reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 administered COVID-19 vaccinations but is unsure of the number. Speaker 0 suggests COVID is a hoax for depopulation, causing deaths and disabilities worldwide. Speaker 1 took responsibility to protect their company. Speaker 0 finds the revelations interesting.

The speaker claims adverse events from the vaccine rollout were covered up and dismissed as rare and coincidental. They state that regulators approved the vaccines based on relative risk data (95%), which they describe as misleading, while the absolute risk reduction was only 0.84%, meaning 120 people had to be vaccinated to prevent one infection. The speaker alleges that Pfizer has 31 convictions, including withholding data, presenting false data, and bribing clinicians and regulators. They claim over 100 doctors have written to various health organizations, including the NHS and MHRA, about the vaccine program, but received only one response. The speaker concludes that science is dead because discussion, analysis, and debate are no longer allowed, and decisions are being made without scientific basis.

Deborah Brooks questioned the effectiveness of COVID-19 shots, stating that she always knew they wouldn't provide protection against infection. With millions of injections administered worldwide, the speaker wonders if this is a crime. Another speaker believes it is a crime and a cover-up, as they mentioned in their book in December 2022. They argue that the situation has worsened since then and that people are dying. The speaker expresses frustration with vaccine mandates at universities and workplaces, as well as the UK's requirement for school children to get vaccinated. They conclude that this is a joke, a crime, a cover-up, and even murder.

Former vice president of Pfizer, Speaker 1, shares his insights on the COVID-19 pandemic. He noticed discrepancies in what his former colleagues, including Sir Patrick Valens, were saying on television. This led him to believe that there was a supranational operation at play, orchestrated by organizations like the WHO or the World Economic Forum. He accuses these individuals of lying and claims that the pandemic response measures were ineffective and not part of any country's preparedness plans. Speaker 1 also expresses concerns about the safety of the vaccines, stating that he believes they were intentionally designed to harm people.

According to the speaker, vaccination eligibility should only have been granted after a doctor determined it was advisable for an individual case, because—except for a single exception—virtually no one under 60 would have faced a chance of serious complications from coronavirus. The speaker claims that therefore, people under 60 should not have been vaccinated, and that filling sports halls with vaccination sites was completely contrary to the purposes for which the vaccines were authorized by the EMA. The speaker further argues that evaluating vaccine safety required that side effects be properly recorded. They quote the EMA as saying it expects many reports of side effects occurring during or shortly after vaccination, meaning that complaints must be reported in the first period of vaccination. The speaker then says that the government supported a policy in which these complaints were not reported in the first 14 days after vaccination because the vaccine would need 10 to 14 days to become effective. The speaker claims that all complaints in that time were instead attributed to coronavirus, calling this both fraudulent and deliberately endangering human lives. The speaker also refers to an ongoing “gigantic so-called unexplained excess mortality.” In summary, they state that the EMA information is devastating for the vaccination policy of Rutte and De Jonge, claiming the government knew the vaccines would not protect against virus transmission but did not share that information with the public. The speaker says the government pushed the vaccines on citizens with “lies,” concealed side effects, and endangered the health of everyone who took the vaccine. They conclude that the vaccination campaigns should be stopped as soon as possible because they are not safe and do not meet EMA requirements. The speaker ends by saying the government and all political parties that supported this should be held accountable for their “lies and deception,” and then hands the word to Jojim Koers.

