reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 states that individuals who want a vaccine should have access to it. However, they should also be informed about the vaccine's safety profile, risk profile, and efficacy. Speaker 0 affirms this position.

The discussion centers on the current coverage of the AstraZeneca vaccine and the assessment of safety concerns that have been in the news. The speaker states a firm personal position regarding the vaccine, emphasizing continued confidence in its safety and specifically asserting that there is, at this point, no evidence that the AstraZeneca vaccine causes blood clots. This assertion is presented as a clear conclusion based on available information. Further support for this position comes from official health authorities. The TGA (Therapeutic Goods Administration) is described as closely monitoring the situation. The speaker notes that the TGA has issued a statement on the matter, which conveys the same core message: while they are aware of the situation and have maintained close contact with European authorities, there is no link identified between the AstraZeneca vaccine and the reported blood clot cases as of now. The implication is that ongoing vigilance will continue, but current data do not indicate a causal relationship between the vaccine and blood clots. In addition to Australian authorities, the international response is cited to reinforce the stance. The World Health Organization (WHO) is reported as having issued a similar assessment overnight, aligning with the local authorities’ conclusion that there is no established connection between the AstraZeneca vaccine and the blood clot concerns at this time. The speaker highlights this international corroboration to underscore a consensus across different health governance levels. Within Australia, there is mention of a collaborative and unanimous position among key health bodies. The speaker references full alignment between themselves, the TGA, and the ATAGI group (the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation), describing a united front regarding the current understanding of the vaccine’s safety profile in relation to blood clots. The language used signals a coordinated stance aimed at reassuring the public while continuing to monitor developments. Overall, the message conveyed is that, based on current information from national and international health authorities, there is no evidence linking the AstraZeneca vaccine to blood clots. The authorities are actively monitoring the situation, maintaining vigilance for any new data, and reiterating a consistent conclusion that supports the vaccine’s safety profile in this context. This summary captures the emphasis on confidence, ongoing surveillance, and concordant assessments from the TGA, ATAGI, and the WHO.

The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine is safe and recommended by regulators. Over 11 million people have been vaccinated, showing it is safe and saving lives. It is important to get the jab when you have the chance to stay safe.

Mandating vaccines, like in France, is seen as a sensible approach to reopen. The Australian government compensates hundreds of citizens for COVID vaccine injuries. It is important for customers to know that store employees are vaccinated. COVID injuries include heart inflammation, damaged capillaries, and autoimmune disorders. News Corp supports mandating vaccines for its employees. Former Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Nick Coatsworth, suggests incentives or penalties for those who choose not to get vaccinated. He also emphasizes the need to assess compensation claims promptly. Currently, 1,000 individuals are awaiting approval for compensation. Mandating vaccines is considered a sensible approach.

The World Health Organization supports the use of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine despite some countries pausing vaccinations due to blood clot concerns. There is no proven link between the vaccine and blood clots. AstraZeneca admitted in court that its COVID vaccine can cause rare blood clotting side effects, leading to lawsuits in the UK.

Today, we discuss an inquiry in Australia that intentionally avoids discussing excess deaths. This COVID inquiry aims to maintain the status quo and not bring about significant changes. It is disheartening to see that 30 million vaccine doses are being wasted because of low demand. People are becoming more aware of the importance of vaccines, but there still needs to be further investigation into vaccine injuries and their causes. It is known that AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines have caused adverse effects, and since they do not prevent transmission or infection, it is not surprising that some people are hesitant to take them.

Two people recently died, and it is important to note that we are all responsible for our own health. Informed consent plays a crucial role in any treatment or procedure, and ultimately, individuals are responsible for their own health decisions. The government has provided opportunities for people to consult with their general practitioners and make informed decisions about their health. This is the kind of country we live in, where individuals have the freedom to make choices regarding their own health and bodies. As a result, mandatory vaccination is not enforced for the general population because people have the autonomy to make their own decisions.

