reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0: It is based on the sworn statement of the late professor Doctor Francis Boyle, who has determined and concluded. Professor Boyle is the greatest authority in the field of bioweapons legislation. He is the author of it. So he knows what is legally meant by it. He knew. Like no other that the COVID-19 mRNA injection is a bioweapon. He has also made that loud and clear to the world known. After which despite being in good health, he passed away shortly after he had declared himself willing to give testimony under oath about this in court. The core of Professor Boyle's argument is that the COVID-19 mRNA injections contain derivatives of illegal military gene function research. As a result, the COVID-19 injections qualify by definition as a military biological weapon system, a bioweapon in other words. This bioweapon consists of two integrated components. The pathogenic load and the delivery mechanism. It is beyond doubt that the pathogenic load is the product of illegal gene or function research. Boyle refers to an article in the scientific journal Nature Medicine, of which I have included the link in this plea note. If you open that link, you will immediately read the warning that true scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus. You will also immediately know that what is called the new normal, true scientists, are not scientists but faith fanatics. These are the scientists behind whom the respondents hide. The article in Nature Medicine that Boyle reports on was published in 2015. And the title reads translated, a cluster of circulating coronaviruses in bats similar to SARS shows potential for human infection. I present to you. What the summary of this research included in the article reveals. It states based on these findings, we have synthetically created an infectious fully SHC zero fourteen recombinant virus developed and demonstrated robust viral replication. Both in vitro and in vivo. So it states, we researchers have created a SARS like coronavirus with a spike protein optimized for human infection. I cannot provide a better example of illegal gain of function research. And who wrote that article from 2015? Among others, researchers affiliated with UNC Chapel Hill and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Wuhan. Yes, Wuhan. You know, where according to the official narrative, people suddenly dropped dead on the street when COVID-19 broke out because there was a bat mutated. The spike protein, the pathogenic payload of the bioweapon is the result of this research. So it's not about a natural spike protein, but an illegally developed synthetically made pathogen that has been optimized for human infection. The spike protein mRNA with the instructions to human cells to produce this very pathogenic spike protein is one of the two crucial building blocks of the COVID-19 bioweapon. Now the delivery system, the NLPs, you know, the nanolipid particles that encapsulate the mRNA payload and deliver it into the interior of the cells. The propaganda term for this is fat globules. What did Boyle declare about it? Boyle declared that it is actually about a nanotechnology enhanced delivery platform. This technology is, as Boyle declared, paid for, developed, financed and conceived by the Pentagon and its research institute DARPA. This technology platform nanotechnology platform was not an afterthought. Doctor Boyle points out that the virus itself was aerosolized and engineered with nanotechnology from the very beginning. This indicates a long term program aimed at the application of advanced delivery systems. And this technology has been used in the COVID-19 injections. Boyle determined that the NLP delivery system in the injections is the result of a specific teacher sponsored program for nanotechnological biological weapons. In the presentation by Samsung you can read further about the legal implications of this. It is also argued that Gates and Borla qualify as suspects of crimes against humanity as defined in the Rome statute concerning the international criminal court.

Speaker 0 asserts that packaged DNA fragments have been found en masse as vaccine contaminants. Once they reach the nucleus, short DNA sequences have an increased propensity to insert into chromosomal DNA. The possible consequences are unending, including disruption of the exquisitely tuned network that controls cell division and differentiation, which can lead to cancer and developmental defects. Mutations in sperm and fertilized egg cells could render altered traits inheritable. Speaker 0 further states that cost effective procedures to reliably separate mass produced RNA from plasmids do not exist, and therefore contamination of RNA vaccines with plasmid DNA must be expected to be the rule and not the exception. Whoever propagates RNA vaccines as being safe and effective, whoever claims that nothing can happen to your genome is either incredibly ignorant or endlessly evil. That person is turning his back on the horror scenario that is unfolding in front of our very eyes. Fellow citizens and physicians of the world are urged to turn away from the perpetrators of this monstrous crime against humanity. Speaker 0 concludes with admonitions to do this to save yourself, your descendants, and to rescue the name of your family or go down in history as one of the greatest criminals of all time. Speaker 1 responds: Thank you very much, professor Bhakti. You continue to be an inspiration both scientifically and ethically for all of us.

The Office of Gene Technology Regulator is questioned about gene therapies and the mRNA vaccines. The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's non-clinical report to argue that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. The regulator deflects responsibility for testing genotoxicity and claims that the Gene Technology Act does not apply to manufacturing in other countries. The speaker disagrees, citing Pfizer's acknowledgment of transfection as part of gene therapy. The regulator disputes the definition of gene therapy. The conversation ends without resolution.

