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 asks if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for its ability to stop virus transmission before being released. They request a clear yes or no answer and the data to be shared with the committee. The response states that they did not have prior knowledge of stopping transmission before the vaccine entered the market and had to rely on scientific research. Another speaker expresses outrage, claiming that people were pressured to get vaccinated based on the false belief that it would protect others.

The speaker asks if it's true that the police are exempt from taking the vaccine. They clarify that it's not mandatory for them, but many people lost their jobs because it became mandatory. The speaker questions if they really had a choice, as it seemed like they had to either take the vaccine or lose their job. They argue that they didn't have the same choice as the police.

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 states that one of their three children experienced health issues, including heart inflammation, after receiving the vaccine and subsequently lost their job for refusing further vaccination. This adverse reaction is officially registered. The speaker recounts a doctor advising their son against further vaccination outside a hospital setting, but later denying having said so. Speaker 1 says there is a good system for reporting side effects in New Zealand and finds no clear evidence of suppression of medical side effects of the Pfizer vaccine. Speaker 0 questions why the vaccine is still in use given the side effects. Speaker 1 responds that society decided to tolerate a certain number of adverse effects for the greater good, characterizing the speaker's family member's reaction as "taking one for the team."

Speaker 0 is hesitant about getting the vaccine, but Speaker 2 explains that getting vaccinated protects others. Speaker 3 is skeptical due to the quick vaccine development. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of vaccination to stop the virus spread. Speaker 3 believes there is fear-mongering around the pandemic.

Speaker 0 questions understanding of vaccine causing myocarditis, mentioning Pfizer's awareness. Speaker 1 doubts if vaccine was tested for stopping transmission before market release. Speaker 0 believes vaccination was optional, not forced.

Speaker 1 expresses skepticism about the COVID-19 vaccine due to lack of clarity and the speed at which it was developed. Speaker 2 counters by explaining that 20 years of scientific research contributed to its creation. Speaker 0, who is vaccinated, argues that if more people refuse the vaccine, the virus will continue to spread. Speaker 1 questions the accuracy of COVID-19 death numbers and suggests ulterior motives behind vaccine incentives. Speaker 0 emphasizes the importance of protecting health and the city. Speaker 1 accuses the pandemic of being fear-driven.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they got the vaccination and if they are okay. Speaker 1 confirms they got vaccinated and that it worked. Speaker 0 then mentions trusted sources and compares it to finding out about the moon landing or aliens. Speaker 1 responds by saying that Speaker 0's statement is idiotic and lacks rational thought. Speaker 1 concludes by saying that nobody in the room gained anything from listening to it.

Nobody was forced to have a vaccine, according to Speaker 1. However, Speaker 2 argues that essential workers face the ultimatum of getting vaccinated or losing their jobs. Speaker 3 emphasizes that coercion is not consent, but it won't matter for authorized workers who want to keep their jobs. Speaker 4 mentions the fines imposed on employers and individuals for not complying with vaccination requirements. Speaker 5 discusses the effectiveness of mandates in increasing vaccination rates. The conversation highlights the disagreement among Australians regarding whether or not people were forced to get vaccinated.

Speaker 0 states that permanent residents in the U.S. are mandated to be up to date on CDC-recommended vaccines, but this is not mandated for those entering the country illegally. Speaker 0 claims that measles cases in New Orleans are coming from people entering the country from elsewhere. Speaker 0 asks if the federal government should mandate that those becoming U.S. citizens be up to date on their immunizations. Speaker 1 states they are strongly pro-vaccine, an advisor to a vaccine company, and supports the CDC vaccine schedule.

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 0 argues that billions of people were injected with an experimental vaccine, stating “it wasn't a bloody just no. It wasn't.” He rejects the notion of it being definitive or perfect, emphasizing that “it wasn’t” in terms of being a flawless solution. Speaker 1 counters, asserting “It was no one isn’t,” suggesting confusion or contradiction in the prior claim and challenging the certainty of the statement. He adds that there is a lack of a 100% success rate and questions the ultimate aim, asking what the core purpose is when it comes to giving your body a training of the immune system and technology. Speaker 0 reinforces the complexity, noting that there were “different types” to contend with and that the fact that they weren’t the same technology matters. He agrees there are various types of vaccines or approaches, indicating there is diversity in the technology or formulations used. Speaker 1 concedes the existence of different types and technologies, acknowledging that “there are different types of” vaccines, and that “There are different technologies.” He identifies mRNA as a type of vaccine but Speaker 0 interrupts, insisting “No. It was” and continuing his line of reasoning about the distinctions between the technologies and their evolution. Speaker 1 acknowledges change, saying “like this, and now it's like this,” recognizing a progression or shift in the approach. Speaker 0 rejects the suggestion that the transition is simple or uniform, insisting “No. No. No. It was like this, and now it's like this.” He asserts that the mRNA technology represented a radical, qualitative leap forward in technology, a claim about the significance of the development. Speaker 0 contends that naming the technology as mRNA can be acceptable only in a limited sense; he says “You can call it if if you want to, but it bears very little resemblance to anything that went before that.” The rationale for the term mRNA is tied to branding: “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.”

