reSee.it - Related Video Feed

- The speakers discuss data on vaccination, noting that “月 15 日 な ん と 1 800 万 人 の 接 種 回 数 人 数 分 の デー タ が 蓄 積 さ れ て お り ま す” – roughly, a large accumulation of data on vaccination counts (about 18 million vaccination events). - Speaker 1 attempts to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. They say the unvaccinated “は 山 ま 行 け な っ いう は 特 に 当たり 前 な ん ですよね 。 打っ て も 別 に 殴ら れ る わけ じゃ な 打っ て い ま せ ん の で 、何 の 問 題 も なく 、 フラ ット に な る わけ です 。” In other words, the unvaccinated are described as obviously not having issues even if they are not vaccinated, while vaccinated people may become “flat” or experience issues. - The main focus is on the vaccinated group. They describe a “緑 の 裏” that starts low, with a peak over one to two weeks. They note a pattern beginning around two months, with large peaks around three to four months. They interpret this as possibly reflecting a reaction pattern in doctors, who after vaccination might observe effects on the day, the next day, or about a week later, suggesting a vaccine effect or adverse response that diminishes over time. - There is mention of sending information to PM DA (a recipient or channel for information), indicating that the information is being transmitted to PM DA as part of the data flow. - Another finding is that as vaccination numbers increase, the “山” (the peak) of the adverse or death-related data shifts to the earlier positions, described as moving “前の方、左 の 方 に 移 動 し て い る.” The implication is that the distribution of the peak shifts with increasing vaccination counts. - Speaker 1 then asserts that “接 種 回 数 が 増 え て い く と 、死 亡 者 の 山 の 湿 原 が 早 く なり ます。” meaning that as vaccination numbers rise, the peak of fatalities or deaths “湿 原” becomes earlier, i.e., happens sooner. - They conclude that if there were no toxicity or lipid adjuvant effects from vaccination, the peak would not occur. This is presented as a finding: “ワクチン 接 種 に 毒 性 だ と か 脂 肪 を 誘 導 する 効 果 が なけれ ば 、山 に まず な ら な い わけ です よ .” In short, the absence of toxicity or adjuvant effects would mean the peak wouldn’t appear. - The overall takeaways emphasize observed patterns: the vaccinated group shows a rising and shifting peak over time with increasing vaccination counts, and there is a suggestion that the vaccination might be associated with a pattern of adverse observations that intensify or appear earlier as more people are vaccinated.

Dutch summary: De spreker streeft naar zoveel mogelijk gevaccineerd, en ziet overtuigen als beste methode. Hij noemt een macro-methode: 'Als miljoenen mensen hun verantwoordelijkheid nemen, en als miljoenen mensen zeggen: Ik doe dat om mezelf te beschermen en om de mensen om me heen te beschermen, dan je op een bepaald moment wel aan iedereen zeggen: We vragen u ook wel uw verantwoordelijkheid te nemen.' Verder pleit hij voor beleid met een vaccinatiepas of maatregelen: 'wie niet veilig is, kan niet zomaar in het openbaar leven rondlopen' en 'de vrijheid van die persoon brengt jou vrijheid, namelijk jouw gezondheid, jouw mogelijkheid om gezond in het leven te kunnen staan.' 'In gevaar, ja, dat kan je niet aanvaarden.' English translation: The speaker aims for as many people to be vaccinated as possible and sees persuasion as the best method. He cites a macro-method: 'If millions of people take responsibility, and if millions say: I do this to protect myself and to protect the people around me, then at some point you should tell everyone: We also ask you to take your responsibility.' He also endorses policy with a vaccination passport or measures: 'those who are not safe cannot simply walk around in public' and 'the freedom of that person brings you freedom, namely your health, your ability to live healthily.' 'In danger, yes, you cannot accept that.'

