reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Sonia Elijah’s book, three eleven viral takeover, is described as a deep forensic investigation into the COVID era, built from years of FOIA requests, leaked documents, timelines, interviews, and scientific literature to examine unanswered questions from the period. The host, Clayton, frames the discussion around why the pandemic happened, how it happened, and which power structures created populations that largely complied with lockdowns. Elijah explains that March 11, 2020, marked more than a health response; it was a global reset. She compares it to 9/11, arguing that while 9/11 led to citizen surveillance, three eleven led to citizen compliance with the state, with mass lockdowns and surrender of civil liberties. She characterizes the day as a turning point into a new era. The book argues that COVID marked a shift from a post-9/11 surveillance state to direct citizen compliance, facilitated by weaponized fear. In the UK, messaging campaigns spent hundreds of millions of pounds to tell people that “if you go out, you’re going to kill grandma” or “you’ll die,” which helped create a climate of fear. Elijah cites hypocrisy in leadership during lockdowns, noting Boris Johnson at parties and senior New York public health officials at drug-fueled gatherings, while ordinary citizens faced harsh restrictions. The narrative includes stories such as a family member being pressured to isolate a non-COVID patient and care-home policies that contributed to elderly deaths. Elijah discusses the personal toll of the lockdowns, including experiences with hospital visiting restrictions during a family member’s stroke and the broader trauma seen in children and mental health. She cites a child psychologist and the emergence of “COVID anxiety syndrome” as diagnoses, noting that the public messaging and fear-based coercion affected behavior and well-being. The book emphasizes the role of censorship and the disinformation apparatus after three eleven. Elijah highlights a machinery of censorship, including the World Health Organization’s influence on what was deemed scientific, and the suppression of the lab-leak theory and early vaccine harms discussions. She points to the Trusted News Initiative, coordinated by BBC leadership, which she claims enabled big tech to downrank or remove dissenting voices, including doctors and scientists who advocated for early treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. The narrative includes examples of vaccine-injury discourse being shut down, with veteran platforms and media networks flagging or removing related content. Elijah details the epidemiological and testing framework that supported lockdowns, focusing on the PCR test’s use, high cycle thresholds, and the rapid antigen tests from Innova Medical Group. She argues these tests, funded through substantial procurement schemes and criticized by the FDA, helped justify continued restrictions. She discusses a “VIP lanes” procurement environment in the UK and the role of Innova and related networks in driving large-scale testing and surveillance. A major thread is the diffuse network surrounding gain-of-function research and the origins debate. Elijah discusses EcoHealth Alliance, the DEFUSE proposal, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, noting that Fauci’s NIAID funded related work after a DoD rejection. She references emails and FOIA material showing that a core group of scientists coordinated a public narrative that favored a zoonotic origin while privately wrestling with lab-leak possibilities. The Great Barrington Declaration is described as a focal point of dissent that was aggressively attacked; Francis Collins reportedly questioned “these three fringe epidemiologists,” leading to professional repercussions for Kalodorf and others. Elijah’s closing argument positions COVID as a planned, coordinated effort toward a global biosecurity state, with ambitions including digital IDs and alignment with Agenda 2030. She cites NATO involvement in disinformation policy as evidence of state and military coordination, and she frames the book as a road map to prevent future similar actions. Her aim is to empower readers with knowledge and truth as antidotes to potential future crises. The book, she says, is written to chronicle these events for humanity, hoping that awareness will reduce fear and increase vigilance.