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they got the vaccine, to which Speaker 1 confirms that they did. Speaker 1 explains that they felt pressured by their friends to get the vaccine and later discovered some concerning particles in their blood work. They underwent a plasma treatment to remove heavy metals from their blood. Speaker 1 believes that there may have been an overreaction to the pandemic and suggests that there may have been ulterior motives at play. Speaker 0 agrees and mentions that they kept their gym open during that time. They both express skepticism and question the consistency of the actions taken during the pandemic.

Speaker 0 acknowledges reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with the Pfizer vaccine but seems unsure about the mechanism behind it. Speaker 1 asks if the vaccine was tested for its ability to stop virus transmission before being released. Speaker 2 questions if people were forced to get vaccinated to keep their jobs and asks Speaker 0 to retract their statement. Speaker 0 clarifies that everyone had the choice to get vaccinated or not, and they don't believe anyone was forced.

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.

Individuals have the freedom to choose whether or not to get vaccinated. While there may be various reasons for vaccine hesitancy, enforcement measures ensure that everyone is vaccinated without forcing them. One person questions if people were forced to get vaccinated to keep their jobs, but another firmly believes that nobody was forced. Those who choose not to get vaccinated may not be able to work. However, it is emphasized that everyone had the opportunity to decide for themselves. Vaccine mandates are expanding to cover a significant portion of the workforce, creating distinctions between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Certain businesses like hospitality, hairdressers, and gyms can operate if they require customers to show vaccine certificates. It is clarified that vaccination was not compulsory, and people made their own choices. The requirement for customers to be vaccinated also applies to workers.

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: Mandatory vaccination is nonsense. No one in Germany will be forced to get vaccinated against their will. The idea that those who choose not to get vaccinated should lose their basic rights is also absurd and malicious. Let's remember the experiences we've had in Germany and reject such claims. Personally, I am open to technological and medical advancements. If German authorities approve a vaccine, I would be one of the first to get vaccinated. However, I will also advocate for the freedom of those who choose not to, as they should not be forced into it.

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.

Speaker 0 expresses clear personal hesitation about vaccines, stating that they are not jabbed and would not touch the experimental mRNA and gene therapy experiments, asserting there is a lot of concern about these technologies from many medical people. They reference political figures and media narratives, saying Kennedy in the United States will expose much of this material and that Donald Trump is keen to see it as well. Speaker 0 then recalls personal health concerns related to vaccination, mentioning friends who have experienced myocarditis, blood clots, strokes, and other problems after receiving the COVID jab, and emphasizes the idea of long-term effects being unknown. Speaker 1 counters by saying they still believe in vaccinations, but notes that no one on that side would discuss possible problems with vaccines, and they themselves got vaccinated multiple times and are now open to the idea that there might have been problems. They acknowledge the complexity of the issue and state they do not object to vaccines inherently. Speaker 0 clarifies their stance further, stating they are not a medical expert but their instinct was not to have the vaccine, and they acknowledge how difficult it was to avoid it since the state appeared to force people to receive it. Speaker 1 adds that their own vaccination status includes having been vaxxed several times, and they feel okay today, though they recognize the complexity of the situation and that long-term effects are uncertain. Speaker 0 then discusses the notion that the state and public health authorities pressured people to vaccinate, naming the NHS, Matt Hancock, and portraying the messaging as a duty to vaccinate “because you might kill granny,” mentioning Trudeau and the World Economic Forum Brigade as part of the broader narrative. Speaker 0 proposes an alternative approach: those who are vulnerable should isolate themselves. They reference Anders Tegnell’s approach in Sweden, which did not impose lockdowns. They claim Sweden’s economy hardly missed a heartbeat, in contrast to “ours,” and argue that the pandemic greatly disrupted young people’s lives and education, with knock-on effects described as huge. Speaker 0 concludes that those who made the lockdown decisions are not ready to admit they got it wrong, for a host of reasons.

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 expresses their discomfort with unvaccinated individuals being near them in public places. They believe that if someone chooses not to get vaccinated, they should stay at home and accept the consequences of their decision. Speaker 1 questions this stance, suggesting that leaving unvaccinated people to die in emergency situations is harsh. Speaker 2 emphasizes the importance of the vaccine as a means to return to pre-pandemic life and suggests tying reopening policies to vaccination status. Speaker 3 believes that isolating those who refuse vaccines is a better approach than forcing them. Speaker 0 argues that during a global pandemic, it is justifiable to take away bodily autonomy and suggests labeling unvaccinated individuals. Speaker 1 concludes by stating that people need to understand that no vaccine means no normal life.

A person states they won't get the COVID-19 vaccine due to a lack of initial clarity and the speed of its creation, arguing nine months isn't enough time. Another person explains that twenty years of science went into the approach used to create the vaccine and that vaccination is necessary to stop the virus from spreading. The first person compares COVID-19 to the flu, but is told COVID-19 is more serious. They then question the official death toll and suggest incentives for vaccination indicate ulterior motives. The second person states that millions of people were vaccinated to protect their health and community. The first person concludes that the vaccination campaign is based on fear.

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.