reSee.it - Related Video Feed

80% of doctors are believed to have lost their minds. An anecdote was shared about a doctor who died shortly after receiving an mRNA gene therapy shot. Another similar incident was mentioned. The speaker emphasized the importance of listening to real stories to understand what is happening.

mRNA vaccines, like the ones developed for the pandemic, have brought attention to the potential of gene and cell therapy. Previously, if we had asked the public if they would be willing to receive such treatments, the majority would have refused. However, the pandemic has changed people's perspectives and made them more open to innovative approaches in healthcare.

mRNA vaccines have shown the potential of cell and gene therapy. Two years ago, most people would have refused gene or cell therapy, but the pandemic has increased acceptance of innovative treatments.

Every childhood vaccine will be mRNA, becoming gene therapies that alter genetics without re-approval. COVID vaccines were profitable data and experimentation tools, but the real danger is the continued genetic tinkering via mRNA integration into all vaccines. The speaker is now anti-vaxx and will not get any more vaccines for themselves or their family because all vaccines are being redesigned to include gene therapies, driven by profit.

Our company is embracing cell and gene therapy, which has the potential to make a significant impact. The mRNA vaccines are a prime example of this. Just a couple of years ago, if we had asked the public if they would be willing to undergo gene or cell therapy, the majority would have refused. However, the pandemic has changed people's perspectives and made them more open to innovative solutions.

It is nearly impossible to publish data that goes against the national public health narrative, preventing doctors from finding solutions. The speaker has conducted clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies, including vaccine studies, and has brought vaccines and other drugs to market. Some drugs never made it to market because they killed people. Clinical trial guidelines ensure safe drugs, but these guidelines were not followed during the pandemic, affecting everyone. COVID should have been a time for doctors to unite, but interference with research occurred. Science evolves through experiments, skepticism, and an open mind. Challenging current knowledge must be allowed to move science forward, but what the speaker witnessed during the pandemic was not science.

The speaker discusses the goal of making mRNA a household word during the pandemic. They quote Peter Daszak, who stated that the media hype would be used to increase public understanding and acceptance of medical countermeasures like a universal vaccine. The speaker also mentions the Sackler family's abuse of opioids and the similarity between the opioid crisis and the COVID-19 response. They highlight the role of evangelical physicians and the funding from NIAID and DARPA. The speaker argues that the media hype is used to coerce the public into accepting these measures, and that the ultimate goal is to introduce gene editing through CRISPR. They emphasize the importance of the word "hype" in Daszak's quote, as it reveals the fear mongering tactics used to drive public acceptance.

"There's the transformative, if I might use that word, experience that we've all had now in year five of COVID." The speaker says, "The thought that we won't have another pandemic, I think is naive at best and just not completely unrealistic at worst." They add, "I'm convinced that there will be another pandemic and that's the reason why we have to be perpetually prepared to prevent the terrible impact of a pandemic."

- The m n r m r n a technology was a radical qualitative leap forward in technology. - The mRNA is a type of vaccine. - The reason it was called a scene was because was a brand name that had a track record of safety, and shoehorning it in that was one of the ways to make sure that people weren't terrified of the technology. - It bears very little resemblance to anything that went before that. - There are different types that they didn't have to contend with the fact that it wasn't the same technology. There are different technologies. - There certainly are. That are different technologies.

All childhood vaccines will soon be mRNA-based gene therapies, without requiring reapproval. This means that getting any type of vaccine will alter a person's genetics. The focus is now on integrating mRNA into all vaccines, which raises concerns about tinkering with genes. The speaker strongly opposes vaccines and vows not to get any more, emphasizing the financial interests involved in this shift.

The speaker describes unbridled enthusiasm and irrational exuberance for life as sacrificing safety. They state they presented autopsy work on death after COVID-19 vaccination at the American Society of Microbiology, where thousands of microbiologists, vaccinologists, and immunologists attended. As people visited, the speaker was stunned by what they call scientific seduction by messenger RNA technology. They predict a cataclysmic recognition that mRNA platforms are unsafe, claiming there is no way to break down pseudourrogenated messenger RNA. The speaker asserts that circulating messenger RNA from Pfizer or Moderna remains in patients’ bloodstream three years after the shots, described as intact.