The speaker suggests distinguishing between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Another person questions this, arguing that it infringes on human rights and that new variants have little impact. They present data from the UK to support their point. The first speaker emphasizes the importance of maximizing freedom for vaccinated individuals, especially for travel, as an incentive to get vaccinated. The second person accuses the first speaker of having ulterior motives, mentioning their connections to the pharmaceutical industry and past controversies. They strongly oppose the first speaker's involvement in public health and the protection of rights. The first speaker concludes by stating that vaccination is the path to freedom.

The speaker discusses the question of vaccinating children aged 5-11 against COVID-19. The professor argues in favor of vaccinating them, citing the need to protect children who may require intensive care. However, the other speaker clarifies that currently, there are only 10 children aged 0-9 and 2 children aged 10-19 in intensive care, far from the hundreds mentioned. Even during the peak of the pandemic, there were only 48 children in intensive care out of 7,000 patients. The professor also claims that half the world is vaccinating children aged 5-11, but the other speaker refutes this, stating that while several countries have started vaccinating this age group, they remain a minority. Israel, for example, only recently opened vaccination for this age group due to a lack of sufficient data on the benefits and risks.

Dutch (orig): De spreker stelt dat de doelstelling is: zo veel mogelijk mensen gevaccineerd krijgen. De beste manier is volgens hem mensen te overtuigen, maar hij erkent ook dat hij de macro-methode kan toepassen. Als miljoenen mensen hun verantwoordelijkheid nemen en zeggen: "Ik doe dat om mezelf te beschermen en om de mensen om me heen te beschermen", dan kun je op een gegeven moment iedereen vragen: "We vragen u ook wel uw verantwoordelijkheid te nemen." Dat impliceert volgens hem het gebruik van een vaccinatiepas of het idee dat "wie niet veilig is, kan niet zomaar in het openbaar leven rondlopen" en dat iemand niet kan stellen: "het is voor mij vrijheid", omdat "de vrijheid van die persoon brengt jou vrijheid, namelijk jouw gezondheid, jouw mogelijkheid om gezond in het leven te kunnen staan." In gevaar, ja, dat kan je niet aanvaarden. English translation: The speaker states the goal is to vaccinate as many people as possible. He believes the best way is to persuade, but he also acknowledges that he can apply the macro method. If millions of people take responsibility and say: "I do that to protect myself and to protect the people around me," then at some point you can tell everyone: "We ask you to take responsibility as well." That, according to him, implies the use of a vaccination passport or the idea that "who is not safe, cannot simply roam in public life" and that someone cannot claim: "it is for me freedom," because "the freedom of that person brings you freedom, namely your health, your ability to live healthily." In danger, yes, you cannot accept.

Mijn doel is zoveel mogelijk mensen te vaccineren. De beste manier is hen overtuigen, maar ik kan ook de macro-methode toepassen: als miljoenen mensen verantwoordelijkheid nemen en zeggen: 'Ik doe dat om mezelf te beschermen en om de mensen om me heen te beschermen', dan kun je op een gegeven moment tegen iedereen zeggen: 'We vragen u ook wel uw verantwoordelijkheid te nemen.' Dit betekent: gebruik maken van een vaccinatiepas, of zeggen: 'wie niet veilig is, kan niet zomaar in het openbaar leven rondlopen' en zeggen: 'het is voor mij vrijheid, maar de vrijheid van die persoon brengt jou vrijheid, namelijk jouw gezondheid, jouw mogelijkheid om gezond in het leven te kunnen staan.' In gevaar, ja, dat kan je niet aanvaarden. My goal is to vaccinate as many people as possible. The best way is to persuade them, but I can also apply the macro-method: if millions of people take responsibility and say: 'I do this to protect myself and to protect the people around me,' then at a given moment you can tell everyone: 'We also ask you to take your responsibility.' This means: make use of a vaccination passport, or say: 'who is not safe cannot walk around in public life' and say: 'it is for me freedom, but the freedom of that person brings you freedom, namely your health, your ability to live healthily.' In danger, yes, you cannot accept that.

