reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Vaccine court has thousands of individuals who claim vaccines caused their children's autism, with supporting documentation. This presents an opportunity to study these children and identify common factors that may have made them susceptible to injury. The speaker has inquired why such a study hasn't been conducted. The responses given are inadequate, such as suggesting someone else should do it or citing privacy concerns. The speaker believes parents would gladly share records for research if approached with trust. The speaker suspects the lack of interest stems from a pre-existing knowledge of the answer, echoing Dr. Healy's suggestion that the question is deliberately avoided.

My son loved hockey and got vaccinated despite his fear of needles. He experienced severe symptoms after the shot and passed away shortly after. The doctor failed to properly diagnose him. I want the truth about vaccine deaths and closure for my son. Another doctor confirmed that the vaccine caused his death. Many others have similar stories, and we need to address the issue of vaccine injuries.

The speaker presents a resolution addressing the alarming number of unexplained deaths in the country. They share data showing 262,000 deaths in 2021 and 67,000 deaths in 2022. The committee agrees to investigate this issue, specifically focusing on the 213,984 excess deaths. The motion is approved, and they move on to the next agenda item.

The speaker asserts that the MMR and MMR V vaccines have been linked to two thousand six hundred percent more deaths than measles infection since 1995. The claim is that for the past thirty years, the MMR shots have killed far more children than measles, and that hundreds of infants and toddlers died after these shots, often from SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome), cardiac arrest, seizures, and encephalitis. The speaker emphasizes that these shots are killing some of these children, with most deaths occurring within about two weeks after the shot, and forty percent dying within one week. The speaker notes that the temporality checks out and that most of these deaths occurred at ages one to one and a half, right when they receive the MMR shots. The speaker reports that twenty-five percent of these deaths were classified as sudden infant death syndrome. The speaker describes babies dying in their sleep as a result of these shots and calls the situation absolutely disturbing and particular in terms of the causes of death. In summary, the speaker states that all of this combined in the study shows unequivocally that these shots are deadly, and concludes that the MMR and MMRV shots should not be given anymore. The suggestion is to split them up if parents still want them, rather than administering the full combination.

The speakers discuss a study of 325 autopsies of individuals who died shortly after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. According to the speakers, this is the largest autopsy series of its kind. A rigorous review of the autopsies allegedly found that the vaccine caused or contributed to approximately 74% of the sudden deaths. This study is claimed to be a peer-reviewed paper that is going to be published. One speaker states that they are the senior author of this study. The speakers anticipate a "tsunami of evidence" regarding the harm caused by COVID-19 vaccines in children, pregnant women, and adults. They urge politicians to acknowledge and address this issue.

There has been a significant increase in unexplained child deaths since 2020, not 350% as originally thought, but actually 3,380%. This is 33 times the average. The speaker questions why this alarming statistic is being overlooked by medical professionals and the government. They aim to provide answers based on science, not speculation or rumors.

Speaker 0 argues that to determine whether smoking causes lung cancer, you must compare smokers to non-smokers. They recount a sequence of flawed study designs that would falsely conclude no link: comparing two smokers with different consumption levels and finding the same cancer rates; comparing different cigarette brands among smokers and again finding no difference; comparing people in different towns who all smoke and finding no difference. The point is that all these comparisons fail because they do not include a non-smoker control group; thus they cannot establish causation. They then contrast this with vaccine studies, asserting that studies claiming vaccines don’t cause chronic diseases or autism do not compare vaccinated to unvaccinated children. Instead, such studies compare vaccinated children to other vaccinated children, with variations in vaccines received (e.g., MMR, DTaP, multiple vaccines in one visit) and with differing aluminum exposures (e.g., four milligrams vs two milligrams). They emphasize that these studies never examine the actual outcome of interest by comparing vaccinated against unvaccinated children. The speaker maintains that this flaw in vaccine studies mirrors the earlier tobacco example. The essential argument is that the only way to determine causation is to compare the exposure group (vaccinated children) to an appropriate control group (unvaccinated children). They reference the Henry Ford trial as an example of an unvaccinated-versus-vaccinated comparison, but note that no one has published or accessible data from it. They call for someone brave enough to conduct and publish a vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated study to settle the issue. Finally, they challenge proponents of vaccination to conduct such a study to prove their position, insisting that if vaccines are truly safe and non-causal for chronic diseases or autism, the study should be done and the data published to demonstrate that the claim is correct. The overall message is a insistence on direct, unambiguous vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated comparisons to establish causality, highlighting perceived gaps in current vaccine research and urging transparent data publication.

