reSee.it - Related Video Feed

There are two classes of people: vaccinated and unvaccinated. Vaccinated individuals have certain rights. Initially, there was hope to maintain elimination of the virus across the country without the need for vaccination certificates. However, it has become clear that these certificates not only drive up vaccination rates but also provide confidence to vaccinated individuals. They want to be around other vaccinated people and feel safe in hospitality and event settings. Offering this confidence and safety is important for those who have been vaccinated, allowing them to enjoy these activities again.

The video discusses the development of the COVID vaccine under Operation Warp Speed during the Trump administration. It mentions that the program protected drug companies from lawsuits over vaccine injuries, which critics argue creates a bureaucratic compensation system. The speaker expresses the need to repeal the special form of lobbying that prevents vaccine manufacturers from being sued for product liability. They also emphasize the importance of free speech during emergencies and advocate for separating capitalism and democracy. The speaker calls for an end to government corruption and the revolving door between government officials and companies. The video ends with a mention of Alabama and a final question about vaccines.

The speaker suggests distinguishing between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Another person questions this, arguing that it infringes on human rights and that new variants have little impact. They present data from the UK to support their point. The first speaker emphasizes the importance of maximizing freedom for vaccinated individuals, especially for travel, as an incentive to get vaccinated. The second person accuses the first speaker of having ulterior motives, mentioning their connections to the pharmaceutical industry and past controversies. They strongly oppose the first speaker's involvement in public health and the protection of rights. The first speaker concludes by stating that vaccination is the path to freedom.

In this video, the speaker discusses the release of unredacted protocols from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) regarding COVID-19 measures. The speaker criticizes mainstream media for not covering this issue and praises the Multipolar Magazine for their efforts. The speaker highlights key points from the protocols, such as the lack of evidence for FFP2 masks and the negative effects of lockdown measures. They also criticize politicians and media figures for their handling of the pandemic and the division it has caused in society. The speaker concludes by urging viewers to take legal action against those responsible.

Speaker 0: I don't have it because I don't want it. Speaker 1: I don't trust you. I need proof of vaccination to exist. Some of us resist the lies and pseudoscience on TV. The government abuses power, confuses and scares people. I may be wrong, but I won't complain. I'm a singer who uses my brain and middle finger. I won't take anything. Vaccine passports won't affect me. Hell no, I won't get it. Hell no, I don't trust the government. Hell no, I won't comply.

Speaker 0 argues that because it’s classified as a vaccine, they don’t have to worry about being sued. Speaker 1 counters that there is immunity from liability dependent on there having been no fraud, and asserts that there clearly was fraud, so in light of that... Speaker 0 expresses surprise at known caveats to liability. Speaker 1 confirms the caveats and says it makes the situation more interesting. Speaker 0 asks how fraud is defined in this context, noting that drugs were sold with many studies but only one was good. Speaker 1 responds, “Let's try this one,” and discusses safety testing: the insufficient amount of safety testing before release was done with mRNA vaccines produced in a process that did not involve DNA. The product injected into billions of people involved DNA plasmids, with massive contamination in the shots actually delivered, including the SV40 promoter (simian virus 40). The point is that safety testing was performed on one process, but people were injected with something different that had other components not tested, which Speaker 1 calls fraudulent. Speaker 0 asks for an explanation of the SV40 issue. Speaker 1 explains production methods: techniques to generate product using a plasmid, a circular piece of DNA, allowing vats to grow the product before coating in lipid nanoparticle, with bacteria doing the work. There is a requirement to purify DNA and set standards for residual DNA contamination. In this case, not only was quality control poor, but there was a much more painstaking way to produce the same product that did not involve DNA plasmids at all. As a result, vials given to Kevin McKernan, containing material actually injected into people, showed DNA contamination across the board. Speaker 1 states that leftover DNA includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic trigger from simian virus 40, which is carcinogenic. This promoter is left over in vials from shots actually injected into people, implying that the claims about the potential for mRNA shots to integrate into the genome were incorrect. Speaker 1 asserts that there is DNA in the vials, not just some old DNA, and that it includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic engineering tool with carcinogenic potential. Therefore, Speaker 1 concludes, this seems to be clear fraud: you can’t inject a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing conducted with a product produced by a different process.

The video discusses the development of the COVID vaccine through Operation Warp Speed and the issue of liability for vaccine injuries. The program protected drug companies from lawsuits, which critics argue creates a bureaucratic compensation system. The speaker believes that the liability protection should be repealed, along with other forms of crony capitalism. They emphasize the importance of free speech and open debate in times of emergency. The speaker also calls for an end to lobbying and a separation between capitalism and democracy. They propose a 10-year ban on government officials joining companies they previously worked with. The video ends with a question to Governor Christie about vaccines.

