reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 states that one of their three children experienced health issues, including heart inflammation, after receiving the vaccine and subsequently lost their job for refusing further vaccination. This adverse reaction is officially registered. The speaker recounts a doctor advising their son against further vaccination outside a hospital setting, but later denying having said so. Speaker 1 says there is a good system for reporting side effects in New Zealand and finds no clear evidence of suppression of medical side effects of the Pfizer vaccine. Speaker 0 questions why the vaccine is still in use given the side effects. Speaker 1 responds that society decided to tolerate a certain number of adverse effects for the greater good, characterizing the speaker's family member's reaction as "taking one for the team."

Speaker 0 asks if Moderna uses its profits to help people injured by their vaccine. Speaker 1 responds that indemnities are a government policy matter and cannot comment. Speaker 0 clarifies if Moderna is unwilling to take responsibility for the safety of their vaccine. Speaker 1 emphasizes their commitment to vaccine safety but reiterates that indemnities are a matter for policymakers. Speaker 0 questions the moral obligation of Moderna to assist vaccine victims, but Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 assuming the answer is zero and thanking them.

Speaker 0 is pleased about vaccination effectiveness in preventing severe COVID and long-term effects. They mention rare side effects from vaccines and emphasize the importance of ongoing monitoring. Speaker 1 questions the safety of products on the market without complete testing. The TGA lacks data on adverse events due to underreporting, leading to audience frustration.

The discussion revolves around the lack of complete safety study information in the patient package insert for the Moderna vaccine. The speaker acknowledges the missing data but assures safety based on personal experience. When asked about the specific studies supporting the vaccine's safety and effectiveness, the speaker admits to not having an answer. The conversation ends with the speaker feeling inadequate for not being able to provide more information.

A person asks a pharmacy employee for the Moderna vaccine safety studies and placebo safety studies. The employee provides the manufacturer's package insert, stating the patient version is truncated, but the full information is inside. The person questions how informed consent is possible if all safety studies aren't listed. The employee agrees, stating they should not be giving the vaccines at all, but are told to. The employee claims everything they have seen, including patients they have given it to, indicates it is safe. When asked about the studies supporting the claim of safety and effectiveness, the employee says they cannot answer.

Speaker 0 asks if Moderna puts any of its profits into helping people injured by the vaccine. Speaker 1 states that indemnities are a matter for the government and cannot comment further. Speaker 0 questions if Moderna is unwilling to underwrite the risk of its own vaccine and prioritize its safety. Speaker 1 reiterates that they take vaccine safety seriously and have a good pharmacovigilance process in place, but indemnities are a matter for policymakers. Speaker 0 asks about the moral responsibility of helping vaccine victims, to which Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 assuming the answer is zero.

Speaker 0 confronts a pharmacist about their son's hospitalization due to myocarditis after receiving a COVID jab. Speaker 0 is upset that his wife was not informed about this potential side effect. Speaker 1 explains that they may not disclose the side effect to avoid scaring parents away from vaccinating their children. Speaker 0 expresses disbelief and insists that parents should be given accurate information to make informed decisions.

Speaker 0 acknowledges reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with the Pfizer vaccine but seems unsure about the mechanism behind it. Speaker 1 asks if the vaccine was tested for its ability to stop virus transmission before being released. Speaker 2 questions if people were forced to get vaccinated to keep their jobs and asks Speaker 0 to retract their statement. Speaker 0 clarifies that everyone had the choice to get vaccinated or not, and they don't believe anyone was forced.

Speaker 0 says 25% of Americans believe they know someone who was killed by a COVID vaccine, emphasizing that this percentage is “killed.” Speaker 0 also states that 52% of Americans believe the vaccines are causing injuries, including death. Speaker 0 then discusses Pfizer clinical trial studies, saying that the released Pfizer study had 22,000 people in the placebo group and 22,000 people who received the vaccine. Speaker 0 claims that, at the end of the study, people who received the vaccine had a 23% higher death rate from all causes. Speaker 0 adds that Moderna has not released its clinical trial studies. Speaker 0 then responds to a question about whether the death rate could be caused by the disease itself, stating, “If it is, then the vaccine doesn't work, does it?” Speaker 0 continues with additional responses that the exchange indicates uncertainty about the implications of the higher death rate.

