reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The government is being questioned for covering vaccine injuries inadequately. Concerns were raised about mRNA vaccines being contaminated with DNA fragments, making them genetically modified organisms. Professor Delglish warns that these vaccines may cause cancer relapses. He calls for a halt on mRNA vaccines and demands full disclosure of data. The speaker urges for transparency and ethical principles in pandemic management. The debate emphasizes the importance of following scientific evidence.

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

Speaker 0 argues that because it’s classified as a vaccine, they don’t have to worry about being sued. Speaker 1 counters that there is immunity from liability dependent on there having been no fraud, and asserts that there clearly was fraud, so in light of that... Speaker 0 expresses surprise at known caveats to liability. Speaker 1 confirms the caveats and says it makes the situation more interesting. Speaker 0 asks how fraud is defined in this context, noting that drugs were sold with many studies but only one was good. Speaker 1 responds, “Let's try this one,” and discusses safety testing: the insufficient amount of safety testing before release was done with mRNA vaccines produced in a process that did not involve DNA. The product injected into billions of people involved DNA plasmids, with massive contamination in the shots actually delivered, including the SV40 promoter (simian virus 40). The point is that safety testing was performed on one process, but people were injected with something different that had other components not tested, which Speaker 1 calls fraudulent. Speaker 0 asks for an explanation of the SV40 issue. Speaker 1 explains production methods: techniques to generate product using a plasmid, a circular piece of DNA, allowing vats to grow the product before coating in lipid nanoparticle, with bacteria doing the work. There is a requirement to purify DNA and set standards for residual DNA contamination. In this case, not only was quality control poor, but there was a much more painstaking way to produce the same product that did not involve DNA plasmids at all. As a result, vials given to Kevin McKernan, containing material actually injected into people, showed DNA contamination across the board. Speaker 1 states that leftover DNA includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic trigger from simian virus 40, which is carcinogenic. This promoter is left over in vials from shots actually injected into people, implying that the claims about the potential for mRNA shots to integrate into the genome were incorrect. Speaker 1 asserts that there is DNA in the vials, not just some old DNA, and that it includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic engineering tool with carcinogenic potential. Therefore, Speaker 1 concludes, this seems to be clear fraud: you can’t inject a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing conducted with a product produced by a different process.

The speaker expresses concerns about vaccine safety and refers to a letter signed by 350 organizations supporting vaccine safety. Another speaker questions the credibility of these claims, citing the $3.3 billion paid out by the HHS to Americans injured by vaccines. They argue against the idea of sacrificing some children's health to save others and mention that more children have died from the measles vaccine than from measles itself. The first speaker acknowledges that there can be side effects but suggests striving for even safer vaccines and proposes the idea of a Vaccine Safety Commission. They question who would oppose safer vaccines and the need for additional oversight.

COVID vaccines are declared safe by Speaker 0. Speaker 1 expresses pain, trauma, and regret due to lack of help for vaccine injuries. They mention others with amputations and heart conditions, and question why support is lacking. They criticize the vaccine damage payment scheme and highlight over 30,000 adverse reactions in Scotland. Speaker 1 demands that Rashid Shunaka do the right thing. Speaker 0 responds by stating that decisions during the pandemic were based on medical advice from experts, guiding vaccine rollout and eligibility.

The speaker questions the independence of regulatory agencies like the TGA, suggesting that they may be influenced by pharmaceutical companies that fund them. They criticize the quick adoption of COVID vaccines and the authorization for their use in young Australians, even before approval in the US and Europe. They argue that a Royal Commission is needed to investigate these issues and hold those responsible accountable. The speaker also mentions the Pfizer trials, claiming that there were more deaths in the vaccinated group than in the placebo group. They highlight the large amount of money spent on vaccines and the lack of transparency regarding contracts and terms. They believe that mandating vaccines violates international human rights.

Andrew Bridgeman raises concerns about the Pfizer COVID vaccine rollout, citing evidence from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He claims that the vaccine used in the rollout was not the same as the one trialed on volunteers and approved for emergency use. Bridgeman suggests that if ministers were unaware of this, it could be a criminal act by the MHRA. He argues that the public was misled, leading to a discrepancy between Pfizer's data and the UK's yellow card data on adverse events. Bridgeman requests a statement from the government on this matter.

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

Andrew Bridgeman raises concerns about the Pfizer COVID vaccine rollout, citing evidence from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He claims that the vaccine used in the rollout was not the same as the one trialed on volunteers and approved for emergency use. Bridgeman suggests that if ministers were unaware of this, it could be considered a criminal act by the MHRA. He argues that the public was misled, leading to a discrepancy between Pfizer's data and the UK's yellow card data on adverse events. Bridgeman requests a statement from the government on this matter.

In this video, a senator questions Professor Kelly about a study on the vaccine's effectiveness in reducing sickness and hospitalization. The senator raises concerns about the study's methodology and the increase in deaths in Australia. Professor Kelly stands by the study's findings, stating that all-cause mortality was decreased. Another official explains that the study found no evidence of increased mortality associated with COVID vaccines. The senator continues to question the increase in deaths in 2021 despite no COVID in the community, suggesting a correlation with the vaccine rollout. The official acknowledges the increase but rejects the temporal correlation. The senator asks what the health department has done to analyze the increase in deaths, and the official mentions the usual causes of death and the significant deaths from COVID in 2022.

