reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker argues they “wouldn’t take the flu shot,” citing findings they attribute to Cochrane and BMJ. They claim people who take the flu shot are protected against the specific flu strain, but are “four point four times more likely to get a non-flu infection.” They say people who receive the shot often become sick afterward, but not with flu; instead they receive an illness “indistinguishable from the flu” due to “pathogenic priming,” which they describe as injuring the immune system and making a person more likely to get a non-flu viral upper respiratory infection.
The speaker also claims the Pentagon published a story “by Wolf” (January of this year), stating that the flu shot primes people for coronavirus as well as flu. They describe a placebo group and a vaccine group in a military readiness effort to see whether the flu shot could prevent coronavirus. According to the speaker, the results showed people who received the flu shot were “thirty-six percent more likely to get coronavirus,” and they say this finding is supported by “six other major studies” that similarly conclude people who get the flu shot are more likely to get coronavirus.
They further claim that longevity in the elderly has worsened since flu shots were mandated for elderly people, saying those people’s life expectancy has “dramatically gone down as the flu shot proliferated,” and they cite Cochrane as saying to look at these longevity trends. The speaker also discusses COVID-era deaths, saying that during the COVID crisis those who died tended to be people who had received flu shots—such as nursing home residents and first responders—calling these observations and stating “there’s no science” on the pattern.
In response to Alan, the speaker says they do not understand the implications of Alan’s position. They argue that if Alan’s claims were right, it should follow that the flu shot should be illegal, and they begin: “You said it’s criminal to-”.