The discussion centers on concerns and policy questions regarding pediatric vaccines, their safety, and how authorities respond to families who choose not to vaccinate. Key points raised by Speaker 0: - Pediatric vaccination schedules are increasing, with currently up to about 30 doses from birth to 2 years. Some vaccines, such as the hepatitis B vaccine, the acellular pertussis (3-in-1) vaccine, and the influenza vaccine given after 6 months, contain additives such as thiomersal (mercury-containing compound) and aluminum adjuvants. There is worry among some about potential long-term effects on brain development from thiomersal and other additives. - Thiomersal in vaccines is described as an organomercury compound that decomposes to ethyl mercury; historical notes are given about its association, in some sources, with developmental disorders in the 1990s, and there is reference to materials from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare explaining its presence in certain vaccines and associated documentation. - The vaccine components discussed include thiomersal in current hepatitis B vaccines (e.g., Belcevir or Veemegen trade names), and aluminum-containing compounds in combination vaccines and the cervical cancer vaccine (HPV). There are concerns about neurotoxicity and memory impairment reported in some sources, and questions are raised about how these substances are evaluated in light of pediatric metabolism and excretion. - The text also points to broader concerns about modern additives in foods (artificial sweeteners, neonicotinoids, tar dyes) as part of a context for questioning vaccine safety, though the central focus remains vaccines and their additives. Speaker 0 also emphasizes a paradox: despite declining birth rates, the number of children with developmental disorders such as ADHD, autism spectrum disorders, and learning disabilities has risen, leading to heightened parental anxiety about early vaccination (birth to 2 months). The speaker highlights that even if experts claim the amounts are tiny, parents’ concerns persist. A call is made to present attached documentation and graphs to explain these points, as well as the overall safety profile. Questions and responses about policy and practice: - Speaker 1 explains preventive vaccination law (Article 8 and 9) authorizing municipalities to issue guidance and reminder notices for vaccinations, including vaccines against measles, rubella (MR), HPV, and Japanese encephalitis (the latter appears in the discussion as often related to catch-up schedules). The notices are for encouragement, not coercive mandates. - On the issue of refusals and potential neglect: it is stated that vaccinating of unvaccinated children is not, by itself, considered neglect; the decision to not vaccinate does not automatically constitute abuse or neglect. The speaker emphasizes that the question is about ensuring access to vaccination information and avoiding punitive labeling. - The role of childcare facilities and schools: there is discussion about whether vaccination status affects eligibility or admission. It is clarified that vaccination history is part of health records but does not automatically disadvantage a child in admission processes. Authorities acknowledge that some educators may view non-vaccination as neglect, and there is a preference to improve information sharing and awareness so that staff understand vaccination matters without stigmatizing families. - The need for uniform understanding among healthcare workers and educators is stressed. It is suggested that vaccination-related information be shared between childcare, school administration, and health departments to minimize misunderstandings and to ensure equitable treatment. - There is acknowledgement of concerns about social attitudes toward families who opt out of vaccination, and a call to respect differing judgments while improving communication and education among professionals. Speaker 3 and 4 contribute: - They reiterate that in childcare settings, health screening and eligibility processes may consider vaccination history, but not in a way that inherently disfavors unvaccinated children. They also address the possibility of attitudes among staff about neglect, noting a need for consistent information, training, and collaboration to reduce stigma. - A broader aim is expressed: foster a society where mutual respect for different vaccination decisions is possible, supported by clear communication and shared information among healthcare providers and educators. Overall, the discussion distinguishes between official guidance and punitive actions, reinforces that unvaccinated status alone is not treated as neglect, and calls for better information-sharing and supportive responses to families navigating vaccination decisions.

The speaker asks whether vaccinated friends or family have “a whole different personality” or are “more angry” since getting injections, and then claims there is “a strong association between COVID-nineteen injections and neuropsychiatric disorders.” They say the information comes “directly from the FDA and the CDC,” and that they will provide a link to the study. The speaker states that “thresholds that were all breached” were “way over,” and that the factors listed next are “a more likely determination.” They then list specific reported increases in neuropsychiatric conditions, including: psychosis being “four forty times more likely,” dementia being “140 times,” schizophrenia being “three fifteen times,” and suicidal thoughts.

