reSee.it - Related Video Feed

There is a connection between autism and vaccines that the government promoted, and this constitutes a tort, meaning many people were injured by the product. However, in 1986, Congress passed the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, giving vaccine companies immunity from liability. Therefore, no matter how reckless the company, how toxic the product, or how egregious the injury, they cannot be sued. This is one reason for the explosion of vaccinations.

Four companies—Pfizer, Merck, Blackstone, and Sanofi—produce all 72 vaccines and have a history of criminal behavior. Over the last decade, they collectively paid $35 billion in penalties for falsifying science, defrauding regulators, and causing harm. Merck's Vioxx, marketed as a headache pill, led to the deaths of up to 500,000 Americans due to heart attacks, while the company profited despite paying $7 billion in fines. No one was jailed for these actions. It’s difficult to believe these companies, known for dishonesty in other products, are suddenly trustworthy with vaccines. In the U.S., a law passed in 1986 prevents individuals from suing vaccine manufacturers, regardless of negligence or harm caused.

In 1986, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act removed liability from drug companies for vaccine-related injuries. Recently, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the COVID vaccine is not a true vaccine as it doesn't prevent disease or transmission. This could open up legal challenges against pharmaceutical companies, though the government may protect them. The outcome remains uncertain.

In the video, the speaker discusses the lack of accountability for vaccine manufacturers. They explain that in the 1980s, there were only three routine childhood vaccines, but now there are 17, with 14 being routine. The speaker highlights that the manufacturers convinced Congress to grant them immunity for any harm caused by their vaccines, leading to the National Childhood Vaccines Act in 1986. This immunity extends to future vaccines added to the childhood schedule. The speaker emphasizes that this level of immunity is not seen in other consumer products, which hold manufacturers accountable for any harm caused. They also mention that emergency youth vaccines, like the COVID-19 vaccine, have separate immunity under the PrEP Act. The speaker argues that this lack of liability disincentivizes safety and affects the conduct of clinical trials and post-market actions by pharmaceutical companies.

A Michigan jury awarded a woman $1 million for being fired over vaccine refusal, highlighting a need for accountability in vaccine manufacturing. It's concerning that vaccine makers have blanket immunity from lawsuits, unlike other businesses. This immunity, granted by Congress in 1986, shields pharmaceutical companies from liability, which is unjust. Everyone else faces risks in their professions, yet these companies operate without accountability. Transparency in government and vaccine trials is crucial to restore trust and eliminate corruption. If information is being withheld, it likely indicates wrongdoing.

Vaccines are unique as the government defends companies against consumer claims in the vaccine injury program. Before 1986, only 3 vaccines were given, but now there are 19, totaling 84 injections. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act allowed companies to sell harmful products without consequences. This led to changes in clinical trials and regulatory treatment of vaccines. Regulatory agencies see themselves as partners with manufacturers. Translation: Vaccines are defended by the government against consumer claims. The number of vaccines has increased, and the law allows companies to sell harmful products without consequences. This has impacted clinical trials and regulatory treatment of vaccines. Regulatory agencies see themselves as partners with manufacturers.

The Kansas Attorney General is suing Pfizer for violating the Kansas Consumer Protection Act by making misleading claims about its COVID-19 vaccine. The suit alleges Pfizer misrepresented the vaccine's safety, particularly for pregnant women. While vaccine manufacturers have immunity from injury lawsuits, they aren't protected from liability for misrepresentation. The Attorney General claims Pfizer advertised the vaccine as safe for pregnant women despite knowing of risks. He states that Pfizer possessed information as early as February 2021 regarding complications, including miscarriages in over 10% of cases, yet still promoted the vaccine as safe for pregnant women. The lawsuit focuses on Pfizer allegedly misrepresenting their product.

Four companies, Pfizer, Merck, Blackstone, and Sanofi, are responsible for producing all 72 vaccines. However, these companies have a history of criminal activity, collectively paying $35 billion in fines for falsifying science, defrauding regulators, lying to doctors, and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. For instance, Merck's product, Vioxx, was sold as a headache pill but caused heart attacks and killed around 120,500 Americans. Despite this, they only paid fines and faced no jail time. It is hard to believe that these companies, known for lying and cheating, are honest when it comes to vaccines. The vaccine industry is immune to lawsuits, making it the perfect place for these companies to avoid consequences.

