reSee.it - Related Video Feed

All vaccines, including COVID vaccines, are causing harm to children. There has never been a study comparing fully vaccinated kids following the CDC schedule to unvaccinated kids. The difference in health outcomes is dramatic, with unvaccinated kids being consistently healthier. A 10-year study by Dr. Paul Thomas, which was retracted unethically, showed that vaccinated kids were more likely to get the diseases they were vaccinated against. Being unvaccinated should be applauded because vaccines are causing chronic diseases in America. A study with over 1,000 unvaccinated people showed significantly better health outcomes compared to fully vaccinated individuals. The CDC promised to conduct a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals but never followed through. No vaccine is safe or effective, and no study has proven otherwise.

Speaker 0 argues that to determine whether smoking causes lung cancer, you must compare smokers to non-smokers. They recount a sequence of flawed study designs that would falsely conclude no link: comparing two smokers with different consumption levels and finding the same cancer rates; comparing different cigarette brands among smokers and again finding no difference; comparing people in different towns who all smoke and finding no difference. The point is that all these comparisons fail because they do not include a non-smoker control group; thus they cannot establish causation. They then contrast this with vaccine studies, asserting that studies claiming vaccines don’t cause chronic diseases or autism do not compare vaccinated to unvaccinated children. Instead, such studies compare vaccinated children to other vaccinated children, with variations in vaccines received (e.g., MMR, DTaP, multiple vaccines in one visit) and with differing aluminum exposures (e.g., four milligrams vs two milligrams). They emphasize that these studies never examine the actual outcome of interest by comparing vaccinated against unvaccinated children. The speaker maintains that this flaw in vaccine studies mirrors the earlier tobacco example. The essential argument is that the only way to determine causation is to compare the exposure group (vaccinated children) to an appropriate control group (unvaccinated children). They reference the Henry Ford trial as an example of an unvaccinated-versus-vaccinated comparison, but note that no one has published or accessible data from it. They call for someone brave enough to conduct and publish a vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated study to settle the issue. Finally, they challenge proponents of vaccination to conduct such a study to prove their position, insisting that if vaccines are truly safe and non-causal for chronic diseases or autism, the study should be done and the data published to demonstrate that the claim is correct. The overall message is a insistence on direct, unambiguous vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated comparisons to establish causality, highlighting perceived gaps in current vaccine research and urging transparent data publication.

Many unvaccinated people are parents who followed recommendations blindly. Less than 1% of the public is unvaccinated. The Amish community is largely unvaccinated, yet there are very few cases of autism, ADD, autoimmune diseases, and other chronic illnesses. The US government has studied the Amish for years but has not released any reports because it would reveal that not following vaccination guidelines leads to better health. This suggests that the CDC has been withholding data that shows their recommendations may harm the public.

Speaker 0 argues that the myth that vaccines are safe and necessary and that they eradicated childhood disease is false. He claims vaccines have never been tested for safety and that there are no placebo-controlled trials; in trials, the control group is given the immunogens that are in the vaccine, making the comparison deceptive. He emphasizes that vaccines typically contain a protein plus an accompanying substance—the adjuvant or immunogen—that stimulates an immune response, and that these adjuvants (such as aluminum or other substances) by themselves are dangerous. When the control group receives these adjuvants along with the experimental group, he says the side effects are similar, describing this as a “slight hand trick” and “extremely deceptive.” He notes that for the last forty years people have been shouting that there has not been a true placebo-controlled trial with saline. He then argues that if one looks at the history of all the childhood illnesses that vaccines target, they were almost all nearly eradicated before the introduction of the vaccine. He claims that the impression vaccines stop childhood illnesses is not true; almost all illnesses had reduced to extremely low levels due to sanitation and hygiene, development, and some antibiotics. Regarding the vaccines themselves, he states that the true data and history of these vaccines are “really horrible.” He mentions a history of lack of safety and relates it to sudden infant death syndrome, asserting that it “suddenly came out of nowhere as we suspended the schedule” and asks when death occurs. He asserts that sudden infant death syndrome is reproducible in that it occurs at two months, four months, and six months, and that most of those deaths occur within days to a couple of weeks of the vaccine. He concludes with a strong personal stance: if he had his young children today, he would not give them a single vaccine.

The speaker asks if there has been a study comparing the health outcomes of children following the CDC vaccination schedule and those who are unvaccinated. The other speaker says they are not aware of such a study and suggests it may be considered bad malpractice not to vaccinate a child. They discuss the possibility of a retrospective study using the Vaccine Safety Datalink, but note the need to control for confounders. The speaker presents an exhibit showing higher rates of health conditions in vaccinated children and suggests the need for larger studies to confirm or refute these findings. The other speaker agrees.