Speaker 0 asked about a report and how concerning it is, questioning whether “10” is the real number. Speaker 1 said the main concern is that the report “dramatically understates the problem.” They argued that analyses rely on doctors and that it was difficult to obtain autopsies during the pandemic. Speaker 1 stated that medical professors did not want to know, resulting in very few autopsies. They said NIH, CDC, and FDA reviewed 96 autopsies of children and identified about 10 cases they considered possible or probable. Speaker 1 then pointed to VAERS, stating there are almost 1.7 million total adverse events and 39,000 deaths worldwide. They said that of the 39,000 deaths, 24% occurred on the day of vaccination or within one or two days. They acknowledged FDA officials say VAERS does not prove causation, but said that if someone was perfectly healthy and died on that day or within one or two days, they would assign blame. Speaker 1 also said there may be cases where people were already in bad health and vaccination “tipped them over,” with death ultimately caused by something else. Speaker 1’s “bigger revelation” was described as information they said was not covered by mainstream media. They stated that on 03/01/2021, Peter Marks, head of CBR within FDA, was briefed that their algorithm analyzing VAERS safety would hide and mask safety signals. Speaker 1 said that 26 days later, Marks ran a new algorithm that unmasked 49 cases of extreme masking and 25 safety signals, including sudden cardiac death, pulmonary infarction, Bell’s palsy, and different types of strokes. Speaker 1 said that in the next three months, similar data runs with the new algorithm showed more safety signals and more types of sudden death. They said the report described not “pin[ning] a badge” on doctor Anna Scharzman (identified as the dad of Speaker 1’s expert), ordering her to cease and desist, and continuing to use the algorithm the briefing warned would hide safety signals “to this day.” Speaker 1 said Peter Marks later went to work for Eli Lilly and claimed that the world is in denial. They stated they could not get the story broadcast or interviews on CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, MS Now, or CNN, and said they challenged Jake Tapper, sending the report and requesting an additional appearance.

According to the speaker, chronic illness in children has risen from 12.4% in the 1980s to over 50% today, marking a significant decline in human health. Depression in girls has risen by 95%, with 10% of teenage girls on antidepressants. 15% of boys are on ADHD medication, and 25% of girls have considered suicide. The speaker claims that SSRI drugs, though increasingly prescribed, target serotonin, which is not the actual cause of depression. It's estimated that nearly half of boys and over half of girls born in 2019 will be on pharmaceutical drugs for most of their lives. Childhood cancer rates are up 40% since 1975, and heart attacks in children are now a recognized concern. The speaker suggests that environmental toxins, including a vaccine program that starts on day one of life, may be responsible. They state that the Hepatitis B vaccine, typically contracted through sexual activity or IV drug use, is mandated for day-old babies in the US, despite only 0.5% of mothers testing positive. The speaker believes that the current vaccine schedule of 72 to 90 vaccines by age 18 is contributing to the chronic disease epidemic.

There has been a significant increase in unexplained child deaths since 2020, not 350% as originally thought, but actually 3,380%. This is 33 times the average. The speaker questions why this alarming statistic is being overlooked by medical professionals and the government. They aim to provide answers based on science, not speculation or rumors.

In 2020, only 2% of hospitalizations were related to Covid, with an average duration longer than other cases. Intensive care unit admissions were at 5%. This contradicts the perception that hospitals were overwhelmed with Covid patients. The numbers confirm that the fear and hysteria surrounding the virus were disproportionate. The consequences included increased suicides among young people and school closures. There may have been less harsh ways to handle the situation. It's unfortunate to say that the fear was exaggerated.

In 2020, the ATIH collected and analyzed hospital data, revealing that only 2% of hospitalizations were due to Covid. These Covid-related hospitalizations lasted an average of ten days, with 5% in intensive care. Contrary to the perception of overwhelmed hospitals, the numbers show that the fear and hysteria surrounding the pandemic were disproportionate. The consequences of lockdowns, such as increased suicides among young people and school closures, could have been avoided with less drastic measures. It is important to acknowledge that the fear surrounding Covid was exaggerated.