The COVID-19 vaccines are causing excess deaths, making it mass negligent homicide for those involved in their production, distribution, administration, and promotion.

We couldn't find any prelicensing safety trials for the 72 vaccines doses that are recommended for American children. Unlike other medications, vaccines were exempt from conducting safety trials that compare health outcomes between a placebo group and a vaccine group. This lack of safety trials is concerning considering the widespread use of these vaccines.

In the video, the speaker discusses the lack of accountability for vaccine manufacturers. They explain that in the 1980s, there were only three routine childhood vaccines, but now there are 17, with 14 being routine. The speaker highlights that the manufacturers convinced Congress to grant them immunity for any harm caused by their vaccines, leading to the National Childhood Vaccines Act in 1986. This immunity extends to future vaccines added to the childhood schedule. The speaker emphasizes that this level of immunity is not seen in other consumer products, which holds manufacturers accountable for any harm caused. They also mention that emergency youth vaccines, like the COVID-19 vaccine, have separate immunity under the PrEP Act. The speaker argues that this lack of liability disincentivizes safety and affects the conduct of clinical trials and post-market actions by pharmaceutical companies.

We couldn't find a prelicensing safety trial for any of the 72 vaccines doses recommended for American children. Unlike other medications, vaccines were exempt from conducting safety trials that compare health outcomes between a placebo group and a vaccine group.

The transcript presents a critical examination of Bill Gates, portraying him as transforming from a software magnate into a global health power broker whose wealth and influence have reshaped public health, vaccine development, and population policy. It argues that Gates’ philanthropic activities are not purely charitable but are deployed to extend control over health systems, global research agendas, and even the reproductive choices of people worldwide. Key claims and points are detailed across several strands: - Public image and power shift: Bill Gates is described as no longer a “public health expert” yet becoming a central figure in billions of lives, guiding medical actions and vaccine strategies. The program asserts that Gates’ reinvention through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been aided by a sophisticated public relations apparatus and by directing media coverage of global health issues. - Foundation scale and reach: The Gates Foundation is depicted as the world’s largest private foundation, with assets reported as tens of billions of dollars and a broad remit in global health, development, growth, and policy advocacy. Its influence extends to funding media outlets, think tanks, and reporting units across multiple outlets (BBC, NPR, Our World in Data, ABC, among others), creating what the program calls “tentacles” across global health. - Partnerships and funding of global health initiatives: Gates is credited with initiating and funding major global health vehicles, including: - Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, with seed funding and ongoing commitments that have shaped vaccination markets. - The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and other public-private partnerships that coordinate vaccine development and immunization programs. - Support for CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations), the World Health Organization’s vaccine initiatives, and other pandemic preparedness efforts. - The World Health Organization’s funding profile, described as heavily dependent on Gates Foundation support, with Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted as a non-medical doctor connected to Gates-backed initiatives. - The “Decade of Vaccines” and vaccine policy: Gates is credited with launching a decade-long vaccine initiative, including a pledge of billions of dollars to vaccine development and distribution. This is linked to the creation of a global vaccine action plan and to Gavi’s role in establishing vaccine markets. The narrative asserts that vaccines have been used to steer global health policy and to secure roles for private firms in public health decision-making. - Vaccine development concerns: The program raises concerns about the safety and speed of vaccine development, criticizing the eighteen-month timeline Gates advocates for a universal vaccine, and questioning the use of new technologies (DNA and mRNA platforms) and rapid deployment with limited testing. It highlights potential safety risks, including historical vaccine-associated disease enhancement and concerns about broad immunization in a short period. - Vaccine safety and regulation: It is claimed that vaccine safety at scale is hard to guarantee and that liability protections for vaccine makers and public health officials have been enacted (e.g., a U.S. declaration granting liability immunity for COVID-19 countermeasures), a point framed as enabling risk-bearing without accountability. - Population control framing: A central thread is the assertion that Gates seeks to reduce population growth through health improvements, vaccines, and reproductive health services. The transcript traces Gates’ interest in contraception and population issues to his family background and to Rockefeller-era eugenics historical contexts, arguing that discussions about fertility, contraceptive technologies, and demographic trends have long-term population implications. It cites specific Gates Foundation activities in reproductive health, including funding for innovative birth-control delivery methods, depot injections, implanted devices, and efforts to develop digital identity tied to health services as tools within a broader population-control framework. - Digital identity and biometric ID: The narrative emphasizes Gates’ involvement with biometric identification through Gavi and ID2020, noting partnerships with Microsoft and the Rockefeller Foundation, the Aadhaar system in India, and the World Bank’s ID4D initiative. It argues that vaccination programs, biometric identity, and cashless payments are being integrated into a comprehensive “population control grid,” enabling state and private actors to track, truncate, or deny access to services based on identity and health status. - Data, surveillance, and privacy concerns: The piece contends that the push for digital IDs, digital health records, and biometrics will erode privacy and enable broad government and corporate surveillance, linking health data to financial services, voting, housing, and welfare. It highlights projects involving digital certificates, immunity passports, and real-time health data collection via microneedle patches and barcode-like skin markers, suggesting these innovations could be used to control access to services. - Epstein connections and broader conspiracy context: The program references alleged connections between Gates and Jeffrey Epstein, including flight logs and involvement in philanthropic funding discussions, framing these ties as part of a broader pattern of influence. It also points to prior associations with notable figures (Buffett, Rockefeller, Soros) and critiques of Gates as aligning with a “population control” ideology. - The underlying motive and conclusion: Throughout, the narrative asserts that Gates’ wealth is being used not for charity alone but to build an overarching system of control—over health institutions, research funding, public policy, identification, and financial systems. It contrasts his public image as a generous philanthropist with alleged hidden agendas, suggesting that the real aim is to shape global governance and human behavior through vaccination, identification, and digital infrastructure. - Final framing and call to action: The closing sections urge viewers to recognize Gates’ influence as part of an ideology rather than a single person’s plan. It frames the situation as a broader movement that could continue beyond Gates personally, urging awareness and action to resist what the program deems a population-control regime embedded in global health and digital identity initiatives. In sum, the transcript portrays Bill Gates as a central figure driving a multifaceted, globally interconnected program—through the Gates Foundation, Gavi, CEPI, and related partnerships—that allegedly reconfigures vaccine policy, global health governance, reproductive health, biometric identification, and digital payments into a cohesive system of population control and surveillance, using philanthropy as a veneer for power and control.

