid vaccine data from Pfizer and Moderna, pointing out that these companies and their executives have become billionaires through federal funding. I find it troubling that we have no recourse if their products harm us, as they enjoy full immunity. Carlson suggests that accountability is necessary, even calling for jail time for those involved.
@WallStreetApes - Wall Street Apes
Tucker Carlson comes out and says it, American pharmaceutical companies are not really private companies. They’re government contractors paying themselves billions of dollars getting rich off taxpayers and publishing fake data “Maybe someone should go to jail, like right away” They talk about Donald Trump demanding the real Covid vaccine data from Pfizer and Moderna “Pretty unbelievable that he has to send something like this out, considering that companies like Pfizer and Moderna and their executives are all billionaires because of federal tax dollars. So like this, these are not really private. I mean, they're publicly traded companies, but they're not in some kind of private sector business. They are government contractors. We're forced to take their products. We have no recourse if those products hurt us because they have full immunity. And so they're getting rich from our tax dollars, but we don't get to see the numbers. Like maybe someone should go to jail, like right away.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 demands public disclosure: "It is very important that the drug companies justify the success of their various COVID drugs." He adds, "I want them to show them now to CDC and the public and clear up this mess one way or the other." He asks, "If not, we all want to know about it and why." He contends that "Pfizer and Moderna and their executives are all billionaires because of federal tax dollars" and that, as "government contractors," "we don't get to see the numbers." He cites "Burla is now a billionaire because he is involved in a scam where US tax dollars go into his pocket" and says critics face censorship or arrest. He recalls Trump saying Warp Speed "saved millions of lives" and notes DoD involvement under "General Perna," asserting "the DoD is who developed these jabs" and that Pfizer/Moderna were asked to "slap their label on it for money." Speaker 1 calls it "the first time" he heard him "maybe somewhat question the effectiveness" of Warp Speed, a DoD operation run by General Perna; references Sasha Ladopova and Katherine Watt.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And I'm quoting, It is very important that the drug companies justify the success of their various COVID drugs. Many people think they are a miracle that saved millions of lives. Others disagree. With the CDC now being ripped apart over this question, I want the answer, and I want it now, in all caps. I've been shown information from Pfizer and others that is extraordinary, but they never seem to show those results to the public.
Why not? They go off the next hunt and let everyone rip themselves apart, including Bobby Kennedy Jr. And the CDC, trying to figure out the success or failure of the drug company's COVID work. They show me great numbers and results, but they don't seem to be showing them to many others. And I want them to show them now to CDC and the public and clear up this mess one way or the other.
I hope that Operation Warp Speed was brilliant, as many say it was. If not, we all want to know about it and why. Thank you for your attention to this very important matter, President DJT.
Speaker 1: Wow. I'm really encouraged by those words, significantly encouraged. It's been a struggle with this whole operation warp speed and with what we know. Yes. Being physicians practicing.
Being physicians practicing, but not all physicians practicing. We talked about this earlier, you know, where a very small percentage of us actually quote unquote know, okay? Yes. But to hear that coming from him where he may actually be questioning the operation warp speed numbers that were put behind him and that were given to him before is a really, really interesting twist.
Speaker 0: Pretty unbelievable that he has to send something like this out, that companies like Pfizer and Moderna and their executives are all billionaires because of federal tax dollars. So like these are not really, I mean, they're publicly traded companies, but they're not in some kind of private sector business. They are government contractors. We're forced to take their products. We have no recourse if those products hurt us because they have full immunity.
And so they're getting rich from our tax dollars, but we don't get to see the numbers. Like maybe someone should go to
Speaker 1: jail like right away. What numbers is he seeing that he says have been really impressive numbers that we're not seeing?
Speaker 0: Well, burla, the veterinarian burla guy. Right. Who I think is not a He's a vet, right?
Speaker 1: He's a vet, correct.
Speaker 0: And you're a surgeon, but they try to put you in prison for the rest of your life. But Burla is now a billionaire because he is involved in a scam where US tax dollars go into his pocket and there's nothing we can do about it. Right. And if you complain about it, by the way.
Speaker 1: Then they shut you down and they censor you and they try to arrest you or they
Speaker 0: do This arrest ghoula creep, this ghoul has been showing up at the, he's been at the White House a bunch, I think. Right. And he's been spinning. Well, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump has called him out saying, hey, this is my best friend or not best friend, but this is a really good friend of mine, Borla, and kind of praised what they've done.