All childhood vaccines will soon contain mRNA, making them gene therapies that alter genetics. The vaccines won't require reapproval or go through any additional processes. The focus is on integrating mRNA into every vaccine, which is concerning because it involves tinkering with genes. The speaker urges people to be cautious and not get any vaccines, emphasizing their strong opposition to it. The speaker believes that there is a significant amount of money involved in this shift towards gene therapies.

The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's report to argue that mRNA vaccines are a form of gene therapy. They question why the mRNA vaccine was not tested for genotoxicity and why the Office of Gene Technology Regulator did not consider it as gene technology. The regulator responds that the question of genotoxicity should be directed to the Therapeutic Goods Administration, and explains that since the mRNA vaccines were imported into Australia and not manufactured there, they are not responsible for checking gene therapy. The speaker disagrees, citing Pfizer's statement about transfection being a part of gene therapy. The regulator suggests a difference in the definition of gene therapy.

- The m n r m r n a technology was a radical qualitative leap forward in technology. - The mRNA is a type of vaccine. - The reason it was called a scene was because was a brand name that had a track record of safety, and shoehorning it in that was one of the ways to make sure that people weren't terrified of the technology. - It bears very little resemblance to anything that went before that. - There are different types that they didn't have to contend with the fact that it wasn't the same technology. There are different technologies. - There certainly are. That are different technologies.

My name is Robert Malone, a physician and scientist. I want to share the scientific facts about the genetic vaccine for children. This vaccine injects a viral gene that forces the body to produce harmful spike proteins, leading to permanent damage in critical organs like the brain, nervous system, heart, blood vessels, and reproductive system. It can also cause irreversible changes to the immune system. These damages cannot be reversed. Before making the irreversible decision to vaccinate your child, consider these facts.

The Office of Gene Technology Regulator is questioned about gene therapies and the mRNA vaccines. The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's non-clinical report to support the claim that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. The regulator deflects responsibility for testing genotoxicity and manufacturing processes conducted in other countries. The speaker highlights the contradiction in the regulator's statements and the disagreement with Pfizer's definition of gene therapy. The regulator argues that the definition of gene therapy is subjective. The conversation ends without a resolution.

All childhood vaccines will soon be mRNA-based gene therapies, without requiring reapproval. This means that getting any type of vaccine will alter a person's genetics. The focus is now on integrating mRNA into all vaccines, which raises concerns about tinkering with genes. The speaker strongly opposes vaccines and vows not to get any more, emphasizing the financial interests involved in this shift.

All of this cannot be true. Are you lying to Congress about being pro-vaccine, or did you lie on those podcasts? We have it all on tape. Senator, that statement from the Lex Fridman podcast has been debunked. I was asked if there are safe and effective vaccines, and I said some live virus vaccines are. I also stated that no vaccine is universally safe and effective, as every medicine has individuals who may react negatively, including vaccines. I was interrupted before I could elaborate. I've clarified this multiple times, including on national TV, so bringing it up now is misleading.

Speaker 0 argues that billions of people were injected with an experimental vaccine, stating “it wasn't a bloody just no. It wasn't.” He rejects the notion of it being definitive or perfect, emphasizing that “it wasn’t” in terms of being a flawless solution. Speaker 1 counters, asserting “It was no one isn’t,” suggesting confusion or contradiction in the prior claim and challenging the certainty of the statement. He adds that there is a lack of a 100% success rate and questions the ultimate aim, asking what the core purpose is when it comes to giving your body a training of the immune system and technology. Speaker 0 reinforces the complexity, noting that there were “different types” to contend with and that the fact that they weren’t the same technology matters. He agrees there are various types of vaccines or approaches, indicating there is diversity in the technology or formulations used. Speaker 1 concedes the existence of different types and technologies, acknowledging that “there are different types of” vaccines, and that “There are different technologies.” He identifies mRNA as a type of vaccine but Speaker 0 interrupts, insisting “No. It was” and continuing his line of reasoning about the distinctions between the technologies and their evolution. Speaker 1 acknowledges change, saying “like this, and now it's like this,” recognizing a progression or shift in the approach. Speaker 0 rejects the suggestion that the transition is simple or uniform, insisting “No. No. No. It was like this, and now it's like this.” He asserts that the mRNA technology represented a radical, qualitative leap forward in technology, a claim about the significance of the development. Speaker 0 contends that naming the technology as mRNA can be acceptable only in a limited sense; he says “You can call it if if you want to, but it bears very little resemblance to anything that went before that.” The rationale for the term mRNA is tied to branding: “The reason it was called a scene was because was a brand name that had a track record of safety, and shoehorning it in that was one of the ways to make sure that people weren't terrified of the technology.”