**Summary in Dutch:** De spreker promoot de nieuwe kledinglijn "Strijder voor altijd" en benadrukt het belang van donaties en steun om de Jensen Show in de lucht te houden. Hij uit zijn zorgen over de lage donaties deze maand. De show wordt mede mogelijk gemaakt door diverse sponsoren, waaronder bedrijven in akoestiek, motorreiniging, belastingadvies, privacy, CBD-producten, VPN-diensten, boeken en asbestverwijdering. De spreker introduceert Gideon van Meijeren als gast en geeft hem een "Strijder voor altijd" shirt. Ze bespreken de klimaat- en gendergekte, 9/11, de moord op Kennedy, Israël, Rusland-Oekraïne en de gevaren van AI. Van Meijeren deelt zijn ervaringen in de Tweede Kamer en de steun die hij van mensen krijgt. Ze bekritiseren de corona-commissie en de beperkte toegang tot documenten. Ze hekelen de psychologische oorlogsvoering tijdens de coronacrisis en de agenda van angst en onderdrukking. Van Meijeren legt uit waarom hij uit de corona-commissie is gestapt, omdat hij geen onderzoek mocht doen. Ze bespreken de rol van de media en de noodzaak om de waarheid te onderzoeken. Ze hekelen de vaccinatieplicht in Oostenrijk en de corruptie rondom COVID-certificaten. Ze benadrukken het belang van kritisch denken en het bevragen van autoriteiten. **English Translation:** The speaker promotes the new clothing line "Fighter Forever" and emphasizes the importance of donations and support to keep the Jensen Show on the air. He expresses concern about the low donations this month. The show is made possible by various sponsors, including companies in acoustics, motorcycle cleaning, tax advice, privacy, CBD products, VPN services, books, and asbestos removal. The speaker introduces Gideon van Meijeren as a guest and gives him a "Fighter Forever" shirt. They discuss climate and gender madness, 9/11, the Kennedy assassination, Israel, Russia-Ukraine, and the dangers of AI. Van Meijeren shares his experiences in the House of Representatives and the support he receives from people. They criticize the corona commission and the limited access to documents. They denounce the psychological warfare during the corona crisis and the agenda of fear and oppression. Van Meijeren explains why he left the corona commission because he was not allowed to conduct research. They discuss the role of the media and the need to investigate the truth. They denounce the vaccination obligation in Austria and the corruption surrounding COVID certificates. They emphasize the importance of critical thinking and questioning authorities.

Willem Engel, a pharmaceutical scientist and human rights activist, discusses the concerns and safety issues surrounding COVID vaccines. He criticizes the spread of misinformation by governments and the lack of accurate registration of vaccine risks. He questions the validity of informed consent when crucial information is not shared with the public. Another speaker highlights the patterns of adverse reactions in different vaccine batches, suggesting that informed consent was impossible due to the unknown risks associated with each batch. The statistician presents data showing three distinct patterns of adverse reactions in different vaccine batches, indicating a concerning safety signal. The speakers call for the withdrawal of vaccine marketing authorizations and accountability for the alleged mishandling of the vaccination campaign.

Speaker 0 questions the idea that Doctor Fauci is involved in a plot to kill millions, seeking clarity on the claim. Speaker 1 says they are reasonable and that Fauci is not an innocent bystander; he is aware of what he’s doing, but the extent of involvement is not known to them. Speaker 2 cites the Center for Countering Digital Hate, stating Dirashad Bhattar is one of the top spreaders of COVID disinformation, once with more than a million followers. Bhattar allegedly claimed “More people are dying from the COVID vaccine than from COVID,” and that “the Red Cross won’t accept blood from people who have had the COVID nineteen vaccine.” He posted that “most who took COVID vaccines will be dead by 2025,” and promoted the overarching conspiracy that COVID was a planned operation as part of a secret global plot to depopulate the earth. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 2 believes the pandemic was planned; Speaker 2 confirms there is a suspicion of a plan to reduce the population, though Speaker 1 says they have no idea. Speaker 2 criticizes Bhattar, saying it would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous and that Qatar (Qatar’s commentary) compares COVID and the vaccine to World War II and Doctor Anthony Fauci to Adolf Hitler. Speaker 1 pushes back by asking to what extent Fauci would be equated with Hitler. Speaker 3 asserts that lies cost lives in a pandemic, and that encouraging people not to vaccinate will cause people to lose their lives. Speaker 2 describes Qatar as encouraging distrust of life-saving vaccines and using false, twisted information and unproven conspiracies to do so. Speaker 0 asks if the COVID vaccine works. Speaker 1 states the vaccine is very effective at what it was designed for, but “it’s not preventing death. Certainly not.” Speaker 2 contradicts, claiming that Bhattar believes life-saving vaccines are more dangerous than the virus itself, and Speaker 1 asks why the vaccine would cause more deaths than the problem itself, noting 6,340,000,000 doses administered. Speaker 0 requests the completion of a sentence about what each vaccine is geared up for, but Speaker 1 says he’s not a vaccine developer and mentions “Scientific corruption.” Speaker 2 notes Qatar has been removed from Facebook and Instagram due to disinformation but remains on Twitter, Telegram, and his own site, filled with falsehoods. Speaker 0 recalls a September 5 retweet of a doctored AstraZeneca packaging photo suggesting the vaccine was made in 2018; Speaker 1 says the photo was perhaps fake, and questions why Speaker 0 would challenge the agencies that have caused deaths. Speaker 0 argues it’s reasonable to question agencies, noting Speaker 1 had 1,200,000 followers who received false information; Speaker 1 admits if a tweet with a doctor’s photo was sent in error, it was a mistake, and he cannot make mistakes on the numbers. Speaker 2 notes vaccine studies showing vaccines remain ninety percent effective in preventing hospitalization and death, while Qatar claims the vaccine is the danger. Speaker 1 counters that thousands are dying and the delta variant is “vaccine injured,” citing CDC data, which Speaker 0 disputes as not true. Speaker 1 asserts he does not want to be part of a mass genocide and suggests this era will be remembered as a worst time in history, even worse than World War II. Speaker 0 concludes by calling Speaker 1 crazy. Speaker 2 ends with a reference to North Carolina’s Board of Medicine reprimanding someone prior to COVID.

