reSee.it - Related Video Feed

A viewer asks if the proteins from the vaccine enter the bloodstream. The speaker explains that the mRNA blueprint for the protein is given, which is then translated into the protein in the muscle cells. The protein may enter the tissue and possibly trace amounts may enter the blood, but it is not measurable. The reaction occurs in the muscle, the corresponding defense cells, lymph nodes, and minimally in the blood. The speaker concludes that they have reached an agreement on the topic.

Twenty percent of Americans did not take the COVID vaccine because it was not safe enough. The mRNA in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines has been chemically modified to resist breakdown by enzymes. The mRNA and spike protein are found in the heart and brain, and the spike protein circulates in the blood for six to nine months post-vaccination. The speaker claims the lethal part of the virus circulates in the blood of vaccinated individuals, especially after boosters, and that it is a killer protein. The speaker asserts safety trumps efficacy and objects to claims that vaccines, specifically the COVID-19 vaccine, saved millions of lives. They state that consent forms do not guarantee the vaccine will save lives and that there has never been a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial showing that COVID-19 vaccines reduce mortality or hospitalization.

A viewer asks if the proteins from the vaccine enter the bloodstream. The speaker explains that the mRNA blueprint for the protein is given, which is then translated into the protein in the muscle cells. The protein may enter the tissue and possibly trace amounts may enter the blood, but it is not measurable. The reaction occurs in the muscle, the corresponding defense cells, lymph nodes, and minimally in the blood. The speaker concludes that they have reached an agreement on the topic.

A viewer asks if the proteins from the vaccine enter the bloodstream. The speaker explains that the mRNA blueprint for the protein is given, which is then translated into the protein in the muscle cells. The protein may enter the tissue and possibly trace amounts may enter the blood, but it is not measurable. The reaction occurs in the muscle, the corresponding defense cells, lymph nodes, and minimally in the blood. The speaker concludes that they have reached the desired agreement.

There is a new mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but there is no evidence to support its effectiveness or safety in human trials. Additionally, several studies from different countries suggest that these vaccines may actually increase the risk of contracting COVID-19 over time. This is concerning and not a typical outcome.

The speaker believes that halting mRNA vaccine research and development at BARDA is a tragic, non-science-based mistake. They state that mRNA vaccines saved lives, citing estimates that in 2021, unvaccinated individuals were 12 times more likely to be hospitalized and die, and in 2022, six times more likely. The speaker, a member of the FDA vaccine advisory committee, notes initial concerns about potential serious side effects when the vaccine was rolled out to millions, but these did not materialize. While the vaccine can cause rare myocarditis, it is transient and self-resolving, unlike myocarditis caused by the virus itself, which can lead to hospitalization and death. The speaker emphasizes the technology's potential beyond COVID-19, including applications for cancer and gene therapy.

Myocarditis was most common in young men, with rates as high as 1 in 5000 vaccine recipients. The condition was mostly mild but could have lasting effects. Natural immunity from prior COVID infection was shown to be more protective than two vaccine doses. Combining prior infection with vaccination provided even better protection. The speaker did not take a booster shot.

The speaker acknowledges that the vaccine did not completely stop the spread or infection, but clarifies that initially it did for the Wuhan strain and the alpha strain. Early data and literature published in the New England Journal showed that those who were vaccinated and didn't get infected were not transmitting the virus to others. The vaccine had a high efficacy of up to 96% early on and this efficacy did not change over time.

- 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.

The FDA has approved a new mRNA Moderna vaccine, despite known serious adverse events. The speaker expresses disappointment, suggesting the FDA is slow to change course. The approval letter concerns the speaker. The vaccine, MN spike, is an mRNA vaccine that produces spike protein, with lipid nanoparticles that will go everywhere. The manufacturer's data indicates serious adverse events were reported by 2.7% of participants receiving the new vaccine, compared to 2.6% for the older vaccine it replaces. The speaker finds it bemusing that a treatment with a 2.7% risk of serious adverse events would be authorized, unless there was a significant risk-benefit. The new vaccine (mRNA 1283) was compared to the old Moderna vaccine (mRNA 1273), not a placebo.