The Office of Gene Technology Regulator is questioned about gene therapies and the mRNA vaccines. The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's non-clinical report to argue that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. The regulator deflects responsibility for testing genotoxicity and claims that since the mRNA vaccines were imported into Australia, they were not manufactured there. The speaker disagrees, stating that transfection still occurs in Australian citizens. The regulator disagrees with the definition of gene therapy and the reliance on the manufacturer's statements. The conversation ends without a resolution.

Pfizer's own document, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA all acknowledge that mRNA vaccines are a form of gene therapy. The speaker questions why the mRNA vaccine wasn't tested for genotoxicity and why the Office of Genetic Therapeutics didn't consider it as gene technology. The response states that the TGA is responsible for approving the vaccine and the question of genotoxicity should be directed to them. It is clarified that the mRNA vaccines were imported into Australia and not manufactured there. The speaker disagrees, citing Pfizer's admission that transfection is part of gene therapy. The response disagrees with the speaker's interpretation.

I have a degree in biochemistry and molecular biology and work as a toxicologist and expert witness. The Pfizer vaccine is said to be contaminated with plasma DNA, which is different from RNA as it can be permanent and passed on to future generations. However, the vaccine does not enter the nucleus where DNA resides. The DNA in the vaccine can integrate into the genomic DNA of cells, becoming a permanent part of the cell. Despite claims that the vaccine alters DNA, it does not contain anything that can affect DNA. The concerns raised about the vaccine's impact on DNA are unfounded.

The Office of Gene Technology Regulator is questioned about gene therapies and the mRNA vaccines. The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's non-clinical report to support the claim that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. The regulator deflects responsibility for testing genotoxicity and manufacturing processes conducted in other countries. The speaker highlights the contradiction in the regulator's statements and emphasizes that transfection, a part of gene therapy, occurs in Australian citizens. The regulator disagrees and questions the definition of gene therapy. The speaker concludes by relying on the manufacturer's statements.

The speakers discuss a broad denial about vaccine injuries and the idea that, despite evidence, the medical establishment and political figures push the narrative that vaccines are safe and effective. They claim that many people who are vaccinated want to move on and avoid acknowledging serious side effects, including turbo cancers, undetected myocarditis, and neurological issues, and that autoimmune disease is being attributed to other causes. They argue that the medical establishment, federal health agencies, and some members of Congress who produce supportive content, such as segments like Steve Colbert’s, advocate for taking the shot. They question how many people were killed or died from the shot, asserting that Bayer’s data shows “close[ly]” to thirty-nine thousand worldwide, and that if only ten percent are reported, the true number would be in the hundreds of thousands. They claim there are millions of adverse events, but that this is denied and covered up. The speakers contend that the shot was not a real vaccine. They describe it as gene therapy rather than a traditional vaccine. They explain a sequence in which a vaccine is typically an attenuated or killed virus that requires adjuvants like aluminum or mercury to stimulate the immune system, because the attenuated or killed virus may not work well on its own. In contrast, they say this shot is mRNA, which is modified so it does not degrade. They describe how it is put into a lipid nanoparticle designed to permeate barriers like the blood-brain barrier, and they assert it would never stay in the arm, distributing all over the body. They claim the lipid nanoparticle allows the mRNA to enter cells, hijack cellular structures, and cause the cells to express spike protein, which the body then attacks as foreign. When asked who is responsible, they reference a “doctor Frankenstein” figure and name Francis Collins, head of the NIH, and Anthony Fauci as possible figures in question. The response indicates that while they consider all of them criminally liable, they would say it is primarily Fauci, with acknowledgment that people like Collins are implicated as well.

Every childhood vaccine will be mRNA, becoming gene therapies that alter genetics without re-approval. COVID vaccines were profitable data and experimentation tools, but the danger lies in continued genetic tinkering. mRNA is being integrated into every vaccine. Therefore, no vaccines should be taken. All vaccines are being redesigned to include gene therapies because there is so much money in it.