In the early 1980s in the United States, there were only three routine vaccines: DTP, MMR, and OPV, totaling seven injections for childhood, plus the adult and pregnancy schedules, which did not exist at the time. Manufacturers of these three products either stopped making them or went out of business due to injuries and the financial liability associated with those injuries. Typically, when a product harms people, a company would respond by making a better, safer version. The speaker notes that, for vaccines, Congress chose a different path. Instead of compelling manufacturers to improve safety or compensate victims, the United States Congress decided to provide immunity from liability. In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which granted immunity to manufacturers for liability not only for those three early vaccines but for virtually all other vaccines made thereafter, including all childhood vaccines. The speaker emphasizes the contrast between the standard industry response to harm (improve the product) and the legislative approach taken with vaccines (immunity from liability). The implication highlighted is that this immunity allowed vaccine manufacturers to continue selling products despite injuries, shaping the broader vaccine landscape beyond the initial three vaccines.

Vaccines are neither safe, effective, necessary, nor harmless, and this has been a two-hundred-year indoctrination. No vaccine has ever been proven safe because true placebos aren't used, and subjects aren't followed long enough. Safety is determined by whether the vaccine causes immediate death. Long-term effects like asthma, allergies, eczema, ADD, ADHD, neurological problems, and autoimmune diseases are not monitored. The FDA arbitrarily decided in the early 1990s that side effects appearing more than 72 hours after vaccination are unrelated.

Vaccines are not subjected to true placebo-controlled trials before licensure. The DDP vaccine was pulled in the US due to lawsuits against drug companies. Wyeth, now Pfizer, requested full immunity from liability for all vaccines from the Reagan administration in 1986, threatening to leave the vaccine business. The company claimed they were losing $20 in downstream liability for every dollar of profit. When asked to make vaccines safe, they responded that "vaccines are unavoidably unsafe." This phrase is in the statute granting them immunity and was cited in the Brusowitz Supreme Court case. The industry obtained immunity by convincing the president and Congress that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.