Speaker 0: It was January 2022 when a colleague of mine in the unit came to me saying, something's up. We've had a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year. And that's what got my curiosity piqued. Speaker 1: Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2: I have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 3: Doctors made extra money to push vaccines and they were given a billing code to do it. I have pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 2: They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved. They've distributed it to the province so the second it's approved, we can start jabbing ourselves with it. We can start jabbing pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4: Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, And then you don't. Speaker 0: I was suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials. Possible. They pushed on with this narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2: They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1: Our Canadian babies died, and the police are trying to cover it up to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it. Speaker 2: The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression. Speaker 4: If you don't want to get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk. Speaker 2: It started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public. Speaker 5: Canada has to shift their understanding of what the CBC is. It is a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 2: This is the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective, and they're still not investigating. Everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, our health agencies, how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.

OECD's bombshell report, suppressed by the mainstream media, claims that 'nearly half a million children and young adults have now died since the injections were approved for use on most children.' 'And here is the figure that the mainstream media are working overtime to hide from you.' 'Over one hundred and eighteen thousand of those deaths are suspected to be linked to the COVID vaccine side effects,' with 'deafening silence from the mainstream media.' 'We have compiled a rogue's gallery of crooks who lie to our faces about the vaccines.' Later, 'Under transmission, the data are not there, limited to assess the effects of the vaccine against transmission of SARS CoV two.' 'Regarding the question around, did we know about stopping humanization before it's entered the market? No.' 'Shameful. Turns out they were all telling bare faced lies to the public.'

The presentation titled “COVID world 10/09/2022” presents an assessment of estimated extra deaths and serious adverse effects attributed to SARS-CoV-2 and vaccine bioweapons over three years. Key figures cited are: estimated extra deaths of 31 million and estimated serious adverse effects of 1.9 billion across three years (2020–2022). Two main differences from the prior estimates (10/01/2022) are highlighted: - The estimate base data now covers 47 countries representing about 2.3 billion people, after adding 11 countries and their populations, making the estimates more representative globally. - For 2021 and 2022, extra deaths are now taken in full, rather than half, into account as input. Extra deaths for 2020, 2021, and 2022 are based on officially reported factual deaths in the listed countries. Missing months in 2022 are estimated by extrapolating the monthly average since January 2021, corrected by a five-year evolution (2015–2019). Calculation details described include: - For 2020, the world extra deaths are derived from the column “ED/100k extra deaths per 100k people” per country, aggregated to a global rate of 112 extra deaths per 100k people, applied to the world population to yield 9 million extra deaths (2020). - For 2021, the column “ED21M doses, extra deaths per million doses given” is aggregated to 961 extra deaths per million doses, applied to global vaccine doses to yield 12.1 million extra deaths (2021). - For 2022, the column “ED22M doses, extra deaths per million doses given” aggregates to 763 extra deaths per million doses, applied to global doses to yield 9.6 million extra deaths (2022). The serious adverse effects figure is computed by multiplying the estimated extra deaths in 2021 and 2022 by a reported-adverse-effects-per-death ratio of 87.6, resulting in approximately 1.1 billion serious adverse effects for 2021 and 0.8 billion for 2022. Overall, the presenter notes about ten million extra deaths annually worldwide since 2020, implying about 110 million extra deaths by the end of 2030 if the trend continues. The narrative then makes strong claims about the nature of SARS-CoV-2 and vaccines, stating that SARS-CoV-2 is designed and made by humans in a lab, with genetic inserts such as PRRA and HIVGP120 that allegedly prove non-natural origin. It is claimed that these inserts are present only in dissimilar natural viruses and that there exists a substantial trail of documents and testimonies before and after the release of SARS-CoV-2 about the genetic codes and the technology to insert them, including references to Doctor Richard Fleming and related materials. Additional assertions describe Genentech COVID vaccines as producing large amounts of toxic spike protein in human tissues, allegedly making the vaccines themselves bioweapons and causing health damage beyond natural infection. The transcript references sources and links for these claims and notes the appendix data source as Our World in Data’s “Excess Mortality” raw death counts, with downloadable data from September 2022. In the latter portion, there are interjections from other speakers (Speaker 1 and Speaker 2) about deflating what they call fake controlled opposition and critiques of political figures and media narratives, framing the system as lacking real democratic choice and advocating a systemic solution to what they describe as a parasitic system.

