reSee.it - Related Video Feed

It is claimed that ethical concerns prevent double-blind placebo trials for childhood vaccines already on the schedule that never underwent safety testing. The first step should be honesty about the clinical trial data underlying childhood vaccines. One proposed method involves comparing health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals using existing datasets. If unvaccinated children are equally or less healthy than vaccinated children, this should be published to reassure parents. However, if vaccinated children are less healthy, the claim that these products cannot harm anyone should be reconsidered. It is asserted that comparative studies between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals have been conducted, but not published because they allegedly show that the unvaccinated are healthier. Publishing a study showing vaccinated individuals are healthier would have discredited Robert Kennedy Jr., but the fact that it wasn't published suggests a problem.

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.

According to the speaker, most vaccines have never been tested in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate their safety. The speaker claims that vaccines contain aluminum compounds because many dead vaccines don't mount an immune response without them. The speaker alleges that in a Gardasil vaccine study, the placebo group received an aluminum adjuvant instead of a true placebo, resulting in similar side effect profiles between the active vaccine and placebo groups. The speaker asserts that Merck used a novel aluminum compound and that data suggests aluminum in vaccines is profoundly toxic. The speaker states that the only true randomized controlled trial involving a vaccine was conducted on sheep with blue tongue disease. The results allegedly showed that the aluminum in the vaccine was toxic, causing the sheep to become sick, unsociable, and, in some cases, die. The speaker concludes that the assumption that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines are safe is unfounded and has never been tested.

Speaker 0 argues that because it’s classified as a vaccine, they don’t have to worry about being sued. Speaker 1 counters that there is immunity from liability dependent on there having been no fraud, and asserts that there clearly was fraud, so in light of that... Speaker 0 expresses surprise at known caveats to liability. Speaker 1 confirms the caveats and says it makes the situation more interesting. Speaker 0 asks how fraud is defined in this context, noting that drugs were sold with many studies but only one was good. Speaker 1 responds, “Let's try this one,” and discusses safety testing: the insufficient amount of safety testing before release was done with mRNA vaccines produced in a process that did not involve DNA. The product injected into billions of people involved DNA plasmids, with massive contamination in the shots actually delivered, including the SV40 promoter (simian virus 40). The point is that safety testing was performed on one process, but people were injected with something different that had other components not tested, which Speaker 1 calls fraudulent. Speaker 0 asks for an explanation of the SV40 issue. Speaker 1 explains production methods: techniques to generate product using a plasmid, a circular piece of DNA, allowing vats to grow the product before coating in lipid nanoparticle, with bacteria doing the work. There is a requirement to purify DNA and set standards for residual DNA contamination. In this case, not only was quality control poor, but there was a much more painstaking way to produce the same product that did not involve DNA plasmids at all. As a result, vials given to Kevin McKernan, containing material actually injected into people, showed DNA contamination across the board. Speaker 1 states that leftover DNA includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic trigger from simian virus 40, which is carcinogenic. This promoter is left over in vials from shots actually injected into people, implying that the claims about the potential for mRNA shots to integrate into the genome were incorrect. Speaker 1 asserts that there is DNA in the vials, not just some old DNA, and that it includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic engineering tool with carcinogenic potential. Therefore, Speaker 1 concludes, this seems to be clear fraud: you can’t inject a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing conducted with a product produced by a different process.

Pfizer conducted trials using a synthetic PCR process called Process 1, which involved giving 40,000 people a deliberately engineered mRNA sequence for the shots. However, for mass production, a second process was used, tested on only 252 people. This involved using a complementary DNA sequence to make the body produce the spike protein. Essentially, the trials were conducted using a controlled synthetic process, but the majority of the vaccines administered to billions of people used a less tested method. This can be seen as a bait and switch.

"Inert should mean that the substance does not cause a chemical or biological reaction in the body." "Paul Offit routinely calls mercury and aluminum inert even though they are known neurotoxicants." "Philip Grandjean and Philip Langegon, they're the best two toxicologists in the world. They published a study in 2014 that says both aluminum and ethyl mercury are known neurotoxicants." "In the context of vaccines, placebo should mean saline as verified by independent third party testing." "FDA has no regulations concerning the contents of placebos." "manufacturers can put whatever they want into the comparator intervention and can still call it a placebo by law." "A double blind randomized controlled trial should have two groups." "That's not what the supporters of the status quo mean when they say randomized control trial." "That's why we're in this mess. That's why we have an autism and chronic disease epidemic in this country."

