reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The discussion around vaccines is often oversimplified, leading to distrust in government recommendations. For instance, the hepatitis B vaccine is given to newborns, despite the disease primarily spreading through drug use and sexual contact. This raises questions about the necessity of immediate vaccination. While vaccines are generally beneficial, there should be room for individual choice and discussion. The COVID vaccine presents similar complexities, especially regarding its necessity for healthy children. It’s crucial to have open debates about vaccine safety and efficacy, rather than adhering strictly to consensus. Science evolves, and we should remain open-minded about potential links between vaccines and conditions like autism and schizophrenia, as we still lack definitive answers. Ultimately, it’s about following the science without preconceived notions.

This is the current CDC recommendations for vaccines for children. On day number one, they get their first jab, a hepatitis vaccine. By the time they're 18, they've had 18 jabs. By the time they get to build up to vote, they have 76 jabs. Speaker 0 discusses vaccines and a timeline from birth to adulthood milestones. These lines illustrate a staged vaccination pattern culminating in 76 jabs. However, the transcript includes no further detail about the vaccines, dosing intervals, or specific ages beyond 18. The overall message emphasizes a count of injections rather than the nature of each vaccine.

“Day one of birth.” “they get one on day one of birth, they get another one a month later, they get another six months later.” It’s a “captive audience.” “How many babies are gonna be IV drug abusers or go out and have unprotected sex or get a blood transfusion from somebody who’s infected?” They claim “mom could have had hepatitis B” and that “mom was tested for hepatitis during her pregnancy,” so doctors would have known and could have “either treat it or do something about it or maybe prophylax the baby.” They ask, “Why would pediatricians go along with that? … money.” They warn, “If they’re giving infants treatment that the infant doesn’t need that has potentially harmful consequences and they’re doing it for money, then they’re criminals.” “there’s two hepatitis B vaccines that are in use.” They ask, “What the long term the follow-up study on those two hepatitis B vaccines is? No. Four days for one, five days for the other.” “Where’s the longitudinal study?” “They haven’t done it.” “That’s the vaccine industry.”

A child born in a US hospital receives pharmaceutical interventions, like erythromycin ointment and a hepatitis B vaccine, without informed consent. The ointment prevents chlamydial infections, though mothers are tested for chlamydia. The hepatitis B vaccine is for a sexually transmitted/IV drug user disease, which babies are not exposed to. There is a huge economic incentive to get more vaccines on the schedule because the government pays hundreds of millions of dollars for mandated products. Once approved, these vaccines are paid for everyone, and questioning them is discouraged by trusted institutions. YouTube will censor and demonetize videos that show skepticism of vaccine efficacy or need, even without directly attacking vaccines.

Dr. Menares and an interlocutor debate the science behind pediatric COVID vaccination and routine immunizations, focusing on transmission, hospitalization, and risk. - The interlocutor asks whether the COVID vaccine prevents transmission. Speaker 1 answer: the vaccine can reduce viral load in individuals who are infected, and with reduced viral load, there is reduced transmission. The interlocutor reframes, insisting that the vaccine does not prevent transmission and notes decreasing effectiveness over time, citing Omicron data showing around 16% reduction when there is a reduction. - On hospitalization for children 18 and under: Speaker 0 asserts the vaccine does not reduce hospitalization for 18-year-olds; statistics are inconclusive due to small numbers of hospitalizations in that age group (approximately 76 million people aged 18 in the country, with 183 deaths and a few thousand hospitalizations in 2020–2021; numbers have since dropped). The argument emphasizes a need to discuss the issue. - On death for children 18 and under: Speaker 0 says the vaccine does not reduce the death rate; claims there is no statistical evidence that it reduces deaths. Speaker 1 responds with a more cautious stance: “It can,” but Speaker 0 counters, calling that an insufficient answer. - The discussion references the vaccine approval process and ongoing debates in vaccine committees. The interlocutor states that when the vaccine was approved for six months and older, the discussion acknowledged no proof of reduction in hospitalization or death. The argument asserts that the justification for vaccination is based on antibody generation rather than clear hospitalization/death data. The interlocutor contends that immunology measurements (antibody production) do not necessarily justify vaccination frequency. - The core debate centers on what the science supports for vaccinating six-month-olds and the benefits versus risks. The interlocutor argues there is no hospitalization or death benefit for vaccination in this age group, and notes a known risk of myocarditis in younger populations, estimated somewhere between six and ten per ten thousand, which the interlocutor claims is greater than the risk of hospitalization or death being measurable. - The exchange then shifts to changing the childhood vaccine schedule, particularly the hepatitis B vaccine given to newborns when the mother is not hepatitis B positive. The interlocutor asks for the medical or scientific reason to give a hepatitis B vaccine to a newborn with an uninfected mother, arguing that the discussion should focus on whether to change the schedule rather than declaring all vaccines as good or bad. - Speaker 1 says they agreed with considering the science and would not pre-commit to approving all ACIP recommendations without the science. Speaker 0 disagrees, asserting their position that the debate should center on the medical rationale for these specific vaccines and schedules, not on a blanket endorsement of vaccines. - Throughout, the dialogue emphasizes examining the medical reasons and evidence for specific vaccines and schedules, rather than broad generalizations about vaccines.

