reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims the vaccine saved hundreds of thousands of lives but acknowledges side effects and breakthrough infections. The speaker argues that the vaccine was claimed to stop transmission and infection, but it did not. An argument ensues with someone who disagrees, with accusations of being crazy and shutting up. The speaker denies using ad hominem attacks.

The speaker believes cooperation with companies developing vaccine technology should be outlawed due to "nefarious intent" and financial incentives. They claim the pharmaceutical industry profits from vaccine-induced adverse outcomes, leading to costly medical treatments and prescriptions. Vaccines are described as an "economic loss leader" for the medical-industrial complex. Healthy, unvaccinated children don't generate revenue, while vaccines can lead to health issues like asthma, allergies, ADD/ADHD, diabetes, and cancer. The speaker compares vaccines to a free gift that lures people into purchasing more expensive products or services. They argue that "free" vaccines can cost individuals their health, citing potential side effects like Guillain-Barré syndrome, transverse myelitis, encephalitis, and neurological issues, as well as turbo cancers, respiratory problems, and myocarditis. A forthcoming study will allegedly reveal a significant number of deaths from chronic renal disease linked to vaccines. The speaker concludes that the pharmaceutical industry fiercely defends the vaccine schedule because it drives their profits, especially with the advent of mRNA technology.

A speaker recounts asking a TV doctor why they don't give their baby shots, and the doctor responded that babies are too small to absorb the toxins and rely on their mother's breast milk for an external immune system. The speaker contrasts the current vaccine schedule of 72 doses of 16 different vaccines before age six with the 3 shots they received as a child. The speakers acknowledge that discussing vaccines on YouTube may lead to censorship. One speaker mentions a friend involved in the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Act, which allegedly ruled vaccines are unavoidably unsafe. They argue that mandating vaccines infringes on bodily autonomy and freedom of choice, and that without the freedom to avoid risks, there is tyranny.

In this controversial video, the speaker highlights past medical controversies, such as doctors promoting cigarettes and initially rejecting handwashing. They emphasize the importance of using common sense and challenging anything that goes against personal values. The speaker also mentions the ongoing opioid pandemic and urges viewers to stand up for their civil liberties.

The speakers discuss the need for public awareness about the benefits and risks of vaccines. They question the effectiveness of vaccines in eradicating diseases like polio and suggest that autoimmune diseases may be caused by immunizations. They mention the difficulty in getting responses from organizations regarding adverse reactions to vaccines. One speaker expresses frustration about having to fight for the choice not to vaccinate their children. They also mention the different vaccination requirements in certain states. The video ends with a mention of returning after a break.

The video emphasizes the responsibility of the unvaccinated, urging them to get vaccinated for the greater good. It criticizes their choices, suggesting they should be shamed and taxed. The speakers express frustration with those who spread misinformation and refuse vaccines, highlighting the strain on healthcare systems. The vaccinated are portrayed as victims of the unvaccinated's actions, with calls for stricter measures to address the issue.

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.

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.

The video features various speakers expressing their frustration and blame towards the unvaccinated. They argue that the unvaccinated are the problem and should be shamed for their choices. The vaccinated are being asked to wear masks to protect the unvaccinated, which is seen as a moral obligation. Some speakers believe that mandatory vaccination is necessary, while others criticize the unvaccinated for endangering lives and being ignorant. There is a call for the unvaccinated to be taxed and treated similarly to drunk drivers. The video concludes with the assertion that every COVID death could have been prevented if everyone had been vaccinated.

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.

The speaker addresses criticism received regarding a previous discussion on healthcare. They clarify that they are not a germ theory denier and understand the theory of inoculation. However, they express concerns about the risks and long-term effects of vaccines, citing ingredients like aluminum, insect repellent, formaldehyde, and mercury listed on the CDC website. The speaker questions the definition of good health and argues for a debate on the topic. They mention the importance of considering medical errors, prescription drugs, and profit motives in healthcare. The conversation ends with a mention of the seriousness of the swine flu and the efforts being made to develop vaccines.