Speaker 0 argues that billions of people were injected with an experimental vaccine, stating “it wasn't a bloody just no. It wasn't.” He rejects the notion of it being definitive or perfect, emphasizing that “it wasn’t” in terms of being a flawless solution. Speaker 1 counters, asserting “It was no one isn’t,” suggesting confusion or contradiction in the prior claim and challenging the certainty of the statement. He adds that there is a lack of a 100% success rate and questions the ultimate aim, asking what the core purpose is when it comes to giving your body a training of the immune system and technology. Speaker 0 reinforces the complexity, noting that there were “different types” to contend with and that the fact that they weren’t the same technology matters. He agrees there are various types of vaccines or approaches, indicating there is diversity in the technology or formulations used. Speaker 1 concedes the existence of different types and technologies, acknowledging that “there are different types of” vaccines, and that “There are different technologies.” He identifies mRNA as a type of vaccine but Speaker 0 interrupts, insisting “No. It was” and continuing his line of reasoning about the distinctions between the technologies and their evolution. Speaker 1 acknowledges change, saying “like this, and now it's like this,” recognizing a progression or shift in the approach. Speaker 0 rejects the suggestion that the transition is simple or uniform, insisting “No. No. No. It was like this, and now it's like this.” He asserts that the mRNA technology represented a radical, qualitative leap forward in technology, a claim about the significance of the development. Speaker 0 contends that naming the technology as mRNA can be acceptable only in a limited sense; he says “You can call it if if you want to, but it bears very little resemblance to anything that went before that.” The rationale for the term mRNA is tied to branding: “The reason it was called a scene was because was a brand name that had a track record of safety, and shoehorning it in that was one of the ways to make sure that people weren't terrified of the technology.”

Two years ago, most people would have refused gene or cell therapy, but the pandemic has changed perceptions of innovation. The COVID vaccine is not a traditional vaccine as it doesn't provide immunity or prevent transmission. The Pfizer vaccine wasn't tested for transmission prevention before its release due to the urgency. Vaccinated individuals can still get COVID-19. Countries with rapid mass vaccination have seen increased infections and deaths. A study from the Cleveland Clinic suggests that the more shots received, the higher the risk of getting COVID. Vaccination puts evolutionary pressure on the virus, leading to mutations. Epidemiological analysis shows a significant number of deaths related to the vaccines, with dangerous mechanisms of action and consistency with other fatal conditions. Temporal relation is also evident, with many deaths occurring shortly after vaccination.

Two years ago, most people would have refused gene or cell therapy, but the pandemic has changed that. mRNA vaccines are a prime example of this shift towards innovation in healthcare.