ACE has never turned away a single vaccine, even for diseases that are not casually contagious. The hepatitis B vaccine is recommended for babies when they're an hour old, despite the fact that it's transmitted through sexual contact or shared needles. While maternal transmission is possible, every mother is tested, so we know who is vulnerable. The speaker claims the risk to a one-day-old baby is one in seven million, and that financial incentives are a factor. Many of the targeted diseases' vaccines don't prevent transmission, making mandates questionable. Vaccines can cause chronic injuries that last a lifetime.

Hepatitis B is contracted through sexual activity and IV drug use. The speaker believes babies do not need the hepatitis B vaccine. The hepatitis B vaccine contains 250 micrograms of aluminum. The speaker states that after Thimerosal was removed from vaccines, the hepatitis B vaccine was moved from being given to teenagers to newborns. The speaker claims the amount of aluminum in the vaccine is five times the adult daily maximum.

RFK Jr. claims babies don't need hepatitis B vaccine due to low risk of exposure. However, CDC data shows infants can contract it from infected mothers. Testing for hepatitis B in mothers is not foolproof, leading to some cases being missed. The virus can also survive on surfaces, posing a risk to babies. Vaccination is necessary to fill gaps in prevention methods and protect infants from lifelong infection.

Day one of birth. They get one on day one, another a month later, another six months later: 'They get one on day one of birth, they get another one a month later, they get another one six months later.' 'That's because it's a captive audience. That's the only reason.' He questions the rationale: 'How many babies are gonna be IV drug abusers or get a blood transfusion from somebody who's infected?' He argues mom 'was tested for hepatitis during her pregnancy,' and that if they had hepatitis B, doctors would know and 'could ... prophylax the baby.' He asks, 'Why would pediatricians go along with that? ... money.' He contends: 'If they're giving infants treatment that the infant doesn't need ... they're criminals.' He notes 'two hepatitis B vaccines' are in use, with 'Four days for one, five days for the other' follow-up, and asks, 'Where's the longitudinal study? ... They haven't done it. ... That's the vaccine industry.'

Speaker 0 notes the world population is 6.8 billion and is headed up to about 9 billion. He says if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, and reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15%. Speaker 1 responds with the question: common sense would tell you that if a man standing in front of you says he's gonna reduce the world's population by 10–15% using vaccines, what does that mean to you? He explains that means somebody's going to die because you put a vaccine in them, and it doesn't mean you're going to save people. He says that’s common sense, but he saw him say it, and now he’s here; he says, "I’m now an anti vaxxer I wasn't before."

The speaker argues that vaccines should be administered in smaller doses over several years: "when you go for the shot, you do it over a five time period. Take it over five times or four times, but you take it in smaller doses and you spread it out over a period of years." They describe the process as "they pump so much stuff into those beautiful little babies, it's a disgrace" and say, "they pump it looks like they're pumping into a horse." They claim, "you have a little child, little fragile child, and you get a a vat of 80 different vaccines, I guess, 80 different blends, and they pump it in." The speaker further states, "ideally, a woman won't take Tylenol." And suggests, "instead of one visit where they pump the baby, load it up with stuff. You'll do it over a period of four times or five times."

The speaker advocates for stopping all pregnancy vaccines and hepatitis B vaccines at birth, citing a lack of herd immunity from flu, pertussis, and COVID shots. They claim that repeated pertussis vaccinations lead to IgG4 production, causing immune system unresponsiveness. They attribute resurgences of diseases like measles to the failure of vaccines and the decline of naturally immune individuals. They suggest the measles vaccine should not be continued after eradication due to non-specific effects. The speaker also calls for halting Gardasil/HPV vaccines to reduce harm to teenagers. They express frustration with the current state of vaccine recommendations, viewing even minor concessions as insufficient. They propose a controlled reduction in vaccinations, suggesting tetanus vaccines be elective for older children. The speaker identifies as an "anti-vaxxer" due to their knowledge of immunology and disease management, but remains open to discussion with those who choose to vaccinate.