I am here today to address the WHO's plan to introduce mRNA vaccines for all vaccinations, including cancer treatment. It is important to understand that all mRNA vaccines, regardless of their purpose, pose a threat to life. The danger lies in the immune system's ability to recognize foreign substances. Even if the WHO supports it, we should not allow this. The WHO is funded by private entities like Bill Gates and Germany, who are pushing for mRNA vaccination. We must not let our children be vaccinated as it will alter their personality, change their brain, and weaken their heart. Injecting mRNA vaccines will cause severe damage to our bodies and should be prohibited.

There is misinformation about mRNA vaccines, but they are safe. Professor Boyle believes mRNA vaccines are bioweapons, but experts say they are safe and protect loved ones. The Pentagon funded mRNA vaccine development, raising concerns. Despite this, the mRNA vaccine is safe and effective.

The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's report to argue that mRNA vaccines are a form of gene therapy. They question why the mRNA vaccine was not tested for genotoxicity and why the Office of Gene Technology Regulator did not consider it as gene technology. The regulator responds that the TGA is responsible for approving vaccine products and addressing genotoxicity concerns. They explain that since the mRNA vaccines were imported into Australia and not manufactured there, the Gene Technology Act does not apply. The speaker disagrees, citing Pfizer's statement about transfection being a part of gene therapy. The regulator suggests a difference in the definition of gene therapy.

I cannot understand how anyone can recommend the mRNA vaccination and sleep well at night. They seem afraid to admit they were wrong. I want to give you a chance to address your colleagues, fellow pathologists, and medical professionals. My advice is to always question what so-called experts say. You don't need top scientists, you need experienced doctors who think critically. In the past, people died from the flu without it being turned into a pandemic or locking people away.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss vaccines and vaccine technology. Speaker 0 begins by saying, “He injected billions of people with an experimental it wasn't a bloody just no. It wasn't,” expressing that the vaccine was experimental and not straightforward. Speaker 1 counters briefly with, “It was no one isn't,” then suggests uncertainty about the claim. Speaker 0 adds that “Yes. It is. It's Well, it doesn't have a 100%,” indicating skepticism about a perfect success rate. Speaker 1 asks, “You think it's a definition of all point of is to give your body a,” challenging the stated purpose of the vaccine in terms of its aim to train the immune system. Speaker 0 then states, “protein train on. The immune system works. Technology,” implying that the vaccine trains the immune system and works as a technology. Speaker 1 responds that “Who cares if it's not the same? There's plenty there's,” implying there are multiple vaccines or approaches enough to matter, suggesting diversity in types. Speaker 0 replies, “different so types that they didn't have to contend with the fact that it wasn't the same technology.” Speaker 1 acknowledges that “There are different types of,” and that “There are different technologies. Fine. The mRNA is a type of vaccine.” Speaker 0 firmly rejects that, saying, “Now this is No. It was,” indicating a disagreement about the classification. Speaker 1 clarifies that “like this, and now it's like this,” implying a progression from one form to another. Speaker 0 insists, “No. No. No. It was like this, and now it's like this. The m n r mRNA technology was a radical, qualitative leap forward in technology.” He asserts that mRNA technology represents a significant advancement compared to what existed before. Speaker 1 suggests naming it differently or acknowledging changes, but Speaker 0 continues that “You can call it if you want to, but it bears very little resemblance to anything that went before that.” The final point is that “The reason it was called a scene was because was a brand name that had a track record of safety, and shoehorning it in that was one of the ways to make sure that people weren't terrified of the technology.”

The speaker emphasizes that the term "vaccine" is not accurate for what they are discussing. They refer to it as a genetic therapy that modifies cells to produce a specific protein. The use of the term "chemical therapy" is controversial, and even renowned scientist Disar Raoult has stated that it is not considered a therapy. The speaker mentions a manufacturer of vaccines who admitted that they considered it a form of therapy.

I am here today to address the WHO's plan to introduce mRNA vaccines for all vaccinations, including cancer treatment. However, it is important to understand that all mRNA vaccines pose a threat to life, regardless of what they encode for. The danger lies in the immune system's ability to recognize non-similarity. Even though the WHO supports this, it should not be allowed. It is crucial to note that the WHO is funded by Bill Gates and German taxpayers, who are pushing for mRNA vaccination. This cannot be permitted as it will change mankind, altering our personality, brain, and weakening our hearts. Injected mRNA vaccines cause severe damage and must be prohibited.