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 speakers discuss the issue of vaccination and its impact on society. Speaker 0 talks about the difficulty of restoring normalcy due to the inability to determine if someone is vaccinated. Speaker 1 raises concerns about unvaccinated students. Speaker 2 finds it challenging to form an opinion on the matter. Speaker 3 mentions doing something out of love for others. Speaker 4 asks about the potential consequences of not being vaccinated. Speaker 5 shares personal experience with COVID-19 and having antibodies. Speaker 6 mentions the possibility of needing three vaccine doses. Speaker 7 discusses the spread of misinformation and protests against the government. Speaker 8 mentions that some political parties are considering a vaccination requirement due to the high risk posed by unvaccinated individuals.

Vaccines have a place, but the population has been scared into accepting them. It's frustrating that vaccines are being promoted as gene therapy to children who are not at risk. It's ethically questionable to recommend something dangerous to a certain group to protect the elderly. Personally, as a 70-year-old, I don't want young people getting vaccinated for my sake. If something happened to them, I would feel guilty.

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.

Speaker 0: I ask all citizens to hold on a little longer. But until everyone is vaccinated, there will be no easing of restrictions, that is not the path we are aiming for. Speaker 1: Yesterday, you said that as long as not everyone can be offered a vaccine, there will be no new freedoms, we are talking about old freedoms. How do you plan to keep the vaccinated, let's say, in check, so that they don't start traveling, meeting up, or partying again? How long do you intend to enforce this strictly? Speaker 0: Well, I was asked about the wrong word, which I have already used, privileges, you didn't mention that. Because we must not get used to the normal life, as we know it with other freedoms, that life is no longer normal. That's where we want to go back to. These are fundamental rights that everyone has. But at the moment, even if someone is vaccinated, it is not clear whether they can still infect other people. And as long as that is not clarified, we cannot have any special measures or rights in addition to the normal rights for which the wave of lawsuits is demanding, and they are right. Look, there are now many lawsuits from people who want to be vaccinated in the highest priority group. There are lawsuits about the fairness of the measures. There will be lawsuits about the question of rights for the vaccinated, that is part of the rule of law and as politicians, we must argue why we are doing something, why we are not doing something. I believe that if we have been able to offer vaccination to a large number of people later on, and then some people say, we don't have mandatory vaccination, now I don't want to be vaccinated, then maybe we have to make such distinctions and say, okay, if you don't want it, then you may not be able to do certain things. Speaker 1: Chancellor, you explicitly mentioned the 21st of September yesterday. By then, there should be a vaccination offer for everyone. That is, if you look at the calendar, five days before the federal election. That date was not a coincidence, right? Speaker 0: Look, that is the meteorological beginning of autumn.

The speakers discuss the challenges of teaching unvaccinated students and the importance of getting vaccinated. One speaker shares their motivation, having had COVID-19 and having antibodies. They emphasize the need to get vaccinated for the sake of others, especially the vulnerable. The discussion touches on the possibility of needing three vaccine doses and potential restrictions for the unvaccinated. The speakers mention protests against government measures and the spread of misinformation. The video concludes with mention of political parties considering a vaccine mandate due to the high risk of transmission among the unvaccinated.