The discussion questions whether SIDS is “vaccine death,” asserting that 75% of all SIDS deaths occurred within seven days of a vaccination. It references a “Polio, forty eight hour safety review trial,” described as “forty eight hours, two days,” and connects this to President Roosevelt, described as famous for having polio in a wheelchair. The speaker claims Roosevelt “had transverse myelitis” and then answers a challenge: “No way. Didn’t have polio,” adding “How can you sit here and say doctors don’t know anything about vaccines?” The response continues by arguing that doctors do not have adequate education about vaccines, stating that “a doctor is lucky if they have a half a day education on vaccines.” The speaker further says, “I have yet to find a pediatrician that can list the ingredients of any vaccines.” The argument then escalates into the claim that “They don’t know anything at all,” emphasizing certainty about doctors’ knowledge of vaccines. The speaker claims “99.5 of our children are getting a product that was tested for five days,” and states that this product is tested “for a disease they will not come in contact with until they’re an adult.” The speaker adds that, “hopefully never,” children will face situations the speaker associates with infection risk, describing those situations as “sharing heroin needles or sleeping with prostitutes.” The overall message frames the topic as revealing wrongdoing, saying, “I do believe when people see the truth on this, it will reveal everything that’s corrupt about the world that you live in.”

The childhood vaccine schedule is managed by a vaccine advisory group with CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics representation. Changes would come to my desk for review, but this committee is very influential in vaccine policy. Regarding the hepatitis B vaccine, I'm surprised it's given to day-old babies based on limited safety data from a study with only a five-day review period and no placebo group. The FDA likely extrapolated adult data, but I don't think this establishes safety for newborns. I would prefer to see this vaccine given to older children. I disagree with the heavy-handed approach to vaccines, as it increases hesitancy and distrust. Doctors should educate, not badger or threaten, people about vaccines. I'm not a big advocate for one-year-olds getting the hepatitis B vaccine unless the mother is hepatitis B positive and the baby is at high risk.

A newborn in the US receives pharmaceutical interventions, including erythromycin ointment and the hepatitis B vaccine, despite limited informed consent. The Hep B vaccine targets a sexually transmitted and IV drug user disease, which babies are not exposed to. The rationale for administering the vaccine on the first day of life is questioned, considering that newborns are unlikely to contract Hep B through sex or intravenous needles. When questioned, doctors claim American patients are too stupid to remember to get the vaccine later. Another justification is that a child at daycare could trip over a needle with hepatitis B on it. However, there has never been a documented case of hepatitis B transmission outside of intravenous needles or sex. Therefore, there is no valid reason to administer the vaccine to newborns.

The program examines a heated controversy surrounding the hepatitis B vaccine, which is required for schoolchildren in many states and is administered routinely to millions of babies each year. Proponents describe vaccines as highly effective and safe, while opponents argue that the vaccine can trigger serious and mysterious illnesses or death in certain individuals. The report notes that hepatitis B is transmitted through infected blood or bodily fluids (similar to AIDS) and can be passed from infected mothers to their children. It is described as a life-threatening, potentially fatal disease of the liver, with four to five thousand Americans dying annually and worldwide about 200 million chronically infected. In the United States, more than 200,000 new cases occur yearly. Initially, the CDC adopted a broad vaccination policy, starting with health care workers at risk, but soon expanded to newborns nationwide despite the relatively small risk of infection in young children. The stated public health rationale was to prevent infection in the 20,000 children per year who might become infected in the first five years of life, in addition to the 6,000–7,000 infants infected at birth. However, from near the outset, some individuals reported serious adverse events after vaccination. Anecdotal reports include a Navy flight surgeon, Doctor Deborah Eggles, who describes abnormal brain scans, spinal fluid, and blood tests following vaccination, as well as a spectrum of severe symptoms reported by several other patients. Some families have filed lawsuits against vaccine makers and received settlements, though manufacturers argue there is no proven link between the vaccine and these illnesses. Federal package inserts acknowledge rare but serious adverse experiences after vaccination, including multiple sclerosis, arthritis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and lupus. Medical experts featured present divergent views. Doctor Harold Margolis of the CDC explains the argument for vaccination, citing the risk of hepatitis B infection without vaccination and the need to prevent disease, even if adverse events occur in a small minority. Academic and industry voices, including Doctor Bonnie Dunbar and Doctor Robert Schirar of Merck, acknowledge that some individuals may have adverse reactions but maintain that vaccines are highly effective and safe, and that many people are better off vaccinated than exposed to the natural disease. The film highlights cases where the vaccine is suspected to have caused severe outcomes. Ronnie Allen, once a healthy preschooler, developed a life-threatening arthritis after the hepatitis B shot and underwent chemotherapy multiple times; his doctor suspects a vaccine trigger. Other cases cited include three-day-old Ben Converse with seizures, Nikki Sexton who died of heart failure three days after vaccination, and Lila Belkin who died shortly after receiving a first shot. Pathologists and families suggest vaccine links in these deaths, though statistical analyses indicate such newborn fatalities are extremely rare among millions vaccinated since 1991. The program also covers policy and civil liberty questions: should vaccination be mandatory for school attendance, or should parents have the right to exemptions? Some families, like the Saturns of Wyoming, faced expulsion from school after refusing the shot, illustrating the tension between public health policy and parental rights. Public opinion in the piece leans toward parental choice, with calls to place decision-making back in the hands of families rather than authorities. The narrative ends with ongoing uncertainty about long-term outcomes and the possible consequences of airing such controversy.