The speakers in the video express frustration and blame towards the unvaccinated population for the spread of COVID-19. They argue that the unvaccinated should be shamed and held responsible for the consequences of their actions. Some suggest implementing mandatory vaccinations and higher healthcare costs for the unvaccinated. They criticize those who spread misinformation and emphasize that the majority of COVID-19 deaths are among the unvaccinated. The video highlights the need for collective responsibility and urges people to prioritize the greater good of society.

A nurse injured by the COVID vaccine has spent the last four years building a community of vaccine-injured people. She asks others to join her in taking down "these criminals." Another individual states they will fight for the cause for life, even if they have to do so from a wheelchair, as they currently cannot stand for more than a minute without convulsions. They want to help people of their generation, who they believe are heavily influenced by the media, understand that things can go wrong. They feel obligated to speak up and will never back down.

Laura Logan hosts a discussion with Dr. Sherri Tenpenny on vaccines, public health policy, and what they see as failures and harms within the system. The conversation weaves together personal history, policy details, scientific debates, and broader social concerns, intercut with promotional content for GiveSendGo. Key points and claims raised by Dr. Tenpenny - Vaccine ingredients and aluminum exposure: Tenpenny asserts that if someone receives every vaccine on the schedule, they would be injected with a total of about twelve thousand micrograms of aluminum, which she says is inflammatory to every organ system and can be stored in bones (60% of aluminum exposure). She notes aluminum is present in vaccines in order to replace mercury, which she describes as also a poison. - Early vaccine industry liability and the 1986 Act: The discussion explains that prior to 1986 there were liability concerns for vaccine makers due to injury lawsuits. Tenpenny recounts that in 1986 Congress passed a law giving the pharmaceutical industry liability immunity for vaccines, creating what she describes as a ramp in the vaccine schedule. She cites that by 1991 additional vaccines were introduced (Hep B at birth, Hib, chickenpox, Prevnar, Gardasil, Hep A, and more) and alleges this resulted in a rising autism incidence aligned with new vaccines. - The vaccine injury system: Tenpenny explains the Injury Compensation Act and the existence of VAERS as a tracking system, along with a separate pathway created under the PREP Act (the Preparedness and Readiness Act). She states that during the COVID era a separate program, the Covered Countermeasure Program (CICP), existed under the PREP Act, but it had no funding and a one-year statute of limitations, leading to under-compensation and very few adjudicated cases; she contrasts this with the earlier 1986 act, which funded vaccine injury compensation through the Federal Court of Claims and VAERS. - Perceived safety and effectiveness concerns: The speakers discuss studies suggesting that the flu shot might not prevent flu and that some studies indicate vaccines including pneumonia vaccines may be associated with higher risk of the conditions they aim to prevent. Tenpenny frames this as evidence of cracks in the vaccine program and argues that vaccines are linked to a broad spectrum of health issues, including autoimmune diseases, infertility, and cancers, which she says have been increasing. - Pediatric vaccination schedule and “pediatric poisoning program”: Tenpenny asserts that infants receive multiple injections early in life, with claims that by age two they will have thousands of micrograms of aluminum and other compounds that remain in the body, including in the brain. She characterizes the pediatric schedule as a systematic poisoning program for children and a parallel “adult assault program” for adults receiving vaccines. - COVID-19 vaccine controversy and health impacts: The conversation covers the COVID vaccines, including assertions about adverse effects such as myocarditis, strokes, kidney injury, autoimmune diseases, neurological issues, and cancers. Tenpenny describes long-term concerns (long COVID, autoimmune diseases) and claims of widespread injury and death, contending that the pandemic revealed how the health-care and pharmaceutical systems operate, including alleged corruption and profit motives. She discusses the difficult experiences of families during the pandemic, including restrictions on care and the use of alternate treatments like ivermectin in some cases. - The claim that COVID vaccines were not properly evaluated and that mandated vaccination reflected coercion: The speakers discuss mandates and the experiences of individuals