Nicholas Holcher, an epidemiologist and foundation administrator at the McCullough Foundation, appears on the WiderWake Media Podcast to discuss what he calls harms from the mRNA COVID vaccines and to critique mainstream approaches to the pandemic and public health policy. - Vaccine definitions and mRNA technology - Pre-2000 definition: a vaccine is an injectable or oral product that introduces a killed part of a virus or an inactivated form to the body so that encountering a wild-type version would not infect or would cause a less severe illness. - He asserts that mRNA injections are not vaccines: they are a gene transfer platform using modified messenger RNA with long persistence in the body (via N1-methylpseudouridine), delivered in lipid nanoparticles. He claims these bubbles distribute systemically, including to the brain, heart, bone marrow, and reproductive system, and that they instruct cells to produce a spike protein, effectively turning organs into “toxic spike protein production factories.” He says this leads to autoimmune attack on those tissues and contributes to adverse events, including myocarditis, strokes, immune destruction, and “turbo cancers.” - History and purpose of mRNA in vaccines - According to Holcher, work on this technology existed for decades but animals testing showed high mortality or sterilization in ferrets and mice, preventing approval except under a declared global emergency. He contends the COVID-19 crisis enabled emergency use authorization across Western countries, with ulterior aims to inject the globe with mRNA technology. - Global impact and uptake - He estimates about 70% of the global population received at least one COVID-19 injection (mRNA or viral vector). He notes Eastern countries used non-mRNA platforms (e.g., AstraZeneca/J&J in some places; Sinovac elsewhere) but that uptake in the West was high. - Harms and evidence - Excess deaths: cites a study by Dennis Brancourt et al. estimating around 17 million deaths worldwide as a result of COVID injections (as of September 2023); he claims US deaths could be in the hundreds of thousands to millions. - Turbo cancers: cites multiple studies in 2023 showing increased risk of seven cancer types (colorectal, bladder, breast, thyroid, prostate, etc.) in vaccinated groups; cites a major cancer journal, OncoTarget, reporting hundreds of turbo cancer cases across 27 countries, with Pfizer contributing most cases. Holcher also mentions his own group’s work with Neo7 Bioscience documenting genomic integration of vaccine-derived mRNA in a stage IV bladder cancer patient (31-year-old woman) with a segment of mRNA found in circulating tumor DNA on chromosome 19; another study reported thousands of dysregulated genes in post-vaccine cancers, including p53, KRAS, and BRCA. - Definition of turbo cancer: per Merrick et al., rapid, aggressive tumor progression with sudden onset and early metastasis, often in younger individuals, and resistant to treatment. - Fertility, pregnancy, and autism - Fertility: cites studies suggesting fertility impacts, including Karaman et al. finding depletion of primordial follicles in rats after mRNA vaccination; Manichi et al. reporting 33% lower conception rates in vaccinated women in Denmark; a study indicating a ~20% drop in sperm concentration and motility with no recovery over five months. - Autism: asserts a large body of evidence linking vaccines to neurodevelopmental disorders, citing a 136-study review with 107 studies finding positive associations between vaccines and neurodevelopmental issues, including autism, attributed to toxicity and immune system disruption, particularly in children with high vaccine exposure and reduced detox capacity (CYP450 impairment). - Other topics tied to vaccines and public response - The COVID-19 period and vaccine skepticism: claims the pandemic catalyzed a large anti-vaccine movement because people were compelled to take an experimental gene therapy product. - Sam Altman and gene editing: discusses Altman’s Preventive venture with the aim to reduce heritable diseases via in utero gene editing but warns of the path to designer babies and the potential for harm in early-iteration edits, citing prior CRISPR experiments on human embryos that produced deformed offspring or nonviable results. - AI, workers, and future society: predicts two-tier society with implanted or enhanced individuals and a replacement of human labor by robots and AI systems; discusses military and surveillance ambitions in gene editing and AI augmentation. - Mental health and digital life: references a randomized trial showing that turning off mobile Internet improved depression scores and well-being to an extent comparable to or greater than antidepressants. - World Health Organization (WHO): notes the US has pulled out of the WHO, arguing this is good for the US but potentially harmful for others still in the organization; expresses concerns about the pandemic treaty and ongoing global health governance, including vaccine passport-style surveillance. - FDA and public health policy: acknowledges some shifts (e.g., cutting doses from the childhood schedule) but argues the FDA remains compromised and too aligned with vaccine industry interests; criticizes the removal of a potential black box warning for vaccines and calls for more accountability. - Resources and contact - Holcher invites listeners to follow him on X (Twitter) at @nichulsher and to read their work on focalpoints.com and through McCullough’s network. Note: The transcript presents Holcher’s claims and interpretations about vaccines, turbo cancers, autism, fertility, and policy changes. The summary reproduces these points without endorsement or evaluation.