We need comprehensive double-blind, long-term placebo studies to properly evaluate vaccines. Vaccines work by tricking the immune system into thinking it has encountered a disease, which raises concerns given the rising autoimmune diseases we see today. Our immune systems appear confused, attacking our own bodies. While some may question whether environmental factors like air, food, or water are to blame, it's crucial to note that vaccines are specifically designed to manipulate the immune response. Unlike past vaccination schedules, children today receive numerous vaccines—up to 72 times—far exceeding what previous generations experienced. This trend is negatively impacting the health of our children, and we must address this issue urgently.

Robert Kennedy Jr. believes people should have true informed consent regarding vaccines, including known side effects and the limitations of safety trials. He claims that with each vaccine injection, individuals risk a multitude of potential side effects, and the cumulative effect of these risks from multiple vaccines has never been studied. He alleges that the NIH refuses to conduct a study comparing the health outcomes of fully vaccinated individuals versus unvaccinated individuals, despite having the data and resources to do so. He questions the motive behind this refusal, suggesting that the results would not support the current vaccine program. He implies that if vaccines demonstrably led to better health outcomes, that information would be widely publicized.

The speaker claims that no double-blind, placebo-controlled safety trials have been conducted on any childhood vaccines currently on the market. The speaker states that they have searched for such trials and been unable to find any. According to the speaker, Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins allegedly admitted that placebo-controlled safety trials are not performed on childhood vaccines because it would be unethical to test products administered to children. The speaker challenges news agencies to provide evidence of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done prior to licensure for any childhood vaccine, asserting that it doesn't exist.

None of the 72 vaccines for children have been tested against a placebo. The speaker sued HHS in 2016 to find placebo studies for vaccines, but none were found. The safety testing for the polio vaccine was only 48 hours, while the hepatitis b vaccines were tested for 4-5 days. This means that any adverse events occurring after that time period were not considered. Without placebo testing, the risk profile of current vaccines is unknown, and it cannot be determined if vaccines cause more harm than good. The speaker questions the ethics of mandating medical products with unknown risks for children.

