reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker asks if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for its ability to stop virus transmission before being released. They request a clear yes or no answer and the data to be shared with the committee. The response states that they did not have prior knowledge of stopping transmission before the vaccine entered the market and had to rely on scientific research. Another speaker expresses outrage, claiming that people were pressured to get vaccinated based on the false belief that it would protect others.

The speaker believes that the situation surrounding the vaccine has been a disaster and suggests that there was a military-grade propaganda campaign to promote it. They claim that the government provided over $1 billion to mainstream media to push the vaccine narrative and censor opposing views. According to the speaker, this violated informed consent for the entire country and the world.

I informed Prime Minister Rishi Sunak about evidence from Dr. Josh Gutschko suggesting that Pfizer had conducted a bait and switch operation with their vaccine. The Pfizer vaccine tested on 22,000 individuals was not the same as the one rolled out globally. The change in guidelines by the MHRA on the second day of mass vaccination, requiring people to stay for 15 minutes due to the risk of anaphylactic shock, supports this claim. Anaphylactic shock occurs when there are endotoxins in the vaccines, which are present when they are cultured in Escherichia coli. This indicates that the vaccine distributed worldwide was not manufactured to the same standards as the approved one. Informed consent was therefore not possible, as people were given an untested vaccine. I am still awaiting a response from the Prime Minister regarding this crucial matter. (134 words)

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.

Pfizer conducted trials using a synthetic PCR process called Process 1, which involved giving 40,000 people a deliberately engineered mRNA sequence for the shots. However, for mass production, a second process was used, tested on only 252 people. This involved using a complementary DNA sequence to make the body produce the spike protein. Essentially, the trials were conducted using a controlled synthetic process, but the majority of the vaccines administered to billions of people used a less tested method. This can be seen as a bait and switch.

The discussion revolves around the lack of complete safety study information in the patient package insert for the Moderna vaccine. The speaker acknowledges the missing data but assures safety based on personal experience. When asked about the specific studies supporting the vaccine's safety and effectiveness, the speaker admits to not having an answer. The conversation ends with the speaker feeling inadequate for not being able to provide more information.

Pfizer conducted trials using a synthetic PCR process called Process 1, which involved giving 40,000 people a precise mRNA sequence for the shots. However, for mass production, a second process was used, tested on only 252 people. This involved using a complementary DNA sequence to make the body produce the spike protein. Essentially, the trials were done using a controlled synthetic process, but the majority of the vaccines given to billions of people were made using a less tested method. This can be seen as a bait and switch.

Willem Engel, a pharmaceutical scientist and human rights activist, discusses the concerns and safety issues surrounding COVID vaccines. He criticizes the spread of misinformation by governments and the lack of accurate registration of vaccine risks. He questions the validity of informed consent when crucial information is not shared with the public. Another speaker highlights the patterns of adverse reactions in different vaccine batches, suggesting that informed consent was impossible due to the unknown risks associated with each batch. The statistician presents data showing three distinct patterns of adverse reactions in different vaccine batches, indicating a concerning safety signal. The speakers call for the withdrawal of vaccine marketing authorizations and accountability for the alleged mishandling of the vaccination campaign.

Pfizer conducted trials using a synthetic PCR process called Process 1, which involved giving 40,000 people a deliberately engineered mRNA sequence for the shots. However, for mass production, a second process was used, tested on only 252 people. This involved using a complementary DNA sequence to make the body produce the spike protein. Essentially, the trials were conducted using a controlled synthetic process, but the majority of the vaccines administered to billions of people used a less tested method. This can be seen as a bait and switch.

The speakers discuss the discrepancy between the disclosed plasmid map from Pfizer and what was actually found, suggesting that something important is being hidden. They claim that the vaccines being administered are different from what was tested in the trials, which may explain adverse reactions like anaphylaxis. They emphasize the need to raise awareness about this issue as it affects everyone. The speakers also mention that informed consent was not possible because people were not informed about the significant changes in vaccine manufacturing.