Deborah Brooks questioned the effectiveness of COVID-19 shots, despite millions of doses administered worldwide. The speaker believes it is now a crime and a cover-up, as the data has worsened since their book in December 2022. They express frustration over the ongoing mandates for vaccinations in universities and workplaces, as well as the UK's requirement for school children to get vaccinated. The speaker concludes that this situation is a joke, a crime, a cover-up, and even murder.

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.

In 2021, the speaker believed the pandemic was exaggerated to frighten people and was concerned about the injections due to their pharma research background. Their thinking has since advanced, but they maintain the injections cannot help anyone. They claim the "vaccines" contain unnecessary features, leading to the conclusion that they were intentionally designed to injure, kill, and reduce fertility, though not quickly or in large numbers initially. The speaker connects the injections to a broader plan involving electronic money, the removal of cash, and digital IDs. They cite an EU commission scheme called EU Vabeco, started in 2018, which anticipates a future where EU citizens' digital IDs are governed by their mRNA-based "vaccine" status, requiring regular injections. The speaker believes the claim that these injections improve health and safety is a lie, and recommends against all vaccines. They assert governments do not care about people's health and safety, and that the real reason for the injections is to make people ill and kill them.

Marcel de Graaf, Willem Engel, and others discuss the safety issues and lack of informed consent surrounding COVID vaccines in a press conference. They highlight the existence of different batches of vaccines with varying risks, the failure of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to properly inform the public, and the potential long-term side effects. They also question the classification of the vaccines as vaccines rather than gene therapy and raise concerns about the manipulation of data and the lack of transparency. The speakers call for the withdrawal of market authorizations and accountability for those responsible.

Speaker 0 notes a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 says their own government told them a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2 states they have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 1 says doctors made extra money to push vaccines and were given a billing code to do it, and she has pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 3 asserts they’ve purchased the vaccine that hasn’t been approved and distributed it to the provinces, so the second it’s approved they can start jabbing themselves and pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4 asks why vaccinations were necessary, noting that when going to the hospital for birth, you expect to go home, and then you don’t. Speaker 0 suspects criminal negligence by the government and public health officials. Speaker 2 agrees, saying “Possible.” Speaker 0 contends they pushed a narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 recalls wiretapping, harassment, and charges, and that they didn’t allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1 says Canadian babies died, and police are trying to cover it up by stopping detective Helen Graves from testifying about it. Speaker 3 comments that dominant individuals maintain subordinates’ place through constant aggression. Speaker 5 argues that choosing not to vaccinate is one thing, but being unable to fly or ride trains with vaccinated people and thus putting them at risk is another issue. Speaker 2 says CBC started with a story to implicate her and paint her in an uncomplimentary light to the public. Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of CBC, describing it as a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 3 declares this is the most significant health matter affecting children today, and they are still not investigating. Speaker 2 asserts that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, and how they work together and censored information; all of it ties to this one case, making it dangerous.