During the pandemic, the development of vaccines surprised many due to its speed. The government's Operation Warp Speed invested $11 billion to accelerate the process, taking the risk out of it for pharmaceutical companies. Within 11 months, large phase three trials were conducted for Pfizer and Moderna's mRNA vaccines. Comparatively, the development of the polio vaccine took several years. Despite the rapid development and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines, there was a significant portion of the population, around 30%, who chose not to get vaccinated. This resistance was unexpected and only strengthened the anti-vaccine movement. The speaker expresses frustration at the missed opportunities to prevent hospitalizations and deaths, particularly among unvaccinated children.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the COVID-19 vaccine episode, challenging why the vaccine was pursued as a public health solution and exploring deeper incentives behind the program. - A knowledgeable figure at the stand answered a burning question: did they know the vaccine wouldn’t be effective from the start and could be dangerous? The answer given was that it was “a test of a technology.” The exchange suggests the broader aim was testing an entire program of control previewed in Event 2019. - They ask whether inoculation was necessary on billions, noting it could have been tested on a much smaller population. If shots had been basically empty or inert, the data could have been spun to claim success and end the pandemic, preventing injuries from appearing. The absence of that approach remains a mystery. - The speakers point to high pre-vaccine seroprevalence in 2020, including studies from South Dakota showing 50-60% seroprevalence before vaccine release, implying that a saline shot or no shot could have achieved “indomicity” (immunity) without a vaccine. - They discuss why people might fear vaccines and interpret the broader impact: the public is waking up to something terrible having occurred, as it revealed readiness to lie, potential data quality concerns, and risk to pregnant women and healthy children who might get little justification for risk. - The disease’s lethality is framed as greatest among the very old or very sick; for others, it was less deadly, with natural evolution potentially reducing vulnerability over time. - The mRNA platform was touted as a means to outrun mutations, but the timeline to release was still insufficient to stay ahead of natural change. They note accelerated development was the fastest vaccine in history, from detection to inoculation, reducing the timeline by about a year or two, yet not fast enough. - Political and logistical factors delayed release; there is mention that it would not have appeared under Trump and that Eric Topol argued to delay the rollout. Fauci reportedly sent Moderna back to trials due to insufficient racial diversity in participants. - The discussion questions whether the vaccine qualifies as a normal consumer product, given ongoing subsidies, mandates, indemnifications, wartime-like supports, and propaganda. They wonder if there has been an ongoing two-century revolt by industry against public scrutiny, with public interest repeatedly leading to pushback and rebranding. - A central theme is the sophistication of pharma: the “game of pharma” involves owning an IP-based health claim, crafting supportive research, convincing it is safe and effective, achieving standard-of-care status, securing mandates and government funding, and leveraging ongoing propaganda. They describe pharma as a long-running arms race with deep institutional knowledge, implying that it is far more capable of shaping reality than the public realizes.

The Pfizer COVID vaccine was not tested for its ability to stop the transmission of the virus before it entered the market. The speaker acknowledges that they had to work quickly to understand the situation and move at the speed of science.

I've been involved in over 50 vaccines, including mRNA vaccines. mRNA is like DNA, giving cells instructions to make proteins. This technology was originally for gene therapy, now used for vaccines. It's a new, experimental technology never used in humans before COVID. Animal studies were skipped for COVID vaccines, a novel approach.

The speaker argues that an irrational, unbridled enthusiasm for new possibilities leads to a sacrifice of safety. This enthusiasm, in their view, has adversely affected precautionary considerations and risk assessment. They reference presenting autopsy findings related to deaths following COVID-19 vaccination at the American Society of Microbiology, an event attended by thousands of microbiologists, vaccinologists, and immunologists. In conversations with attendees, the speaker was surprised by what they describe as a scientific seduction surrounding messenger RNA technology. The core concern expressed is that this eagerness to embrace mRNA platforms is accompanied by a neglect of safety considerations. The speaker asserts that there will be a cataclysmic recognition that messenger RNA technology represents an unsafe platform. They emphasize that, as they understand it, there is no way to break down certain aspects of the technology they refer to as “pseudourogenated messenger RNA,” noting this within the context of their work in research laboratories. The statement implies a belief that the degradation or metabolic processing of this form of RNA poses unresolved issues. A central, striking claim presented is that circulating messenger RNA from Pfizer or Moderna has been found in their patients’ bloodstream three years after vaccination, and that this RNA is intact. The speaker underscores this as evidence tied to their observations and research experiences, asserting the persistence of the RNA in the circulatory system over an extended period. Overall, the message conveys a perspective that rapid adoption and optimism around mRNA vaccines and technologies have overshadowed safety considerations, and it anticipates a future realization of safety concerns associated with these platforms. The speaker ties their warnings to concrete experiences at a major scientific conference and to specific, long-term biomarkers observed in patients, presenting a narrative of ongoing research findings and anticipated paradigm shifts in how the safety of mRNA vaccines is perceived.