The speaker presents a resolution regarding the alarming number of excess deaths in the country. They share data showing 262,000 deaths in 2021 and 67,000 deaths in 2022, all of which are unexplained. The committee agrees to conduct an investigation into this issue, specifically focusing on the 213,984 excess deaths. The motion is approved, and they move on to the next item on the agenda.

We analyzed all patients in my practice, no cherry-picking. Stratified by vaccines, 500 had 0, 3,700+ had some. Results showed more vaccines correlated with worse outcomes: infections, ADD, ADHD, neurodevelopmental issues, eczema, allergies, anemia. Data is powerful. Access to this info would have changed my choices for my daughter. Every parent deserves all information for informed decisions. Translation: We examined all patients in the practice without bias. Results showed a correlation between more vaccines and negative outcomes. Access to this data would have influenced my decisions for my daughter. All parents should have access to complete information for informed choices.

The speaker believes someone is serious about MAHA and concerned that vaccines cause autism, a claim he previously made but then stopped. Robert Kennedy also believes this and commissioned a study of existing data, specifically US government datasets like CMS, Medicare, and Medicaid. The study aims to detect a connection between the expansion of the vaccine schedule and the rise in autism. While a connection cannot be definitively stated, it seems likely to the speaker, and the president is reportedly concerned about it.

A person shares their findings on deaths related to COVID-19 vaccines in Massachusetts. They obtained 500,000 unredacted death certificates and found a 7-year-old girl who died from complications of COVID-19. They also mention another girl who died from a stroke after receiving the vaccine. The person claims that the vaccine caused these deaths, but the CDC did not code it as the cause. They mention several other cases of strokes and deaths related to the vaccine. They conclude by stating that over 4,000 people in Massachusetts have died from the vaccine.

The speaker discusses a set of 36 documents that are almost entirely redacted (blackened), described as “nori-bento” documents, and notes that 80% of the content is blacked out. The documents were received by a family member, specifically the widow of a man who was a former cram school teacher, living in Sapporo, Hokkaido, in her 40s. She explains that her husband died at home, and police prevented an autopsy; she wanted to know the cause of death and sought the autopsy results from the evidence. The narrative then presents a specific case: a 42-year-old man died six days after vaccination. He received the first vaccine dose on October 15, 2021, which was Pfizer. After the shot, he developed side effects: arm pain, fever, with the fever peaking at 38.5 degrees Celsius for about three days. The wife confirmed the fever lasted for three days, but she notes that he continued to go to work and did not typically discuss such symptoms. Six days after vaccination, around 2:30 a.m., the wife heard noises on the first floor and went down to find her husband collapsed. He was spitting white foam from his mouth and also bleeding; she recalls he was experiencing difficulty breathing. He subsequently suffered cardiopulmonary arrest and died. Regarding the cause of death, the doctors stated that the exact cause is unclear. They said, “this may or may not be the vaccine’s fault,” but there is no conclusive evidence that it was the vaccine. A physician described the death as related to an “acute circulatory system disease,” and there was discussion among multiple doctors who identified potential conditions such as heart attack, coronary issues, or other acute circulatory problems, but no definitive determination could be made from the available materials. The documents show that the police and investigators offered opinions that included statements like “rapid circulatory system disease inferred opinion.” The widow wanted autopsy results to clarify the cause, but the police or authorities did not provide a clear, accessible explanation in these redacted documents. There are other referenced cases where families argued that autopsies would have clarified the cause of death, and the narrator notes that some families regret not having autopsies performed. The speaker underscores that the majority of the 36 documents are redacted, with only a portion visible. The conclusion stated in the material is that the cause of death was inferred as an acute circulatory system disease, yet the detailed sequence of events leading to that conclusion remains obscured by redactions. The widow expresses ongoing grief and a wish for more complete, transparent autopsy information to understand why her husband died after vaccination. The material also hints at broader concerns about whether autopsies are being pursued aggressively enough in such cases.

