reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 states that one of their three children experienced health issues, including heart inflammation, after receiving the vaccine and subsequently lost their job for refusing further vaccination. This adverse reaction is officially registered. The speaker recounts a doctor advising their son against further vaccination outside a hospital setting, but later denying having said so. Speaker 1 says there is a good system for reporting side effects in New Zealand and finds no clear evidence of suppression of medical side effects of the Pfizer vaccine. Speaker 0 questions why the vaccine is still in use given the side effects. Speaker 1 responds that society decided to tolerate a certain number of adverse effects for the greater good, characterizing the speaker's family member's reaction as "taking one for the team."

The discussion revolves around the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines, particularly in relation to transmission, myocarditis rates, and the influence of pharmaceutical companies. The speakers debate whether vaccines reduce transmission and the risks associated with myocarditis. They also question the motives of pharmaceutical companies and their impact on public health. Ultimately, they express differing views on the role of vaccines in preventing illness and the influence of pharmaceutical companies. Translation: The conversation focuses on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, safety, transmission, and myocarditis risks, as well as the pharmaceutical industry's influence on public health. Speakers debate vaccine impact on transmission and myocarditis rates, and discuss pharmaceutical companies' motives and health outcomes. They share conflicting opinions on vaccines' ability to prevent illness and the pharmaceutical industry's role.

The discussion centers on evidence linking myocarditis and pericarditis to mRNA vaccination and the proposed mechanism behind it. It references a 2022 German study reporting that endomyocardial biopsy data from people with myocarditis showed cardiac detection of the spike protein and CD4+ T cell–dominated inflammation, suggesting a vaccine-triggered autoimmune reaction. The presenters note headlines at the time comparing myocarditis risk to infection, with claims that infection causes more myocarditis, and remind that vaccines were said not to stop transmission. They then cite a large Israeli population study from the same year involving subjects not vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, which found no increase in the incidence of myocarditis or pericarditis, implying no observed vaccine-related signal in that cohort. Attention shifts to a more recent study published in Circulation by the American Heart Association, described as a high-impact, non-fringe journal, indicating a clearer mechanism has been demonstrated. The study described used an experimental mouse model to induce cardiac damage and then compared it to human cases with heart damage following vaccination. It states that T cells from patients with acute myocarditis or myopericarditis recognize vaccine-encoded spike epitopes that are homologous to cardiac self proteins, meaning the immune response to the spike protein can cross-react with heart tissues. The researchers further report that functional responses to potassium channels in patients with mild pericarditis after mRNA vaccination, but not in patients with COVID-19, showed an expanded pattern of cytokine production similar to that observed in myopericarditis mice and in autoimmune myocarditis. In plain terms, the summary of their takeaway is that post-mRNA vaccine myopericarditis is driven by molecular mimicry: the immune system cannot distinguish self from non-self, leading to an autoimmune attack on heart tissue in susceptible patients. The distribution of the vaccine (its widespread dissemination) is cited as a factor that makes patients susceptible by promoting heart-homing imprinting, effectively creating an anti-heart autoimmune response. The speakers emphasize that this Circulation article is a top-tier source, underscoring that the mechanism has been demonstrated with both animal models and human pathology, supporting the claim that the phenomenon has a defined immunological basis.

The speaker discusses a significant increase in myocarditis cases post-vaccination, with studies showing abnormal cardiac scans in vaccinated individuals. They suggest a potential link between mRNA vaccines and heart inflammation, emphasizing the need for long-term monitoring. Research indicates that mRNA and spike proteins can cause myocarditis, posing a concern for all mRNA products. The heart appears to be a vulnerable target due to various factors.

Speaker 0 questions understanding of vaccine causing myocarditis, mentioning Pfizer's awareness. Speaker 1 doubts if vaccine was tested for stopping transmission before market release. Speaker 0 believes vaccination was optional, not forced.

