reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

I was corrected on a statement I made about $50,000,000 in condoms being sent to Gaza. The condoms were actually sent to Mozambique for an HIV prevention program. I admit to making mistakes; it's impossible to be perfectly accurate all the time. I will correct errors quickly. However, I question whether sending that many condoms anywhere is a good use of funds, and I doubt it's something most Americans would support. The sheer volume is significant.

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.

I apologize for the mistake in stating the number of unexplained deaths in aborted children as 350%. It is actually 3,328%. This data comes from AHS, which is posted on our website. I did not make up this number, and it was shocking to discover.

- The speaker notes dated 07/25/2022, reporting on developments related to baby deaths and baby funerals. They reference the UK government website, and specifically Northampton NHS in detail mentioning children's funerals, noting that contracts for this area have appeared that were previously unseen. They point to contractfinderservice.gov.uk and advise looking for “children's and babies' funerals.” They identify several awarded contracts, including one for Hertfordshire, another for Hertfordshire specifically for baby funerals, and contracts awarded for Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS, and Leicester Hospitals NHS. - The speaker mentions that the WNHS is another organization involved for those who do not want to have Mexican arranged funerals, stating that they will do that for you now. - A doctor in Australia, Dr. Luke McClinton, is described as leading the fertility services at the Mater Hospital and as a principal investigator for a series of randomized controlled trials. He is also described as the president of the Australian Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine and is labeled as “the top doctor in Australia in this field.” - The speaker asserts that Dr. Luke McClinton was sacked on Friday for not getting the jab and for attempting to release his data on miscarriages post-vaccination. They state that he has until the following Friday to exit his private practice rooms, as he is no longer allowed to practice in public or private settings. - The speaker claims that Dr. McClinton has been investigating miscarriages in couples post-vaccination and states that the “normal miscarriage rate” is between five and perhaps as high as sixteen percent. They then claim that since the introduction of the vaccine, he has found that seventy-four percent of women who are vaccinated are now having miscarriages. - The speaker reiterates the statistic: “Seventy four percent of women are having miscarriages who are vaccinated.” They suggest that this statistic would explain why hospitals allegedly want to deal directly with crematoria, with vans taking multiple babies directly to the crematorium, bypassing funeral directors. The speaker emphasizes that they had previously mentioned these points.

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.

We initially reported 1400 casualties, but we later corrected it to 1200 as we realized our overestimation. We made a mistake by identifying badly burnt bodies as ours, but they turned out to be Hamas terrorists. We acknowledge our errors and take responsibility for them.

The speaker claims that women who received the vaccine in the first trimester had an 82% miscarriage rate. They state that this is the same miscarriage rate observed in the Pfizer 5.3.6 post-market analysis.

We discussed the high number of unexplained deaths in aborted children at our event. I mistakenly stated it was 350%, but it's actually 3,328%. This data comes from AHS, which is posted on our website. I apologize for the error with the decimal point.

In the message described, Speaker 0 highlights a key claim: the CDC and FDA were fully aware of the masking phenomenon within their empirical Bayesian analysis. The speaker emphasizes that this awareness was part of the information being conveyed in a letter to Bobby Kennedy. The central issue raised is not about general safety signals, but about the timing of deaths relative to vaccination. The speaker notes a concern that began earlier, stating that back in October there were discussions with Mike Eden about these injections. The concern is tied to what was observed in the data, specifically that “early on in March and April” the data appeared to be "screaming at us" when looking at thousands of deaths. The speaker provides a concrete statistic: “forty six percent of those deaths were occurring on the day of vaccination than one or two days.” The speaker then updates the figure, saying that they are “up to almost thirty nine thousand deaths” in total, and adds that “Twenty four percent of those deaths occurred on the day of vaccination or within one or two days.” The speaker asserts that this information “has been available month by month by month since about March, April 2021,” yet alleges that “the federal officials are still not acknowledging it.” Instead of acknowledging these signals, the speaker claims officials point to other metrics, stating they “go to these, you know, PRR, the proportional reporting ratios, or a more sophisticated” approach. The claim continues that when PRRs were showing safety signals, officials reacted as if, “oh, we're not using those. We're using empirical Bayesian analysis. They set the trigger.” In summary, the transcript presents a narrative in which the CDC and FDA are described as being aware of a masking phenomenon identified through empirical Bayesian analysis, with specific, alarming timing data linking a significant proportion of deaths to the day of vaccination or the following couple of days. The speaker contends this information has been publicly accessible on a monthly basis since early 2021, but accuses federal officials of not acknowledging it and of favoring a different analytic framework (PRR) or of claiming to use empirical Bayesian analysis after the fact, implying that the trigger for safety signals was set within that framework. The overall emphasis is on the alleged discrepancy between available data and official acknowledgment, as well as the choice of analytic methods used to interpret safety signals.