Speaker 0 presented a chart and asserted that due to “radical transparency” they have access to close to 11,000,000 pages showing signals that were hidden in VAERS analyses. The speaker stated they uncovered that a signal on myocarditis was hidden, and they also recently uncovered a signal on ischemic stroke for people aged 65 and older in 2022–2023. They claimed both signals were downplayed, but that a hearing would be held next week and a draft report would be issued in conjunction with that hearing. The speaker alleged that Peter Marks was made aware on 03/26/2021 that the inventors of the algorithm analyzing VAERS data were going to mask adverse events, and that by using a different system they uncovered 49 examples of extreme masking, including 25 significant adverse events such as sudden cardiac death, Bell’s palsy, and pulmonary infarction. The speaker emphasized that this is not a matter requiring a sophisticated mathematical model to identify safety signals, stating that the chart shows deaths associated with vaccines dating back to 1990, with several hundred per year initially, and that in 2021 there were over twenty thousand deaths in a five-year span, contrasting with the FDA’s assertions that no signal exists. They characterized these as signals screaming that there has been a covering up to the present day. The speaker claimed that a number of individuals involved in the cover-up continue to work within HHS, the CDC, and the FDA. They requested a commitment that those people will be made available for interviews, and stated that they would subpoena others as needed to dig into the matter, announcing an intention to scrutinize the massive government apparatus and its handling of vaccine safety signals. The speaker concluded by reiterating their commitment to pursue interviews and investigations.

The speaker discusses signals of transgenerational harm, clarifying they are not referring to transgender issues but harms that span generations. They cite CDC data to support a claim that, beginning right after mass vaccination of childbearing-age women in early 2021, there is a statistically significant inflection point in infant mortality. They state that infant mortality rates had been steadily decreasing for thirty years, but in 2021, after mass vaccination, the rate “shoots right up,” and it “hasn't gone down since.” As of 2025, they assert, babies are dying at seventy-seven percent excess, with Mississippi reportedly declaring a state of emergency over the situation. The speaker further claims that mothers are not taking the shots anymore. They suggest that some of the genetic material from the vaccination appears to integrate into the body and may be passed on, describing it as a legacy effect. They emphasize that most people took the shots in 2021, and express concern that there could be effects through the generations as a result.