Laura Logan hosts a discussion with Dr. Sherri Tenpenny on vaccines, public health policy, and what they see as failures and harms within the system. The conversation weaves together personal history, policy details, scientific debates, and broader social concerns, intercut with promotional content for GiveSendGo. Key points and claims raised by Dr. Tenpenny - Vaccine ingredients and aluminum exposure: Tenpenny asserts that if someone receives every vaccine on the schedule, they would be injected with a total of about twelve thousand micrograms of aluminum, which she says is inflammatory to every organ system and can be stored in bones (60% of aluminum exposure). She notes aluminum is present in vaccines in order to replace mercury, which she describes as also a poison. - Early vaccine industry liability and the 1986 Act: The discussion explains that prior to 1986 there were liability concerns for vaccine makers due to injury lawsuits. Tenpenny recounts that in 1986 Congress passed a law giving the pharmaceutical industry liability immunity for vaccines, creating what she describes as a ramp in the vaccine schedule. She cites that by 1991 additional vaccines were introduced (Hep B at birth, Hib, chickenpox, Prevnar, Gardasil, Hep A, and more) and alleges this resulted in a rising autism incidence aligned with new vaccines. - The vaccine injury system: Tenpenny explains the Injury Compensation Act and the existence of VAERS as a tracking system, along with a separate pathway created under the PREP Act (the Preparedness and Readiness Act). She states that during the COVID era a separate program, the Covered Countermeasure Program (CICP), existed under the PREP Act, but it had no funding and a one-year statute of limitations, leading to under-compensation and very few adjudicated cases; she contrasts this with the earlier 1986 act, which funded vaccine injury compensation through the Federal Court of Claims and VAERS. - Perceived safety and effectiveness concerns: The speakers discuss studies suggesting that the flu shot might not prevent flu and that some studies indicate vaccines including pneumonia vaccines may be associated with higher risk of the conditions they aim to prevent. Tenpenny frames this as evidence of cracks in the vaccine program and argues that vaccines are linked to a broad spectrum of health issues, including autoimmune diseases, infertility, and cancers, which she says have been increasing. - Pediatric vaccination schedule and “pediatric poisoning program”: Tenpenny asserts that infants receive multiple injections early in life, with claims that by age two they will have thousands of micrograms of aluminum and other compounds that remain in the body, including in the brain. She characterizes the pediatric schedule as a systematic poisoning program for children and a parallel “adult assault program” for adults receiving vaccines. - COVID-19 vaccine controversy and health impacts: The conversation covers the COVID vaccines, including assertions about adverse effects such as myocarditis, strokes, kidney injury, autoimmune diseases, neurological issues, and cancers. Tenpenny describes long-term concerns (long COVID, autoimmune diseases) and claims of widespread injury and death, contending that the pandemic revealed how the health-care and pharmaceutical systems operate, including alleged corruption and profit motives. She discusses the difficult experiences of families during the pandemic, including restrictions on care and the use of alternate treatments like ivermectin in some cases. - The claim that COVID vaccines were not properly evaluated and that mandated vaccination reflected coercion: The speakers discuss mandates and the experiences of individuals in workplaces and educational institutions who faced pressure to receive vaccines, including religious exemptions and disputes about mandates. Tenpenny suggests a broader pattern of overreach in public health policy and questions about the balance between individual rights and mandates. - History and philosophy of public health programs: They discuss the Healthy People initiatives, arguing that the program’s goals have expanded in scope (from 15 goals to 1,200 for Healthy People 2030) and that the expansion is associated with greater surveillance and control over personal lives. Tenpenny claims that this is part of a broader trend toward data collection and governance of individual health and behavior. - The economics and incentives around vaccines: The conversation notes how physicians are compensated in part through vaccine administration, implying financial incentives influence clinical decisions. Tenpenny emphasizes the profit motive behind vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry’s financial interests, citing extreme examples like the one boy in a photo who allegedly became heavily medicated due to vaccines. - The role of media and information control: They discuss the influence of advertising in media since the 1990s and the difficulty of reporting critically on vaccines when major advertisers are pharmaceutical companies. They also mention AI and misinformation concerns, including examples of AI fabricating sources and the need to verify information. - Personal stakes, accountability, and political possibilities: Tenpenny discusses personal cost for challenging the vaccine paradigm, including an earlier period of potential licensing scrutiny and professional pushback. She names figures such as Fauci and Birx, argues that accountability has not yet occurred, and expresses hope that public interest in accountability could shift through advocacy and political leadership, citing RFK Jr. as a potential ally though acknowledging political and institutional obstacles. - Treatment and detoxification approaches: For those who have already received vaccines, Tenpenny outlines two separate tracks: detoxification for childhood vaccines and detox for COVID vaccines. For detox, she mentions products such as PureBody Extra (PBX), a zeolite-based supplement she says helps remove metals like aluminum and mercury from the body. She notes it is usable across age groups and even for pets, and she personally uses it. She also discusses non-specific detox approaches such as vitamin D optimization, lymphatic stimulation, exercise, and a diet focusing on avoiding white foods and reducing inflammation. She cautions that there is no proven blood or urine test to quantify spike protein after a COVID vaccine, and that detox strategies aim to support overall health rather than remove embedded spike protein from tissues. - The role of faith and resilience: The interview includes discussions of faith as a guiding force for Tenpenny, including her personal journey toward Christian faith in 2020. They reflect on fear, hope, forgiveness, and the idea that one can act with integrity and do the right thing even when faced with controversy or personal cost. They discuss existential questions about meaning, purpose, and moral responsibility, including the belief that life has a spiritual dimension that informs how to respond to public-health challenges. - Community and parenting: The conversation emphasizes the importance of community networks for new parents, including seeking mentorship from experienced parents and trusted health advocates, and maintaining parental agency in decisions about vaccines, medical interventions, and child-rearing. They discuss the value of critical thinking, asking questions, and avoiding blind trust in professionals or institutions. - Closing notes and resources: Tenpenny provides her websites and a Substack for ongoing information, including dr10penny.com, dr10penny.substack.com, and 10pennywalkwithgod.substack.com, as well as her X profile busy doctor t. The episode closes with a call to viewers to stay informed and to seek second opinions, while thanking the audience for supporting independent journalism. Overall, the dialogue centers on a critical, conspiratorial framing of vaccines, public-health policy, and the medical establishment; it weaves together testimonies about personal experience, policy history (notably the 1986 Act and the PREP Act), alleged systemic failures in compensation for vaccine injuries, criticisms of COVID-19 responses and vaccine mandates, and practical detoxification and faith-based guidance. The promotional content for GiveSendGo lightly interrupts the core discussion, but the majority of the exchange remains an extended argument about vaccine safety, accountability, and the perceived influence of big pharma on health care and public policy.