in workplaces and educational institutions who faced pressure to receive vaccines, including religious exemptions and disputes about mandates. Tenpenny suggests a broader pattern of overreach in public health policy and questions about the balance between individual rights and mandates. - History and philosophy of public health programs: They discuss the Healthy People initiatives, arguing that the program’s goals have expanded in scope (from 15 goals to 1,200 for Healthy People 2030) and that the expansion is associated with greater surveillance and control over personal lives. Tenpenny claims that this is part of a broader trend toward data collection and governance of individual health and behavior. - The economics and incentives around vaccines: The conversation notes how physicians are compensated in part through vaccine administration, implying financial incentives influence clinical decisions. Tenpenny emphasizes the profit motive behind vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry’s financial interests, citing extreme examples like the one boy in a photo who allegedly became heavily medicated due to vaccines. - The role of media and information control: They discuss the influence of advertising in media since the 1990s and the difficulty of reporting critically on vaccines when major advertisers are pharmaceutical companies. They also mention AI and misinformation concerns, including examples of AI fabricating sources and the need to verify information. - Personal stakes, accountability, and political possibilities: Tenpenny discusses personal cost for challenging the vaccine paradigm, including an earlier period of potential licensing scrutiny and professional pushback. She names figures such as Fauci and Birx, argues that accountability has not yet occurred, and expresses hope that public interest in accountability could shift through advocacy and political leadership, citing RFK Jr. as a potential ally though acknowledging political and institutional obstacles. - Treatment and detoxification approaches: For those who have already received vaccines, Tenpenny outlines two separate tracks: detoxification for childhood vaccines and detox for COVID vaccines. For detox, she mentions products such as PureBody Extra (PBX), a zeolite-based supplement she says helps remove metals like aluminum and mercury from the body. She notes it is usable across age groups and even for pets, and she personally uses it. She also discusses non-specific detox approaches such as vitamin D optimization, lymphatic stimulation, exercise, and a diet focusing on avoiding white foods and reducing inflammation. She cautions that there is no proven blood or urine test to quantify spike protein after a COVID vaccine, and that detox strategies aim to support overall health rather than remove embedded spike protein from tissues. - The role of faith and resilience: The interview includes discussions of faith as a guiding force for Tenpenny, including her personal journey toward Christian faith in 2020. They reflect on fear, hope, forgiveness, and the idea that one can act with integrity and do the right thing even when faced with controversy or personal cost. They discuss existential questions about meaning, purpose, and moral responsibility, including the belief that life has a spiritual dimension that informs how to respond to public-health challenges. - Community and parenting: The conversation emphasizes the importance of community networks for new parents, including seeking mentorship from experienced parents and trusted health advocates, and maintaining parental agency in decisions about vaccines, medical interventions, and child-rearing. They discuss the value of critical thinking, asking questions, and avoiding blind trust in professionals or institutions. - Closing notes and resources: Tenpenny provides her websites and a Substack for ongoing information, including dr10penny.com, dr10penny.substack.com, and 10pennywalkwithgod.substack.com, as well as her X profile busy doctor t. The episode closes with a call to viewers to stay informed and to seek second opinions, while thanking the audience for supporting independent journalism. Overall, the dialogue centers on a critical, conspiratorial framing of vaccines, public-health policy, and the medical establishment; it weaves together testimonies about personal experience, policy history (notably the 1986 Act and the PREP Act), alleged systemic failures in compensation for vaccine injuries, criticisms of COVID-19 responses and vaccine mandates, and practical detoxification and faith-based guidance. The promotional content for GiveSendGo lightly interrupts the core discussion, but the majority of the exchange remains an extended argument about vaccine safety, accountability, and the perceived influence of big pharma on health care and public policy.

