reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker claims that the flu vaccine's purpose has shifted from preventing the flu to only lessening symptoms. A Cleveland Clinic study allegedly found the flu vaccine had a negative efficacy of 26.9% last winter. According to the speaker, this means that individuals who received the flu vaccine were 26.9% more likely to contract influenza. The speaker notes the study doesn't detail the pharmaceutical industry's profits from the vaccine or list its side effects. They state the side effects would be less than an mRNA vaccine, as it is a dead virus vaccine. The speaker reiterates that taking the flu shot allegedly makes one almost 27% more likely to get sick than not taking it.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Pfizer reported its vaccine shows 95% efficacy, but this refers to relative risk reduction, not overall risk reduction. In Pfizer's trial, 8 out of 18,198 vaccinated people developed COVID-19. In the unvaccinated group, 162 people contracted it, meaning the risk without the vaccine was 0.88%, reduced to 0.04% with the vaccine. The absolute risk reduction is 0.84%. The 95% figure refers to the relative difference between 0.88% and 0.04%. Relative risk reduction is considered misleading, and the FDA recommends using absolute risk reduction instead. The question is raised how many people would have taken the vaccine knowing it offered less than 1% benefit. In Canada, any potentially serious risk must be disclosed.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker claims adverse events from the vaccine rollout were covered up and dismissed as rare and coincidental. They state that regulators approved the vaccines based on relative risk data (95%), which they describe as misleading, while the absolute risk reduction was only 0.84%, meaning 120 people had to be vaccinated to prevent one infection. The speaker alleges that Pfizer has 31 convictions, including withholding data, presenting false data, and bribing clinicians and regulators. They claim over 100 doctors have written to various health organizations, including the NHS and MHRA, about the vaccine program, but received only one response. The speaker concludes that science is dead because discussion, analysis, and debate are no longer allowed, and decisions are being made without scientific basis.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker discusses the risks and safety of vaccines, emphasizing the importance of measuring the risk when vaccinating healthy individuals. They mention that vaccines were initially intended for vulnerable populations, but now young people are being vaccinated despite having minimal risk. The speaker criticizes the idea of vaccinating to protect the vaccinated and highlights the statistics of COVID-19 deaths, with the majority being elderly individuals. They express concern about the dilution of responsibility and the manipulation techniques used to instill fear and control the population. The speaker encourages people to question and challenge the narrative, while promoting solidarity and avoiding division.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The Dutch paper reveals a 36% higher risk of serious adverse events in the Pfizer vaccine group compared to the placebo. Despite this, the public was misled about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. Adverse reactions like stroke and heart attack were downplayed, making it difficult to link them to the vaccines. The truth is slowly coming to light, exposing the deception by big pharma, governments, and the media. Those responsible may face consequences in the future.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker claims that in Pfizer's initial vaccine trial with 20,000 vaccinated and 20,000 unvaccinated participants, the vaccinated group had 23% more deaths from all causes than the placebo group after six months. The speaker states that the claim of 100% vaccine efficacy was based on the fact that two people in the placebo group died from COVID versus one person in the vaccine group. The speaker asserts that people believed the vaccine would prevent them from getting COVID, which they now realize is false.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker discusses polio and vaccines by tracing how the disease is perceived versus the data. Polio is described as “the worst disease in world history, not actually, but that's the spin,” and similarly framed as “completely eliminated by mass vaccination, not actually, but that's the spin.” Looking at polio globally, with eight billion people on Earth, the speaker asks how many people died last year from polio, answering “Zero.” The number who had paralysis from polio is stated as “Five hundred and sixty, and ninety seven percent of them was vaccine strain or vaccine induced poliomyelitis.” The speaker notes that opponents claim this is due to vaccination, but then raises the question of how that accounts for more than a billion people on Earth who never had the polio vaccine, asserting they have the exact same death rate. The argument is extended to measles, with the claim that the death rate is the same whether or not one is vaccinated, and similarly for other diseases. The speaker emphasizes a specific approach used in a book: “the only way to do it, I think, compare the product, are they all the same? The diseases, are they all the same?” This leads to the central question of how to handle risk for one’s children. A quick final point compares vaccine decisions to everyday risk decisions. Parents weigh disease risk and vaccine risk when deciding whether their kids should engage in activities such as football, which could involve a head injury; riding a bicycle at night, which could lead to injury; or sleeping over at someone’s house. The speaker argues that all of these are risk decisions quite similar to the vaccine and disease decision because you have to weigh the disease and weigh the vaccine. Yet, the speaker notes, there has never been a mandate for football, and there has never been a mandate that children not ride bikes at night in their neighborhood, or that they not sleep over at someone’s house if they don’t feel good about it in their particular neighborhood.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