Senator Ron Johnson introduces Aaron Siri at the Kennedy Center, praising Siri as a highly consequential attorney and highlighting Siri’s work since the COVID era. Johnson recounts how his own oversight role in Congress evolved to rely on the adversarial legal process to extract information from a large government, noting that enforcement power rests in the courts. He frames Siri as someone who, through litigation and testimony, has exposed what he views as flaws in vaccine science, regulation, and safety oversight. Johnson describes Siri’s rise to prominence during the COVID period, beginning with public hearings on vaccine injuries in Milwaukee (June 2021) and Washington, DC (November 2021). He notes that Siri represented Dr. Patricia Lee, a physician who publicly discussed vaccine injection injuries and medical treatment obstacles, illustrating how federal health agencies and the CDC/FDA were perceived to respond to reports of injury. Siri’s testimony is credited with exposing calls to his practice from vaccine-injured doctors seeking treatment and the CDC/FDA officials’ defense of VAERS. Johnson highlights Siri’s 2022 and 2025 hearings, including the release of the VAERS data via the v-safe system, which Siri reportedly showed indicated higher rates of medical care sought and activity impairment among the vaccinated. Siri’s deposition of Stanley Plotkin and other experts is cited as foundational to his arguments about safety science, conflicts of interest, and the integrity of the vaccine schedule. Johnson points to the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) conclusions as being insufficient to prove vaccine safety for the entire childhood schedule, and to Siri’s presentation of the Henry Ford study (vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children) showing higher rates of chronic illness among the vaccinated. A central claim Johnson attributes to Siri is that vaccines have immunity from liability, due to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA). Siri’s summary is that vaccines are the only product in America with blanket liability protection for manufacturers and administrators, preempting design-defect claims via the Supreme Court interpretation that “the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act preempts all design defect claims.” Siri argues this immunity removes the market incentive to develop safer vaccines and leaves safety oversight to federal health authorities (HHS agencies: NIH, CDC, FDA) rather than to private manufacturers. Siri’s account of the 1986 act is that it created a mandate for safer childhood vaccines, with three provisions: (1) the general rule placing the secretary of HHS in charge of vaccine safety; (2) a task force of NIH, CDC, and FDA to make safety recommendations to the secretary; and (3) a biannual report to Congress on actions to improve vaccine safety. Siri contends that the biannual reports have never been submitted, and the task force produced only one report (in 1998) before disbanding, with Secretary Kennedy recently reinstating the task force. Siri’s firm ICANN has filed FOIA requests and submitted recommendations to HHS about how to improve vaccine safety, asserting that the current safety framework is not adequate. Siri then surveys the landscape across federal agencies. He asserts that the absence of liability incentives undermines safety, citing industry-pricing and trial designs, and he presents specific examples of licensure trials for routine vaccines that he claims were inadequate by design. Examples include: - Hepatitis B vaccines (Recombivax HB and Engerix B): five days of safety monitoring in trials with 147 participants, according to package inserts and FDA reports he obtained; he notes a lack of long-term safety data and questions the adequacy of control groups. - Prevnar 7 and Prevnar 13 (pneumococcal vaccines): uses Prevnar 7 as a control for Prevnar 13; safety data show notable serious adverse events but are deemed acceptable for licensure; subsequent trials used Prevnar 13 as control for Prevnar 15 with continued concerns about safety signals. - DTaP vs DTP: claims DTP served as control and that DTP itself was not licensed on placebo-controlled trials; cites a Guinea-Bissau study showing higher mortality with DTP vaccination and other studies suggesting increased overall mortality with DTP. - Dengue vaccine: notes long-term, placebo-controlled data showing increased severe harm and death in certain age groups; argues that non-placebo, ethically problematic trial designs can mask safety issues. Siri asserts a categorical claim based on FDA licensure documents: not a single routine neonatal vaccine on the CDC schedule has been licensed based on a placebo-controlled trial; when another vaccine served as control, that control was never a placebo. He presents this as evidence that safety assessments were compromised, especially for early-life vaccines administered in the first six months. Regarding autism, Siri frames it as a litmus test for vaccine safety studies. He recounts IOM findings that were inconclusive about DTaP (and related vaccines) causing autism, citing the lack of sufficient studies and the absence of unvaccinated comparison groups in many analyses. He describes ICANN’s FOIA drive to obtain CDC studies showing vaccines do not cause autism, asserting that most of the CDC’s own 20-study list did not address the vaccines in question. In deposition clips, Siri indicates that the IOM and CDC have not produced adequate evidence to rule out a causal link for several injuries, and that the only mainstream “no autism” position has come under legal scrutiny when the agencies faced court-ordered settlements and deposition testimony. Siri concludes with reform recommendations across agencies: - FDA: remove conflicted personnel from vaccine safety reviews, require clear licensure standards, mandate proper controls and longer safety monitoring, require practitioner notification of trial details, and post pre-registered study protocols; regain transparency of de-identified health data. - CDC/HRSA: align vaccine injury compensation with statutory requirements; expand the VICP to cover more injuries; ensure the CICP is reformed and funded to reflect safety concerns; reduce conflicts of interest; promote alternative, non-pharmaceutical approaches for root causes of chronic illness. - NIH: limit pharma involvement in vaccine development, focus taxpayer-funded research on root causes and replication, and avoid patent-related partnerships that create conflicts. - CMS/HHS-wide: require automated VAERS reporting and public access to de-identified health data; ensure religious exemptions are preserved; depoliticize vaccines and end mandates as political tools; end chronic disease by addressing vaccines as a contributing factor to immune dysregulation. Siri closes by insisting that mandating vaccines is a political act that undermines informed consent, arguing that safety should be decoupled from politics and that safety and efficacy claims should be grounded in rigorous, transparent science. He emphasizes that informed consent, not mandates, should govern medical decisions.

The speaker claims epidemiological studies are easily manipulated and that proper studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated groups are lacking, except for a CDC study in 1999. This CDC study, led by Thomas Verstraten, allegedly compared children who received the hepatitis vaccine within the first thirty days of life to those vaccinated later or not at all. The speaker asserts the study found a 1,135% elevated risk of autism in vaccinated children, which "shocked" researchers. The speaker alleges the CDC then kept the study secret and manipulated it through five iterations to bury the link.

The CDC has not conducted studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children over time. In my practice, we analyzed data from all patients over 10.5 years, comparing those who followed the CDC vaccine schedule with those who did not. We included over 500 unvaccinated children and around 3,700 who received some vaccines. The findings were surprising; unvaccinated children experienced significantly fewer health issues, including infections and chronic conditions. The data showed a clear trend: the more vaccines a child received, the worse their health outcomes, including conditions like ADHD and allergies. Shortly after publishing this data, my medical license was suspended, with claims that I posed a threat to public health.

