reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asks why Speaker 1 doesn't feel safe in the US, to which Speaker 1 responds that they believe there will soon be a wave of forced vaccinations disguised as voluntary ones. Speaker 1 mentions that the World Health Organization has been working on vaccines that cause permanent sterility and that illegally approved vaccines contain a substance called squalene. Speaker 2 explains that squalene is used to make vaccines more immunogenic but can also cause adverse reactions. Speaker 1 claims that the US government wants to provoke a pandemic using a live attenuated virus. The conversation ends abruptly.

Speaker 1 claims that no vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have been properly tested. They assert that no childhood vaccine has undergone a placebo-controlled clinical trial of sufficient duration and power to assess its safety before being injected into millions of children in America. Speaker 1 states this is not just their opinion, but can be verified by anyone who examines the FDA website, specifically the package inserts and underlying clinical trial documents.

Speaker 1 states that individuals who want a vaccine should have access to it. However, they should also be informed about the vaccine's safety profile, risk profile, and efficacy. Speaker 0 affirms this position.

Speaker 0 argues that anyone can file a complaint with a law enforcement authority for murder conspiracy and demand arrests and prosecutions. He points to a 2013 press release claiming that DARPA awarded Moderna Therapeutics up to $25,000,000 to develop messenger RNA therapeutics, noting that DARPA is the Pentagon and claiming the Pentagon bought, paid for, and envisioned these mRNA shots. He contends Fort Detrick was involved in developing COVID-19 at the UNC BSL-3 and asserts the Pentagon is on both sides of the argument, developing the weapon and the alleged vaccines. Speaker 1 asks whether there is any liability shield for deploying a biowarfare weapon and whether the narrative about congressional liability for Pfizer is a SIOP. Speaker 0 agrees that civil liability is separate from criminal liability, stating in his book Resisting Medical Tyranny that executives at companies developing these mRNA shots are guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. He cites a Portugal report claiming that upwards of 300,000 Americans had been murdered by the mRNA Franken shots and invokes the JAB resolution, describing it as a Nuremberg crime against humanity and a violation of the Nuremberg Code. He defines a Nuremberg crime against humanity as murder, extermination, and other inhumane acts committed against civilians. Speaker 1 asks about liability for government officials who approved the vaccines. Speaker 0 says FDA officials who approved the shots could be indicted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder, noting the FDA’s involvement in developing COVID-19 as an offensive biological warfare weapon at UNC BSL-3, including a cited contract listing National Center for Toxicological Research and FDA as contributors. He claims the FDA, which approves the vaccines, was involved in this development. Speaker 1 questions the CDC and media accountability, noting the CDC’s recommendation of the vaccines and media promotion of boosters. Speaker 0 says the CDC, including Director Milensky (appointed by Biden, from Harvard Medical School), is complicit, and claims the CDC has a history dating back to the Reagan administration of handling offensive biological warfare projects, including shipping weaponized agents to Saddam Hussein with implications for U.S. troops after Gulf War I. Speaker 1 asks whether there are lawmakers with intel on gain-of-function biowarfare. Speaker 0 mentions Senator Rand Paul as having a strong understanding, but asserts that some lawmakers were threatened and obstructed after consulting him, recounting an experience with Walter Jones of the House Armed Services Committee who briefly engaged but then did not follow up, implying threats prevented action. Speaker 1 asks how citizens should respond, and Speaker 0 advocates reporting to sheriffs, district attorneys, and state attorneys, noting progress with a Collier County health freedom declaration. They discuss enforcement mechanisms, seizure, and incineration of stockpiles, and trial and sentencing for those responsible. Speaker 0 condemns China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology as a bioweapons lab, alleging it was a Chinese counterpart to Fort Detrick, with the Chinese president seeking his own BSL-4 program and an offensive biowarfare arsenal. Speaker 1 notes U.S. funding and international bioweapons labs, including Ukraine and Taiwan, and ends by referencing Lindsey Graham and a speaker labeled as a professor Boyle.