Speaker 0: Take the shot and protect yourself and the people around you. We all feel a chill when we hear that. Mrs. van der Hof from the RIVM, you’ve researched the effects of vaccination. If you look under the line, has it had any usefulness? Speaker 1: It has certainly been useful. In fact, from our research, but also from many other studies, people who were vaccinated had a lower chance of dying from COVID, and we see that effect with every shot that’s given. We also studied whether there is a higher chance of dying from diseases other than COVID shortly after vaccination, to see whether there is vaccine harm, and we do not find that either, which is also in line with what is found internationally. Speaker 0: Okay, because that is the story you hear at the dinner table. Earlier this week someone said, I see so many people dying, there must be something. Speaker 1: Yes. Well, there are certainly people who have died due to the vaccination. We cannot deny that. That has been investigated; we find that in the Netherlands through Lareb, and we find that internationally as well. You just have to weigh the very small chance that you become ill or die from a vaccination against the chance that you become very ill or die from COVID. And the balance tips toward vaccination. Speaker 0: Yes, vaccination protects more than it harms, you just said. Also, have you studied the chance of death due to vaccination? Speaker 1: Well, we looked at people who were vaccinated and whether within 2 months after vaccination they had an increased chance of dying from anything other than COVID. If there were an indication there, we would see it, and we absolutely do not find that. Speaker 0: No, that is simply not found. Okay. Mrs. Van der Broek, and the pandemic was a priority.

The speaker states that a certain vaccine type has been administered to one billion people and is safe. They acknowledge a very low risk of myocarditis with mRNA vaccines, particularly in young men. However, they claim the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 itself is greater than the risk from the vaccine.

The speaker asks if there is a higher incidence of myocarditis among adolescent males aged 16 to 24 after taking the vaccine. The other speaker responds by saying that the data from the CDC shows that there is actually less myocarditis in people who get the vaccine compared to those who get COVID. The first speaker disagrees and presents six peer-reviewed papers that contradict this claim. They also mention speaking with the president who privately acknowledged the increased risk of myocarditis. The conversation then shifts to discussing the rationality of mandating three vaccines for adolescent boys and the timing of myocarditis after the second dose. The first speaker criticizes the CDC's recommendation to vaccinate individuals who have recovered from COVID and experienced myocarditis. They argue that many countries do not offer the vaccine to children unless they are at risk for severe disease. The first speaker concludes by stating that the risk and benefits of vaccination need to be weighed, and that parents are unlikely to comply with mandatory vaccination for their children.

The speaker asks if there is a higher incidence of myocarditis among boys aged 16 to 24 after taking the vaccine. The other speaker responds that the data from the CDC actually show that there is less risk of myocarditis for those who get the vaccine compared to those who get COVID infection. The first speaker clarifies if they are saying that males in the 16 to 24 age group who take the vaccine have a lower risk of myocarditis than those who contract the disease. The second speaker confirms this.

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.

We have experience with this vaccine in a billion people, showing it is safe. The mRNA vaccine carries a very low risk of myocarditis, especially in young men. However, the risk of myocarditis from COVID is higher than from the vaccine.

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.

Speaker 0 acknowledges reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with the Pfizer vaccine but seems unsure about the mechanism behind it. Speaker 1 asks if the vaccine was tested for its ability to stop virus transmission before being released. Speaker 2 questions if people were forced to get vaccinated to keep their jobs and asks Speaker 0 to retract their statement. Speaker 0 clarifies that everyone had the choice to get vaccinated or not, and they don't believe anyone was forced.

Taixin Media from China asks about concerns regarding the long-term effects of mRNA vaccines. Richard acknowledges that mRNA vaccines have only been administered for a limited time, but emphasizes that the number of people who have received the vaccine greatly outweighs the reported side effects. He believes that the limited side effects make long-term concerns less significant. Another participant adds that mRNA vaccines cannot integrate into DNA, ensuring safety. The main adverse effect observed is mild myocarditis or pericarditis, primarily affecting young males, but it typically resolves without long-term consequences.