The speaker claims that this is not conspiracy theory and cites a BMJ publication by Retzaf Levy, which describes a process in vaccine development: vaccines were trialed under one formulation, but when the decision was made to deploy them globally, the process was changed and the product injected to the rest of the world. The speaker asserts that changing the process requires new trials, yet the EMA asked for an additional trial of 250 people after the process change, and that data was never delivered. This is described as a “bait and switch,” asserted as crucial for understanding why trial data is of zero consequence to what’s seen in the field, implying that real-world outcomes do not match trial data and that the numbers from trials are a caricature of field performance. The speaker claims Pfizer had early data indicating what would happen and acted on that by acquiring cancer companies: $43,000,000,000 into the acquisition of C Gen and $2,260,000,000 to acquire Trillium Therapeutics. Trillium is described as focused on blood cancers with the CD147 marker (CD Adaptor 147) on them, a marker claimed to be known to be involved in COVID. The implication is that Pfizer is building an investment portfolio in cancer companies that would benefit from the consequences the speaker alleges they caused. In summary, the vaccines on the market are said to be not the same formulation as what was tested in clinical trials, labeling this a “bait and switch” and a fraud, and asserting that vaccine effectiveness numbers are not reliable because the products differ from trial formulations and because those numbers decay over time. The speaker alleges significant DNA contamination, stating that 10 out of 11 studies have found this, with the remaining studies allegedly constrained by financial conflicts. The claim is that consensus among real studies supports DNA contamination, with several studies through peer review, which the speaker notes is difficult for those papers to pass through peer review. It is claimed that five peer-reviewed studies not originally examining contamination found DNA in blood and tissue upon sleuthing. The speaker asserts that cancer is on the rise and that several papers report cancer post-vaccination, including neoplasms at the site of injection. The claim is that this situation cannot be dismissed as coincidence and is described as “liability free” and often mandated. The speaker posits that this may be the largest carcinogenic hit to the human population, with vaccines on childhood schedules and given to pregnant women, stating that “this has gone absolutely off the rails.”

The speaker discusses the issue of DNA contamination in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and questions the FDA's handling of the situation. They explain that normally rigorous tests are required to ensure safety, but in this case, the FDA ignored those tests. The speaker also mentions that Moderna's own patent acknowledges concerns about DNA and insertional immunogenesis. They reveal that DNA fragments, including an antibiotic resistance gene and sequences from simian virus 40, were found in the vaccines. The speaker expresses shock at the FDA's lack of transparency and highlights the potential risks associated with DNA damage, such as cancer and birth defects.

For Pfizer's trials, a synthetic PCR-type process was used to create the mRNA sequence for the shots, administered to 40,000 people. This was called process one. To manufacture the shots for billions, a second process was implemented, tested on only 252 people. This involved using a complementary DNA sequence to make mRNA, which would then cause the body to produce the spike protein. The speaker claims the trials used a controlled synthetic process, but the actual rollout employed a barely tested method. The speaker characterizes this as a bait and switch.

Speaker 0 confronts a pharmacist about their son's hospitalization due to myocarditis after receiving a COVID jab. Speaker 0 is upset that his wife was not informed about this potential side effect. Speaker 1 explains that they may not disclose the side effect to avoid scaring parents away from vaccinating their children. Speaker 0 expresses disbelief and insists that parents should be given accurate information to make informed decisions.

Pfizer conducted trials using a synthetic PCR process called Process 1, which involved giving 40,000 people a precisely engineered mRNA sequence for the shots. However, for mass production, a second process was used, tested on only 252 people. This involved using a complementary DNA sequence to make the body produce the spike protein. Essentially, there was a switch from the controlled synthetic process used in trials to a less tested method for the majority of people. This can be seen as a bait and switch.

At the outset, a process was approved by the FDA for emergency use authorization. However, it was later discovered that the approved process was swapped out for one containing contaminants like DNA and a cancer-causing substance. Pfizer redacted 800 pages of the manufacturing process, hiding the fact that a carcinogen was included. This lack of transparency led to no informed consent and potential harm to individuals. The vaccine rollout included a trial with a 2.4 times higher adverse event rate, including the presence of a carcinogen.

The speaker claims that they have lied about the vaccine. They state that the vaccine distributes throughout the body, including breast milk, contradicting previous information. They also mention that the vaccine does not prevent disease transmission or reduce the risk of hospitalization, which they believed to be true. They refer to data from various countries showing that those who are double, triple, or quadruple vaccinated have a higher risk of hospitalization compared to the unvaccinated. The speaker emphasizes that this information is not fabricated.