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.

They discuss the number of people who have experienced long-term health issues after receiving the vaccine. The speaker asks if it's hundreds or thousands, and Helen responds that it's actually around 10. She mentions a report from April 2023, which states that there were 11,289 medically significant or serious reports. Out of those, 1,062 were listed as disabled, 118 were considered life-threatening, and 184 resulted in death. Helen clarifies that the long-term consequences are not in the hundreds or thousands, but rather around 10.

Speaker 0 explains that even the obstetrics and gynecology association has reportedly pushed to vaccinate pregnant women as a duty, but doctors are the ones who do not know the facts. They reference a highly regarded medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, which published a study claiming a 12.6 percent user rate for the vaccine’s research results. Based on that paper, the 三 富 士 川 学 会 then attempted to vaccinate pregnant women. In reality, among the 827 individuals involved, 700 were in the postpartum period, 127 were in the antepartum period, and initial data were from that group. Specifically, for the group limited to those under twenty weeks (twenty weeks or less), which is 127 people, the miscarriage rate was 82 percent. Therefore, the argument is that, going forward, one can see how dangerous the vaccine is from those numbers. The speaker contends that data were hidden and later mixed into the 700-person postpartum group, yielding a miscarriage rate of 12.6 percent. Because of this, the claim is that even a leading medical journal has been influenced by money to publish such conclusions. Overall, the points presented are: - The obstetrics field is described as advocating vaccination of pregnant women as a duty, while physicians allegedly lack awareness of the underlying facts. - The NEJM published a study deemed to show a 12.6 percent user rate, which the speaker implies is problematic. - The 三 富 士 川 学 会 vaccinated pregnant women, but the data show that among 127 women under twenty weeks, the miscarriage rate was 82 percent. - The speaker asserts that this information was hidden and later combined with data from the 700 postpartum cases to produce a 12.6 percent miscarriage rate. - The implication is that even a top medical journal can be swayed by financial influence, resulting in biased reporting.

And do you have any signs to back up your your opinion? The best data are autopsies. So in the largest autopsy series published to date, I know because I'm the senior author. Of all the deaths examined and we re reviewed them. We had an adjudication committee. We had ways of arbitration deciding on did the vaccine cause death. The answer is of these cases that came in for autopsy after vaccination, seventy three point nine percent of individuals, it was determined that the vaccine was the cause of death. First off, there's Hocher and colleagues who's sitting right behind me.

In the Waterloo area, there have been 86 stillbirths from January to July, which is higher than the usual rate of 1 stillbirth every 2 months. The mothers of these stillborn babies were fully vaccinated, despite previous claims that vaccines are safe. The speaker questions the minister about what should be said to the doctors who advised pregnant women to get vaccinated and what should be told to the mothers who experienced stillbirths.

They claim podcasters are responsible for 200,000 to 300,000 deaths. Peter Hotez's analysis indicates that vaccine refusal, for various reasons, likely caused an additional 200,000 to 300,000 deaths in the country. The speaker refutes blame, asserting "you made it" and "you funded it," implying involvement in the research.

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 says that even for obstetrics and gynecology societies, vaccination during pregnancy has been pursued as a duty, but physicians do not know the actual facts. They reference the New England Journal of Medicine, a famous medical journal, where a study of a vaccine’s adverse outcomes claimed that the user rate was 12.6%. Based on that paper, the Sanpeshikawa (Sanbushikawa) Association reportedly promoted vaccination for pregnant women as well. In reality, the data were as follows: of 827 people, 700 were in late pregnancy, and 127 were in the early stages (first trimester). When restricting to the 127 people who were under 20 weeks, the usage rate was 82%. Therefore, the speaker argues that this data reveals how dangerous the vaccine is, and that the data were hidden and mixed with high-profile 700-person data to produce the 12.6% miscarriage rate that was published. This is presented as evidence of a situation where even in medical journals, information was handled to favor the other side due to money and other influences.