All vaccines, including COVID vaccines, are causing harm to children. There has never been a study comparing fully vaccinated kids following the CDC schedule to unvaccinated kids. The difference in health outcomes between these two groups is dramatic, with unvaccinated kids being consistently healthier. A 10-year study by Dr. Paul Thomas, which was retracted unethically, showed that vaccinated kids were more likely to get the diseases they were vaccinated against. A study by the control group with over 1,000 unvaccinated people also revealed significantly better health outcomes compared to fully vaccinated individuals. Despite promises, the CDC has never conducted a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. No vaccine is safe or effective, and no study has been able to prove otherwise.

The speaker claims that no childhood vaccine has ever undergone a safety trial using a double-blind, placebo-based study. They assert that this type of study, involving a saline injection as a placebo, is the only way to determine the safety of a pharmaceutical product. Furthermore, the speaker states that there has never been a study comparing the health outcomes of children who receive the full schedule of 72 (or potentially up to 90) vaccines to those who receive none. Because of the lack of safety studies and comparative data, the speaker chooses not to inject themselves or their children with vaccines. They want evidence that vaccines are safe and make people healthier.

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.

The documentary follows a growing concern: the rise of chronic illness and neurodevelopmental disorders in American children, with speakers outlining striking statistics, personal stories, and contested science around vaccines. Key facts and patterns: - A shift from decades ago to today: more than forty percent of American children now have at least one chronic health condition; estimates cited include that over fifty-four percent of kids have a chronic disease, up from twelve point eight percent in the 1980s. One speaker emphasizes that in forty years there has been “the greatest decline in human health ever recorded.” - Autism rates have surged: just a few decades ago, one in ten thousand children had autism; today, one in thirty-one. Other listed conditions include ADD/ADHD, tics/Tourette’s, narcolepsy, sleep disorders, IBS, autoimmune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile diabetes, lupus, Crohn’s), eczema, asthma, seizures, and various neurological issues. - The central question raised: what is causing this epidemic of chronic illness in kids? The film argues that rapid increases in incidence cannot be explained by genetic change alone, which would take generations. Story and study arc: - The narrative centers on a scientist who was willing to conduct a study into vaccine safety and vaccine injury, but who faced career-risking consequences when attempting to publish or disseminate results. - The film’s narrator and investigators say they compiled hidden-camera testimonies, interviews, and raw stories from parents whose children experienced serious adverse events after vaccines (eczema, seizures, chronic GI issues, sleep apnea, language loss, autonomic and neurological symptoms, and death in some cases). Stories include a child who lost language after vaccination, triplets who regressed into severe autism after their pneumococcal shot, and families describing chronic, ongoing medical crises following vaccines. - The film frames a broader debate: vaccines are safe and effective, with extensive global use and long-standing public health endorsement. Yet it argues that the vaccine safety narrative lacks certain types of trials, particularly double-blind placebo-controlled trials for childhood vaccines. It claims that, in some cases, no such trials exist prior to licensure, and that post-licensure safety surveillance is limited or incomplete. Vaccine safety testing and regulatory claims: - The film argues that none of the 72 vaccine doses on the childhood schedule has ever been subjected to a pre-licensure double-blind placebo-controlled trial, which is presented as the gold standard of safety testing. It asserts that safety assessments and post-licensure surveillance often rely on observational data rather than randomized trials. - A critical example is the hepatitis B vaccine (Recombivax HB): the FDA-approved trial cited shows safety monitoring for only five days after each dose, with no placebo control. The film argues this is insufficient to detect autoimmune or neurodevelopmental issues that could emerge years later. - Dr. Stanley Plotkin, a leading vaccine expert, is interviewed regarding whether five days of safety monitoring captures potential autoimmune or neurological adverse events; the dialogue suggests concern about the adequacy of such safety windows and controls. - The documentary presents the notion that the absence of a placebo-controlled vaccine safety trial is used to argue safety, while retrospective studies and unblinded cohort analyses hints at potential signals that would merit more rigorous testing. Henry Ford Health System and the “vaccinated vs unvaccinated” study: - Dell and others pursue a vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated study using Henry Ford Health System data, with the aim of comparing health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. They argue that this kind of retrospective cohort study can reveal safety signals when randomized trials are unavailable. - The study reportedly found that vaccination exposure was associated with higher risks of several chronic conditions, including asthma, atopic diseases, autoimmune diseases (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, SLE, Guillain-Barré syndrome), and neurodevelopmental disorders. They summarize that by ten years, 57% of vaccinated children had a chronic health condition versus 17% of unvaccinated children; overall, two to four times higher risks across several categories were reported, with notable differences in neurodevelopmental outcomes. - The study reportedly found zero chronic conditions in the unvaccinated group for several categories, though the vaccinated group showed higher incidence in many categories. Autism did not reach statistical significance in this study due to small numbers. The presenters emphasize that retrospective studies have limitations (confounding, follow-up length, healthcare-seeking behavior), but argue that the signal deserves publication and replication. - The Henry Ford study reportedly faced professional and institutional barriers: a threat of defamation, failed attempts to publish, and internal resistance. The documentary showcases a dinner meeting where Dr. Marcus Zervos expresses willingness to publish but ultimately faces career risk, leading to discussions about “Galileo moments” and whether data should be released despite pushback. Industry and public health responses: - The film juxtaposes the public health consensus—vaccines save lives, the schedule is well tested, and billions of people have been studied—with dissenting voices from physicians, scientists, and parents who argue that independent, large-scale vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated analyses are necessary to truly assess safety outcomes. - It includes testimonials from doctors who faced professional pushback after expressing concerns about broader vaccine safety questions or demonstrating adverse effects in patient populations. - The documentary frames a call to replicate the retrospective study in other large health systems (e.g., Kaiser Permanente, Harvard Pilgrim, CDC’s VSD) to determine whether the Henry Ford findings hold across populations, and whether impaired health outcomes correlate with the breadth of vaccination exposure. Conclusion and call to action: - The film asserts that if the data are valid, this would constitute a sea-change in our understanding of off-target and nonspecific effects of vaccination and would necessitate reconsidering how the vaccination program is designed and implemented. - Viewers are urged to consider the evidence, demand replication, and reflect on the moral and ethical implications of vaccine safety research, balancing public health benefits with potential risks, and exploring alternate strategies to protect child health.