Since February 2021, a disability survey has shown a significant increase, reaching 5.5 million disabled people as of May. This isn't tied to social security disability but is based on survey responses. The increase since 2021 is 16%. One speaker suggests a funnel: injured to disabled to dead, claiming data proves mandates and a vaccine in 2021 caused a deterioration in health, reflected in excess deaths, disabilities, injuries, absentee rates, and work time lost. While not commenting on individual deaths, the speaker believes something drastically changed in 2021, possibly the vaccine, and finds a lack of curiosity about it.

The speaker criticizes prolonged lockdowns, stating that they have disastrous consequences for healthcare, working families, and lower-income individuals. They highlight the negative impact of missed cancer diagnoses, chemotherapy and immunization appointments, and the closure of schools leading to unreported cases of child abuse. They also mention a report stating that 1 in 4 young college-age Americans contemplated suicide in June. The speaker expresses frustration with public health experts, calling them failures for not considering the broader impact of lockdown policies and accuses them of causing harm.

When COVID hit, the initial lockdown was meant to slow the spread, but it led to unforeseen consequences like educational gaps and mental health issues. There was a lack of planning for reopening schools and addressing the collateral damage. The speaker emphasizes the need for a better readiness plan for future pandemics and questions the role of government intervention. They advocate for less government involvement and more reliance on science.

Speaker 0 asks about a report and how concerning it is, suggesting that if the reported figure is 10, there is a “real number” that could be higher. Speaker 1 says the main concern is that the analysis “dramatically understates the problem.” They describe the difficulty of getting autopsies during the pandemic and say medical professors didn’t want to perform them, resulting in very few autopsies. They state that NIH/CDC/FDA reviewed 96 pediatric autopsies and concluded about 10 were possible or probable. Speaker 1 then argues that safety signals were “screaming,” and points to VAERS. They claim there are almost 1.7 million total adverse events and 39,000 deaths worldwide. They say 24% of the 39,000 deaths occurred on the day of vaccination or within one or two days. Speaker 1 also references the point that VAERS doesn’t prove causation, while stating that if a person who was “perfectly healthy” died that day or within one or two days, they would “be blaming” the jab. They add that in some cases people may have been in bad health already, with death tipped over by another cause. Speaker 1 says the “bigger revelation,” which they claim was unveiled three weeks ago and is “still not being covered by the mainstream media,” involves FDA’s VAERS algorithm. They state that on 03/01/2021, Peter Marks (head of CBER/FDA’s division approving vaccines and surveilling post-approval safety) was briefed that their algorithm analyzing VAERS would “hide and mask safety signals.” They say that 26 days later, a new algorithm unmasked safety signals, producing 49 cases of extreme masking revealed and 25 safety signals, including sudden cardiac death, pulmonary infarction, Bell’s palsy, and different types of strokes. They claim that similar data runs over the next three months showed more safety signals and more sudden death. Speaker 1 further claims that FDA did not “pin a badge” on Anna Scharzman, referred to as the father of their expert, and instead “shunned her off to the side,” ordered her to cease and desist, and decided to use the algorithm they had been warned would hide safety signals, which they say is still being used. Speaker 1 states that Peter Marks left for Eli Lilly and claims “the entire world” is in denial. They say they have been unable to broadcast the story or get interviews on CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, MSNBC, or CNN, and that they challenged Jake Tapper, who they say agreed to read the report but has not invited them back yet.