The video discusses the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and their impact on the spread of the virus. The speaker argues that the vaccines are actually causing more harm by increasing people's vulnerability to the disease. They present a study from Cleveland, Ohio, which shows that the more vaccine doses a person receives, the more likely they are to contract and spread COVID-19. The speaker also mentions data from New South Wales, Australia, indicating that the more vaccine doses a person has, the higher their chances of severe illness and hospitalization. They conclude that the vaccines are functioning as "anti-vaccines" and making people more susceptible to the virus. However, another speaker emphasizes the importance of vaccination in preventing severe illness and death. They encourage people to get vaccinated and highlight the potential restrictions for those who remain unvaccinated.

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.

The speakers discuss the effectiveness of lockdown measures and the negative impact they have had on society. They argue that there is no correlation between lockdowns and lower death rates. They criticize the coercive measures taken by governments, which they believe have violated human rights and weakened society. They call for a change in strategy, focusing on individual freedom and medical measures rather than lockdowns. They also discuss the vaccination debate, expressing skepticism about the need for booster shots and the lack of scientific evidence supporting their efficacy. The speakers emphasize the importance of respecting individual rights and freedoms during the pandemic.

Speaker 1 says that people do not know the long-term side effects of “basically modifying people’s DNA and RNA.” Speaker 0 responds that DNA is inherent in a person’s own nuclear cell. Speaker 1 reiterates that the long-term side effects of modifying people are unknown. The discussion then shifts to social media policy. Speaker 0 says that last week Facebook announced it is expanding its efforts to remove false claims on Facebook and Instagram about COVID-19 vaccines. Speaker 0 says the video will look at Facebook’s most updated COVID-19 vaccine policy, focusing on a specific part of the policy: Facebook says it would remove any content that claims the COVID-19 vaccine changes people’s DNA. Speaker 0 then says that they “got a new leaked tape from Zuckerberg himself,” the CEO of Facebook, which is described as violating his own code of conduct. Speaker 0 claims that, based on Facebook’s policy, Zuckerberg would be censored on the platform today for what he said. Speaker 0 highlights a claim attributed to Zuckerberg: that the vaccine is “modifying people’s DNA.” Speaker 0 says that it “seems pretty clear” that “modifying is synonymous with changing.” Speaker 0 states again that Zuckerberg would be banned from Facebook for saying this. Speaker 0 frames this as a conflict between what Zuckerberg said and what Facebook’s policy would remove from the platform. The transcript ends mid-sentence as Speaker 0 begins to describe showing the CEO of Facebook talking.

Some individuals are refusing to get vaccinated against COVID-19, endangering the lives of others and restricting their freedom. The speaker suggests treating the unvaccinated as outcasts and even forcing them to get vaccinated. They propose creating a law to make vaccination mandatory and sending teams to the homes of those who haven't been vaccinated. The speaker also criticizes anti-vaxxers and calls for consequences such as withholding unemployment benefits. They mention specific individuals they consider to be spreaders of misinformation. Others express frustration with those protesting vaccine passports, stating that the real battles are climate change and equality. Some argue that the unvaccinated should be responsible for their own healthcare costs if they contract COVID-19. The video concludes by condemning those who spread vaccine misinformation and praising those who have chosen to get vaccinated.

Speaker 0: I ask all citizens to hold on a little longer. But until everyone is vaccinated, there will be no easing of restrictions, that is not the path we are aiming for. Speaker 1: Yesterday, you said that as long as not everyone can be offered a vaccine, there will be no new freedoms, we are talking about old freedoms. How do you plan to keep the vaccinated, let's say, in check, so that they don't start traveling, meeting up, or partying again? How long do you intend to enforce this strictly? Speaker 0: Well, I was asked about the wrong word, which I have already used, privileges, you didn't mention that. Because we must not get used to the normal life, as we know it with other freedoms, that life is no longer normal. That's where we want to go back to. These are fundamental rights that everyone has. But at the moment, even if someone is vaccinated, it is not clear whether they can still infect other people. And as long as that is not clarified, we cannot have any special measures or rights in addition to the normal rights for which the wave of lawsuits is demanding, and they are right. Look, there are now many lawsuits from people who want to be vaccinated in the highest priority group. There are lawsuits about the fairness of the measures. There will be lawsuits about the question of rights for the vaccinated, that is part of the rule of law and as politicians, we must argue why we are doing something, why we are not doing something. I believe that if we have been able to offer vaccination to a large number of people later on, and then some people say, we don't have mandatory vaccination, now I don't want to be vaccinated, then maybe we have to make such distinctions and say, okay, if you don't want it, then you may not be able to do certain things. Speaker 1: Chancellor, you explicitly mentioned the 21st of September yesterday. By then, there should be a vaccination offer for everyone. That is, if you look at the calendar, five days before the federal election. That date was not a coincidence, right? Speaker 0: Look, that is the meteorological beginning of autumn.