Speaker 0 asks about a report and how concerning it is, suggesting that if the reported figure is 10, there is a “real number” that could be higher. Speaker 1 says the main concern is that the analysis “dramatically understates the problem.” They describe the difficulty of getting autopsies during the pandemic and say medical professors didn’t want to perform them, resulting in very few autopsies. They state that NIH/CDC/FDA reviewed 96 pediatric autopsies and concluded about 10 were possible or probable. Speaker 1 then argues that safety signals were “screaming,” and points to VAERS. They claim there are almost 1.7 million total adverse events and 39,000 deaths worldwide. They say 24% of the 39,000 deaths occurred on the day of vaccination or within one or two days. Speaker 1 also references the point that VAERS doesn’t prove causation, while stating that if a person who was “perfectly healthy” died that day or within one or two days, they would “be blaming” the jab. They add that in some cases people may have been in bad health already, with death tipped over by another cause. Speaker 1 says the “bigger revelation,” which they claim was unveiled three weeks ago and is “still not being covered by the mainstream media,” involves FDA’s VAERS algorithm. They state that on 03/01/2021, Peter Marks (head of CBER/FDA’s division approving vaccines and surveilling post-approval safety) was briefed that their algorithm analyzing VAERS would “hide and mask safety signals.” They say that 26 days later, a new algorithm unmasked safety signals, producing 49 cases of extreme masking revealed and 25 safety signals, including sudden cardiac death, pulmonary infarction, Bell’s palsy, and different types of strokes. They claim that similar data runs over the next three months showed more safety signals and more sudden death. Speaker 1 further claims that FDA did not “pin a badge” on Anna Scharzman, referred to as the father of their expert, and instead “shunned her off to the side,” ordered her to cease and desist, and decided to use the algorithm they had been warned would hide safety signals, which they say is still being used. Speaker 1 states that Peter Marks left for Eli Lilly and claims “the entire world” is in denial. They say they have been unable to broadcast the story or get interviews on CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, MSNBC, or CNN, and that they challenged Jake Tapper, who they say agreed to read the report but has not invited them back yet.

The speaker discusses the vaccine's link to death and disability, citing over 37,000 deaths globally reported on VAERS. They criticize regulators for not addressing this issue earlier and mention a conversation with Francis Collins about vaccine-related deaths. The speaker also mentions a conversation with Dr. Redfield, who admitted downplaying vaccine injuries to avoid creating hesitancy. Dr. Redfield acknowledged that there are more injuries than reported.

COVID vaccines are declared safe by Speaker 0. Speaker 1 expresses pain, trauma, and regret due to lack of help for vaccine injuries. They mention people with amputations and heart conditions, and question why they had to set up a support group in Scotland. They criticize the vaccine damage payment scheme and state that over 30,000 people in Scotland have had adverse reactions to the vaccine. Speaker 1 demands that Rashid Shunaka start doing the right thing. Speaker 0 responds by saying that decisions regarding the vaccine were made based on medical advice from experts.

The speaker expresses concern that only 5% of adverse reactions are reported in the database, suggesting it's just the tip of the iceberg. Another speaker reassures that the vaccine is safe and there is no evidence of it causing deaths. Prior to the COVID vaccine rollout, an average of 1500 adverse event reports were received annually for all vaccines in New Zealand, resulting in one or fewer reported deaths per year.

Speaker 0: They argue that because the vaccine is classified as such, they don’t have to worry about being sued. They claim immunity from liability is dependent on there being no fraud, and there clearly was fraud. Speaker 1: They say there is fraud. They note that immunity from liability depends on fraud, and in light of that, it matters. They explain that there was fraud. Speaker 0: Expresses surprise and asks for caveats about fraud. Acknowledges there were caveats. Speaker 1: Confirms there is fraud and says it makes the situation more interesting. Speaker 0: Asks how fraud is defined, noting that drugs were sold with multiple studies and only one was good. Speaker 1: Responds with a point about safety testing for the mRNA vaccines. States that the insufficient safety testing was done before release, and that the product injected into billions of people involved DNA plasmids. There is massive contamination in the shots actually delivered, including the SV40 promoter from simian virus 40. The point is that safety testing for one drug was completed, but people were injected with something different that had other components that were not tested, which is described as fraudulent. Speaker 0: Requests an explanation of the SV40 issue for the audience. Speaker 1: Describes production techniques used to generate the product. Explains that a plasmid, a circular piece of DNA, was used to produce the product in vats, with bacteria performing the production, later coated in lipid nanoparticle. There is a requirement to purify DNA and set standards for DNA contamination, with limits that cannot be exceeded. In this case, the problem isn’t only poor quality control but that there was a more painstaking way to produce the same product that did not involve DNA plasmids at all. Consequently, leftover material in vials injected into people contained DNA contamination across the board. Kevin McKernan tested vials, finding DNA contamination in the samples. Speaker 1: Explains that the DNA left over includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic trigger from simian virus 40, which is known to be carcinogenic. Since this promoter is left in the vials from injections given to people, it challenges the claim that the mRNA shots could not integrate into the genome. While acknowledging that there are cellular processes such as reverse transcription, the speaker asserts that even the claim of “no DNA” is false because there is DNA in the vials, specifically DNA with the SV40 promoter, a genetic engineering tool with carcinogenic potential. The speaker concludes that this appears to be fraud: injecting a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing that was conducted with a product produced by a different process. Speaker 0: Reiterates the conclusion: you can’t inject a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing that was done with something produced by a different process.