Speaker 0: Take the shot and protect yourself and the people around you. We all feel a chill when we hear that. Mrs. van der Hof from the RIVM, you’ve researched the effects of vaccination. If you look under the line, has it had any usefulness? Speaker 1: It has certainly been useful. In fact, from our research, but also from many other studies, people who were vaccinated had a lower chance of dying from COVID, and we see that effect with every shot that’s given. We also studied whether there is a higher chance of dying from diseases other than COVID shortly after vaccination, to see whether there is vaccine harm, and we do not find that either, which is also in line with what is found internationally. Speaker 0: Okay, because that is the story you hear at the dinner table. Earlier this week someone said, I see so many people dying, there must be something. Speaker 1: Yes. Well, there are certainly people who have died due to the vaccination. We cannot deny that. That has been investigated; we find that in the Netherlands through Lareb, and we find that internationally as well. You just have to weigh the very small chance that you become ill or die from a vaccination against the chance that you become very ill or die from COVID. And the balance tips toward vaccination. Speaker 0: Yes, vaccination protects more than it harms, you just said. Also, have you studied the chance of death due to vaccination? Speaker 1: Well, we looked at people who were vaccinated and whether within 2 months after vaccination they had an increased chance of dying from anything other than COVID. If there were an indication there, we would see it, and we absolutely do not find that. Speaker 0: No, that is simply not found. Okay. Mrs. Van der Broek, and the pandemic was a priority.

Many Australians are struggling with the recent news about AstraZeneca. The speaker believes the government banned effective treatments to push vaccines. They criticize the handling of the pandemic and the impact on people's health. The speaker mentions cases of heart issues post-vaccination. They express sympathy for those who feel betrayed by trusting authorities with their health decisions.

In 2022, Australia had over 10 million COVID cases, with over half the country infected despite vaccination efforts. The excess deaths in 2021 were higher than expected, and there were over 140,000 reported vaccine injuries, three times higher than previous years. The TGA, responsible for monitoring vaccine injuries, ignores these signals. The head of the organization, Professor Skerritt, has a conflict of interest as it is funded by Big Pharma. The chief health officer, Professor Brendan Murphy, hadn't read the non-clinical report on the Pfizer vaccine and made incorrect statements about it. The law in Australia states that vaccination cannot be coerced and individuals must be properly informed about the vaccine's contents.

A professional standard for COVID-19 vaccination has been formulated, providing information on vaccine efficacy, possible side effects, and contraindications. It is emphasized that healthcare providers have the responsibility to verify if there are any circumstances that may pose a risk. The information aims to help individuals make informed choices. However, it is noted that the way this information is communicated may differ from individual healthcare providers. The responsibilities of healthcare providers and patients remain intact. In terms of liability, both the government and the vaccine producer claim they are not liable, and if someone disagrees, they can pursue legal action and it will be up to the court to determine liability.

Speaker 0 asks if Moderna puts any of its profits into helping people injured by the vaccine. Speaker 1 states that indemnities are a matter for the government and cannot comment further. Speaker 0 questions if Moderna is unwilling to underwrite the risk of its own vaccine and prioritize its safety. Speaker 1 reiterates that they take vaccine safety seriously and have a good pharmacovigilance process in place, but indemnities are a matter for policymakers. Speaker 0 asks about the moral responsibility of helping vaccine victims, to which Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 assuming the answer is zero.

Senator Roberts questions Minister Gallagher about the number of vaccines that have indemnity from the Australian government. Minister Gallagher explains that indemnity arrangements were put in place for vaccines procured during the pandemic to ensure the national vaccine rollout program could be carried out safely. Senator Roberts argues that with low demand for boosters and multiple vendors, the need for indemnities is unnecessary. He questions the government's motives for issuing new indemnities and accuses them of using taxpayer money for vaccine harm. Minister Gallagher defends the government's agreements with vaccine providers and emphasizes the importance of vaccination for public health. Senator Roberts continues to criticize the government's use of indemnities and accuses them of promoting experimental mRNA products.

The Australian government is accused of suppressing COVID vaccine adverse reactions and deaths. Excess deaths in 2022 are around 26,000, but no questions are being asked. Doctors are not reporting adverse effects or deaths, with only 14 deaths officially attributed to the vaccine out of over 1,000 reported. Doctors fear losing their livelihoods if they report accurately. The spike in deaths after COVID was attributed to the vaccine, leading to anger over the situation.

There is confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine, and there is no evidence that it causes blood clots. The TGA is closely monitoring the situation and released a statement saying that they do not see any link between the vaccine and blood clots. The TGA, ATAGI, and the speaker are in unanimous agreement that there is no link between AstraZeneca and blood clots. The World Health Organization also addressed the issue.