The video features a discussion about the unvaccinated and their impact on society. Some speakers blame the unvaccinated for being the problem and suggest they should be shamed. Others argue that the blame should be placed on the unvaccinated instead of the vaccinated. The conversation touches on issues of freedom, personal choice, and the responsibility to protect others. One speaker mentions the frustration and anger felt by the vaccinated towards the unvaccinated. The video also briefly mentions a segment sponsored by Pfizer and questions the lack of critical questioning by journalists.

Speaker 0 claims that areas with high unvaccinated populations will become a real-world vaccine efficacy trial. Vaccinated people will live, while the unvaccinated will die, which Speaker 0 finds "glorious." Speaker 1, reacting to the video, questions how it is still online and how Speaker 0 still has a job. Speaker 1 states they would not want Speaker 0 as their nurse, because Speaker 0 puts politics over human life. Speaker 1 hopes Speaker 0 will find decency and use it for good.

In this video, the speaker discusses the significant excess mortality following the COVID-19 pandemic and questions the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. They argue that the excess mortality is correlated with the vaccination campaigns and call for independent investigations into the relationship between the vaccines and the excess deaths. The speaker criticizes other political parties for promoting and embracing the vaccines without addressing the concerns raised by their party. Another speaker responds by defending their party's stance on vaccinations and arguing against the speaker's accusations. The debate becomes heated as both speakers exchange arguments and counter-arguments. The video ends with the announcement of a suspension until the minister speaks.

Speaker 0 apologizes for any discrimination based on vaccine status and promises amnesty for those prosecuted during COVID restrictions. Speaker 1 acknowledges the restrictions faced by unvaccinated individuals, such as job loss, limited access to loved ones, and travel restrictions. They consider this discrimination extreme but also recognize discrimination faced by other groups. Speaker 1 emphasizes the need to avoid creating a segregated society based on medical choices.

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.

The speaker addresses a video from a person in nursing who asks if insurance or the government should pay for the care of those who contract vaccine-preventable diseases if they chose not to vaccinate, and about liability if they infect others. The speaker claims the person in the video is unhealthy and pushing unhealthy products and vaccines, so is in pharmaceutical sales, not healthcare. The speaker hopes they will research vaccines and learn that there are more vaccine-injured than not. The speaker asks if obese people, smokers or alcoholics should be refused healthcare, and says they don't want to live in a society where people decide who lives and dies based on health choices, as they claim happened during the pandemic. The speaker hopes the person in the video will absorb information on the internet and that being called out will wake them up.

In the video, the speaker discusses the need for certificates to identify recovered and vaccinated individuals in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19. They explain that this is important because some countries may not have the virus under control, and it would be impractical to completely restrict travel for these individuals. The speaker also mentions Bill Gates' foundation and its potential involvement in this matter.

The video features a discussion about the requirement of vaccines for employees in healthcare facilities. The speaker questions whether employees should be forced to get vaccinated and highlights concerns about exemptions for religious or medical reasons. The speaker argues that if the employer has the final say on exemptions, they could easily reject them, rendering them meaningless. The issue of employer liability for adverse reactions is also raised, with the speaker suggesting that employers should be held responsible. Another speaker adds that some hospitals are making employees sign consent forms stating they won't sue if they have adverse reactions. The video concludes with a comment expressing skepticism towards the Texas Medical Association.

The video discusses the development of the COVID vaccine through Operation Warp Speed and the issue of vaccine liability. The program protected drug companies from lawsuits over vaccine injuries, which critics argue creates a bureaucratic compensation system. The speaker believes that the liability protection should be repealed, along with other forms of crony capitalism. They emphasize the importance of free speech and open debate in times of emergency. The speaker also calls for an end to lobbying and a separation between capitalism and democracy. They propose a 10-year ban on government officials joining companies they previously worked with. The video ends with a mention of Alabama and a final question about the vaccine.

The speaker mentions being part of a meeting in February 2021 where the administration considered allowing individuals who had been naturally infected with COVID-19 to be exempt from vaccination mandates. They believed that natural infection could provide protection against severe disease. However, the administration decided against this idea due to bureaucratic concerns and the need for individuals to prove their natural infection status. The speaker suggests that people could potentially obtain fake PCR positivity cards to bypass this requirement.

There is a proposal to change the immunity law in Germany, specifically regarding the testing period for medications before they are released in the country. The plan is to introduce a vaccine requirement indirectly. If you choose to get vaccinated with the medications provided by the Berlin Milley Gates Foundation, you can continue with your activities. However, if you refuse to get vaccinated, you may lose many of your basic rights. This change effectively establishes a vaccine requirement through the backdoor. Not getting vaccinated with these medications, which have not undergone sufficient testing, could result in being unable to work in certain professions or travel to certain countries. The decision-making power lies with Bill and Melinda Gates. Angela Merkel is promoting a conference to fill a funding gap of 8 billion euros for the development of a vaccine by the Gates Foundation.