"Did you know then that the mRNA vaccine was dangerous? Absolutely. How did you know? So this is 2021. If you read anybody who had looked at the actual data that had been released or understood what they were assessing, they were only assessing suppression of symptoms." "And there were tremendous and they were using what's called relative risk instead of absolute risk in order to deem these products safe." "So when you look at absolute risk, you wanna know how much in percent. So do do you have a three percent chance of getting something after taking the shot and you had a thirty percent chance before taking it? That's absolute relative is before you took the shot, you had a two percent risk, and now you have a one percent risk, and they say that's a 50% improvement. That's how you make statistics lie."

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Between 200 million and 1 billion people globally are prescribed statins, cholesterol-lowering drugs. For people at low risk of heart disease—most of those prescribed statins—the totality of evidence shows a 5-year benefit of 1%. This corresponds to a 1 in 100 chance that taking the drug “religiously” prevents a heart attack or stroke, without prolonging life. The transcript notes that for individuals older than 75, using publicly available data and the example of President Trump, the benefit is described as 1 in 446. In this framing, treating 446 people would prevent one heart attack. The speaker says President Trump is also taking aspirin, and adds that in people without significant vascular disease, the risk of a fatal bleed is significantly higher than preventing a heart attack. The speaker’s main point is that no one is immune to medical misinformation, “not even the president.” They argue the issue is larger than any individual because “the system” is “more powerful,” and conclude that “collectively we have to sort this out together.”

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker claims the assertion that red meat causes cancer was based on a vote, not science. The speaker's guest, a former WHO panel member, states the panel used observational studies to show association, not causation. Of 800 studies examined, 780 were allegedly not used. Of the 18 studies that were considered, only half showed a risk. The guest concludes there is no valid demonstration of cause and effect. The speaker suggests this raises concerns about how global health policy is made.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The speakers present a series of emphatic claims about COVID-19 vaccines, emphasizing their effectiveness, transmission-blocking ability, and regulatory implications for public behavior and policy. The core messages include: - The vaccine can stop the spread of these diseases and people will be okay; you’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations. - Vaccines are highly, highly effective. - Vaccinated people do not carry the virus and don’t get sick. - They are really, really good against variants. - Vaccination is not only about individual protection but also reducing transmission to others and helping society return to normal. - The vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person. - Guidance to get vaccinated: get your first shot, and when due for your second, get your second shot. - The key goal is to stop transmission and raise immunity levels so there is almost no infection. - For vaccinated individuals who are exposed to the virus, the virus does not infect them, and cannot use that person to spread to others. - When people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected. - If you are vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in the ICU, and you’re not going to die. - A vaccinated person cannot be used as a host to go get more people. - If you are fully vaccinated, you no longer need to wear a mask. - Anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities, large or small, without wearing a mask or practicing physical distancing. - A critique is offered about misinformation: companies and personalities are making money by peddling lies and allowing misinformation that can kill their own customers and supporters; it is described as wrong and immoral. - Financial comparison is made: there has been over a 20-to-1 return (implying a large gain), and a counterfactual calculation suggests that if money had been invested in the S&P 500 with reinvested dividends, the result would be about $17,000,000,000, but the speaker claims people think it’s $200,000,000,000. Overall, the transcript presents a tightly framed, high-confidence portrayal of vaccines as highly effective at preventing infection, transmission, hospitalization, and death, while advocating vaccination as a path to normalcy and criticizing misinformation, alongside a financial remark about two-way returns and investment comparisons.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Despite it being treated as an obligation to do so, physicians reportedly do not know these facts. The speaker expresses strong frustration about the situation. The speaker cites a famous medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, describing a study of vaccine researchers and stating that “the 12.6 percent user rate” was reported, and that the paper claimed there was no problem with the vaccine based on that figure. Using that paper as a basis, the San Fujikawa Society or a similarly named organization promoted vaccination for pregnant women. However, the actual content of the data is described as follows: of 827 people, 700 were in the late stage of pregnancy, and 127 were in the early stage (first trimester). For the subgroup limited to those under 20 weeks’ gestation, i.e., the 127 individuals, the reported miscarriage rate was 82 percent. From this, the speaker argues that the vaccine is dangerous, given the result for the early-stage group. It is claimed that the data were hidden or obscured, and that the later report combined the late-pregnancy group of 700 with the early-pregnancy group of 127 to produce a 12.6 percent miscarriage rate, which was then published. The speaker concludes that even a major medical journal could be influenced by external financial pressures, resulting in biased reporting that supports the other side’s interests.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Pfizer reported its vaccine has 95% efficacy, but this refers to relative risk reduction, not overall risk reduction. In the Pfizer trial, the unvaccinated group had a 0.88% risk of contracting COVID-19, while the vaccinated group had a 0.04% risk. The absolute risk reduction offered by the Pfizer vaccine is 0.84%. The 95% figure represents the relative difference between 0.88% and 0.04%. Relative risk reduction can be misleading, and the FDA recommends using absolute risk reduction instead. It is important to consider how many people would have chosen to take the vaccines had they understood the less than 1% benefit. In Canada, any potentially serious risk must be disclosed.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