The mRNA platform is effective but has a flaw: it can cause autoimmune disorders by producing foreign proteins in cells. The challenge is to target only specific cells and avoid damage to vital organs. The pandemic allowed the emergency use authorization of mRNA vaccines, bypassing safety measures. However, a large portion of the population has already accepted this technology. To address the issue, a solution could be to replace the spike protein with a different protein that doesn't have flaws. But if the problem lies in any foreign protein transcribed by cells, the immune system may still target vital organs.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss vaccines and vaccine technology. Speaker 0 begins by saying, “He injected billions of people with an experimental it wasn't a bloody just no. It wasn't,” expressing that the vaccine was experimental and not straightforward. Speaker 1 counters briefly with, “It was no one isn't,” then suggests uncertainty about the claim. Speaker 0 adds that “Yes. It is. It's Well, it doesn't have a 100%,” indicating skepticism about a perfect success rate. Speaker 1 asks, “You think it's a definition of all point of is to give your body a,” challenging the stated purpose of the vaccine in terms of its aim to train the immune system. Speaker 0 then states, “protein train on. The immune system works. Technology,” implying that the vaccine trains the immune system and works as a technology. Speaker 1 responds that “Who cares if it's not the same? There's plenty there's,” implying there are multiple vaccines or approaches enough to matter, suggesting diversity in types. Speaker 0 replies, “different so types that they didn't have to contend with the fact that it wasn't the same technology.” Speaker 1 acknowledges that “There are different types of,” and that “There are different technologies. Fine. The mRNA is a type of vaccine.” Speaker 0 firmly rejects that, saying, “Now this is No. It was,” indicating a disagreement about the classification. Speaker 1 clarifies that “like this, and now it's like this,” implying a progression from one form to another. Speaker 0 insists, “No. No. No. It was like this, and now it's like this. The m n r mRNA technology was a radical, qualitative leap forward in technology.” He asserts that mRNA technology represents a significant advancement compared to what existed before. Speaker 1 suggests naming it differently or acknowledging changes, but Speaker 0 continues that “You can call it if you want to, but it bears very little resemblance to anything that went before that.” The final point is that “The reason it was called a scene was because was a brand name that had a track record of safety, and shoehorning it in that was one of the ways to make sure that people weren't terrified of the technology.”

We discussed pandemic readiness and the speed of mRNA technology. I proposed a simulation to create a vaccine within 60 days, which was initially met with skepticism. However, due to our work on personalized cancer vaccines, we were prepared. When news of a new coronavirus emerged, we quickly got the sequence and began working on a vaccine. The conversation shifted to the need for disruptive entities to accelerate vaccine development, moving away from traditional methods like egg-based production. The urgency for innovative solutions to address outbreaks was emphasized.

The emergency use authorization (EUA) was crucial for normalizing the mRNA platform, which was seen as a significant advancement in vaccine technology. The fear surrounding COVID-19 helped facilitate acceptance of this new approach, despite existing treatments that could have mitigated the pandemic's impact. If doctors had been allowed to explore effective treatments, the reliance on mRNA vaccines would have been diminished, creating a control group that could reveal potential harms. While the EUA was important, it wasn't strictly necessary; they could have navigated around it. The rollout of the mRNA platform aimed to reshape public perception, and the legal complexities surrounding the EUA provided a layer of immunity for those involved. The backlash and discussions about vaccine injuries may complicate future implementations of this technology.