Dr. Menares and an interlocutor debate the science behind pediatric COVID vaccination and routine immunizations, focusing on transmission, hospitalization, and risk. - The interlocutor asks whether the COVID vaccine prevents transmission. Speaker 1 answer: the vaccine can reduce viral load in individuals who are infected, and with reduced viral load, there is reduced transmission. The interlocutor reframes, insisting that the vaccine does not prevent transmission and notes decreasing effectiveness over time, citing Omicron data showing around 16% reduction when there is a reduction. - On hospitalization for children 18 and under: Speaker 0 asserts the vaccine does not reduce hospitalization for 18-year-olds; statistics are inconclusive due to small numbers of hospitalizations in that age group (approximately 76 million people aged 18 in the country, with 183 deaths and a few thousand hospitalizations in 2020–2021; numbers have since dropped). The argument emphasizes a need to discuss the issue. - On death for children 18 and under: Speaker 0 says the vaccine does not reduce the death rate; claims there is no statistical evidence that it reduces deaths. Speaker 1 responds with a more cautious stance: “It can,” but Speaker 0 counters, calling that an insufficient answer. - The discussion references the vaccine approval process and ongoing debates in vaccine committees. The interlocutor states that when the vaccine was approved for six months and older, the discussion acknowledged no proof of reduction in hospitalization or death. The argument asserts that the justification for vaccination is based on antibody generation rather than clear hospitalization/death data. The interlocutor contends that immunology measurements (antibody production) do not necessarily justify vaccination frequency. - The core debate centers on what the science supports for vaccinating six-month-olds and the benefits versus risks. The interlocutor argues there is no hospitalization or death benefit for vaccination in this age group, and notes a known risk of myocarditis in younger populations, estimated somewhere between six and ten per ten thousand, which the interlocutor claims is greater than the risk of hospitalization or death being measurable. - The exchange then shifts to changing the childhood vaccine schedule, particularly the hepatitis B vaccine given to newborns when the mother is not hepatitis B positive. The interlocutor asks for the medical or scientific reason to give a hepatitis B vaccine to a newborn with an uninfected mother, arguing that the discussion should focus on whether to change the schedule rather than declaring all vaccines as good or bad. - Speaker 1 says they agreed with considering the science and would not pre-commit to approving all ACIP recommendations without the science. Speaker 0 disagrees, asserting their position that the debate should center on the medical rationale for these specific vaccines and schedules, not on a blanket endorsement of vaccines. - Throughout, the dialogue emphasizes examining the medical reasons and evidence for specific vaccines and schedules, rather than broad generalizations about vaccines.

Speaker 1 claims that no vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have been properly tested. They assert that no childhood vaccine has undergone a placebo-controlled clinical trial of sufficient duration and power to assess its safety before being injected into millions of children in America. Speaker 1 states this is not just their opinion, but can be verified by anyone who examines the FDA website, specifically the package inserts and underlying clinical trial documents.

The discussion centers on the credibility of vaccine safety claims made by various health organizations and the FDA. One speaker argues that vaccines undergo rigorous testing, while the other contends that no vaccine has ever completed a long-term placebo-controlled trial before being licensed. They express distrust in the FDA, citing past issues with drugs like Vioxx and opioids, suggesting that the FDA misled doctors and the public about their safety. The speaker believes that pharmaceutical companies influence these agencies, leading to misinformation about vaccine safety. The goal is to address and rectify this perceived corruption.

Vaccine recommendations typically come from the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices (an outside consulting committee at CDC) and VRBPAC (within FDA), which recommends vaccine licensure. These committees only adopted evidence-based medicine about twelve years ago. The speaker states that during their administration, they want safety studies prior to vaccine licensure and recommendation. They claim vaccines are exempt from pre-licensing safety testing, and the COVID vaccine was the only one tested in a full placebo trial. They assert that the other 76 shots children receive between birth and 18 have not been safety tested against a placebo, meaning the risk profile is not understood. The speaker intends to remedy this.

There is a debate about implementing a vaccine mandate, but the speakers have different opinions. Speaker 0 is against it, while Speaker 1 believes it cannot be enforced. Speaker 2 thinks it is proportionate, but Speaker 3 emphasizes the need to increase vaccine willingness without mandating it. Speaker 4 mentions the right to refuse vaccination and the government's promise against a mandate. Speaker 2 reiterates that there will be no vaccine mandate, and Speaker 0 insists on the need for one. However, Speaker 2 clarifies that not using the vaccine won't result in losing basic rights. They believe a solution leading to a vaccine mandate will be found.