They analyzed the top 10 batches with high death counts and high mortality rates, placing them on a chart that shows a batch ID, the number vaccinated within that batch, and who was dead. All of the top 10 batches are Pfizer. Examples: - Batch number one: 711 vaccinated, 152 died, a 21% mortality rate. - Batch number eight: 221 vaccinated, 38 dead, a 17% mortality rate. - Batch number three: 48 dead out of 310 vaccinated, a 15% mortality rate. - Batch number seventy-one: 11,000 vaccinated, 498 dead, a 4% mortality rate. They note that the normal mortality rate is 0.75%. The batches are across all age groups and all vaccination centers; it is not one particular batch for one particular age group, but averages across all ages. The speakers then discuss the meaning of the statistic shown on screen that “the chances of these batches not being a killer are one hundred billion to one.” The statistician explains that, given the underlying mortality rate and the ratio percentage, the top one is almost impossible to occur by chance, so there is no chance that this vaccine is not a killer. They quantify the scale: you’d have to jab 100,000,000 people to get these statistics. They say there are 2,200,000 kiwis in the system, and we would have had to jab 100,000,000,000 of them to produce results like these.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

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.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

You may have heard about the cruise ship stranded for days near Cap Verde, where a rare virus outbreak killed three people and sickened a few more. The illness is allegedly due to hantavirus, described as an airborne virus that comes from rodent droppings, urine, or saliva, and that also transmits from human to human. The speaker contrasts this with the COVID story, which was said to come from a bat and a pangolin and some wet market. A reference is also made to January 2020, when people were stranded on an Italian ship. There is a plot twist in this account: one woman left the ship and collapsed at the airport in Johannesburg, which the speaker says probably infected other people, drawing a parallel to the movie Contagion. The speaker claims that fake news media are sharing this blogger’s video on purpose to spread fear among the public. The message conveyed is that all parties want people to feel safe, but fear campaigns typically begin with the World Health Organization saying there is nothing to worry about, while “we’re monitoring the situation” in case people fall for it. The speaker asserts that once monitoring is in place, the story is amplified, the fear meter is cranked up, and mandates follow. In closing, the speaker urges keeping the story right where it belongs, implying it should not be amplified or believed.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The speakers express concern that only a small percentage of adverse reactions to vaccines are reported. Despite this, they assure viewers that the COVID vaccine is safe. They highlight that prior to the COVID vaccine rollout, an average of 1500 adverse event reports were received each year for all vaccines in New Zealand, resulting in one or fewer reported deaths annually.