A clip shows a Pfizer vaccine development leader discussing dosage and immune response. He says, "we don't really have an understanding of how this vaccine produces an immune response" and, "we just know when we get this much, it seems to get a reaction. When you do that much, it gets a different reaction." He notes, "in the setting of giving a three microgram dose, we had low reactogenicity compared to placebo," and, "after a third dose, just as in adults at higher doses, we're getting an immune response that's comparable." He adds, "we are able to go down to a lower dose in children and the expectation is perhaps they have a more robust response." The speaker counters with, "it's somewhat academic... worthwhile for people to pursue." This was "This was a product that they decided should be forced on every single person in the world" and questions how it works, asking, "Now our cells are just gonna start manufacturing the spike protein. How much are we gonna get?"

When mRNA vaccines are injected, the amount of protein produced is not directly controlled by the dose of RNA given. Factors like metabolism and cell activity influence protein output. Doses vary between Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, but the key is the spike protein produced in the body. Studies show some individuals may not produce enough spike protein for immunity, while others may have excess leading to side effects or toxicity. In vitro experiments may not accurately predict in vivo outcomes due to individual differences.

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.

Speaker 0 lays out a numerical comparison between vaccine versus infection to determine which creates more spike proteins, according to the source material. First, the infection scenario. The unit counted is the virion (one complete virus particle). At the peak of infection, the body could be fighting off somewhere between one to 100,000,000,000 virions. Each virion has spike proteins on its surface, counted as between twenty five and fifty spikes per virion. The calculation multiplies the range of virions by the spikes per virion, giving a peak infection spike protein load of two to 10,000,000,000,000 spike proteins. Next, the vaccination scenario. The math starts with modified messenger RNA (modRNA) molecules in a vaccine dose. A single vaccine dose contains somewhere between 14 to 42,000,000,000,000 modRNA molecules. Each of these trillions of modRNA molecules can produce multiple spike proteins, ranging from 10 to 1,000 each. When the numbers are multiplied, the source calculates a potential total of up to 100,000,000,000,000,000 spike proteins (up to 10^17, i.e., up to one hundred quadrillion). Speaker 0 then contrasts the two scenarios. In a side-by-side view, the initial particles are billions of virions versus trillions of modRNA molecules. The timing differs as well: a natural infection builds up over about a week, whereas the vaccine dose is delivered all at once, in just a few seconds. The final totals are two to 10,000,000,000,000 spikes from infection versus a potential of up to one hundred quadrillion from vaccination. Visually, this difference is stark, with the infection spike protein bar being far smaller than the vaccine spike protein bar, illustrating an order-of-magnitude difference. The discussion then moves to the distribution and persistence of spike proteins. The source describes the virus's spread as more localized or comparatively narrow, while vaccine components are said to travel throughout the entire body, with accumulation in areas including major organs like the heart and the brain, and the potential to cross barriers such as the blood-brain barrier and the placental barrier. Regarding duration, spike mRNA was reportedly detected in cerebral arteries after seventeen months, and some vaccinated individuals were reportedly still spike positive for up to sixteen hundred days. The source concludes, “Your spike load is orders of magnitude higher via injection.” Speaker 0 notes that the numbers show trillions versus quadrillions and emphasizes the presented math and its implications as the core of the comparison, while acknowledging the source’s look at spike proteins’ distribution and persistence.

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.

The COVID vaccines had different impacts on human health. The mRNA vaccines had a small price, with a rare side effect of myocarditis, mainly in boys and young men. The overall risk was about 1 in 50,000, and for young children, it was close to 1 in 500,000. However, the cases were generally mild and resolved on their own. On the other hand, the viral vector vaccine had a higher price, with a risk of blood clotting issues, including fatalities. The mRNA vaccines did not have any reported deaths. Overall, the price paid for the mRNA vaccines was considered small, while the viral vector vaccine had a higher risk.

The speaker addresses concerns about the long-term negative impact of the vaccine. They explain that the RNA in the vaccine is identical to the RNA in our cells, which does not cause long-term adverse events. The RNA is quickly degraded and eliminated from the body. The lipid nanoparticles in the vaccine also disappear within 24 to 48 hours. The speaker emphasizes that none of the vaccine components remain in the body after a week. They debunk the myth that the mRNA integrates or mutates DNA, stating that it has no effect on DNA. They mention that 90% of adverse events to vaccines occur within the first 6 weeks, and so far, no unusual adverse events have been observed among the 15 million people who have received the vaccine. The only serious adverse reaction is anaphylaxis, which occurs in about 1 in 100,000 people. The speaker concludes by highlighting the extremely low odds of experiencing an adverse event from the vaccine.