Speaker 1 claims that measles was not deadly for healthy children in the past, citing vitamin A as a cure and suggesting that contracting measles can be beneficial for long-term health. Speaker 1 disputes the claim that they caused a measles outbreak in Samoa, stating that a measles vaccine from Australia caused deaths, not measles itself. They allege the prime minister had already banned the vaccine due to deaths, including family members. Speaker 1 asserts that vaccines cause autism, referencing a CDC study on the hepatitis B vaccine that showed an elevated risk of autism. They also claim that studies disproving this link are fraudulent, citing a fugitive scientist, Paul Thornson, and their own book with 1,400 references linking vaccines to neurological injuries. They accuse the CDC of being controlled by the pharmaceutical industry and spreading propaganda.

The speakers exchange pointed claims about vaccination status and social policy. Speaker 0 asserts that vaccinated people are the problem and that it is the unvaccinated who are responsible. Speaker 1 counters with a stance that the unvaccinated should be shamed and blamed, and asserts that it is time to start blaming the unvaccinated, not ordinary people. The dialogue emphasizes distrust of the unvaccinated, with Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 associating the unvaccinated with negative behavior and calling for punitive approaches. Speaker 1 argues that the unvaccinated include children and people acting like children, and contends that it’s time to stop tolerating “the idiots in this country” and to mandate vaccination. The speakers discuss shaming the unvaccinated and refuse to call them stupid or silly by implication, while also stating that those who are not vaccinated will “end up paying the price” and that the unvaccinated should be taxed or pay more for health care. Speaker 0 suggests treating the choice to remain unvaccinated like driving while intoxicated, implying it should be addressed with similar seriousness. Speaker 1 claims that only the unvaccinated are dying and condemns misinformation, urging shaming and shunning of those who spread it, calling for turning people away. The dialogue advocates exclusion for the unvaccinated: Speaker 0 says unvaccinated individuals should be denied entry to offices or places of business, and Speaker 1 argues that if you don’t get vaccinated, you can’t come to work. The phrase “Ew. Screw your freedom” expresses a rejection of individual freedom in this context. Speaker 1 contends that the unvaccinated have put everyone in a bad position and asserts that it is not a good place. The conversation ends with a provocative statement about freedom and power, declaring that “Freedom is a fragile thing, and it's never more than one generation away from extinction.” The closing lines add, “Ice of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God. They were wrong. Question everything.”

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they personally administered any COVID-19 vaccinations and informs them they may be personally liable and prosecuted under the Nuremberg Code. Speaker 0 claims COVID was a hoax and the shots are for depopulation, having killed or permanently disabled millions. Speaker 1 states the company is liable, not them, because they made sure beforehand that the company would take responsibility and support them administering the shots.

Speaker 0 questions if anyone was forced to get vaccinated, specifically referring to a comment made by Dr. Kuat. Speaker 1 confirms that they made the comment and states their belief that nobody was forced to receive the vaccine. They explain that mandates and requirements are determined by governments and health authorities, and that individuals were given the choice to get vaccinated or not. Speaker 0 disagrees, suggesting that many Australians would disagree with Speaker 1's statement.

Speaker 0 argues that invoking “the science says this because CDC says it, because my doctor says it, or because FDA says it” is a “logical fallacy” and an “appeals to authority.” “You cannot show me a study that shows that the flu vaccine actually efforts more problems than it causes.” He says he can show many studies, “It’s in the Dear Sanjay Gupta letter.” “Show me that study, then I will walk away from that issue.” Speaker 1 concedes the CDC isn’t perfect but notes, “There are hundreds of millions of people who have gotten these vaccine vaccines who are perfectly healthy. Perfectly healthy in part thanks to the vaccines.” “The vaccines are not all bad.” and adds, “Just because we have suspicions about some of them, and in particular, the COVID vaccine, it doesn't mean we can and because you started this, Bobby, by saying, I am not anti vaxx.” Speaker 0 asks for “a scientific study for each vaccine that shows that this vaccine is averting for harm and it's causing.” Speaker 1 says, “They say the studies show no linkage of harm.” The exchange ends: “Let's advance the discussion. Okay?”