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Speaker 0 explains a common manipulation in presenting statistics, distinguishing absolute risk from relative risk. Absolute risk is defined as the real chance of something happening. Relative risk compares two small numbers to make one seem much larger, often used to fear-mmonger. The example given is a jar with 10,000 marbles, one red marble. The chance of picking the red marble is one in ten thousand—that is the absolute risk. If there is a second jar with two red marbles, the relative risk comparison would say you have a 100% more chance of getting a red marble in this jar than in the first jar. Even though the absolute probabilities are both very small, the relative risk makes the difference appear dramatic. Relative risk is described as a favorite tool of fearmongers because it makes a tiny number sound huge, whereas absolute risk shows the real-world odds. The speaker then applies this distinction to headlines. They cite a headline claiming you are “eight hundred and forty times more likely to get sick from raw milk than from pasteurized milk.” This is a relative risk number and is technically true, but the absolute risk of getting sick from raw milk is about one in thirteen thousand for the people who drink it, which is less than one one-hundredth of one percent. The same framing tactic is said to have been used with COVID vaccines. Regarding vaccines, the Pfizer vaccine is described as “ninety-five percent effective,” a number that was widely publicized. The speaker notes that this figure is the relative risk reduction. When examining the actual trial data, the absolute risk reduction—the real difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups—was about 0.8 percent, less than one percent. The speaker emphasizes that the shot “lowers your actual risk by less than one percent,” but this was not the framing chosen; instead, the larger, scarier-sounding percentage was presented. The argument is that people made significant life decisions based on that framing. The overall message is that statistics can be technically true yet misleading, influencing public opinion in areas like food safety or medicine. The recommended approach when encountering scary or amazing numbers in headlines is to ask whether the figure refers to relative risk or absolute risk. The speaker concludes: relative risk sells headlines; absolute risk tells the truth.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Speaker 0 argues that getting the vaccine for pertussis (whooping cough) makes it more likely to contract the disease than if one does not get the vaccine, claiming it increases lifetime risk of pertussis multiple times. They state that the most damning evidence is the comparison of death risk: from pertussis, the death risk is “less than two million,” whereas from the vaccine, the death risk is “more than one in seventy six thousand.” They interpret this as “30 times more likely that the vaccine will kill you than the disease.” Based on this information, Speaker 0 states that they would not risk their baby’s life with a “dangerous product” and prefer natural approaches to immune protection. They claim there are things that can be done naturally to boost a child’s immune system so they can fight off any infection, not just pertussis, and not just whooping cough, but everything. They describe a preference for “natural immunity,” calling it the innate, god-given immunity and the bodies and immune systems as “beautiful, amazing” compared to relying on a product they describe as unsafe and lacking safety testing. In sum, Speaker 0 presents a comparison of disease risk versus vaccine risk, emphasizing that death from the vaccine is framed as significantly higher than death from the disease, and they advocate foregoing vaccination in favor of natural immunity.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker claims the risk of death from whooping cough is less than one in 2.3 million, while the risk of death from the vaccine is greater than one in 76,000. They state the vaccine is killing far more children than the disease itself, estimating potentially 20 to 40 times more deaths from the vaccine. Another speaker emphasizes that any vaccine, specifically DTaP, carries the risk of death for a child.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