After 1989, the U.S. administers twice as many vaccines as other Western countries. Parents should educate themselves on vaccine choices, questioning the necessity of certain shots like the hepatitis B vaccine at birth. There is concern that public health officials may not always prioritize individuals' best interests. The speaker questions why doctors wouldn't want to learn more about life-saving vaccines, suggesting financial ties between pharmaceutical companies and medical institutions influence vaccine promotion. Advocating for children's well-being may clash with the profit-driven pharmaceutical industry.

"There is not one longitudinal safety study on hepatitis b against unvaccinated kids versus vaccinated kids, inert placebo, does not exist." "The two studies that are cited most often, one is for MMR." "Hep B is not involved." "They're like, we did a huge study about this. No autism." "And I'm not suggesting there's a link. I'm simply saying that huge study is only MMR." "The other study they love to talk about involves thimerosal." "Not everything else about the hepatitis B vaccine." "There the there the reality is it's not settled science. Just it's okay." "Vaccines have like, we could but to even say that, anti vaxxer."

The discussion centers on the claim that SIDS is a “vaccine death.” It states that seventy five percent of all deaths from SIDS happened within seven days of a vaccination. The conversation then shifts to polio. It references “Polio, forty eight hour safety review trial” and says the safety review lasted “forty eight hours, two days.” It also brings up President Roosevelt, described as “famous for having polio in the wheelchair,” and adds that he “had transverse myelitis.” A response rejects the polio framing: “No way. Didn’t have polio.” The speaker disputes trust in doctors’ knowledge of vaccines, saying, “How can you sit here and say doctors don’t know anything about vaccines?” Another claim follows that “a doctor is lucky if they have a half a day education on vaccines,” and that “I have yet to find a pediatrician that can list the ingredients of any vaccines.” The speaker further asserts, “They don’t know anything at all.” A broader argument is made about vaccine testing and timing for children. The speaker claims that “99.5 of our children are getting a product that was tested for five days” and says this product was tested “for a disease they will not come in contact with until they’re an adult.” The speaker adds “and hopefully never,” linking this to a belief about later behavior: “if they were raised correctly, will find themselves sharing heroin needles or sleeping with prostitutes.” The conclusion of the argument is presented as a belief that uncovering these “truth” points will expose broader wrongdoing: “I do believe when people see the truth on this, it will reveal everything that’s corrupt about the world that you live in.”

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.

A child born in a U.S. hospital is immediately subjected to pharmaceutical interventions, including Erythromycin ointment and a hepatitis B vaccine, often without informed consent. The hepatitis B vaccine targets a sexually transmitted disease and IV drug use, which newborns are not at risk for. It's questioned why infants are vaccinated for conditions they are unlikely to encounter. The rationale provided by some doctors includes the notion that parents might forget or that a child could encounter a contaminated needle, despite no historical evidence supporting such transmission outside of the known routes. Thus, there seems to be no valid reason for administering this vaccine on the first day of life.