The panel discusses replication (replicon) vaccines and their potential dangers, focusing on how they differ from conventional messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines and what new risks might emerge as this technology develops. Key points and concerns raised - Replicon vaccines concept and fundamental differences - Replicon vaccines use replication-capable genetic material, so the embedded genetic information not only makes antigen proteins but also multiplies inside the cell. They are described as having both constitutive function (the ability to make proteins) and, crucially, the capacity to replicate, which distinguishes them from traditional, non-replicating mRNA vaccines. - It is explained that replication introduces additional mutation and recombination opportunities, because the RNA genome is copied more than once, and the process can produce variants that differ from the original design. - Central dogma exceptions and viral biology - The speakers explain that while the central dogma (DNA → RNA → protein) generally governs biology, some viruses violate this, with RNA viruses that replicate via RNA-dependent replication and even some reverse-transcribing retroviruses that convert RNA to DNA and integrate into genomes. This context is used to frame why replicon vaccines could behave unpredictably. - Potential risks of replication and spread - A core concern is that the replicon approach might allow the vaccine genome to spread beyond the initial target cells, potentially reaching other cells and tissues, or even spreading to other people via exosomes or other means. Exosomes can transport DNA, RNA, and proteins between cells; thus, the replicon genome could in theory be disseminated. - The possibility of homologous or heterologous recombination between replicon genomes and wild-type viruses could yield new variants. The panel emphasizes the difficulty of controlling such recombination in a living system. - Specific material and design considerations - The use of viral components like spike protein genes in replicon vaccines raises concerns about how these proteins might mutate or recombine during replication, potentially altering antigen presentation or safety. - A concern is raised about the lack of repair mechanisms in RNA replication (as opposed to DNA replication), which could make error rates higher and lead to unpredictable changes. - The panel notes that current replicon vaccine designs (including those using alphavirus backbones) inherently carry high mutation and recombination risk, and that the replicating systems may encounter unpredictable evolutionary dynamics inside the human body. - Safety signals and clinical anecdotes - The speakers cite cases of adverse events temporally associated with vaccines, including vascular inflammation and thrombosis, stroke-like events, and myocarditis, to illustrate that immune responses to vaccines can be complex and occasionally severe. They emphasize that such observations do not establish causality, but argue they warrant careful scrutiny. - There are references to cases of acute vascular and neural complications following repeated vaccination, and to broader immune dysregulation phenomena, including IGG4-related disease and immune dysregulation syndromes that can involve multiple organs. - One example concerns a patient who developed sudden limb problems after the third dose, requiring surgery; another describes myocardial involvement after multiple doses and subsequent inflammatory sequelae. - DNA contamination and analytical findings - Kevin McKernan’s analysis of certain Japanese CoronaVac vaccines is cited: both DNA contamination and the presence of SV40 promoter elements were detected in some vaccine lots, with DNA amounts exceeding some regulatory benchmarks in at least one case. The concern is that DNA contamination, or the presence of promoter sequences, could influence integration or expression in unintended ways. - It is noted that vaccines using lipid nanoparticles can potentially deliver nucleic acids into cells; in the presence of exons or promoter sequences, there could be unintended cellular uptake and expression. - Implications for public health and policy - The panel underscores the need for caution, thorough investigation, and long-term observation of any replication-based vaccine platform before broad deployment. There is a call to evaluate risks, monitor long-term outcomes, and consider the possibility that replication-competent constructs could drive unforeseen evolutionary dynamics within hosts or communities. - There is contention about how information is communicated to the public, with particular emphasis on avoiding misinformation while ensuring that scientific uncertainties are transparently discussed. - Broader scientific context and forward-looking stance - The speakers discuss how the field’s approach to gene-based vaccines is evolving rapidly, and they stress that the compatibility of replicon systems with human biology is not yet fully understood. - They frame their discussion as not merely about current vaccines but about the trajectory of vaccine platforms: if replication-based or self-dispersing systems prove too risky or unpredictable, the prudent path might be to favor conventional, non-replicating strategies until safety, efficacy, and containment of unintended spread are more firmly established. Closing and takeaways - The session closes with emphasis on careful evaluation of replicon vaccines, awareness that viral genetics can behave differently in humans than in theory, and a call for continued discussion, independent verification, and transparent communication as the technology develops. - Throughout, speakers acknowledge the complexity of immune responses to vaccines, the potential for unexpected adverse events, and the importance of safeguarding public health while advancing vaccine science.

Our company is embracing cell and gene therapy, which has the potential to make a significant impact. mRNA vaccines are an example of this type of therapy. Two years ago, if we had asked the public if they would be willing to undergo gene or cell therapy, the refusal rate would have been around 95%. However, the pandemic has made people more open to innovation in ways that were previously unimaginable.