Vaccines are not subjected to true placebo-controlled trials before licensing. The DTP vaccine was pulled due to lawsuits against manufacturers like Wyeth (now Pfizer). In 1986, vaccine manufacturers requested immunity from liability from the Reagan administration, threatening to exit the vaccine business. They claimed they were losing $20 in liability for every $1 in profit. When asked to make vaccines safer, they responded that vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe." This phrase is in the statute granting them immunity and was upheld in the Brusowitz Supreme Court case. The industry obtained immunity by arguing to the president and Congress that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.

Vaccine manufacturers are uniquely protected from design defect claims, unlike manufacturers of other products like planes, cars, and drugs. This immunity was granted in 1986 through the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act due to the harm and liability caused by the original three routine childhood vaccines (MMR, OPV, and DTP). Instead of requiring manufacturers to create safer products, Congress granted them immunity. This immunity applies to all subsequent routine childhood vaccines. The number of CDC-recommended injections has increased from three in 1986 to 29 today. Pharmaceutical companies developing these vaccines know they won't be liable for injuries. Unlike typical drug trials, vaccine trials often lack placebo controls, have short safety review periods (days, weeks, or up to six months), and are underpowered. These trials cannot confirm the safest product.

The pharmaceutical industry is seen as untrustworthy, being compared to a criminal cartel due to the large penalties they have paid for their other products. Vaccines, however, are exempt from liability, meaning companies cannot be sued no matter how negligent or reckless they are. This lack of accountability may lead to a lack of caution in product development.

Billions of people have received contaminated products, which should not have happened. If meat at the grocery store is found to have toxins, it is immediately recalled. However, vaccines with known contamination are being administered to billions of people worldwide. This was revealed through our reporting. It is concerning that these contaminated products are still available in the consumer marketplace. When a crib causes the death of two children or a tire leads to multiple accidents, they are taken off the market. Yet, intentionally adulterated vaccines with undisclosed gene sequences are still being sold.

Vaccines have never undergone true placebo controlled trials, unlike other medical products. The DTP vaccine was pulled due to numerous lawsuits against drug companies, including Pfizer. In 1986, Pfizer asked the Reagan administration for immunity from liability, as they were losing more money in downstream liability than they were making in profits. Reagan suggested making vaccines safer, but Pfizer claimed they were unavoidably unsafe, a phrase now in the statute and upheld by the Supreme Court. The industry convinced the president and congress that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe, despite claims of their safety and effectiveness.

A law called Vika was passed in 1986, making it illegal to sue vaccine companies, regardless of recklessness or negligence. As a result, the number of mandated vaccines has increased from 3 to 79, none of which have been safety tested. The speaker claims that vaccines are exempt from pre-licensing safety testing, a claim that Anthony Fauci publicly denied. When President Trump appointed the speaker to run a vaccine safety commission, the speaker asked Fauci to provide safety studies on vaccines. Fauci claimed he left them in his office and never sent them. Subsequently, the speaker and Aaron Siri sued Fauci. After a year of stonewalling, HHS provided a letter stating that there has never been a pre-licensing safety study of any vaccine on the childhood schedule.

Pfizer is being sued for defrauding the government, but they claim they did not commit fraud. They argue they provided what the government requested, even if it was a faulty product distributed worldwide. This information is crucial and not widely known.

None of the vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have undergone proper testing. No childhood vaccine has completed a placebo-controlled clinical trial with sufficient duration and power to confirm its safety before being administered to millions of children in America. This is not an opinion; it can be verified by anyone visiting the FDA website, where the package inserts and clinical trial documents are available for review.

Vaccine manufacturers are uniquely protected from design defect claims, unlike manufacturers of other products like planes, cars, and drugs. This immunity was granted in 1986 through the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act because manufacturers of the three routine childhood vaccines (MMR, Polio, and DTP) faced excessive liability and potential bankruptcy due to harm caused by their products. Instead of requiring safer products, Congress granted immunity, allowing manufacturers to continue selling vaccines regardless of potential harm. This immunity extended to all future routine childhood vaccines. Consequently, the CDC schedule has expanded from 3 injections in the first year of life in 1986 to 29 today. Pharmaceutical companies developing these vaccines know they won't be liable for injuries. Unlike typical drug trials, vaccine trials often lack placebo controls (except for the COVID-19 vaccine), have short safety review periods (days, weeks, or up to six months), and are underpowered, making it difficult to confirm product safety.