Speaker 0 states that “there’s 25% of Americans who believe that they know somebody who was killed by a COVID vaccine,” emphasizing “killed” and “killed,” and repeating that the figure is “25% of Americans.” Speaker 0 then says “52% of Americans believe that the vaccines are causing injuries, including death,” and repeats “52%.” Speaker 0 continues by discussing clinical trial studies and what has or has not been released. Speaker 0 says that “if you look at the clinical trial studies, the actual studies that were done that were released of the Pfizer vaccine,” “Moderna has not released it.” Speaker 0 then specifies the Pfizer trial numbers: “If you look at the Pfizer vaccine, there were 22,000 people in the placebo group, 22,000 people who got the actual vaccine.” Speaker 0 presents an outcome claim tied to those groups, saying: “And the people who got the vaccine had a 23% higher death rate from all causes at the end of that study.” Speaker 0 frames a question regarding whether the higher death rate could be related to the disease itself. Speaker 0 says: “But that could not be the disease itself?” and then asks, “No, well... Because we know that...” Speaker 0 then brings up a logical implication, saying: “If it is, then the vaccine doesn't work, does it?” Speaker 0 responds to this with a partial back-and-forth, stating: “Well, it's certainly... Well, no, no, that's not, that's...” ending mid-thought. Overall, the transcript centers on Speaker 0’s reported survey-style figures (25% believing they know someone killed by a COVID vaccine; 52% believing vaccines cause injuries including death) and Speaker 0’s discussion of Pfizer clinical trial study details (placebo group size of 22,000; vaccine group size of 22,000; a claimed 23% higher death rate from all causes for those who received the vaccine at the end of the study), alongside Speaker 0’s statement that Moderna has not released the corresponding clinical trial studies. The transcript also includes a question-and-response exchange about whether the observed death-rate difference could be due to the disease itself and what that would imply.

Speaker 0 explains that each brand of vaccine is different, including Moderna. Speaker 1 asks if they can see the safety studies for all the vaccines, but Speaker 0 says the information given to patients does not contain that. Speaker 1 asks which vaccine they are giving, and Speaker 0 confirms it is the one they are giving. Speaker 1 questions why the package insert is intentionally blank, and Speaker 0 says the safety studies are inside. Speaker 1 asks how this is informed consent, and Speaker 0 suggests talking to CVS. Speaker 1 expresses concern about not knowing what they are injecting, and Speaker 0 agrees it is a valid point. Speaker 0 admits they cannot answer which studies prove the vaccine is safe and effective.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to explain why the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis. Speaker 1 mentions rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with vaccination but does not provide a clear explanation. Speaker 0 insists on understanding the mechanism and questions why the vaccine is considered safe without addressing the risks. Speaker 2 intervenes, suggesting that Speaker 1 will address the question later. Speaker 1 talks about the benefit-risk ratio and the global recommendation of health authorities. Speaker 0 reiterates the question, to which Speaker 1 agrees to provide a response later. Speaker 2 confirms this agreement.

Speaker 0 asked about the visibility of the medium to long-term effects of the vaccine in three to five years. Speaker 1 responded that they cannot predict how things will be in three to five years, but mentioned that 92-93% of the population will be vaccinated. Speaker 0 expressed confusion, and Speaker 1 clarified that 92-93% is the current vaccination rate. Speaker 0 raised concerns about potential side effects, but Speaker 1 reassured them that if there are any, the majority of the population would be affected. Speaker 0 remained unconvinced and expressed hesitation about getting vaccinated.

The speaker asks Pfizer and Moderna to explain how the COVID-19 vaccine causes myocarditis. The response from the doctors is that the exact mechanism is still being studied, but myocarditis is generally an autoimmune response that can occur after COVID-19 or other infections. The speaker questions if other organs could also be affected by the vaccine, but the doctors explain that ongoing surveillance is in place to monitor potential risks. The speaker expresses concern about the lack of initial disclosure of these risks. The doctors emphasize the importance of preventing COVID-19 and state that the reported rate of myocarditis is around 2-3 per 100,000 doses. The speaker argues that if it can happen to the heart, it could happen to other organs. The conversation ends due to time constraints.