The speakers discuss a broad denial about vaccine injuries and the idea that, despite evidence, the medical establishment and political figures push the narrative that vaccines are safe and effective. They claim that many people who are vaccinated want to move on and avoid acknowledging serious side effects, including turbo cancers, undetected myocarditis, and neurological issues, and that autoimmune disease is being attributed to other causes. They argue that the medical establishment, federal health agencies, and some members of Congress who produce supportive content, such as segments like Steve Colbert’s, advocate for taking the shot. They question how many people were killed or died from the shot, asserting that Bayer’s data shows “close[ly]” to thirty-nine thousand worldwide, and that if only ten percent are reported, the true number would be in the hundreds of thousands. They claim there are millions of adverse events, but that this is denied and covered up. The speakers contend that the shot was not a real vaccine. They describe it as gene therapy rather than a traditional vaccine. They explain a sequence in which a vaccine is typically an attenuated or killed virus that requires adjuvants like aluminum or mercury to stimulate the immune system, because the attenuated or killed virus may not work well on its own. In contrast, they say this shot is mRNA, which is modified so it does not degrade. They describe how it is put into a lipid nanoparticle designed to permeate barriers like the blood-brain barrier, and they assert it would never stay in the arm, distributing all over the body. They claim the lipid nanoparticle allows the mRNA to enter cells, hijack cellular structures, and cause the cells to express spike protein, which the body then attacks as foreign. When asked who is responsible, they reference a “doctor Frankenstein” figure and name Francis Collins, head of the NIH, and Anthony Fauci as possible figures in question. The response indicates that while they consider all of them criminally liable, they would say it is primarily Fauci, with acknowledgment that people like Collins are implicated as well.

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.

The speaker warns against manipulating patients and emphasizes the importance of safe vaccines. They mention having written a book advocating for safe vaccines and criticize the government's stance on vaccination. The speaker shares a personal experience of being vaccinated and still contracting COVID-19, highlighting the need for revaccination. They accuse big pharmaceutical companies of manipulating the population and influencing politicians. The speaker refers to a book that challenges official COVID-19 statistics and argues that the increase in deaths is due to age rather than the disease itself. They also mention cases of medical abuse and negligence in hospitals. The speaker estimates around 160,000 deaths in France, attributing them to pre-existing conditions and lack of treatment.

The speakers claim the push for a COVID vaccine was motivated by money, and they believe there's a connection between the vaccine and subsequent deaths and blood clots. They express frustration that people aren't acknowledging this connection. One speaker shares a story about a veteran who was allegedly told that the hospital treating him was not allowed to connect his adverse side effects to the vaccine, even when listed as side effects. They say corporations don't want to talk about it because they mandated the vaccine. They believe people who got vaccinated don't want to admit they made a bad decision, leading them to deny any link between the vaccine and increased mortality rates, strokes, cancer, and heart attacks. One speaker recalls being gaslit by a former prime minister who denied coercing anyone into getting vaccinated, despite restrictions placed on the unvaccinated. Another speaker says they were misrepresented on CNN during their own recovery from COVID.