Speaker 0: Yeah, how about I call you when my dog has puppies? Okay? Like, what are
Speaker 1: you doing? What is this? Anyway, sorry, sorry, sorry.
Speaker 0: But Trump's position up until apparently this morning, as far as I know, has been Operation Warp Speed, which
Speaker 1: he- Saved millions of lives.
Speaker 0: Saved millions of lives. It was like Jonas Salk's polio vaccine. The last line in here is it was brilliant, as many say it was. If not, we want to know what happened.
Speaker 1: That's, like I said, that is the first time that I've heard him maybe somewhat question the effectiveness or what actually was behind Operation Warp Speed. Operation Warp Speed was a DoD operation. It was run by a general, okay, General Perna. And, you know, there's a lot of evidence out there in Sasha Ladopova and Katherine Watt, and a lot of people have put out information that essentially the DoD is who developed these jabs, these COVID vaccines. And then they in turn asked Pfizer and Moderna to slap their label on it for money, and then distribute them because it was a military operation in terms of
Speaker 0: this
reSee.it AI Summary
I feel like things are much worse than we understand. Former Chief Editors of major medical journals claim that half of published science is fake. Big Pharma seems to control everything, and the level of corruption is shocking. It's alarming that so little has been done about it.
@WallStreetApes - Wall Street Apes
Things are so much worse than we realize Multiple past Chief Editors of Major Medical Journals such as New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, British Medical Journal, have all come out saying “50% of the science that’s published is fake” “Big Pharma, they own everything” “I mean, the depth of corruption is stunning, and the fact that pretty much nothing's been done about it makes you wonder how long this can all last.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Big Pharma, they own everything. There's a number of past chief editors of journals, and we're not talking just, you know, like some throwaway journals. We're talking New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, British Medical Journal. Okay. Some of the biggest journals in the world. Those are top three out of the top four that I just named. Journal of American Medical Association is the other one. But chief editors in the last twenty years, at least six of them have come out and said that at least 50% of the science that's published is fake. Come on. Read their quotes. Marcia Angel is one of them that I can remember her name. There's a guy by the name of Richard something or other from the British Medical Journal who said the same thing. I just read an article about it the other day. I'll I'll send it to you because it's I'm not surprised. I mean, depth of corruption is is stunning and and the fact that pretty much nothing's been done about it makes you wonder how long this can all last.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Big Pharma, they own everything. There's a number of past chief editors of journals, and we're not talking just, you know, like some throwaway journals. We're talking New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, British Medical Journal. Okay. Some of the biggest journals in the world.
Those are top three out of the top four that I just named. Journal of American Medical Association is the other one. But chief editors in the last twenty years, at least six of them have come out and said that at least 50% of the science that's published is fake. Come on. Read their quotes.
Marcia Angel is one of them that I can remember her name. There's a guy by the name of Richard something or other from the British Medical Journal who said the same thing. I just read an article about it just the other day. I'll I'll send it to you because it's I'm not surprised. I mean, depth of corruption is is stunning and and the fact that pretty much nothing's been done about it makes you wonder how long this can all last.
reSee.it AI Summary
Pharma focuses on managing diseases rather than curing them, creating a cycle of dependency on medications. The industry thrives on chronic illness, with significant profits from drugs for ADHD, anxiety, and obesity. The system perpetuates itself by creating problems, diagnosing them, and offering solutions that lead to profit. Media and political influences further entrench this cycle, as pharma funds much of the health information we receive. To break free, we must educate ourselves and support natural health practices, seeking causes rather than just treating symptoms.
@alextopol - 🛑 mocking the PEOPLE
💊 PHARMA: THE DISEASE INDUSTRY Pharma doesn’t cure disease. Pharma manages disease – it controls it, prolongs it, and monetizes it. When digital corporations steal movement from children, and the junk food industry addicts their bodies, pharma gets the perfect customer: https://t.co/UhWckYU00J
@alextopol - 🛑 mocking the PEOPLE
a chronically ill, obedient, and fearful human. 📊 GLOBAL FACTS •The global pharmaceutical market in 2024 is worth $1.6 trillion – and is growing by 6–8% annually. •The ten biggest companies (Pfizer, Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Merck, Sanofi, GSK, AstraZeneca,
@alextopol - 🛑 mocking the PEOPLE
Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly) generate over $900 billion in revenue. •40% of global revenue comes from the USA – the world’s largest pharmaceutical market. •Sales of drugs for ADHD, anxiety, and hormonal disorders among children and youth have doubled in the last decade.