We are vaccinating millions, and while there are reports of deaths following vaccinations, there is no evidence that the vaccine causes these deaths. Adverse reactions must be reported, but many go unreported, potentially skewing data. For instance, only 5% of adverse reactions may reach the monitoring database. There have been serious cases, including hospitalizations, that are not being documented properly. Despite the numbers, experts assert that the vaccine is safe and effective. It's crucial for the public to understand that while adverse events will occur, they are often coincidental. The vaccine remains vital for public health, and getting vaccinated is strongly encouraged.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker questions the source of the claim that 20 million lives have been saved. They ask for data and studies to support this number. The response is indirect and the meeting is about to end when the speaker jumps back in to clarify that the 20 million lives saved refers to all vaccines, not just mRNA vaccines. The speaker is unable to ask for further clarification. They find it suspicious that this number is being thrown around without proper explanation. They suggest that these numbers are made up.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker claims that data from the New Zealand Ministry of Health shows vaccines have killed 675,000 people in America and 13 million worldwide. This contradicts the FDA and CDC's safety claims. The data, from one-third of New Zealand's vaccination records, allegedly proves vaccines are not safe. Gaslighting is mentioned as a tactic to mislead people about the data's true meaning.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Speaker 0 argues that, when re-examining the data from the original study, the raw numbers reveal a different pattern than what the study’s modeling suggested. Specifically, they state that, in the raw proportions, every single one of the 22 chronic disease categories was proportionally higher in the vaccinated group. This includes cancer, which the study reportedly treated as a control condition and claimed there was no difference for. According to Speaker 0, the study’s use of cancer as a control is at odds with the raw data they observed. They claim that there was a difference in cancer outcomes, contrary to the study’s implication of no difference. They emphasize that, with rare outcomes, the modeling employed in the original analysis is not very reliable, and as a result, the study did not perform any basic proportional analysis. Speaker 0 states that when they performed a basic proportional analysis themselves, cancer was fifty-four percent higher in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated children. They mention that this result is “explained biologically” and assert that there is biological plausibility behind it. Key points: - Raw proportions show all 22 chronic disease categories higher in the vaccinated group, including cancer. - The original study used cancer as a control and claimed no difference, which Speaker 0 disputes based on the raw data. - Modeling for rare outcomes is described as not very reliable. - A basic proportional analysis by Speaker 0 indicates cancer is 54% higher in the vaccinated group versus the unvaccinated. - A biological explanation or plausibility is asserted for the observed cancer difference in the vaccinated group.

Armchair Expert

Steven Pinker Returns (on common knowledge) | Armchair Expert with Dax Shepard

Guests: Steven Pinker

reSee.it Podcast Summary

Common knowledge binds groups more tightly than private belief alone. Steven Pinker explains private knowledge versus common knowledge, showing that common knowledge is the chain: I know that you know that I know. He illustrates with rock-paper-scissors, the emperor’s new clothes, and everyday language. When something is conspicuously public, it becomes common knowledge and enables coordination—from a coffee rendezvous to mass protests. He emphasizes tracking data rather than chasing headlines, arguing that long-run trends in health, poverty, and life expectancy show progress even as today’s news highlights danger. He cites Our World in Data and real-world metrics: war deaths, longevity, maternal mortality, and child survival. The conversation notes that democracy has improved over centuries but has leveled off more recently, and that conflicts such as Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan test that progress. COVID becomes a case study in science communication: vaccines helped, but calibration of confidence and risk remains essential. From there the talk turns to focal points and conventions that solve coordination problems. Thomas Schelling’s clock at Grand Central Station becomes a model for aligning actions without explicit agreement. Lines on maps, borders, and round-number focal points can reduce conflict even when boundaries are imperfect. The stock market is described as a beauty contest: investors guess what others will pick, fueling memes and network effects, including the GameStop frenzy and crypto advertising that relies on social momentum rather than intrinsic product value. Pinker ties this to Super Bowl ads, where common knowledge justifies a premium and turn mass attention into social proof. He contrasts anonymous gifts with reputation-driven philanthropy, citing David Pins’ taxonomy of status signals and the way people seek social approval. He also discusses how donors balance recognition with impact, showing the social dynamics behind generosity. The third thread probes science, politics, and AI. Academia’s perceived liberal tilt is debated with a defense of free speech and Mill’s warning that truth benefits from criticism, even when experts err. He critiques COVID communication and argues for cautious calibration under uncertainty, plus the costs and benefits of policy choices. He cautions against deplatforming that stifles knowledge, insisting that inquiry should remain open even amid disagreement. On AI, he argues against existential panic, noting that AI is a crafted tool rather than a sentient force, and progress depends on design and regulation. The talk closes with a central claim: progress comes from maintaining common knowledge and coordination, leveraging data, and preserving open inquiry, even as disagreement persists.