Speaker 0 expresses shame in being German and accuses others of betraying the country. Speaker 1 argues that there is no such thing as a nation or knowledge, and therefore no betrayal of the nation. Speaker 2 asks Speaker 1 about their knowledge on a specific topic. Speaker 1 reiterates their support for mandatory vaccination. Speaker 2 reminds Speaker 1 of their promise of no mandatory vaccination. Speaker 1 defends their stance, stating that it is about public health and being truthful. Speaker 2 argues that being liberal often leads to political downfall. Speaker 1 clarifies that they support mandatory vaccination but believe it should be proportionate. Speaker 2 calls for mandatory vaccination in Germany. Speaker 1 assures that there will be no forced vaccination or violation of rights. They believe a solution will be found through a process that may lead to mandatory vaccination.

Speaker 0 questions if it was Dr. Puert who made the comment that no one was forced to have the vaccination. Dr. Puert confirms that it was indeed him who made the comment. Speaker 0 then challenges Dr. Puert's statement, mentioning that during COVID-19 in Australia, people, including nurses and doctors, were required to get vaccinated to keep their jobs. Dr. Puert maintains his belief that nobody was forced to get vaccinated, stating that mandates or requirements are determined by governments and health authorities. Speaker 0 disagrees, suggesting that many Australians would not agree with Dr. Puert's perspective.

The speaker states they searched for years for a pre-licensing safety trial of the 72 vaccine doses effectively mandated for American children. They claim that every other medication requires a safety trial comparing health outcomes in a placebo group versus a vaccine group before FDA licensing. The speaker assumed this was also done for vaccines. They state they found out that vaccines were exempt from this requirement.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the hepatitis B vaccine agenda and controversy around its use for newborns. Speaker 1 describes an upcoming September meeting where hepatitis B vaccine is on the agenda, predicting an effort to change the birth dose so that children wouldn’t receive it at birth. They say that if a mother has good prenatal care and known hepatitis B status, that may not matter, but if a mother does not attend prenatal care, the child would have only one opportunity to receive the vaccine. Speaker 0 reacts strongly, arguing that the person promoting the vaccine is inappropriately chosen to advocate for it. They state that the vaccine “was made for people who partake in promiscuous sex with multiple partners or share heroin needles,” and disclaim any direct accusation about the person’s needle-sharing, while asserting that this individual fits a certain group. They question why this person should mandate a hepatitis B vaccine for their child, insisting that in the United States people should be allowed to live freely, but not have the government or advocates push a vaccine tied to a particular lifestyle onto a newborn. Speaker 0 contends that the day-one vaccination would not provide long-lasting protection, especially if the person’s argument is framed as addressing a disease tied to sexual activity. They point out that the majority of pregnant individuals in America are not hepatitis B positive (citing a statistic they recall), and ask why their child should receive an injection for a sexually transmitted infection on day one of life. Speaker 0 challenges religious leaders who support the vaccination program, asking what they would say to families who do not plan for their child to engage in the behaviors associated with hepatitis B transmission. They question the alignment with religious beliefs, asking believers of various faiths whether they intend for their child to share heroin needles. They suggest a paradox in relating the injection to the condition of being created in the image and likeness of God, and conclude with a provocative remark about losing sight of religious or moral principles. Throughout, the speakers frame the hepatitis B vaccination strategy as an ideological fight over who should decide what is injected into newborns, juxtaposing public health goals with concerns about personal freedom, lifestyle, and religious beliefs.

In the exchange, Speaker 1 advocates that a solution to vaccination uptake may require some form of mandatory vaccination, noting that federal officials resist that term. Speaker 2 adds that once people feel legally empowered, educational institutions will require vaccination, with colleges, universities, and employers like Amazon and Facebook signaling that anyone wanting to study or work there must be vaccinated. He asserts that making life difficult for people will cause them to drop ideological objections and get vaccinated. Speaker 0 challenges whether all objections to COVID vaccinations are “ideological bullshit,” insisting that is not what was being referred to and arguing that the claim about making it hard for people to live was made in a broader context about education, travel, work, and overall life, and that she takes offense at the interpretation. Speaker 0 then references Miss Allison Williams, who testified before the committee about losing her job after seeking an exemption from ESPN’s vaccine mandate. Williams’ case involved recommendations from bureaucrats and a fertility expert, highlighting that she and her husband, who were pursuing pregnancy with medical guidance, should not have been forced to vaccinate. Speaker 0 contends she was fired because “you made it hard” as described in the statement, preventing her from working, living, and making health decisions with her healthcare professional, thereby impacting American society’s ability to flourish and self-determine certain rights—stating that America should take offense at this. The dialogue shifts to Doctor Fauci. The speaker addresses him directly, calling him “doctor of fear” and stating that Americans do not hate science but hate having their freedoms taken. The speaker accuses Fauci of inspiring and creating fear through mass mandates, school closures, and vaccine mandates, claiming these policies have destroyed the American people’s trust in public health institutions and will have ripple effects for generations. It is asserted that fear has manifested in areas such as education and the economy, and the speaker concludes by separating their stance from science, saying, “I disagree with you because I disagree with fear.” The exchange ends with Speaker 0 yielding.

