reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The discussion centers around the experiences of Brienne Dresen and Kyle Warner, both of whom suffered severe neurological complications after receiving COVID-19 vaccines. Brienne participated in the AstraZeneca clinical trial, believing in the vaccine's efficacy due to her family's medical background. Shortly after her vaccination, she experienced debilitating symptoms, including tingling, blurred vision, and eventually loss of mobility, leading to a diagnosis of a neurological condition. Despite her advocacy and efforts to seek help, she faced significant challenges in receiving support from AstraZeneca and the government. Brienne's story gained public attention through an ABC interview that garnered millions of views, prompting the formation of React 19, an organization for vaccine-injured individuals. The conversation highlights the lack of accountability for pharmaceutical companies and the government's role in shielding them from lawsuits through the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act). This legislation has created barriers for those seeking compensation for vaccine-related injuries, with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) proving inadequate, as evidenced by its low payout rates. Kyle shares his own experience with vaccine injury, emphasizing the need for more awareness and support for those affected. Both advocates stress the importance of holding pharmaceutical companies accountable and the necessity of reforming the compensation system for vaccine injuries. They call for grassroots support to push for legislative changes and to ensure that the voices of the injured are heard. The discussion also touches on the broader implications of vaccine injuries and the potential for future public health crises if accountability is not established. The hosts encourage viewers to engage with the issues presented and support organizations like React 19 to help those affected by vaccine injuries.

Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show. On this Veterans Day, we discuss the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, which has garnered national attention. Rittenhouse, now 18, is accused of murdering two people and injuring another during a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, following the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Rittenhouse claims he went to Kenosha to protect the city from riots and was acting in self-defense when he shot three men. The media has portrayed Rittenhouse as a vigilante and domestic terrorist, ignoring evidence supporting his self-defense claim. His former lawyer announced plans for libel lawsuits against the media. The trial, which began on November 2, has been challenging for the prosecution, which must disprove Rittenhouse's self-defense argument. The prosecution alleges Rittenhouse provoked the attacks by unlawfully carrying a firearm, a claim that raises questions about Wisconsin law regarding provocation. Rittenhouse shot Joseph Rosenbaum, who was pursuing him and allegedly attempted to grab his gun. Rittenhouse testified he acted in self-defense, fearing for his life. Witnesses corroborated his account, noting Rosenbaum's aggressive behavior. Following this, Rittenhouse was chased by an angry mob, during which he shot Anthony Huber, who attacked him with a skateboard, and Gage Grosskreutz, who pointed a gun at him. The prosecution's case has been criticized for its handling of evidence and questioning techniques, leading to doubts about their credibility. Rittenhouse's emotional testimony humanized him, contrasting with the media's portrayal. The prosecution's missteps have led to discussions about a potential mistrial, with the defense seeking to dismiss the case with prejudice. The judge has expressed frustration with the prosecution's conduct, particularly regarding comments on Rittenhouse's right to remain silent and attempts to introduce inadmissible evidence. Accusations of racism against the judge have emerged, stemming from his rulings on terminology used in the trial. The judge's long-standing practice of not allowing the term "victim" to describe the deceased has sparked controversy. In a separate segment, Megan Kelly interviews Brian Dressen, whose wife suffered severe adverse effects after participating in an AstraZeneca vaccine trial. Despite her injuries, her case was not included in the trial results. Dressen highlights the lack of support from health authorities and the challenges faced by those experiencing vaccine-related injuries. He emphasizes the need for informed consent and transparency regarding vaccine risks, particularly for children. Dr. Michael Mina joins to discuss the importance of testing and new therapeutics in managing COVID-19, advocating for increased accessibility to rapid tests and the potential for at-home treatments.

This episode of Keeping It Real with Jillian Michaels centers on Brienne Dressen’s harrowing experience as a participant in the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine trial and the broader system she says failed vaccine-injured individuals. Dressen describes an immediate post-vaccine neurotoxic cascade—tingling, vision and sound sensitivity, and chronic neuropathy—that upended her life as a preschool teacher and mother. She recalls signing a contract that guaranteed the drug company would cover medical expenses for injuries, only to encounter silence and inaction when symptoms emerged. The conversation expands to systemic issues: the blanket immunity granted to vaccine manufacturers, the government’s compensation programs with high denial rates, and the lack of due process for injured individuals. Dressen notes that while AstraZeneca left the U.S. market after injuries were reported, mRNA vaccines remained, and she questions why, in her view, the market and regulatory protections favor pharmaceutical interests over patient safety. The episode delves into government and industry dynamics, including NIH investigations into vaccine adverse events, perceived censorship, and the role of the PREP Act in shielding manufacturers and government actors during emergencies. topics':['Vaccine injuries and clinical trial experience','AstraZeneca vaccine and non-mRNA technology','NIH and FDA responses to adverse events','PREP Act and liability protections','Vaccine injury compensation programs and denial rates','Advocacy groups and the React19 nonprofit','Book and publishing plans with Skyhorse','Media coverage and censorship around vaccine injuries','Political dimensions of vaccine policy and bipartisan engagement'], otherTopics':['Constitutional rights and due process in vaccine injury cases','Censorship and social media dynamics during vaccine debates','Family and community impact of vaccine injuries','Alternative therapies and neurotoxic spike protein hypothesis','Global differences in vaccine uptake and regulation'], booksMentioned':['Skyhorse–publisher of Dressen’s forthcoming book on her journey','Brienne Dressen’s untitled journey book (Skyhorse)']

Megyn Kelly discusses the CDC's recent recommendation to add the COVID vaccine to the list of mandatory vaccinations for children attending school, expressing outrage over the potential risks associated with the vaccine, particularly myocarditis in young people. She cites Dr. Vinay Prasad, who notes that the risk of myocarditis for those aged 16 to 24 is about one in three thousand, with some studies suggesting even higher rates. A Thai study showed that nearly 30% of vaccinated adolescents developed cardiac abnormalities shortly after vaccination, raising concerns about the safety of these vaccines for children. Kelly highlights that while vaccine proponents argue that most myocarditis cases are mild, there is significant debate within the medical community about the implications of any myocarditis, even mild cases. She emphasizes that many cases are subclinical, meaning children may not exhibit symptoms but could still suffer from heart issues. Kelly questions the media's lack of coverage on these adverse effects and criticizes the CDC for potentially mandating a vaccine that may not be necessary for healthy children, especially given the low risk of severe COVID in this demographic. She shares alarming anecdotes of young individuals who died post-vaccination, including a 24-year-old college student in New York and a 20-year-old nursing student in Kansas, both of whom experienced cardiac issues believed to be linked to the vaccine. Kelly argues that the CDC's decision could undermine trust in public health recommendations and lead to fewer parents vaccinating their children against other diseases like measles, mumps, and rubella. Mary Katharine Ham joins the discussion, agreeing that the CDC's recommendation is misguided and that the risks of COVID have been exaggerated for children. She expresses concern that the focus on COVID vaccination could detract from the importance of traditional vaccines. Ham also points out the broken trust between parents and public health officials, exacerbated by the pandemic's handling. John Crist, a comedian, later joins the show, discussing his experiences with cancel culture and how it has shaped his career. He reflects on the challenges of being a public figure and the importance of accountability, humor, and resilience in navigating the complexities of modern society. Crist emphasizes the need for comedians to address societal issues through satire, highlighting the absurdities of contemporary culture.