The vaccine discussion is overly simplified. People distrust the government because they recommend a Hepatitis B vaccine for one-day-old infants, despite it being contracted through drug use and sexual transmission. I believe in vaccines, but not a one-size-fits-all approach. I delayed my children's Hepatitis B vaccine until they started school. On the COVID vaccine, there's a huge difference in risk between the elderly and children. The science doesn't support mandating it for healthy six-month-olds. For those over 65 or with risk factors, the vaccine was advisable. We should openly debate these issues. There isn't any clear scientific evidence about what causes autism, so shouldn't we keep an open mind about potential causes like vaccines? We need to follow the science without presuppositions.

Will you assure mothers that the measles and hepatitis B vaccines do not cause autism? If the data supports it, I will. The vaccine discussion is oversimplified. Parents are concerned about giving a hepatitis B vaccine to a newborn when the disease is primarily transmitted through drug use and sex. I vaccinated my children but chose to delay the hepatitis B vaccine until school age. There needs to be an honest debate about vaccines, especially regarding COVID-19, where risks differ significantly between age groups. Healthy children are at minimal risk from COVID. We should remain open-minded about vaccine safety and autism, as we don't fully understand its causes. Science evolves, and we must be humble in our conclusions. The rationale for immediate vaccination against hepatitis B exists, but if a mother's status is known, vaccination can be delayed.

The speaker expresses a nuanced view on vaccines, stating a belief in their importance while opposing mandatory vaccination for all vaccines. They highlight the polio vaccine as amazing and credited with wiping out the disease, illustrating support for vaccines in general but not for compulsory mandates. They point out that there are about 88 vaccines, suggesting that some could be cut back or administered in smaller quantities. The speaker contrasts the high number with examples from other countries, noting Denmark and others have significantly fewer vaccines (12, 14, or up to 17). They emphasize their own preference for reducing the vaccine load. A vivid image is used: babies receiving “a vat” or “a big glass of stuff pumped into their bodies,” which the speaker characterizes as a negative thing. This leads to the expressed desire for a different approach, namely much smaller shots and fewer visits to the doctor. The speaker proposes that with fewer vaccinations and fewer medical visits, outcomes could be improved. They specifically mention four doctor visits as a desired target, implying that this reduction could lead to better health results. Finally, the speaker links this approach to autism, stating the belief that the proposed changes—smaller shots and fewer visits—would yield a much better result with autism. The remarks indicate a direct connection between the vaccination approach described and autism outcomes, presented as a conclusion of their viewpoint. Overall, the transcript captures a stance that supports vaccines in principle and acknowledges their success (polio), but argues against mandatory universal vaccination and for a substantially reduced vaccine schedule and medical visits, with an asserted positive impact on autism outcomes. The speaker compares U.S. vaccination totals to those of Denmark and other countries to underscore the perceived excess, advocating for smaller, fewer-dose regimens administered over fewer clinical visits.

Speaker 0: A child born in a hospital in The United States today, within an hours of coming from source into this body, the first thing that happens to them is pharmaceutical intervention without really asking, barely informed consent. That child's eyes are smeared with erythromycin ointment, and they're given a hepatitis B vaccine in their first day of life. And the hep B vaccine is for hepatitis B, which is a sexually transmitted disease, an IV drug user disease, of course, which babies are not gonna be exposed to, and yet every single baby in America is getting the intervention. So from the literally the day we are born, we're— Speaker 1: I these mean, why not test the pregnant mother for those? Speaker 0: They do. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 0: So They give it to the women who even if they have tested negative— Speaker 1: they give majority. Absolutely. So I don't understand why would you treat a child on his first day of life for illnesses you know for a fact he doesn't have, it isn't gonna get? Speaker 2: So a child's born let's just take the sign. The child's born. Hep B is spread by two routes, sexually transmitted disease or intravenous needles. So my one day old isn't going to be having sex or doing heroin right away. So what's the purpose of getting this on the schedule in the first day of life, the first hours of life? Speaker 0: And if you push, and I welcome anyone to do this with their doctor, you get to two things. You get to the American patients are too stupid to remember, so we need to do it right away. That's literally like what they say. And then my doctor told me that that a child at daycare could trip over a needle that has hepatitis B on it. That's literally what they get to. Speaker 2: That a needle could be on the playground that somebody just did heroin or something, threw the needle down, and it has hepatitis B blood on it. I asked the doctor, has there ever been in human history a case of hepatitis B two being transferred that way? They said no. It's only through intravenous needles and sex. So you actually to to just to steel man this, and, again, welcome anyone to respond, there is not actually a scenario absent of intravenous needles or sex, that a person gets hepatitis b. Speaker 0: There is not a reason for this to be given.