Pfizer conducted trials using a synthetic PCR process called Process 1, which involved giving 40,000 people a precise mRNA sequence for the shots. However, for mass production, a second process was used, tested on only 252 people. This involved using a complementary DNA sequence to make the body produce the spike protein. Essentially, the trials were done using a controlled synthetic process, but the majority of the vaccines given to billions of people were made using a less tested method. This can be seen as a bait and switch.

Pfizer conducted trials using a synthetic PCR process called Process 1, which involved giving 40,000 people a deliberately engineered mRNA sequence for the shots. However, for mass production, a second process was used, tested on only 252 people. This involved using a complementary DNA sequence to make the body produce the spike protein. Essentially, the trials were conducted using a controlled synthetic process, but the majority of the vaccines administered to billions of people used a less tested method. This can be seen as a bait and switch.

Randomized statin trials often include a pre-randomization running period where participants are enrolled, and those experiencing side effects are removed before the trial begins. This biases the results towards individuals who don't experience side effects, and there's no obligation to report on those removed due to side effects. In the Heart Protection Study, 36,000 people were removed from the trial and labeled as "noncompliant," implying they didn't take the pills. This is potentially misleading, as individuals enrolling in a trial are likely to be enthusiastic participants.

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.

A recent study claimed that the malaria drug Chloroquine does not inhibit SARS CoV 2. However, upon closer examination, it was found that the drug does work in kidney cells but not in lung cells. The study used a lung cancer cell line called KLU three, which led to the misunderstanding that Chloroquine allows the virus to attack cancer cells but not normal cells. This misinterpretation was deliberately hidden in the appendix of the study, contributing to a disinformation campaign. In reality, Chloroquine is a highly effective drug that can protect normal cells from the virus.

Pfizer conducted trials using a synthetic PCR process called Process 1, which involved giving 40,000 people a precisely engineered mRNA sequence for the shots. However, for mass production, a second process was used, tested on only 252 people. This involved using a complementary DNA sequence to make the body produce the spike protein. Essentially, there was a switch from the controlled synthetic process used in trials to a less tested method for the majority of people. This can be seen as a bait and switch.

Despite it being treated as an obligation to do so, physicians reportedly do not know these facts. The speaker expresses strong frustration about the situation. The speaker cites a famous medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, describing a study of vaccine researchers and stating that “the 12.6 percent user rate” was reported, and that the paper claimed there was no problem with the vaccine based on that figure. Using that paper as a basis, the San Fujikawa Society or a similarly named organization promoted vaccination for pregnant women. However, the actual content of the data is described as follows: of 827 people, 700 were in the late stage of pregnancy, and 127 were in the early stage (first trimester). For the subgroup limited to those under 20 weeks’ gestation, i.e., the 127 individuals, the reported miscarriage rate was 82 percent. From this, the speaker argues that the vaccine is dangerous, given the result for the early-stage group. It is claimed that the data were hidden or obscured, and that the later report combined the late-pregnancy group of 700 with the early-pregnancy group of 127 to produce a 12.6 percent miscarriage rate, which was then published. The speaker concludes that even a major medical journal could be influenced by external financial pressures, resulting in biased reporting that supports the other side’s interests.

At the outset, a process was approved by the FDA for emergency use authorization. However, it was later discovered that the approved process was swapped out for one containing contaminants like DNA and a cancer-causing substance. Pfizer redacted 800 pages of the manufacturing process, hiding the fact that a carcinogen was included. This lack of transparency led to no informed consent and potential harm to individuals. The vaccine rollout included a trial with a 2.4 times higher adverse event rate, including the presence of a carcinogen.

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 2007 trial, the placebo contained a toxic agent, affecting the comparison between vaccine and control groups. Both groups had 3% new autoimmune conditions, but it was dismissed. The lack of questioning raises concerns about vaccine safety. Comparing the 3% to general population rates would be logical. Individuals like Julie Gerberding and Peter Marks, who have ties to big pharma, may overlook such issues. Gerberding's move from CDC director to Merck's vaccines president with a $4,000,000 bonus raises ethical questions.