Senator Ron Johnson introduces Aaron Siri at the Kennedy Center, praising Siri as a highly consequential attorney and highlighting Siri’s work since the COVID era. Johnson recounts how his own oversight role in Congress evolved to rely on the adversarial legal process to extract information from a large government, noting that enforcement power rests in the courts. He frames Siri as someone who, through litigation and testimony, has exposed what he views as flaws in vaccine science, regulation, and safety oversight. Johnson describes Siri’s rise to prominence during the COVID period, beginning with public hearings on vaccine injuries in Milwaukee (June 2021) and Washington, DC (November 2021). He notes that Siri represented Dr. Patricia Lee, a physician who publicly discussed vaccine injection injuries and medical treatment obstacles, illustrating how federal health agencies and the CDC/FDA were perceived to respond to reports of injury. Siri’s testimony is credited with exposing calls to his practice from vaccine-injured doctors seeking treatment and the CDC/FDA officials’ defense of VAERS. Johnson highlights Siri’s 2022 and 2025 hearings, including the release of the VAERS data via the v-safe system, which Siri reportedly showed indicated higher rates of medical care sought and activity impairment among the vaccinated. Siri’s deposition of Stanley Plotkin and other experts is cited as foundational to his arguments about safety science, conflicts of interest, and the integrity of the vaccine schedule. Johnson points to the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) conclusions as being insufficient to prove vaccine safety for the entire childhood schedule, and to Siri’s presentation of the Henry Ford study (vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children) showing higher rates of chronic illness among the vaccinated. A central claim Johnson attributes to Siri is that vaccines have immunity from liability, due to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA). Siri’s summary is that vaccines are the only product in America with blanket liability protection for manufacturers and administrators, preempting design-defect claims via the Supreme Court interpretation that “the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act preempts all design defect claims.” Siri argues this immunity removes the market incentive to develop safer vaccines and leaves safety oversight to federal health authorities (HHS agencies: NIH, CDC, FDA) rather than to private manufacturers. Siri’s account of the 1986 act is that it created a mandate for safer childhood vaccines, with three provisions: (1) the general rule placing the secretary of HHS in charge of vaccine safety; (2) a task force of NIH, CDC, and FDA to make safety recommendations to the secretary; and (3) a biannual report to Congress on actions to improve vaccine safety. Siri contends that the biannual reports have never been submitted, and the task force produced only one report (in 1998) before disbanding, with Secretary Kennedy recently reinstating the task force. Siri’s firm ICANN has filed FOIA requests and submitted recommendations to HHS about how to improve vaccine safety, asserting that the current safety framework is not adequate. Siri then surveys the landscape across federal agencies. He asserts that the absence of liability incentives undermines safety, citing industry-pricing and trial designs, and he presents specific examples of licensure trials for routine vaccines that he claims were inadequate by design. Examples include: - Hepatitis B vaccines (Recombivax HB and Engerix B): five days of safety monitoring in trials with 147 participants, according to package inserts and FDA reports he obtained; he notes a lack of long-term safety data and questions the adequacy of control groups. - Prevnar 7 and Prevnar 13 (pneumococcal vaccines): uses Prevnar 7 as a control for Prevnar 13; safety data show notable serious adverse events but are deemed acceptable for licensure; subsequent trials used Prevnar 13 as control for Prevnar 15 with continued concerns about safety signals. - DTaP vs DTP: claims DTP served as control and that DTP itself was not licensed on placebo-controlled trials; cites a Guinea-Bissau study showing higher mortality with DTP vaccination and other studies suggesting increased overall mortality with DTP. - Dengue vaccine: notes long-term, placebo-controlled data showing increased severe harm and death in certain age groups; argues that non-placebo, ethically problematic trial designs can mask safety issues. Siri asserts a categorical claim based on FDA licensure documents: not a single routine neonatal vaccine on the CDC schedule has been licensed based on a placebo-controlled trial; when another vaccine served as control, that control was never a placebo. He presents this as evidence that safety assessments were compromised, especially for early-life vaccines administered in the first six months. Regarding autism, Siri frames it as a litmus test for vaccine safety studies. He recounts IOM findings that were inconclusive about DTaP (and related vaccines) causing autism, citing the lack of sufficient studies and the absence of unvaccinated comparison groups in many analyses. He describes ICANN’s FOIA drive to obtain CDC studies showing vaccines do not cause autism, asserting that most of the CDC’s own 20-study list did not address the vaccines in question. In deposition clips, Siri indicates that the IOM and CDC have not produced adequate evidence to rule out a causal link for several injuries, and that the only mainstream “no autism” position has come under legal scrutiny when the agencies faced court-ordered settlements and deposition testimony. Siri concludes with reform recommendations across agencies: - FDA: remove conflicted personnel from vaccine safety reviews, require clear licensure standards, mandate proper controls and longer safety monitoring, require practitioner notification of trial details, and post pre-registered study protocols; regain transparency of de-identified health data. - CDC/HRSA: align vaccine injury compensation with statutory requirements; expand the VICP to cover more injuries; ensure the CICP is reformed and funded to reflect safety concerns; reduce conflicts of interest; promote alternative, non-pharmaceutical approaches for root causes of chronic illness. - NIH: limit pharma involvement in vaccine development, focus taxpayer-funded research on root causes and replication, and avoid patent-related partnerships that create conflicts. - CMS/HHS-wide: require automated VAERS reporting and public access to de-identified health data; ensure religious exemptions are preserved; depoliticize vaccines and end mandates as political tools; end chronic disease by addressing vaccines as a contributing factor to immune dysregulation. Siri closes by insisting that mandating vaccines is a political act that undermines informed consent, arguing that safety should be decoupled from politics and that safety and efficacy claims should be grounded in rigorous, transparent science. He emphasizes that informed consent, not mandates, should govern medical decisions.

A recent paper reported that two-month-old infants who received all six CDC-recommended vaccines had about a 68% increased odds of dying in the following month compared to unvaccinated infants. The speaker says this adds to a body of evidence described as 12 studies comparing vaccinated individuals to unvaccinated individuals. According to the speaker, all 12 studies found the same overall pattern: vaccinated individuals are “far sicker” than unvaccinated individuals. The speaker lists multiple categories of health differences reported in those comparisons, stating that vaccinated individuals have more chronic disease and more autoimmune disease. They also report higher rates of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism, speech delays, and speech disorders. The speaker also says vaccinated individuals have more ticks and more skin disorders, describing these as part of “everything under the sun.” The speaker then describes an additional analysis related to the Henry Ford study. They say they “recently expanded on that in a reanalysis of the Henry Ford study,” finding that all 22 chronic disease categories were higher in vaccinated children. This is presented as extending the pattern beyond the specific mortality finding, adding chronic disease elevations alongside mortality elevation. The speaker characterizes the combined results as “very serious” and emphasizes that it should be discussed more widely and replicated in other states. The call to action is focused on starting to talk about the findings and replicating them elsewhere, rather than limiting the conclusions to the initial studies or settings described.