For Pfizer's trials, a synthetic PCR-type process was used to create the mRNA sequence for the shots, administered to 40,000 people. This was called process one. To manufacture the shots for billions, a second process was implemented, tested on only 252 people. This involved using a complementary DNA sequence to produce mRNA, prompting the body to create the spike protein. The claim is that the initial trials used a controlled synthetic process, but mass production shifted to a barely tested method. This second process was then administered to billions of people. It is described as a bait and switch.

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.

Speaker 0 explains that each brand of vaccine is different, including Moderna. Speaker 1 asks if they can see the safety studies for all the vaccines, but Speaker 0 says the information given to patients does not contain that. Speaker 1 asks which vaccine they are giving, and Speaker 0 confirms it is the one they are giving. Speaker 1 questions why the package insert is intentionally blank, and Speaker 0 says the safety studies are inside. Speaker 1 asks how this is informed consent, and Speaker 0 suggests talking to CVS. Speaker 1 expresses concern about not knowing what they are injecting, and Speaker 0 agrees it is a valid point. Speaker 0 admits they cannot answer which studies prove the vaccine is safe and effective.

There is a discussion about how public trust in vaccination has changed since the pandemic. The speaker notes that years ago there were “five people in the world who were prepared to talk about the thorny issue of vaccination.” Post COVID, however, “half the adult population of the world are now saying, hold on, we don't trust you. You lied to us. It's not what you told us, safe and effective.” This skepticism extends to vaccines given to children, with the question, “Does this apply to all the other vaccines you're putting into my kids?” The speaker then asserts that “safety studies haven't been done,” suggesting that important research behind vaccines is incomplete or lacking. This leads to the claim that “they've created this mess for themselves.” Despite the frustration, the speaker emphasizes the moral weight of deception, stating, “it's really tough to lie. I mean, lying gets you into real trouble.”

On August 7th, the speaker wrote to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak with evidence from Dr. Josh Gochko indicating that Pfizer, enabled by the MHRA, carried out a bait and switch operation with their vaccine. The speaker claims the Pfizer vaccine tested on 22,000 individuals was not the same vaccine rolled out in the UK and worldwide. Evidence for this is allegedly the MHRA changing guidelines on the second day of mass vaccination, requiring people to stay at the vaccination center for 15 minutes due to the risk of anaphylactic shock. The speaker asserts the MHRA hadn't expected anaphylactic shock because it wasn't shown in the Pfizer trials. Anaphylactic shock occurs when there are endotoxins in vaccines, which are present when vaccines are cultured in bacteria like E. coli. The speaker claims this demonstrates the vaccine rolled out was not manufactured the same way or to the same standards as the vaccine that received medical approval, meaning informed consent was impossible. They state people were told the vaccines were safe, effective, and tested, but they were taking a completely untested vaccine from Pfizer. The speaker is still awaiting a response from the prime minister regarding the 44 pages of evidence supplied.

I wrote to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak with evidence from Dr. Josh Gutschko, indicating that Pfizer carried out a bait and switch operation with their vaccine. The Pfizer vaccine tested on 22,000 individuals was not the same as the one rolled out worldwide. The MHRA changed guidelines on the second day of mass vaccination, requiring people to stay for 15 minutes due to the risk of anaphylactic shock. This shock is caused by endotoxins in vaccines, which are present when they are cultured in bacteria like Escherichia coli. The vaccine rolled out globally was not manufactured to the same standards as the approved one, meaning informed consent was not possible. I'm still awaiting a response from the Prime Minister regarding this crucial matter.

The speaker discusses the issue of DNA contamination in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and questions the FDA's handling of the situation. They explain that normally rigorous tests are required for genotoxicity and immunogenesis, but the FDA seemed to ignore these requirements. The speaker also mentions that Moderna's own patent acknowledges the concerns related to DNA and insertional immunogenesis. They reveal that DNA fragments, including an antibiotic resistance gene and sequences from simian virus 40, were found in the vaccines. The speaker expresses concern about the potential risks associated with DNA damage, such as cancer and birth defects. They criticize the FDA for downplaying the issue and emphasize the importance of transparency.

The speaker argues that there was no informed consent regarding the COVID vaccine, as the government and pharmaceutical companies knew it wasn't a traditional vaccine. They hid potential adverse reactions and lack of evidence on transmission prevention. Despite good intentions, people were misled into taking it.