Tijdens een speciale RTL-uitzending over verkeerde informatie stond de premier tegenover jongeren en zei: "Ik controleerde het dezelfde avond nog. Het federaal geneesmiddelenbureau had al meer dan 14000 meldingen van bijwerkingen geregistreerd, waarvan 9800 ernstig. Van de 227 gerapporteerde sterfgevallen erkent het agentschap dat er in totaal 4 geacht worden waarschijnlijk verband te houden met het vaccin." Er is een probleem met het melden van bijwerkingen. "Kijk, dit is de Europese database van meldingen van bijwerkingen." Nederland heeft 0.7 bijwerkingen na vaccinatie; België ongeveer 0.15 procent. België zou 80 procent meer bijwerkingen moeten declareren om op het niveau van Nederland te komen. Een jong meisje kreeg 2 dagen na vaccinatie enorme iliofemoropoplitheale trombose; het ziekenhuisverslag zegt: diep-veneuze trombose, niet van een vaccin dat 2 dagen voordien werd toegediend, maar van een anticonceptiepil (oestroprogystageen). Bij tweede dosis vaccin kreeg ze opnieuw trombose; ze staat nog niet geregistreerd in de dossiers van de geneesmiddelenbewaking. Sommigen geloven dat het vaccin geen bijwerkingen kan hebben; promotie van het vaccin wordt voorgesteld als verplichting; elke arts die informatie verschaft die in strijd is met de huidige stand van de wetenschap zal streng worden vervolgd. De huidige stand van de wetenschap is dat het vaccin een wonder is dat geen bijwerking heeft. Dat is niet waar. English translation: During a special RTL broadcast about misinformation, the prime minister faced the youth and said: "I checked it the same evening. The federal medicines agency had already registered more than 14,000 reports of side effects, of which 9,800 were serious. Of the 227 reported deaths, the agency says that 4 are probably related to the vaccine." There is a problem with reporting side effects. "Look, this is the European database of adverse event reports." Netherlands has 0.7 side effects per vaccination; Belgium about 0.15 percent. Belgium would have to declare 80 percent more side effects to reach the Netherlands level. A young woman got 2 days after vaccination an enormous iliofemoropopliteal thrombosis; the hospital report says: deep vein thrombosis, not from a vaccine given 2 days earlier, but from a contraceptive pill (ethinyl estradiol). After a second dose, she had another thrombosis; she is still not registered in the pharmacovigilance dossiers. Some believe the vaccine cannot have side effects; promotion of the vaccine is presented as mandatory; any doctor who provides information that conflicts with the current science will be prosecuted. The current science is that the vaccine is a wonder with no side effects. That is not true.

Vaccines have a place, but the population has been terrorized with propaganda. It's frustrating that vaccines are being promoted as gene therapy with unknown risks for children who are at low risk. It's not ethically or morally acceptable to recommend something dangerous to them to protect the elderly. As a 70-year-old, I don't want young people getting vaccinated for my sake, and I would feel guilty if something happened to them.

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.

There's a lot of rumors that are going around that young and healthy people don't need to get the vaccine. You should save it for people who are a little bit older. "There’s a syndrome that we refer to as long COVID, which means you get a syndrome following the clearing of the virus where it could be for months and months that you have symptoms that are profound fatigue, muscle aches, temperature dysregulation, and even an inability to focus or concentrate." "So for the person themselves to protect themselves. But then there's also the responsibility that you have of not being part of spreading the infection throughout the community. So you almost wanna take what I call a societal responsibility. Protecting children also protects society." "And, by the way, we have enough supply of vaccine. We don't have to worry about it. Everybody can get vaccinated."

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the issue of people refusing to get vaccinated. Speaker 1 finds it difficult to understand why anyone would choose not to get vaccinated, as they believe that the vaccine is necessary to regain our freedom from the virus. Speaker 0 agrees, stating that they find this group dangerous. Speaker 1 mentions that this group makes up eleven percent of the population, which they consider to be a significant number. They believe that the debate surrounding this issue should be handled better in the Netherlands, with more attention given to the majority who support vaccination and value their freedoms.