The speaker presents a resolution regarding the alarming number of excess deaths in the country. They mention that there were 262,000 deaths in 2021 and 67,000 deaths in 2022, all of which are unexplained. The committee agrees to conduct an investigation on this issue, specifically focusing on the 213,984 excess deaths. The motion is approved, and they move on to the next item on the agenda.

Kendall asks for an explanation of the process by which the MMR vaccine causes autism, referencing the movie Vaxxed. Speaker 2 responds that they are currently researching those questions, as parents and physicians have reported children developing autism immediately after the MMR vaccine. The speaker claims studies that should have been done long ago were not. Instead, the speaker alleges that captured researchers at the CDC, mainly people who work for the pharmaceutical industry, produced bad epidemiological studies. The speaker asserts that these studies deliberately avoided comparing health outcomes in vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups. Speaker 0 states that this is one of the things they are studying now with gold standard science. Speaker 2 confirms they are doing gold standard science, which includes replication. They are allocating about 20% of their budget to replicating studies. Speaker 0 explains replication as an independent group repeating a study with the same parameters and data sets to achieve the same result. Speaker 2 agrees.

It is claimed that autopsies should be performed on everyone who dies after receiving a vaccine. It is alleged that there is a refusal to perform autopsies. It is argued that without autopsies, it is impossible to determine the specific cause of death. It is claimed that autopsies used to be commonly performed on most people who died.

Speaker 0 presents Connecticut memoranda series, volume one, describing a notice sent to Connecticut state officials (Attorney General and others) by certified mail and hand delivery through the governor’s office and Department of Public Health channels. The notice centers on acute renal failure (AKI) and argues it aligns with hospital homicide concerns. The speaker says the cover letter urges officials to seek personal legal counsel because if the state attorney represents the state, a conflict arises when citizens are harmed by state officials. The document allegedly provides detailed factual information drawn from official Connecticut records, intended to undermine any future “ignorance of fact” defense and to show that thousands have died from AKI and related conditions. Key claims and content: - The memorandum warns that described AKI deaths and related pulmonary embolism and thrombocytopenia are occurring in hospitals, and officials have a duty to act; failure to act after being informed could render officials criminally liable. The notice asserts sovereign and qualified immunity do not apply to criminal acts. - It asserts there are no statutes of limitations for most homicide crimes, and that inaction in the face of an imminent danger constitutes a legal duty to act. An inaction with knowledge of harm is framed as a criminal act. - Named recipients copied on the notice include Ned Lamont (Governor), Susan Bysiewicz (Lieutenant Governor), Eric Russell (State Treasurer), Sean Scanlon (Comptroller), William Tong (Attorney General), Manisha Juthani (Commissioner, Department of Public Health), A Orifice (Chief of Staff, DPH), and H Sultan (Special Counsel, DPH). The speaker claims these packages were signed for. - The memorandum is titled: “Memorandum notice of required action to thwart hospital homicides and acute renal failure deaths that are currently occurring and were occurring for the last three years, three and a half. Evidence compels immediate investigation and correction of injurious federal and state health protocols and mandates.” It cites a death-records study and a climate-related health data study obtained with approval to examine regional effects of temperature and humidity on heart disease. - It describes a data-driven investigation process with collaborators, including using discrete cosine transforms and discrete Fourier transforms to analyze signal-to-noise ratios in death data to determine seasonality and age-related patterns. The speaker reports that AKI deaths in CT rose substantially in 2020–2022, and notes a divergence from COVID death trends (AKI rising as COVID declines). - The speaker presents comparative state tallies for excess AKI deaths since 2015: Connecticut 1,721; Massachusetts 3,493; Minnesota 2,412. They claim thousands of AKI deaths across states, with CT showing a large increase in 2022 (and 2023) and assert that AKI was not adequately addressed by public health authorities. - The speaker discusses a pattern showing AKI deaths rising after December 2020, with a December 2020 inflection coinciding with a program (NCTAP). They claim hospital protocols and NIH COVID-19 treatments (remdesivir, baricitinib, ventilators) may have contributed to AKI and multi-organ failure, describing a two-signal theory: one signal linked to hospital protocols and the other to gene-based vaccines. - Graphs are described showing AKI versus COVID trends, with AKI not consistently correlated with COVID, and an observed spike in AKI deaths in CT beginning in 2020, peaking in 2022. The speaker notes a reduction in the proportion of AKI deaths that also test positive for COVID after March 2022, while AKI deaths continue to rise, suggesting a vaccine-related signal. - The speaker cites NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines (final update dated 02/29/2024) and notes a planned website shutdown (08/16/2024), arguing a lack of updated protocols. They allege data manipulation or suppression by public health authorities. - In the recommended actions, the speaker proposes an investigation plan: verify CT data, investigate younger age groups first (examples: 94 deaths, ages 25–44; 184 deaths, ages 45–54 in CT 2020–2023), obtain entire hospital records (without notice) including vaccination status and treatment timelines, determine whether vaccination influenced treatment pathways, interview families, review DNR decisions, and publish results so the public can decide on consent to vaccines and NIH protocols. - The conclusion asserts an AKI epidemic in Connecticut that allegedly claims more life years than COVID and rivals other major past diseases in impact. It states there is no statute of limitations for murder, and that qualified and sovereign immunities do not shield officials from criminal charges. It calls for immediate investigation and potential prosecution of officials who knowingly refuse to investigate AKI deaths tied to NIH/CDC/FD&C protocols, framing this as a public health and civil liberty issue. The speaker closes by inviting questions and urging action to ensure accountability, expressing a desire to be involved in cleaning up public health governance.