Dr. McCulloch is asked to weigh in. Speaker 1 responds that he has presented at FDA advisory meetings and advised companies for decades on regulatory science. He states that when a product definitely results in death, and there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers on this, the COVID vaccines in some people sadly result in death—some on the very first day they take the shot. He argues that this must be a black box warning on the product immediately. He says he checked the package inserts for the currently available products, noting that the ones Senator Blumenthal wants to pursue, and what the Governor still wants to pursue, and what the FDA still wants administered, do not have the word “death” in the package insert. He asserts that Americans are not fairly informed. Speaker 0 asks whether Speaker 1 doubts that the COVID injection caused some deaths, and asks for his view on the numbers listed on VAERS (thirty-seven thousand, six hundred seven, per the prompt) and whether he has any science to back up his opinion. Speaker 1 replies that the best data are autopsies. He references the largest autopsy series published to date and notes that he is the senior author. He says they examined deaths after vaccination, had an adjudication committee and methods of arbitration to decide whether the vaccine caused death, and that in these autopsy cases, seventy-three point nine percent of individuals, it was determined that the vaccine was the cause of death. He mentions Holsher and colleagues, who are right behind him. Speaker 0 reiterates the FDA’s own laws, asking that this be included in the package insert, correct? Speaker 1 confirms, noting that in 2021 Dr. Carol Tocetta, working with the Daily Cloud, wrote about Peters’ marks in 2023 and asked, “where’s the black box warning? Where is it?”

The speaker discusses a review of 325 autopsies, which they claim is the largest autopsy series in the world, of COVID-19 vaccinated individuals who died shortly after vaccination. According to the speaker, this review found that the vaccine caused or contributed to approximately 74% of the sudden deaths. The speaker states that this information will be published in a peer-reviewed paper. The speaker anticipates a "tsunami of evidence" regarding the harm caused by COVID-19 vaccines to children, pregnant women, and adults. The speaker urges politicians to "get ahead of this" issue now.

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.

In mid-March, UNICEF reported 13,000 children dead in Gaza, but recent UN numbers show less than 8,000 deaths. The figures are constantly revised during conflict due to multiple sources. The accuracy improves as more information is verified. Despite the adjustments, the confirmed numbers are always on the lower side. The reliability of the numbers is ensured through continuous checking to provide valid information. Translation (if needed): The UNICEF initially reported 13,000 children dead in Gaza, but recent UN numbers show less than 8,000 deaths. The figures are constantly revised during conflict due to multiple sources. The accuracy improves as more information is verified. Despite the adjustments, the confirmed numbers are always on the lower side. The reliability of the numbers is ensured through continuous checking to provide valid information.

A new analysis of CDC data by Ethical Skeptic shows children born following mass mRNA vaccination of mothers are dying at a seventy seven percent excess rate. That's nearly eighteen thousand additional deaths in ages zero to four since 2021. The CDC's own death certificate records revealed an inflection point after thirty years of steady decline in infant and child mortality. So two distinct signals emerged, teratogenic effects, so rising deaths among infants exposed in utero, but the most concerning is transgenerational effects sustained excess mortality rates seen in children who were never infected, never injected, but whose parents previously were. These findings are not speculative models. They come straight from the government's records. If confirmed, this represents a public health crisis of historic magnitude, one affecting not those who were injected, but their children, grandchildren, and generations yet to be born.

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.

A study of 325 autopsies found that in 73.9% of cases, the COVID-19 vaccine was either the direct cause of death or significantly contributed to it. The deaths occurred within one to two weeks after the last shot, and in over 50% of cases, the single cause of death was cardiovascular. This contradicts the official narrative from the CDC and FDA, which maintains that there is no evidence linking deaths to the vaccine, except for a few acknowledged cases after the Janssen vaccine. According to the speaker, these autopsy results are incontrovertible evidence that patients died from the vaccine, challenging the government's stance. The findings have gained significant attention online and on social media.