Speaker 0 questions whether it is a conflict of interest for government employees who profit from the vaccine to dictate vaccine policies. Speaker 1 responds that the government should decide. Speaker 0 asks about the higher incidence of myocarditis among adolescent males after vaccination. Speaker 1 claims that the data shows less risk with the vaccine compared to getting COVID. Speaker 0 disagrees and presents peer-reviewed papers contradicting Speaker 1's claim. Speaker 0 questions the scientific soundness of mandating three vaccines for adolescent boys and suggests having a rational discussion about one vaccine. Speaker 1 defers to public health leaders. Speaker 0 criticizes the CDC's recommendation to vaccinate children multiple times and compares it to other countries' approaches. Speaker 1 admits to vaccinating their own children multiple times. Speaker 0 argues that the risk of myocarditis after vaccination should be weighed against the risk of the disease. Speaker 0 also expresses concern about conflicts of interest in government decision-making.

Speaker 1 states that no vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have been properly tested. They claim that no childhood vaccine has undergone a placebo-controlled clinical trial of sufficient duration and power to assess its safety before being injected into millions of children in America. Speaker 1 asserts this is not an opinion, but can be verified by anyone reviewing package inserts and clinical trial documents on the FDA website.

Speaker 0 believes vaccines are the cause of all disease. Speaker 1 disagrees, calling this a bogus statement, and claims that studies have only looked at two of 36 shots and one of 35 vaccines. Speaker 1 asserts that it is irrefutable that vaccines cause autism and accuses doctors of not reading studies and misleading parents. Speaker 0 says that Speaker 1 is antagonizing the medical community and Dr. Sears. Speaker 0 states the show is about helping kids and that yelling only causes anger. Speaker 0 feels attacked for being asked to defend their stance.

The speaker is questioned about his stance on childhood vaccines, with many scientific and medical organizations disagreeing with him. The audience asks how they can help him align with science. The speaker clarifies that he is not anti-vaccine, but believes vaccines should undergo safety testing like other medicines. He criticizes the lack of prelicensing placebo-controlled trials for vaccines and cites examples of potential risks and lack of long-term studies. The other speaker argues that there is evidence of vaccines preventing diseases and highlights the importance of distinguishing between association and causation. The speaker emphasizes the need for good science and questions the trustworthiness of pharmaceutical companies. The conversation ends with a discussion about the speaker's family not supporting his views on vaccines.

During a discussion, Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about a comment made regarding vaccination. Speaker 1 confirms making the comment and Speaker 0 challenges it, stating that people in Australia were forced to get vaccinated to keep their jobs. Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that vaccine mandates are determined by governments and health authorities, and nobody was forced to take the vaccine. Speaker 0 disagrees, suggesting that many Australians would not agree with Speaker 1's viewpoint.

First speaker: The question is about how many people are totally unvaccinated, and whether this is mainly among parents who stepped up. The claim is that it’s a very small percentage because many people blindly followed the vaccination recommendations for children. Second speaker: It’s less than one percent of the public who are unvaccinated. The Amish are given as a perfect example of a large group that is largely unvaccinated. The speaker asserts that you won’t find an autistic child who was unvaccinated, and that such chronic diseases as ADD, autoimmune diseases, PANDA/PANS, and epilepsy are very rare in the Amish community. The speaker claims that the US government has studied the Amish for decades, but there has never been a public report. The reason given is that such a report would show that not following the guidelines leads to healthier outcomes, and therefore there would be a disclosure that would be devastating to the narrative. According to the speaker, there is no public report because it would reveal that the CDC has been harming the public for decades and is bearing all the data privately.