In January 2022, a colleague alerted Speaker 0 that there had been a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 states that “Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies.” Speaker 2 says she has “lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuinely for the best interests of Canadians.” Speaker 3 alleges that doctors “made extra money to push vaccines” and were given a billing code to do it, and that she has “pulled all the billing codes.” Speaker 4 asserts that “They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved,” distributed it to the provinces so that once it’s approved, they can “start jabbing ourselves with it” and “start jabbing pregnant mothers with it.” Speaker 3 questions the necessity of vaccinations: “Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, and then you don't.” Speaker 0 speculates on criminal negligence, saying, “I would suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials.” Speaker 3 notes that it is “highly recommended that pregnant women get their vaccine as soon as possible.” Speaker 0 contends that a narrative was pushed to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 claims wiretapping, harassment, charging, and barring expert witnesses: “They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify.” Speaker 1 accuses police of trying to cover up Canadian babies’ deaths “to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it.” Speaker 4 observes that “The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression.” Speaker 5 discusses vaccination choice versus public risk, remarking, “If you don't wanna get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk,” and claims CBC initially “started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public.” Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of what the is, describing it as “a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada.” Speaker 4 calls this “the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective,” noting that authorities are “not investigating.” Speaker 2 concludes that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, “how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.”

The speaker states they searched for years for a pre-licensing safety trial of the 72 vaccine doses effectively mandated for American children. They claim that every other medication requires a safety trial comparing health outcomes in a placebo group versus a vaccine group before FDA licensing. The speaker assumed this was also done for vaccines. They state they found out that vaccines were exempt from this requirement.

Jennifer, a former police officer, shares her experience investigating child deaths attributed to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). She reveals that she noticed a pattern where many SIDS cases occurred within hours to a week after immunizations, particularly at the 6-month mark. Jennifer also highlights that medical examiners often left out the information about recent vaccinations on the death reports. This led her to question the lack of liability for vaccine manufacturers and sparked her journey into investigating vaccines. Ultimately, Jennifer and her husband decided not to vaccinate their own children. Due to potential repercussions, Jennifer refrains from disclosing her full name and agency.

Recently, a disabled veteran conducted a search in an obituary database and found a significant increase in the number of obituaries using the words "sudden" and "unexpected" in 2021 and 2022 compared to previous years. This data suggests that there may be a connection between these deaths and the vaccine. It's not just bodybuilders who have been affected, but also many young people.

Speaker 0 asserts that the MMR and MMR V vaccines have been linked to two thousand six hundred percent more deaths than measles infection since 1995. The speaker claims that, over the past thirty years, the MMR shots have killed far more children than measles, identifying hundreds of infants and toddlers who died after these shots, often from SIDS, sudden infant death syndrome, cardiac arrest, seizures, and encephalitis. The speaker states that most of these deaths occurred within about two weeks after the shot, with forty percent dying within one week. The deaths are described as temporally linked to the vaccination, with the majority of fatalities occurring at ages one to one and a half, which the speaker notes as the time they receive the MMR shots. The speaker claims that twenty-five percent of these deaths were classified as sudden infant death syndrome. The overall claim is that these shots are killing the babies in their sleep, described as absolutely disturbing and as part of a broader study. The speaker concludes that the shots are deadly and that the MMR and MMRV shots should not be given anymore; if parents still want them, they should be split up rather than administered as a combined dose, labeling the current approach as “the full load of garbage.”