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.

A recent study suggests that Pfizer may have excluded known deaths in the vaccine arm of its clinical trial from its data filing with the FDA in 2020. The study also found that trial subjects vaccinated with Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine experienced a significant increase in cardiovascular deaths compared to placebo controls. This information was not disclosed by Pfizer when the FDA was evaluating the vaccine for emergency use. Additionally, researchers identified instances where Pfizer attributed potential vaccine-associated deaths to other causes, undermining vaccine safety data. The data presented to the FDA prior to the authorization of Pfizer's vaccine did not include all the deaths that occurred during the trial. The speaker raises concerns about the prioritization of profit over lives and warns against trusting Big Pharma.

There are allegations that AIDS was intentionally spread in African countries through vaccines. Research facilities were set up to inject people with a solution to prevent AIDS, but instead, they were injecting people with AIDS. These facilities were financed by foreign governments. Additionally, there have been cases where HIV vaccines actually increased the likelihood of infection, showing that a vaccine that seemed safe initially could have negative effects.

Excitement surrounds the discussion of Pfizer's top-selling drugs as of 2019, which includes four medications and one vaccine. The clinical trials for these drugs involved long-term safety follow-ups, often lasting several years with placebo control groups to assess various health impacts. In contrast, the vaccine Prevnar had only a six-month safety review, using another vaccine as a control rather than a true placebo. This raises concerns about the thoroughness of safety evaluations for childhood vaccines, which are administered multiple times in the first six months of life. The disparity in study lengths suggests that economic interests may drive pharmaceutical companies to minimize safety testing to expedite market entry, raising questions about regulatory oversight.

According to the speaker, vaccines have never been tested in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate their safety. The speaker claims that vaccines contain aluminum compounds because many dead vaccines don't mount an immune response without them. The speaker alleges that in a Gardasil vaccine study, the placebo group received an aluminum adjuvant instead of a true placebo, so the side effect profiles of the active vaccine and placebo groups were the same. The speaker asserts that Merck used a novel aluminum compound and that data shows aluminum in vaccines is toxic. The speaker states that the only completely randomized controlled trial was on sheep using a vaccine for blue tongue disease. The speaker claims the aluminum was toxic, the sheep became sick, their behavior changed, and many died compared to the placebo group. The speaker concludes that the presumption that aluminum as an adjuvant is safe is unfounded and has never been tested.

Pfizer's claim of 96% efficacy for their vaccine was questioned. The study and data were not independently verified, and Pfizer wanted to keep the data hidden for 75 years. The true effectiveness of the vaccine, based on absolute risk reduction, is less than 1%. More people died and were harmed in their trials compared to the placebo group. The vaccine's safety was questionable from the start, and it is not effective. Additionally, appropriate studies were not conducted for new variants.

Gardasil is claimed to be the worst mass vaccine ever, targeting preteens and teens at zero risk of dying from cervical cancer. It's alleged that death rates in Gardasil trials were thirty-seven times higher than cervical cancer death rates, implying children are thirty-seven times more likely to die from the vaccine than from cervical cancer. The claim is that Gardasil, like most vaccines, wasn't tested against a true inert placebo, which the CDC and HHS require for scientific validity. Merck, who funded and performed the study, allegedly decided which injuries were caused by Gardasil, writing off others as coincidences. This was possible because the control group received aluminum neurotoxins, causing injuries identical to those in the Gardasil group, allowing Merck to avoid reporting vaccine injuries and license a dangerous product.

Pfizer knew their failed coronavirus modifications were dangerous, causing heart issues and death in animals. There is extensive literature, including patents and scientific publications, showing that they knew the heart was the target. The mRNA shots using pseudo uridine were known to generate tumors and rapid cancers. Remdesivir, with a 53% mortality rate, was chosen by the FDA as a COVID treatment, despite being deemed unethical by the World Health Organization due to its high death rate. The definition of adverse events was changed to exclude any causal link, allowing them to deny any negative effects. Data on these injections won't be published for another four and a half years.