Have you noticed your vaccinated friends or family have a different personality or are more angry since getting the injections? Well, there is a strong association between COVID-nineteen injections and neuropsychiatric disorders. This comes directly from the FDA and the CDC, and I'm gonna leave the link to the study in the comments, of course, but these were the thresholds that were all breached for being way over. And so you'll see that all these things I'm about to list off are a more likely determination. So these are times as well. So psychosis, four forty times more likely. Dementia, 140 times. Schizophrenia, three fifteen times. Suicidal thoughts,

Western Australia authorities published the rate of adverse reactions to vaccines for 2021, noting it is six months late but describing the report as very honest. The data show adverse events following immunizations reported from 2017 through 2021, with a massive increase starting when COVID vaccines were introduced. The speaker states that, while more vaccines were given, the rate of adverse reactions for COVID vaccines was over 20, about 24 times higher per vaccine dose given. The description highlights the impact of the COVID vaccination program beginning in February 2021, after which adverse reactions rose sharply and “went the roof” compared to prior years. The speaker expresses hope that the United States and the United Kingdom governments will follow the level of candor shown by Western Australia.

The speaker criticizes agencies for shutting down schools, leaving children vulnerable to abuse. They argue that by closing schools, mandated reporters couldn't protect abused children, leading to a drop in referrals. Another speaker defends the decision, stating it was to save lives, despite the negative impact on children's well-being. They claim that children were less at risk from COVID but suffered more due to mismanagement.

Thank you for your interest. The focus is on the impact of COVID measures on children. School closures, mask mandates, and vaccine campaigns are discussed. The effectiveness of these measures, especially on children, is questioned. The need for unbiased reporting and thorough investigation is emphasized to prevent further harm to children.

The speaker asserts that COVID-19 shots do more than affect the immune system; they can damage the brain and worsen mental health. They claim a wave of studies shows sharp increases in various strokes: ischemic strokes up to 44%, hemorrhagic strokes up to 50%, and transient ischemic attacks (mini strokes) up to 67%. They also report increases in neurological and autoimmune conditions, including myasthenia gravis up 71% and Alzheimer’s disease up 22%. Cognitive impairment is claimed to have risen by nearly 138%, while depression is up 68%, anxiety disorders up 44%, and sleep disorders up 93%. The speaker links all of these increases to “toxic spike protein accumulation and persistence in the brain.” The speaker states this is not a conspiracy theory and cites what they describe as documented peer‑reviewed research and studies by experts. They name epidemiologist Nicholas Holcher, who allegedly says that using mRNA to hijack cells in various organ systems to produce a highly toxic spike protein that persists in the body for months or years was “one of the worst ideas in medical history.” The speaker then asks, “So what can you do?” as a transition to presumably recommendations or actions, though no specific actions are listed in the provided segment.

Autism rates have skyrocketed, with 1 in 10,070 men over 70 affected compared to 1 in 34 kids today. The speaker questions why allergies and autism were rare in their generation but prevalent now, costing the country $1 trillion annually. They emphasize the need to address this issue that is impacting so many children.

How many Canadians lack a family doctor? The latest CIHI report estimates about 5.4 million adults. Is this number increasing or decreasing? Access to primary care is improving across most provinces and territories. The discussion shifts to the relevance of the questions being asked, with some members expressing frustration over the focus on family doctors instead of the bill regarding natural health products. Questions arise about the number of seniors hospitalized due to pharmaceuticals, with one member stating that 13,000 Canadians are harmed annually. The minister emphasizes the importance of discussing the bill at hand and defends the natural health product industry, stating it is a booming sector. Concerns are raised about businesses potentially shutting down due to regulatory impacts, but the minister claims compliance costs are zero for compliant businesses.

In 2016, the autism rate was 1 in 54, and in 2000, it was 1 in 150. One speaker asks what the rate was in the past and what is causing the change. Another speaker cites a peer-reviewed study in Wisconsin that looked at 900,000 children and found the rate to be 0.7 out of 10,000, which is less than 1 in 10,000.

COVID hit, agencies shut down schools for 2 years, leaving children vulnerable to abuse. Referrals dropped, kids were abandoned to abusers. Some argue it was to save lives, but children suffered more from mismanagement than from COVID itself. Schoolchildren were the least vulnerable group.