In this video, the speaker discusses the adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines and criticizes the lack of transparency and accountability in the vaccination process. They highlight the rise in serious health emergencies, the neglect of natural immunity, and the higher rate of adverse events compared to other vaccines. The speaker calls for the release of data on vaccine dosage, dates, and deaths, and expresses concern over the public's diminishing trust in health services, media, and politics. They also mention their personal sacrifices for speaking out against the vaccines and emphasize the need to challenge the powerful interests involved.

In this video, the speakers express their frustration with the unvaccinated population. They argue that the unvaccinated are the problem and should be blamed for the spread of COVID-19. The speakers believe that the vaccinated should wear masks to protect the unvaccinated, but they also criticize the unvaccinated for their behavior and lack of concern for others. They suggest that the unvaccinated should be taxed and pay more for healthcare. Some speakers compare the choice to remain unvaccinated to driving while intoxicated. They also discuss the strain on hospitals and express their preference for treating vaccinated individuals over unvaccinated individuals. The speakers emphasize that every COVID-19 death could have been prevented through vaccination. They condemn those spreading misinformation about vaccines.

In this video, the speaker discusses the presence of DNA fragments in COVID mRNA vaccines. They mention that while it has been proven in the laboratory, it hasn't been solidly proven in real-life human beings. The speaker criticizes certain individuals for not responding to their communications over the past two years. They also claim that the vaccine has caused a high number of deaths and injuries. The speaker suggests that people should be aware of the corruption in healthcare systems and recommends using products from a wellness company. The video concludes with a promotion for the wellness company's medical emergency kit.

In this video, various speakers express their frustration with the unvaccinated population. They argue that the unvaccinated are the problem and should be blamed for the spread of COVID-19. The vaccinated individuals feel that their freedom is being disturbed and that the unvaccinated are putting lives at risk. Some suggest mandatory vaccination and higher healthcare costs for the unvaccinated. The speakers emphasize the importance of getting vaccinated for the greater good of society and criticize those who spread misinformation. They also mention the consequences of remaining unvaccinated, comparing it to driving while intoxicated. The video concludes with a statement that the majority of COVID-19 deaths are among the unvaccinated.

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.

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

The speaker, a pharmacist's husband and father, regrets taking the COVID vaccine to attend his daughter's volleyball games. He claims his neurologists diagnosed him with Barth syndrome, vaccine-caused paralysis, and severe ataxia. He states he is not anti-vax, but believes dissenting opinions were censored and labeled misinformation during the COVID threat. He feels vulnerable people were fooled into believing false medical information and that vaccine policies lacked a medical basis. He believes forced vaccination led to his condition. He argues that individuals should have autonomy over their bodies, referencing the "my body, my choice" slogan used in abortion debates, and criticizes those who support both abortion rights and mandatory vaccinations.

The video consists of various speakers expressing their frustration and blame towards the unvaccinated population. They argue that the unvaccinated are the problem and should be shamed for their choices. The speakers emphasize the need to prioritize the greater good of society and suggest measures such as taxing the unvaccinated and treating their choice similarly to driving while intoxicated. They also highlight the consequences of not getting vaccinated, including preventable deaths and overwhelming hospitals. The video concludes with a call to stop spreading misinformation and a plea for empathy towards those affected by COVID-19.

The speaker asserts that fellow Americans are the biggest enemy and the unvaccinated cannot be trusted. They state that now is the time to do what you're told, and it's not about freedom or personal choice. The speaker expresses frustration, stating that the refusal to vaccinate has cost everyone. One speaker contrasts the treatment of a vaccinated person having a heart attack with an unvaccinated person who took "horse goo." The speaker claims the unvaccinated overcrowd hospitals, overrun emergency rooms and ICUs, leaving no room for others. They call the unvaccinated "schmucks" and claim this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated and their freedom.

The speaker discusses their experience as a nurse in New York during the COVID-19 pandemic. They express their shock at the lack of treatment and negligence towards patients, leading to unnecessary suffering and death. They also highlight the financial incentives for hospitals to admit COVID-19 patients and put them on ventilators. The speaker criticizes the lack of early treatment options and the focus on vaccines as the only solution. They raise concerns about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, citing reports of adverse effects and deaths. The speaker emphasizes the importance of informed consent and the need for further investigation into the vaccine's impact. They criticize the censorship and suppression of alternative viewpoints by social media platforms. The speaker concludes by urging people to wake up to the agenda being pushed and the changes happening in society.

The speaker finds it difficult to find someone who hasn't been damaged by the vaccine, and even senior consultant colleagues haven't connected their ailments to the vaccine. The speaker claims the vaccine causes autoimmune diseases, of which there are 131 types, all reportedly linked to the vaccine. Individually, these appear as coincidences, but collectively, a high percentage of vaccinated people suffer from one or more autoimmune conditions. The speaker is annoyed by their GP practice constantly pushing boosters, even knowing their views, suggesting they are incentivized by payment. The speaker believes that if the practice adhered to "first do no harm," they would refuse to administer the vaccines.