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.

We have experience with this vaccine in a billion people, showing it is safe. While there is a low risk of myocarditis with mRNA vaccines, the risk from COVID is higher than the vaccine's risk, especially in young men.

The speaker announced a preferential recommendation for the Pfizer vaccine for individuals aged 18 to 24 due to a small increase in pericarditis or myocarditis following Moderna vaccination in this age group, especially among males. They acknowledged that this news may cause concerns but emphasized that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of COVID-19. In response to a question about potential hesitancy, the speaker stated that transparency and building trust with the public were important. They mentioned relying on expert groups and maintaining accountability to inform the public about the increased risk of a rare event. The speaker hoped that the public would understand their efforts to be transparent.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about a report stating that serious adverse reactions occur in 1 in 800 vaccinated individuals. Speaker 1 claims to be unaware of the report but mentions routine screening of literature for adverse events. When asked about Moderna's rate of serious adverse events, Speaker 1 cannot provide the information. Speaker 0 expresses frustration and finds it extraordinary that a multinational company cannot provide this data. Speaker 1 offers to provide the information later but states that no safety concerns were observed in their clinical trials. Speaker 0 concludes that the conversation is a waste of time.

Speaker 0 asked about the visibility of the medium to long-term effects of the vaccine in three to five years. Speaker 1 responded that they cannot predict how things will be in three to five years, but mentioned that 92-93% of the population will be vaccinated. Speaker 0 expressed confusion, and Speaker 1 clarified that 92-93% is the current vaccination rate. Speaker 0 raised concerns about potential side effects, but Speaker 1 reassured them that if there are any, the majority of the population would be affected. Speaker 0 remained unconvinced and expressed hesitation about getting vaccinated.

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.

The speaker asks Pfizer and Moderna to explain how the COVID-19 vaccine causes myocarditis. The response from the doctors is that the exact mechanism is still being studied, but myocarditis is generally an autoimmune response that can occur after COVID-19 or other infections. The speaker questions if other organs could also be affected by the vaccine, but the doctors explain that ongoing surveillance is in place to monitor potential risks. The speaker expresses concern about the lack of initial disclosure of these risks. The doctors emphasize the importance of preventing COVID-19 and state that the reported rate of myocarditis is around 2-3 per 100,000 doses. The speaker argues that if it can happen to the heart, it could happen to other organs. The conversation ends due to time constraints.

The speaker discusses the increasing awareness and concern surrounding myocarditis as a result of COVID-19 vaccines. They mention that there are now 800 peer-reviewed papers on COVID vaccine-induced myocarditis, with a rate of heart damage at 2.5% in two studies. They explain the pathogenesis of vaccine-induced cardiac arrest and highlight the fatality of this condition. The speaker also mentions cases of athletes and public figures who have experienced myocarditis after vaccination. They express concern about the lingering effects of myocarditis and the recurrence of symptoms. The speaker concludes by discussing the case of a European athlete who experienced a cardiac arrest two years after vaccination, emphasizing the ongoing risk associated with myocarditis.

Speaker 0 asks if people are not afraid of the side effects of the Covid vaccine. Speaker 1 responds that they are more afraid of long-term effects of Covid itself than the vaccine's side effects. They mention that billions of people have been vaccinated with no major side effects reported. Speaker 1 also addresses the concern that women are more affected by vaccine side effects, stating that there is no scientific evidence to support this claim. They mention not having any information from the COVAS (the organization responsible for scientific surveillance) or any published studies on this matter.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to explain the process of how the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis. Speaker 1 mentions rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with vaccination. Speaker 0 insists on an explanation of the mechanism, but Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer. Speaker 1 emphasizes that all medicines have benefits and side effects and refers to the benefit-risk ratio. Speaker 0 continues to press for an explanation of the biochemical pathway, but Speaker 1 agrees to provide a response later. The transcript ends with Speaker 2 confirming Speaker 1's agreement to give a further response.

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.