The transcript centers on a heated discussion about COVID-19 misinformation and prominent figures blamed by conspiracy theories. Key points include: - Speaker 0 questions whether doctor Fauci is involved in a plot to kill millions; Speaker 1 responds that Fauci is not an innocent bystander but is not privy to the full extent of his involvement. The exchange emphasizes uncertainty about Fauci’s exact role. - Speaker 2 describes Dirashad Bhattar (Dr. Bhattar) as one of the top spreaders of disinformation about COVID-19, noting he once had more than a million followers and is cited by the Center for Countering Digital Hate. Bhattar is accused of spreading dangerous misinformation on COVID-19 across social media. - The dialogue presents multiple disinformation claims attributed to Bhattar: - “More people are dying from the COVID vaccine than from COVID.” - “Red Cross won’t accept blood from people who have had the COVID nineteen vaccine.” - A post claiming most who took COVID vaccines will be dead by 2025. - The overarching conspiracy theory that COVID was a planned operation, politically motivated as part of a secret global plot to depopulate the earth. - The participants debate whether the pandemic was planned. Speaker 0 asks if the pandemic was planned; Speaker 1 says yes but admits uncertainty about who organized it and why. Speaker 1 suspects research suggesting population reduction or minimized reproduction rates. - Qatar (Bhattar) is criticized for comparing COVID and the vaccine to World War II and for labeling Fauci as Adolf Hitler; Speaker 1 rejects comparing Fauci to Hitler and references Nazis who killed six million Jews. - The conversation includes a warning from Speaker 3: “Lies cost lives in a pandemic. If you're encouraging people not to vaccinate, you will cause people to lose their lives.” - The dialogue describes Bhattar’s messaging as using “false twisted information and unproven conspiracies” and notes his removal from Facebook and Instagram, while he remains active on Twitter, Telegram, and his own website. - Vaccine effectiveness is debated. Speaker 1 asserts the vaccine is “very effective at what it was designed for perhaps, but it's not preventing death,” and claims “the delta variant is all vaccine injured,” citing CDC data as evidence. Speaker 2 counters that vaccines remained ninety percent effective in preventing hospitalization and death and asserts Bhattar asserts the vaccine is the danger. - A claim about a doctored AstraZeneca packaging photo from September 5 is discussed: Bhattar retweeted a photo that appeared to indicate the vaccine was made in 2018; Speaker 1 labels the image as fake, while Speaker 0 questions why he would share it. The discussion highlights accountability for misinformation and the impact of misrepresentations on followers (Bhattar reportedly had 1,200,000 followers at one point). - The dialogue ends with a remark from Speaker 0 calling Bhattar’s views “crazy,” and a brief, abrupt note that, before COVID, North Carolina’s board of medicine reprimanded (incomplete thought).

The speakers discuss the issue of side effects not being properly accounted for in the context of pharmacovigilance. They mention a commission on side effects and criticize the lack of transparency from health authorities. They highlight cases where autopsies have linked vaccines to deaths and express frustration with the Minister of Health's denial of side effects. The speakers also criticize the media for not challenging the Minister and point out the apparent double standards of those who promote the government and pharmaceuticals. They argue that journalists should question the Minister's claims and demand assurance of no side effects before encouraging vaccination.

Willem Engel, a human rights activist, and other speakers discuss the safety issues and lack of informed consent surrounding COVID vaccines. They highlight the problem of adverse events not being properly registered within the first 14 days after vaccination, leading to a false sense of security. They also raise concerns about the classification of mRNA injections as vaccines and the potential long-term side effects. The speakers present data showing different patterns of adverse reactions in different vaccine batches, indicating a lack of consistency and informed consent. They criticize the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for not taking appropriate action and call for the withdrawal of market authorizations.

The speaker believes COVID vaccine programs should be stopped. They are astounded by the number of papers critical of the vaccine or showing negative effects. The speaker claims a group of researchers funded by Pfizer and the NIH bullies editors to retract papers with negative findings about the vaccine. They assert the number of retractions is appalling. According to the speaker, in one instance where an editor resisted, Nature Springer bought the journal and retracted the paper. The speaker states that this is what they have been dealing with.