@alextopol - 🛑 mocking the PEOPLE
•The obesity drug market (Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro) is expected to reach $1.5 trillion by 2030. 💡 A healthy child brings no profit. A sick child means a lifelong customer.
@alextopol - 🛑 mocking the PEOPLE
💰 WHO PROFITS – FOLLOW THE MONEY •Pfizer – $60 billion (Comirnaty, Paxlovid) •Novo Nordisk – $33 billion (Ozempic, Wegovy) •Eli Lilly – $34 billion (Mounjaro, Prozac) •Johnson & Johnson – $85 billion (drugs, vaccines, surgery) •Roche – $68 billion (oncology)
@alextopol - 🛑 mocking the PEOPLE
•AstraZeneca – $45 billion (vaccines, biologics) •GSK – $36 billion (vaccines, antibiotics) •Sanofi – $43 billion (insulin, immunology) 💡 In 2023, pharma earned $900 billion–more than the global food industry. And yet people are increasingly sick, tired, and dependent.
@alextopol - 🛑 mocking the PEOPLE
🧠 HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS 1️⃣ Create the problem The food and digital industries produce a generation without movement, with a weak immune system and mental exhaustion. 2️⃣ Make the diagnosis The healthcare system – financed by pharma – establishes a new “official” diagnosis.
@alextopol - 🛑 mocking the PEOPLE
3️⃣Offer the solution The solution comes from the same source: a lab that funds doctor education and advertises through media. 👉 Problem → Diagnosis → Product → Profit.
@alextopol - 🛑 mocking the PEOPLE
🎭 MEDIA – WHO PAYS FOR THE “TRUTH”? Pharma companies account for 50–70% of all advertising revenue in medical and scientific journals (JAMA, The Lancet, Medscape). In the USA, pharma directly finances over 70% of TV health commercials. Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson are among
@alextopol - 🛑 mocking the PEOPLE
the top five advertisers worldwide – together spending over $15 billion per year on marketing. In the EU, pharma is the second-largest media content sponsor, right after the automotive industry. 💡 When you wonder why TV doesn’t talk about nutrition, exercise, or natural
@alextopol - 🛑 mocking the PEOPLE
healing – the answer is always the same: follow the money.
@alextopol - 🛑 mocking the PEOPLE
🔒 POLITICAL BACKGROUND •Lobbying: According to Transparency International (2023), pharma spends over €300 million annually influencing legislation in Brussels. •Revolving doors: Top executives from pharma companies regularly move into positions at EMA, FDA, and WHO.
@alextopol - 🛑 mocking the PEOPLE
•World Health Organization (WHO): Nearly 80% of its budget comes from private donations – mostly from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and GAVI (both linked to Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline). •In 2020, a former Pfizer legal advisor was on the WHO vaccine ethics board.
@alextopol - 🛑 mocking the PEOPLE
•Financial giants BlackRock and Vanguard are the largest shareholders of most pharma and media corporations – owning stakes in Pfizer, J&J, GSK, Moderna, Reuters, CNN, and Fox. 👉 Those who make the drugs also control the media that report on their effectiveness.
@alextopol - 🛑 mocking the PEOPLE
🧬 GOAL: LONG-TERM DEPENDENCE ADHD → focus pills Depression → antidepressants Obesity → weight-loss injections Allergies → antihistamines Vaccines → annual “immunity maintenance programs” 💡 This is not healing. This is body management. The human becomes a permanent digital
@alextopol - 🛑 mocking the PEOPLE
and biological client of the industry.
@alextopol - 🛑 mocking the PEOPLE
🔄 THE BIG PATTERN Digital → steals attention → causes mental exhaustion. Food → addicts the body → causes physical weakness. Pharma → monetizes illness → creates lasting dependence. Children are no longer the future – they have become the market. They’re trapped in a
@alextopol - 🛑 mocking the PEOPLE
cycle: screen → sugar → pill. ✅ WHAT WE CAN DO •Educate children about psychological marketing and hidden corporate deals. •Support natural prevention: movement, sunlight, sleep, local food. •Don’t buy symptoms – seek causes. •Demand independent research funded by
@alextopol - 🛑 mocking the PEOPLE
public money. •Support local doctors, therapists, and homeopaths – not corporate “health guides.” 🔚 KEY MESSAGE Pharma will not heal the world. Only we can – through knowledge, truth, awareness, and love of life. 🌱