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.

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

Speaker 0 questions if anyone was forced to get vaccinated, specifically referring to a comment made by Dr. Kuat. Speaker 1 confirms that they made the comment and states their belief that nobody was forced to receive the vaccine. They explain that mandates and requirements are determined by governments and health authorities, and that individuals were given the choice to get vaccinated or not. Speaker 0 disagrees, suggesting that many Australians would disagree with Speaker 1's statement.

During the COVID pandemic, the Australian government granted Pfizer blanket immunity, allowing them to develop and distribute COVID injections without accountability. However, Pfizer has a history of criminal acts, including bribery and suppressing adverse trial results. The manufacturing process of the injections was also questionable, with evidence of live DNA derived from e coli found in the Pfizer product. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) did not conduct thorough testing on each batch of injections, relying instead on the US FDA's word. The lack of long-term safety testing is concerning, especially considering Pfizer's record-breaking profits. The Australian taxpayers are left with an unknown liability, while those who question the injections are labeled as "anti-vaxxers." The speaker opposes the forced administration of untested experimental injections and calls for accountability.

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

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.”

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

Senator Roberts questions Minister Gallagher about the number of vaccines that have indemnity from the Australian government. The minister explains that indemnity arrangements were put in place for vaccines procured during the pandemic to ensure the national vaccine rollout program could be carried out safely. Senator Roberts argues that with low demand for boosters and multiple vendors, the need for indemnities is unnecessary. He questions why new indemnities were issued recently. Minister Gallagher defends the government's agreements with vaccine providers and emphasizes the importance of vaccination. Senator Roberts accuses the government of using taxpayers' money and not being transparent about vaccine harm. He criticizes the indemnity agreement with Moderna and raises concerns about experimental mRNA products.

Senator Roberts questions the Minister on the excessive purchase of COVID vaccines for Australia. The Minister explains the need for a portfolio approach to ensure vaccine access for all Australians. The exact number of doses delivered remains confidential due to commercial sensitivity. Senator Roberts insists on transparency, citing the committee's power to gather evidence. The Minister agrees to refer the matter to the Minister for Health if necessary.

Speaker 0 questions whether it is a conflict of interest for government employees who profit from the vaccine to dictate vaccine policies. Speaker 1 responds that the government should decide. Speaker 0 asks about the higher incidence of myocarditis among adolescent males after vaccination. Speaker 1 claims that the data shows less risk with the vaccine compared to getting COVID. Speaker 0 disagrees and presents peer-reviewed papers contradicting Speaker 1's claim. Speaker 0 questions the scientific soundness of mandating three vaccines for adolescent boys and suggests having a rational discussion about one vaccine. Speaker 1 defers to public health leaders. Speaker 0 criticizes the CDC's recommendation to vaccinate children multiple times and compares it to other countries' approaches. Speaker 1 admits to vaccinating their own children multiple times. Speaker 0 argues that the risk of myocarditis after vaccination should be weighed against the risk of the disease. Speaker 0 also expresses concern about conflicts of interest in government decision-making.

Speaker 0: No compensation is available for people with legitimate vaccine injuries, as there is already a system in place through ACC for managing such cases. Speaker 1: However, many vaccine-injured individuals have been denied by ACC and are facing personal financial burdens for their treatment. The requirement of proving the injury is a high bar to meet. Speaker 2: It is not a high bar if a proper examination system is in place. If someone was fine before receiving the vaccine and experienced severe consequences afterward, it is likely caused by the vaccine. We should let an independent commissioner investigate the truth instead of arguing about it.

Australia already has vaccine indemnity agreements in place, so doctors don't need to worry. Some people have sadly died after taking AstraZeneca, and there are concerns about whether they were fully informed of the symptoms to look out for. However, individuals are responsible for their own health and have the opportunity to visit their GP for consultation. The government has funded this process, and informed consent allows individuals to make decisions about their own health and bodies.

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

Australia's premiers faced criticism for their COVID-19 pandemic response, particularly regarding vaccine mandates, which some believe reduced vaccination motivation. There's a push for mandates similar to those in France to ensure public safety in stores and restaurants. The federal government is compensating Australians with vaccine-related injuries, including serious health issues. Despite evidence suggesting vaccines are crucial in combating the pandemic, concerns about side effects persist. Some argue that mandates lacked a solid basis, as they did not prevent transmission. The inquiry report criticized vaccine mandates, while others emphasize the need for widespread vaccination to reduce the virus's danger. Ultimately, accountability for past decisions remains elusive, with officials unlikely to admit mistakes.

During a discussion, Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about a comment made regarding vaccination. Speaker 1 confirms making the comment and Speaker 0 challenges it, stating that people in Australia were forced to get vaccinated to keep their jobs. Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that vaccine mandates are determined by governments and health authorities, and nobody was forced to take the vaccine. Speaker 0 disagrees, suggesting that many Australians would not agree with Speaker 1's viewpoint.