There are alarming signals in the Covid situation that are concerning for the health of our citizens. Many people have chosen to get vaccinated based on information from the government and doctors, believing they made an informed decision. However, informed consent is only possible if the information provided by member states and authorities is accurate. Unfortunately, when governments spread misinformation, doctors cannot give proper advice and people cannot make an informed choice. The timeframe for recording adverse effects after vaccination is flawed, as reactions usually occur within the first 14 days. This disregards the risks and side effects that may arise during this crucial period. The government's policies and media campaigns promoting Covid vaccinations fail to consider these risks. It is essential to address these concerns promptly to ensure informed consent and protect public health.

The AstraZeneca vaccine is safe and effective against Covid-19. It is recommended to get vaccinated with any available vaccine as they are all safe and effective. They not only protect against severe illness but also reduce the risk of spreading the virus to others. Looking back at the past year, we have made significant progress with three vaccines that are safe and effective. It is advised for everyone to get vaccinated against Covid-19 to effectively control the pandemic.

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.

Speaker 0 questions if anyone was forced to get vaccinated, specifically referring to a comment made by Dr. Kuat. Speaker 1 confirms that they made the comment and states their belief that nobody was forced to receive the vaccine. They explain that mandates and requirements are determined by governments and health authorities, and that individuals were given the choice to get vaccinated or not. Speaker 0 disagrees, suggesting that many Australians would disagree with Speaker 1's statement.

There are potential side effects in vaccinations, and some people have gotten very sick from them. However, I am not forcing anyone to get vaccinated. Instead, I am providing incentives and protections to encourage Canadians to get vaccinated.

The vaccine rollout in the UK effectively placed everyone in a Phase IV post-authorization trial, serving as real-world data. The government pre-paid AstraZeneca for vaccine supplies and indemnified pharmaceutical companies like Moderna and Pfizer against certain claims. Public messaging emphasized the necessity of vaccination, linking it to personal freedoms, travel, work, and family visits. Financial incentives were provided to healthcare providers to boost vaccination rates, potentially fostering a mindset that prioritized delivery at all costs. Urgent reform is needed, as the current system has failed to adequately support those injured or bereaved. Despite promises from past and present governments to review the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, no action has been taken four years after the initial vaccinations.

Senator Roberts questions Minister Gallagher about the number of vaccines that have indemnity from the Australian government. The minister explains that indemnity arrangements were put in place for vaccines procured during the pandemic to ensure the national vaccine rollout program could be carried out safely. Senator Roberts argues that with low demand for boosters and multiple vendors, the need for indemnities is unnecessary. He questions why new indemnities were issued recently. Minister Gallagher defends the government's agreements with vaccine providers and emphasizes the importance of vaccination. Senator Roberts accuses the government of using taxpayers' money and not being transparent about vaccine harm. He criticizes the indemnity agreement with Moderna and raises concerns about experimental mRNA products.

Regulators, including the MHRA, European regulator, and World Health Organization, have found that all three COVID-19 vaccines used in the UK are safe and effective, saving thousands of lives. The vaccine rollout is going well, and the safety system is working. The AstraZeneca vaccine is not recommended for those under 30, but alternatives will be offered to ensure safety. The vaccine has not been tested on children as their risk of significant harm from COVID-19 is low. All data and side effects are being transparently shared. Face masks are recommended in hospitals, care homes, and some other environments. Vaccination not only protects individuals but also reduces transmission and brings us closer to normalcy. The UK regulator is independent and not influenced by external pressure. Leaving the EU allowed the UK to make authorization decisions faster while maintaining safety checks.

Speaker 0: No compensation is available for people with legitimate vaccine injuries, as there is already a system in place through ACC for managing such cases. Speaker 1: However, many vaccine-injured individuals have been denied by ACC and are facing personal financial burdens for their treatment. The requirement of proving the injury is a high bar to meet. Speaker 2: It is not a high bar if a proper examination system is in place. If someone was fine before receiving the vaccine and experienced severe consequences afterward, it is likely caused by the vaccine. We should let an independent commissioner investigate the truth instead of arguing about it.

Australia's premiers faced criticism for their COVID-19 pandemic response, particularly regarding vaccine mandates, which some believe reduced vaccination motivation. There's a push for mandates similar to those in France to ensure public safety in stores and restaurants. The federal government is compensating Australians with vaccine-related injuries, including serious health issues. Despite evidence suggesting vaccines are crucial in combating the pandemic, concerns about side effects persist. Some argue that mandates lacked a solid basis, as they did not prevent transmission. The inquiry report criticized vaccine mandates, while others emphasize the need for widespread vaccination to reduce the virus's danger. Ultimately, accountability for past decisions remains elusive, with officials unlikely to admit mistakes.