A viewer asks if the proteins from the vaccine enter the bloodstream. The speaker explains that the mRNA blueprint for the protein is given, which is then translated into the protein in the muscle cells. The protein may enter the tissue and possibly trace amounts may enter the blood, but it is not measurable. The reaction occurs in the muscle, the corresponding defense cells, lymph nodes, and minimally in the blood. The speaker concludes that they have reached an agreement on the topic.

The speaker acknowledges that the vaccine did not completely stop the spread or infection, but clarifies that initially it did for the Wuhan strain and the alpha strain. Early data and literature published in the New England Journal showed that those who were vaccinated and didn't get infected were not transmitting the virus to others. The vaccine had a high efficacy of up to 96% early on and this efficacy did not change over time.

- The mRNA vaccines, you know, from COVID don't work against upper respiratory infections. - There are two problems with them. - One is they target a single protein, which drives what what's called an antigenic shift. - If it drives the virus to mutate, and it actually can prolong the pandemic. - And we saw that during COVID, people took shots, mRNA shots for the original COVID variant and immediately, mutated into the Omicron virus to which the vaccine was ineffective, and that's what it does. - And the other issue is, that it the way that distributes in the body, the way that it migrates in the body, there's no control over and no predictability. - So it goes to every organ.

The speaker acknowledges that the vaccine did not completely stop the spread or infection, but clarifies that initially it did for the Wuhan strain and the alpha strain. Early data and literature published in the New England Journal showed that those who were vaccinated and didn't get infected were not transmitting the virus to others. The vaccine had a high efficacy of up to 96% early on and this efficacy did not change over time.

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.”

A viewer asks if the proteins from the vaccine enter the bloodstream. The speaker explains that the mRNA blueprint for the protein is given, which is then translated into the protein in the muscle cells. The protein may enter the tissue and possibly trace amounts may enter the blood, but it is not measurable. The reaction occurs in the muscle, the corresponding defense cells, lymph nodes, and minimally in the blood. The speaker concludes that they have reached an agreement on the topic.

A communication problem arose when it was intimated that vaccines would protect against getting COVID altogether, which wasn't supported by evidence. Vaccines protect against illness in the lower respiratory system, but the virus could still be carried in the upper airway and potentially spread. This led to distrust of mRNA vaccines, as people who got COVID after vaccination questioned the vaccine's effectiveness. Recent data shows that vaccines work well in preventing illness and infection, and make it unlikely that someone would pass the infection to someone else. The concern was that vaccinated people could be unwitting carriers, but recent data suggests this is very unlikely. Vaccinated people not wearing masks are not doing a disservice to their community. Unvaccinated people could be putting other unvaccinated people at risk. Institutions may require proof of vaccination, which will be a tough call.

The first speaker argues that messenger RNA vaccines were unprecedented compared to anything previously developed. They state there was never any justification given for not using a traditional vaccine, and there was never any evidence that the messenger RNA vaccine was as good as a ground-up virus—the old-fashioned type of vaccine—whose safety, efficiency, and cost are well known. They emphasize the importance of that point and note that a recent Korean study in young boys compared a booster using an antigen vaccine with a messenger RNA vaccine, and found the antigen vaccine to be more protective than the messenger RNA vaccine. From this, they conclude that there are currently data indicating there are no ongoing advantages to using these genetic vaccines. The second speaker adds that this situation is a huge mystery, questioning why the genetic RNA route was chosen in the first place. They suggest that someone made a lot of money, acknowledging that money is a factor, but saying they have never heard a scientific explanation for the decision-making process, describing it as a complete black box. They further point out that there are ongoing efforts by many people to transform vaccines beyond traditional forms to include self-replicating RNA, and that this discussion continues. They argue that the red flags from the first round have not been sorted out, and that there is no evidence these approaches are better; in fact, they imply they are clearly not better.