Speaker 0: Wat is er nu? Cresanter dan kerstfeest en dat zal niet gaan. Nieuwjaarsfeest, zal niet gaan. Dat is toch geweldig? Je kijkt er naar uit om samen te zijn. Dat zal niet gaan. De kleinkinderen, grootouders, familie. En dat is dood, dood jammer. Speaker 1: Op een bepaald moment moet je eigenlijk zeggen: de blok erop. Speaker 2: Verder zou ik er ook nog willen wijzen dat het geen zin heeft voor mensen om een masker te dragen wanneer ze in de straat wandelen. Je kan het virus niet krijgen door gewoon straat te wandelen en lucht in te ademen. Dat is onmogelijk. Speaker 1: Als 70 procent van de bevolking gevaccineerd is, is de hele groep beschermd. Speaker 2: De eerste resultaten zijn nu duidelijk in Israël aangetoond. 12 dagen na uw vaccinatie ben je niet meer besmet. Speaker 0: De grote meerderheid van de patiënten die wij nu opnemen zijn gevaccineerde mensen. Speaker 3: De patiënten die wij in GZH nu op intensieve hebben liggen, ik heb het gisteren nog nagekeken, die zijn eigenlijk allemaal gevaccineerd. Hoe gaan we dat controleren? Wat gaan we doen met mensen die regelrecht weigeren om dat te doen? Gaan we ze in de gevangenis gooien? Gaan we hen onbetaalbare boetes geven? Dus het is een verhaal om daar eens intellectueel over na denken. Speaker 1: Ik ga ervan uit dat de politiek, geeft, als je een belofte maakt, dan moet je die belofte ook houden.

At UZ in Ghent, they have taken a radical approach. Contrary to what some may think, the majority of patients in intensive care are now experiencing breakthrough infections, not unvaccinated individuals as before. The patients currently in intensive care at GZH have all been vaccinated.

There are potential side effects in vaccinations, and some people have gotten very sick from them. However, I am not forcing anyone to get vaccinated. Instead, I am providing incentives and protections to encourage Canadians to get vaccinated.

People who choose not to get vaccinated will be at a disadvantage compared to those who do get vaccinated. Vaccinated individuals are protected against the virus, while unvaccinated individuals are not. They can still contract the disease even when the virus is not circulating much. This is the case for all infectious diseases with available vaccines that people refuse. Our role is to make it simple and free to get vaccinated, and to continuously encourage and explain why it is important. We need to address doubts and answer questions. It is not clear if unvaccinated individuals, like Laura, can go to the cinema. However, we will not prevent the reopening of restaurants just because a small percentage of the population refuses to get vaccinated. Vaccination is a personal choice, but it is also a protection for oneself and others. If concerned, consult with a doctor who can provide reassurance and encourage vaccination.

We are not considering removing the mandate; it's not on the agenda. Our immediate priority is to protect unvaccinated individuals from infection, which means keeping them away from crowded places. Many restrictions have been lifted in hospitality venues, allowing vaccinated individuals to live normally. It's unfair to ask vaccinated people to make sacrifices for the small number of unvaccinated individuals.

De doelstelling is zoveel mogelijk mensen gevaccineerd krijgen, het liefst door overtuiging. Ook kan de macro-methode toegepast worden: als miljoenen verantwoordelijkheid nemen en zeggen: 'Ik doe dat om mezelf te beschermen en om de mensen om me heen te beschermen', dan kun je aan iedereen vragen: 'We vragen u ook wel uw verantwoordelijkheid te nemen.' Dit betekent het gebruik van een vaccinatiepas of dat wie niet veilig is, niet zomaar in het openbaar leven kan rondlopen; vrijheid van de ene mens mag de ander niet in gevaar brengen. As many people as possible should be vaccinated, the objective, best achieved by persuasion. The macro-method: if millions take responsibility and say, 'I do this to protect myself and the people around me,' then you tell everyone: 'We also ask you to take your responsibility.' This implies a vaccination passport; without safety, one person's freedom threatens others’ health.

We need to argue as politicians why we do or don't do something. If we have offered many people the opportunity to get vaccinated and some refuse, we may need to make distinctions and say that those who don't want to be vaccinated may not be able to do certain things.

I don't understand why people are hesitant to get vaccinated despite the clear benefits. Some individuals are experiencing side effects, but the overall goal is to end the pandemic. It's important to address concerns and encourage vaccination to prevent the virus from spreading and mutating. The discussion also touches on censorship, misinformation, and the need for a thorough review of vaccine effectiveness. Ultimately, the focus should be on public health and safety.