Speaker 0 asks if people are not afraid of the side effects of the Covid vaccine. Speaker 1 responds that they are more afraid of long-term effects of Covid itself than the vaccine's side effects. They mention that billions of people have been vaccinated with no major side effects reported. Speaker 1 also addresses the concern that women are more affected by vaccine side effects, stating that there is no scientific evidence to support this claim. They mention not having any information from the COVAS (the organization responsible for scientific surveillance) or any published studies on this matter.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about the lack of clinical trial data for the MMR vaccine. Speaker 1 insists that the vaccine was extensively tested before being licensed and that millions of doses have been used. Speaker 0 asks for proof of pre-licensure clinical trials, but Speaker 1 only refers to a book and mentions studies done in the 1960s. Speaker 0 argues that the data provided is not sufficient and questions the absence of a placebo group. Speaker 1 admits uncertainty about the inclusion of control groups but maintains that safety assessments were conducted. Speaker 0 concludes that no randomized placebo-controlled study exists for the MMR vaccine. Speaker 1 agrees to provide additional information after the deposition.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to explain the process of how the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis. Speaker 1 mentions rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with vaccination. Speaker 0 insists on an explanation of the mechanism, but Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer. Speaker 1 emphasizes that all medicines have benefits and side effects and refers to the benefit-risk ratio. Speaker 0 continues to press for an explanation of the biochemical pathway, but Speaker 1 agrees to provide a response later. The transcript ends with Speaker 2 confirming Speaker 1's agreement to give a further response.

Speaker 0 assures that reported side effects of the vaccine are expected and not concerning. They urge people to report any unusual reactions. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of transparency and unbiased investigation into outbreaks following vaccination. They question the accuracy of recording underlying causes of death related to COVID-19. Speaker 0 dismisses these concerns, stating that spreading doubts about vaccine safety during a pandemic is dangerous and undermines public health. Speaker 1 finds the minister's response concerning and ends the conversation.

Speaker 0 says they found “information like this,” such as vaccine insert paper, with “nothing printed on it,” which they call disheartening and disgusting. They add that it “just keeps happening” and claim the CDC redacts “every single word” of a 148-page study on a myocarditis after COVID vaccination. Speaker 0 says they asked someone to print the study, and that the entire 148 pages are redacted. They ask what a study does if “there’s nothing there,” and they ask what might have been there that required redaction. Speaker 1 says they are “witnessing an active cover up” involving “a colossal consumer product safety debacle” affecting the entire world. They claim that in the United States, the CDC, National Institutes of Health, and FDA are actively involved in a cover up, and that similar cover ups are occurring in the UK with the MHRA, in Europe with European medicine agencies, and in Australia with the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Speaker 1 states that each company that puts out a product has an obligation to produce “ninety days of safety monitoring” after the product comes out, describing it as a regulatory dossier. They claim that if someone has a problem and reports it to a company like Pfizer, Pfizer must report, write down what happened, collate it into a report, and make it publicly available. Speaker 1 says that when the ninety days elapsed for Pfizer’s first vaccine approved on 12/10/2020, Pfizer “didn’t produce a report.” They add that people asked what was happening with the vaccine, and Pfizer allegedly would not disclose what happened, leading to a court case. Speaker 1 says the lawyer for the FDA stepped in to say they did not want to release Pfizer’s dossier for fifty-five years. Speaker 1 then says that after the plaintiff pushed, the Pfizer dossier “slowly” came out. They claim Pfizer recorded one thousand two hundred and twenty-three deaths with their product within ninety days of release, and they say people called Pfizer in desperation watching family members die after taking the vaccine. Speaker 1 also claims Pfizer recorded “over twelve hundred” new adverse events and refers to “doctor Boden” discussing problems they say they have been grappling with. They conclude by claiming the FDA worked to cover this up and should have been regulating the company with at least monthly meetings and full disclosure about novel vaccines, described by Speaker 1 as a genetic transfer technology platform and as the first time human beings were injected with foreign genetic material in world history, after which “they were getting it full on.” Speaker 1 ends by saying “Two thirds of the world’s population took”

The speakers express concern about the limited reporting of adverse reactions to vaccines. They mention a report suggesting that only 5% of adverse reactions are recorded in the database. Despite this, they assure viewers that the COVID vaccine is safe. They highlight that prior to the COVID vaccine rollout, the average number of adverse event reports for all vaccines in New Zealand was 1500 per year, with one or fewer deaths reported annually.