In early 2017, the speaker and Robert Kennedy Jr. met with Tony Fauci and Francis Collins at the NIH to discuss vaccine safety concerns. They questioned the absence of double-blind placebo safety trials for childhood vaccines. According to the speaker, Fauci and Collins admitted that such trials are not conducted because they would be unethical. The speaker proposed a comparative study using the Vaccine Safety Data Link (VSD) to compare the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, assessing rates of cancer, diabetes, ADD/ADHD, autism, Tourette's, lupus, and leukemia. The speaker claims this study could be completed quickly, but alleges that NIH officials stated they would never conduct it. The speaker suggests that if vaccines were proven safe through such a study, concerns about vaccine safety would disappear. The speaker believes the study has been done, but the data was manipulated to make vaccinated people appear healthier.

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.

Many children and people are unvaccinated, but it's a small percentage as most of us blindly follow vaccination recommendations. The Amish community is a large group that is largely unvaccinated, yet it's very rare to find an autistic or chronically ill child among them. The US government has been studying the Amish for decades, but there's no public report because it would reveal that not following vaccination guidelines leads to better health. This would expose the CDC's harm to the public for years without disclosure.

Big problem with trusting the science is not the science part, it's who's behind the science part, primarily in the area of vaccines for children. Normally, when you study a drug, you compare it with a placebo, so that way you can truly test the side effects on something, but that is not how they test children's vaccines. This so called placebo control is not really a true placebo control because it's not inert. It's an active vaccine with something called an adjuvant. The big one that they've been using for a long time is aluminum. My question is, how can you really truly test the safety and effectiveness of something if you're looking at the relative safety of an active vaccine to another active vaccine with adjuvants. That just muddies the water to this whole safe and effective claim that you keep hearing over and over and over.

The speaker discusses the issue of unvaccinated individuals and the lack of studies conducted by the government. They argue that giving the vaccine to everyone absolves the government of understanding its effects. However, they found studies in plain sight that compared vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Over 100 such studies are featured in the book, with very few coming from the federal government. The FDA claims it is not their job to conduct these studies, but the problem lies in the funding of studies by those who stand to profit from the products. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) should be evaluating the risks associated with vaccines, especially when given together, but they have been negligent in doing so. The speaker suggests that vaccines should undergo placebo-controlled trials like other drugs.

"The myth of vaccines that, a, they are safe and, b, they are necessary and that they eradicated childhood disease, that is a myth." "They've never been tested for safety." "There are no placebo controlled trials." "They always put in the control group the immunogens that's in the vaccines." "That those adjuvants, whether it be aluminum or other substances, those by themselves are dangerous." "they refused to do a true placebo controlled trial like with saline." "they almost all were nearly eradicated before the introduction of the vaccine." "That is not true." "It's reproducible, occurs at two months, four months, and six months." "And most of those deaths are within either days to a couple of weeks of the vaccine."

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 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.

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.