The discussion centers on pediatric vaccination, concerns about vaccine additives, and the policies around notifying and handling families who choose not to vaccinate. Key points raised about vaccines and additives - The number and type of pediatric vaccines have increased over the years, with regular vaccination schedules extending up to 30 doses from birth. Some vaccines, such as certain hepatitis B vaccines, the 3-valuent (3-in-1) vaccine, and post-6-month optional influenza vaccines, contain thimerosal (mercury-containing preservative) and/or other additives that provoke worry about brain impact or cancer risk. - Thimerosal is discussed as an organomercury compound that decomposes to ethyl silver in the body; it is described as having been linked to developmental disorders in the 1990s, with references to documents from Materials Supplemental 1 and 3, and to B-type hepatitis vaccines (e.g., a product branded as Beemgen) containing thimerosal and organo-silver components. - The discussion notes aluminum compounds in some vaccines (with two types in the quadrivalent types and in the cervical cancer vaccine) and mentions concerns about aging-related memory impairment (Alzheimer’s risks) associated with aluminum compounds. - Influenza vaccines, including those supplied post-6 months, are described as containing both thimerosal and chloromethyl sulfone-like additives (referred to as chelators/a set). The quadri- and other mixed vaccines are noted to include thimerosal and aluminum compounds; the cervical cancer vaccine is noted to contain aluminum compounds as well as thymus-specified adjuvants. - There is a broader perspective linking neurotoxins in vaccines to concerns about developmental disorders (ADHD, autism spectrum, learning disorders, emotional instability) and general caution about late-emerging effects. The panel emphasizes that even if expert explanations claim trace, minimal quantities do not reassure all caregivers given rising rates of developmental issues despite fewer births. Observations on public health trends and caller concerns - The panel highlights a marked rise in developmental disorders (ADHD, autism, learning disorders, emotional instability) among children after a period when these categories expanded, juxtaposed with a decreasing birth cohort, implying a seemingly paradoxical upward trend when viewed by percentage. - General concerns extend beyond vaccines to other substances in the modern environment (artificial sweeteners, residual pesticides like neonicotinoids, artificial colorings) as potential public health risks. Responses and policy points from officials - The formal framework: Routine vaccination is a matter of public health policy; the Vaccination Act provisions empower municipalities to issue notifications and encourage vaccination, but the notifications are not coercive mandates. Vaccination reminders for vaccines like MMR, HPV, and Japanese-origin vaccines are described as communications to encourage uptake rather than punitive actions. - If a caregiver declines vaccination, it is stated that this alone does not constitute abuse or neglect, and refusal to vaccinate is not treated as neglect in determining child welfare. The responses emphasize that “prevention vaccination being unvaccinated” should not automatically trigger neglect findings. - The panel distinguishes between a notification (intervention to promote vaccination) and a neglect finding; it is stated that unvaccinated status alone does not automatically lead to neglect designation. - There is emphasis on informing and sharing information among healthcare providers, educational staff, and child-care settings to ensure consistent understanding that vaccination status is not equivalent to parental neglect. There is a call for standardized awareness within healthcare, child-care, and school administrations. - Questions also address administrative processes: whether vaccination history must be included in the Health Liaison form used during daycare enrollment, and whether non-vaccinating caregivers should be labeled as negligent. Officials indicate that vaccination history should be recorded but that lack of vaccination should not penalize enrollment; information sharing across child-care and school systems should be possible to reduce stigma. - The dialogue includes concerns about the attitudes of some caregivers and teachers who may perceive non-vaccination as laziness; officials stress reducing such misconceptions and promoting respectful, informed decision-making. Concluding remarks from the speakers - The dialogue clarifies the difference between interference/consultation (干渉通知) and formal seeking of consent (勧告) for vaccination, and confirms that neglect findings should not be based solely on non-vaccination. The speakers express an intention to promote accurate, balanced information and to reduce stigma around families who choose not to vaccinate, while continuing to encourage vaccination as a public health measure.